|
How do we save the Madrasa-e-Azam, the owners wonder
|
It is now more than two years since the Hon'ble High Court of Madras decreed that a certain number of listed buildings cannot be demolished. It then asked the Government to set up a committee to study the list, add to it if needed and, most importantly, draft a set of heritage legislations to protect and restore these buildings.
Since then, however, there
has been no action forthcoming
from this committee and this
has left the property owners to
interpret to undertake protection
of heritage buildings in
their own ways. It is no exaggeration
to state that most of
them are only looking at creative
ways to circumvent the
Court directive.
The majority are happy not
to demolish their buildings, but
they take no steps to preserve or
protect them. They are secure
in the knowledge that real estate
appreciates any way and so
all they have to do is simply wait
for the buildings to collapse on
their own. The owners are not
in any way committed to restoring
these buildings. The initial
(and only) letter sent out by the
Heritage Conservation Committee
(HCC) has aided these
people, for while it clearly states
what cannot and should not be
done with the heritage structures,
it is completely silent on
what can and must be done. It
is, in other words, a classic
example of Government-speak.
There is another category
which is also completely
hemmed in by the same letter.
This pertains to a small group
of owners who are eager to take
up restoration work but have no
idea as to what can be done and
do not want to end up on the
wrong side of the law. An example
of this is the Trust that
owns the Madrasa-e-Azam
property. Trustees have gone
on record that they are eager to
restore the building if only advised
on how to go about it. But
with the HCC silent on this,
they don't know what to do
other than watch their beloved
edifice crumble.
A third group has chosen to
interpret the ruling in a different
way. Members of this group
are approaching the HCC with
assurances that they intend to
build an entirely new structure,
on the same pattern and design
as the old building. This is a
laughable idea at most. If the
idea is to rebuild to the same
design, why not restore the existing
structure and make modifications
to the interior to suit
modern requirements? And if
the construction involves doing
away with the old building,
what is left of heritage even if
the new structure is on the same
lines? In any case, such promises
are only made with an intention
to delude the heritage
activists. In the past, when
Bentinck's Building was demolished
and Spencer's burned
down, assurances were given
that the new buildings would be
on the same lines. What was
put up is available for all to see
and it is for each to decide on
how the promise was honoured.
The HCC thankfully saw
through the LIC's plans when
it presented a scheme to remodel
the Bharat Insurance
Building with similar assurances.
But it may not be so firm when
it comes to other buildings,
whose owners have approached
the HCC with similar plans.
Certainly, the rather self-congratulatory
statements that
came forth from the HCC in the
instance of the new Bible
Society Building does not make
us feel confident. The Society
demolished its heritage structure
and the HCC was left with
no choice but to approve the
new design which, on the basis
of an arched façade, claims to
be on the lines of the earlier
structure. The only aspect on
which the HCC had its way was
to limit the height of the building
to that of the neighbouring
Memorial Hall. We should
probably have to be thankful for
that.
There is one last variety.
Chiefly comprising religious establishments
(barring the Bible
Society, we guess), this group is
going ahead with whatever it
feels is right. It is cashing in on
the probably correct surmise
that the Government will do
nothing to fan religious passions
by interfering.
All this can be avoided if the
HCC focusses on its mandate of
drafting heritage laws quickly
and recommending them to the
Government. With a Bill already
pending on the same subject,
the suggestions can surely
be added and legislated upon if
only the Government had the
will. That way, we can save our
heritage in reality rather than
pay lip service to the cause.
|