Red Fort: Adopted, but missing a family
The brouhaha over the Red Fort adoption misses the larger issue of improving the quality of conservation work of monuments, writes Ritwik Sharma
The brouhaha over Red Fort adoption misses the larger issue of improving the quality of conservation work of monuments, RITWIKSHARMA writes
The tourism ministry’s announcement of an agreement with Dalmia Bharat allowing the private firm to “adopt” the Red Fort has triggered sharp responses from political parties and a section of civil society over fears of handover of a monument that has stood as a symbol of national integration.
Interestingly, a parliamentary panel that included members of the Opposition had backed the Adopt a Heritage scheme that was launched last September. Some voices among academics and artists, on the other hand, raised the familiar fear of a Hindutva agenda linked to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party regime behind the move. The government was quick to clarify that there is no handover of monuments and tourist sites that have been approved for adoption to private agencies (referred as Monument Mitras). The ministries of tourism and culture, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), state and Union Territory governments are among the signatories to the scheme.
So what is the brouhaha over the Red Fort about? While officials and experts agree that the controversy is nothing more than a red herring, there are no easy answers to the larger issue of improving the quality and scope of conservation work and maintenance of heritage.
An official in the tourism ministry says a tourism and hospitality industry survey showed a lack of adequate information and signage around several monuments. The tourist spots, including prominent ones, also lack basic amenities such as restroom, drinking water and WiFi connection. While the government has contributed sufficient funding out of its budget for basic facilities, there was no fixing of responsibility to maintain them, the official adds. “Tour operators and hotels were roped in so far. Now, the invite is for everyone including private schools, companies, industry and local stakeholders,” says the official, adding that the tourism ministry is there to facilitate, not own anything.
According to the government, the onus of conservation work will remain with the ASI and maintenance and operations will be taken up by the Monument Mitras. The official explains that as against financial bidding earlier, “vision bidding” by the prospective Monument Mitras is what is being looked upon. The private players will only be permitted limited visibility, and the content will be assessed by government committees for value additions like introduction of audio guides. The government started with ASIticketed monuments and later included sites such as trek routes in the list which has three categories — green, blue and orange— based on footfall and visibility. It has included riders such as making it mandatory for a Monument Mitra that is opting for a monument from the green category to choose at least one site from either orange or blue.
Rakesh Tewari, former director-general, ASI, says involvement of private sector is welcome but conservation work should strictly be in the hands of the government body. “Whatever plans are made for the development of a monument’s surroundings should be in consonance with its history. For that, true supervision is required from ASI experts, particularly archaeologists.”
As part of the pact for Red Fort, Dalmia Bharat, which has a five-year contract worth ~250 million, will have to provide basic amenities such as drinking water kiosks and shop signage. It also has to perform other tasks that include putting up tactile maps, upgrading washrooms, lighting up the pathways, running battery-operated vehicles, and carrying out restoration work and landscaping.
Private agencies taking up activities such as developing the lawns, upkeep of the precincts and offering basic amenities would free up more time for the ASI’s conservation wing, says Tewari.
He also argues that funds aren’t a constraint for the custodian of India’s heritage, but that there is shortage of staff and expertise, and adds that spending money without proper planning and research may have adverse effects on monuments. “Preservation and conservation should be aimed in a manner that it does not encourage tourism without any control,” he says.
Agovernment organisation under the culture ministry, the ASI administers over 3,650 monuments, archaeological sites and remains of national importance. However, for some, its “sarkari” style of functioning presents a strong case for drafting in private partners and, more critically, local communities. Giving a push to night tourism may well be a part of the initiatives encouraged by Adopt a Heritage.
Ahead of the Commonwealth Games in Delhi in 2010, the India Tourism Development Corporation had illuminated 13 monuments. But plans to make illuminated monuments a regular draw never took off.
Jawhar Sircar, who was then culture secretary, recalls the dud episode as extremely frustrating. He says the plan was met with demands for additional personnel, and there were security concerns as well.
On the question of private agencies and corporate interest in heritage, he agrees that private facilities run better than the government ones. But, he adds, they also look at the margin of profit and won’t do anything out of charity.
“There is no Bill Gates in India. There is hardly any private company with a social conscience,” he says bluntly.
He cautions against a possible blame game between the government and private companies and feels the experiment with “adoption” could have been started with a smaller monument than the Red Fort, given the sensibilities.
AGK Menon, conservation architect and former convener of the Delhi chapter of the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (Intach), reasons that the adoption scheme is in synch with a neoliberal political economy, which is reflected in other areas such as city planning, welfare and education.
He assures such a decision does not stem from a wish to sell heritage, and bats for the government looking after monuments. Menon recognises that corporate houses stand to gain in terms of tax benefits, but the government should keep tabs on how they publicise themselves at the sites. “It is not only the government that has to be a watchdog. There are others like Intach. We have often gone to court when we have found that the ASI themselves have not been working properly.”
ASI, which was set up by the British Raj in 1861, continues to follow guidelines set by its then director-general John Marshall in the beginning of the last century.
“They are still a colonial agency. The colonials were looking after our monuments, not theirs. So they did the minimum, while being sensitive. After Independence, we continued with this approach,” says Menon, adding it has continued with a “business-as-usual” approach despite a consideration to revisit guidelines on its 150th anniversary.
He points out that legally the 3,650-plus monuments under the ASI are all equally important because there is no gradation. Therefore, world heritage sites ought to be treated on a par with Kos Minars (medieval milestones). Questioning the lack of grading and the limited number of monuments under the ASI’s purview, Menon says, “When Intach recommended that 1,200 monuments of Delhi should be notified, it graded them as I (example, Rashtrapati Bhavan), II and III (havelis). So, grading is something valuable to deploy financial and other resources. It helps you prioritise.”
Intach has so far identified over 60,000 monuments across India. As the government seeks to involve private agencies, there are lessons to draw upon from several countries, including Mexico, where local universities with archaeology departments are responsible for upkeep of the Mayan ruins.
The best way to ensure maintenance and active monitoring is by instilling pride among local communities so that they can act as guardians.
Sircar cites how hundreds of Kos Minars across the country continue to be overlooked. “If you have a park around a Kos Minar, a community can maintain it. That is how you adopt a monument.”
As the government seeks to involve private agencies, there are lessons to drawupon from several countries, including Mexico, where local universities with archaeology departments are responsible forupkeep of the Mayan ruins