Should only Delhi be the capital of Bharat, ji?

Delhi was Indraprastha in Mahabharat from another plane of time. Delhi has been in the thick of things for centuries, believed to have been the capital of the Pandavas. India’s destiny is closely linked to how Delhi evolved with time. So the significance of continuing to have Delhi as India’s capital is understandable. Even so, why should not there be an alternative to Delhi. Today I was watching the you tube video of building plans for a new Indian parliament in Delhi. I was struck by a thought. Our capital city was also the seat of the Delhi sultanate. Aurangzeb ruled from Delhi. The British Raj functioned from Delhi where the viceroy’s residence was turned into Rashtrapathi Bhavan, the presidential palace, on India’s independence. India retained much of the colonial architecture from the British days and Delhi profusely was Mugal in make-up. I am yet to visit my capital city frankly! But from what I see in media I feel no soul connection to India’s capital. That kind of India is something most of us Indians cannot identify with. Lost is the Mahabharath umbilical cord to Delhi. Delhi is now more and more identified with its residual mogul imperialism. So average Hindu, especially a south Indian, can hardly connect to Delhi. We cannot reckon with our invaders from Middle east, Turkey, Persia and Afghanistan. Taj Mahal has got nothing to do with us. The south largely remained insulated to mogul invasions. Indian history still has the point of view of those who invaded and occupied India over native Indians. We seem to celebrate our invaders and we have forgotten our own golden ages of Chandra Gupta Maurya, Ashoka, Vijayanagara empire, Maratha empire and Shivaji, the Chera, Chola, Pandiya, Pallavas of the south. We have forsaken our ancient Bharat when our Maharajahs ruled just from the Delhi throne. Our history text books underplay local heroes and glorify the invaders. Good to have a multicultural society but not at expense of losing our own perspective. India’s Hindu heritage must be preserved. India’s soul is Hindu not anglicized or arabized. Delhi is hardly representative of the real Bharat. Why should not India have Her capital moved to, say, Orissa for instance. My vote is for this not-so-developed state of India which lies to our south east. The new capital city must not be raised over destroyed forests. Orissa and southern states were hardly touched by the Moguls in direct conflict even if some princely states down south could have become their vassals before falling in step with the British, the Travancore and the Mysore states being the glaring examples. Arcot in Tamil Nadu and Hyderabad in Andhra were administered by mugal vassals who reigned the region without winning a war. So south mostly retained the essence of Bharat without much of distortion. It is vital to build a capital for Bharat from where neither the British nor the Islamic invaders of India governed us. While we accept our pained history as it is, it is also important to break away from the slave mentality or the colonial mindset. We have to disconnect with our troubled past for which moving the seat of power to somewhere outside Delhi can be crucial. India is not merely the mugal empire or the british raj. India is an enigma and the Indian subcontinent is flanked by seas on three sides. We are a varied landscape and diverse population. We need to centralize things. The capital must be reachable, identifiable to all and by all Indian citizens. Even Andhra Pradesh or Telengana is a good choice to build our new capital. Tamil Nadu and Kerala may not be advisable because of easy access by sea. Orissa is a larger state and the capital can be situated far away from the coastline. Madhya Pradesh and Bihar have vast extent of reserve forest areas. We wouldn’t want India’s new capital to be built across our elephant corridors. Moving our capital to geographical center of our nation could give us better sense of inclusiveness in my opinion. Security issues need to be studied in detail. Just wondering!