From Gymkhana to Rashtrapati Bhavan: Debate over public spaces

Historic property debates reveal enduring tensions between legacy and public purpose.

- ALOK MEHTA

The recent controversy surrounding notices issued to Delhi Gymkhana Club, frequented by some of the capital's most affluent and influential residents, has prompted several prominent voices to invoke the historical and heritage significance of the institution in its defence.

Their arguments reminded me that, years ago, proposals had also surfaced to vacate Rashtrapati Bhavan itself.

This may sound surprising, but the facts can be verified through official records. Importantly, the proposal did not emerge during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's tenure. Nor was it suggested by communist leaders or activist groups. Rather, it was proposed by none other than the President of India himself.

The idea came back to mind because, in March 1978, while serving as political correspondent for Saptabik Hindustan (published by Hindustan Times), I wrote a nearly three-page special report titled “Rashtrapati Bhavan: Bigul Baje Ya Na Baje!” A copy of that published article remains in my files even today.

Rashtrapati Bhavan is not merely an official residence; it is regarded as the foremost symbol of the Indian Republic. Yet very few people know that during 1977-78, serious discussions took place between the President, the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the Urban Development Ministry regarding whether the President should be moved to a smaller residence.

The year 1977 marked a major turning point in Indian politics. The Emergency had ended, power had changed hands, and for the first time a non-Congress government had assumed office at the Centre. In this new political climate, questions began to be raised about government expenditure, colonial legacies and symbols of power.

Within this context emerged a debate: was it appropriate for the President of democratic India to reside in one of the world’s largest official residences?