Should India reconsider its Unesco membership?
Its thesis that ‘war zones tend to lose more than others’ neglects the damage to heritage sites elsewhere
December 6 marked the 25th anniversary of the destruction of the Babri mosque, and it’s an appropriate time to highlight the increasing politicisation of heritage and its loss. Earlier this year, the debate reached a tipping point with the United States and Israel pulling out of Unesco citing its “anti-israel bias”. India’s contribution to (of around ₹320 million this year) and benefits from Uneaso have been minimal. Even this is too much money spent on too little gain, at times negatively affecting us.
So, what does Unesco do that negatively affects us? Mostly this is through ignoring India. Take, for example, the latest publication United 4Heritage: Cultural Diversity Under Attack, which highlights the loss of heritage in war zones. Welcome as this is, it’s worth pointing out that the majority of active hot spots are in West Asia, with almost all the publicised losses of cultural heritage. What’s absent here is any study on how low-level societal violence/heavy resource competition can be equally, if not more damaging. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, by 2013, 92 of 1,655 Archaeological Survey of India (Asi)-protected monuments are “not traceable”; 12 of these being in Delhi.
In any scientifically guided organisation the thesis that ‘war zones tend to lose more than others’ has to be subjected to testing. Unesco refuses to do so. Yet the persistent problem of antiquities smuggling indicates otherwise. When we focus on that problem we find that well over 50% of US heritage imports in 2016 were from India. Yet, Unesco made no effort to curb/intervene; unlike in West Asia.
It is the implicit assumption that ‘heritage is destroyed only in conflict zones’ that is disturbing. This narrative ensures that the real problem stays ignored and that governments or philanthropists channel their money mostly towards ‘high visibility’ zones.
So, if we’re not either ‘protected’ or ‘projected’, but rather neglected, what is the point of being part of Unesco, or contributing to it?
In a pre-internet age, listing Petra as a world heritage site was critical to it being ‘discovered’ by George Lucas, and becoming a tourist attraction with significant economic benefits. In the Internet age such calculations don’t work, with far more effective ways of both protecting and projecting ones heritage.
However, we equally need to introspect as well. In the 2017 budget ₹9.24 billion has been allocated to the ASI while ₹2.43 billion was earmarked for centenaries and anniversaries. Clearly, when hagiography trumps heritage, we need whatever scarce resources we have diverted to protecting and projecting our own rather than subsidising the agenda of others. As you stop a while beneath a shelter in the market to escape sudden downpour, there can be two reactions of the shopkeeper inside. To one, your presence may be objectionable; you may be asked to stay aside, keeping the passage free for customer that you are not. At the next shop the scene may be different. You may be requested to come inside and be seated comfortably till the drizzle is over; this man also knows that you are not the customer.