Democracy with Indian characteristics.

"This year is of immense national significance. Nationally, it's the 75th year of Independence where Prime Minister Narendra Modi plans to roll out some of his signature initiatives including the unveiling of a newly redone Rajpath this Republic Day and a new Parliament," wrote Rakesh Mohan Chaturvedi. "The new Parliament Building will have a built up area of about 65,000 sq mt. Its triangular shape ensures optimum space utilization," Government of India. It is necessary because, "The number of Lok Sabha seats has remained unaltered at 545 based on the delimitation carried out on the basis of 1971 census. It is likely to increased substantially after 2026 as the freeze on the total number of seats is only till 2026." "The building will have space to accommodate 888 MPs in Lok Sabha and 384 in Rajya Sabha. The existing building can seat 543 in Lok Sabha and 245 in Rajya Sabha," TOI. On 30 May 1984, in a speech to the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), Prince Charles asked, "What, then, are we doing to our capital city now?" And went on to say, "Instead of designing an extension to the elegant facade of the National Gallery which complements it and continues with the concept of columns and domes, it looks as if we may be presented with a municipal fire station," which "is like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend." As a result of the speech, "The extension, designed by architect Peter Ahrends, was scrapped altogether and the final design, built in 1991, was created by the partnership Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown instead," BBC. Of course, no one in India will dare to criticise any act of government as that will immediately draw retribution as an act of sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, HT, which, ironically, was imposed on Indians by the British in 1870. We are rejecting the British built parliament building while still incarcerating 'natives' under colonial tyranny. And if that is not enough, any Indian can be locked up indefinitely under the (dreaded) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), wikipedia, without bail. The total population of India was 548.160 million in 1971 census, RBI, while it has reached over 1,400 million today, worldometer. This means that each member of parliament (MP) is now representing nearly 3 times the number of constituents, which is not possible. So an increase in the number of MPs would seem justified. The trouble is that the increase in population has not been symmetrical. For example, in 1951, Andhra Pradesh (AP) had 31 million people to Bihar's 29 million, but today AP has 84.6 million people to Bihar's 104 million. This after Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar as a separate state in 2000, wikipedia, and Jharkhand's population has jumped from about 10 million to 33 million. Similar rises have taken place in UP, Uttarakhand which was a part of UP, uk.gov.in, MP, Chhattisgarh, which use to be a part of MP, wikipedia, and Rajasthan. This means that the Hindi speaking states will have total control of parliament and government revenue. Then there is the cost of the additional number of MPs, TH, plus luxury bungalows, security and protection from prosecution as proved by 43% of MPs who have declared charges of serious crimes against themselves, HT. Are we spending taxpayer money to provide more luxury to a larger number of MPs charged with serious crimes? That, surely, is a new definition of democracy.