Is new Parliament building needed?

[1]

Architects and historians are aghast at the latest proposal of the government to create a second circular shaped Parliament building close to the existing iconic structure.

“Rajpath is an area of iconic and historic significance combining the grandeur and elegance of Rashtrapathi Bhavan, North and South Block, Parliament House and India Gate. It does not make any architectural sense to create a second look alike building,” pointed out renowned architect Gautam Bhatia.

Bhatia cited examples of several historic building, including White House in Washington DC and the German Bundestag building in Berlin, which have been completely retrofitted with all the latest gadgetry, including electronic security fire alarms, emergency escapes and nuclear bunkers without in any way of altering the architectural character of the original.

“Parliament building is a great landmark in the cultural history of the country and no new structure can hope to compete with the old image,” said Mr Bhatia who found the argument about the lack of space as being one of the reasons to exit from this building extremely disturbing.

“Just because former President Abdul Kalam was using only seven rooms in Rashtrapati Bhavan did not mean the rest of the 183 rooms should be abolished?” he added.

Architect Ratish Nanda, project director for Humayun Tomb and the Nizamuddin Basti Urban Renewal Initiative, also emphasised that the “circular Parliament building is not only a heritage building of international significance but it also stands amidst a potential World Heritage site of New Delhi which is the only complete British era city built in India”.

Several MPS are unhappy at this move. Dr Shashi Tharoor has pointed out that the Parliament building is one of the classics of Indian architecture and should be preserved for the use of Parliament, especially since it remains an indispensable part of parliamentary traditions.

The government, under the direction of Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar, is planning to set up a high powered committee which will decide whether to accept one of the two alternative sites being suggest
by the CPWD.