Why Lutyens Matters Even If Taj Mahal’s Architect Is Overlooked

This article examines Vir Sanghvi’s response to the presence and possible replacement of a bust of architect Edwin Lutyens outside Rashtrapati Bhavan.

It explores whether designers should be commemorated like political figures, and what this debate reveals about India’s engagement with colonial legacies and national identity.

Context, Public Memory, and the Lutyens Question

The controversy centers on Edwin Lutyens, the English architect who shaped New Delhi and designed Rashtrapati Bhavan.

Debates over replacing his bust with someone like C. Rajagopalachari have sparked a broader discussion: should architects be celebrated in spaces tied to political leadership?

Two Sides of the Debate

Proponents and critics offer different views about memory, merit, and public space.

Common arguments about Lutyens’s bust include:

• The bust acknowledges the designer who shaped the nation’s capital and its built heritage, linking architecture to national life.
• Opponents argue that honoring a designer blurs the line between architectural achievement and political leadership, and that public spaces should focus on figures who shaped an independent nation.
• Some believe removing the bust erases history, while others see it as a shift toward honoring independence-era figures like Rajagopalachari.
• Critics note that many Indians are unaware of Lutyens’s contributions, questioning whether preserving his bust truly serves public memory.
• Replacing a colonial-era commemoration with an Indian figure is seen by some as a shift in values rather than erasure of history.

Vir Sanghvi’s Perspective: A Critical Reading

Vir Sanghvi expresses surprise that a bust of a foreign architect stands at the entrance of India’s most symbolic democratic building, especially since “most Indians hardly know him.”

He argues that commemorating designers is not the same as honoring political leaders, and that this distinction matters in public spaces.

“The argument that removing a colonial figure erases history is weak,” he says, dismissing comparisons between Lutyens’s bust and colonial-era architecture.

He also critiques the Mughal versus British analogy, noting that Mughals became part of India’s story, while the British were seen as external rulers.

Sanghvi observes that if the commemoration mattered deeply, the bust could have been removed in 1947, at independence.

He believes replacing the bust with a figure from independent India is reasonable, and that British criticism of the change is out of touch with present-day India.

Key Takeaways

• Public spaces reflect national identity through the figures they honor; re-evaluating those figures shows changing values.
• Honoring a designer in a political landmark raises questions about who deserves public tribute and why.
• The debate encourages a shift toward honoring those who led or shaped an independent nation.
• Public awareness of historical contributors, such as the Taj Mahal’s architect, complicates ideas about lasting fame and the relevance of colonial-era names.

Historical Context: Colonial Legacies and the Built Environment

The discussion about Lutyens’s bust lies at the intersection of colonial legacy, public memory, and the ethics of commemoration in architecture.

The Mughal example shows how some histories become integrated over time, while colonial figures can provoke a more unsettled response in a republic redefining its built environment.

Most Indians may not know the Taj Mahal’s architect, highlighting that public memory is shaped by relevance and accessibility, not just individual fame.

Implications for Architects and Public Spaces

For architects and engineers, this debate highlights the responsibility to design public spaces that reflect inclusive histories. These spaces should celebrate national progress and educate citizens about the origins of the built environment.

The conversation about Lutyens’s bust shows that monuments are part of ongoing cultural discussions. As public values shift, new generations may reinterpret these symbols and rethink their capital’s identity.

 
Here is the source article for this story: Opinion | If You Don’t Care About Taj Mahal’s Architect, Why Cry Over Lutyens?