The recent photograph which opens this paper shows the upper part of the entrance porch of a so-called Tinplate Bungalow, a single-story structure in Tinplate Township, Golmuri in Jamshedpur, India (fig. 1).1 Taken from just above a scaffolding, while the bungalow was undergoing repair works, the image shows all the parts of the rather mundane, or even banal, architectural elements of this porch: a roof slab supported by lintels and piers on two sides, and by the outside walls of the bungalow itself on the other two. Because the layer of plaster that originally covered the whole structure is largely missing, the reinforcement bars between the bricks in the roof slab (which seems to be floating) and lintels are now revealed. This X-ray view suggests that what we are looking at is, in fact, an application of reinforced brickwork, a technology which came into use in the architecture and construction industry in early 20^th-century India.

2In historiography, Indian architectural modernity has long been conflated with the use of concrete and its iconography, as exemplified by the buildings of Chandigarh. Consequently, the 1950s have been treated as the birth of a “modern” India.2 Photographs of the construction site of Chandigarh, that were being circulated in reputed architecture magazines of the period like Architectural Review, show how, against the backdrop of a predominantly rural and pre-industrial past, Nehru’s idea of a modern city was taking shape, in terms of material, technology, and architectural aesthetic—all crystallized in its iconic buildings. Yet, during the last two decades another strand of scholarship on 20^th-century architecture in India has emerged, fundamentally broadening our gaze. In particular, the 2015 survey book on India co-authored by Peter Scriver and Amit Srivastava in the series Modern Architectures in Historydiscusses the idea of modernity in India through an articulation of more local modernities.3 Also, earlier investigations of colonial architecture by scholars like Peter Scriver, Vikramaditya Prakash, and Preeti Chopra have made a case for questioning overly simplistic dichotomies such as “West” versus “non-West,” or “modern” versus “traditional.” They demand attention to the existence of “multiple” and even “indigenous” modernities.4 Researchers focusing on the emergence of the professional architect in India and the related shifts in practice have argued that in the last decades of the 19^th and the first decades of the 20^th century, an era in which the figure of the “modern” architect/engineer emerged, traditional Indian master-builders (mistris) never entirely went away, with some (descendants) of the latter obtaining professional qualifications.5 William Glover, for instance, has argued that it makes little sense to see the two types of practice as separate fields of activity: rather, they co-existed and were perhaps more entangled than was previously believed: at times, they converged.6

3In this paper, I suggest that one may investigate the intricate relationship between “modern” versus “traditional” in a banal element of ordinary early 20^th-century housing in India, such as the porch of the Tinplate Bungalow, just as well as if one were to focus on landmark edifices. More precisely, I argue that such investigation of “small,” or even “gray” architecture requires, first, paying attention to aspects of materiality and construction method. In other words, the building must be analyzed as evidence. Second, one must browse a wide array of other source materials. In the present case, these range from publications on building materials and construction from the early 1900s to 1940s (technical reports on reinforced brick technology, architecture, and building manuals) to company magazines (TISCO Review), and scholarly work on Jamshedpur.7 By interweaving the empirical observations of the material evidence with a reading of other source material, I seek to provide a basic understanding of how knowledge of specific, less spectacular, and somewhat everyday construction methods circulated across the networks of both colonial engineers and Indian master builders. In this respect, this paper makes a case for bringing a construction history perspective to the study of 20^th-century Indian architecture. This paper should be understood not as completed research providing in-depth answers, but rather as an initial exploration of the theme, pointing out the relevance of source material that often has not yet received the attention it deserves.

• 1. The Tinplate Bungalow was photographed on January 29, 2021 during a site visit to Jamshedpur as part of an architectural history and theory master’s studio entitled “Theorizing Architectural Production,” led by Dr. Gauri Bharat and Prof. Catherine Desai at CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India. The author of the paper was a post-graduate student in the studio. For further information on the studio outcome, see URL: https://portfolio.cept.ac.in/2021/S/fa/studio-2-theorizing-architectural-production-ht4003-spring-2021/intersections-in-architecture-technology-agency-climate-spring-2021-pht20187. Accessed 18 December 2023.
• 2. William J.R. Curtis’s survey Modern Architecture since 1900—the latest revised edition dates from 1996—is exemplary for this still widespread presentation of India in the historiography of 20^th-century architecture.
• 3. Peter Scriver and Vikramaditya Prakash, India, London: Reaktion Books Ltd., 2015 (Modern Architectures in History).
• 4. Peter Scriver and Vikramaditya Prakash, Colonial Modernities: Building, Dwelling and Architecture in British India and Ceylon, London; New York, NY: Routledge, 2007 (The Architext Series); Preeti Chopra, A Joint Enterprise: Indian Elites and the Making of British Bombay, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2011; Jyoti Hosagrahar, Indigenous Modernities: Negotiating Architecture and Urbanism, London; New York, NY: Routledge, 2005 (The Architext Series).
• 5. In Bombay, one can think of the Mistri family's enterprises and architect G.B, Mhatre, for instance. See Carmen Kagal, “M.J.P. Mistri, descendant of Master Builders. An interview with Smita Gupta,” in Idem (ed.), Vistāra. The Architecture of India. Catalogue of the exhibition, Bombay: Tata Press Ltd.: The Festival of India, 1986, p. 222-227; Kamu Iyer (ed.), Buildings that Shaped Bombay: Works of G.B. Mhatre, Mumbai: Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute of Architecture & Environmental Studies, Urban Design Research Institute, 2000.
• 6. William Glover, “Making Indian Modern Architects,” in Mrinalini Rajagopalan and Madhuri Desai (eds.), Colonial Frames, Nationalist Histories: Imperial Legacies, Architecture and Modernity, Burlington: Ashgate, 2012 (Ashgate Studies in Architecture), p. 27-46.
• 7. Since the studio took place during the Covid pandemic, it was primarily online. That made accessing the physical site and archives difficult. Many of the archival technical reports and early works on Jamshedpur from the Tata Steel Archives were made accessible to the students by the studio tutors, Dr. Gauri Bharat and Prof. Catherine Desai.