The much-awaited announcement finally has come – that the historic fortress of Gingee (correct name Senji) has been accorded UNESCO World Heritage status, as part of a chain of citadels associated with Maratha history. It is worthwhile pointing out that Gingee is the only such site in South India to be so recognized. It is a much-deserved recognition, one that will help in making it a tourist hot spot. The question is, will Fort St George ever make it to this status? Or is it fated to remain a mere administrative centre with an ever-decreasing set of heritage buildings?
That Gingee fort was given UNESCO recognition based on its Maratha lineage is interesting for such a connection is tenuous at best. The site has a history going back many centuries prior to this, tracing its origins to the Konar rulers of the 10th century. What was a mud fortress grew in strength and stature under the Vijayanagar rulers and later the Nayaks. It then came under the Golconda Sultanate, was held briefly by the Mughals, and it was only in the 18th century that the Marathas held it, very briefly. It later passed on to the British. What we have today there is a medley of structures, reflecting this continuity of history.
Gingee undoubtedly deserves this recognition. Its relatively remote location till recent times, and the difficulty of access to the summit has meant very few depredations by the modern-day visitor. The ASI controls the Fort in full and that means one owner, whatever be their strengths or weaknesses. It must also be acknowledged here, based on reports received from reliable sources, that much of the initiative to push it into the Maratha list came from outside our State. That did not prevent everyone from jumping on the congratulatory bandwagon of course when the recognition came.
In sharp contrast to this, Fort St George lacks a champion. The State Government, no matter who has been in power, has chosen to forget this has been the seat of modern governance for over 75 years now and hesitates on whether it should be pushing its British legacy. There is also the problem of multiple owners – the TN Assembly, the TN Secretariat, the Army, the Navy and the ASI, all of them at loggerheads. The last-named, which should be the foremost in forwarding the fort’s claim has not had a great record here. It has delisted buildings at will and also allowed so-called protected locations to crumble. In fact, the Army and the Navy claim they are reluctant to part with buildings they own in the Fort for fear that the ASI will allow their demolition.
The Fort, with the administration centred here, also suffers from bad upkeep and scarcity of space. Several buildings have come up which are not in keeping with the character of the area and as some others collapse their place is sure to be taken over by further new construction. How then can it fulfil one of the important requirements for UNESCO recognition – a continuity of tradition and a space of significant historicity?
It is absolutely necessary for the administration, and for the armed forces, to come to an understanding with the ASI for the maintenance of the buildings in the fort. These need to be listed, their historicity established and documented and a plan for their preservations needs to be arrived at. And there must be a concerted move to showcase the place. If all of these are done, we can confidently ask for such a status. Is this too much to hope for? Or is it too late?