Protecting Heritage is Essential Provided the Measures Are Right

Amitabh Kant, former CEO of NITI Aayog and former G-20 Sherpa of India

India’s heritage conservation framework is cumbersome, dry and counter-productive. It is neither able to preserve the past nor is it allowing the future of the country to move forward. The reason for this is the ‘Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act’ of 1958.

The law imposes the same rules on about 3,700 protected monuments in the country – that each monument has a restricted zone of 100 meters around it, where no construction can take place, and a further controlled zone of 200 meters, where development activities are strictly controlled. This framework, which appears to be very strict, is actually ineffective.

This binds all monuments to the same rules, while doing little to benefit conservation. Its economic-social cost is also very high. The list of protected sites in India is unusually diverse. These range from sites of global importance to minor remains. Some are graves and cemeteries dating back to the colonial period.

There are more than a hundred ‘Kos Minarets’, which were marks for measuring distance. Some ‘protected sites’ are actually movable objects, while others are on paper. But the same 300 meter restriction applies to everyone. If this approach really improved conservation, it could be advocated. But in practice it is exactly the opposite.

A similar ban does not eliminate activities around monuments, but makes them illegal. Remember the structures near many monuments, whose structures reach up to the walls of the monuments. It is this encroachment that causes more damage to monuments than any controlled development.

Here, due to restrictions on formal development, no meaningful economic activity is able to flourish in the vicinity. This also eliminates the revenue sources that actually sustain these legacies. For example, cafes, small businesses, cultural events. As a result, the monuments are not properly maintained and gradually deteriorate. This is equally harmful for tourism.

If you impose such rules on monuments then heritage tourism cannot flourish separately. Infrastructure and basic facilities are essential for tourists. But it is missing from many monuments in the country. Due to restrictions, it is difficult to build connection roads, parking, sanitation, lights and even public facilities there. That is why it is difficult to reach many places.

In contrast, Rome’s Colosseum, Paris’ Eiffel Tower and London’s historic sites have been integrated into dense urban environments through design controls, harmony with infrastructure, commercial activities and public spaces rather than restrictions. Therefore, the number of foreign tourists visiting the Eiffel Tower alone is four times more than all the protected monuments in India combined.

This rule also affects the quality and dignity of everyday life. Entire areas in cities are trapped in these rules. It takes up to five years just to get permission for repairs.

People living around Shaniwarwada in Pune say that due to the ban they are forced to live in dilapidated houses. Metro corridors, expansion of hospitals and other urban infrastructure development schemes also remain stuck for years due to entanglement in rules.

Due to lack of approvals in Agra, the infrastructure work in the Smart City project got stuck. The work of critical care facility in the district hospital got stuck due to Madikeri Fort falling in the restricted area in Karnataka. Similar obstacles were faced in the works of Delhi and Kolkata Metro. This increases costs, the public does not get services on time and economic opportunities are lost.

Its biggest impact is visible in the form of the vast land that has been locked in this system. An estimated land worth about Rs 20 lakh crore is stuck in these restricted areas in Indian cities. In Delhi alone, about 16 thousand acres of land worth Rs 8.7 lakh crore is stuck in these rules.

In a country with extremely expensive and scarce urban land, this system restricts supply, drives up prices and ultimately stifles development. Our current approach to heritage conservation is based on the mistaken assumption that distance alone can ensure protection.

(These are the author’s own views)

Make Dainik Bhaskar your favorite source on Google ➔