With numerous restrictions on old buildings, even changing a railing, a door knob or a tap is fraught with legal hurdles
By Meha Mathur
Have you ever heard of owners of 100-year-old buildings not wanting the heritage tag? That is pretty much what is happening in India, thanks
to a draconian list of do’s and don’ts regarding them.
These are properties more than 100 years old and which fall outside the ambit of the 3,600 monuments of national importance and the large number of protected monuments notified by state governments. Once listed by municipal authorities, these properties become heritage buildings. Many of them are still in use and could be residential quarters, educational institutions, temples, mosques or government offices.
But as AGK Menon, architect and convenor of INTACH’s Delhi chapter, says, while in England the heritage tag is taken as a matter of pride, here, it’s frowned upon. Not only can’t the outer façade of the building be tampered with, but one needs the permission of civic authorities to do so. And adding a floor is out of question.
Thus, in the capital’s Indraprastha College for Women, a heritage building which was the office of the commander-in-chief during British times, no additional classrooms could be added to the single-storied structure despite a pressing need to do so. Dr Babli Moitra Saraf, principal, says: “We had to cull out spaces from within the building. We staggered the time-table for more students. We reclaimed abandoned rooms like godowns and storage. And we built semi-permanent structures.”
Justice Gautam Patel, Additional Judge, Bombay High Court, in his paper, The Cup of Tantalus written for INTACH publication, Preserving Built Heritage: A Role for Incentives, writes about Mumbai’s heritage laws: “This is a law based on mistrust. It does not trust owners of heritage properties to do the right thing… Its defining traits are its restrictive and prohibitory nature… The owner’s participation in the listing process is also limited.” He asked why the owner’s monetary interests should be considered trivial and sacrificed to “some nebulous and unidentified greater good”.
Bharati Bhavan Pustakalay, Allahabad, established in 1889
Patel said the concern of conservation advocates that no wooden railing, door knob, tap or faucet can be installed or changed in old structures was hilarious.
AT YOUR OWN PERIL
Lawyer Jayant Tripathi, who represents the ASI, writes in the INTACH publication that if the only effect of a heritage status is the imposition of restrictions with harsh punishments for violation, then the owners would certainly cavil at being accorded such a status. “Why should he be the person responsible for the preservation of ‘our heritage’ at ‘his cost’?”
Incidentally, western countries also have very strict laws for adhering to architectural norms. In fact, FR Allchin, an eminent historian on Ancient India who resided close to Cambridge University, had to seek the permission of civic authorities even for minor repairs. But Vikas Dilawari, leading conservation architect whose work in Mumbai won him the UNESCO Asia Pacific Conservation Architecture Award, says: “The laws here can’t be as rigid as that of the West as the social setting and environment are very different. Conservation is culture-specific and is to be treated as part of sensitive development if it has to work in our environment.”
So what’s the correct approach? “You can’t protect heritage without having incentives,” says Dilawari, and suggests that encouraging gestures like discount in property taxes and lease rent be given. Tripathi endorses this and says: “The owner of a heritage building, for whom it is more a home than a monument, needs to be given some incentive not to add that extra floor or not to cover the façade with sun-reflective sheet.”
GIVE INCENTIVES
Gautam Patel too talks of incentives. “Conservation of privately held heritage is about money. Can we not find ways to make conservation financially attractive? What better incentive could we provide to an individual in the 21st century city than money and tax relief?” Patel suggests that a public heritage fund be created to restore private buildings with heritage tag.
“This is a law based on mistrust. It does not trust owners of heritage properties to do the right thing…” — Justice Gautam Patel, Bombay High Court
Experts cite examples where heritage has been conserved without sacrificing anyone’s interests. For example, the havelis in Rajas-than, which have been converted into hotels, have turned their heritage tag into an advantage. Several temples too have been maintained by the devasthanams (trusts) which manage them. The Dilwara temple, for example, is maintained very well by the Jain community.
There’s also the option of changing the nature of use of a structure to earn money and preserve its historicity. In Hauz Khas, Delhi, ordinary homes have been converted into boutique hotels and designer outlets to cater to an upmarket clientele.
Similarly, in England, several old industrial installations have been imaginatively reused as fashion houses, exhibition grounds, eateries, etc.
Through an imaginative and innovative approach, and a bit of flexibility, we can preserve the past and meet the present needs.