Tags:
Journalism of Courage
It is a sad commentary on our times that though we talk incessantly about our glorious heritage we do precious little to take care of it. Stories of the neglect of our built heritage, chronicled by The Indian Express series, make for painful reading. Even more painful is the realisation that the recommendations of the Mirdha Committee on what can be done to stem the neglect have not been implemented even after 20 years. Why fuss about a few old crumbling monuments, some may argue, when there are more pressing problems like unemployment and poverty. But fuss we must because man does not live by bread alone, and beauty and a feeling of connectivity to the past is needed by even the poorest of us. Our built heritage serves as a living storehouse of design for craftsmen, architects, and yes, even fashion designers. And there are economic reasons as well 8212; monuments boost tourism and provide jobs to millions.
Even modern China, after decades of a systematic and cataclysmic attempt to wipe out its cultural past, has realised the value of its built heritage, and a new fascination with the old is sweeping across the country. Though gleaming skyscrapers have become the order of the day, efforts are on to preserve and revitalise the pockets of distinctive old architecture as in the Xintiandi district of Shanghai, making it a major tourist attraction.
When the British came to India in the eighteenth century, many of the country8217;s ancient monuments were in a poor condition. Neither Hindu, Muslim nor the Sikh rulers of India had refrained from vandalising or destroying older historic or artistic buildings, parts of which were used by them in new constructions.
While the Marathas had not actually destroyed the Taj Mahal while they controlled Agra, a Maratha chief had appropriated it for his residence. Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his followers, had converted the finest mosques into powder magazines or stables. In the South, though there was no deliberate destruction of monuments, artistic heritage was destroyed through ignorance. A local Raja had used material from the Amravati Stupa to build a new temple and his house.
Admittedly, not all British rulers appreciated our monumental heritage, or if they did, were interested in preserving it for posterity. Many officials carted off precious sculptures to England for personal collections or for sale, and there were philistines even among the highest in the land. Lord William Bentinck, credited with bringing educational reform to India, is said to have proposed the auctioning of the marble of the Taj Mahal after its demolition, though the story may be apocryphal. He is also reported to have proposed to lease the Sikandara gardens to the executive engineer at Agra for speculative cultivation.
After the 1857 revolt, the early British interest in Indian art and architecture was eclipsed in the general animosity to Indians, and monuments were desecrated. For instance, the Teli ka Mandir, a great medieval temple in the Gwalior Fort which had been captured from Maharaja Scindia, was converted by the British garrison into a soda water factory and coffee shop. And the misuse continued till the 20th century: A coat of whitewash was spattered over the sandstone pillars and plinths of the Diwan-i-Aam of the Agra Fort in preparation for the visit of the Prince of Wales in 1876; the Moti Masjid in the Lahore Fort was used as a government treasury; the mosque of Siddi Sayid in Ahmedabad was used as a tehsildar8217;s office and disfigured with plaster partitions and whitewash, and so on.
But fortunately for India, there were a few 8212; company officials such as W Hunter, William Erskine and Sir Charles Mallet 8212; who discovered the monuments 8212; Elephanta, Madurai temples, Mahabalipuram temples and Ellora 8212; and documented them, and Viceroys such as Lord Canning, Lord Mayo, Lord Lytton and Lord Curzon, who realised the importance of monumental heritage for a nation8217;s pride, and put in place policies and structures to safeguard monuments.
Why, when our own rulers were so indifferent, did an alien race, whose own cultural heritage was so dissimilar to ours, feel impelled to take an interest and responsibility for the conservation of India8217;s artistic heritage? The answer is interesting: Apart from the fact that in the 18th century interest in antiquities and monuments was part of the great enlightenment sweeping Europe at the time, to take care of the achievements of past civilisations was considered a hallmark of enlightened rulership.
Lord Mayo, who established the Archeological Survey of India, observed: 8216;8216;The duty of investigating, describing and protecting the ancient monuments of a country is recognised and acted on by every civilised nation in the world.8217;8217;
It is worth noting, particularly in the context of neglect by today8217;s state governments of their obligation to conserve monuments, that the Viceroys mentioned believed that the onus of protecting and conserving monuments should be on the central government. In the words of Lord Lytton, 8216;8216;the preservation of the national antiquities and works of art ought not to be exclusively left to the charge of local governments i.e. provincial governments which may or may not always be alive to the importance of such a duty. Lieutenant Governors who combine aesthetic culture with administrative energy are not likely to be very common.8217;8217;
Lord Curzon added: 8216;8216;I cannot conceive of any obligation more strictly appertaining to a supreme government than the conservation of the most beautiful and perfect collection of monuments in the world, or one more likely to be scamped and ignored by a delegation of authority to provincial administrations.8217;8217;
To him it did not matter that the monuments were not monuments of Christian but other faiths. He said, 8216;8216;Art and beauty, and the reverence that is owing to all that has evoked human genius or has inspired human faith, are independent of creeds.8217;8217; Whatever the faith represented, the monuments were each 8216;8216;a part of the heritage which providence has committed to the custody of the ruling power.8217;8217;
Pained at the neglect and misuse of historic monuments, he introduced the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904, with words which all of us would do well to keep in mind, for we are all guardians of our heritage: 8216;8216;As a pilgrim at the shrine of beauty I have visited them, but as a priest in the temple of duty have I charged myself with their reverent custody and their studious repair.
The writer is author of the book, Patrons and Philistines: Arts and the State in British India
