72 IA&B - MAY 2009
PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATION Vasanta Sobha calls for the formation of an institutional body which would take care of the health of heritage after it is conserved. Diagrams: Courtesy the author
W
hen the unfinished Anegundi Bridge at Hampi, a new construction causing much distress to the conservation team there, collapsed recently, the consultant shared the ‘good news’ with the conservation community, saying nature gave a good answer to the ‘mistake’ being made in the name of development.
and intervention. From this theoretical perspective, the present conservation boom in India is still in the form of spurts of efforts initiated by passionate individuals/groups at different places and not as a comprehensive policy, planning or programme of the country.
Yes, indeed, God has been rather kind to heritage in India. The roof of the Tarapore Montessori School building in Hyderabad collapsed within seconds after the last student walked out of the room in the evening, sparing loss of lives and injuries. It is sheer good luck for the conservation field that a chip of the ceiling fell on the feet of Dr. Haripriya Rangarajan, wife of the then Governor of Andhra Pradesh, at their official residence Raj Bhavan in Hyderabad a few years ago. With due regard to the first lady who was slightly injured, this incident served to make the Governor initiate a good scientific study of heritage buildings.
PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATION
It is a fact that though these freak incidents of nature have brought good luck to heritage buildings, they donot add to the credits of conservation efforts by professionals and that we donot lie back and pray for storms, hurricanes and torpedoes to sweep away wrong developments and inactions. The Indian conservation movement has seen a definite growth in the last two decades, both in terms of number of people fighting for the cause as well as the number of places where there has been considerable impact. There are more policies and also more projects. But these efforts still remain sporadic and random rather than uniform. This is evident when we ask a few questions. Are the on-going conservation efforts evenly distributed geographically across the country? If there are a number of projects generated in one area, does it imply that there isn’t any heritage worthy of preservation in other areas? Are the provision of conservation infrastructure and expertise commensurate with the conservation needs of an area? As conservation theory goes, the rich heritage of any country should be inventoried at national, state and local level and their historic, architectural and other values are to be assessed and graded. Conservation needs of each place/area/building are assessed. It is then that conservation projects are prioritised for investment
From the days of the 19th century Archaeological Acts of the country to this day, conservation of monuments and historic buildings is structured independent of the mainstream planning policies and institutions in India. India works through a three-tier planning system of national, state and local levels, with district level as an intermediate planning unit, which has a defined functional framework and revenue flow mechanisms from level to level. The Town Planning, Urban Development, Municipal Corporation, Municipality Acts/Organisations are made for preparation of Master/Development Plans, their implementation, provision and operation of services etc. at the local levels, where heritage buildings are located. For many years, the Master Plans followed the ‘Urban Renewal’ approach to deal with old parts of cities/towns and prepared ‘redevelopment’ plans. Depending on the physical condition and state of preservation, the old areas were either given the treatment of ‘clearance’, ‘rehabilitation’ or ‘conservation’. Historicity, architectural/ urban character, values etc., were not necessarily considered, but for the occasional sensitive planner who took interest in these aspects while dealing with planning issues. Around 1980s, the concept of ‘listing of historic buildings’ and demarcation of ‘heritage precincts, and their inclusion in the master plans was introduced at the local levels in different cities in India. The era of policies for heritage regulations has begun and separated inner core cities from mainstream planning.
BEYOND POLICY… The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS Habitat) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) through the Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP) defined ‘Institutionalisation’, for Environmental Planning and Management, as something “ ...to be absorbed and integrated into the institutions and normalisation of the city, with the SCP ideas being accepted and acted upon. It means that the activities of the SCP process will have become normal and routine activities of the various organisations and interested groups. It means the new practices of environmental planning and management will be carried on and sustained, no longer dependent upon the initiative of a special project”.