Triangular Vs Circle: The architect Sir Herbert Baker hated the final design based on which the old Parliament was constructed. Baker’s first plan was an equilateral triangle, the three sides or wings being approximately 1,000 feet each, to house the chambers- the Legislative Assembly, the Council of State and the Chamber of Princes- linked to a central imposing dome that would filter the light. This way instead of the circular building with its colonnaded corridors we would have seen a dome, perhaps bigger than the one at Rashtrapati Bhawan. But by 1920s after 9-years of working together, Baker and the principal architect of New Delhi Edwin Landseer Lutyens, no longer could see eye-to-eye. Lutyens was bitter, because the two secretariats (North & South block) blocked out the view of Viceroy’s House or Rashtrapati Bhawan and were waiting for an opportunity to hit back. He fought Baker’s design claiming that it jarred with the rest of the city’s design instead arguing for a “circular, colosseum design”. On the 10th January 1920, the New Capital Committee decided in favour of Lutyen’s plea who said in reply to the decision, “I have got the building where I want it and the shape I want it.’ Though Baker redrew the plan, with the three chambers placed at equal angles around a low-domed circular hall but he dubbed it as a “merrie-go-round. He felt the wrap-around, colonnaded corridor was a waste of space and money. The design was also ridiculed in the British press.
How the Parliament Came To Have Its Own Security Personnel: The British Government brought in Public Safety Bill 1929 aimed at curbing the communist movement in India. It gave sweeping powers to the government including detaining individuals considered as threat to public safety, without trial for up to two years. President of Legislative Assembly Vithalbhai Patel said that any discussion on the bill in the assembly could prejudice the Meerut trial where 31 alleged communists including three Englishmen were under trial for orchestrating a railway strike. The British Government challenged his stand and a prolonged debate ensued on whether Patel as the chair of the legislative assembly had the power to stall the bill. On 8th April 1929, just as he rose to give his final ruling on the subject, two bombs were dropped from the visitor’s gallery. They burst among the official benches injuring a few members. No one died. After the bombs, came a volley of red leaflets wherein was inscribed the message which meant that ‘only the sound of an explosion could be expected to reach the deaf.” The bombers were Bhagat Singh and Bakuteshwar Dutt. The bombing for the first time brought the security of the assembly premises to the fore. The question was who is responsible for it? The Government of India and the Chief Commissioner of Delhi maintained that they were the sole judges of the adequacy of the protective measures in the House. Patel, on the other hand, asserted that the authority and control over the precincts of the Assembly should vest in the Chair and ordered on 20th January, 1930 that the galleries (press, visitors and so on) be closed till such time as a settlement in the matter was arrived at. After negotiations, an agreement was reached a month later which laid the foundation of the present watch and ward staff for Parliament House. The present position is that all security arrangements in the precincts of the House are under the control of the Speaker who exercises his authority through the officers directly appointed by him.
