Heritage can be an empty shell

Returning to Bhatia, the point he makes is that in seeking to preserve the bungalow, one is reminding the country of a lifestyle one could associate with colonial repression at worst and native subservience at best. He further reminds us that bureaucrats and politicians assert their “will to power” by using the same structures (institutional and architectural) our erstwhile British masters did to assert theirs. In other words, Lutyen’s bungalows have come to symbolise power and support a lifestyle of power that is often not democratically accrued. Is this why we want to preserve these bungalows? Are the proponents of heritage conservation not merely playing into the hands of ruling elites in preserving their power structures? Bhatia also argues “authenticity”, a principle tenet of heritage conservation, by contrasting the lifestyles of Lutyen’s bungalows’ current occupants with that of the colonialists. He asks if preserving the outer shell of a structure is conservation when everything else has changed. Conservation architects ask these existential questions in all hemispheres; so should we.

“Developed countries” are also pluralist where public opinion and participation are sought on all planning issues, including heritage concerns, in a transparent manner. Do we follow those procedures and ask common citizens what they think of “archaic” conservation legislation that protects the rarefied air of Lutyen’s Delhi from being colonised by the “natives”? Can we deny that some of these development regulations find their roots in the hierarchical imperial legacy on the basis of which New Delhi was designed and founded?

In short, wake up and question the basis of regulation.