How (NOT) to protect the city’s heritage

The workings of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) under the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) are shrouded in mystery. But what is quite clear is that the speed at which it works is better suited to the era in which the buildings it is meant to protect were constructed. And in the process of grinding slowly, its wheels are letting several opportunities slip. Given the pace of its working, it is open to question as to whether the HCC seriously intends protecting any heritage structure.

Take the listing of heritage buildings, for instance. Despite the presence of a list put together by INTACH (Oops! Who or what is that?), and a subsequent list put together by the Padmanabhan Committee, the HCC is once again in the process of listing buildings. The modus operandi of this exercise and the people involved in the process are top secrets. It is exactly three years (judgement was on April 29, 2010) since the Hon’ble High Court of Madras mandated the formation of the HCC. And at the end of this period, all that the HCC has to show is a first list of 70 buildings and a promise of a second list ‘quite soon’. Even the first list has not been made public (State secret, you see) and we only have vague rumours of the buildings that have made it to that list. It would be relevant to pause and ponder over the fact that the Padmanabhan Committee list and INTACH’s list had 400 and more buildings enumerated.

And what after the first and second lists are finalised in the fullness of time, at the appropriate juncture and when the moment is ripe, to quote from a British sitcom when lampooned that country’s bureaucracy? The HCC proposes to write to the owners. The last time these people heard from the HCC was three years ago when, following the directives of the Court, the HCC wrote to the owners of all the properties/precincts listed as per the Padmanabhan Committee. They were restrained from demolishing or making any changes to their premises. Now, it is learnt, the owners of the buildings featuring in the HCC’s first list will be invited for public consultations. What of the owners of the remaining buildings? They will, it is presumed, sit tight and continue to wait for further instructions even as the structures in their possession gradually wither away. Some, of course, are bound to rejoice, as the status quo helps those who are not interested in preserving their heritage structures.

That is not the end of the story. Those who own buildings featuring in the first list will be categorically told that they cannot expect any support from the Government for protecting their heritage. This is expected to be done at the owners’ expense. If they cannot afford to do so, then what?

Will the HCC, at least, help with technical advice on what can be done? No, because that is not perceived to be its mandate. Peopled as it is by members who are all from the Government and its aided institutions, there is complete conformity to the rulebook and a certain rigid adherence to procedures that makes the very formation of the HCC a self-defeating exercise. If at the end of three years all that there is to show is a measly list of 70 buildings yet to be made public, when are we likely to see any constructive action that will result in some positive protection of our heritage? Are we hoping for too much?

Further, a judgement of the Court called for the HCC to assess the buildings identified in the Padmanabhan Committee Report and advise on how these are to be conserved and made places of tourist importance. What of that mandate?

A crawl to list heritage sites

Historic Beach House, on its way out?

The CMDA and its Heritage Conservation Committee have finally spoken on heritage. Three years after the HCC was set up for the purpose of going into the list of 400-and-odd buildings that were ordered by the High Court of Madras to be listed under heritage status, it has announced that it is finalising a list of 70 buildings that may merit consideration for protection. Conservation and preservation are a long way off, as this list is now to go through a long process of public debate and may undergo changes. It is all too little and too late.

There have been listings of heritage buildings in Madras, going back to the 1990s. INTACH, a body that is now, it would appear, persona non grata with the Government, had compiled the first listing and had submitted it with detailed documents to the Government. This was duly filed after vague promises. Much water has since then flown down the Cooum and the latest list was the one put together by the Justice Padmanabhan Committee in connection with large outdoor hoardings and had around 460 buildings. That list was the enumeration that Justice Prabha Sridevan used in her landmark judgement concerning Bharat Insurance Building as a consequence of which the HCC was formed. The Committee was given the mandate to go through the list, decide on whether gradings suggested by the Justice Padmanabhan Committee were acceptable to it and then offer guidelines for protecting the buildings.

However, the HCC had for reasons best known to itself set about making another list. At the end of three years, it has now decided that 70 buildings may be worthy of protection. As to the methodology used for the enumeration and what the considerations were for including a building in the list, the HCC is silent. The contents of the list are yet to be made public but it is understood that it comprises around 42 public buildings. This in a city that as per independent lists has more than 400 heritage structures!

The story does not end here for heritage structures. The CMDA plans to follow a time-consuming process of public consultation during which it plans to invite the owners of the buildings and explain the heritage value of the structures in their possession. It will record their assent/objections, if any, and then forward its recommendations to the State Government, which will then notify the final list of buildings as having heritage status. Given the way things have moved on heritage thus far, all this is likely to take forever. And, above all, there is not even a mention of a Heritage Act, the creation of which was one of the mandates for the HCC.

If you are to go by newspaper reports, the Government does not plan to extend any financial help to owners of heritage properties for conservation and restoration. The onus is entirely on the property owners and they will be forbidden to demolish the buildings or modify them in any way. Then there follows a line which states that the Government will have a fund for heritage buildings and extend it to owners who cannot afford to maintain their premises. These are steps that are hardly likely to enthuse any heritage property owner to maintain the structure in his/her possession. The HCC needs to come out with positive ways in which people can maintain heritage and that is not being done.

Peopled as it is by Government representatives, the HCC is not functioning in any way close to bodies of a similar nature in other countries. Private owners of heritage properties need to be roped in and made to participate in its working. That will transform it from a rule-bound slow-moving body into a more dynamic one. Given the way heritage buildings are being demolished or allowed to fall apart owing to plain neglect, it is unlikely that any of them will be left standing by the time the last steps to a notification are taken.

A Heritage Act, but could be better

And so, matters move ahead by way of heritage legislation. The State Government piloted last week in the legislative assembly the Tamil Nadu Heritage Commission Bill, 2012. The primary aim is to constitute a Heritage Commission in the State for protecting the “buildings or premises not covered under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and the Tamil Nadu Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1966.” It is a positive development for all concerned with heritage and it is to be hoped that it will reach its logical conclusion of a Heritage Act that will protect a set of notified monuments across the State.

For those who have already begun celebrating, let us add by way of abundant caution that this is yet only a Bill and not an Act. It needs to be passed by the Assembly for it to enter the statute book. However, it cannot be faulted on intent. It aims to establish a Heritage Commission with a detailed mandate (refer box) which includes the creation of a list of heritage buildings across the State which will ultimately be protected by an Act. In other words, when this Commission fulfils its objectives, heritage activists will have a law on the basis of which any demolition can be challenged.

From a glimpse of the proposed Bill, it is clear that much will depend on the composition of the Commission. We have the recent example of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) of the CMDA whose functioning was not in many ways up to the mark. Peopled as it largely was with Government representatives, it went about its task in a markedly bureaucratic fashion. The resultant slowness saw several of the mandates of the Committee not being fulfilled. Several of the listed buildings were demolished and yet no action could be or was taken. And in instances such as the fire at Chepauk Palace, the Committee’s silence was deafening, to say the least.

What is interesting to note is that the proposed Commission is to have a composition that is not in any way different from that of the earlier HCC. And on an aside, it is also not clear as to what the standing of the HCC will be once the Commission comes into the picture. But, to revert to the subject of its membership, the Commission is once again proposed to be largely peopled with Government appointees. And with that being so, will there be quick action?

The HCC had a relatively simpler task – of listing the heritage structures within Chennai and here too its task was made easier by the presence of the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee list. Yet it could not make much progress. Can the new Commission be more successful with a more difficult agenda – listing and protecting buildings across the entire State? And let us face it, monuments in the mofussil are faced with greater and more immediate threats than those in the city where greater awareness and publicity ensure a modicum of protection.

What is, therefore, needed to make the proposed Commission more effective is to change its composition. It needs to get more independent heritage activists on board. A whole host of NGOs across the State are involved in heritage conservation. Some of them need to get representation. The Commission also needs to broaden its base by forming Heritage Sub-Committees in each of the Districts. These must be given the task of preparing lists and recommending structures worthy of protection. The ultimate decision on which of these will make it to the protected list will, of course, rest with the Commission in Chennai, which will also focus on matters of policy. Once the policy is laid down, the task of implementing it must also be passed on to the Sub-Committees. It is only under these circumstances that the formulation of the Heritage Act and its implementation will both be successful.

India has sufficient laws. It largely fails only in implementation. Can this Heritage Commission and its resultant Act be different from the start and aim for effective implementation?

The Heritage Commission’s mandate

The Commission will be responsible for:

a. Preparing a classification of buildings in certain grades, after due scrutiny of applications

b. Advising the Government on any alteration, modification or relaxation of any law for development, control and conservation of any heritage building

c. Deciding on whether heritage buildings can be used for commercial purposes

d. Framing special regulations for listed heritage buildings

e. Advising Government on guidelines for private parties sponsoring beautification schemes

f. Deciding on penal measures for defacing or destroying a building

g. Advising Government on provision for restoration of buildings and documentation of records concerning heritage buildings

h. Helping in gauging public opinion on efforts for creating awareness, preserving and maintaining heritage

i. Advising local authorities on the policy of granting development rights for any heritage building

j. Regulating the installation of advertising and displays near heritage buildings

k. Advising on the costs of repair and the modes of fund generation for the same

l. Finalising special designs and guidelines for heritage buildings

m. Deciding on incentives by way of rates, taxes and fees as well as water charges for heritage structures

Heritage Legislation – at last

We congratulate the Government for introducing in the Legislature a much-needed heritage conservation Bill that this journal and other heritage lovers have sought from 1999 following a focus on heritage in the City that began in 1977. While welcoming the Bill, we reserve our comments till we study it. Meanwhile, we trust that it offers an indisputable interpretation of heritage and doesn’t leave Government to view heritage depending on the exigencies of the moment. This kind of flip-flop attitude has in the past caused, and is due to cause, unless the Heritage Bill stops it, further damage to whatever is left in the city that can be classified as constituting heritage. We thus have an ironic situation where centuries-old monuments and buildings are being neglected while lakhs are being spent, in the name of heritage, on renovating recent structures that are already showing signs of structural weakness.

Take Rajaji Hall for instance. The Government had in 2008 announced a restoration package for this heritage structure located inside Government Estate. But then the new Assembly came along and though the restoration proceeded uninterrupted, the Hall was locked up. Last heard, its verandahs were filled with broken furniture from the various offices that were demolished to make way for the new Assembly. And its interiors were filled with files and papers belonging to some Government departments that have promised to shift them “in due course”. After the recent fire at Chepauk Palace and given our history of fires breaking out in historic buildings, stuffing Rajaji Hall with paper may not be the best of ideas.

Chepauk Palace’s fate is still uncertain. It is now more than two months since the three-man committee (whatever be the merits and demerits of its composition) came out with a report that recommended restoration of a mixed kind. While the debate on whether its verdict was correct or wrong can continue, what cannot be denied is that restoration and not demolition was the key recommendation. On the basis of that, the Government ought to have by now moved to inviting tenders, at least for consultancy. But nothing appears to have happened and the skeleton of the palace is exposed to the vagaries of Nature. Why this delay?

The Metrorail is a Juggernaut of a different kind, which regularly appears to find heritage structures and historic parks in its way. They appear to be made for each other and aiding this process of sacrificing the latter for the former is the CMDA which has continuously been coming up with creative interpretations of what constitutes heritage. After the P Orr & Sons episode, it is now the turn of Bharat Insurance Building. In response to a letter from INTACH reminding Metrorail that the building’s fate is sub judice and so no construction can be taken up there, Metrorail has stated that it only proposes construction within the compound and not within the building. It states that in its (and presumably CMDA’s) view, only the building is heritage and sub judice and not the compound space. Whoever has heard of such logic before? And what happened to the concept of a heritage precinct and the necessity to prevent modern construction within close quarters of a heritage building?

Even that concept may now be under threat. In a first of its kind (and it is ironic that our city which had many glorious firsts should also be in the forefront of such developments), the National Monuments Authority (NMA) has reportedly ruled that construction of Metrorail can come within 100 metres of the Hynmer’s Obelisk, popularly called the Yale Monument, in the Law College campus. It has declared that the structure, though more than 300 years old and ‘protected’ by the ASI, is of less importance and, in view of the importance of Metrorail, permission can be granted for construction within 100 metres of the Monument. All authorities are completely silent on what happened to the neighbouring Powney Vault, which presumably was flattened without any approvals. It would also appear that the NMA’s approval was a mere formality, for Metrorail had even two months ago put up barricades within 100 metres of the Yale Monument. What is also baffling is the complete silence of the ASI on this matter. It can only be interpreted that the decision had its full blessings.

Contrast all this with the way in which the Namakkal Kavignar Building is being handled. Everyone, from the ASI to the CMDA, is agreed that, though built in the 1980s, it constitutes ‘heritage’ and deserves restoration! And contrast this further with the fact that 300-year-old structures are not falling down despite fires and neglect, while this building repeatedly needs attention! That’s modern heritage construction for you.

Government offers hope for Heritage Act

The State Government has announced that it is planning to bring in two laws on the heritage protection front, one specifically covering Mamallapuram, which is a recognised World Heritage Site, and the other covering heritage and cultural properties across the State. This is a good development as far as intent is concerned. Much, of course, will depend on how this will translate into reality. This is not the first time that the State has raised hopes of legislation for protecting heritage, only to pass over to what it felt are more pressing issues. Those promises were made as far back as 1999 and, again, in 2002, and then even more recently when Heritage Regulations/Acts were drafted or reviewed.

The latest announcement has it that a Heritage Commission Act is on the anvil which will constitute a body that can advise the State Government on preparing a classification of heritage buildings into various grades. It will also advise local authorities on the developmental rights of such heritage properties. What the Government appears to have overlooked are two aspects:

1. That such a body already exists – namely the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) constituted by the CMDA in response to the High Court’s judgement in 2010 in the case concerning the demolition of Bharat Insurance Building. That the Committee, comprised largely by bureaucrats, became a handmaiden of the CMDA is another matter altogether. The State Government will do well not to repeat this mistake and when creating the Heritage Commission it should make it like the Urban Arts Commission of Delhi, a body with independent powers.

2. That the exercise of grading and listing heritage buildings has been done at least a couple of times. The first time was when draft Heritage Regulations/Acts were drawn up by the Town and Country Planning Department teaming with INTACH in 1999 and then by the CMDA and INTACH in 2002. The second time was when the Justice Padmanabhan Committee was put together by the High Court in connection with a case on outdoor hoardings. The report of that Committee, of which INTACH was also a member, formed the basis of the 2010 judgement referred to above which resulted in the formation of the HCC.

Even before that, INTACH had drawn up its own list for the City’s municipal limits. What needs now to be looked at is a fine tuning of these lists into one comprehensive list and then identifying heritage buildings in Greater Chennai and elsewhere in the State.

The decision to include the entire State within the ambit of the proposed Heritage Commission is commendable. So far, the heritage movement has been fairly dormant in most towns of the State, resulting in large-scale desecration and wrecking of heritage sites which are not protected by the Archaeological Survey of India. It is imperative that the legislation constituting the Commission is passed at the earliest. What is even more important is that the Commission should work quickly in getting its list of heritage sites together and ensuring that the list is notified with the passage of a Heritage Act. Only then can we have some legal protection for heritage buildings and sites.

Readers of Madras Musings need hardly be reminded that the draft of a Heritage Act, at least for the city of Madras, was completed as far back as 1999 and had it been adopted then we would not be a city minus buildings such as Gandhi Illam, Capper House, the erstwhile Madras Club building on Express Estates, and Government House. Chepauk Palace may not have been consumed by fire. And Bharat Insurance Building would not be facing an uncertain future. However, with Queen Mary’s College being threatened in 2003, the draft regulations were quietly forgotten. Since then there have been attempts at revival in fits and starts but nothing concrete has emerged. All this despite the fact that there is a groundswell of public opinion in favour of a Heritage Act. What is needed is quick action.

More threats to heritage from Metrorail

The travails of the Bharat Insurance (formerly Kardyl) Building do not seem to end. After a half-done demolition, the High Court of Madras ordered its preservation. This was challenged in the Supreme Court by the LIC, the owner of the premises. It is now reliably learnt that the Metrorail is eyeing a part of the precinct, though not the building proper, for some of its super structures. What is emerging is a rather murky story of collusion between various concerned Government agencies and departments, even as the fate of the premises remains sub judice.

Work on the Anna Salai stretch of the Metrorail has begun. And the fate of the various heritage structures en route is a matter of intense speculation. On the one hand, there is pressure to go ahead with the Metro’s plans, all in the name of providing a viable public transport system. On the other hand, this is being interpreted to mean that the Metro must have its way irrespective of what is likely to be its impact or, at least, that is what the powers that be appear to believe. And the curious instance of the Bharat Insurance Building is a case in point.

It is understood that Metrorail has requested for and is close to getting a part of the compound space in which Bharat Insurance Building is located. The matter has been referred to the Heritage Conservation Committee which, it is understood, has chosen to interpret that the garden space of the property cannot be deemed a part of heritage value and so can be made over to Metrorail. This flies in the face of the internationally accepted principle that the space surrounding a heritage building automatically becomes a heritage precinct, which needs to be protected if the structure is to be presented as an integral whole.

Moreover, the space currently in question is not exactly empty. It has outhouses of the main building proper and one or two of these are still tenanted. These occupants, who have stubbornly refused to vacate, no matter what the blandishments of the owners, have, it is understood, been served with an ultimatum to vacate. The reason given for this is that Metrorail work will soon commence in the precinct and so the owners cannot be held responsible for any damage suffered by the tenants.

What is surprising is that all this has taken place even when the question of what is to be done to the building is pending with the Supreme Court. Surely Metrorail, the LIC and the CMDA are aware of the consequences of contempt of court? Then how is it that matters have proceeded with such alacrity and with such a complete lack of transparency? What is also worthy of comment is the complete volte-face of the HCC. In one of its early meetings with the Metrorail, it had, it is reliably learnt, documented that no intrusion into Bharat Insurance Building premises was allowable. Now it has chosen to change its stance based on an interpretation of what exactly constitutes a premises! Such are the inscrutable ways of Government.

The same principle has been applied to P Orr & Sons. It is understood that the HCC has given the go-ahead for acquiring a part of the rear buildings of this heritage structure on the ground that “the backside” is not to be taken into account for heritage considerations. This was also the logic that was applied to the take-over of the Lawrence Asylum Press to the rear of the Poompuhar property. Soon, it appears, Anna Salai that was Mount Road will have a series of cardboard heritage facades, all denuded of their bulk which lend them character. This is nothing but a sham in the name of heritage conservation.

But when a Heritage Conservation Committee is almost entirely populated by bureaucrats and representatives of organisations with governmental links, and considers its agenda to be not that of preservation but one of permitting to demolish, what else is to be expected?