If the government wanted to acknowledge the unity and integrity of the nation, it could have created an abstract piece of art such as Motherland calls or Statue of Liberty. What I mean to say is that idolizing a single person by making such a grand gesture is almost an insult to all those people who actually stood behind and fought for an united India. Any third world country, with enough money and motivation, can create a statue someday that would be even taller or more aesthetically pleasing than Statue of Unity. But what I mean to say has nothing to do with the statue being architectural marvel. (Disclaimer: I haven't been there, only seen the photographs) That said, I do believe the area needs to be improved in appeal. Don't we look at the Antilla (Ambani's residence) with both awe and envy? It is something a lay person cannot afford to make. That it is the highest statue in the world currently is a feather in India's cap. It was built by able architects, engineers, labor, and land resources. The statue might be politically motivated, but it was not built by politicians. In that long term view, I think, these should be considered as architectural marvels (if not future wonders). Similarly, Taj Mahal, and all the forts that tourists frequent, the temples and mosques and gurdwaras and churches that people flock to, they all carry historic appeal among other things. I don't know how 'important' they were considered at the time they were built. Take for example, the Bamiyan Buddha statues. The name of the statue is 'Statue of Unity', which is an idea that can outlast governments and generations (as you have already noted). Monuments are physical assets that are capable of inspiring awe, revenue, and lore. The statue, hopefully will outlast many governments. But, this government is not going to be there forever. I wouldn't contest that the statue is apolitical.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |