Parliament House, witness to history for the past 85 years, will
continue to be the home to the two houses of Parliament, with moves to have a
new building elsewhere being dropped now.
Conscious of the rich history and heritage of the Parliament House before and
after Independence, leaders across the political spectrum have opposed the
moves for a new Parliament House that led to their being nipped in the bud.
There is no official word about the shelving of plans, but nobody is talking
anymore about having an alternate site to house Parliament that has shown wear
and tear and needs repair.
Not only politicians and Parliamentarians, but conservationists too are opposed
to the idea of shifting Parliament House, calling it "absolutely
nonsense".
They are of the view that conservationists should be roped in to strengthen the
structure, which has a "rich history" attached to it.
It all started with Lok Sabha Secretary General T K Viswanathan talking about
constitution of a high-powered committee to suggest an alternative complex
because of apprehensions over the structural stability of the building
constructed in 1927.
The apprehensions arose in the wake of a devastating fire in Mantralaya, the
seat of Maharashtra Government, in Mumbai.
Adding to the problem was the kitchen in the Parliament House, where nearly 30
gas cylinders were in use which was considered a safety hazard. Besides the
changes and encroachments in the original design has endangered the structural
stability.
Viswanathan had said that the issue of the site, the size and the structure of
the alternative complex would be decided by the HPC to be set up by the
Speaker.
The Speaker has said that she will hold consultations with the Vice President
on forming a high-power committee to look into the safety of the Parliament
House building and study the need for constructing a new complex.
Political leaders, most of whom are members of either Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha,
say that everything should be done to decongest Parliament and both the Houses
should continue to work from there.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal hit the nail right on the
head when he frowned upon the idea of an alternative Parliament House. He is of
the view that the present heritage building should be retained.
Though Bansal said it was his personal opinion, another minister speaking on
condition of anonymity said that no one in the Government favoured any change.
Former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee said he was "little surprised
and shocked" on hearing about the move but was "highly respectful"
of those who will take a decision on the issue.
Noting that he has an emotional attachment, Chatterjee said he will be missing
the building if it does not house Parliament which has been a "symbol of
national unity and Parliamentary system".
Echoing the feelings of leaders of various hue, SP leader Mohan Singh said,
"The move is very sad. Parliament house is just like a monument and has an
international impact. Those who want to shift it are against the glamour of
Parliament. We are against the idea."
Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary says shifting will be a
"mistake".
"Parliament House is the symbol of Indian democracy. It is no ordinary
building. Designed by Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker, it represents the best
in traditional Indian art and architecture," he said.
In fact, at the meeting of the Heritage Committee of Parliament last week, the
moves for an alternative site and building for Parliament did not find any
favour with several members. Senior leaders L K Advani and Karan Singh are
among those on the Committee.
Now the Heritage Committee headed by Speaker Meira Kumar has decided to go in
for consultants to be hired by the CPWD to prepare a master-plan which would
ensure that only "core activity" is carried out in the building.
Prof A G K Menon, a leading architect, urban planner and conservation
consultant, currently a Professor at the School of Planning and Architecture
here, called the idea "absolutely nonsense".
"One cannot shift Parliament just because the building is weak. There have
been instances of much older buildings being repaired and conserved. I don't
know from where the idea of shifting Parliament came. It is a very bad
idea," Menon said.
Attara Kacheri, the heritage building which now houses Karnataka High Court, is
125 years old, much older than Parliament House. The building was repaired and
it is now very good, he said.
Mirroring his views, another conservationist Ratish Nanda said this is an
exciting opportunity to set standards for renovations and architectural design
for building extensions to iconic historic buildings of India.
"The circular building is not only heritage building of international
significance but it also stands amidst a potential World Heritage site of New
Delhi - the only complete British era city in India and the only new city built
anywhere in the world in the inter-world war years," Nanda, the Project
Director of Aga Khan Trust for Culture in India, said.
The Parliament House is a Grade I heritage structure, designed by Edwin Lutyens
and Hervert Baker. It has to be conserved in accordance with certain guidelines
and its specifications cannot be altered.
The Speaker was quoted by Parliament officials as observing that the
magnificent building was "weeping" as it has to bear much load with
heavy foot falls, new additions, including air conditioning of both the Houses
and heavy cabling which was not originally planned.
The Speaker had directed the secretariat to take all possible precautions and
steps in the backdrop of the Mantralaya fire in Mumbai which gutted a major
portion of the Maharashtra government headquarters.
