Monumental sights

The proposal to set up a National Heritage Sites Commission is a belated recognition of the dire condition of India8217;s historical heritage. As the Express has been chronicling over the past weeks, India is losing precious historical sites because of the monumental neglect by the government and the callous indifference of society. But in order for a National Heritage Commission to be successful, it will have to bring a paradigm shift in how we conceive historical sites.

The government already has a myriad of agencies meant to preserve the nation8217;s heritage, including of course the ASI. But these have been less than successful because they converted preserving heritage into something that was often akin to a badly-run PWD operation. They also distanced heritage from the citizen. First, they put the management of these sites in the hands of indifferent government bureaucracies rather than involved professionals. Second, they overlooked the fact that monuments are embedded in a wider culture and society. The task of preservation is better carried out if these linkages are recognised but most of the existing agencies are not in a position to do so. Those who preserved monuments seldom engaged with urban planners, for instance, in order to integrate the monuments into their surroundings more imaginatively. Third, these agencies were reluctant to embrace public-private partnerships that would not only have generated much needed resources, but put the management of these sites in the hands of those who had an incentive to preserve them. Fourth, existing institutions could not perform the task of engaging with the wider public on issues of heritage. The task of those engaged in preservation cannot be limited only to looking after brick and mortar. They have to engage with citizens about these sites, impart to them a sense of ownership, so that we can all participate in their preservation. And, finally, these agencies were often powerless to have their orders enforced.

Therefore, any new panel should first and foremost bring a high degree of professional competence to the management of these sites. But its members should also have the ability to engage with a wide variety of actors so that more and more sections of society acquire a stake in this process. They should be able to think at the intersection of economics and architecture, conservation and sociology, aesthetic good sense and imaginative financial instincts. Any intervention that does not recognise these aspects is bound to fail. The Commission should also be sufficiently empowered to make the relevant government departments act. Most importantly, it should be the instrument for transforming our consciousness about our heritage, so that we come to value it as our own.