Architects lament these losses since they embody the best values of their practice and tell stories of progress, invention, and architecture’s contribution to the country. Without these exemplar structures, they are worried that the already beleaguered profession would be further impoverished. The sense of loss is acute.1

Four key factors have put modern architecture in this unenvious spot. First is placing age as the primary determinant of what constitutes heritage. Second, the Indian architecture discourse casts suspicion on modern architecture as non-indigenous. Third is modern architecture’s preoccupation with the new and denial of history to establish its relevance. Fourth is the conflict between the use and exchange values of the buildings, which has recently intensified since a premium is placed on the land, not the building that stands on it.

....

• 1. However, there seems to be no storm brewing because of these demolitions. At the most, a few mild online protests have happened. People have given up, and the hope of protection for what is left of modern architecture seems to be receding. For good reasons, many blame the state’s apathy and private owners’ greed for the present state. However, they alone are not the reasons for this disquieting condition. Other equally critical factors include the narrow definition of heritage and architects’ failure to articulate modern architecture’s values. Without examining them, trying to find a solution would not be fruitful.