Editorial: Monumental concerns
Centre's ‘adopt a heritage’ scheme may appear lofty but there are several concerns that need to be addressed
Hyderabad: While the intention of the revamped ‘adopt a heritage’ scheme of the Central government may, on the face of it, appear lofty — preserving and upkeep of the historic monuments—, there are several concerns that need to be addressed for the initiative to be successful. Under the revised scheme, unveiled recently, over 1,000 monuments would be handed over to private and public sector organisations for their maintenance under the control of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The businesses that enter into such agreements will be known as ‘Monument Mitras.’ The government aims to adopt 500 protected sites by August 15 and another 500 sites shortly thereafter, which would be a tenfold increase in the number of sites brought under the ambit of the original ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme launched in 2017. However, there are legitimate fears that the scheme would put the nation’s valuable pluralistic heritage at risk of extinction. The concerns include areas like historical preservation, community participation, tourism and corporate interests and they need to be addressed urgently. Allowing businesses without expertise in heritage preservation to construct and maintain heritage sites can lead to the risk of losing historical significance and misrepresenting India’s past. The scheme also amounts to sidelining the ASI. It allows businesses to occupy prime public land and build their brands, which may further diminish the grounds around iconic monuments. There are also concerns that the scheme could undermine local communities’ relationships with historical sites, endangering the livelihoods of those who have lived near the site and made a living by regaling visitors with stories of its colourful past.
Some monuments selected for the scheme are not protected by the ASI. As a result, private companies may be able to alter their historical character without much opposition. The monuments may even be converted into hotels, prioritising tourism and corporate interests over historical preservation. There are institutional challenges as well. The lack of adequate resources and trained manpower prevents government agencies from undertaking structural safety research and development. Little efforts to mainstream heritage preservation as a career and provide skills remain a formidable challenge at the institutional level. One of the key hindrances to the preservation of heritage in the country is the absence of convergence between modern-day engineering education and traditional knowledge of construction materials and practices. In India, public awareness about the importance of preservation of monuments is very poor. In fact, many visitors tend to deface historical monuments by inscribing their names on them and littering the area. A better alternative would be to encourage the corporate sector to use its CSR funds to purchase equipment that reduces pollution and protects heritage buildings. They can also contribute funds to organisations that train individuals in much-needed restoration skills and create jobs for them.
