A Symbol of a Confident, 21st Century India

The inauguration of the new Parliament building last weekend is a matter of great pride for a resurgent, twenty-first century India. The political controversy surrounding both the building and the inauguration ceremony is not just unnecessary but utterly churlish.

First of all, there are several practical reasons why a new Parliament building was needed. The old building, completed in 1927, was not designed to serve as the national legislature of 1.4 billion people but as a limited colonial-era assembly. It is certainly a beautiful building worthy of preservation, but is clearly ageing and suffering from serious structural distress. There are problems with air-conditioning, electricals, office space and earthquake proofing.

Moreover, the seating capacity of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha can barely accommodate the current membership. Readers need only to look up images of any session with full attendance (say during the annual Budget speech) and it will be clear that Members of Parliament sit squeezed shoulder-to-shoulder like sardines in a can. This is no way to debate and legislate matters of national importance. There is also no scope for expansion to accommodate additional members as anticipated after the delimitation exercise of 2026.

The need for a new building was put forward over the years by senior leaders from across the political spectrum. In July 2012, for instance, the office of the then-Speaker of Lok Sabha Meira Kumari wrote a formal letter to Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, stating the following: “Considering all the above facts, Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha has accorded approval on the proposal for construction of a new Parliament Building.” The letter ends with the following request: “Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha has desired that this issue may be accorded top priority.”

In other words, the need for a new Parliament building was not suddenly brought up by the current government but was very much on the agenda before 2014. The real reason for opposing the new building, therefore, derives from a different source hidden among the Jamun trees - a deep-rooted inferiority complex that weights upon a section of India’s old elite. This is why the people who oppose the new Parliament are also the same that oppose the Central Vista project, the installation of the Netaji statue, upgraded government offices or even the introduction of high-speed trains. It is as if modern India must never attempt anything that may upset the ghosts of Edwin Lutyens or Herbert Baker.

This inferiority complex explains why post-Independence India has hardly built any iconic public buildings (perhaps with the exception of the Vidhana Soudha in Bengaluru). Even after seventy-five years, the iconic architectural symbols of virtually all Indian cities still rely on colonial-era or pre-colonial buildings: Taj Mahal in Agra, Victoria Memorial in Kolkata or Victoria Terminus (now CST) in Mumbai. How long must Indians continue to genuflect to Empress Victoria?

The new Parliament building, therefore, marks a break in our mindset. Here we have an edifice, built in scale, that combines the latest in modern functionality with a keen sense of civilizational continuity. Members of Parliament are provided comfortable seats and the latest available digital support. At the same time, the building showcases the best of India ranging from the beautifully carved guardian statues at each entrance to the thoughtfully curated artwork in the galleries.

The contrast with the earlier generation of post-Independence public architecture could not be greater. In order to appreciate this, readers should visit Krishi Bhawan or Shastri Bhawan, a stone’s throw from the new Parliament. The suffocating corridors, leaking toilets, exposed wiring, dripping air-conditioners, and dimly-lit cabins are hardly conducive for twenty-first century policy-making. Therefore, the new Parliament must be seen as part of a wider effort to upgrade the machinery of governance. The newly completed Vanijya Bhawan, that houses the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, is an example of the new generation of government offices. They reflect the aspirations of an emerging, confident India.

Before someone argues that these buildings are extravagantly expensive, let me point out that that the construction of the new Parliament building, by far the most expensive of these new buildings, is estimated to have cost around Rs.900 crores plus the cost of artwork, soft furnishings and other additions. While the final number is not yet available, the ballpark is hardly extravagant for such an important institution, and for a facility that is expected to be used for hundreds of years. The world’s fifth largest economy can afford this.

The irrational petulance of the opponents of the new Parliament building is best illustrated by their opposition even to the Sengol, the golden scepter that was used in 1947 to mark the transfer of power from British crown to the people of India. Relegated to a museum as a walking-stick privately gifted to Jawaharlal Nehru, the Sengol is being restored to its rightful place in the Lok Sabha chamber. The new Parliament and the Sengol together symbolize a confident, 21st century India that also takes pride in civilizational continuity.

(Sanjeev Sanyal is Member of Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. Opinions expressed are strictly personal)