The next time the tiranga is raised on the occasion of Independence Day in Delhi, it will be at the Dalmia Bharat Red Fort. That the monuments of India can become subject to the new provisions of ‘Monument Mitra’ that allow an individual or a corporate house to adopt a monument and render it more ‘tourism friendly’ makes for a radical departure in India’s heritage laws.
Under the new provisions, around 100 Indian monuments are to be privately run and maintained on what Culture Minister Mahesh Sharma describes as a ‘first come-first serve’ basis.
A well-articulated cultural policy from the government has been keenly awaited since it came to power four years ago. At the core of this expectation could lie the maintenance of material heritage — temples and monuments, manuscripts or dying craft traditions.
Equally, the continuing role of cultural institutions and the larger issues of urban design needed to be articulated. What we have instead, at the end of four years, is an admission of inability to run prominent national monuments.
ASI needs renovation
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which is in the eye of the storm, is attracting little attention. Nor is its role being augmented. Yet its functioning over 150 years and a redefinition of its role are at the core of the controversy.
Granted an annual budget of nearly ₹975 crore, the ASI under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act is directly responsible for “3,650 ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance.”
Formed in 1861, the ASI has long been the beleaguered face of India’s architectural heritage and conservation. A plodding style of functioning, inadequate signages, poor facilities, unimaginative displays, and an enormous resource crunch have dogged its history.
It has been unable to protect artefacts against thefts and smuggling, the defacing of monuments (think ‘Bittu loves Pinky’ scratched on a Mughal period gumbad ), encroachments or squatters.
Further, rules that govern the acceptable use of monuments — as in the staging of Alkazi’s Tughlaq at Purana Qila, Jahan-e-Khusrau at Arab ki Sarai, the Khajuraho dance festival, or the shooting of films — have also not been clearly mandated.
The government’s Monument Mitra and ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme seems cavalier in its understanding of what qualifies as adequate monument use. Whether the real issues around monument management and preservation will become subservient to the interests of tourism is a very real concern.
In the heat generated around the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme, even as corporate houses line up at the doors of the Ministry of Tourism, the specific challenges that this ministry faced are not clear. That the government has tacitly expressed its inability to build kiosks, provide clean water or build toilets — all basic CPWD exercises — is puzzling. It makes the grand plans of building smart cities appear like a distant dream.
Earns ₹6 crore a year
When the Minister for Culture announces that the Dalmia Group will maintain the area in and around the fort, and provide clean drinking water and toilets, it would suggest that heritage sites are outside the ambit of Swachh Bharat initiatives.
While there may be some questions about what it costs to maintain Lal Qila and provide such basic facilities, there is also little doubt that of the 100 or so monuments that would come under the ‘privatised’ model, many are money-spinners.
The Taj Mahal tops the list of annual revenue at nearly ₹22 crore — these are 2014 figures — with the Red Fort earning nearly ₹6 crore that year. Compare this with the ₹25 crore rendered as ‘lease’ by Dalmia Bharat at approximately ₹5 crore per year. In effect, then, the money generated by the scheme is less than the annual ticket sales on the site. If indeed such a scheme had to be extended, perhaps it could have been towards less prominent monuments than those chosen? Or else directed specifically at the more challenging task of protecting these sites?
The notional use of a national heritage property by a private enterprise also needs to be examined. Under the terms of the agreement, the Dalmia Group stands to gain the 250 acres of prime land in the heart of the national capital, and all the publicity and sales material generated by the monument, for branding and advertising. Whether the group will influence the ticket price, how history will be represented in its programmes, and how information disseminated are not known.
The nomenclature of the scheme itself is puzzling. ‘Adopt a Heritage’ hardly specifies that the ‘heritage’ is only material property. Bharatnatyam or Varanasi weaving also qualify as ‘heritage’. ‘Adopt’ suggests that our heritage is indeed orphaned, and may be rescued only through adoption, and that the act of adoption confers identity through naming. But, while the Dalmia Bharat Group will prominently advertise itself across the Red Fort, as per the terms of agreement, it will not be held responsible for any damage to the property.
Finally, the argument that such sponsorships are not new internationally is perhaps valid. However, direct intervention of a private institution in a national heritage property is feasible if heritage conservation is their area of expertise — as with the Aga Khan Foundation and its extensive restoration of Humayun’s tomb.
Or else if a corporate house brings some specialised skills that the government is unable to provide, such as expertise in heritage management. Dalmia Bharat, a priori absolved of all responsibility if anything goes wrong, with no history of hospitality or heritage management, no track record of expertise in tourism or the dissemination of the nation’s history, does not make for a promising beginning.
The writer is an art critic and curator who, while preoccupied with her art website www.criticalcollective.in, is also contemplating a book
