The change in heritage protection laws is bad news for historic sites
the new convention centre could not be constructed otherwise.
The fact is that anywhere else in the world, the imperatives of conservation and development would both have been intelligently accommodated to add to the richness of the city’s heritage assets. One suspects that in both cases the real motives were political in nature: Citing the problems of development was a red herring.
One can easily read the political intent of the government’s decisions if one knows that similar rationalisations favouring development were also used in other countries for political ends. During the postwar urban renewal boom in the US and Britain, for instance, the neighbourhoods of the ‘other’ (blacks, ethnic minorities and the poor) were routinely targeted for demolition in the name of development and to permit developers access to prime real estate.
Activists like Jane Jacobs, author of The Death and Life of Great American Cities, however compellingly exposed the underlying nexus between political intent and capital intensive infrastructure ‘solutions’ to urban problems. She advocated the efficacy of more culturesensitive approaches to meet habitat needs of society, which have lessons for us in India.
The intended beneficiaries of the proposed amendments to the AMASR Act, 2010, are the developers of the infrastructure projects and not the monuments. What is needed are strategies to strengthen heritage protection by drafting the monument-specific byelaws as the Act intended.
There are many development options and compromising the integrity of the monument, as the proposed amendment permits, should not be one of them. This is why the amendments to the AMASR Act, 2010 must be opposed. Hindus and Sikhs there are second-class citizens. It creates disharmony.
The Italians think that allowing Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims the freedom to practise their religion will make them less Italian. But other western countries have proven this wrong.
Sikhs in Britain and North America fought for and won the right to wear kirpans because these countries allow more freedom to practise religion. Allowing them that freedom has made Sikhs even more proud to be British or Americans, not less. They are glad they live in a country that recognises and respects their beliefs, not treats them as a problem.
Italian Sikhs are now desperately trying to resolve their predicament. Last month they presented the Akal Takht, the highest temporal Sikh body (in Amritsar), with an alternative version of the kirpan. It was harmless, symbolic and approved by the Italian government.
But last week the Akal Takht rejected the modified kirpan, saying it went against the Sikh tenets. That leaves Sikhs in Italy in an unfortunate stalemate.
This is where the Indian government can help. It’s not for the centre to interfere in Sikh affairs, but the Prime Minister can certainly make the Sikh case to the Italian government.
Allowing people the freedom to practise their religion doesn’t hurt integration or the national character. In fact it strengthens it. Across the West, Sikhs Hindus and Muslims have demonstrated loyalty to their country while enjoying religious freedom. Italians need to understand the strength that comes from diversity, not dismiss it.