In the context of the recent changes in the Lutyens Bungalow Zone(LBZ) of the capital of India, New Delhi, I think it is important to rise above the reflex politics between those who do not approve of such changes, and those who do.
I do not subscribe to the theory that all aspects of what was built or named earlier should be fossilized in perpetuity. Nations which have been colonized need to reclaim their history, and erase some aspects of colonial servitude. Colonialism's biggest success is not the physical subjugation of a people but the colonization of their minds. The colonized mind continues to hang to the coattails of its former masters -their language, culture, choices - long after the political end of colonialism. A mature, newly independent nation, therefore, needs to decide what to keep of the past, and what to jettison or modify.
The debate about Lutyens' Delhi has clearly revealed these divisions. One school vehemently believes that his architectural legacy is sacrosanct, and any changes to it are a violation of our historical heritage. Another school is convinced that changes to that legacy are not only desirable but also necessary, given new priorities and in the interests of our own stamp on history.
Lutyens may have been a talented architect for his times, but he was obnoxiously racist, holding the 'natives' and their culture in complete contempt. Nor did he make a secret of his feelings. His letters to his wife from India - later published as a book - are a litany of everything that is wrong about Indians, referring to them repeatedly as "scallywags", "blacks", "loony", "degenerate" and full of "awful habits". His most vocal condemnation was of Indian architecture. "Personally, I do not believe there is any real Indian architecture or any great tradition", he wrote. "They are just spurts by various mushroom dynasties with as much intellect in them as any other art noveau....And then it is ultimately the building style of children".
He was convinced that anything at all redeemable in Indian architecture was due to the influence of the West, but even that was destroyed by the natives. "The Hindus knew little and the Moghuls little more of any ethic of construction...". Even the magnificent Taj Mahal did not amount to much for the man. "People go head over heels with their admiration for the Taj, but compared to the great Greeks, Byzantines, Romans, even men of the calibre of Mansard, Wren etc., it is small but very costly beer, and alongside the Egyptians it is evanescent". Indian craftsmen drove him to despair. "They know only the most terrible patterns, (are) foolishly method-less...Thank Very God of Very God that he wrought not our world on such lines..."
The short point is that Lutyens was an unabashed spokesman of British imperialism who built the Viceroy's Palace, and the principal buildings of Lutyens' Delhi as a symbol of the glory of the British Raj, and considered Indians to be primitives as yet on the verge of civilization deserving to be ruled in perpetuity. It is not surprising, therefore, that the greatest concentration of Indian motifs - elephant legs and sandstone bells - is found in the service entrance and the guardhouse of Rashtrapati Bhavan.
Can the views of the builder not inform what he builds? And, if that is so, can everything he built be beyond all interrogation or change? In 2002, the Charter of The Indian National Trust for Art and Architecture (INTACH) on Lutyens' Delhi went so far as to say that the names of the streets of LBZ should never be changed. Article 13 of the Charter states: "The constant rechristening of streets and lanes in commemoration of national leaders, visiting dignitaries and tragic victims might flatter some egos and serve short-sighted ends, but they rob the city of its historic associations".
I'm afraid I cannot agree with this viewpoint. Some 'historic associations' from recent history need to be preserved, but it is equally important for a nation with a civilizational history going back to the dawn of time to resurrect icons from its own past. There can be a debate on what needs to change, in what degree, and through what process. But some changes are apt. I cannot for the life of me understand why Dalhousie Road should not - as INTACH seems to want - be changed. His name has no resonance for Indians, except to recall the manner in which he robbed India. Also, in the first years after Independence, when most of the roads in the LBZ were given new names, our historical imagination was too north-centric. So while there are roads in the names of almost all the Moghul emperors, there is no road bearing the name, for instance, of Krishnadeva Raya (1471-1529 CE) of the Vijayanagar dynasty, considered one of the greatest rulers of Indian history. Nor is there a road after Raja Raja Chola the Great (985-1014 CE), under whose reign Indian culture saw a remarkable renaissance. Similarly, Lutyens' Delhi continues to spectacularly neglect our great writers, poets and artists. Why are there not, for example, roads or other town features named after Tulsidas, or Thiruvalluvar, or Mirza Ghalib?
Now that the new Central Vista has been completed and inaugurated, it appears to have been welcomed by people at large, although critics still question the need for excessive paving and concretization at the cost of the green cover, and worry about the impact on efficient drainage. They also question whether this massively expensive exercise should have been done when Covid was at its height, and funds were needed for other priorities. The manner in which the selection of the architect was made, and other permissions processed, also cause concern. The Supreme Court overrode these objections, and there is merit in the view that preserving the past cannot preclude all changes determined by new priorities.
There is one issue, however, where I disagree. I cannot understand why the name of Rajpath was changed to Kartavya Path. After all, Rajpath is not a name given by the colonizers, but a choice of independent India. Will we now also change the names of Raj Bhavans, and begin to call them Seva Bhavans? Claiming our past should not become tokenism in an attempt to put one government's impress on everything. And there is also the question of whether the government is passing the buck to the kartavya or duties of citizens, in order to deflect from the rights to which they are entitled.
Pavan K. Varma is author, diplomat and former member of parliament (Rajya Sabha).
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.