There’s controversy brewing and it’s regarding the Union Government’s ‘Adopt a Heritage’ project that has seen the iconic Lal Qila or the Red Fort in New Delhi being among the first of the priceless treasures of the Nation to be leased out to a corporate group for its maintenance. Under the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ project, the Red Fort, which is around four centuries old, is expected to be transformed into an exciting and lively public space with modern amenities, and it is estimated that the corporate group will spend Rs 25 crore on the project over the next five years.
Other heritage structures across the country are also on the list of monuments to be adopted by corporate houses for their maintenance, and this includes the Taj Mahal in Agra, a move that has led the Congress to question whether the priceless heritage of the country is being privatised.
This is not the first time that a heritage structure in the country – the State of Goa included – has been taken over or leased out to a corporate group for its upkeep. There is a long list of example of heritage structures being converted into hotels, museums and adapted to other uses. What has ignited debate in this case is the historic importance of the structure, and the question that is being asked most often is whether the government is unable to maintain such an important heritage structure that it has to lease out – the word ‘auction’ is also being used at times in this connection – the monument to a corporate for maintenance.
The Red Fort is not any other fort, palace, haveli or mausoleum. New Delhi’s Red Fort is where every year on Independence Day the Prime Minister of the country unfurls the National Flag and then delivers his address to the Nation. It was here that at midnight on August 15, 1947 that the Union Jack was lowered and the Tricolor went up for the first time ushering in an Independent India. And so the questions being raised on whether it is right to give a site as historic as this, a site almost symbolic of the nation as the picture is easily identifiable with India and often used to depict the country along with the Taj Mahal, do make a valid point.
The defence is that the scheme launched last year is to attract public participation to develop heritage monuments. The company that has adopted the heritage monument will not make any financial gains, nor be permitted to undertake corrective works to it. The monument will remain the property of the ASI, with the aim being to protect, preserve and market the country’s heritage.
The debate on social media has got writers William Dalrymple and Chetan Bhagat tweeting – one questioning it, the other defending it. While Dalrymple says, ‘Tier 1 monuments are a nation’s crown jewels. They should not be played around with,’ Bhagat tweeted, “It’s an innovative way to save the government some money and preserve a monument.” Dalrymple, however, makes a pertinent point when in another tweet he says, “There must be better ways of maintaining a nation’s greatest monuments…”
It may be still too early to say whether the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ project would lead to privatisation of the country’s heritage monuments. It is, however, the government’s duty to maintain its national treasures, and the Red Fort and the Taj Mahal come under this category. Roping in corporate resources for specialised projects may be acceptable, but placing an entire monument, the likes of the Red Fort and Taj Mahal, into the hands of a corporate entity is quite different. The government has to ensure that such a move does not lead to privatisation.
