THE POET'S HOME: ARCHITECTURAL INNOVATIONS IN RABINDRANATH TAGORE'S DWELLINGS IN SANTINIKETAN

Abstract

This paper is an exposition into findings related to the dwellings of Rabindranath Tagore, at Santiniketan in Bengal, India. Tagore, one of modern India's foremost cultural and literary figures, spent forty years (1901-41), most of his very prolific and creative adult life, in the houses he built here. As regards disciplinary approach, the investigations take an architectural perspective, revealing several ideologies and approaches of Tagore, based on historical context as well as personal philosophy. The paucity of Tagore's direct references to his houses in his writings makes it imperative to rely on in-situ analyses and written allusions about space and architecture. In doing so, the paper also attempts to realize the immense potential for understanding and appreciating Tagore's genius through his architectural creations, while placing these within contemporaneous endeavours of discovering an Indian and pan-Asian identity in the then colonised nation.

Full text

International Journal of Arts & Sciences,
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 08(08):593–612 (2015)
THE POET’S HOME: ARCHITECTURAL INNOVATIONS IN
RABINDRANATH TAGORE’S DWELLINGS IN SANTINIKETAN
Saptarshi Sanyal
School of Planning and Architecture, India
This paper is an exposition into findings related to the dwellings of Rabindranath Tagore, at
Santiniketan in Bengal, India. Tagore, one of modern India’s foremost cultural and literary figures,
spent forty years (1901-41), most of his very prolific and creative adult life, in the houses he built here.
As regards disciplinary approach, the investigations take an architectural perspective, revealing several
ideologies and approaches of Tagore, based on historical context as well as personal philosophy. The
paucity of Tagore’s direct references to his houses in his writings makes it imperative to rely on in-situ
analyses and written allusions about space and architecture. In doing so, the paper also attempts to
realize the immense potential for understanding and appreciating Tagore's genius through his
architectural creations, while placing these within contemporaneous endeavours of discovering an
Indian and pan-Asian identity in the then colonised nation.
Keywords: Architecture, Indian identity, Santiniketan, Rabindranath Tagore.
Introduction
Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) is considered one of the most powerful figures in shaping the literary,
cultural and artistic milieu of modern India. He was also the country and Asia’s first Nobel Laureate.
Tagore’s commitment to “…the effort of reconciling two spheres of civilization widely separated, which
above all was the characteristic mark of the epoch, and constituted it’s most important task…”
was highlighted in 1913 by the Chairman of the Nobel Committee (Italics mine. Hjärne 1969), even
though the honour was bestowed upon him for Literature. Fondly revered as the ‘Poet’, Tagore’s bodies
of work span literature, drama, painting, music, education as well as social reform. (Dutta and Robinson
1995: 17).
While much research has gone into his contribution in these areas, Tagore had another, less known
but immersive, preoccupation. This was familiar only to those intimately connected to him – the concern
with built environment and space. Tagore’s unique experiments in architecture at Santiniketan, in north-
western Bengal – a place where he lived the most creative phase of his life in, formed the backdrop to
realize his ceaseless ideas in education and the arts. Rathindranath, his own son, in a radio biography
(Adhya et. al. 2014) draws our attention to this interesting facet of his father’s personality: the sensitivity
to his occupied environment. Satyajit Ray, Academy-award winning filmmaker and former student at
Tagore’s university in Santiniketan, corroborates this, astutely connecting the personality to his houses.
He observes in the Poet’s birth centenary eulogy how “he never liked to stay in the same house, or even in
the same room for long. It was in a way symbolic of his refusal to get into a rut, which had marked his
whole life.”(Ray 1961: 11)
593

594 The Poet’s Home: Architectural Innovations in Rabindranath...
Tagore’s houses in Santiniketan hold the curiosity of scores of visitors, receiving over 150,000
tourists annually (Archaeological Survey of India [ASI] 2010: 249), excluding researchers. However, they
ostensibly remain inscrutable from a critical architectural perspective (Basu and Pathak 1989). The few
investigations into them evade definitive inferences. They vary from ‘Indo-revivalist’ (Thakur 2006) to
‘Environment-friendly’ or ‘Green’ architecture (Banerjee 1998). Furthermore, their place in the history of
architecture in India is still more problematic because of the limitations of accepted taxonomies. To a
large extent, the understanding of Santiniketan’s architecture has been through its nationalist ideologies
alone (Gupte et.al. 2009; Nangia 2004). In this vein, it has been dubbed the ‘Aristocratic-folk’ paradigm
(Lang et.al. 1997: 123-125). Akin to the proverbial blind men describing parts of the elephant as the
whole, these fractured perspectives oversimplify the many complex attributes within the dwellings that
Tagore designed.
Within the focused scope of the houses that Tagore built and inhabited in Santiniketan and their
related landscape, our core argument is rooted in the premise that Rabindranath’s upbringing, life-
experiences and personal creative labour deeply influenced his choice for collaborators and the forms of
architecture he created. This alternative analytical framework allows us to bring forth some hitherto
unidentified interpretations of architectural innovations within the Poet’s Home.
Perspective
Rabindranath spent forty out of his eighty-year-old life in Santiniketan (1901-41). His dwellings and the
landscape here are not monumental – design innovations in them are subtle and in many ways, incognito
(Sanyal 2009: 44-45). Tagore’s direct writings on his houses are rare. This makes it imperative to
investigate and peruse relevant allusions to buildings and landscape in his huge corpus of non-fictional as
well as fictional literature. Many of these reveal that his architectural concepts are deeply embedded in
his intuitive experiences of space, environment and culture, prior to making Santiniketan his home. They
also help to provide a context for the philosophical positions he took on aesthetics of the built
environment in later years. The architecture of his houses, though not wholly shaped by the following
occurrences, bears their influences. However, rather than a historical chronology, it becomes necessary to
ask how these key experiences of Rabindranath qualitatively reveal his layered relationship with the built
environment.
Ancestral Household at Jorasanko, Calcutta
As a child, Rabindranath’s very threshold of imagination and perception of space began from the verandas,
courtyards and rooms of his ancestral mansion in Jorasanko, Calcutta, where he was born (Dutta 2003: 51).
Built in 1784 by his illustrious grandfather, Dwarakanath, this household was extraordinary in many ways.
It was a place of inexhaustible creative energy and diverse talents and interests, not only of family members,
but also a motley of intellectuals. This is because the Tagore home in Calcutta was a significant locus for
reform in religious philosophy, culture and the arts during the Bengal Renaissance (Das 2010: 41-51; Das
Gupta 2003: 28). Tagore perceived his home as a very vibrant place through direct exposure to such
activities, juxtaposed with the rigour of being tutored. His daily routine also included unusual activities for a
Bengali north Calcutta household of the 19th century, such as body exercising and wrestling. He had a
significant yearning for spatial freedom though, which he recalls years later in an essay called ‘Within and
Without’. He notes how his family servant had once drawn a circle around the spot where he stood, to
confine him in it to prevent any possible mischief. Thoughts on limitations of movement and vision in his
ancestral home are referred to in remembering these formative years, such as the closed window blinds, or
how he was forbidden to access the terrace. In this regard, he writes:
“We had to get our glimpses of nature from behind barriers. Beyond my reach stretched this
limitless thing called the outside, flashes, sounds and scents of which used to come

Saptarshi Sanyal 595
momentarily and touch me …[ ]…. It seemed to beckon me through the shutters with a variety
of gestures. But it was free, and I was bound – there was no way of our meeting…” (Tagore
1917: 13-14).
School Environments
Rabindranath echoes similarly stifling sentiments on the spaces within the two schools he attended, using
“brick and concrete shell” to describe his classroom at the Oriental Seminary, the first school he formally
joined. In the Bengali medium Normal School he attended later, he shares a comparable experience of
space. Coarseness of language and behaviour greatly marred his perception of conventional educational
environments, more reminiscent of a prison than a place where freedom of thought and movement could
be exercised (Tagore 1917: 29-30). In an essay on the ‘Discrepancies of education’ (Bengali - Sikshar
Herpher) Tagore, interestingly, uses the analogy of space to outline his perspective:
“Our bodies are contained within three and a half cubits but…it would never work to construct
a house whose outer limits were comprised of the same three and a half cubits…if education is
limited to a small area, that means the child is kept within bounds of (only) the very essential;
even his mind will never have the space to develop…” (Parentheses mine; Tagore 1972: 7-19)
It is, therefore, no surprise that for a literary figure of global repute, his formal education was
minimal, lasting around ten years in all! He quit school till the time he started his own, which was
designed for nurturing freedom and creativity in every sense.
The Hungry Stones
Another experience, at Ahmedabad city, possibly deepened and refined his perception of architecture,
built space, and its use in a cultural context, to a significant degree. Those conversant with Tagore’s
literature are familiar with his short story, Khudito Pashan (English -The Hungry Stones). The very
background of this story is Rabindranath’s stay, from 1878-79, with his brother Satyendranath, the first,
extremely progressive Indian judge in British India (Maheswari 1992:29), at his official quarters in Shahi
Bagh, Ahmedabad. Shahi Bagh is a sprawling Mughal royal enclave where, significantly, the Mughal
Emperor, Shahjahan, had built his first palace as a fifteen-year-old prince (Koch 2002: 93). The then
quarters of the elite Indian Civil Services (Connell 2002: 46) in the 19th century, Shahi Bagh is today the
official residence of the Governor of the state of Gujarat. It is known from Tagore’s writings about this
experience that he spent a great deal of time wandering the complex, absorbing its qualities and admiring
its spatial environment (Tagore 1917: 146-148). The story was born out of his vivid imagination amongst
rooms of this largely unused palace, filling the garden terraces, stone-built water tanks, niches in walls
and cavernous arched halls with myriad events. His fictional work draws extensively from his experiences
of this built space, which became the threshold of a young Collector’s night-time fantasy. The protagonist
“…felt as if the whole house was like a living organism slowly and imperceptibly digesting (him) by the
action of some stupefying gastric juice.” (Parentheses mine; Tagore 1916: 6). This echo of his personal
experience in the story significantly suggests that, in addition to potential of spatial design, he developed
a profound understanding of architectural vocabulary and its cultural dimension.
City and Village
Rabindranath’s views on urban and rural landscapes are also relevant in understanding his inclination for
the built environment idiom in the houses at Santiniketan. His writings inform us of his strong distaste of
the city’s environment, and what he perceived to be its largely pretentious and hedonistic society (Tagore
1955:68). He made note of the benefits he experienced culturally, by growing up in a milieu that was
conflicted by collision of the high noon of the British Empire (Moorehouse 1983: 201-203) and the

596 The Poet’s Home: Architectural Innovations in Rabindranath...
ensuing cultural and social reform in Bengal. While he speaks very highly of contemporary English-
educated, Bengali Renaissance figures such as Raja Rammohan Roy and Iswarchandra Vidyasagar, he
considered the vocabulary of the colonial architecture in the city alien. Further, though he espoused
progress, he records strong aversion to aggressive industrialisation, calling factories “smoke belching iron
dragons” (Tagore 1922: 116-117).
In stark contrast to the above, Rabindranath was astounded and mesmerized by the simple rural
environment and natural beauty of villages where he spent almost a decade of his adult life. This was as
revenue collector for his family’s estates in eastern Bengal, immediately before moving to Santiniketan
(Adhikari 1974: 317-321). Even over the course of this mundane engagement over a significant duration,
he made note of the nuances of rivers, trees and seasons and the villages.It may be inferred that this
experience embedded in him the notions of an ideal life in rural India, long before he even started
Sriniketan – his pioneering experiment in rural reconstruction, to address the material and cultural poverty
of people in Indian villages (Kabir 1961: 13).
Figure 1. The landscape around Santiniketan
First Visit to Santiniketan
In regard to Tagore’s actual choice of site for his home, the propensity to stay in a rural setting played a
major role along with another memorable experience – his first visit to Santiniketan. In many ways, the
experience was spiritually and emotionally uplifting for young Rabindranath. This excursion was to mark
the beginning of a long journey he made with his father to distant places in the country, soon after his
thread ceremony. His maiden arrival at Santiniketan was at dusk and for this reason, he kept his eyes shut
to keep expectations of the place unspoilt and to view it only by the first rays of the next day’s light
(Tagore 1917: 76-77). Though this may seem as an adolescent fancy of a boy of fifteen, his own
description of the landscape much later, reflected the deep connection that he experienced with the place
and his intense feelings about it:
“…in the hollows of the sandy soil, the rainwater had ploughed deep furrows carving out
miniature mountain ranges full of red gravel and pebbles of various shapes through which ran
tiny streams...the geography of the lilliput…everything there, the dwarfed date palms, the
scrubby wild plums and the stunted jambolans was in keeping with the miniature mountain
ranges…” (Tagore 1917: 78-79).

Saptarshi Sanyal 597
In the passage above, Tagore’s reference is to the ‘khoai’ – a denuded superlative landscape feature
that forms the setting in the region where Santiniketan is located (Mondal 2013:141). So overwhelmed
was he by this environment that, about twenty-five years later, he made this his home. It also became the
site of his then humble but most important project, Visva Bharati, one that he would refer to as “the vessel
carrying the cargo of my life’s best treasure”, in a letter written to Mahatma Gandhi, soliciting support for
its permanence on his deathbed (Bhattacharya 2011: 229). The very choice of location for the Poet’s
Home i.e. Santiniketan is, in all likelihood, strongly influenced by this first visit and his instant
connection with the place.
Concept to Site
When Rabindranath made Santiniketan his base for activities in 1901, his original intention was to
implement the ideas on alternative ways to educate. He decided to choose the ashram created by his
father, Debendranath (Sanyal and Tagore 1986: 19) for this significant project, given his attachment to
Santiniketan. While this required him to take up residence there, he was not predisposed to experiment in
architecture. However, he could not avoid dealing with built and landscaped space, as he regarded the
school as his “tangible poem”. He commented that the institution must be viewed not as a “pedagogical
laboratory” but a “work of art” (Tagore: 1931, cited in Lal 1984: 34). The development of the school, and
later his university, Visva Bharati, in Santiniketan, can be traced through two distinct stages within
Tagore’s lifetime – that up to 1918 and, thereafter, till his demise in 1941 (Jha 1994: 608-609). Of the
seven houses that he built and inhabited here, the first two – Dehali (c.1904) and Natun Bari (c. 1906), are
from the first phase. The other five houses – Konarka (c.1918), Udayana (c.1919-28), Shyamali (c. 1935-
36), Punascha (c. 1936) and Udichi (c. 1938-39) are built in the complex called Uttarayan. The latter
represent the exceedingly apparent ideological and aesthetic rigour coincident with Visva Bharati’s own
development in these decades (Tagore 1922: 178-179).
The task of architectural analysis, therefore, attempts to elucidate meaning in the architecture, rather
than describing its physical qualities and history alone. Through a lateral enquiry, gleaned from the forms
of standing edifices and landscape, the attributes are understood by juxtaposing them with Tagore’s texts
that imply spatial and cultural ideals in a historical context. Not the least, they can be appreciated through
the capacities of Rabindranath’s illustrious collaborators, who rendered his vision into built forms. The
designs and attributes of the built environment are not a product of one kind of vision, but qualify many
creative dimensions of Tagore’s personality, thus demanding thematic discussion.
Architectural Etymology
The foremost peculiarity of the Poet’s Home is how Tagore gave each of his houses a name, leading to
much perplexity and speculation by scholars later. It is here that the reading of the houses’ architectural
vocabularies is essential to our speculative thought. The sophistication in Tagore’s linguistics extended to
his appreciation of the poetics of language as well as architectural design. The absence of relevant
archival records makes it difficult to verify if the houses were named after completion or in conception.
However, irrespective of this factual gap, what does emerge is that the meaning and essence of every
house’s name is linked to the spatial configuration and fabric of its architecture. The nomenclature of
Tagore’s houses is associated with their dominant architectural schema.
For instance, the house Dehali was built during the Santiniketan School’s initial phase. The building
demonstrates a frugality and economy of material (Biswas and Mete 2014: 82-83), associated with the
‘Brahmacharyashram’ stage of the institution. At this time, as evident from the school’s first constitution,
Rabindranath denounced everything but the very essential and expected the same from his students
(translation of Tagore’s letter to Kunjalal Ghosh in 1902; in Connell 2002: 67-68). The word ‘Dehali’
emerges from the Sanskrit word ‘Deha’ which means ‘the body’. This dwelling, built as a single storied
cottage in mud and cow dung, with a thatched overhung roof and, thus, symbolized the very basic

598 The Poet’s Home: Architectural Innovations in Rabindranath...
necessity of sheltering the human body. The name Dehali is a conjugation of this word to finally mean
‘that which shelters the body’ or, ‘serving the bodily need’, here shelter.
Tagore’s next house, Natun Bari, is still more intriguing. Although a cottage similar to Dehali, it had
the significant enhancement of being double storied. In Bengali language, the words ‘Natun’ and ‘Bari’
mean ‘new’ and ‘house’ respectively – the building being a formal expression of Tagore’s ‘new’
discovery of Santiniketan:
“…a beautiful place, far away from the contamination of town life […] I knew that the mind
had its hunger for the ministrations of nature, mother-nature, and so I selected this spot where
the sky is unobstructed to the verge of the horizon. There the mind could have its fearless
freedom to create its own dreams and the seasons could come with all their colours and
movements and beauty into the very heart of the human dwelling.” (Tagore 1931: 642)
A significant contemporary account proves useful to substantiate Tagore’s attachment to the upper
room of this cottage. William Pearson, a close educational associate and friend of Tagore, describes first
meeting him here in 1912. He notes the “…silence descending (in Santiniketan) like shadows on a starlit
hill…” as they retired to bed after his students finished singing poems at night (Parentheses mine; 1916:
30-31). Rabindranath’s deep sentiments about nature, space and dwelling, are expressed in Natun Bari, a
house that was simultaneously connected to the ground and the sky. It is also difficult to ignore the fact
that Tagore’s residence in this dwelling between 1906-18 was his most creative phase as poet. It was here
that he had written and translated Gitanjali, for which he received the Nobel. It is not hard to imagine the
upper room’s view “unobstructed to the verge of the horizon” serving the requisite solitude and
inspiration for his work.
Tagore’s creation of the house called Shyamali, meaning ‘the dark one’ is quite significant. While it
was also wholly built out of mud, unlike his previous houses, it has a closed plan and very few openings
to the exterior. Pre-empting his own death due to severe illness in 1934-35, Tagore designed it as his last
dwelling place, stating in a poem that:
“...I have built it | On the dust of this earth | Which buries in it | All sufferings |
And cleanses | All stains” (quoted in Das 2009: 183)
Figure 2. Chaitya Caves: Lomas Rishi and Ajanta
The house was realized in close association with pre-eminent artists Nandalal Bose and Ramkinkar
Baij: then fellow residents and art teachers at Santiniketan. Both were wont to experimentations towards
exploring challenges in Indian modernisms in art (Wani 2013: 1382-1383). At this juncture, it is sufficient
to state that they contributed by embellishing the external walls of Shyamali with numerous figurative

Saptarshi Sanyal 599
panels. This dwelling is frontal, with cave-like quality akin to the millennia old Buddhist Chaityas, a form
that also defines its main entrance portal. Shyamali’s spatial plan and tectonic treatment result in an
emergence from, as well as merger into the earth: characteristic of the cool and serene character of caves
in Ajanta and Bagh (Tadgell 1995: 22-26). It is significant to note that Bose’s artistic, pedagogic exposure
to these places was protracted and his learning profound (Kowshik 1985: 27,62), which is the likely
reason of him being involved in the house’s creation. The resulting architecture of ‘Shyamali’
simultaneously converges with Tagore’s personal desire to be one with the earth, the local vernacular
building methods and his reference to India’s built heritage in contemporary architectural design.
Konaraka is Tagore’s first house outside the ashram, located in the complex called Uttarayana.
‘Uttarayana’ is a Sanskrit abstraction of the action of the earth coming closest to the sun in its orbit – the
cosmic and ultimate philosophical embodiment of enlightenment. A name associated with the sublime
east facing Sun Temple in Orissa (Mitra 1968: 7), the word ‘Konarka’ is Sanskrit for ‘slanting ray’ or the
sun (arka) rays coming from the corner (kona). The building is single storied with many spaces and
levels, both in roofs and floor, organized around a central living space. The house’s most conspicuous
feature, however, is the long and linear verandah leading to its living space from the east. This verandah
is also the principal entrance to the house. The verandah projecting outward from the house’s structure
marks a major departure from conventions of the traditional verandah where a semi-open extension along
the length of a building’s wall would define the space. That Konarka’s long verandah was built only for
poetry recitals or performances may be true (High Level Committee [HLC] Report 2006) but this
undermines the critical role this specific space plays in the house’s architectural personality. The design
of this covered, east-facing verandah allows only the early rays of the rising sun to enter the living space
at a very acute angle, in other words – when slanting. Rabindranath Tagore’s Konarka is, thus, a name
born out of an architectural and spatial identity.
Figure 3. The eastern verandah of Konarka House of Tagore
These approaches to design are essential to qualify the discourse about Tagore’s later positions on
the discovery of what contemporary Indian architecture could be. After the creation of Konarka, Tagore
embarked upon his most elaborate architectural project – the house ‘Udayan’, which was completed over
eighteen years. The project’s commencement, in 1919, was shortly after Visva Bharati’s genesis as a
centre of Indian culture, as well as a centre of the arts (Connell 2002: 101-103). This was preceded by his
visit to Japan in 1916, where he was overwhelmed by the fact that Buddhism, a philosophy that took
shape in India, played a major role in unifying the character of both built and open space design
(Subramanyan 1989: 131).
In the third decade of the twentieth century, Tagore’s profound appreciation of two other events is
relevant to our discussion on the architectural and aesthetic appreciation of the name Udayan. The first
was the resumption of the imperial New Delhi project after the First World War. India’s new capital
under imperial administration, the project had many major bodies of the colonial government and 15,000
labourers bringing it to shape by 1925. (Irving 1981: 129-130, 135). Though the buildings in New Delhi
mirrored some Indian motifs and details, their tectonic vocabularies were deeply committed to promulgate

600 The Poet’s Home: Architectural Innovations in Rabindranath...
the aesthetic and architectural supremacy of Western Classicism (Volwahsen 2002: 59-63). This was an
approach to contemporary Indian architectural identity that Tagore was proactively challenging through
the aesthetics of Santiniketan (Inaga 2009:171). Second, with India’s leading modern artists from his
own family, like his nephews Gaganendranath and Abanindranath – Nandalal Bose’s mentor, and the
Santiniketan art school teachers, Tagore organized Bauhaus’s first Asian exhibition in Calcutta in 1922,
where the work of Indian and the Weimar avant-garde artists were seen together (Kern 2013). This
comparison and contrast with Bauhaus (Balaram 2005: 13), along with other developments, are indicative
of Rabindranath’s preoccupation with the discovery of modern but Indian, culturally grounded but pan-
Asian identity in India’s new architecture. His approach aimed to aesthetically challenge the architectural
hegemony of the British government’s new capital at Delhi. The word chosen for this house was
‘Udayan’, which means ‘the dawning’. In this east-facing dwelling Tagore painstakingly endeavoured to
create a balanced and harmonious synthesis of massing and culture-specific architectural elements
integrated into the various elevations. Along with the team of artists, Nandalal Bose’s cousin, architect
Surendranath Kar, his own son Rathindranath, and Kintaro Kasahara, a wood sculptor from Japan who
taught at Santiniketan’s art school (Banerjee 1998: 35), the house Udayan, was built to represent ‘the
dawning’ of a contemporary Indian architecture.
Figure 4. Udayan – the Dawning
Through Udayan, along with Konarka, Tagore establishes that Indian identity in architecture need
not be narrow, prescriptive and simplistic derivation. He attempts to demonstrate how the contemporary
architectural language of India could be grounded in intellectual syntheses from the best in the west and
east, and be progressive at the same time while continuously referencing the varied Pan-Asian
architectural heritage.
After a prolific exploration of aesthetics in Udayan, Tagore’s last two houses demonstrate a more
nuanced rendering of architectural etymology and design. The first of these, ‘Punascha’, meaning
‘postscript’, is a small house comprising a central room with a raised ceiling and an enclosed verandah
surrounding it. The distinctive feature of this house is a southern space that resembles a patio, with one
conspicuous departure. Two walls complete with windows and blinds that partially enclose it and
delineate this patio’s periphery, even though it has no roof. The core room, enclosed by a verandah with a
lower roof, and the freestanding walls that give way to a parapet halfway, becomes the room-without-a-
roof: Tagore’s architectural postscript!

Saptarshi Sanyal 601
Figure 5. Udichi – to Go Up to
The last house Tagore created is called ‘Udichi’. It was originally elevated on four short columns
(Das 2009: 176) and the peculiarity of this house lay in the fact that its only, very intimate, habitable
space was on its first floor, reached by a staircase flanked by vertically offset lattice railings. The
windows of this house are articulated with foliated Mughal arches. It is significant to note here that,
barely a decade before, in 1930, coincident with construction of the emerging Swiss-French modernist
architect Le Corbusier’s seminal Villa Savoye, Tagore was touring Paris with his paintings (Sen 1991:
275). This minimally embellished, modernist Villa in Paris, enhances the volume of its main living
spaces on the first floor, with this mass raised on Corbusier’s famous ‘pilotis’ or columns. In Villa
Savoye, the approach to these spaces is almost processional through a concealed ramp (Khan 2001: 75-
76). In Udichi, the external staircase enhances the act of going up: its concreted lattice railings find very
contemporary expression here with rectilinear articulation. The concept of ‘udi’ and ‘chi’ in Sanskrit
convey the action ‘to go up to’ or ‘proceed to rise’. Udichi is a strong pointer to how Tagore’s
experiments with merging the language of communication and language of architecture continued till the
end of his life. Furthermore, almost as a coincidence, Tagore was giving India it’s own version of Villa
Savoye – his version transcending simple imitation of the original. Udichi is a concept and design that
was progressively contemporary, yet unmistakably Indian in form, manifesting an original interpretation
of its likely predecessor.
Ekistics – Qualitative Calculations in Space
A very important aspect of Tagore’s houses is their situation within the site, their relationships with
landscape and the complementary articulation of their interiors. In many respects, this discussion is
unprecedented in existing literature and a primary analysis of the site is relied upon to appreciate the
many reflections of Rabindranath that embody his ideal view of Home in Santiniketan. Furthermore, this
study also represents some of the philosophical bases through which he approached designs of the built
environment here.The approach taken is one of Doxiadis’s ‘Ekistics’ – a scientific term used in the
understanding of the nature of space holistically. In its broadest sense, it implies that a strong relationship
exists between the human being, nature, society and space (Doxiadis 1968: 327). The latter may be of
any scale and could start from the person itself, to room, dwelling and extending as far as mega-
metropolis. Although western in origin, and its dealing with numbering of “units” according to increasing
scales in future projection, this word is carefully chosen to argue the sensitive quality of Rabindranath’s
dwellings. The investigations reveal existence of certain inseparable relationships in the way the
dwellings are laid out. This is in interiors, space planning at an architectural scale, and even landscaping.
The earliest homes in Santiniketan, Dehali and Natun Bari are a translation of the rural sensibilities
in architecture, in a rudimentary form. This inference stems from the observation that they were
constructed as simple cottages, with the small but significant innovation of the upper room in Natun Bari.
Another equally important observation is the clustering of dwellings highly reminiscent of a rural setting,
with a small courtyard being enclosed by the built forms. This type of clustering can be noted in the tribal

602 The Poet’s Home: Architectural Innovations in Rabindranath...
hamlets that exist in the area around Santiniketan, even today (Komanduri et.al. 2015: 61). In
architectural form, however, they are a departure from a purely literal translation, with Rabindranath’s
need for the ‘unobstructed view of the horizon’ playing a major role and, thus, taking precedence,
especially in Natun Bari. The siting of both dwellings is also equally significant, being adjacent to Sal
Vithika, an avenue flanked by Sal (Shorea robusta) trees, which were planted in the path marking the
original entrance of the oldest construction in the Ashram, a guest house building that was the very
namesake of Santiniketan, built by Tagore’s father. It is also known through archival photographs as well
as written accounts that Rabindranath frequently strolled in this avenue (Pearson 1916: 28-29).
The clustering and landscaping in Uttarayan are more complex. Approached from the south,
Udayan’s imposing structure is conspicuous in scale, facing east and a small trellis pavilion marks the
entrance to the remaining four dwellings with Shyamali at the end of this axis and Konarka to the west,
with Punascha and Udichi to the east. Udayan’s surroundings are elaborately landscaped with an enclosed
courtyard to the north, a lake and gardens to the east and west respectively, and a lily-pool to its
southwest. Udayan also has several important structures – both built and semi-built, flanking it. Two
important ones include the audio-visual studio (a small two storied room) and open seating within the
southwest garden.
Figure 6. Layout of Uttarayan Complex with 5 Houses

Saptarshi Sanyal 603
The landscaping within the northern four dwellings is of more subtle application. Two important
trees are planted near the entrances of Konark and Shyamali. A garden patio with seating at one end –
called the Mrinmoyi Chatal, is a detached open space flanking the north side of Konarka. The Simul Tree
(Bombax ceiba) fronting Konarka is present for visual and experiential reasons, although it is carefully
offset from the direct line of the verandah, which is part of this dwelling’s quintessential identity.
Shyamali is similarly fronted by the ‘Dolon champa’ or white ginger lily tree (Hedychium coronarium),
which is also planted off centre to prevent concealing of the view to the its principal entrance, which is
the Buddhist Chaitya shaped arch at the end of the north-south axis into Uttarayan.
It is important to note that several alterations after Tagore’s lifetime in these houses make some of
these spatial innovations illegible. Two significant ones are those with respect to Konarka and Udichi.
With the Konarka house being turned into a permanent exhibition for visitors, its northern and southern
openings into the fountain and garden were walled-in by the 1980s for security of the furniture and
artefacts located therein. Similarly, the space between Udichi’s supporting columns at its ground floor
level has also been built up. (ASI 2010: 173)
Figure 7. The Poet at leisure in Punascha
The Poet’s personal understanding and appreciation of Upanishadic philosophy translates into the
planning of the sites of his houses. This is with reference to his in-depth knowledge of these texts of
ancient literature and the stages of life discussed therein. Shyamali’s location itself is very significant
within Uttarayan: it is at the end of the axis. The dwellings constructed after Shyamali (Punascha and
Udichi) are carefully and visually offset. Being aware of the thoughts behind the name Shyamali, and its
design, it becomes evident that in planning the rest of Uttarayan, it is the final resting place at the end of
the journey from philosophical standpoint. The Chaitya arch, in Buddhist philosophy, is an architectural
feature symbolizing the portal to infinity. If we read further into the complex’s layout, and its overall
location in relation to the Ashram from the south to the north, with Dehali and Natun Bari, and the entire
Ashram complex per se, the transition from south to north represents the translation from ‘Brahmacharya’
or the frugal beginning stage of life, and in between lies ‘Grahastha’, represented through Udayan, a
materially fulfilling and culturally rich middle stage, and finally the detachment and resting places,
‘Vanaprastha’ and ‘Sanyasa’ – delineated by Punascha, Udichi and Shyamali. Uttarayan, as a whole, is
the metaphoric personal, intellectual and aesthetic enlightenment that transcends into infinity.
Rabindranath did not forget his childhood years while planning in Uttarayan. The complex echoes
his concern with spatial and visual freedom, apart from the philosophical perspectives as seen above.
When seen holistically as a complex with the floor plan layouts, Uttarayan is characterized by all its

604 The Poet’s Home: Architectural Innovations in Rabindranath...
structures having an open plan, with key elements of landscaping such as the lily pool, the gardens and
even individual trees incorporated into views from interiors. This is corroborated by a study of the interior
spaces and their open and almost visually unobstructed relationship with the outside.
Moreover, the design and utilitarian dimensions of individual spaces respond to the overall
landscaping and clustering of dwellings, and vice versa. This allowed Rabindranath to experience,
throughout his occupation of these houses, the visual and spatial freedom that he valued so deeply. This is
also evident from a valuable collection of archival photographs, which show him using these spaces, as
well as the largely undisturbed furniture layouts of the rooms in the houses. A very telling example of this
is visible in the elevated seating spot designed into the roof of Konarka, which gives anyone occupying
this space a feeling of being completely in the open. Similarly, the Postscript space of Punascha served as
a special space for the Poet, who is captured in pictures seated here while writing at leisure.
The designed spaces were used in multiple ways. The freedom he yearned for in access to
architectural space as a child was made available to students of the school. A rare surviving person from
Tagore’s lifetime, Supriyo Mukhopadhyay, son of the Bengali biographer of Tagore, late Prabhat K.
Mukhopadhyay highlighted, in an interview with this author (Sanyal 2007), how benevolent Rabindranath
was towards children. Mukhopadhyay reveals the ready access that he had as a child to the Uttarayan
cluster of houses, which included treats of mangoes and other fruits. The front verandah of Konarka as
well as the raised portico of Udayan was used as ‘mancha’ or dais to stage performances, gatherings,
readings and similar activities, in Tagore’s lifetime. Imagery of students on the roof of Konarka also
provides evidence how accessibile the houses were, to the students at Santiniketan.
Figure 8. Performance at the Portico of Udayan
In addition to cultural activities, the vibrance of spatial use was complemented by the presence of
many cherished guests of Rabindranath in his homes. The most notable of such guests is Mahatma
Gandhi himself, who stayed in Shyamali, and is seen with Tagore in conversation in Udichi, in 1940.
Several spaces in the Tagore houses were designed to provide a relaxed and intimate atmosphere for such
interactions as seen from archival images in Shambhu Saha’s ‘Faces and Places of Visva Bharati’. (2000).
The Approach to Aesthetics
The discussion on how the design and architectural vocabulary, as well as spaces of Tagore’s houses
substantiate their nomenclature, and the historical and philosophical standpoints he approached it from,
allows us to question the theses relating purely to revivalism and nationalism through his architectural
aesthetics. It must be noted that this subject is inseparable from Tagore’s larger perspectives on art,
education and the socio-political times he lived in.

Saptarshi Sanyal 605
The first issue relates to the assertion that Rabindranath’s houses represent the ‘aristocratic-folk’,
variably called the ‘primitivist-folk’ (Chaudhuri 2010: 949) idiom, arising in Indian architecture from
‘Swadeshi’ ideals. The term originates in Jon Lang, Miki and Madhavi Desai’s erudite anthology,
‘Architecture and Independence’, with its broad scope of architecture in India from 1890 to 1990 (1997:
124). Analytical inconsistencies arise when the authors trace this paradigm of design to the Swadeshi
movement during the partition of Bengal in 1905. The movement was one of pride and a ‘national’ way
of life. Rabindranath, who was briefly involved in this movement, wrote songs for it as well as instituted a
festival to observe camaraderie, ‘rakhi-bandhan’, (Bhattacharya 2011: 272) in Santiniketan. However,
with the exception of Dehali and Natun Bari, none of his other houses, which form the content of the
‘nationalist architecture’ argument, were built at this time. Furthermore, in quick disillusionment with the
Swadeshis’ destructive and non-cooperative tendencies (Datta 2005: 89; Radhakrishnan et.al. 2003: 31),
the second decade of the 20th century saw Tagore’s departure from and disagreement with it. Here Tagore
differed even with Mahatma Gandhi, prioritising the path of education to enable the delivery of an
intellectual and cultural independence from the colonial government, rather than political one (Das Gupta
2003: 32). In fact, quite contrary to non-cooperation and the prevailing nationalistic fervour, Tagore: an
individual of international mould and thinking, believed it to be a narrowing creed (Machwe 1976: 81;
Williams 2007: 71). In relation to clashing of ideals in aesthetics, such thought is widely echoed by the
opinions of contemporary British figures on Tagore’s simultaneous Indian and international stature (Earl
of Ronaldshay – Lawrence Dundas 1923:229-230)
Regarding revivalism through architecture, it is indeed true that Tagore was in direct contact with
E.B. Havell and A.K. Coomaraswamy, the turn of the century’s most vigorous Indo-art revivalists.
Coomaraswamy is credited with an elucidation of terminology in historic Indian architecture (1928: 250-
269) and also wrote several essays connecting the textual and architectural meanings of the traditional
Indian house (Kak 2005: 6). What is overlooked, however, is that like Tagore, their transcending of
western readings of Indian architecture (Tillotson 1993: 211-212) enabled them to be liberal in thought,
having great respect for independent, original and individual thinking. Havell, who taught intermittently
at Visva Bharati’s art school, Kala Bhavan, while stating that “Nowhere is it more true than India that
architecture is the mother of all arts…”(1912: 24) and lamenting the ignorance of tradition that had
caused artistic decline, also strongly argues that contemporary practice can “…neither be an imitation of
western institutions nor a mere revival of ancient Indian…” (84). Tagore, at this time, in an address to
students at Dhaka University, urgently appeals for an escape from an obligation to produce limiting,
claustral imitations of fossilized tradition (Jamal 2001: 19). Since Tagore’s institution did not formally
teach architecture, the buildings in Santiniketan were the only possible canvas to realize architectonic
innovations, approached from the bases of art. The connection of names with formal rendition of his
houses is only a hint of the degree of original thinking therein. In this respect, Tagore’s evaluation by
Aldous Huxley, another contemporary writer-philosopher, is very relevant to appreciate the way Tagore
approached the aesthetics in architecture. Huxley states that Tagore’s approach trained not just the “word-
using, symbol-manipulating part of the mind, but also the perceptions and imagination” (Sahitya Akademi
1968: 6). These observations also make Tagore’s intellectually underpinned endeavours very distinct
from later architectural revival activities. Some of these are represented in Mahatma Gandhi’s followers’
vernacular model ashrams (Lang 1997: 126) and the reactionary architectural appropriation of Indian
motifs in Sris Chandra Chatterjee’s Modern Indian Architecture Movement (Lang 2000: 26-28).
Along with the ideological and historical context in the preceding discussion, there is need to
appreciate the translation of this approach in the houses at Santiniketan. Huxley, in addition to
commenting on Tagore’s ideological position, states how, besides being a great enunciator of ideals,
Tagore was a practical man, equally prepared to “go down into the arena to realise” them (Sahitya
Akademi 1968: 5-6). Even by a Vitruvian definition (in Baydar 2004: 20-21), he adequately balanced
reasoning and practice. His reasoning came from his own and his associates’ contact with eastern masters
of the plastic arts like Okakura Kakuzo and Arai Kanpo (Shigemi 2009: 149). The practice comprised
exploration of, with his direct and indirect protégés – artists Nandalal Bose and Ramkinkar, and architect
Surendranath Kar, the various places for architectural and aesthetic stimuli in India and on visits abroad.

606 The Poet’s Home: Architectural Innovations in Rabindranath...
These would lead to experiments within the physical structures they created. Rather than dominating,
Tagore was candid about his apprehensions with them (Sen 1991: 274). The architectural schemes
actually realized would embody this dialogue between the ideals and influences, as well as the
architecture’s creator and collaborators.
To conclude this discussion, two references to translation of Tagore’s aesthetic ideals into
architecture are indispensable. The first relates to the articulation of form and scale distribution, which
explain his choice of alternatives to the prevailing imperial idiom in official architecture. As articulated
by Nikos Salingaros (Salingaros et. al. 2006: 70-71), pure Euclidian geometry fails in scale distribution.
Interestingly, this Euclidian approach was adopted for the construction of the imperial capital in New
Delhi. Due to large unbroken volumes, impressive and iconic from a distance, the architecture loses its
complexity at a smaller scale, appearing cold and uninteresting (Koh 2013: 33). Tagore’s inspiration from
nature in architecture was one of the ‘fractal’ system – a harmonic mathematical order that dictates
hierarchy in natural forms. Not only did Tagore avoid creating monuments, which was also possibly due
to financial constraints, he incorporated this fractal approach to determine an ordering system from
structure through to details. His houses open out to the landscape, while also adopting the logic of
nature’s generation of form and not the machine’s (Salama 2007: 128; Lu et.al. 2012: 311-312). Seen
from this perspective, harmonic whole to part relationships ubiquitously mark the architectural
compositions of his homes – reaching a crescendo with Udayan. This hierarchical cooperation of scales in
architectural design provided, for one, opportunity to retain human interest from various distances and
levels in intimacy of engagement. Equally, if not more significantly, this approach allowed the Poet and
his team to visually assimilate and synthesise varied building components into a balanced whole. This
was, in architecture, Tagore’s ‘contextual modernism’ as the Santiniketan artist, R. Siva Kumar, observes.
It was an approach that enabled realisation of the historical imperatives of aesthetic eclecticism and
cultural impurity (in Hoskote 2015: 46), in this case, through architecture.
Figure 9. The eclectic yet balanced eastern elevation of Udayan
The second instance of translation of Tagore’s aesthetic outlook into building is related to material
application. This is undocumented but more readily apparent by juxtaposing artist Ramkinkar Baij’s
sculptural work with a recurring architectural detail within Tagore’s houses. Baij’s most recognized
human sculptures are created from the spontaneous process of generating three-dimensional forms out of
metal armatures, with gravel and rubble, and cement concrete thrown on them. The resultant sculptures
express the artist’s embodiment of the rugged people and landscape, while also being materially
contemporary to it’s time by the use of the new materials – cement and concrete (Mitter 2007: 96).
Meanwhile, the design of Tagore’s houses exploited this tactile method to use concrete as a
malleable material that could be cast into any form. This is seen in the numerous ‘jali’s or lattice screens
and railings used throughout his houses like in Udayan, Udichi and Konarka. Used abundantly in Indo-
Islamic architecture, traditionally these were either carved out of timber, stone or cast with clay,

Saptarshi Sanyal 607
depending on geographical location. For the purpose of use in Tagore’s houses constructed in the 1930s,
these jalis were cast in moulds with cement concrete at the site itself and installed. With the exception of
the Golconde at Pondicherry, designed and constructed by George Nakashima and Francois Sammer in
the early 1940s (Gupta and Mueller 2007: 149-150), such pre-casting of concrete only became
widespread in independent India with the work of architects Edward Durell Stone and Joseph Allen Stein
in the late 1950s and early 1960s respectively (Khan 2001: 207,221). This seemingly small detail in the
Tagore houses, decades ahead of mainstream use, only represents how contemporary materials were
innovated upon to emphasize century old associations with Indian architecture. These instances show how
Tagore attempted to realize the contemporary Indian identity in architecture, without imitating either
indigenous forms or western classicism.
Conclusion
One major difficulty in the historiography of architecture at Santiniketan arises because Tagore, given his
myriad achievements, has never been recognized as ‘architect’. This is possibly due to the fact that he was
neither formally trained as one nor did he practice architecture professionally. However, this cannot
preclude his contribution to architecture in pre-independent India. The popular discourse in scholarly
circles and amongst architectural historians is about Tagore’s architecture reflecting revivalism and
nationalism like many contemporary figures of his time. As we have seen above, these readings of
architecture in Santiniketan are limiting and do not encompass the qualitative attributes of Tagore’s
homes comprehensively. More so, this issue cannot be addressed by a detailed descriptive or historic
account of its genesis alone. It must be complemented by an appreciation of meaning expressed by the
ideological, formal and material aspects of the buildings.
The architecture, as realized at Santiniketan, cannot be seen as a personal vision alone because much
of it was collaborative in effort. Tagore’s aesthetic ideals were inseparable from the social, artistic and
political climate in his lifetime, and most importantly, his preoccupation with his school and Visva
Bharati. It is also pertinent to mention here that, over the forty years of his living in Santiniketan, these
factors varied with the rhythm of Tagore’s national consciousness and international exposure.
Also, the fact that Tagore involved some of Indian modernist art’s pioneering personalities in the
design and realization of his houses cannot be ignored. The artists involved have arguably contributed
their vision in the realisation of architecture here. With the exception of Surendranath Kar, none of them
were trained architects as well. This does not, however, allow us to overlook their achievements in the
domain of architecture. To do so will only propagate an unnecessary professional dogma of maintaining
the architects’ hegemony in architectural scholarship. Also, for this very same reason, to examine
selectively, the designed aspects of Tagore’s houses in Santiniketan, will lead to partial elucidation.
The preceding expositions and discussions in this paper help to disambiguate the many varied
dimensions of this Poet’s Home. They are an evidence of the breadth of Tagore’s informed and
intellectually cultivated thinking in the areas of art, politics, society, naturalism, aesthetics and identity.
They, firstly, demonstrate that rather than romantic or whimsical intents, as popularly perceived, they are
embedded in a deliberate method, approach and a complex appreciation of the place, people and time – in
local, national and international contexts. In this sense, they are an act of ‘Poetics’ in its broadest sense –
the conscious act of creation, which is intellectual and manual’ (see Tzonis and Lefaivre 1986:2).
Further, the houses also form an indispensable link in the period of colonial westernization within
the south Asian architectural context and the discovery of architectural identity in India, before the advent
of the internationalist aesthetic. The latter came powerfully with Corbusier and his subscribers’ and
apprentices’ many projects in the newly independent nation. The historical continuity is apparent from
examination of the architectural vocabulary of several ‘modern’ buildings realized just before or after
Independence in India. Many buildings attempt to recreate the approach to architectural aesthetics in
Tagore’s homes in Santiniketan. The appreciation of this historical fact provides many opportunities and
hypotheses to critically investigate the post-colonial architectural history in India.

608 The Poet’s Home: Architectural Innovations in Rabindranath...
Lastly, the Santiniketan homes of Tagore simultaneously occupy their own architectural genre of an
aesthetic vocabulary and represent meaning in modern India through architecture. The houses are also
part of the broad design paradigm of discovery of contemporary Indian identity. The interpretation of
modern architectural history in India cannot ignore this dualism, which would bring forth new
perspectives in future scholarship. Tagore’s own words sum up the intents in design and architecture most
lucidly, in the introductory lines of an essay called ‘Construction versus Creation’:
“Construction is for a purpose, it expresses our wants; but creation is for itself, it expresses our very
being. We make a vessel because water has to be fetched. It must answer the question why. But when we
take infinite trouble to give it a beautiful form, no reason has to be assigned. It is something which is
ultimate; it is for the realization of our own spirit which is free, which is glad.” (Gujarati Sahitya Parishad
1923: 112)
Sources for Figures
1. Shambhu Saha. c. 1930, Rabindra Bhavana Archives. Santiniketan
2. Photographer unknown. Archaeological Survey of India. c. 1950
3. Author. 2007. Original Illustration
4. Photograph by Author. 2009
5. Author. 2007. Original Illustration
6. Author. 2008. Original Illustration
7. Shambhu Saha. 1937. Rabindra Bhavana Archives. Santiniketan
8. Photographer Unknown. Rabindra Bhavana Archives. Santiniketan
9. Author. 2007. Original Illustration
References
1. Adhikari, Sachindranath. 1974. Shilaidaha O Rabindranath (Bengali). Calcutta: Jijnasha
2. Adhya, B. and Naomi Noronha. 2014. “Rabindranath Tagore – A Radio Biography by Satyajit Ray” In
Tinpahar, edited by Siddharth Sivakumar. Issue 13. Retrieved from: http://www.tinpahar.com/article/459
3. Archaeological Survey of India. 2010. Nomination Dossier for Santiniketan. Unpublished Report. New Delhi:
ASI
4. Balaram, Singanapalli. 2005. “Design Pedagogy in India: A Perspective” In Design Issues, Indian Design and
Design Education, Vol. 21(4), 11-22. Cambridge: The MIT Press
5. Banerjee, Arunendu. 1996. Campus Architecture: The Built Environment of Rabindranath’s Santiniketan.
Unpublished research report. Ahmedabad: Vastu Shilpa Foundation
6. Basu, S. and Chittaranjan Pathak. 1989. An Approach paper: Santiniketan Heritage Zone. Unpublished report.
New Delhi: INTACH
7. Baydar, Gulsum. 2004. “The Cultural Burden of Architecture” In Journal of Architectural Education, Vol.
57(4). 19-27. London: Taylor and Francis
8. Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi. 2011. Rabindranath Tagore: an interpretation. New Delhi: Penguin
9. Biswas, P. and Jayanta Mete. 2014. “Architectural Style of Shantiniketan” In Journal of Education and Social
Policy, Vol. 1(2), 82-85. Beaumont: Cabell’s International
10. Chaudhuri, Supriya. 2010. “Modernisms in India” In The Oxford Handbook of Modernisms, Edited by Peter
Brooker, Andrzej Gąsiorek, Deborah Longworth, and Andrew Thacker, 942-959. London: Oxford University
Press
11. Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1928. “Indian Architectural Terms” In Journal of the American Oriental Society,
Vol. 48, 250-275. Michigan: American Oriental Society

Saptarshi Sanyal 609
12. Das Gupta, Uma. 2003. “In Pursuit of a Different Freedom: Tagore's world university at Santiniketan”, In India
International Centre Quarterly, India: A National Culture?, Vol. 29(3/4), 25-38. New Delhi: India
International Centre
13. Das, Samit. 2009. “Looking forward through Looking Back: Rabindranath Tagore and the Neo-Bengal School
in the Development of Santiniketan Architecture” In Journal of Heritage Studies, 161-182. New Delhi:
INTACH
14. _____ 2010 . Architecture of Santiniketan: Tagore’s concept of space. New Delhi: Niyogi
15. Datta, Pradip K. 2005. Rabindranath Tagore's the Home and the World, a Critical Companion. New Delhi:
Orient Longman
16. Doxiadis, C.A. 1968. “Man’s Movement and His City” In Science, New Series Vol. 162 (3851), 326-334.
Washington DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science
17. Dutta, Krishna and Andrew Robinson. 1995. Rabindranath Tagore: the Myriad minded man. New York: St.
Martin’s
18. Dutta, Krishna. 2003. Calcutta: a literary and cultural history. New Delhi: Roli
19. Government of India High Level Committee Report on Visva Bharati. 2006. Retrieved from:
http://rajbhavankolkata.nic.in/pdf/THE%20HERITAGE%20CORE.pdf
20. Gujarati Sahitya Parishad. 1923. Unpublished report, 112-132. Retrieved from:
http://www.parabaas.com/rabindranath/articles/pRabindranath_Reply.html
21. Gupta, Pankaj V. and Christine Mueller. 2007. “Golconde: The introduction of modernism in India” in
American Institute of Architects Report on University Research.
22. Gupte, R., Rahul Mehrotra and Prasad Shetty. 2009. “Architecture and Contemporary Indian Identity” In
Constructing Identity in Contemporary Architecture: Case Studies from the South, edited by Peter Herle and
Stephanus Schmitz, 199-232. Berlin: LIT Verlag
23. Havell, Ernest B. 1912. The Basis for Artistic and Industrial Revival in India. Chennai: The Theosophist Office
24. Hjärne, Harald. 1969. “Award Ceremony Speech for Rabindranath Tagore” In Nobel Lectures, Literature
1901-1967, edited by Horst Frenz. Amsterdam: Elsevier
25. Hoskote, Ranjit. 2015. “The Disordered Origins of Things: The Art Collection as Pre-canonical Space” In
Abby Grey and Indian Modernism, 41-52. New York: New York University
26. Inaga, Shigemi. 2009. “The Interaction of Bengali and Japanese Artistic Milieus in the First Half of the
Twentieth Century (1901-1945): Rabindranath Tagore, Arai Kanpǀ, and Nandalal Bose” In Japan Review, No.
21, 149-181. Kyoto: International Research Center for Japanese Studies
27. Irving, Robert, G. 1981. Indian Summer. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
28. Jamal, Osman. 2000. “E.B. Havell and Rabindranath Tagore” In Third Text - Nationalism, modernity and art,
Vol. 14(53), 19-30. London: Taylor and Francis
29. Jha, Narmadeshwar. 1994. “Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941)”, In Prospects: the quarterly review of
education, Vol 24 (9), no.3-4, 603-19. Paris: UNESCO: International Bureau of Education
30. Kabir, Humayun. “Rebel with a Universal Cause” In The UNESCO Courier, No.12, edited by Sandy Koffler,
11-15. New York: H.W. Wilson Co.
31. Kak, Subhash. 2005. “Early Indian Architecture and Art” In Migration and Diffusion – An International
Journal, 6-27. Retrieved from: http://www.migration-diffusion.info/article.php?id=110
32. Kern, Ingolf. 2013. The Bauhaus on the Ganges. Retrieved from:
http://bauhaus-online.de/en/magazin/artikel/the-bauhaus-on-the-ganges
33. Khan, Hasan-Uddin. 2001. International Style: 1925 to 1965. Cologne: Taschen
34. Koch, Ebba. 2002. Mughal Architecture: An Outline of Its History and Development (1526 - 1858). New
Delhi: Oxford University Press
35. Koh, Jusuck. 2013. “On a landscape approach to design: An eco-poetic interpretation of landscape”. Transcript
of farewell address in Wageningen University. Wageningen: Landscape Architecture Group
36. Komanduri, A. and D.T. Namgyel, K. Kafley, H. Singh, P. Hegde, R. Anandan, Vasanth M., V. Handa. 2015.
“Balipara” In Antardrishti: an insight into the architecture of the Santhals of Birbhum, Research Report of the

610 The Poet’s Home: Architectural Innovations in Rabindranath...
4th semester B.Arch. study, edited by Moulshri Joshi and Saptarshi Sanyal, 53-67. New Delhi: School of
Planning and Architecture
37. Kowshik, Dinkar. 1985: Nandalal Bose, The Doyen of Indian Art. New Delhi: National Book Trust
38. Lal, Swati. 1984. “RabindranƗth Tagore's Ideals of Aesthetic Education” In Journal of Aesthetic Education,
Special Issue: Defining Cultural and Educational Relations - An International Perspective, Vol. 18(2), 31-39.
Champaign: University of Illinois Press
39. Lang J., Miki Desai and Madhavi Desai. 1997. Architecture and Independence: The Search for Identity – India
1880 -1980. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
40. Machwe, Prabhakar. 1976. “Tagore: The Oriental and Modern” In Indian Literature, Vol. 19 (5), 80-94. New
Delhi: Sahitya Akademi
41. Maheshwari, Shriram. 1992. Problems and Issues in Administrative Federalism. New Delhi: Allied Publishers
42. Mitra, Debala. 1958. Konarak. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India
43. Mitter, Partha. 2007. The Triumph of Modernism: India's Artists and the Avant-garde, 1922-47. London:
Reaktion
44. Mondal, Prolay. 2013. “Morphometric Analysis of Birbhum District”, In Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary
Studies, Volume1, Issue 4, 141-148. Retrieved from:
www.ajms.co.in/sites/ajms/index.php/ajms/article/download/74/94
45. Moorehouse, Goeffrey. 1983. Calcutta: the city revealed. London: Penguin
46. Nangia, Ashish. 2004. Nascent Nationalism and Indian Architecture. Retrieved from:
http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=1011
47. O’Connell, Kathleen M. 2002. Rabindranath Tagore: the Poet as Educator. Santiniketan: Visva Bharati
48. Pearson, W.W. 1916. Santiniketan: The Bolpur School of Rabindranath Tagore, New York: Macmillan
49. Radhakrishnan, M. and Debasmita Roychowdhury. 2003. “Nationalism is a great menace: Tagore and
Nationalism” In Rabindranath Tagore: Universality and Tradition, edited by Patrick Colm Hogan and Lalita
Pandit. New Jersey: Associated University Press
50. Ray, Satyajit. 1961. “Portrait of a Man” In The UNESCO Courier, No.12, edited by Sandy Koffler, 5-10. New
York: H.W. Wilson Co.
51. Ronaldshay, Earl of. 1923. “A clash of Ideals as a source of Indian Unrest” In Journal of the Royal Society of
Arts, Vol. 71 (3665), 221-235. London: Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and
Commerce
52. Sahitya Akademi. 1968. Reproduction of Speech “Aldous Huxley on Tagore” In Indian Literature, Vol. 11(3),
5-11. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi
53. Salama. Ashraf M. 2007. “Nikos A. Salingaros: a new Vitruvius for 21st–century Architecture and urbanism?”
In Reviews and Trigger Articles. Retrived from: archnet.org/publications/4959
54. Salingaros, Nikos A. and Michael W. Mehaffy, Terry M Mikiten. 2006. The Theory of Architecture. Solingen:
Intercollegiate Studies Institute
55. Sanyal, Hirenkumar and Rabindranath Tagore. 1986. Santiniketan 1901-1951. Santiniketan: Visva Bharati
56. Sanyal, S. 2007. Notes from research interview with Supriyo Mukhopadhyay. Unpublished. Santiniketan.
–2009 . “Discovering the Incognito” In Indian Architect and Builder, Vol. 22(9), 44-47 . New Delhi: Jasubhai
57. Sen, Paritosh. 1991. “Pandora's Box: The Original Art of Rabindranath Tagore” In India International Centre
Quarterly, The Calcutta Psyche, Vol. 17 (3/4), 270-280. New Delhi: India International Centre
58. Shaha, Shambhu. 2000. Faces and Places of Visva Bharati: A collection of Photographs. Calcutta: Visva
Bharati
59. Subramanyan K.G. 1989. “Rabindranath and Modern Indian Art” In Rabindranath Tagore in Perspective.
Calcutta: Visva Bharati
60. Tadgell, Christopher. 1995. The History of Architecture in India. New York: Phaidon
61. Tagore, Rabindranath. 1916. “The Hungry Stones” In The Hungry Stones and Other Stories, 3-28.Translated
by C.F. Andrews. New York: Macmillan
62. _____ 1917. “A journey with my father” In My Reminiscences, 74-86. London: Macmillan
63. _____ 1917 . “Ahmedabad” In My Reminiscences, 146-148. London: Macmillan

Saptarshi Sanyal 611
64. _____ 1917 . “The Normal School” In My Reminiscences, 28-32. London: Macmillan
65. _____ 1917 . “Within and Without” In My Reminiscences, 9-21. London: Macmillan
66. _____ 1922 . “East and West” In Creative Unity, 167-203.London: Macmillan
67. _____ 1922 . “The Modern Age”, in Creative Unity, 15-30.London: Macmillan
68. _____ 1931 . “My Educational Mission” In The Modern Review, Vol. 49(6), 621-623. Calcutta
69. _____ 1931 . “My School” In The English Writings of Rabindranath Tagore, Vol.3. A Miscellany, edited by
Sisir Kumar Das, 641-645. New Delhi: Sahitya Akademi
70. _____ 1955 . Lectures & Addresses: Selected from the Speeches of the Poet. London: Macmillan
71. _____ 1972 . Siksa (Bengali). Calcutta: Visva Bharati
72. Thakur, Nalini. 2006. Architecture as Expression of the “First Globalization” power politics. Unpublished
transcript. New Delhi: All India Radio
73. Tillotson. Giles H.R. 1993. “Farangi and Babu: Two Early Theories of Indian Architecture” In India
International Centre Quarterly, Perceiving India: Insight and Inquiry. Vol. 20(1/2), 209-224. New Delhi: India
International Centre
74. Tzonis, Alexander and Liane Lefiavre. 1986. Classical Architecture: the Poetics of Order. Cambridge: The
MIT Press
75. Volwahsen, Andreas. 2002. Imperial Delhi. Berlin: Prestel
76. Wani, Wasim M. 2013. “Revisiting Modern Art in India prior to Independence: A capsule account of
beginnings, confrontations, conflicts and milestones” In European Academic Research, Vol. 1(6), Edited by
Ecaterina Patrascu, 1377-1390. Buzau
77. Williams, Louise B. 2007. “Overcoming the ‘Contagion of Mimicry’” In The American Historical Review,
Vol. 112(1), 69-100. Bloomington: Oxford University Press