A question of heritage: PPPs for monument upkeep need checks and balances

Few Indians will disagree that visits to Indian historical monuments are uncomfortable experiences. Basic amenities that tourists take for granted in other parts of Asia are lacking and lax vigilance produces the defacing effect of gratuitous graffiti. Overall, the lack of funds for upkeep and tourism infrastructure is all too evident on the part of the tourism ministry and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the key institution responsible for the preservation of such monuments. To tide over this chronic deficit, which arises mostly from the need to keep domestic ticket prices low, the National Democratic Alliance hit upon the idea corporate participation. In 2016, it invited corporate houses to “adopt” monuments, to pay for their upkeep. From the Lodhi Gardens monuments and Jantar Mantar in Delhi to the temples at Mahabalipuram and the Warangal Fort, several cash-rich public sector companies came forward to sponsor their upkeep. 

The experiment proved moderately successful for the tourism ministry to extend it to the private sector in September last year through the “Monument Mitra” scheme. Under this, Dalmia Bharat has clinched the first of the contracts to “adopt” the Red Fort for five years. News of this sparked a controversy partly because of the Red Fort’s iconic status — its ramparts serve as the venue for every prime minister’s Independence Day (read State of the Union) speech. The notion of this “national” monument being “branded” by a private company is as uncomfortable as the similar treatment being accorded to the Taj Mahal, for which ITC and GMR are reportedly competing. A close reading of the memorandum of understanding, however, suggests that the traditional preservation and conservation work will remain with the ASI, whereas the corporate group concerned will provide and operate designated basic and advanced amenities, which will be administered by an oversight committee with members from the tourism and culture ministries and the ASI. Importantly, the legal status of the monument and its development will continue to vest with the ASI. 

Though the agreement looks acceptable on paper, there is scope for apprehension. The obvious one concerns aesthetics. So far, public sector units that have bankrolled monuments have been fairly unobtrusive in their branding at these sites. The question is whether private corporate groups, for whom branding is the essence of their competitive edge, will exercise similar restraint, especially when they lack expertise in heritage management. The prospect of in-your-face signage and clunky facilities disfiguring Red Fort’s architectural splendours is a very real worry, more so since “Monument Mitra” comes under corporate social responsibility schemes designated by the government. The question that arises is whether the tourism ministry could have relied on specialist agencies like Intach (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) or the Aga Khan Trust, which has done sterling work on Humayun’s tomb and other monuments to Delhi’s rich Islamic heritage. Much, of course, will also depend on how this agreement pans out. As an untried concept, it may have been advisable for the tourism ministry to have chosen a smaller, less significant monument to start with, to serve as a testing ground for possible problems and issues that public-private partnerships (PPPs) are bound to face.