Receive Daily Updates
Ahmedabad is blazing a trail in preserving our cultural heritage, something other Indian cities can emulate to make a mark on the global stage.
With a shift in international discourse from conservation and preservation of just iconic monuments to large areas of historic significance, countries around the world are now recognising the social, economic and cultural value of their heritage resources.
It was with the objective of safeguarding and promoting shared cultural and natural heritage that the countries adopted the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in 1972. Improving on the 1972 convention, the 36th General Conference of World Heritage Committee (WHC), under the aegis of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), adopted the recommendation on the historic urban landscape in 2011. The aim of the convention was to “assist state parties in addressing the challenges of protecting and managing their urban heritage”.
It was during the recent (42nd session) WHC meeting in Krakow, Poland that Ahmedabad was declared a World Heritage City, joining the elite list of 250 cities around the world. Despite India’s rich heritage, especially in its cities, it has taken far too long for an Indian city to earn this honour.
That Ahmedabad did it is reflective of not only its tangible and intangible heritage legacy but also of the impressive efforts put in by the city to preserve, maintain and promote its heritage resources which made the city stand out among other Indian cities that are facing rapid deterioration of their heritage structures.
Modern Ahmedabad, the largest city of Gujarat, was founded by Ahmad Shah in 1411 AD on the ancient sites of Ashaval and Karanavati. Today, the city has grown to become a major trading and textiles centre.
In its 600 years of continuous occupation, the city had witnessed four major regimes (sultanate of Gujarat, Mughal, Maratha and British) as a result of which the city boasts of a composite culture and a rich mix of Hindu, Islamic and European architecture.
The walled city of Ahmedabad, enclosed by its 12 gates, exist as the historic centre in the otherwise modern city of Greater Ahmedabad Urban Agglomeration (AUA), administered by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation(AMC).
Despite its cultural wealth and a strong community network, the heritage core of the city faced a rapid deterioration after Independence due to economic challenges and modern development. A number of historic structures including the city fortification and pol houses were pulled down to facilitate expansion and access to modern amenities.
Efforts to conserve the city’s rich past began in 1984 with a study undertaken by AMC along with America’s Ford Foundation to initiate conservation efforts. In 1996, AMC invited Conservation and Research of Urban Traditional Architecture (CRUTA) to set up a heritage cell within AMC. With this initiative, Ahmedabad became the first Indian local body to have a dedicated heritage cell (even today only a handful of urban bodies have expert cells to deal with the issue of preserving urban heritage), and went on to prepare a comprehensive plan to revitalise the walled city.
In 2001, AMC entered into an agreement with the French government for rehabilitation of the historic city, which led to documentation of more than 12,000 historic structures. In another first-of-its-kind initiative, AMC collaborated with Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO) to undertake a public-private partnership project to enable preservation of historic sites.
Under the project, HUDCO along with French government provided loan to owners of heritage houses at subsidised interest rates for undertaking restoration work. In order to preserve the character of the selected area, new guidelines were also issued that prohibited any historic house being pulled down without prior permission from the heritage cell.
To further promote and incentivise conservation, Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority initiated a transfer of development rights (TDR) policy in 2013 under which owners of 1,100 odd heritage properties could sell, transfer or lease out additional floor space index to developers in the form of TDR that can be utilised anywhere in the city. The funds thus generated through sale of extra TDR were then utilised for conservation activities.
Apart from administrative reforms, another reason for the city’s success in preserving its heritage character has been the involvement of community members. A series of activities such as heritage walks, street theatre and heritage awards encouraged community participation and support to efforts by the city authorities, and have further strengthened solidarity among people for the cause of culture and heritage.
A number of residents, who had earlier moved out of the walled city area, have recently returned to refurbish their houses and old amenities. Apart from being used for residential purposes, a number of such houses have also been converted into heritage homestays thus attracting tourism and revenue for the area.
Ahmedabad’s success in preserving its urban fabric has successfully demonstrated how local bodies can play an important role in establishing an effective institutional framework for not only preserving the city’s rich heritage but also addressing physical, social and environmental problems plaguing historic areas.
Ahmedabad’s model with its area-based multi-stakeholder and innovative financing approach towards heritage can become a national example for revival of historic landmarks across Indian cities. With a more proactive approach from government and citizens alike, more Indian cities can perhaps earn the honour of being world heritage cities.
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.