Parliament building is a symbol of our republic. But last month, the Lok Sabha speaker requested the urban development minister to consider constructing a new Parliament building. A similar request was also made during the UPA regime.1

....

Most people would agree that inadequate as Parliament building might be for meeting objectively measurable functions, as a symbolic structure, it is robust. The memories it evokes, the hopes it kindles and the meanings it embodies, could not be better suited for its function.

....

This is why the proposal to build a brand new building is a bit jolting. It makes one immediately wonder if it is really not possible to upgrade facilities while preserving the present building in its old form. But facts have a way of confounding desires. For many sound reasons, it may simply not be possible to upgrade the building while retaining its original form. It may, in fact, be too small to house all necessary functions. It may be impossible to elegantly expand its seating capacity. It may be technically impossible to retrofit it with modern infrastructure. But then, is it not possible to modify the present structure or perhaps add to it in a way that a considerable portion of the old structure remains in use? Doing this could help retain the evocative power of the old structure.

An argument that has already been advanced against such a strategy is that Parliament building is a heritage Grade-I structure and, therefore, it cannot be significantly modified. This is a valid but legalistic argument that misses the point. It makes little sense to fetishise Parliament building in this way. Does it make more sense to modify the present building and have it be a vital monument or to perfectly preserve the building’s form, eviscerate it of its main function and have it be an embalmed monument? Heritage regulations can be overwritten, by Parliament if necessary, to facilitate this. Many examples attest to the fact that it is possible to sensitively transform buildings so that the architecture of the new building retains the evocative power of the old. The Palace of Westminster, the United States Capitol and the Reichstag were all built well over a century ago and have been considerably transformed along the way. All of them are brilliant examples of how buildings can be modernised without losing their power to evoke the past. Perhaps, I am wrong.

• 1. There are reportedly several reasons why the building is presently inadequate: It is too small to accommodate Parliament’s increasing number of committees and personnel; its security arrangements are wanting; it will not be possible to seat more members in the Lok Sabha chamber when, on account of expanding population, it will be legally necessary to do so; its infrastructure and equipment are technologically outdated, and the building is not earthquake safe.

  The claim that more capacious, technologically advanced and safer facilities are urgently needed seems well justified. Therefore, the recent moves to address this need should be welcomed. But how should the need for better facilities be addressed? This is quintessentially an architectural question, worthy of careful consideration and judgement.