A thumbs down for the ?Adopt a Heritage? scheme

A thumbs down for the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme
 

News: The tenfold increase in the number of sites being brought under the ambit of the controversial ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme of 2017 raises concerns. Unless the ‘revamped’ scheme is suspended, the nation’s precious pluralistic heritage stands at the threshold of obliteration.
 

What is Adopt a Heritage scheme?
 The ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme was launched by the Indian government in September 2017 under the aegis of the Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Culture, and Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
 The main objective of the scheme is to provide world class tourist facilities at the various natural/cultural heritage sites, monuments and other tourist sites to make them tourist friendly, enhance their tourist potential and cultural importance in a planned and phased manner across the country.
 The project primarily focuses on providing basic amenities that include cleanliness, public convenience, drinking water, ease of access for tourists, signage etc. and advanced amenities like TFC, Souvenir shop, Cafeteria etc.
 The public, private sector companies and individuals will develop tourist amenities at heritage sites. They would become ‘Monument Mitra’ and adopt the sites essentially under their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) activity.
 

What are concerns raised?
 A watch company without expertise in bridge engineering to maintain a colonial-era bridge in Morbi, Gujarat, possibly contributed to a heart-wrenching tragedy.
 The current plan side-lines the mandate of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and abandons The Sarnath Initiative, guidelines devised by the ASI, the Getty Trust, U.S., the British Museum, and National Culture Fund to safe keep excavated objects and present them to visitors in an engaging manner.
 Many monuments selected for the scheme — including the stupas at Sanchi, the Brihadeshwar temple in Thanjavur, and Akbar’s palace city at Fatehpur Sikri — already have tourist infrastructure.
 Guided tours led by employees of large businesses who have received permission to adopt a monument may endanger livelihoods of those who have lived near the site and made a living by regaling visitors with stories of its colorful past.
 There are some monuments selected for the scheme that are not protected by the ASI and are in States without Archaeology Directorates. One fears that businesses that sign agreements with the Union Ministry of Culture to adopt these monuments will be able to alter their historical character without much opposition.
 

What can Corporate India rather do?
 Businesses can help citizens understand why monuments matter. Earmarking CSR funds for grants for researching, writing, and publishing high quality textbooks, and developing imaginative and effective ways of teaching history.
 Industrial houses can support the meaningful conservation of heritage buildings by looking within. Their CSR funds can be used to purchase new equipment that release fewer noxious gases that darken and corrode marble buildings and discharge fewer effluents into rivers, thus making these water bodies less likely to serve as breeding grounds of microbes that gather on the walls of ancient buildings erected on riverbanks and cause their decay.
 In the past, Tata Sons, ONGC, and other companies have regularly contributed funds to organisations training individuals in much needed restoration skills and creating jobs for them.
 Since the COVID-19 pandemic, humanities and social sciences departments at some universities have been witnessing a hiring freeze. Corporates can give them a new lease of life by instituting fellowships, endowing professorships, and supporting research training programmes.
 

Conclusion
 Unless the ‘revamped’ scheme is suspended, the nation’s precious pluralistic heritage stands at the threshold of obliteration.