In the urge to reflect India’s high economic growth in its buildings, some in the administration have suggested a complete revamp of government architecture, and the redesign of the entire Central Vista. The Shanghaification of the Indian city is also the dream of many architects who feel that Indian reality — nepotism, archaic construction methods, poor craft and a general meanness of architectural spirit — is best covered up in chrome and glass. A suggestion that is as ludicrous and extreme as awarding all public works to the Department of Public Works. If Lutyens is part of our architectural heritage, so indeed is the CPWD; however archaic and mean-spirited its architecture, it reflects the real history of India’s post-independence buildings.

Certainly, in view of the iconic status of Lutyens, a re-examination of the environment of Central Vista needs to be done. Anywhere else a building of monumental importance such as the ministry of foreign affairs sited on sanctified architectural ground like Rajpath would be considered, designed and built by people and agencies fit for such a heroic, indeed historic task. Moreover, design proposals would be open to public scrutiny and debate. It is a practice followed in France, England and most other democratic societies where transparency of major public expenditure is the norm. Its results are visible in many of the monumental public works executed in recent years, notable amongst them, the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington D.C., the additions to the Louvre in Paris, London’s Millennium extravaganza, and most recently, the designs for the World Trade Centre in New York. In fact, in Jerusalem, every major urban project is placed in a scale model of the city for the public to view, assess and debate, before it is allowed municipal sanction. Only in India are decisions of cultural, civic, and architectural import left to politicians. Is it a wonder that our buildings and cities are dreary and unhospitable?

... contd.