In recent times, the discourse regarding Bharatiya history and archaeology has gained increasing prominence because it offers a powerful lens to understand and influence how Indic civilisation looks at its past – and by logical extension, its present and future.
Heritage Preservation: A Western Lens
Notably, figures like Sanjeev Sanyal and Bibek Debroy have discussed the need for the ASI to reform how it looks at protected monuments and rationalise the list of such monuments to preserve heritage more effectively. However, a key aspect of the debate that has not found much traction yet, is that we largely continue to look at heritage preservation from a Western lens, where structures need to be kept in an “as-is” condition as far as possible.
Consequently, structures are largely preserved in the condition in which they are found, with improvements aiming not to alter the character of the structure once it is considered worthy of preservation. “As-is” preservation may be why the British-era barracks in the (Laal Kila) Red Fort continue to be preserved, although they have very little (cultural) archaeological value, especially compared to the structures that preceded them.
This preservation style is particularly harmful in the Indic context because it does not differentiate between different types of heritage structures – even though the community does this all the time. Consider the emotions evoked in an Ahom when visiting the Ahom Moidams (burial grounds of the Ahom kings of Assam) as opposed to an Ahom palace: Even though both are representative of the same culture and history, the way an individual perceives and values these heritage sites is likely to be very different.
Logically, it follows that the way we “preserve” these heritage sites must be different if we consider heritage preservation to be a dynamic process that interacts with and contributes to the community (as opposed to a static goal achieved by the mere protection of archaeological sites or remnants of them).
So how should we distinguish between different types of heritage structures?
I believe we need to establish an Indic model of heritage preservation that draws on past practices and differentiates strongly between what I term “living heritage” (e.g. temples, ancestral burial grounds) and “archaeological heritage” (e.g. forts, palaces).
Living Heritage vs Archaeological Heritage: Is there a difference?
The basic differentiation between “living heritage” and “archaeological heritage” is the relevance of the historicity of the monument to its value as a part of Indic heritage.
For example, living heritage such as a temple (like the Trimbakeshwar jyotirling) that is rebuilt subsequent to natural disaster or iconoclasm continues to be as important as the previous structure for the community because of what it continues to represent – the “heritage” value of the structure is weakly linked to how old it is. Put differently, the historicity of the current structure adds but the lack of it does not subtract from its value as a heritage structure for the community because it is seen as an unbroken continuation of what came before it.
This is particularly true for Dharmic sites which are believed to be located at “energy sites” and sanctified with the presence of the divine (post-consecration) – which gives them a value that is largely independent of the physical structure at any given time. However, similar arguments (but not identical) can be extended to other religious sites as well as ancient burial grounds/sites for classification as living heritage.
Conversely, archaeological heritage like a fort largely derives its value from its historicity and the events that occurred there; rebuild from-scratch a fort in the present day and it will be of much less heritage value than an older structure – in essence, the “heritage” value of the structure is strongly linked to how old it is. Moreover, the location of a destroyed palace (or other such archaeological heritage) rarely has any lasting value nor continues on as an active concern in public memory.
Living Heritage: An Indic Tradition
While archaeological heritage is best managed by preserving as much of the original structure as possible with as little alterations as necessary (as is currently done), should we not treat living heritage differently from archaeological heritage?
The answer, to me, lies in looking at Indic tradition and what the community expects out of heritage preservation for living monuments. At the grand Kailasa Temple in Ellora, one is made aware of multiple changes and additions made in the past – including a beautiful painting of the mandir in Rani Ahilyhabai Holkar’s time that has now mostly faded away. Examples abound of kings in the past refurbishing temples or the burial grounds of their ancestors – whether through minor repairs (renovation, refurbishment), the addition of new elements (new painting, new designs, new structures) or the construction of an entirely new physical structure at the site if the original one was in a degraded state. These changes added to the heritage value of the site, rather than detracting from it.
Unfortunately, many examples of living heritage seem to be decaying away with the current model. Visiting Sarnath, one can only see the remnants of a large and magnificent Buddhist temple that stood on the site. The plinths are the majority of what remains and visitors wearing shoes give it no more than a moment’s consideration before moving on. In this way, living heritage has been allowed to turn into a mere archaeological curiosity.
Similarly, the Sahastrabahu (locally, ‘Saas-bahu’) temple and Teli ka Mandir in the Gwalior Fort have some of the most stunning examples of fine carving and ceiling work. Yet, visitors can usually only step in for a few seconds without being overwhelmed by the musty, mouldy smell emanating from within. This would not be the case if it was, as it was meant to be, an active site of worship.
The key point here is that when preserving living heritage, we must ensure not to miss the woods for the trees by focussing solely on the structure itself without considering how to maintain its role within the community. For ancient temples and religious structures, I believe true heritage preservation means rebuilding them if they have been destroyed and degraded, refurbishing them to repair damage including repairing sculptures and paint work even if it may not wholly match what existed in the past – with the ultimate aim of restarting worship so that it can continue to live on and provide value to the community as it was meant to. Similarly, for ancestral burial grounds and sites of tribal significance, we should maintain the sanctity of the site by ensuring that visitors abide by the practices and traditions of the location instead of ‘tourist’-ifying it (or improving accessibility at the cost of sanctity).
Heritage preservation of living heritage is truly achieved when it continues to be relevant to – and serves the role it was meant to serve within the community. This would be a continuation of our civilisational heritage.
Benefits for Heritage Preservation
Making this distinction will be hugely important in reclaiming Indic civilisational tradition and presents several key benefits for the ASI, especially for living heritage structures:
Sanctity: Many of our sites that should be living heritage are plagued with issues of adolescents carving out their names, immature reels being made and a general lack of observance of the sanctity that should otherwise mark them. Specifically, for Dharmic (former) places of worship, many enter with shoes which is otherwise generally considered disrespectful. When these sites are treated as living heritage and their traditions are maintained, it tends to improve the sanctity of the site.
Funding: Reviving and beautifying former places of worship may also ameliorate the key issue of the funding crunch that the ASI faces. Once visitors enter not merely as tourists donating to a government department (the ASI) but as devotees who will partake in religious services, and create the ancillary ecosystem around this (tourism, puja materials, food) that could add a new funding stream and take the burden off the ASI. It will also create the ability for the ASI to raise funds more easily for certain projects – for example, raising funds from the Jain community and Jain businessmen for the sole purpose of restoring a Jain temple is likely to be easier than asking them to donate to the ASI in general. While the current system admittedly allows for individuals to make donations for specific heritage sites or purposes via the National Culture Fund (NCF), the awareness is low and the ability to carry out larger-scale crowdfunding not as high compared to launching targeted campaigns. This will not only enable the ASI to restore these sites but also divert crucial funding to archaeological heritage sites that need preservation.
Cultural Evolution: Finally, making the distinction between living and archaeological heritage will not only help to maintain an Indic tradition but will also allow for cultural evolution. Admittedly, this should only be done with the consent of the community to avoid unnecessary changes. However, as the success of some temple corridors (Jagannath Puri, Kashi Vishwanath) have shown, people are willing to accept modifications to age-old sites if it improves the overall experience. In the past, we were able to see huge variations in architectural styles such as different design motifs or different temple architecture styles. However, now the pace of evolution has slowed down with cultural or religious art styles mostly being based on the old and new styles largely not being developed. Such cultural stasis will be damaging in the long-term because it does not evolve with the changing society and will make it ever harder to ‘hold onto the past’. Instead, one should accept and incorporate new fusions and designs.
When we allow living heritage to flourish without being excessively caught up by whether every change meets a narrow definition of historicity, it will restore their place in the community and engender renewed creativity that will form the next generation of Indic cultural heritage.
Leave a Comment