This research documents how the Indian magazine Design (1957–88), along with magazines like Marg, The Indian Architect, Illustrated Weekly, Femina, and Filmfare, formalized institutions of discourse in Nehruvian modern India. Design emerged as a ‘transnational’1 agent that challenged the idea of imitating the West as a way of bringing Western modernism to India. Instead, it portrayed the role of architecture, especially modernist architecture, in the development of society and the modernization of the country. It identified national and global projects and issues that could be seen as potential instances of change and modernization in India. Architecture and design themselves were presented as media for taking these ideas into the public domain. Design promoted ‘transculturality’2 emphasizing that it should be interpreted from one’s own perspective. It commissioned the intervention of diverse constellations of media, architectural production, and cultural narratives in the socio-economic paradigm, in political communes, and in the creation of buildings and structures. This architectural production reflects the democratic process of negotiating between different attitudes and goals among the diverse actors and parties involved in the journal’s issues.

Modernization of India after Independence in 1947
‘At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom’—these words, spoken by India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, highlight the impact of the country’s independence from the UK in 1947.3 Soon after the Partition, a huge number of migrants and refugees came from the new neighbouring country of Pakistan, so when Nehru took charge as head of the nation-state in August 1947, it became clear that India needed to establish new townships and administrative buildings. There were two diverse approaches to modernization for the new India. One, ‘shaped by the thought and personality of Mahatma Gandhi, depended most on the greatness of Indian heritage and the power of spirit’.4 According to Gandhi, the true greatness of India lay in the traditional skills, meaningfulness of life, and virtues conserved in the villages. Another school of thought for designing India was based on the ‘Nehruvian’ concept of modernism as encompassing the continuity of tradition. In Nehru’s vision, the ‘ability to creatively learn from other cultures without compromising one’s own identity’ would eventually take India forward. Though Nehru appreciated Gandhi’s ideologies, he also believed that the ‘industrialization of India was inevitable’ and that the changes it had to make, however agonizing they seemed, would bring rewards.5
Only a handful of institutes offered tertiary education in architecture before independence. Hence, in 1947 there were ‘fewer than two hundred architects’ for the entire nation—‘less than one architect for each million(s) of population of India.’6 There were two reasons why Nehru invited international architects to design and plan the infrastructure in India. One was the lack of educated and experienced candidates in India, and the other was the desire to show goodwill by asking international names to adapt modern concepts to India’s local conditions.
Architecturally speaking, ‘to build a new capital, or at least a new legislative assembly, became a sine qua non of the new states.’ In Orissa (known today as Odisha), German architect Otto Königsberger was appointed (1948–51) to design and execute the architectural layout of a diverse range of government buildings. The architect’s team was instructed to integrate and ‘represent Orissan culture and workmanship’ in the design; according to Ramachandra Guha, the final outcome justified the requirement and ‘made abundant use of indigenous motifs: columns, arches, and sculpted images of gods.’7 This design and the plan to build a newer version of Bhubaneswar, the capital city of Orissa, was a radical attempt by the country to showcase the new architectural identity needed for global inclusion. The architecture of the new Bhubaneswar, one historian writes, ‘is an architecture which has risen from the native soil, sacred and pure.’8 This work was to be an amalgamation of traditional and modern architecture.
Another example of the influence of architectural modernism in India is the state capital Chandigarh, which was constructed from scratch post-independence. Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier was invited to India and given the task of designing and planning a new city that would serve as a dual capital for the states of Punjab and Haryana. The construction of the capital city was an important step in India’s orientation towards the modern world. Sunil Khilnani suggests that even though Chandigarh was a provincial capital, it was conceived as a national project, since ‘Nehru took a personal interest in it, and it was generously funded by the national government’. In addition, the leaders wanted to exemplify ‘at its purest one impulse in the nationalist imagination of the city.’ Khilnani reflects on Le Corbusier’s Chandigarh as a ‘great concrete behemoth of the 1950s’ that was ‘designed to stand as independent India’s aesthetic response to the loss of Lahore’s beauty (which now lay in Pakistan)’.9 Chandigarh was also regarded ‘as the aspirational city of postcolonial India, a modernist utopian “tabula rasa”’.10 Yet Le Corbusier’s modernist approach divided his contemporaries. In order to counterbalance the negative perspectives, Nehru—who saw Chandigarh as highly significant—said in his 1959 inaugural address to a Seminar on Architecture: ‘it hits you on the head, because it makes you think. You may squirm at the impact but it has made you think and imbibe new ideas, and the one thing which India requires in so many fields is to be hit on the head so that it may think . . . Therefore, Chandigarh is of enormous importance.’11 It could be inferred from this that Le Corbusier was considered an odd choice for the independent nation’s first architect. However, the boldness of his design, and of Jawaharlal Nehru’s advocacy for it, expressed the ‘sense that India must free itself of both the contradictory modernity of the Raj and nostalgia for its indigenous past.’12 Nehru was attempting to shift away from both the ancient and the modern history of the country. As Sunil Khilnani puts it: ‘The rationalist, modernist strain in Nehru’s thinking obliterated the attachment to the heritage of an Indianness rooted in the past.’ Thus Chandigarh emerged boldly and articulated itself away from history, rejecting colonial imagery, nationalist fervour, and traditional architecture. In addition, Chandigarh spawned further regional ‘concept’ capital cities such as H. K. Mewada’s Gandhinagar—‘the one that most aspired to Chandigarh’s image, a cruel concrete homage to Gandhi, which displaced Ahmedabad as the new capital of Gujarat.’13 The other new cities were left to the Public Works Department’s (PWD) town planners and engineers. The PWD was instituted in the mid nineteenth century and it eventually came to be universally known in India as one of the ‘most enduring and ubiquitous legacies of the British Raj to Indian public life, with a unique style-less style of its own.’14
To summarize, these endeavours could be seen as driven by the aspiration to establish a common ground for modern architecture in order to inject the country with modernism, which ‘was part of the technology without identity that was imported by the Nehruvian state as part of its secular framing: the “temples” of modern India.’15
Architecture Publications, Independent India: JIIA, Marg, and Design

Architecture journals based in the UK—namely The Builder (1843; renamed as Building in 1966) and The British Architect (1874; merged with The Builder in 1919)16 —were an important source of information and news for the building trades in British India for several decades. After the Bombay Architectural Association (founded as the Architectural Students’ Association in 1917) was accredited by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) in 1925, it was renamed the Indian Institute of Architects in 1929. In order ‘to encourage the study of Architecture, to elevate the standard of Architectural Practice and by mutual support, to promote the interests of Architects throughout [British] India’,17 they published the first Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects (JIIA) in 1934. It was essentially the first architecture publication of India. Thus it played a prominent part in bringing together an otherwise diffuse architectural profession. It was established by the fraternity in order to support the Diploma in Architecture, which was set up by the Indian Institute of Architects in affiliation with the RIBA and held its first examination in 1930.
Later in October 1946, the first Indian architecture and arts magazine appeared. Edited by Mulk Raj Anand, it was called Marg (as it was started by the Modern Architects Research Group) and was devoted to ‘modern architecture and town planning’, as well as ‘surveying classical and contemporary Indian art, architecture, crafts, dance, and photography’. The aim of Marg was to enhance the position of the architect in society and the appeal of architecture and the arts. At that time, ‘Coverage of modern architecture and its implications for India was also central to the mission of the journal in its early years.’18 The periodical thus created much-needed public awareness and appreciation of architecture and diverse art forms amongst its readership, which primarily comprised art enthusiasts and professionals in the field. In late 1949, Marg shifted its perspective towards the arts in general and has since been known as the Magazine of the Arts.19 Here, it is important to note how architecture was considered just one of several art forms, and to explore the possible reasons behind this. Rachel Lee and Kathleen James-Chakraborty’s study suggests that, eventually, ‘the architectural contribution to Marg seem[ed] the weakest of the whole magazine.’ It also argues that ‘Although many buildings that revived preindustrial Indian architectural forms would be built in post-independence India, their architects and patrons received no encouragement in the pages of Marg.’20 This indirectly hints that there was a gap that needed to be bridged between the readers (the general public) and the editors (modernist architects), as there appears to have been a disconnect in the spread of information. This void was filled by Design, a magazine for both professionals and general audiences alike that was launched in 1957, a decade after independence.
Design (1957–88)—An Invaluable Source

Design (1957–88) represents a unique and invaluable source in the field of mid twentieth-century architectural and design publications. As a periodical, it served as a comprehensive review of architecture and the applied and free arts, bridging the gap between professional and public discourse in newly independent India. Its content spanned various disciplines, including interior, landscape, furniture, textile, and industrial design, as well as painting, sculpture, crafts, and weaving. This multidisciplinary approach and its role in fostering both national and international networks make it particularly interesting and valuable to architectural historians today. It connected architecture with other arts, promoting a holistic view of design that emphasized the importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration. It is interesting to note that the magazine was called Design and not Architectural Design, as before the 1960s there was an overlap in the practice of both these disciplines. Design’s editorial policy highlighted that ‘architecture should not operate in isolation but integrate with other arts, ‘facilitating a rich exchange of ideas and practices’.21 It served as a transnational platform, engaging both national and international contributors and readers. It was a forum for discussing, collating, and transmitting ideas into local contexts while building a global bridge in the field of architecture and design. For example, Design discussed the site selection for the Asian Games (1982), Indian festivals abroad, the design of five-star hotels, the muddled affairs of the Delhi School of Architecture, Le Corbusier’s modernist principles, and controversial design decisions by the government. Covering such a wide range themes made Design a crucial platform for professional networking and public discussion, contributing significantly to the development of modern Indian architecture. To cite one specific case, an entire set of new buildings, yet to be constructed in Delhi, was featured in the May 1966 issue of Design, titled ‘Six New Schemes’. The buildings comprised an office block, a cinema, a multi-storey garage, and a fruit-market. It was reported that ‘work on most of them would begin within the next few months, and when complete, they [would] not only dramatically change Delhi’s skyline, but some of them [would] make a significant contribution to the architectural excellence of India’s capital city as well.’ The magazine asserted that the responsibility for controlling the levers of power and setting standards of excellence for the country lay in the hands of those with the highest authority. Design questioned whether New Delhi had shown any regard for such a principle over the years, arguing, rather, that it had hardly done anything to regulate ‘the pace for civic design’ of the highest quality. The government’s irresponsibility and lack of diligence here were reflected in the ‘failure to maintain New Delhi’s roads, parks, residential and shopping areas, electric, water, and sewage works.’ Here, Design levelled the criticism that, in view of India’s nineteen years of independence (as of 1966), ‘New Delhi [had] not only failed to set any standards, but had also destroyed [the] existing ones through its cynicism and indifference.’22
The key figure behind Design was Patwant Singh, who, as an architect, journalist, writer, editor, and publisher, played a crucial role in shaping its direction and influence. Singh’s vision and leadership were instrumental in creating a publication that could engage both professionals and the general public. The magazine also featured contributions from a distinguished editorial board, including renowned figures such as Eero Saarinen, Siegfried Giedion, Richard Neutra, Charles Fabri, Isamu Noguchi, Walter Gropius, Achyut P. Kanvinde, Habib Rahman, Marcel Breuer, Piloo Mody, and Peter Blake. These individuals brought diverse perspectives and expertise, enriching the magazine’s content and extending its reach. The proponents of Design came from various backgrounds and contexts. Patwant Singh, for instance, was driven by his ‘urge to communicate his thoughts, and influence things around him’,23 which led him to a career in writing and publishing. The international contributors were prominent figures in their respective fields, bringing global insights and fostering cross-cultural exchanges. This diversity helped integrate global architectural practices with Indian traditions, contributing to a modern architectural identity that was inclusive of India’s multicultural heritage and its postcolonial ambitions.
Design had a significant reach and readership, both within India and internationally. It was well regarded for its comprehensive coverage of architecture and design, appealing to professionals, students, and enthusiasts alike. The magazine’s international correspondence and network further expanded its influence, making it a critical publication in the field of architecture and design in its time.
Design discontinued in 1988 due to rising commercialization and increasing political interference in architecture. While the official reason given was the editor’s ill health, the final issue hinted at deeper concerns—architectural discourse in India was being diluted by opportunism and systemic pressures. The magazine had long resisted these forces, but the shifting landscape made it unsustainable. Its demise reflects a broader crisis in India’s architectural conversations. Over time, public engagement in architecture dwindled, with discussions shifting from critical discourse to market-driven narratives. Today, architecture and design magazines prioritize visuals over substance, sidelining analysis and critique. The absence of independent platforms such as Design has widened the gap between architectural education and practice, leaving fewer spaces for meaningful dialogue. This loss underscores the need to revive critical architectural discussions, ensuring design and architecture are seen not just as industries, but as disciplines with social and cultural responsibilities.
The ‘afterlives’ of archives such as Design highlight the enduring relevance of historical publications in understanding contemporary practices and discourses. Repositories like the National Art Library at the V&A, the British Library, and the University of Brighton Design Archives in the UK are storehouses of knowledge and inspiration, enabling researchers, historians, and practitioners to trace the development of ideas and movements over time. The global significance of Design’s archive underscores the interconnectedness of architectural practices and the value of preserving and studying these historical records to inform future developments in the field.
To conclude, the magazine Design emerged as a pivotal platform for architectural discourse in post-independence India, effectively bridging Western modernism and Indian identity. Design fostered a unique transnational dialogue, encouraging diverse interpretations of architecture amid the socio-political transformations of the era. By connecting various artistic disciplines, it played a crucial role in elevating public awareness of architecture and design, promoting the idea that architecture could serve as a vehicle for societal development. Its multidisciplinary approach and emphasis on cross-cultural collaboration enriched the architectural landscape, reflecting India’s multicultural heritage. The legacy of Design continues to resonate, providing valuable insights into the interplay between global influences and local traditions. As an invaluable archive source, it remains essential in understanding the evolution of modern Indian architecture and offers a critical lens through which contemporary practices can be examined.
Feature Image: Design cover credits (left to right): March 1958 (Piloo Mody), Oct.–Dec. 1985 (Madhu Chowdhury), Sept. 1958 (Peter Piening), March 1957 (Studio Design), July 1957 (Peter Piening). Courtesy of Meher Wilshaw, Design custodian, 11 Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi.
- The German linguist Georg Curtius (1820–85) was the first user of the adjective ‘transnational’, which means transcending the limits, interests, etc. of a single nation. See Pierre-Yves Saunier, ‘Transnational’, in Akira Iriye and Pierre-Yves Saunier (eds.), The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to the Present Day (Basingstoke, 2009), 1047–55. [↩]
- The transcultural approach originates in the conceptual term transculturación, which was coined by Fernando Ortiz in his study on processes of cultural reconfiguration in early modern Cuba, first published in 1940. Here, it is considered as a notion of cultural encounter, such that its consequences for both the socio-political and economic value of structures and their cultural identities are palpable. See Daniel G. König, ‘The Transcultural Approach Within a Disciplinary Framework: An Introduction’, Journal of Transcultural Studies, 7/2 (2016), 89–100. [↩]
- Jawaharlal Nehru, ‘Tryst with Destiny’ (speech, Indian Constituent Assembly, 14 Aug. 1947). [↩]
- Katarzyna Kapusta, ‘Setting the Stage: Indian Architecture after 1947’, academia.edu, 1–2. [↩]
- Both quotes from ibid., 2 [↩]
- Ravi Kalia, ‘Modernism, Modernization and Post‐Colonial India: A Reflective Essay’, Planning Perspectives, 21/2 (2006), 133–56, at 140. [↩]
- Both quotes from: Ramachandra Guha, India after Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy (London, 2010), e-book, 169. [↩]
- Ravi Kalia, Bhubaneshwar: From a Temple Town to a Capital City (Carbondale, IL, 1994), 169. [↩]
- Both quotes from Sunil Khilnani, Idea of India (New Delhi, 2004; 1st pub. 1997), 131 and 63. [↩]
- Model House Research Group (ed.), Transcultural Modernisms (Berlin, 2013), 51. [↩]
- Jawaharlal Nehru, ‘Inaugural Address by Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister’, in Achyut Kanvinde (ed.), Seminar on Architecture (New Delhi, 1959), 5–9, at 7. [↩]
- Khilnani, Idea of India, 101. [↩]
- Both quotes from Khilnani, Idea of India, 101 and 103. [↩]
- Khilnani, Idea of India, 103. [↩]
- Model House Research Group (ed.), Transcultural Modernisms, 59. [↩]
- ‘Architectural Journals’, British Association for Local History, at [https://www.balh.org.uk/publication-lhn-local-history-news-number-96-summer-2010], accessed 19 Sept. 2023. [↩]
- ‘History’, Indian Institute of Architects. [↩]
- Both quotes from Rachel Lee and Kathleen James-Chakraborty, ‘Marg Magazine: A Tryst with Architectural Modernity. Modern Architecture as Seen from an Independent India’, ABE Journal, 1 (2012), abstract and 7. [↩]
- Marg, 3/4 (Nov. 1949). [↩]
- Both quotes from Lee and James-Chakraborty, ‘Marg Magazine’, 13 and 9. [↩]
- Patwant Singh, ‘This is not Farewell: Editorial Note’, Design, 32/4 (Oct.–Dec. 1988), 10. [↩]
- All four quotes from Patwant Singh, ‘The Winds of Change’, Design, 10/5 (May 1966), 77. [↩]
- Roopinder Singh, ‘Tribute to Patwant Singh’, The Tribune, 9 Aug. 2009. [↩]
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Pappal Suneja (April 1, 2025). The Modern Architecture Discourse of Design (1957–1988) through a Postcolonial Lens. German Historical Institute London Blog. Retrieved April 24, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/13ly5
Well researched and presented could be a source to any student in future seeking knowledge on Indian Arts Scene.