Report of the committee

constituted
under the chairmanship
of the
Hon. Minister for art and culture
Shri Digambar Kamat
to finalize the lay out
to make the old Govrnment Secretariat building
at Panaji as a center of art and culture etc.
Submitted to the Hon. Chief Minister
Govt. of Goa
August 2006

Preface
The Old Government secretariat building (OGSB) has a special place in the
history of Goa and India. People of Goa view it as a gateway of democratic
rule after the end of 451 years of Portuguese occupation. The Portuguese
view it as a part of their colonial history. After the shifting of the legislative
assembly in 2000 followed by the transfer of offices of the council of
ministers and the secretariat at Porvorim in 2005, OGSB was identified by
our government as an ideal location to develop it as a center of art and
culture, under the supervision of the directorate of art and culture. The
present committee looked at various possibilities and also gave an
opportunity to the people and various organizations to send their
suggestions. This report is an outcome of the committees sincere efforts to
shape the destiny of this famous monument based on essential policy
commitments and specific design ideas within the available architectural
planning space. This report has to be considered in totality before its
implementation since it deals with a valuable and priceless piece of history.
On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to submit this report to the
Government of Goa, on the eve of Indias 59 th Independence day.

Shri Digambar Kamat, Minister for art & culture

Chairman
Panaji, Goa, August 10, 2006

Acknowledgements
The committee wishes to acknowledge with thanks the support extended by
the Hon. Chief Minister of Goa, Shri Pratapsinghji Rane, the Hon. Minister
for archaeology and museum, Shri Sudin Dhavalikar, the former secretary
(art & culture) Shri Pal, the director Shri M.V. Naik and the supporting staff
of the Dept. of art and culture; the OSD, art & culture, Shri Prasad
Lolienkar, special invitee Shri Shridhar Kamat Bambolkar, and all the
individuals and institutions who sent their valuable suggestions, and
comments in response to the appeal for their cooperation. Special thanks to
the researchers, architects, historians and institutions which volunteered with
historical documentation.

Index
Part I:- The background of the work and the functioning of the committee
I.1 Introduction
I. 2 The background of the work assigned to the committee
I.3 Constitution of the present committee and its mandate
I.4 Historical setting of the OGSB
I.5 The foundation of OGSB

I.6 The changes in the designation of OGSB since 1510

I.7 Structural alterations and functional changes of the OGSB
I.8 Heritage value of the OGSB
I.9 Heritage status of OGSB
I. 10 Steps taken by the government regarding the future of OGSB
I. 11 The functioning of the committee
I. 12 Methodology of the committee
Part II- Policy considerations
II. 1 Policy on conservation and restoration practices
II.2 Policy on privatization

II.3. Policy on management control

II.4 Policy on heritage status
II.5 Policy on conservation area/zone
II.6 Policy on waterfront conservation
II.7 Policy on revenue generation
II.8 Policy on admissions
II.9 Policy on branding and intellectual property
II.10 Policy on disaster management, accidents and security
Part III-Short listing of the ideas for adaptive reuse as a center of art & culture
Part IV- Design recommendations incorporating functional use
IV. 1 Creation of a new exclusive plaza
IV.2 Appropriate use of the available space in OGSB
IV. 2. 1 . Design proposals for the ground floor
IV. 2. 2 Design proposals for the first floor
IV. 2. 3 The verandah on North, East and western side
IV. 3 The recommended Exit points
IV.4 Design related general recommendations For the Future Consultants
Part V- Other recommendations
Part VI-Action plan with timelines
Part VII-Annexures No. 1-14

Part I
The background of the work and the
functioning of the committee

Part I
The background of the work and the functioning of the committee
I.1 Introduction:The historical and heritage importance of the building which is today known as the Old
Government Secretariat Building or Sachivalaya (Figure 1) ( hereinafter refered as
OGSB) has to be emphasized in relation to the capital citys historical context. The
building has become etched as a historic icon in the minds of the Goan people being a
seat of administrative and political power since 18 th century. The building housed the
legislative assembly of Goa under Union territory administration and later as a state till
the new assembly complex at Porvorim became operational in A.D. 2000. So, it has
acquired importance as former assembly or Vidhansabha building as well. It has been a
witness to the fascinating political events during the Portuguese colonial rule and after
the liberation of Goa. This adds a special and unique dimension to any idea of its
conservation, protection, renovation and adaptive reuse.
I. 2 The background of the work assigned to the committee
The Government of Goa had earlier appointed a committee under the chairmanship of
the Hon. Minister of PWD, archaeology and museums vide its notification No.
1.38/2003/Secy (archives), DAA, dt. 21 Oct. 2003. The committee had the secretary
archives as Vice chairman, director, archives as Member secretary and the chief
architect, PWD, The principal , Goa college of architecture, Mr. Mario Miranda, Mrs.
Dipti Salgaonkar, Mr. Gerald D Cunha, Mr. Ralph Desouza, Mr. K.A. Sadhale, Dr.
Nandkumar Kamat and Mr. Bal Mundkur as members. The formation of this
committee was necessitated by the fact that the government had decided to vacate the
OGSB to move to the new building at Porvorim. Fundacao oriente, a private

Portuguese trust sent a letter on 14 August 2003 offering help in restoration and
documentation work It identified six stages in the process:1. Research and documentation 2. Exhibition and ideas generation 3. Future purpose
4. Proposal for architectural renovation project 5. Architectural renovation works and
6. Functional renovation. Acting on this letter, the secretary (archives) moved a
proposal to the government on Sept, 8. 2003 after a discussion with Fundacao
oriente. The secretarys proposal had mooted following points:a. Research and documentation of the building
b. Generation of the ideas on what the building should be used for
c. Decision on future of the building
d. Proposal for detailed project for restoration
e. Execution of the restoration project
The secretary (archives) held meeting with Luis Marreiros, architect from Department
of Conservation-Instituto Portuguese do Patrimonio arquitectenico, Lisbon, on Dec.
4, 2003 in the presence of Mr. Sergio Mascarenhas and an inspection of OGSB took
place. The committee under the hon. Minister for archaeology & Museums met on
March 2, 2004, March 25, 2004 and September 9, 2004. This committee issued a
public appeal through advertisements in the local press for inviting ideas/suggestions
from the people. This exercise resulted in 58 representations which were scrutinized
by a subcommittee and the findings were presented in the meeting on 21 October,
2004. Most of the people had supported the idea of establishing a historical museum.
In the meantime a request was made by the Principal of Goa College of art to lend
them the OGSB premises. There was no further progress by the committee due to
organization of the first IFFI in Goa and subsequent political developments. The
council of ministers again returned to OGSB in February 2005. The issue was
reopened in March 2006. The government approved the hand over of the OGSB to
the department of art and culture and a decision was taken in April 2006 to appoint a
new committee under the hon. Minister of art & culture.

I.3 Constitution of the present committee and its mandate

The Government of Goa, constituted a new committee under the chairmanship of Hon.
Minister for art and culture vide its order No. DAC/EST/170/2006/08, dt. April 6, 2006
(Annexure 1 ) with the following members:1. Shri Jitendra Deshprabhu, M.L.A. Pernem, Vice chairman
and Dr. Subodh Kerkar, Dr. Nandkumar Kamat, Architect Gerald DCunha, Mr.
Mahendra Alvares as members with the secretary, art & culture as the member
secretary.
The terms of the reference as could be deduced from the order were as follows:1. To finalize the layout to make the old secretariat building at Panaji as a center of
art and culture, thereby developing museum, art gallery etc.
2. To finalize the layout and interior design plan
3. To advice the department of art and culture, Goa, Goa State infrastructure
development corporation and other work executing agencies from time to time on
the above aspects
Initially a time limit of two months was prescribed.
The committee wishes to provide a brief outline of the historical context of the OGSB
before focusing on its methodology and the recommendations.
I.4 Historical setting of the OGSB
The capital city of Goa- Panaji, an important minor port on Indias west coast, also
known as Panjim or Pangim, on the island of Tiswadi, in the North Goa district,
strategically located on the southern banks of the river Mandovi, in the low lying area
mostly reclaimed from the ancient estuarine flood plain has a rich ecological, political,
cultural and economic history dating back to 4 th century A.D. It was once a part of the
gaunkari or the communidade of Taleigao. It has seen the rule of the Imperial
Satavahanas, the Bhojas, the Chalukyas of Badami, the north Konkan Shilaharas, the
Kadambas of Goa, the Bahamanis, the Vijayanagara emperors and the Adilshahi of
Bijapur before itsconquest by Afonco de Albuquerque in A.D. 1510. The city was
liberated by the Indian army in its historic Operation Vijay on December 19, 1961
when the Portuguese colonial rule ended and Goa, Daman and Diu were integrated with
the motherland.

The topography of the city of Panaji has undergone massive changes in the past few
centuries. Most of these have occurred during the Portuguese colonial rule. But there are
a few pre-Portuguese landmarks such as the old secretariat building(OGSB). The GPS
location of OGSB is

(Figure 1 A satellite image of OGSB and its precincts)

I.5 The foundation of OGSB
Considering its geostrategic and military importance, Yusuf Adilkhan , the founder of
Deccans adilshahi dynasty at Bijapur in A.D. 1489. built a small fortified palace cum
castle , on the southern bank of Mandovi river during 15 th century after his rule was
extended to Goa in A.D. 1472. This was known as Pancha-yma-garrhy ( five
wonderful castles ). A garrison with 400 Mameluke soldiers under commander Yusuf
Gargi was stationed there in A.D. 1510. There are certain speculations about the nature
of the building at the time of its conquest by the Portuguese. These are as follows:1. It was founded at the base of a forested hillock ( conception hillock) in an
intertidal swampy area which does not have a base rock for a depth of 10 metres.
Probably it rested on a foundation of submerged teakwood/jambho wooden piles.
(Similar technology was used in A.D. 1633 to construct the Panaji-Ribandar
causeway). The original structural material could have been wood, locally
available laterite and hard close grained granite.
2. It was a fortified building but nothing is known about its typical
Deccan/Islamic/Turkish influenced defence architecture which was destroyed by
the Portuguese twice in attacks in A.D. 1510. But possibly it extended to cover
the present building of directorate of accounts , i.e. the Fazenda building.
3. It must have had a small wooden jetty attached to it.

4. It could have accommodated more than hundred people and upto 400 soldiers.
5. It could have been a temporary residence of Yusuf Adilshah during his visits to
Goa.
Since no scientific archaeological studies have been carried out so far by digging
trial trenches around the OGSB foundations to locate cultural/occupational layers/
interesting stratification of cultural and historical importance, it is difficult to
reconstruct the Pre-Portuguese history of the OGSB. However, the meticulous records
maintained by the Portuguese administrators/ chroniclers/archivists help us to have a
chronological idea of the OGSB during the Portuguese colonial period (1510-1961).
I.6 The changes in the designation of OGSB since 1510
Nomenclatural changes are bound to occur in the life of any historic building for
administrative, political or sentimental reasons. Since the Portuguese viewed the
Pancha-afasum-garhhi as a fortified palace of Yusuf adilshah- in 16 the century they
named it Castello do Hidalcao. During 17 th century, OGSB was known as Casas
dos Passos (Paco) de Pangim whereas in 19 th century, as the building became an
important landmark in the city- it was calle Palacio do governo geral de Pangim, or
simply Palacio do governo, or Palacio de Pangim. People also called it- Palacios
dos vicereis de Pangim and palacio de Idalcao. After liberation, the OGSB was known
as Secretariat building and Sachivalaya.
I.7 Structural alterations and functional changes of the OGSB
Several structural changes have occurred in the OSGB since 1510. These were required
to accommodate the functional changes.
(A) Structural alterations in the OGSB since 1510
As shown in Table 1 several structural alterations in the form of repairs, extensions,
renovations, modernizations have been done in the OGSB. These aspects would have to
be considered in any future renovation project.

Table 1 Chronology of alterations of OSGB

Year/period
1510
1615
1759-60
1760
1773
1815
1820
1831
1839

Alterations
Repairs of the burnt castle
Rebuilding
Extensive rebuilding
Addition of a chapel
Renovations
Repairs after a fire
Area around the building reclaimed
Change in ground floor floorings
Internal & external painting, Change in floorings

1886-7
1890

and renovation
Major Renovations
Addition of a garden and a pavement in front of

1900-01
1969-70
1978

Fazenda
Addition of Verandah facing the river
Addition of new wing and five more windows
Extension of rear verandah facing Abe Da Faria

2003

statue
Changes in the flooring of courtyard and external
painting

(B) Functional changes

(i)Primary uses
From a royal palace, a military station with garrison (till 1510), temporary headquarters
of the viceroys (till 1758) , permanent residence of the viceroys and governors,
(1759-1918) colonial administrative center (1918-1961) to government secretariat
(1961-2005) housing the legislative assembly of Goa , Daman and Diu under the union
territory administration (1964- May 1987) and as full fledged state assembly ( May
1987- March 2000)-the OGSB has undergone several functional changes. It has seen the
days of monarchy, republic, dictatorship, military rule and democratic governance.

(ii )Secondary uses

The premises were also used for housing Goa archives (1795-1953), Gallery of viceroys
and Governors of India (museum) (around 1800-1810), Blood Bank (1820) and the
Government Printing Press (1821).
I.8 Heritage value of the OGSB
Heritage criteria help heritage experts to look at the qualities and attributes places have to
qualify as heritage. So far Goa does not have notified objective and scientific criteria for
identifying places with heritage value. However in case of OSGB, its outstanding
heritage value can be considered on account of the following:1. As an archaeologically and historically important pre Portuguese site and one of
the first to be attacked and seized by the Portuguese in A.D. 1510
2. As a monument graced by important historic personalities like Prince of Wales
(1875), Goas first military Governor Maj. Gen. K.P.Candeth, first chief minister
D.B. Bandodkar, Dr. Jack de Sequeira etc.
3. As a monument witness to important political developments such as changes in
the governments, the freedom struggle, the liberation of Goa, the first hoisting of
the Indian national flag, popular agitations and people movements and a focal
point of peoples democratic aspirations
4. As Panajis most ancient monument and a major historic landmark
5. As a building with definite architectural and aesthetic importance
6. As a monument housing the legislative assembly of Goa, the cabinet
government/council of ministers and the old secretariat
I.9 Heritage status of OGSB
OSGB has not been declared as a protected monument under section 3 of the Goa ancient
monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1978.

I. 10 Steps taken by the government regarding the future of OGSB

The formation of the present committee was necessitated by the shifting of the council of
ministers and the secretariat offices to the new secretariat building at Porvorim. The
government was seized with this matter since September 2003

I. 11 The functioning of the committee:The committee held all its meetings at the conference hall of OGSB on April 26,
May 16, June 28, July 6, July 13 , July 24. The copies of minutes are enclosed (
Annexures 2 to 7 )

I. 12 Methodology of the committee:1. Reference to all the available historical and architectural documentation on
OGSB
The committee members studied the historical and architectural documentation on
OGSB made available to it and also prepared their own notes for the information of
the committee. A select bibliography is presented in the Annexure 8
2. Review of the work done by the previous committee:The committee took note of the work done by previous committee during 2003-04 on
basis of the records in the file 1/38/2003/Secy (Arch.)-conservation project for
Palacio idalcao which had been transferred to the directorate of art & culture.
3. Preparation of a working model of the OGSB
The committee decided to initially focus on and study the physical space available
for planning in the OSGB. On the request of the committee, Member, architect Mr.
Gerard DCunha prepared floor plans and a working model which were discussed and
subsequently referred to as and when necessary.

4. Discussion on specific points

The committee members threw in their rich experience of visits to museums, art
galleries in India and abroad , brought in the knowledge gained from reference to
published and Internet sources and discussed various ideas useful for making OGSB
as a center of art and culture
5. Inspection of the OGSB

The committee carried out inspection of both the floors to apprise itself about the
status of the OGSB and the availability of space.
6. Public participation
Before identifying the functional use, the committee decided to invite suggestions
from the members of the public about the reuse of the OGSB , by correspondence or
e-mail by releasing advertisements in the local press in April 2006. An e-mail account
artculturegoa@gmail.com was opened and specified. May 14, 2006 was given as the
last date.
8. Scrutiny of the public responses
The committee entrusted the work of scrutiny of public responses to the member Dr.
Nandkumar Kamat. A synopsis was prepared by Dr. Kamat , presented and discussed.
9. Preparation of the draft report
The committee took into consideration several ideas which could be accommodated
as per the spatial layout plan prepared by Mr. DCunha. On basis of these Mr.
DCunha prepared the design recommendations forming the architectural basis of the
draft report. A subcommittee comprising Mr. Dcunha, Dr. Kerkar and Dr. Kamat
with the OSD Mr. Prasad Lolienkar was formed to draft the report.
10. Finalization of the report
Notes giving specific ideas were submitted by members Dr. Nandkumar Kamat
(Annexure 9 ) and Dr. Subodh Kerkar ( Annexure 10 ). It was then decided by the
committee to finalize the report after discussing the final draft to be prepared by Dr.
Nandkumar Kamat on August 7 th.

Consistent with the above methodology the committee has made its
recommendations in Part-II (policy specific), III (functional use), IV (design
ideas with functional use), V (other aspects) and VI (an action plan). The last
Part VII includes the relevant Annexures.

Part II deals with policy considerations which need to be acted upon at specific
stages of implementation,
Part III deals with shortlisting of ideas which were essential for identifying the
proposed functional use of OGSB.
Part IV focuses on the design considerations based on ideas identified and
shortlisted in Part III and inclusive of the area around the OGSB and the interiors on
the ground and the first floor.
Part V lists other recommendations which address mainly
engineering/housekeeping/maintenance issues of vital importance to the
physical/structural integrity and longevity of OGSB and its proposed cultural
property/assets.
Part VI presents an action plan with action points and time frame which the
committee perceived to be appropriate as per the standard government
procedure.

Part II
Policy considerations

Part II
Policy considerations
Many good ideas fail because either the policies are non existent or considered
dispensable. Policies based on objective considerations if laid down right at the inception
of any project ensure clarity and reasonable consistency in government decision making
irrespective of the change in the guard. Considering the nature of the work proposed for
OGSB and its subsequent short term and long term impacts/implications, the committee
strongly feels that the Government of Goa needs to follow the following policy
guidelines regarding conservation, restoration, renovation, adaptive use, management etc,
of OGSB. These policies need to be made clear and implemented at specific stages of
project implementation.
II.1 Policy on conservation and restoration practices:- Notwithstanding any other
code , law or practice in vogue, the Government of Goa need to abide by the Venice
charter , 1966 ( International charter for the conservation of monuments and sites )
( Annexure 11 ). As a benchmark the government could also be guided by the
general principles and conservation processes followed in New Zealand (Annexure
12 ) as a model. The findings and recommendations of the seminar on conservation of

world heritage monuments in Old Goa (Dec. 11-14, 1995), organized by

archaeological survey of India (ASI), Consulate general of Portugal in Goa and
Indian heritage society (Goa Chapter) are extremely important and relevant for
undertaking any renovation work associated with OGSB and need to be referred to as
applicable (Annexure 13 ) .
II.2 Policy on privatization: The Government of Goa considers the OGSB as an
important national and public asset which would not be entrusted for the purpose of
management or maintenance by any deed or contract_in part or in whole to any
private party or a profit seeking agency or a not for profit Non governmental
organization under any circumstances. Exceptions are to be made only for running
specific services such as the museum/art shop and the caf with strict controls.
II.3 Policy on management control:-The Government would at all times maintain
full and transparent control over OGSB either directly through directorate of art and
culture (DOAC) or through a statutorily established OGSB management body under
the DOAC, fully accountable to DOAC, the state legislature and the CAG
II.4 Policy on heritage status:- The government would take steps, if found
necessary, to notify OGSB as a protected monument under section 3 of the Goa
ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1978
II.5 Policy on conservation area:-The government would be committed to retain
the conservation status of the area around OGSB and view the setting of this historic
edifice from the specific urban topographic context and take firm steps to avoid
aesthetic/visual pollution by maintaining strict developmental controls
II.6 Policy on waterfront conservation:-The government would be committed to
maintain, by periodic surveillance and monitoring, the waterfront and the estuarine
channel of river Mandovi directly in front of OGSB by not permitting activities
which may detrimental to or spoil the aesthetic value of OGSB or endanger its
foundation or the superstructure directly or indirectly
II.7 Policy on revenue generation:-The government would not view the OGSB after
the completion of the proposed renovation / adaptive reuse project as a revenue
generating venture. The government may consider creation of a corpus of fund for the
management of the OGSB from public and private contributions. The government

would strive to follow the best management practices aimed at a no profit, no loss
in running the renovated OGSB by formulating suitable guidelines.
II.8 Policy on admissions:-The government within the delimited parameters of
security would follow a non discriminatory and equitable approach in permitting the
entrance of the people in the renovated OGSB and making available the use of the
facilities proposed to be created. The OGSB would be strictly a alcohol and tobacco
free zone.
II.9 Policy on branding and intellectual property:- The government would
consider OGSB as a brand with heritage value and take steps to duly register all
artistic logos, symbols, designations, nomenclatures, design ideas, creative products ,
souvenirs, publications and OGSB specific artistic merchandise as trademarks and
copyrights, as applicable under the relevant legislations to protect the intellectual
property associated with or generated by OGSB
II.10 Policy on disaster management, accidents and security:- Considering the
perceived threats to OGSB from natural causes such as earthquakes, storms,
lightening, fires, flooding, ground subduction and manmade causes such as electric
short circuiting, explosions, terrorist attacks, criminal trespass and thefts-the
government would take expert opinion to deal with any type of disaster or accident
and put in practice an effective plan and fail safe system to avert any danger to the
OGSB, its cultural property, the service staff and visitors.

Part III
Short listing of the ideas

Part III
Short listing of the ideas
The committee studied the available space in OGSB with respect to the architectural
drawings and its own inspection and then considered several ideas which could be
appropriate for the design space available. The design considerations have been included
in Part IV.
Three sets of ideas were taken into consideration by the committee:1. Ideas which emerged from the work of the previous committee on 21 Oct. 2004
2. Ideas received from the people in response to the appeal by May 2006
3. Ideas contributed by the members during various meetings since April 2006
The details of these are as follows:1. From the work of the previous committee (File No. 1/38/2003/Secy (Arch)), it
was seen that out of 58 representations received 44 had suggested establishing a
museum with some other facilities. Only two recommendations were made for art
gallery. Among the supporters of museum, 35 had opted for a historical museum.
2. In response to the appeal by this committee, altogether 60 responses were
received between April 25 to May 16, 2006. These included six NGOs and two
consultants. Among these 30 were in writing and 30 by e-mail. Only six responses
included some details. Strong opposition to the involvement of Fundacao Oriente or any
other foreign agency in any work related to the reuse/restoration. Synopsis of these

responses is included in Annexure 15 and the taxonomy of the ideas is given in text Box
1
Box 1
Taxonomy of ideas based on peoples suggestions:(Listing is random and does not indicate any ranking/priority/weightage)
I. Galleries:1.
Eminent Goans gallery (Goans hall of fame), 2. Gallery of history
I. 1 Art Gallery/centre
1.
Modern contemporary art gallery, 2. Art center and permanent art gallery
3.Art gallery of international standards, 4. Adilshah international center for art and culture with four art galleries,
5. Art and cultural center
II. Displays:1.
Display of handicrafts, musical instruments
2.
Display of post liberation development of Goa
III. Shows:1.
Light and sound shows
IV. Museum:1.Museum of antiques, photos, documents, 2. A living museum of art, culture, crafts
3.
Anthropological museum. 4. Folk museum, 5. Museum of pre-Portuguese history
6.
Museum on freedom struggle of Goa, 7. Museum for contemporary art
8.
Museum of Goan heritage and art., 9.Navigational history
10. History of Buddhism in Goa, 11. Film and music museum cum archives
12. History of Marathi literature
V. Exhibitions:1.
Art & craft exhibitions
2.
Permanent exhibition center for traditional made in Goa items and products
VI. Other:Library, art material shop, mini theatre, music shop, Government information counter, Public grievance desk,
Womens cultural center, , training center for panchayat members, MLAs, , handicrafts center, An interactive space
for children

2. Members contributed ideas such as establishment of a permanent display on

history of freedom struggle of Goa, Goan cultural and ethnographic museum, a
hall of fame of eminent Goans, traditional crafts gallery, mini theatre, reading
room, a contemporary art gallery for permanent and visiting art exhibitions,
installation and video art and provision of a caf in the verandah.
Selection of appropriate ideas:The criteria adopted was based on the mandate of the committee to design the use of
OGSB as a center of art & culture and make it a popular, informative, educative,
creative and vibrant place attracting the Goans and the visitors to the state. As far as
possible the committee decided to omit activities mandated / planned by other
organizations such as Kala Akademy, Goa International center, Goa Konkani
Akademy, State central library, Goa University and the Goa Museum to avoid
duplication.

The committee finally identified the following ideas appropriate for the
functional reuse of OGSB:1. A Goan cultural and ethnographic museum showcasing the significant facets of
Goas ethnic heritage and cultural history through the ages
2. A permanent display on Goas freedom struggle from 16 th century
3. A gallery of eminent Goans-or a Goan hall of fame
4. A contemporary modern art gallery with space for permanent and visitors display
5. A Goan traditional crafts gallery
6. A modern mini theatre ( for screening films, staging plays)
7. Office space for the directorate of art and culture and the proposed administrative
offices
8. Meeting rooms with basic facilities for artists, writers, scholars
9. A reading room with focus on books & journals on art & culture
10. A conference hall and meeting room for small public functions
11. A museum shop (for souvenirs, publications etc.)
12. A caf overlooking the Mandovi waterfront
These ideas have been incorporated by indicating the allocation of space in the design
recommendations in Part IV.

Part IV
Design recommendations
incorporating functional use

Part IV

Design recommendations incorporating functional use

IV. 1 Creation of a new exclusive plaza
After restoration/ renovation and adaptive reuse of OGSB it would be a hub of activities
necessitating better movement of the traffic, provision of parking and creation of more
open space. The entry and exit points would be difficult to manage if these aspects are
not considered.
The committee recommends that for OGSB to have its specific identity certain changes
are required in the surrounding conservation zone. These are indicated in the Proposed
site plan (refer plan A) . Hereafter, the whole area after considering these recommended
changes has been tentatively designated as the OGSB complex or simply the
complex.
City Context
There are roads on all 4 sides of OGSB making it a traffic island. This was felt to be
detrimental to the functioning of a Public building and certain changes are suggested.
1. A Public square (plaza) be created by closing the road on the west and re-routing
the traffic. This proposal has been made in the past by various consultants. The
Public Square also facilitates pedestrian movement from the city of Panjim to
enter this building.
2. Buffer space be created on the South facing the Fazenda.

3. Bus Parking bays need to be created near Dayanand Bandodkar statue on the East
permitting Public transport access for visitors from outside Panjim.
4. The Public squares and buffers to be sheltered from the noise of traffic with the
help of a curtain of well selected trees.
5. Adequate Parking needs to be provided for all vehicular accesses for visitors to
the building after ensuring proper security checks.
IV.2 Appropriate use of the available space in OGSB
The OGSB occupies an area of 5283 sq. m. The built area on ground floor covers 2704
and on the first floor 2579 sq. m. Internal courtyards on ground floor enclose 200 sq. m.
The colonnaded verandahs on the ground floor cover 280 sq. m and on first floor on
north, east and west side, 131 sq. m. The closed area on the ground floor is 2224 sq. m.
The wing added in 1970s has an area of 441 sq. m. on the ground floor and 385 sq. m. on
the first floor. This modern alteration exclusively in RCC is not considered to have any
heritage value.
This building is of great historic significance and Heritage value. As detailed in Table 1
there have been many modifications and additions made which are detrimental to the
value of the building and these may have to be dismantled. Moreover the courtyards
occupying 200 sq. m. area need to be restored. Plan B & C are recommended as the
basic restored structure.
IV. 2. 1 . Design proposals for the ground floor (refer to Plan D)
The ground floor occupies 2704 sq. m. the committee took into account various entry
and exit points, the height of the rooms and halls and worked out a visitor movement
plan. The movement is indicated by lines with arrowheads in Plan D.
(a) The rooms on the lower level are generally small and of a lower height
and affected with dampness. Hence the allocation of space has been made
keeping in mind these constraints.
(b) The Wing on the East has been built in 1971 and fits in admirably with
the old structure. The committee proposes that this non-heritage part
within the same building profile be used for the following:(I) Modern mini theatre which could cater to films, lectures and theatre arts.

(c ) Certain rooms facing the Public Square are allocated to be used for the
Artistic and Cultural advancement of all sections and age groups of society-The
committee specifically proposes the use as
(II) Meeting/ study rooms for artists, writers and scholars
(III) A library cum reading room with books and journals on art and culture
1. The committee proposes that the main access to OGSB needs to be
provided from the South (opposite Fazenda (dir. Of Accounts building)
into the courtyard. From the courtyard the visitor proceeds through a series
of Galleries and returns back into the courtyard. The committee
recommends that due to the nature of the rooms, these galleries be
permanent ones. The space could be allocated for :(IV)

A Goan cultural and ethnographic museum

showcasing the significant facets of Goas ethnic
heritage and cultural history through the ages

(V)

A permanent display on Goas freedom struggle

from 16 th century

Two banks of toilets are suggested within the building and a service core with a
service lift is suggested on the North Western corner within the fabric of the
existing building.

The courtyard could be used as a mini sculpture gallery

The smaller rooms on the South are suggested for providing suitable and adequate
office space for the directorate of art and culture, for other/proposed
administrative functions of the building, computer room and store rooms

IV. 2. 2 Design proposals for the first floor (refer Plan E)

1.

The first floor has an area of 2579 sq. m. It has much larger spaces
which the committee has identified for the following specific uses:( VI) A gallery of eminent Goans-or a Goan hall of fame
(VII) A contemporary modern art gallery with space for
permanent and visitors display
( VIII) A Goan traditional crafts gallery
(IX) A museum shop/ art & crafts shop

(X) A public conference hall equipped with all modern

facilities
(XI) A meeting room for public functions
IV. 2. 3 The Verandah on North, East and western side
The Verandah on the river side is suggested to be converted into
(XII) a caf overlooking the Mandovi waterfront also giving access to temporary
galleries. This Verandah needs to have an outside access permitting it to be open till
later in the evening.
IV. 3 The recommended Exit points
The suggested exit from the OGSB is on the West through the elegant stairs under
the barrel vault. This exit is into the Public Square. This is also suggested to be a
limited access to the Museum shop and caf.
IV.4 Design related general recommendations For the Future Consultants
1. Disability Access to the part of the brief.
2. Dampness control measures to be part of the brief.
3. Smoke detectors, fire fighting installations, emergency exits as per the code in
any developed country/international standards.
4. The Fazenda (Dir. Of accounts) building needs to be included in the master plan
for the OGSB complex and the underground access between the two buildings be
reopened.
5. Careful study of the load bearing capacity of the Verandah and its strengthening.
Examining the feasibility of a pedestrian over-bridge from the caf area to the river
front promenade.

Part V
Other recommendations

Part V
Other recommendations
a. Immediate maintenance needs:- pending the approval of this report the
government needs to take urgent interim steps to maintain the OGSB in a
healthy state by keeping the premises clean, rodent free and safe from
hazards of electric short circuits, fires etc.
b. Long term maintenance needs :- these need to be considered for a time
span of a minimum 10 25 years and must form part of the engineering
and the OGSB complex management brief.
c. Structural safety of the building :- the committee recommends that the
structural integrity and safety of the building needs to be checked
thoroughly considering a very old foundation and the extensive use of
wood in the superstructure. Besides high humidity causes dampness and
corrosion.
d. Relaying of electrical works, plumbing , sewage lines etc.:- On basis of
a detail inspection relaying of electrical works, plumbing, drainage,
sewage lines would have to be carried out where necessary.
e. Water and energy efficient management:-Rain water harvesting is
possible by partly capturing , storing and utilizing the estimated 13 million
litres of rainwater draining from the roof annually. Solar photovoltaic

systems could be installed on the rooftop to capture solar energy, if found

feasible.
f. Protection of precious art work and other exhibits/displays from
dampness, sea salt, biodeterioration:- Special care would have to be
taken to install HVAC systems with dust, temperature and humidity
controls.
g. Pest and rodent control:- The underground drains which open out to the
river are infested with rodents requiring anti rodent measures.
h. Fire prevention and control :- A detail fire prevention and management
plan would have to be prepared and executed by incorporating fire
retardant materials in various designs, in electric wiring, paints and by
providing smoke detectors, fire alarms, providing fire extinguishers,
hydrants and fire exits.
i. Insurance cover :- Government needs to verify the feasibility of insuring
the OGSB and the proposed facilities and cultural property to be housed
therein based on risk analysis. The insurance cover also needs to be
extended to the visiting art/crafts exhibitions.
j. Catering activities:- Considering the fire/ LPG cylinder explosion hazard
the space to be allotted for catering /kitchen needs to be approved by the
fire department and must incorporate necessary safety facilities.

Part VI
Action plan with specific timelines

Part VI
Action plan with specific timelines
The committee strongly recommends the government to follow the standard legal
procedures in a transparent manner to select under the overall supervision/guidance of
the directorate of art and culture, a competent, qualified and experienced consulting
agency through an open competition, to prepare a Detail Architectural (structural and
functional) Renovation Project Report (DARPR) on basis of the recommendations
made by this committee in Part IV and V as major elements of its terms of reference.
DARPR needs to include the practical technical details as well as financial estimates. The
action plan leading to DARPR is given in table 2. The committee foresees a timespan of
a minimum eight months from the date of submission of this report to achieve this
objective. The government needs to earmark specific quantum of funds for the
preparation of DARPR. The directorate of art and culture needs to be consulted by
GSIDC at the stage of framing the terms of reference, the selection of the consulting
agency and later at each and every stage of preparation, finalization and execution of
DARPR and further needs to be assigned a specific pivotal role in supervising the
management of the renovated OGSB. The committee also recommends that the policies
included in Part II of this report need to be in place in advance of commissioning of the
renovated OGSB.

Table 2 Action plan leading to the detail Architectural renovation

project report (DARPR)
Contemplated
action
Submission and
Approval of
the present
report
Setting the
terms and
conditions and
inviting open
bids to prepare
a detail
renovation
project report
Presentation on
the bids by the
shortlisted
parties
Preparation of
the draft project
report (DPR)
and its public
release
Presentation of
the final report
Execution of
the final report

Agency
identified
Goa Cabinet

Timeline

GSIDC and
Dir. Of art &
culture
(DOAC) in
consultation
with the
committee

One month

Open
competitive
bidding to hire
the best
professionals

-as above-

One month

Selection of the
best consultant

-the selected
consulting
agency

Three months

Critique and
modifications
of the draft
DARPR

-as above and

Govt. agencies
By the GSIDC
under the
supervision of
DOAC

three months

Approval of the
report
Issue of the
work orders

One month

Within a month
of approval of
DARPR

Expected
outcome
First stage in
implementation

Annexure 8
Select references and notes :1.

Bothelo Remigio (1974) traveling through time, a historical guide of Goa. He cites the reference
of Portuguese philologist Gonsalves Cardoso (journal de viagens, Vol. I, p. 3), says that the word
Pongy derives from panch yma afsumgary or five wonderful castles where used to live the
Muslim king Ismail Eadl-shah and his wives.

2.

Antonio de Menezes , Historical notes on Goa, 1978, gives some details of Adil Khan palace (pp.
12-16) with two interesting wood cuts of 19 th century.

3. Shenoy Goembab-Shenoy Goembabali Barapaval, Sataravem pustok, -Albuquerkan Goem Koshe

Zikhale? (1955), Gomantak printing Press, Girgaum, Bombay ( In Konkani), Goembab gives
information on the first attack on the Panaji castlre by Antonio Noronha. The structure was burnt
in this attack. After Albuquerque retreated and anchored in Mandovi, adilshah fortified the castle
with 50 turkish soldiers, 300 cavalarymen and 2000 soldiers and brought Cannons to fire at the
Portuguese armada (March 1510). A fierce battle took place on June 14 when Albuquerque
himself led 400 soldiers in a surprise attack at dawn on the castle. The Portuguese captured the
castle. The Muslim infantry took flight through a secret escape route. The castle and houses
around were burnt by the Portuguese.
4.

Kamat Nandkumar , Gopakapattana through the ages, In Goan society through the ages, Ed. B.S.
Shastry, Asian Publication services, New Delhi, 1987. Pp. 251-269. The author has given the
ancient topography of Tiswadi island, Panaji and surrounding area and has traced back the history
of Panaji to 4 th century A.D.

5.

Fonseca J. N. de An historical and archaeological sketch of city of Goa, Asian educational

services, New delhi, 1986 edition of the 1878 original. Fonseca has given detail information on
Abdul Muzaffar Yususf Adil shah (p. 131, footnote). He was the son of Agao murad, Sultan of
Turks, from the town of Sava in Iran (Persia) . He arrived in India in 1451 A.D. and rose from a
simple soldier to commanding position of royal bodyguard under the Bahamani minister Khvaja
Muhammad Gawan. He was given the title of Adil Khan and was made the governor of
Daulatabad and afterwards of Bijapur where in 1489 he founded Adilshahi.

6.

Pereira, Gerald A. An outline of Pre-Portuguese history of Goa, 1973. Pereira quotes VarthemaThe fortress at Panjim was under the charge of a Mohammedan commander who had 400 soldiers
(mamelukes) with him

7.

Alvares Claude (ed.) Fish curry and rice, a source book on Goa, its ecology and life-style- The
Goa Foundation, Mapusa, Revised fourth edition, 2002. Percival Noronha has given an authentic
history of the city of Panaji in his article Panjim:Princess of Mandovi, pp. 280-285.

8. Shankhwalkar R. & Gracias F. Historical and architectural documentation on OGSB a project

sponsored by Fundacao Oriente., 2005.

Annexure 11
The Venice Charter
INTERNATIONAL CHARTER FOR THE CONSERVATION
AND RESTORATION OF MONUMENTS AND SITES
[Preamble]

Imbued with a message from the past, the historic monuments of

generations of people remain to the present day as living witnesses of their
age-old traditions. People are becoming more and more conscious of the
unity of human values and regard ancient monuments as a common
heritage. The common responsibility to safeguard them for future
generations is recognized. It is our duty to hand them on in the full
richness of their authenticity.
It is essential that the principles guiding the preservation and restoration of
ancient buildings should be agreed and be laid down on an international
basis, with each country being responsible for applying the plan within the
framework of its own culture and traditions.
By defining these basic principles for the first time, the Athens Charter of
1931 contributed towards the development of an extensive international
movement which has assumed concrete form in national documents, in the
work of ICOM and UNESCO and in the establishment by the latter of the
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration
of Cultural Property. Increasing awareness and critical study have been
brought to bear on problems which have continually become more
complex and varied; now the time has come to examine the Charter afresh
in order to make a thorough study of the principles involved and to enlarge
its scope in a new document.
Accordingly, the IInd International Congress of Architects and
Technicians of Historic Monuments, which met in Venice from May 25th
to 31st 1964, approved the following text:

DEFINITIONS
ARTICLE 1. The concept of an historic monument embraces not only the
single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is
found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development
or an historic event. This applies not only to great works of art but also to
more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance
with the passing of time.

ARTICLE 2. The conservation and restoration of monuments must have

recourse to all the sciences and techniques which can contribute to the
study and safeguarding of the architectural heritage.

AIM
ARTICLE 3. The intention in conserving and restoring monuments is to
safeguard them no less as works of art than as historical evidence.

CONSERVATION
ARTICLE 4. It is essential to the conservation of monuments that they be
maintained on a permanent basis.
ARTICLE 5. The conservation of monuments is always facilitated by
making use of them for some socially useful purpose. Such use is
therefore desirable but it must not change the lay-out or decoration of the
building. It is within these limits only that modifications demanded by a
change of function should be envisaged and may be permitted.
ARTICLE 6. The conservation of a monument implies preserving a setting
which is not out of scale. Wherever the traditional setting exists, it must be
kept. No new construction, demolition or modification which would alter
the relations of mass and color must be allowed.
ARTICLE 7. A monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears
witness and from the setting in which it occurs. The moving of all or part
of a monument cannot be allowed except where the safeguarding of that
monument demands it or where it is justified by national or international
interest of paramount importance.
ARTICLE 8. Items of sculpture, painting or decoration which form an
integral part of a monument may only be removed from it if this is the sole
means of ensuring their preservation.

RESTORATION
ARTICLE 9. The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation.
Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the
monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic
documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins, and in this
case moreover any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct
from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp.
The restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an
archaeological and historical study of the monument.

ARTICLE 10. Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the

consolidation of a monument can be achieved by the use of any modem
technique for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which has
been shown by scientific data and proved by experience.
ARTICLE 11. The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a
monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a
restoration. When a building includes the superimposed work of different
periods, the revealing of the underlying state can only be justified in
exceptional circumstances and when what is removed is of little interest
and the material which is brought to light is of great historical,
archaeological or aesthetic value, and its state of preservation good
enough to justify the action. Evaluation of the importance of the elements
involved and the decision as to what may be destroyed cannot rest solely
on the individual in charge of the work.
ARTICLE 12. Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously
with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the
original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence.
ARTICLE 13. Additions cannot be allowed except in so far as they do not
detract from the interesting parts of the building, its traditional setting, the
balance of its composition and its relation with its surroundings.

HISTORIC SITES
ARTICLE 14. The sites of monuments must be the object of special care in
order to safeguard their integrity and ensure that they are cleared and
presented in a seemly manner. The work of conservation and restoration
carried out in such places should be inspired by the principles set forth in
the foregoing articles.

EXCAVATIONS
ARTICLE 15. Excavations should be carried out in accordance with
scientific standards and the recommendation defining international
principles to be applied in the case of archaeological excavation adopted
by UNESCO in 1956.
Ruins must be maintained and measures necessary for the permanent
conservation and protection of architectural features and of objects
discovered must be taken. Furthermore, every means must be taken to
facilitate the understanding of the monument and to reveal it without ever
distorting its meaning.

All reconstruction work should however be ruled out "a priori." Only
anastylosis, that is to say, the reassembling of existing but dismembered
parts can be permitted. The material used for integration should always be
recognizable and its use should be the least that will ensure the
conservation of a monument and the reinstatement of its form.

PUBLICATION
ARTICLE 16. In all works of preservation, restoration or excavation, there
should always be precise documentation in the form of analytical and
critical reports, illustrated with drawings and photographs. Every stage of
the work of clearing, consolidation, rearrangement and integration, as well
as technical and formal features identified during the course of the work,
should be included. This record should be placed in the archives of a
public institution and made available to research workers. It is
recommended that the report should be published.