ARUN KUMAR
The move to ‘Seva Tirth’ is being sold as a break from the colonial ‘mindset’. But when has moving from one opulent building to another achieved such a feat?
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has shifted to its new abode, named ‘Seva Tirth’. It is said that shifting from the colonial-era South Bloc will lead to a mindset change in government – from imperial to a “new” model of governance where “citizens will be at the centre of decision-making”. The Prime Minister, inaugurating the new building, said, “The decisions made here [in the new premises] will serve as the foundation for advancing the ambitions of 140 crore citizens rather than reflecting the will of a monarch.”
Can a change of buildings change the mindset of the rulers? Will they suddenly become responsive to 140 crore Indians? Since they operated from the same colonial buildings being decried now, were they also not responsive to the people since 2014? Is that the government’s justification for implementing a faulty Goods and Services Tax (GST), the disastrous demonetisation and the sudden lockdown that adversely impacted people? To admit this would undermine the ruling party’s refrain that India did not gain freedom in 1947 but in 2014 – when Narendra Modi became Prime Minister.
One may then ask, how was the Constitution of India drafted and adopted in these colonial-era buildings? And is it not this foundational document that enabled the ruling party to come to power? While India has lagged behind other countries in development, it has developed considerably in the last 79 years. Did the colonial-era buildings now come in the way of those advances?
Do buildings determine the thinking of people who work in them? Is it not too deterministic an assertion? Can those who work in grand buildings not be sensitive to the needs of the people? If they happen to be insensitive, will the architecture of a building prevent them from changing for the better? Which way does the causation run? Is it from the ambitions of the rulers to the buildings they build to rule – or does it work the other way round?
Built to awe
No doubt, the imperialists wanted to awe the ruled with their grand constructions. The contrast between their lifestyle and that of the ruled was used to overwhelm the latter. The kings of yore did that too, did they not? Their temples, mosques and cathedrals were awe-inspiring then (as now). This was also done by design – to leave people in awe of their deity and their religious leaders.
Visitors still flock to these religious structures and the palaces of former kings and queens to admire the architecture. Bankers and corporates also build grand headquarters. The powerful sit in large rooms with big desks to demonstrate their power to their visitors. Clearly, all those who want to awe people, to dominate over them, build grand buildings.
It is no wonder that Gandhi, the people’s man, wanted the government of independent India to work from modest buildings and not occupy the imperial buildings in New Delhi. He wanted the present Rashtrapati Bhavan to be converted into a hospital. It could have been done. After all, the earlier Viceroy’s residence was converted into Delhi University.
Opulence of the new buildings
Are the new ‘bhavans’ simple and people-friendly? The pictures on TV screens showed the Seva Tirth and Kartavya Bhavan as opulent – no less than palaces. How, then, do they represent the aspirations of the mass of Indian people, impoverished as they are? If the hypothesis of the rulers is correct, those who work in these buildings will be as non-responsive to the needs of citizens as they were while working in the colonial-era buildings.
The mindset of those who decide to build the new palaces is as imperial as that of the colonial masters who constructed the buildings now being vacated. This has been the case all through the last eleven years. The Bharat Mandapam is opulent and not a place that people can comfortably visit. It replaced the iconic Hall of Nations where people thronged every year during fairs, which held and represented powerful symbolism that has been lost in the new construction.
For the G20 summit held in 2023, New Delhi was put through a massive overhaul. It was possibly a result of the inferiority complex of the rulers. Given that India is the poorest of the G20 nations, they wanted to show that India could match the opulence of the wealthy nations. The slums of the poorest and most disadvantaged Delhiites were barricaded so that neither the outsiders could see them nor could they participate – or even observe – the G20’s ‘festivities’. Unnecessary and costly changes were made – lighting, temporary gardens, fountains, flower pots, posters and banners and walkways.
Living conditions in Delhi
Are Indians living in civilised conditions? Do they have access to good education and health services, clean drinking water and sanitation or proper roads and transportation or communication facilities – especially those in villages? What should the priority of the people-friendly government be? Could the tens of thousands of crores spent on grand projects not have been better spent in providing people decent, humane and dignified conditions of living while also hosting a stately G20 meet?
The rulers, much like the kings and imperialists from our past, seem to want to leave their mark for the future. They want to be remembered by the new palaces and grand structures they build, not for the aspirations of the people they rule over, who are relegated to dehumanising conditions. Opulent new buildings, where corporate-centric and elitist policies are made, cannot represent a change in the mindset of the rulers.
Future generations of Indians would accuse those who are in power today of doing exactly what they accuse the imperialists of. Buildings are being changed only to glorify the rulers and have little to do with people. Would not a strategy of prioritising the needs of the people, regardless of which building one operates from, be a better strategy to be remembered as transformative rulers?
About the Contributor
Arun Kumar is a retired professor of economics at JNU and was the Malcolm S. Adiseshiah chair professor at the Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi. He is the author of Demonetization and the Black Economy, Penguin (India).
This article was first published in The Wire as Why a New PMO Building Does Not Signal an End to ‘Imperial’ Mindset on February 15, 2026.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Read more at IMPRI:
After Nitish, Bihar Should Leverage Its Human Capital
World Water Day: Safe Water, Not Just Running Taps
Acknowledgement: This article was posted by Pallavi Lad, a Research and Editorial Intern at IMPRI.
