Written by: Yashovardhan Jha Azad5 min readMay 27, 2026 04:27 PM IST First published on: May 27, 2026 at 04:27 PM ISTThe proposed takeover or closure of the Delhi Gymkhana Club has triggered familiar slogans — elitism versus egalitarianism, colonial hangover versus decolonisation, privilege versus social justice. Few institutions in India offer such an inviting target: Sprawling green lawns in the heart of Lutyens’ Delhi, old-world architecture, diplomats and retired officials in blazers, and a membership long accused of exclusivity. It is, therefore, politically convenient to portray action against the club as a moral correction, favouring the common citizen.But beneath the rhetoric, it is important to examine plain facts. The selective demolition of an old institution has very little to do with social justice. If the issue is genuinely privilege, misuse of public land, or elite culture, then the logic must be applied consistently across the capital’s many protected islands of influence.AdvertisementThe first argument advanced in favour of public security and defence requirements appears unconvincing. The club has remained there through some of India’s most turbulent decades — the Punjab insurgency, Kashmir militancy, the Parliament attack, and multiple terror alerts in the national capital. Every Prime Minister except Chandra Shekhar functioned from the same PM house. The current Prime Minister too has occupied the adjoining complex for 12 years without the club suddenly becoming an intolerable security threat.With the PM shifting to the new complex, the urgency for reclaiming the land raises legitimate questions. If the intention is to absorb the Gymkhana with the present PM’s house, into yet another government complex in already overcrowded Lutyens’ Delhi, it would be deeply unfortunate. Delhi Lutyens is crammed with imposing government buildings and suffers from vanishing open spaces, blocked roads, and the steady erosion of urban grace. The idea of suddenly locating a defence establishment there too, appears really odd.The second argument targets “elite culture”. But who is exactly elite in modern India? Is it only a retired civil servant surviving on pension and occasional club lunches? Or is it also the powerful politician occupying sprawling Lutyens’ bungalows at nominal rents, with layers of security and influence? One rarely hears similar outrage over the vast government estates, dotted with official clubs like the Ashoka Hotel, state bhavans, Western Court, or heavily subsidised bungalows, institutions that function as exclusive enclaves in their own right.AdvertisementIf club culture itself is objectionable, then let the government announce a transparent national policy on all such institutions — government clubs, defence clubs, officers’ clubs, constitutional clubs, press clubs, and numerous state-run establishments occupying prime urban land. Selectivity weakens the moral argument.Certainly, mismanagement at the Gymkhana cannot be ignored. Property tax liabilities reportedly climbed to nearly Rs 49 crore but the matter is in court. Questions were raised over finances, administration, and membership rules. But these issues were already under the purview of a government-nominated management committee for the past five years. If mismanagement persisted, then what corrective action was taken during this period?The language of “decolonising Lutyens” is perhaps the most emotionally charged part of the debate. Yet reducing every historic structure to colonial baggage displays intellectual despair. Lutyens’ Delhi is not merely an imperial relic; it is among the few surviving examples of thoughtful urban planning in the country — tree-lined avenues, balanced density, architectural symmetry, and public aesthetics rarely replicated in our modern construction. The tragedy is not that Lutyens survives; it is that new Delhi seldom builds with comparable imagination.Gymkhana is not simply a refuge of privilege. It is one of the few remaining social spaces where retired soldiers, diplomats, bureaucrats, academics, CEOs, journalists, and politicians interact outside the rigid formality of offices. Such spaces matter to the cultural life of a capital. Every great city in the world is remembered not merely for ministries and highways but also for its civic culture — its clubs, theatres, cafés, parks, galleries, and intellectual meeting points. Investment and global engagement depend not only on infrastructure but also on the vibrancy and confidence of urban life.you may likeFinally comes the argument of rich versus poor. Every society contains inequality, but populist symbolism rarely solves it. If this 27-acre land were genuinely being converted into low-cost housing, slum rehabilitation, public green space, or for public welfare purposes, few would object. The country would likely applaud such a decision. But not if the outcome is merely another fortified government complex.Institutions should be reformed and transparency should be enforced. Access can be broadened. But destroying civic legacy, riding on a catchy slogan, is rarely wise. Nations mature not by erasing remnants of their past, but by learning how to adapt heritage to contemporary purpose and without reducing governance to symbolic conquest.The writer is a former IPS officer who has served as the Central Information Commissioner, Secretary Security Cabinet Secretariat and Special Director Intelligence Bureau