THOUGH the country has accepted in principle the idea of replacing symbols of British Raj with Indian symbolism, the decision of the Government to remove the statue of British architect Edwin Lutyens and put a bust of (the late) Rajagopalachari -- Rajaji for all -- points to over-stretching the concept rather too much. There is no doubt that Mr. Edwin Lutyens had been hired by the British to design and build New Delhi as national capital when they chose to move their seat of power from Calcutta (Kolkata) to Delhi. But there also is no doubt that he did a fine job in designing and building New Delhi eventually to get counted as one of the world’s most beautiful capitals. His professional skill was acclaimed by one and all -- no matter the fact that he had been hired by the British to entrench their colonial power in India.

 

His bust could have continued to remain in the Rashtrapati Bhavan and another place in the palatial mansion could be found for Rajaji’s bust. However, the Government did not think so, and chose to replace Edwin Lutyens’ statue with a bust of Rajaji -- which does not appear to be a wise decision. The late Edwin Lutyens was a professional architect who did a fine job out of the assignment to craft a new capital for the British Government. Independent India also used that facility until now and is still going to do the same in future. It would have been in good taste to retain the statue of the maker of New Delhi as part of retaining a point to tell the story of how New Delhi got shaped and who did that job. His statue would have not have disturbed the idea the Government is promoting -- replacement of British symbols with Indian ones. Yes, it is true that symbols of colonial power need to be replaced with Indian symbols. But the statue of Edwin Lutyens need not be considered as a symbol of colonial power.

 

As a shaper of New Delhi, his statue could have been maintained in the Rashtrapati Bhavan without offending the original thought the Government wishes to push. By that token, possibly, the question of treating the Rashtrapati Bhavan, too, as a symbol of British colonial power may come up. Would that mean that that beautiful building would lose its current utility and usage? In principle, we agree that symbols of British colonial power have no business to exist in India. But we have a core question about what should actually form that category -- of symbolism of the British colonial power? Proponents of the idea may insist that the issue already stands settled and need not be restoked for another discussion. However, does that mean that a review of an issue should be an anathema to us? Politically, there may be a load of arguments in favour of removing Edwin Lutyens’ statue. But the question must travel beyond politics, beyond any political narrative and propagandism.

 

We are conscious that Edwin Lutyens’ statue may be given another place somewhere. In tune with that sentiment, we ask: What big wrong was it pointing to if it were to remain in the Rashtrapati Bhavan -- at the original spot? There is no doubt that the British created New Delhi as the seat of their power. But then, the country threw them out in 1947. Did we not retain the capital Edwin Lutyens crafted? We are in the process of replacing symbols of the British power, all right. However, the statue of Edwin Lutyens does not necessarily form that symbolism. Seen from this angle, will it not be appropriate for us not to overstretch an idea and eventually distort it? This question needs a serious deliberation. Since Lutyens’ statue has been replaced, there is no question of restoring it to its original place. But the question about how right the action was needs a deep discourse -- which is in tune with the country’s tradition of non-partisan dialogue among citizens. Our disclaimer on this count is that we are with the Government’s idea, but have some issues about over-stretching the same -- which need to be discussed on public platforms.