Latest News: Lutyens' Bust Replaced at Rashtrapati Bhavan, Sparks Debate
A recent decision to replace the bust of renowned British architect Edwin Lutyens at India's iconic Rashtrapati Bhavan has ignited a significant public discussion. Matt Ridley, Lutyens' great-grandson, has publicly expressed his strong disapproval of the move. The new sculpture, unveiled by President Droupadi Murmu, now honors Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, who held the distinction of being the first and final Indian Governor-General of independent India.
Matt Ridley Voices Disappointment Over Heritage Change
Science author Matt Ridley took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to share his profound sadness regarding the change. He posted an image of himself alongside his great-grandfather's bust from a previous visit, recalling his surprise last year when Lutyens' name had already been removed from its base.
Later, Ridley shared another photograph of a replica of the bust, which sits proudly on his bookshelf. He clarified his stance, stating, "I understand India's wish to remove colonial statues but he was an architect, not a viceroy." He emphasized that Lutyens was a master craftsman responsible for designing the presidential palace, not a colonial administrator, highlighting the distinction in the ongoing colonial legacy debate.
Architectural Legacy vs. Decolonization: A Growing Discussion
Ridley's views quickly gained support across social media. Oliver Lewis, an X user, described the Indian government's action as "genuinely appalling," stressing Lutyens' unparalleled contribution in creating what he called "probably the most fantastic Head of State 'HQ' anywhere in the world."
Ridley agreed, asserting that Rashtrapati Bhavan is a more elegant, ingenious, and imaginative structure than many other world-famous buildings, including Buckingham Palace or the White House. He specifically pointed out its unique ability to incorporate diverse Indian architectural elements, drawing from Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, and Muslim traditions.
Adding to the chorus of criticism, Shiv Sena (UBT) Member of Parliament, Priyanka Chaturvedi, weighed in. She argued that most nations strive to preserve their historical heritage and lived history โ encompassing both the good and the bad โ for future generations to learn from. In contrast, she suggested that "new India" appears intent on replacing such heritage without sufficient cultural context or soul.
Historical Perspectives and Criticisms
The online discussion also brought forth historical parallels. An X user named Palash cited Lee Kuan Yew's decision in 1965 to retain Sir Stamford Raffles' statue in Singapore, despite pressure for its removal. Lee Kuan Yew's rationale was famously simple: "Singapore cannot enter a new future with anger towards the past."
Further condemnation arrived from Mannem Nageswara Rao, a former CBI director, who offered an apology to Ridley on X. Rao labeled the bust's removal as "petty vandalism of history" rather than a true act of decolonization, suggesting it was a "zero-sum act" that failed to achieve its stated purpose.
Counter-Arguments: Lutyens' Controversial Past
However, the reactions were not uniformly critical of the removal. Another X user, SagasofBharat, presented a contrasting viewpoint, asserting that Edwin Lutyens was not merely an architect but also described him as a "nasty racist." This user suggested that Indians should feel fortunate that the bust was simply removed rather than being subjected to more severe action, highlighting the complex feelings surrounding Edwin Lutyens' historical figure in India.
