India’s civic spirit, still safely housed

A new Parliament building reflects Hindu architecture, yet it also has sparked a vigorous defense of the country’s democratic ideals.

|
Reuters
Laborers work at the construction site of the new Parliament building in New Delhi, India, May 23.

A common force often reshaping the world – the determination of people to be self-defined and self-governed – is playing out in India these days. On Sunday, the country will inaugurate a new building for the national Parliament, but the building itself, meant to hold civil debate, is already an object of robust debate. That’s because its design reflects a rise in Hindu nationalism, challenging India’s founding ideals of secular rule and respect for minority faiths.

One critic, Shiv Visvanathan, a sociology professor, wrote in the Deccan Herald that the new design is “rewriting history and redoing architecture” with the “majoritarian logic” of the dominant Hindu population. Yet the new building also has simple, practical purpose. It replaces a century-old structure that is crumbling and technologically ill-equipped. Its cavernous chambers will accommodate more members – meaning, in theory, better representative democracy as India has become the world’s most populous nation.

But architecture is never solely about use. In light and structure, buildings can highlight beauty, perception, listening, and integrity. As the visible expression of what the late British political scientist Ben Anderson called the “imagined community” of the nation-state, it projects power and identity.

The old Parliament, finished in 1927, was the centerpiece of a capital complex extolling British colonial rule. A vast circular structure, it evoked both the Roman Coliseum and a Hindu temple built in the state of Madhya Pradesh a thousand years ago – a deliberate attempt by its designer to impose Western concepts on Indian sensibilities. “Architecture, more than any other art, represents the intellectual progress of those that are in authority,” Edwin Lutyens, the architect, declared then.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi might very well agree. In December 2020, he laid the cornerstone for the new Parliament building as part of a broader project to assert a new national identity over the original imperial design of the capital complex. “It is a matter of pride for our countrymen that the new [Parliament] will be built by our own people as a prime example of [a self-reliant India],” said Speaker Om Birla on that occasion.

Mr. Modi’s critics point out that lawmakers neither debated nor approved the project. During his nine years in power, he has curtailed the rights of Muslims, eroded judicial independence, and targeted political opponents and journalists. The opening on Sunday coincides with the annual commemoration of the late founder of the Hindu nationalist ideology of Mr. Modi and his party.

Twenty opposition parties had vowed to boycott the building inauguration. In a joint statement on Wednesday, however, the 20 parties struck a note of reconciliation: “Despite our belief that the government is threatening democracy,” they remain “open to sinking our differences and marking this occasion.”

The architecture of a central government, said the late anthropologist Clifford Geertz, “marks the center as center.” Yet the vigorous debate stirred by India’s new Parliament building shows that democracy is proclaimed not by stone, but – as a former Indian Supreme Court justice once observed – “in due deference for the ideals of democracy and the rule of law.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to India’s civic spirit, still safely housed
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2023/0526/India-s-civic-spirit-still-safely-housed
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe