Bengal is a chemistry of land and water.

Its geographical terrain is formed by one of

the most phenomenal river systems of the world. The mighty Gangas and
Brahmaputra, while pouring into the plains of Bengal, wave an incredible land-water
mesh which has formed not only the life providing richness of the soil but also the
milieu to which most people are still bound spiritually. It is this mesh which is revered
in songs, folklore and popular myths in the most passionate manner as 'mother'. It is
this which has created homogeneity distinct from other parts of the sub-continent,
offering historically both an allure and an isolation.
-- K. K. Ashraf. ( Mimar, 1998)

The phenomenon of Bangladesh is a physical expression of the psyche of the Bengali people,
and their relationship to nature, land and the mighty rivers. They closely influence one another,
sometimes in harmony and very often not.
There is an undeniable strength in the continuity of traditional beliefs and practices. The
relationship to land is the key to this strength. The land is not only the source of nourishing but
also a strong bond that allows the notion of place and centring. Yet, the land itself is in a state
of continuous formation and reformation. The dependence is entirely on the volume and
direction of the waters that form this phenomenal fertile delta.
Another opposition gives the people their unique world view. The 'desert culture' of the Indian
subcontinent and the 'jungle culture' of the south-east Asia meet at their edges in Bengal. Both
influence the tradition of this land. Together with the shifting rivers, the fusion of cultures
creates a psyche that is always in a state of dynamic transition. Movements, traditions and
beliefs live together with the ability to adapt to shifts like the rivers. (see : F. Ameen, 1989)
The powerful and shifting intensities of the forces of nature that Bangladesh experiences today
are also responsible for obscuring the early history of the land. Almost the total absence of
ancient buildings and the destruction of whole cities have been the work of the mighty rivers
and the aggression of man against man.
Bangladesh, has never been a consistent political or economic entity. From the third century
th B.C. to the 12 century A.D., it was only a small part of the vast empires of the Hindu Mauryans,
Guptas, Palas and Senas. The eastern parts of the Bangladesh since the seventh century were
ruled by Buddhist rulers who were responsible for the growth of monasteries, 'stupas' and
temples.

In the 13 century, the invasion of the Muslim sultans of Delhi brought parts of north-west
Bengal under their rule. This shift in politics was further consolidated by the Mughals who
defeated independent rulers as well as those of Delhi. The Regional isolation was broken by
the new order resulting from the strong, uniform administration of the Mughals.
Bengal remained one of the richest provinces until the death of the last great Mughal emperor
Aurangzeb in 1707. Fifty years later this was followed by an event which changed the history
of this land dramatically : the arrival of the British. Attracted to the wealth of Bengal, the 'British
East India Company' made their entry to the sub-continent by wining the battle of 'Plassey',
near Dhaka on June 23, 1757.
Thus began the most systematic and organized economic exploitation that had been seen. For
the next 200 years, first as a trading company and then as a 'benevolent' administration, the
British robbed the resources and legendary wealth of the subcontinent. Bengal, 'a country filled
with rice, richness and flowers', became as the port of entry, the hardest hit victim.
With the rising nationalism, and a powerful unity, a certain mood began to emerge, at the end of
the Second World War. It became very clear that the British had few choices either leave with
dignity or be violently thrown out. The consolidation, confidence and aspirations of Indian
leaders like 'Gandhi' and 'Nehru' were strong and far sighted, they inspired an unwavering

stance in the people. However, years of living with the 'divide and rule' policy the colonial power
lived on in the district created between Hindu and Muslim. (see: F. Ameen, 1989)
The British retreat in 1947 was not entirely a victory; the parting shot was the engineering of an
unprecedented phenomenon. The subcontinent was divided into three parts. The majority of
Hindus continued to remain in smaller Hindustan (or India). Pakistan (the land of the pure) was
formed by two wings over fifteen hundred miles apart, and predominantly by Muslims.
The East Bengal became East Pakistan, where it had a little in common with its Western wing.
The only force that held them together being the fear of Hindu domination. For Bengal, not
much had changed. The British exploiters were replaced by the West Pakistan (see also: 2.2).
Over a period of nine months, between March and December of 1971, the Pakistan army
committed the genocide of over three million people. Another ten million had fled to India. With
the assistance of the Indian people, the Bengalis reorganized themselves and declared war
against Pakistan. At last, Pakistan army surrendered on December 16, 1971 and Bangladesh
got the independence and freedom had arrived.
In the turmoil following the departure of the British, the Indian subcontinent was divided into
two separate states, India and Pakistan, the latter into two entities, namely East and West
Pakistan. East Pakistan was dominated by its western partner, soon became a hotbed for the
autonomy movement. In 1959 the government decided to establish a second capital at Dhaka
in East Pakistan, an attempt to bridge the gap between the two. Each capital was invested with
responsibilities which were supposed to be interrelated. The secretariat was set up in
Islamabad while the general assembly was designed to be in Dhaka. (see: Al Radi, Salma.
1994). It was essential to pacify the rising discontent of the Bengalis with their alienation from
the process of decision making. The capital and the central government were based in the
western wing, the prejudice going beyond the merely symbolic.
The material law government of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, posed the intentions to create a
false sense of equality. The legislative capital would thus be at Dhaka and the executive capital
would be in Islamabad in the western wing. The second capital would thus be a temporary
capital. Sessions of the assembly had been held alternatively in Dhaka and Islamabad. The
entire assembly of ministers, secretaries and other assemblymen were actually meant to live in
hostels for brief periods when assembly would be in session. The intention of Ayub's
'monument' was different from what actually came to be, through Kahn's participation, an
expression of a genuine questioning of the essence of institutions.
However, the movements seeking independence continued to gain ground, and the ensuing
repression from Islamabad sparked off the civil war in 1971. With Indian support, East Pakistan
achieved independence, adopted the name of Bangladesh, and made Dhaka it's Capital.
The government at that time was considering three of the masters of modern architecture to
design the second capital, they were: Le Corbusier, Alvar Alto and Louis I. Kahn. They were
considered by the clients, as leaders of Architectural thought and respectful of its traditions and
principles. The distinguishing quality was that they were capable of expressing a way of life.
Conditions, and support from the fledgling architecture profession and its assertive mentor,
Mazharul Islam, favoured the selection of Kahn. A formal agreement was signed on January 9,
1964. The Professor, as he was affectionately called, began work on the project as early as
1962.