Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Vinita Deshmukh dismisses Gautam Bhatia8217;s point 8216;The past is not just rubble8217;, IE, September 16. If she suggests a building is worth preserving because it reminds us of a unique lifestyle, one would have to surmise she is also a 8220;typical forward-looking person of urban India8221;. While many do look upon India8217;s heritage with disdain, there are as many who look at it with nostalgia for the 8220;quaint8221;. This gets compounded when the latter elite return after completion of courses in York and educate the masses about what happens in 8220;most developed countries8221;. The operative word perhaps is 8220;developed country8221; and what they make of 8220;heritage8221;.
A.G.K. Menon8217;s plea to redefine 8220;heritage8221;, and the heritage conservation movement in India in general, within a cultural framework of values has fallen on deaf ears. However, we are often reminded of Unesco/Icomos8217;s definition that emanates from a set of concerns, alien to ours in India. Jyotindra Jain has argued that preserving a decontextualised past, such as 8220;museumised8221; objects in glass boxes, is a colonial legacy jarring with traditional Indian attitudes to the past. This is an issue worth considering. One has only to compare Siena with Jaisalmer.
8220;Developed countries8221; 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 8220;archaic8221; conservation legislation that protects the rarefied air of Lutyen8217;s Delhi from being colonised by the 8220;natives8221;? 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.
