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.
‘It’s A Repulsive 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”.
I don’t buy the argument that there is a scarcity of funds which justifies the entry of a private company to maintain the Red Fort. Just from ticketing sales, the ASI can raise enough money so as to take care of services like provision of toilets, drinking water, cleanliness, etc. The funds could have been easily raised by the government.Harbans Mukhia, Historian
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”.
The Aga Khan trust has established itself as a credible organisation for historical conservation across the world. But what is the track record of the Dalmia group in terms of maintaining historical monuments? What credentials do they have? I want to know how they’ve been given the whole contract.Harbans Mukhia, Historian
‘With ASI Collapsing, We Need Corporate Funds’
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”.
The ASI is acutely underfunded, with most of its finances going to salaries and the management. The organisation has very few people who have the dedication to properly maintain historical sites. The calibre of the rest of them is terrible.Murad Ali Baig, Historian
But like Mukhia, Baig shares similar concerns of the credibility of the Dalmia Group in terms of managing a historical site.
The Dalmia group has to outline the necessary measures it is going to take, which have to be approved by either ASI or INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage), and needs to constitute a team that has expertise in the field. We’ll have to see how this plays out.Murad Ali Baig, Historian
Political Row Over Dalmia Group Being Declared as ‘Monument Mitra’
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:
The Committee notes that the initiative of ‘Adopt a Heritage’ is a welcome step on the part of the Ministry of Tourism. The Committee recommends that under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) major corporate may be compelled to adopt heritage sites.Report by the Standing Committee
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:
A (Standing) Commitee received a proposal last year that ninety-three monuments should be handed over to the corporates for maintenance. An interesting fact that has come to light is that the name of the Red Fort wasn’t there among those ninety-three monuments.Sohail Hashmi, Historian
Abysmal State of India’s Monuments
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.)