New Parliament House plans shelved

There is no official word about the shelving of plans, but nobody is talking anymore about having an alternate site to house Parliament.
New Parliament House plans shelved

Parliament House, witness to history for the past 85 years, willcontinue to be the home to the two houses of Parliament, with moves to have anew building elsewhere being dropped now.
Conscious of the rich history and heritage of the Parliament House before andafter Independence, leaders across the political spectrum have opposed themoves 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 talkinganymore about having an alternate site to house Parliament that has shown wearand tear and needs repair.
Not only politicians and Parliamentarians, but conservationists too are opposedto the idea of shifting Parliament House, calling it "absolutelynonsense".
They are of the view that conservationists should be roped in to strengthen thestructure, which has a "rich history" attached to it.
It all started with Lok Sabha Secretary General T K Viswanathan talking aboutconstitution of a high-powered committee to suggest an alternative complexbecause of apprehensions over the structural stability of the buildingconstructed in 1927.
The apprehensions arose in the wake of a devastating fire in Mantralaya, theseat of Maharashtra Government, in Mumbai.
Adding to the problem was the kitchen in the Parliament House, where nearly 30gas cylinders were in use which was considered a safety hazard. Besides thechanges and encroachments in the original design has endangered the structuralstability.
Viswanathan had said that the issue of the site, the size and the structure ofthe alternative complex would be decided by the HPC to be set up by theSpeaker.
The Speaker has said that she will hold consultations with the Vice Presidenton forming a high-power committee to look into the safety of the ParliamentHouse 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 Housesshould continue to work from there.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal hit the nail right on thehead when he frowned upon the idea of an alternative Parliament House. He is ofthe view that the present heritage building should be retained.
Though Bansal said it was his personal opinion, another minister speaking oncondition of anonymity said that no one in the Government favoured any change.
Former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee said he was "little surprisedand 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 missingthe building if it does not house Parliament which has been a "symbol ofnational 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 aninternational impact. Those who want to shift it are against the glamour ofParliament. 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 ordinarybuilding. Designed by Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker, it represents the bestin traditional Indian art and architecture," he said.
In fact, at the meeting of the Heritage Committee of Parliament last week, themoves for an alternative site and building for Parliament did not find anyfavour with several members. Senior leaders L K Advani and Karan Singh areamong those on the Committee.
Now the Heritage Committee headed by Speaker Meira Kumar has decided to go infor consultants to be hired by the CPWD to prepare a master-plan which wouldensure that only "core activity" is carried out in the building.
Prof A G K Menon, a leading architect, urban planner and conservationconsultant, currently a Professor at the School of Planning and Architecturehere, called the idea "absolutely nonsense".
"One cannot shift Parliament just because the building is weak. There havebeen instances of much older buildings being repaired and conserved. I don'tknow from where the idea of shifting Parliament came. It is a very badidea," Menon said.
Attara Kacheri, the heritage building which now houses Karnataka High Court, is125 years old, much older than Parliament House. The building was repaired andit is now very good, he said.
Mirroring his views, another conservationist Ratish Nanda said this is anexciting opportunity to set standards for renovations and architectural designfor building extensions to iconic historic buildings of India.
"The circular building is not only heritage building of internationalsignificance but it also stands amidst a potential World Heritage site of NewDelhi - the only complete British era city in India and the only new city builtanywhere in the world in the inter-world war years," Nanda, the ProjectDirector of Aga Khan Trust for Culture in India, said.
The Parliament House is a Grade I heritage structure, designed by Edwin Lutyensand Hervert Baker. It has to be conserved in accordance with certain guidelinesand its specifications cannot be altered.
The Speaker was quoted by Parliament officials as observing that themagnificent building was "weeping" as it has to bear much load withheavy foot falls, new additions, including air conditioning of both the Housesand heavy cabling which was not originally planned.
The Speaker had directed the secretariat to take all possible precautions andsteps in the backdrop of the Mantralaya fire in Mumbai which gutted a majorportion of the Maharashtra government headquarters.

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com