Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus: India’s Grandest Railway Station

http://www.sahapedia.org/chhatrapati-shivaji-terminus-india%E2%80%99s-grandest-
railway-station

It is among the top ten railway stations in the world. It is perhaps the second most
photographed monument in India after the Taj. It has stood for 129 years. Unless a major
natural calamity strikes, it could stand for another 500 or 1,000 years.

Whatever its stature on the world stage, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus is for most
Mumbaikars essentially a transit point—people get on or off the suburban or long-
distance trains and make their way towards their destinations. They might stop and glance
at CST momentarily, click a selfie with it perhaps, but their engagement with it mostly
ends there.

CST’s public interface with the city is not that of a warm and welcoming place, one that
draws you in to learn more about it, but that of an intimidating, no-access building you
need permisson to enter. If you quiz a Mumbaikar about the building or the history of
which it is a part, s/he probably won’t be able to tell you much.

Until some time ago, I, too, was such a Mumbaikar. And we can’t be blamed because
there’s no model train, no plaque or info panel within the station premises that tells us
about its history and the history of the city. It is in an attempt to fill this lacuna, both for
myself and for others in the city, that I began doing research on CST.
Bombay: 1850s-60s
When the Victorians built the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (formerly Victoria Terminus)
in Bombay in 1888, they were looking for permanency, says architectural historian
Christopher W. London. In an interview he gave Sahapedia earlier this year, London said,
'They were very aware of what was happening with the Roman empire and what was
happening in Rome through archaeological excavations. And they must have seen
themselves as a republic, doing the same sorts of things within the British empire.' Here,
London refers to the act of building architectural landmarks that function as visual
emblems of an empire, even after its demise. In the Fort area of South Mumbai, one sees
such buildings which remind us of British rule in India and the Chhatrapati Shivaji
Terminus is one of them.

How did these buildings come to be built in Bombay? Sir Henry Bartle Edward Frere,
who was governor of Bombay from 1862–67, had a plan for Bombay that would give it
the status of a ‘modern city’. He demolished the walls of the by-then obsolete Fort St
George so that the city could grow and recommended the construction of 14 buildings in
and around the Fort precinct. These buildings were 'meant to enhance the government’s
image, and enable it to expand its services and rule more effectively', says London in his
book Bombay Gothic (28).

Frere set up a Ramparts Removal Committee, which provided guidelines for the
construction of these buildings and the development of the city, and represented some of
the leading architectural minds of Britain. Frere was keen on developing an Anglo-Indian
style of architecture and Thomas Roger Smith, who was a part of the committee,
attempted to define this style along the lines of Gothic Revivalism, which was considered
a progressive architectural style at the time.

The buildings that were a part of Frere’s plan included a barracks, a hospital, a high
court, a small causes court, a police magistrate’s court, post and telegraph offices, a
customs house, quarters for government officers, a secretariat, a treasury building, a
records office, and a station for the Great India Pensinsula Railway (GIPR). The Great
India Peninsula Railway, a joint stock company set up by British capitalists and Indian
businessmen, built the first passenger railway line in India and in Asia in 1853; it ran
from Bori Bunder (the station’s original name) to Thana. This modest station would be
re-built as the grand Victoria Terminus that we know today and was re-named after
Queen Victoria in 1887 to mark the golden jubilee of her reign.

Technologically speaking, the railways were for the 19th century what the internet is for
our time. More specifically, they linked India’s hinterland to Europe through the port of
Bombay and the Suez Canal, thus facilitating the trade of goods and raw materials, and
the movement of British soldiers and administrators throughout the subcontinent. (To
learn more about the historic role of the Indian railways, see Sahapedia’s video
interviews with Christopher London, Jim Masselos and Rahul Mehrotra.)

Victoria Terminus: 1878-88

Victoria Terminus was built as the headquarters of the GIPR and as the terminus for its
rail network over a period of ten years, from 1878 to 1888. It was made in a High
Victorian Gothic (or Gothic Revivalist) style based on late medieval Italian models.
According to the UNESCO website, 'This style was acceptable to both European and
Indian taste since it is compatible in its use of colour and ornamentation with the Mughal
and Hindu architecture of the subcontinent. The skyline, turrets, pointed arches and
eccentric ground plan are close to traditional Indian palace architecture.'

Victoria Terminus was not only 'a kind of capitol building for a mercantile
empire' (London:86) in its major port city, but also a 'building [that] symbolised the
supremacy and majesty of Britannia "ruling the waves" and even more importantly, the
technological triumph of the Empire—the introduction of the railway to India' (Mehrotra
and Dwivedi 1996:11). It is no surprise, then, that the statue standing at the apex of VT’s
dome is Progress, holding a flaming torch in her raised hand and a wheel at her side.

What distinguishes Victoria Terminus from the Gothic Revival buildings made in
Bombay from the 1860s onwards is its dome. Most of these buildings have towers, turrets
and spires, features typical of Gothic architecture, but none feature a dome. The
octagonal ribbed dome of the VT was built for the dramatic effect it would have on the
cityscape. It rose 330 feet into the air and could be seen from a ship arriving at Bombay
Harbour; it could be seen for stretches of land south of the terminus; and it could be seen
from the maidans or open parks in the Fort area. (For a virtual tour of Victoria Terminus,
see the Image Gallery.) Victoria Terminus is perhaps the most ornamented of the Gothic
Revival buildings in Bombay and its grandeur was meant to inspire awe among the local
population as well as British administrators, soldiers and settlers.

Its location was strategic: it faced the official government buildings to the west; it had the
docks and the harbour behind it; and it had Crawford Market and residential
neighbourhoods to the south. The proximity of the harbour facilitated trade and the
transfer of goods from the steamships to the railway line and vice-versa. It also helped
with the easy movement of British soldiers and administrators, who landed at Bombay
port by ship, to different parts of the subcontinent.

As a symbol, Victoria Terminus represented the modernity of the British empire and the
railways’ engineering prowess. However, it was the result of a decade of work by the
British and by Indians. In his Sahapedia interview, Rahul Mehrotra tells us that except for
VT’s chief architect, Frederick William Stevens, 'everyone from
the mistry to mukaddam to the chief craftsman was Indian'. Stevens designed the building
and supervised the project but the groundwork was done by PWD’s assistant engineer
Sitaram Khanderao Vaidya and PWD supervisor Mahderao Janardhan.

While Stevens designed each sculptural detail, the models for the building’s
embellishments were undertaken by Professor Gomez and students of the Sir J.J. School
of Art (many of whom were Indian) under the supervision of the Principal John Griffiths,
and the building’s sculptural reliefs were executed by local carvers. The ground floor of
the building was constructured by various contractors, but the upper floors were made by
a local firm called Burjorji Rustomji Mistri and Company. And the list could certainly go
on as more research is done in this area. As Mehrotra says, 'There must be hundreds of
families which must have oral histories within their family histories that talk about how
their great-great-grandfather was someone who worked [on the VT]'. (To learn about the
important milestones in the history of Victoria Terminus, see also the interview with Jim
Masselos.)

Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus – 1996

More than 100 years after it was built, in 1996, Victoria Terminus was renamed
Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus after the Maratha warrior king Shivaji (1627/30–1680).
This happened only weeks after Bombay was renamed Mumbai by the Shiv Sena-
Bhartiya Janata Party–led state government in Maharashtra. VT became CST as the result
of a decision by then Union Minister for Railways, Suresh Kalmadi of the Indian
National Congress.

Commentators have suggested that VT’s renaming was only one incident in a game of
political one-upmanship between the Shiv Sena-BJP combine and the Congress.
Whatever the politics underpinning the change of name, its impact is perhaps best
articuled in this quote by railway historian G.D. Patwardhan: 'The name of a station,
much like an individual’s, is an indelible identification mark. Changing it, in a way, alters
our sense of history.' (Outlook, April 14, 1996) That said, the name VT is still etched in
the memory of most people in the city and while CST is gaining popularity, it will
probably take at least another generation for VT to be wiped out of public memory.

UNESCO World Heritage Site – 2004

UNESCO nominated Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus as a World Heritage Site in 2004. The
historic building, which houses the headquarters of the Central Railway (Great India
Peninsula Railway till Independence), and the original Platforms 1-4 of the terminus have
been conferred with World Heritage Site status. CST is one of the few monuments on the
list of World Heritage Sites List that is ‘living’ and is used by people on a daily basis.
Approximately 3.5 million people use it everyday and nearly 3,500 people work at the
station and in the administrative offices of the Central Railway.

The nomination file for the World Heritage Site application was prepared by the Indian
National Trust for Arts and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) Mumbai chapter on behalf of
the Central Railway. The INTACH team, led by conservation architect Vikas Dilawari,
documented the history of the CST building and terminus, and highlighted the urgent
need for its conservation. It also finetuned the conservation plan that had been drawn up
in 1997 by the Conservation Cell of Associated Cement Companies (then a Tata
Enterprise) for the Central Railway. In particular, it laid down some development
guidelines for the surrounding area or 'buffer zone', which stated, among other things,
that no new development be allowed in the area around CST that would in any way
threaten the building’s historic fabric.
In its decision to nominate CST as a World Heritage Site, UNESCO recommended that
'restoration be undertaken by appropriately trained and qualified companies and
specialists'. The Central Railway claims that the first phase of conservation work, as
recommended by ACC, lasted from 1997 to 2003, while the second phase was from 2004
to 2009. For the purposes of this article, we were not able to speak to a Central Railway
representative to find out about the exact nature of the work done. However, conservation
architect Abha Narain Lambah, who did a conservation audit report of the CST in 2013
for Rail India Technical and Economic Service (RITES), says, 'Structurally the building
has been well maintained by the railways and it has done minor maintenance work on the
building. But a holistic conservation of the structure is yet to begin.' (To learn more about
the use, misuse and oversuse of CST, see Interview with Abha Narain Lambah)

CST: Looking into the Future

In the last few years, the Railways has proposed new infrastructure projects that will be
built in and around the CST, in the buffer zone of this World Heritage Site. These include
the Mumbai Metro Line III, which will have a station for the proposed underground
metro at CST, and the CST-Panvel Fast Corridor, an elevated rail line that will go from
CST to the proposed Navi Mumbai International Airport. None of these projects have as
yet begun, and one can only wonder about whether the railways will work with trained
conservation architects to ensure that this historic site is carefully preserved and not
threatened in any way by the construction work that these projects will undoubtedly
involve.

Last but not the least, the Central Railway has been planning since 2005 to develop CST
into a ‘world-class railway station’. The proposed project, which was caught up in a
tangle with heritage authorities like Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC)
and UNESCO for three years, would not only ramp up the facilities and services at the
terminus, but also develop the railway land around CST commercially. A commercial
hub is planned in CST’s neighbouring buffer zones, including Wadi Bunder and P
D’Mello Road in the east, Metro Cinema in the west and the CST bus depot in the south.
This hub will include skyscrapers, hotels, offices, shopping complexes, etc. As this was
in direct violation of the UNESCO World Heritage Site guidelines, the project has been
stalled till now and according to this 2015 news report, seems to be put on hold.

What does all this mean for the citizens of Mumbai? Certainly, they would appreciate
more and better rail services and connections in a city where the rail networks are already
overburdened. But if CST were to be made into a ‘world-class station’, at what cost
would this happen? Should it be at the cost of the city’s historic fabric, of the
conservation and preservation of the city’s icon, the CST?

The new needn’t come at the cost of the old; colonial histories mustn’t be erased and
replaced with nativist ones; and a city mustn’t lose touch with its older self. In the case
ofMumbai, the CST and the British-era Gothic Revival buildings speak of an important
chapter in the city’s history, one which most Mumbaikars are not even aware of. What
we can do, perhaps the only thing we can do, is to constantly build pressure on our public
institutions, on the Central Railway in this case, to make the CST building a part of city
life, to 'restitch it as an urban marker with the city' (Lambah), to make it more accessible
to the public and to remind us all of the important role it has played in the city’s and the
country’s history.

References

Aklekar, Rajendra B. 2014 Halt Station India: The Dramatic Tale of the Nation’s First
Rail Lines. New Delhi: Rupa Publications India Pvt Ltd.

Balaram, Gunvanthi. 2003. The Times of India. Feburary 17. Online

athttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/CST-is-nominated-for-world-heritage-
status/articleshow/37703057.cms (viewed on April 19, 2016).

Banerjee, Sanjay. 2016. ‘Rly budget boost to CST-Panvel train corridor with airport
connectivity’The Times of India. February 26. Online
at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rly-budget-boost-to-CST-Panvel-train-
corridor-with-airport-connectivity/articleshow/51159284.cms (viewed on April 19,
2016).

Ghadyalpatil, Abhiram. 2015. ‘Work to begin on Mumbai Metro’s costliest corridor early
2016’.LiveMint. December 21. Online at
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/goEBOLtmlOBsmzshxWsOYI/Work-to-begin-on-
Mumbai-Metros-costliest-corridor-early-201.html (viewed on April 19, 2016).

ICOMOS. 2004. Evaluations of Cultural Properties. Online at

http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/117 (viewed on April 19, 2016).

London, Christopher W. Bombay Gothic. 2002. Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House.

Masselos, Jim. 2007. The City in Action: Bombay Struggles for Power. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.

Mehrotra, Rahul and Sharada Dwivedi. 2006. A City Icon: Victoria Terminus 1887 Now
Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus 1996. Bombay: Eminence Designs Pvt Ltd.

Prasad, Krishna. 1996. ‘What’s in a name?’ Outlook. February 14. Online at

http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/whats-in-a-name/200772 (viewed on April
19, 2016).

UNESCO. 2004. World Heritage Scanned Nomination. Online at

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/945/documents/ (viewed on April 19, 2016).