advertisement
Cameraperson: Akanksha Kumar & Kabir Upmanyu
Video Editor: Vishal Kumar
The Dalmia Bharat Group’s ‘adoption’ of the Red Fort in Delhi for five years under the government’s ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme has attracted considerable debate since the move was announced two weeks back.
While the detractors have slammed the move dubbing it as “commercialisation” of one of India’s most important monument by a government which has no regard for the country’s historical heritage, the supporters have welcomed the ‘deal’, saying it would bring the much-needed funds for the maintenance of various facilities and services at the Red Fort.
On Thursday, 10 May, various groups — including the AISA, Aman Biradari and ANHAD — came together to march from Rajghat to Red Fort to protest against the deal, which was signed as a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Dalmia Bharat Limited, the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Culture, and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in early April.
The conglomerate reportedly won the Rs 25-crore deal over IndiGo airlines and GMR Group’s bid to become the first corporate house to adopt a major historical monument in India.
In this context, The Quint talked to several historians asking them what their stand in the whole debate is, and the reasons behind their support or opposition to the move.
Calling the move a “repulsive” one, renowned historian Harbans Mukhia who specialises in medieval Indian history says the reasons given to justify the ‘adoption’ are a “petty excuse”.
Notably, among the arguments given by those supporting the adoption of the Red Fort by a private company is that it has a precedent set by The Aga Khan Conservation Trust which successfully managed to restore the Humayun’s Tomb in 2013.
However, Mukhia rubbishes this argument, saying that the two entities – the Aga Khan Conservation Trust and the Dalmia Bharat Group – are “not comparable”.
On the other hand, Murad Ali Baig, an author specialising in Mughal history, asserts that he is “partly” in support of the adoption deal as the “ASI is in a condition of total collapse”.
But like Mukhia, Baig shares similar concerns of the credibility of the Dalmia Group in terms of managing a historical site.
Not just historians, the ‘adoption’ of Red Fort has set a political storm in motion as well with the Opposition pointing fingers at the government for its hasty decision. In March 2018, a Standing Commitee of Parliament with TMC MP Derek O’Brien as its chairman had appreciated the government’s initiative in its report:
However, Derek O’Brien later criticised the government’s move claiming that the panel was ‘kept in the dark’.
Historians like Sohail Hashmi, who also participated in Thursday’s protests question the government’s intent, deeming the signing of MoU as a rushed job:
On 9 May 2018, the ASI was at the receiving end of the Supreme Court’s criticism when the ASI found it tough to explain the discolouration of the Taj Mahal in Agra, with the Court asking, ‘How has the algae reached the top parts?’
The ASI had tried hard to convince the court with its ‘socks-dirt’ theory claiming that not everyone who visits the monument wears socks thus, resulting in accumulation of dirt that causes discolouration of the monument which is regarded as the ‘symbol of love’ globally.
With the ASI facing shortage of funds and staff, it is perhaps a pragmatic move to rope in private players, who can ensure better facilities, thus resulting in an increase in footfalls at historical places and generating revenues for the government in return. The naysayers, however, are in no mood to give the Dalmia Group a chance, making it difficult for the government to justify the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme for now.
(The Quint is now on WhatsApp. To receive handpicked stories on topics you care about, subscribe to our WhatsApp services. Just go to TheQuint.com/WhatsApp and hit Send.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)