10. Heritage and identity
Readings:
Tapati Guha-Thakurta, The production and reproduction of a monument: The many lives of the Sanchi stupa, South Asian Studies, 29(1):77-109, 2013.
Hilal Ahmed, Mosque as Monument: The afterlives of Jama Masjid and the political memories of a royal Muslim past, South Asian Studies, 29(1):51-59, 2013.
Amit Sinha and Rajat Kant, Mayawati and memorial parks in Lucknow, India: Landscapes of empowerment, Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes, 35(1):43-55, 2015.
Michael Herzfeld, Heritage and corruption: The faces of the nation-state, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21(1):531-544, 2015.
Herzfeld [heritage,
nation-state, corruption]:
In this article Michael Herzfeld builds on his earlier work
on heritage, bureaucracy and the nation-state. Attempting to link a wide range
of concepts, from corruption, Christian worldview, conservation, nation-state
and linguistics, it seems to be more of an essay that will welcome further
debate.
In his opening remarks he observes that though heritage is
not the exclusive domain of the nation-state the linkage between both is
strong. He also lays the ground for his
argument that ‘heritage and corruption are the two faces of the nation-state’ by
drawing on his earlier thesis of ‘cultural intimacy’ I.e. the founding paradox
of the nation-state is that it achieves its best chance of survival when its
functionaries turn a blind eye to or collude at practices that ‘violate’ the ‘official
ideology and morality’ of the state. In other words the corruptness of
nation-states, that the ideal nation-state morally and ideologically aims to eliminate
in its purest form, is what keeps it going. Otherwise it would disintegrate.
Through the above point he links the ideal form of the nation-state
to the ideal form of heritage conservation, which is to present heritage in its
purest ‘most original’ form, free from defects. Much like the ideal nation
state would be free from defects and processes of decay like corruption. And
much like the nation-state, conservation also knows that such a form is a myth but
paradoxically such a quest is the key to much of ‘heritage politics’ that in
turn ‘animate the nation-state’ (draws in Benedict Anderson).
He also touches on the European origins of heritage and its conservation,
which he considers is apparent in most heritage management systems worldwide
today – what he calls a form of ‘cultural colonialism’. He adds that
consequently such systems also subscribe to a Christian worldview.
Here he extends Kapferer’s argument and states that ‘if
nationalism is a form of religion then heritage is its most visible and historically
deep manifestation’. He makes this observation to argue that recognising the
religious nature of the linkage between nation and heritage allows us to not
only search for its ‘purest’ form but also for its ‘experienced reality’. He
broadly equates this ‘reality’ with ‘everyday sin’ and argues that historic
conservation, the Christian doctrine of Original Sin and the nation-state are
related in that they all fear decay. For the nation-state this decay is
typically expressed as ‘corruption’ and the fear of decay or quest for ‘purism’
becomes a denial of ‘imperfectness, hybridity and death’.
Hence such hidden aspects of a nation-state’s day-to-day
functioning, like, bribery, corruption drag the nation-state down from its supposed
‘timelessness’. As Herzfeld argues such instances bring it down to the level of
‘the temporal, secular and corruptible’.
In the essay he touches on a wide range of examples to make
his point. These range from Condono
Ediliozo or construction pardon in Italy to Banfield’s ‘amoral familism’
which he links to current Italian ideas of heritage. Wherein ‘to rake off a
percentage from public funds to support one’s own people is considered a virtue’.
An aspect that has come to the forefront of heritage management in Italy. For
e.g. the Schneiders’ have documented how corruption and decay have almost
become a prerequisite for conservation in its form of urban gentrification. The
example of Monti, an ancient red-light district in Rome now a ‘hip
neighbourhood’, according to him demonstrates this ‘fusion of beauty and sin’ /
‘aesthetic innovation and rule breaking’. Based on his work in Thailand he
observes that as far as local people are concerned any architect working on
heritage conservation (adaptive reuse) ‘must be making money’. This is because
they are unable to believe why anyone would suddenly be interested in their
run-down neighbourhoods nor understand the ‘value’ that has suddenly been ascribed
to it.
Thakurta [Sanchi]:
Guha-Thakurta builds on her earlier work to argue about how
the ‘after-lives’ of monuments, which could even take the form of pictorial
representations, could sometimes become more central to particular discourses
rather than the original monument itself. In this essay she traces the history
of one such monument, the Sanchi stupa complex from its ‘rediscovery’ in the
colonial period to its ‘afterlife’ in contemporary India.
She opens the essay with the 19C rediscovery of the Sanchi
site and observes how contemporary historians consider that this period of
colonial history of such monuments was marked more by damage due to discovery
than at any other period in their history. Captain Fell is credited with Sanchi’s
‘rediscovery’ and he observes that the stupa was a in a ‘near perfect state of
preservation’. This state was ‘destroyed’ soon after by Cunningham, founder
director of the Archaeological Survey of India in his quest for the reliquaries
hidden within its core.
Thakurta uses this example to argue how in this period ‘material’
remains rather than records or inscriptions took on significance to establish history.
She then observes how from the late 18C onwards diagrammatic
and pictorial representations including early photographs assumed importance as
visual records to help put together a narrative of the sub-continent’s history
(art historical and architectural). Sanchi was similarly sketched, painted, and
photographed, particularly the ‘near intact gateways’ became representative of
the complex.
There was a proposal in the 1860s / 70s to dismantle and ship one
of these gateways to the new museum in South Kensington. However with the shift
in focus and emphasis on in-situ conservation (through H H Cole) this proposal
was dropped and 1:1 scale plaster casts were made instead. Further casts were
then made of this ‘original’ cast and shipped to Paris and elsewhere while the ‘original’
gateway remained intact at Sanchi.
With further developments in photography, the photo image
supplanted other ways of ‘knowing’ the monument. Such images circulated in
different colonial projects to understand the sub-continent’s art and
architecture (Sanchi was photographed by Deen Dayal) and the monument found
itself reduced to ‘sculptural forms’ and ‘details’ – in Sanchi’s case a ‘picture
book of Buddhism’ (attributed to Fergusson, an early architectural historian).
In the early 1900s, the Marshall era of ASI, the stupa found
itself claimed by the Mahabodhi Society which claims the ASI through the Bhopal
durbar set aside. Although there was some effort by ASI to take on the Sanchi
site based on questions over a ‘Muslim durbar’s’ interest in safeguarding a
Buddhist site.
Post-independence the stupa found itself firmly entrenched as
a ‘national monument’ through its
‘afterlife’ as the dome of the Viceroy’s
House (later Rashtrapathi Bhavan) designed by Lutyens. The form of the dome was
shaped after the stupa and it was surmounted by railings, whose design was
similar to the original stone railings around the stupa site. Its national
importance was later even more firmly established after it was declared WH site
(in 1989).
Today its form continues to circulate, for e.g. the 1960s
Birla Planetarium and more recently the
many monuments by Mayawati in Lucknow.
Thakurta argues that the difference with the Planetarium and ‘Mayawati’s
Memorials’ is that the former bows to the nationalist theme. In that ‘the form of
the structure bows to its public function’. Whereas the latter ‘scream for
attention’ i.e. the details, sculptural outlines and Buddhist iconography are ‘meaninglessly’
duplicated and altered at will.
The final instance she touches on is the look alike Sanchi
stupa that was built in Luoyang, China (designed by an Indian architecture
firm) with the Buddha installed within (based on the image at Sarnath rather
than Sanchi) and the ‘ephemeral’ thermocole Sanchi built at a Durga puja pandal
in Calcutta. Thus the question of ‘authenticity’ and ‘originality’ is
increasingly set aside and the image takes on a life of its own independent of
its ‘colonial’ history.
Sinha and Kant [Mayawati and memorial parks}:
The paper explores the ways in which Mayawati created statues of Dalit leaders, and memorial parks in order to create symbolic capital for Dalits in the public sphere. The built environment, with its super-human scales of architectural design, becomes crucial to the creation of such symbolic capital. When accused of “creating history”, Mayawati responds by arguing that she is only highlighting history that has been sidelined. Alongside Dalit symbols such as Kanshi Ram and Ambedkar, the statues and memorial parks with their distinct Buddhist influences, were also meant to further her own personality cult, and appeal to Dalit aspirations of glory.
However, the authors express scepticism on whether the parks necessarily build symbolic capital for Dalits. Non-Dalits in the memorial parks, for instance, viewed the parks primarily as markers of modern urban developments in Lucknow rather than as a homage to marginalised histories.
The authors point to the environmental and social costs of the enterprise of memorial parks.Designed on a grand scale, and not meant to foster intimacies of a public space (absence of food stalls, lack of easy pedestrian access), were elements of design they highlighted as reflecting this lack of 'intimacy'.
Ahmed [Jama Masjid]:
With a focus on the moment when Jama Masjid was closed for prayers by the then Imam in 1987, the article explores ways in which historical objects become available to post-colonial Muslim politics in India. Specifically, the question of interest is how after-lives of political objects produce various kinds of political memories? The mosque is shut down, in order to demand the opening of Babri Masjid, after its closure. However, the links made between the two mosques are not that of Islamic religiosity, but of Muslim contributions to the heritage of post-colonial India. The monument, is in some ways secularised, to make modern claims based on religion.
Historical objects can thus acquire new meanings in public discourses, depending on ways in which they are invoked. Within the empirical instance of the closure of Jama Masjid, covering the domes with black fabric was not supported by any religiously sanctioned practice. The intent, Ahmed writes, was to invoke an “image of a mourning site”. Additionally, the writing “quench the fire under our breast” in English on the black plaques outside the mosque were meant to reach out to English media and foreign tourists. However, the writing had no reference to the Babri Masjid issue per se, although the entire episode revolved around it. Ahmed argues that this could be linked to how immediate demands are linked to larger political aims. The main argument is that the Imam foregrounds the mosque as a historical monument, pushing to the background its religious significance. A direct link is established through the historical building between “Muslim grievance” and “Muslim contribution”.
The different articles thus present ways in which the materiality of heritage whether 'authentic or not' get usurped in nation-building narratives by different individuals / groups and at various scales. The examples of Sanchi and Jama Masjid effectively prove Herzfeld's claim over the close relationship between nation-states and heritage as 'secular sacred' object, in this instance monument.
Mayawati's Memorials though critiqued as 'waste of public resource' or even 'visual evidence' of corruption that made their constant building and rebuilding possible, serve the purpose of 'public spectacle' and 'commemoration', themes that are central to the nationalist discourse of heritage.
Krupa and Savita
