Urban Cultural Heritage Governance: Understanding the Interlinkages of Imagination, Regulation and Implementation in Delhi, India 3515123385, 9783515123389

Citation preview

w

Tine Trumpp

Urban Cultural Heritage Governance Understanding the Interlinkages of Imagination, Regulation and Implementation in Delhi, India

Geographie

Megacities and Global Change Megastädte und globaler Wandel

Franz Steiner Verlag

Band 25

Tine Trumpp Urban Cultural Heritage Governance

megacities and global change megastädte und globaler wandel herausgegeben von Frauke Kraas, Martin Coy, Peter Herrle und Volker Kreibich Band 25

Tine Trumpp

Urban Cultural Heritage Governance Understanding the Interlinkages of Imagination, Regulation and Implementation in Delhi, India

Franz Steiner Verlag

Umschlagabbildung: Monuments and middle-class residences in Hauz Khas © Tine Trumpp Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2019 Druck: Hubert & Co, Göttingen Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-12338-9 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-12347-1 (E-Book)

CONTENTS List of Figures .................................................................................................... List of Tables ...................................................................................................... List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................... Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ Summary ............................................................................................................ Zusammenfassung ..............................................................................................

8 9 10 12 13 15

1 Introduction: Studying the Governance of Urban Cultural Heritage in Delhi – Focus and Relevance ................................................................... 17 2 Contextualisation: Urban Cultural Heritage – Evolution of the Concept .... 2.1 Origin and development of urban cultural heritage in the Western context .......................................................................... 2.2 Urban cultural heritage in international charters and conventions ....... 2.3 Cultural heritage as social construction ................................................ 2.4 Urban cultural heritage in the Indian context ....................................... 2.4.1 Historical development of heritage conservation in India ......... 2.4.2 Urban cultural heritage in India today ....................................... 3 T heoretical Reflections: The Governance of Urban Cultural Heritage ........ 3.1 Contextualising governance ................................................................. 3.1.1 Governance: descriptive – normative – analytical dimensions ................................................................................. 3.1.2 Subject, scale and fields of governance ..................................... 3.2 Cultural governance .............................................................................. 3.3 Urban governance ................................................................................. 3.4 Governance as tool for empirical research ........................................... 3.4.1 Key elements for an empirical governance analysis ................. 3.4.2 Orders of governance ................................................................ 3.4.3 Urban Cultural Heritage Governance – a research framework .................................................................................. 4 Material and Methods ................................................................................... 4.1 Research design .................................................................................... 4.2 Data collection ...................................................................................... 4.2.1 Field visits and observation ....................................................... 4.2.2 Qualitative interviews ................................................................

21 22 24 29 34 35 37 39 39 39 44 45 48 49 50 54 58 62 62 64 64 65

6

Contents



4.2.3 Expert workshop ........................................................................ 4.2.4 Secondary data ........................................................................... 4.3 Data processing and analysis ................................................................ 4.4 Reflecting the research process .............................................................

67 68 70 71

5 Situating the Case Study: Delhi – Contemporary Megacity with an Eventful History ........................................................................................... 5.1 Historical perspective: Delhi – a tale of many cities ............................ 5.2 Present perspective: Delhi’s world class city aspirations ..................... 5.3 Delhi’s urban cultural heritage ............................................................. 5.3.1 Medieval and early modern architecture in Delhi ..................... 5.3.2 Colonial architecture in Delhi ................................................... 5.3.3 Contemporary architecture in Delhi .......................................... 5.4 Delhi’s administrative and political set-up ...........................................

73 73 76 77 78 81 83 85

6 Empirical Analysis: Urban Cultural Heritage Governance in Delhi – an Inventury .................................................................................................. 6.1 Actor set-up of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi ............... 6.1.1 Public agencies on the national level ......................................... 6.1.2 Public agencies on the state level .............................................. 6.1.3 Public agencies on the local level .............................................. 6.1.4 Civil society actors .................................................................... 6.2 Spotlight on Delhi’s urban heritage – five illustrative case examples ....................................................................................... 6.2.1 Bijri Khan’s tomb ...................................................................... 6.2.2 Dotted with history: South Delhi residential areas .................... 6.2.3 Old Delhi and the redevelopment of Chandni Chowk .............. 6.2.4 World Heritage in Delhi and the Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative ...................................................................... 6.2.5 The djinns of Feroz Shah Kotla ................................................. 6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state ............ 6.3.1 Meta-order urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi .......... 6.3.2 Second-order urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi ....... 6.3.3 First-order urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi ........... 7 Discussion and Synthesis: Urban Cultural Heritage Governance in Delhi ......................................................................................................... 7.1 Synthesising urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi ................... 7.1.1 Societal and professional discourses on the safeguarding of urban cultural heritage in Delhi – conflicting perceptions .... 7.1.2 The institutional framework of cultural heritage protection in Delhi – a patchwork carpet .................................................... 7.1.3 Implementing heritage protection in Delhi – a tedious undertaking ................................................................................

87 87 88 93 95 96 98 100 101 104 110 113 114 115 125 144 155 155 155 161 168

Contents



7

7.2 R eflecting on the interlinkages between imagination, regulation and implementation .............................................................................. 173 7.3 The future of urban cultural heritage in Delhi – an outlook ................. 181

8 Final Conclusions: Safeguarding Delhi’s Cultural Heritage ........................ 186 References .......................................................................................................... 191 Appendix ............................................................................................................ 205

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17: Figure 18: Figure 19: Figure 20: Figure 21: Figure 22: Figure 23: Figure 24: Figure 25: Figure 26: Figure 27: Figure 28: Figure 29: Figure 30: Figure 31: Figure 32: Figure 33:

Different objects of cultural governance, depending on which concept of culture is used ................................................................... Urban Cultural Heritage Governance: a research framework ........... Research design .................................................................................. Former capital cities on the territory of today’s Delhi ....................... Delhi’s government set-up .................................................................. Actor set-up of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi ............. Five illustrative case examples ........................................................... Bijri Khans Tomb ................................................................................ Monuments and middle-class residences in Hauz Khas .................... Monuments of national importance and state-protected monuments and their buffer zones located in South Delhi residential areas ................................................................................... Temporary wall in Green Park usually used to hide unauthorised building activities within the restricted area of listed monuments in Delhi ................................................................................................ Haweli in Old Delhi used for residential purposes ............................ Haweli in Old Delhi used as common kitchen ................................... Haweli in Old Delhi used as godown ................................................. Trading at the Spice Market Old Delhi .............................................. Qutb Minar, Delhi ............................................................................... Red Fort, Delhi ................................................................................... British baracks within Red Fort Complex .......................................... Mughal Palace within Red Fort Complex ......................................... Humayon’s Tomb, Delhi ..................................................................... Hazrat Nizamuddin Basti ................................................................... Nizamuddin Dargah ............................................................................ Sunder Nursery Park ........................................................................... Sundarvala Burj .................................................................................. Traditional craftsmen Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative ........... Stone carvings Sundarvala Burj ......................................................... Mosque in Feroz Shah Kotla .............................................................. Prayers in Feroz Shah Kotla ............................................................... Rituals in Feroz Shah Kotla ................................................................ Worshipping Djinns in Feroz Shah Kotla .......................................... Monuments of national importance and state-protected monuments and their buffer zones in Delhi ....................................... Timeline of heritage specific regulations in Delhi ............................. Power relations among the actors involved in safeguarding Delhi’s cultural heritage ......................................................................

46 59 63 75 86 88 99 208 208 209 210 210 210 210 210 211 211 212 212 212 212 212 213 213 213 213 214 214 214 214 215 162 175

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8:

Typologies of heritage value ............................................................. Governance orders: their scope and time reference .......................... Urban heritage-specific responsibilities in Delhi .............................. Official heritage categories in Delhi .................................................. Heritage specific regulations in Delhi ............................................... Monuments of national importance in Delhi ..................................... State-protected monuments in Delhi ................................................. Urban planning instruments relevant for urban conservation in Delhi ..............................................................................................

32 55 97 126 129 216 217 136

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AMASR Act ASI CPWD DDA DJB DMRC DTC DTTDC DUAC DUHF DWB EDMC GNCTD GoI HCC ICCROM ICOMOS INTACH MoC MoU MoUD MPD-2021 NCF NCR NCTD NDMC1 NDMC2 NGO NMA PIL PWD RWA SDA SDMC SPA SRDC TCPO

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act Archaeological Survey of India Central Public Works Department Delhi Development Authority Delhi Jal Board Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Delhi Transport Corporation Delhi Transport and Tourism Development Corporation Delhi Urban Arts Commission Delhi Urban Heritage Foundation Delhi Waqf Board East Delhi Municipal Corporation Government of National Capital Territory Delhi Government of India Heritage Conservation Committee International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property International Council on Monuments and Sites Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage Ministry of Culture Memorandum of Understanding Ministry of Urban Development Master Plan Delhi National Culture Fund National Capital Region National Capital Territory Delhi New Delhi Municipal Council North Delhi Municipal Corporation Non-Governmental Organization National Monuments Authority Public Interest Litigation Public Works Department Delhi Resident Welfare Organisation State Department of Archaeology South Delhi Municipal Corporation School of Planning and Architecture Shahjahanabad Redevelopment Corporation Town and Country Planning Organisation

List of Abbreviations

UD ULB UNESCO UTTIPEC

11

State Department of Urban Development Delhi Urban Local Body United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Unified Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure Centre

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My special thanks go to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Frauke Kraas for giving me great support and providing me with best working conditions during my PhD. I am additionally grateful to Prof. Dr. Josef Nipper for co-supervising. I want to thank all my interview-partners in Delhi for their time and patience. Without them this study would not have been possible. Special thanks go to Anne and Lokesh for their support during fieldwork. I am grateful to the German Research Foundation (DFG) for funding the research project and to the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) for providing the scholarship for explorative fieldwork in the intial phase of my PhD. Thanks for institutional support go to A. G. K. Menon and the team of INTACH Delhi, as well as to Robin Mallick and the team of Max Mueller Bhavan for their help in organising the project-workshop in 2014. Heartfelt thanks go to the whole team of the Institute of Geography at the University of Cologne. Thank you Alex, Benjamin, Birte, Carsten, Franziska, Gerrit, Holger, Mareike, Megha, Michèlle, Marie, Sarah and Steffi for a great working atmosphere. For their special support in the final phase of my PhD I want to thank Regine Spohner and Birte Rafflenbeul for cartography and graphics, Alexander Follmann, Carsten Butsch, Michèlle Kiefer, Sarah Luft and Sara Schwind for proofreading and fruitful discussions. Thank you all who made Delhi a home away from home and for the wonderful time we spent together: Annika, Bea, Katharina, Mr. Sharma, Samir, Shahar, the Sharda family, Susi, Vinita and Wendy. Most of all, I want to thank Andreas and Paul, my family and my friends for their endless support, their patience and their love. Tine Trumpp

SUMMARY Current urbanisation dynamics are causing major changes and transformation processes in South Asian cities. High population growth, modernisation, commercialisation and commodification processes are exerting great pressure, especially on megacities and their infrastructures. As a result, the cultural heritage of these cities, especially in the inner cities and old towns, is under enormous pressure from land use change: old, traditional urban structures seem (in the perception of some actors) to stand in the way of globalised modernisation, and existing land use rights of traditional (local) users are increasingly being changed by the needs and development visions of new actors. As a result, urban cultural heritage is being threatened by increasing decay and disappearance. As built history and culture, it makes a central contribution to social and societal identity and has a major influence both economically and aesthetically on the competitiveness of cities in international and national contexts. The responsibility for safeguarding urban cultural heritage, however, does not lie with public authorities only, but is embedded in the complex structures of public and private, individual and collective stakeholders acting at different levels with their respective interests. Against this background, this study looks at Delhi, where the different epochs of the city’s rich history have left their traces. The Indian capital has numerous monuments, gardens, historic areas and ancient buildings. Under the recent processes of globalisation and urbanisation, however, Delhi is increasingly adapting to the shape of a globalised metropolis, following its dream of becoming a world-class city. These processes, induced by neoliberal practices, afflict the urban fabric of the city. Against this background, the study examines how Delhi’s urban cultural heritage is governed. To overcome the sectoral perspective that dominates the existing research on urban cultural heritage in the Indian context, this study draws on an analytical governance approach. The applied research framework of Urban Cultural Heritage Governance is based on the conceptualisation of three governance orders, first-, second- and meta-order governance, which makes it possible to structure the analysis of governance activities along the layers of implementation, regulation and imagination. A presentation of five illustrative case studies distributed over Delhi’s cityscape is followed by a detailed analysis of the three governance orders and their mutual interlinkages. This analysis showed that social and professional discourses on urban cultural heritage and its protection highly influence the legal and institutional frameworks of heritage protection, as well as processes and challenges in the context of implementation of conservation efforts. Due to an existing incompatibility between social imaginations about urban heritage and the objectives of public conservation efforts, current conservation strategies do not meet the local and social ground real-

14

Summary

ities in Delhi. Since the interests and needs of the different stakeholder groups are not taken into account, heritage protection is hardly supported by the civil society of Delhi. A fragmented legal framework reinforces this situation as sectoral policies on cultural heritage and relevant urban planning instruments are not sufficiently coordinated to integrate cultural heritage protection into urban development in a meaningful way. Even if non-state actors increasingly engage themselves in both, shaping the discourses and imaginations and contributing to operational efforts, state-actors still have great power in defining urban conservation in Delhi. In this context, the neoliberal orientation of urban development activities plays an important role in inducing that the protection of cultural heritage is not one of the key priorities of public authorities in Delhi. The study contends that in order to be able to meet the current local and social ground realities in Delhi and to safeguard the city’s rich cultural heritage in future, an Indian approach to urban conservation needs to be developed jointly by public and civic actors. In order to do so, a balance needs to be found between the Eurocentric-influenced desire to preserve historic remnants and the multiple social imaginations about cultural heritage that exist in Delhi.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Aktuelle Urbanisierungsdynamiken verursachen große Veränderungen und Transformationsprozesse in südasiatischen Städten. Hohes Bevölkerungswachstum, Modernisierungsstreben sowie Kommerzialisierungs- und Kommodifizierungsprozesse üben einen großen Einfluss, vor allem auf die Megastädte und ihre Infrastrukturen aus. Dadurch gerät das bauliche Kulturerbe dieser Städte, vor allem in den Innen- und Altstädten, unter einen enormen umbruchbedingten Landnutzungsdruck: Alte, traditionelle Stadtstrukturen scheinen (in der Wahrnehmung einiger Akteure) einer globalisierten Modernisierung im Wege zu stehen, und bestehende Landnutzungsrechte angestammter (lokaler) Nutzer werden zunehmend durch die Bedürfnisse und Entwicklungsvisionen neuer Akteure verändert. Dies führt dazu, dass städtisches Kulturerbe von zunehmendem Verfall und Verschwinden bedroht ist. Dabei trägt es als gebaute Geschichte und Kultur zentral zur sozialen und gesellschaftlichen Identität bei und besitzt sowohl wirtschaftlich als auch ästhetisch einen großen Einfluss auf die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Städten im internationalen und nationalen Kontext. Der Schutz dieses städtischen Kulturerbes liegt heute nicht nur in der Verantwortung öffentlicher Behörden, sondern ist eingebettet in komplexe Netzwerke aus öffentlichen und privaten, individuellen und kollektiven Akteuren, die auf verschiedenen Ebenen gemäß ihrer jeweiligen Interessen handeln. Vor diesem Hintergrund untersucht die vorliegende Studie am Beispiel Delhi den aktuellen Umgang mit städtischem Kulturerbe. In der indischen Hauptstadt haben verschiedene Epochen einer bewegten Geschichte ihre Spuren hinterlassen. Delhi verfügt über zahlreiche Denkmäler und Gärten sowie historische Stadtviertel und Gebäude. Im Zuge der jüngsten Globalisierungs- und Urbanisierungsprozesse nimmt die Stadt jedoch zunehmend die Gestalt einer globalisierten Metropole an und strebt danach, eine Weltklasse-Stadt zu werden. Diese, durch neoliberale Praktiken induzierte Entwicklung, belastet das räumliche und gesellschaftliche Gefüge der Stadt zunehmend. Um die sektorale Perspektive zu überwinden, die die bestehende Forschung zum städtischen Kulturerbe im indischen Kontext dominiert, stützt sich diese Studie auf einen analytischen Governance-Ansatz. Der angewandte Forschungsrahmen, Urban Cultural Heritage Governance, basiert auf der Konzeptualisierung von drei Governance-Orders, Erste Governance-Order, Zweite Governance-Order und Meta-Governance-Order, die es ermöglicht, den Umgang mit städtischem Kulturerbe entlang der Ebenen Implementierung, Regulierung und vorherrschende Vorstellungen zu strukturieren. Die detaillierte Analyse der drei Governance-Orders und ihrer wechselseitigen Verflechtungen folgt auf die Vorstellung von fünf exemplarischen Fallstudien, die über das Stadtgebiet Delhis verteilt sind. Die Analyse zeigt, dass gesellschaftliche und fachliche Diskurse über den Schutz städtischen Kulturerbes die Ausgestaltung

16

Zusammenfassung

des den Denkmalschutz regelnden rechtlichen und institutionellen Rahmen entscheidend prägen. Darüber hinaus haben diese Diskurse großen Einfluss auf die Art und Weise der Umsetzung von Kulturerbeschutzmaßnahmen. Aufgrund einer bestehenden Unvereinbarkeit zwischen gesellschaftlichen Vorstellungen bezüglich städtischen Kulturerbes und der Ziele, die öffentlichen Kulturerbeschutzbemühungen zugrunde liegen, werden die derzeitigen Schutzstrategien in Delhi den lokalen und gesellschaftlichen Gegebenheiten nicht gerecht. Da in diesem Zusammenhang die Interessen und Bedürfnisse verschiedener Interessengruppen nicht ausreichend berücksichtigt werden, erfährt Kulturerbeschutz in Delhi kaum Unterstützung von Seiten der Zivilgesellschaft. Ein fragmentierter Rechtsrahmen verstärkt diese Situation noch. Sektorale Gesetze den Kulturerbeschutz betreffend und städtebauliche Planungsinstrumente sind nicht ausreichend aufeinander abgestimmt, sodass das städtische Kulturerbe nicht sinnvoll in die Stadtentwicklung integriert werden kann. Nicht-staatliche Akteure engagieren sich zwar zunehmend und versuchen, Diskurse aktiv zu gestalten und an der Umsetzung von Kulturerbeschutzstrategien mit zu wirken. Jedoch besitzen staatliche Akteure in Delhi nach wie vor die Deutungshoheit und geben den Weg vor, auf welche Art und Weise Kulturerbschutz betrieben wird. In diesem Zusammenhang spielt die neoliberale Ausrichtung der Stadtentwicklungsaktivitäten eine wichtige Rolle, die dazu führt, dass der Schutz des kulturellen Erbes nicht zu den höchsten Prioritäten der Behörden in Delhi gehört. In der vorliegenden Studie wird argumentiert, dass ein gemeinschaftlich von öffentlichen und zivilen Akteuren entwickelter indischer Ansatz für Kulturerbeschutz dazu beitragen würde, den aktuellen lokalen und gesellschaftlichen Gegebenheiten in Delhi gerecht zu werden und das reiche Kulturerbe der Stadt in Zukunft schützen zu können. Hierbei ist es wichtig, ein Gleichgewicht zwischen dem eurozentrisch geprägten Wunsch, historische Überreste zu erhalten, und den vielfältigen vorherrschenden gesellschaftlichen Vorstellungen über kulturelles Erbe in Delhi zu finden.

1 INTRODUCTION: STUDYING THE GOVERNANCE OF URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE IN DELHI – FOCUS AND RELEVANCE “Cities are places to live in, and to feel at home in. Cities are seats of culture and therefore a unique stimulus for the intellectual and cultural life of a people. A city is built history; it represents the collective memory of society, a nation, or a region. With its buildings, streets, roads, squares and parks, the city reflects the cultural traditions and hence the character of the people who live in it. Towns and cities are more than mere collections of houses linked by traffic routes. They are more than mere functional systems whose linkages need to be optimized” (Hall & Pfeiffer 2000: 317).

It is increasingly recognised that the cultural heritage of cities is of special significance for their attractiveness and their liveability. India is, due to its eventful history, extraordinarily rich in cultural heritage. Many Indian cities are literally dotted with historical sites like palaces, mosques, temples and tombs. Indian cities are vibrant, living entities where life on the streets and a sense of living history are palpable. Cultural objects and practices as well as cultural value, traditions, and ways of life are not only significant here with regard to economic development, in terms of the promotion of certain economic sectors, jobs, and capital and in regard to global competition, but they also play a crucial role for cultural solidarity, education, aesthetics, religion, spirituality, and for the creation of identity. A large part of the cultural heritage of these cities, however, is in a dilapidated state and threatened by deterioration and destruction. It is generally still perceived rather as a burden and an obstacle towards progress and development, than as a driver for the future. As a research subject, urban cultural heritage and its role in contemporary and future urban development have only recently attracted a certain amount of attention in the Indian context. Profound studies on the subject are rare, however. The academic work that has been done so far is dominated either by (empirical) case studies of individual sites within cities (e. g. Taneja 2018), or by a sectoral analysis of specific subtopics (like heritage legislation (e. g. Shorey 2006)). Studies investigating how cultural heritage is dealt with at the urban level are so far lacking. This study aims at broadening the perspective towards urban cultural heritage and doing justice to the fact that urban conservation takes place within the overlapping area of the cultural and the urban realms. Hence, the study explicitly includes the spatial element of urban cultural heritage into the analysis as well as motifs and imaginations that underlie conservation efforts. The empirical research was conducted in Delhi, the capital city of India. Delhi looks back on 3,000 years of history, during which its importance has been constantly changing. Since the economic liberalisation of the Indian economy in 1991, however, the city has been experiencing enormous transformation processes.

18

1 Introduction

Hence, on the one hand, Delhi is rich in cultural heritage, and on the other hand, it has to deal with the multiple challenges of a mega-city in the 21st century, including neoliberal aspirations, the effects of globalisation and massive urbanisation processes, population growth, in-migration, unplanned development, land-use conflicts, social inequalities and infrastructure problems. These phenomena exert an enormous pressure on Delhi’s cultural heritage and make the safeguarding of it extremely complex. In order to understand the challenges that conservation professionals, public agencies and other involved actors face in their attempts to safeguard urban heritage in a contemporary Indian mega-city, and to identify underlying causes, this study works towards answering the main research question How is Delhi’s urban cultural heritage governed? Following Bork-Hüffer (2012: 25), who argues that, in order to understand a research subject in an encompassing way, it is important to include as many aspects as possible in the empirical analysis, the research approach of this study allows for a holistic understanding of the present condition of urban cultural heritage and heritage related governance processes in Delhi. In this context it is of relevance to know which actors are involved in the governance of Delhi’s cultural heritage and how their relationships are constituted. Furthermore, their ideas about urban cultural heritage and the way to protect it have a great influence on how urban cultural heritage is actually protected in Delhi. Besides, structural aspects play a role, including the legal framework or informal institutions that guide actors’ behaviour. Moreover, practical problems and obstacles that emerge when conservation efforts are implemented influence the actual state of cultural heritage on the ground. Urban Cultural Heritage Governance, the research framework that has been developed for this study, provides the opportunity to include all these aspects and to systematically analyse the interlinkages between the different components. Looking through the governance lens assumes that management and negotiation of societal issues not only happen through public agencies, but rather in complex networks made up of public and private, individual and collective stakeholders representing their respective interests. Against this backdrop, the following research questions guided the empirical analysis of this study (cf. Box 1).

1 Introduction

19

Box 1: Research questions

Main research question: How is Delhi’s urban cultural heritage governed? Sub-research questions: Who are the actors involved in urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi, and which relationships and communication-patterns exist among them? How is the institutional framework relevant for urban cultural heritage protection in Delhi constituted, and what are the implications of this institutional framework? Which imaginations and discourses exist about urban cultural heritage and its protection, and which role do these imaginations and discourses play for the governance of urban cultural heritage in Delhi?

Outline of the study The thesis is structured into eight chapters. Chapter 2, following this introduction, gives insights into particular aspects of the research context within which this study was conducted. These aspects are relevant in order to understand the general and the regional context of this study. The chapter introduces the concept of urban cultural heritage, describes its origin and evolvement within the Western context, its development within international policy papers and its contemporary role in the Indian context. The theoretical and conceptual approach is developed in chapter 3. After contextualising the term and the concept of governance in general, the two approaches cultural governance and urban governance will be introduced in more detail. As urban cultural heritage governance contains elements of both, it is important to know the specificities of these two approaches in regard to the conceptualisation of the empirical research framework. This research framework is introduced subsequently. Chapter 4 introduces the materials and methods of this study. In order to understand the governance of urban cultural heritage, a qualitative approach was applied. The chapter contains an outline of the research design, a description of the way of data collection and description of the way of data collection. Further, the chapter outlines the processing and analysing of the empirical data and ends with a critical reflection on the research process. The subsequent chapter 5 situates the case study by introducing the city of Delhi. To provide a detailed picture of the local conditions relevant to this study, the chapter gives an overview of Delhi’s historic development and its present situation as well as aspirations for the city’s future development. A special emphasis is put on the description of Delhi’s built cultural heritage and last, the city’s administrative and political set-up.

20

1 Introduction

Chapter 6 presents the empirical analysis of the study. This chapter is divided into three parts. First, the actors involved in urban cultural heritage governance are introduced. Second, five illustrative case studies are presented in order to give insights into the great variety of aspects that play role in the context of safeguarding Delhi’s cultural heritage. Third, based on these case studies, and by including further empirical data, the current status of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi is presented according to the research framework of this study. Chapter 7 contains the synthesis and discussion of the empirical results. It is divided into three parts: the first part is structured according to the research framework and synthesises and (re-)interprets the empirical results in comparison with the state of the art. The second part presents overarching insights against the backdrop of the theoretical conceptualisation of the study. The chapter closes with an outlook into the future of urban cultural heritage in Delhi and ends with three possible future scenarios. A final conclusion including the evaluation of the research approach and the final synthesis of the empirical findings is presented in chapter 8.

2 CONTEXTUALISATION: URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE – EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT Although cultural heritage has grown from something that only concerned a small number of specialists and enthusiasts into an “omnipresent cultural phenomenon” (Harrison 2013: 3), there is still no clear concept about it. “Heritage as a concept is constantly evolving and the way in which the term is understood is always ambiguous and never certain. (…) Older ideas about heritage and the nature of the past and present often persist alongside those ideas that have developed more recently” (ibid.).

Accordingly, there is no universal definition or shared understanding of what urban cultural heritage1 is. The idea of how to conserve or safeguard the cultural heritage of cities has developed over time – and is still an ongoing process. The notion of cultural heritage in a society and the motivation to safeguard it, is a subject of historical, political, social and even economical circumstances. It is a matter of constant negotiation and a phenomenon in which various interests of different actors collide. Particular heritage sites can have manifold meanings that are socially constructed and are subject to permanent change. Cultural heritage as such remains a witness of the past, but the way in which it is dealt with is always an expression of current social, political and cultural circumstances and needs. In urban areas, built heritage structures are part of the everyday experience of the residents and the diverse ideas and imaginations of cultural heritage and its protection clash in an especially intense way (Graham et al. 2000: 1 ff., Kögler 2006: 6). In order to understand how Delhi’s urban cultural heritage is governed today, knowledge about how the concept of urban cultural heritage evolved over time is important. Hence, the following chapter traces urban cultural heritage from its origins and its development in the Western context to its current application in international policy papers. Subsequently, the current academic consideration of cultural heritage from a constructivist perspective is described with a special emphasis on values-based approaches. Finally, its role and application in the Indian context will be examined more closely.

1

In academic literature, authors use both terms, urban cultural heritage and urban heritage to describe the same phenomenon. Hence, in this study the two terms are used interchangeably.

22

2 Contextualisation

2.1 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE WESTERN CONTEXT The historic city as a heritage category emerged only in the end of the 19th century / beginning 20th century, whereas the term urban heritage was introduced in the first half of the 20th century. Urban conservation, however, understood as the policies and planning practices aimed at safeguarding a city’s cultural heritage, has gained a lot of attention only since around the turn of the millennium (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 6). Earlier, practices of heritage protection mainly concentrated on the preservation of individual buildings and monuments, and were aimed at preserving them as symbols of past traditions and cultures. However, the foundation for the modern idea of urban heritage was laid as early as the beginning of the 19th century by several theoreticians, such as John Ruskin and William Morris, even if their early approaches did not directly focus on the historic city itself. With their so-called romantic approach, they called for the conservation of monuments in the state in which they appeared at a certain point in time. By doing so they were guided not only by aesthetic aspects. Rather, they attributed the significance of buildings to their age and their role as representatives of a nation’s past achievements (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 6, Jokilehto 1986: 313, Menon 2003a, Nasser 2003: 468). In this way, they contributed to the emergence of the idea of the historic city being common heritage (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 6, Jokilehto 1986). However, Ruskin’s romantic and nostalgic vision of heritage protection (which focussed on individual monuments) was challenged by Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-Le-Duc, who invented the theory of stylistic restoration (Jokilehto 1986: 277, Nasser 2003: 468). Viollet-Le-Duc applied his approach not only to single monuments, but also to urban complexes and argued that the purpose of restoring buildings should not be to preserve, repair or rebuild them. He aimed, rather, at reinstating them in a condition in which they may never have existed in the first place (cf. Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 6 f., Jokilehto 1986: 279, Piplani 2015b: 82). Nevertheless, the idea that the historic city itself contains an aesthetic value was formulated only at the end of the 19th century by Camillo Sitte (Sitte 1889). Sitte promoted the idea that, for the form and character of a city, it is not individual buildings and their forms that are important, but rather the quality of its urban spaces (Taylor 2012: 267). He influenced modern principles of urban conservation through his belief that the city is a historical continuum, emphasising that “the need to link urban conservation to a wider context and to the natural environment is at the heart of contemporary thinking on urban conservation” (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 15). During the first half of the 20th century, the Italian architect and urban planner Gustavo Giovannoni, was influential in the context of urban conservation in several ways (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 14, Jokilehto 1986: 351). Gustavo Giovannoni first coined the term urban heritage. He designed tools for urban conservation and understood the importance of the role that the historic city plays in modern societies. Besides, he further established the idea that it is necessary to include the built environment of historic monuments in the conservation process (Jokilehto 1986: 354). For him, environment was the urban fabric that represents the layers of time.

2.1 Origin and development of urban cultural heritage in the Western context

23

He formulated “a clear position against the ‘dismemberment’ of buildings” (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 15). On the grounds of his refusal of the “museum-like freezing of historic monuments” (ibid.), and the active inclusion of the complexity of the urban fabric into his approach, he can be called the “precursor of the conservation policies that were developed internationally (…) in the second half of the twentieth century” (ibid.). The Modern Movement evolving in the 1920s and 1930s, however, marked a “big break in the vision and practice of architecture and urban planning” (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 15) and also influenced the field of urban conservation. In general, the Modern Movement, with Le Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe as some of its most prominent representatives, aimed for functional urban development. The Athens Charter 1933, which sets guidelines for the so-called functional city, was adopted at the IV. Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM). In this charter, the historic city was tagged as a negative model, characterised by bad and unhealthy living conditions, which should be demolished and replaced by modern housing units and green spaces (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 20). After World War II and the emergence of mass industrial societies, the development of an urban design that could cope with the needs of this new form of society became highly important. Hence, a “radical departure from the approach to the historic city (…) [took place and an orientation towards the] creation of a new modern urban complex, based on high-density public housing, with functional and innovative housing typologies and elaborate transport infrastructure” developed (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 18 f.). Parallel, however, induced by the major destructions of historic urban areas in European cities during World War II, awareness emerged that these areas, with their unique character, have a great value in the context of the urban reconstruction process. Controverse debates emerged about the way in which rebuilding activities should be carried out (Jokilehto 1986: 410). During the 1950s and 1960s, an increasing number of historic areas in Western European cities came under consideration (Steinberg 1996: 466). But, until the 1970s, the approach to heritage protection still focussed “on great monuments and archaeological locations, famous architectural ensembles, or historic sites with connections to the rich and famous” (Taylor 2012: 268). In the post-war period in many European countries conservation policies prevailed which reflected the conservation objectives that had been developed in the first half of the twentieth century (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 37). They mainly focused on the conservation of the physical fabric and of single monuments within cities, recognising their relevance for society and as a means of preserving the values that are linked to identity and place2. In this way it was possible, in many cities, to safeguard big parts of the historic fabric. It was more difficult, however, to preserve cities’ social structure. Since the 1980s/1990s, the approach of concentrating conservation activities mainly on monumental structures has been challenged. Gradually, an extended value system emerged and issues like cultural landscapes, intangible heritage, 2

Bandarin & Van Oers (2012) give the example of the secteurs sauvegardés (conservation areas) that were established in France 1962, the Law for the Protection of the Historic Centres, formulated 1973 in Italy and the Civic Amenities Act of 1967 in the United Kingdom.

24

2 Contextualisation

living history, vernacular heritage, individual and social perceptions and community involvement became recognised in the heritage context (Leftwich 1993: 268). However, while various approaches towards urban conservation have been developed since the post-war period, a common approach has not emerged. Bandarin & Van Oers (2012: 36) call this the “evidence of the need to adapt theories and practice to the values of the context, to the forms of society’s appreciation of heritage, and to the pattern of social change”. What is seen as a common denominator today, however, is that the historic city is constituted by its structural aspects, its historic layering and interlinked collective and individual value systems (ibid.). Lowenthal (1998: 14) summarises the development in the field of urban conservation with the words: from the “elite and grand to the vernacular and everyday; from the remote to the recent; and from the material to the intangible”. This quote shows that different dimensions of change contributed to the current situation. 2.2 URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE IN INTERNATIONAL CHARTERS AND CONVENTIONS Even if a debate about cultural heritage has existed since the 18th century, the objective of conservation developed in international discourse only from the 1960s (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 36, Chapagain 2013: 11, Hosagrahar 2013; cf. 2.1). During the post-war period, a number of major international governmental and non-governmental organisations have been established (e. g. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in 1945, International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in 1959 and International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in 1965), which participated in the formulation of charters and conventions concerning the safeguarding of cultural heritage (cf. Box 2). The first formal definition of the term emerged in 1972 with the adoption of the World Heritage Convention. In this convention, cultural heritage is defined as “monuments (…), groups of buildings (…) [and] sites (…) which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view”3. Since then, the definition and understanding of cultural heritage has been constantly evolving. In 1992, the category of cultural landscape was included as a category in the World Heritage Convention. The most prominent extension of the definition is represented by the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), which defines immaterial cultural heritage as “the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage”4. 3 4

UNESCO (1972): Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. (https://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf; access: 2018-09-22). UNESCO (2003): Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. (https:// ich.unesco.org/en/convention; access: 2018-09-23).

2.2 Urban cultural heritage in international charters and conventions

25

Another major change within the international discourse is the recognition of a stronger culturally coined understanding of cultural heritage. It is currently discussed to what extent the protection of cultural heritage in the sense of preservation and conservation is suited to deal with historical elements within not-Western societies (Falser 2008: 130, Kraas 2002. Sullivan 2004, Winter 2014). A number of charters, declarations and publications have been formulated to overcome perceived inadequacies of international documents concerning the safeguarding of cultural heritage in ‘non-Western’ countries. While the Venice Charter (1964)5 still promotes classic expressions of Western values towards heritage (Sullivan 2004: 49), the Burra Charter (1979)6 already shows a broader perspective (Winter 2014: 123). However, the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994)7, marked an important step “towards a global respect for cultural diversity with increased flexibility for regional interpretations of authenticity” (Falser 2008: 130 f.). Beyond this, the 2013 revision of the Burra charter defines cultural significance as “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects. Places may have a range of values for different individuals or groups.”8

It mentions further, that “(c)ultural significance may change over time and with use” (ibid.). The enumeration above shows that the notion of cultural heritage has been constinously extended within international documents from a monument centric towars a broader concept (Chapagain 2013: 11). Lowenthal (1998: 14) summarises the different steps of this development as follows: “from historical monuments and sites to “districts” and landscapes, from high to vernacular culture, from a distant to an instant past, from the West to the rest of the world”. In regard to the issue of urban conservation, the broadening of the understanding of cultural heritage within international charters described above plays a role as the notions of urban heritage changed accordingly over time. There are a number of international charters and conventions that explicitly refer to historic areas and their safeguarding. Box 2 introduces a selection of international charters and conventions that have been relevant in this context over time.

5

6 7 8

International Council in Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (1964): International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). IInd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 1964. Adopted by ICOMOS in 1965. (https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf, access: 2018-07-05). ICOMOS (1979): Australia ICOMOS Guidelines for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter) (https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/Burra-Charter_ 1979.pdf; access 2018-09-23). ICOMOS (1994): The Nara Document on Authenticity. (https://whc.unesco.org/document/ 116018; access: 2019-09-23). International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (2013): The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013. (http://portal.iphan. gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31_10_2013.pdf, access: 2018-07-05).

26

2 Contextualisation Box 2: International charters and conventions relevant for urban cultural heritage (Source: Bandarin 2012: 39)

Venice Charter 1964 (ICOMOS): First international charter stressing the need to conserve historic monuments within their setting (natural as well as urban). It is still concerned about monuments (Steinberg 1996: 466), and does not refer to the ‘historic city’ itself, but it mentions for the first time the area around a monument as the “urban or rural setting”. Convention concerning the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) 1972 (UNESCO): Indirectly refers to historic cities; historic urban areas are part of the category ‘groups of buildings’. Represents a ‘quantum leap’ in the field of conservation: 1) for the first time principles for heritage conservation are the subject of an international legal system; 2) brings together principles that were previously separated into different categories (the natural and cultural realms); 3) establishes a system of international responsibility in conserving and monitoring the evolution of sites deemed to be of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’. Has included the category of cultural landscapes since 1992. Declaration of Amsterdam 1975 (Congress on Architectural Heritage) and European Charter of Architectural Heritage 1975 (Council of Europe): Establishes the link between conservation and urban planning and describes urban heritage, including its vernacular expressions, as a key component of all conservation policies. Expresses the need to include the social structure of historic urban areas into the process of conservation and to value it not only for its uses but also as a source of inspiration for education and social development. Contemporary architecture in historic areas is mentioned. Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas, Nairobi 1976 (UNESCO): Remains the “fundamental text on urban conservation” (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 45). Although not dealing with urban areas exclusively, it includes all elements relevant for urban conservation. Includes a very detailed overview of standards and policies to be followed by practitioners and governments. Weaknesses: represents a rather static understanding of social processes; promotes a transfer of the extra costs to the public; underestimates processes that have been affecting urban conservation for the last 30 years (gentrification, dominant tourism industry). Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (Washington Charter) 1987 (ICOMOS): Aimed at filling gaps existing in the Venice Charter 1964, this is the first international charter to exclusively deal with the issue of urban conservation. The authenticity of a city is understood here as relating not only to physical structures and their relationships, but also to the setting and surroundings, as well as to the functions acquired by the city over time, and attention is given to social values and participation. The focus of this

2.2 Urban cultural heritage in international charters and conventions

27

Charter remains principally on physical aspects of urban conservation while it relies essentially on the ‘conservation plan’ as the main tool for guiding conservation efforts. While national and local policies are left aside, many processes responsible for physical and social transformation of cities are taken into account (e. g. gentrification, tourism industry). Nara Document on Authenticity 1994 (ICOMOS): Extension to the Venice Charter 1964. Expands the scope of cultural heritage concerns. Addresses the need for a broader understanding of cultural diversity and cultural heritage as it relates to conservation. Underscores the importance of considering the cultural and social values of all societies. Emphasizes respect for other cultures, other values, and the tangible and intangible expressions that form part of the heritage of every culture. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003 (UNESCO): Reflects growing awareness of the importance of intangible values. Recognises the role of multiple layers of identity and further intangible aspects in cultural landscapes and historic urban landscapes. Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage 2004 (UNESCO): Promotes a comprehensive approach; links the 1972 World Heritage Convention and the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Stresses that both categories of heritage have to be safeguarded in their own rights by taking into account their interdependence but also their distinctive characteristics. Vienna Memorandum on World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape 2005 (UNESCO): Proposes a Historic Urban Landscape approach (HUL) to meet challenges and pressures that contemporary development poses on cultural heritage of cities. No longer defines historic urban areas as a ‘sum’ of monuments and urban fabric, but as a comprehensive system, marked by historical, geomorphologic and social relationships within its setting and its environment and characterised by a complex layering of meanings and expressions. Sees historic urban areas located within a historical continuum, meaning that they are the result of ongoing long-term dynamics. Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas 2005 (ICOMOS): Acknowledges the significance to heritage monuments, sites and areas of setting (the immediate and extended environment that is part of, or contributes to, its significance and distinctive character; interaction with the natural environment; past or present social or spiritual practices, customs, traditional knowledge, use or activities and other forms of intangible cultural heritage aspects that created and form the space as well as the current and dynamic cultural, social and economic context).

28

2 Contextualisation

Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of Place (ICOMOS) 2008: Aims at defining approach to interpret the value and meaning of a place based on the interaction and mutual construction between the tangible. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (UNESCO) 2011: Holistic method towards urban conservation which aims at incorporating social and economic development, defines urban heritage as a resource and is based on the objective of preserving and conserving ‘shared values’ in order to benefit from them. Box 3 contains regional charters and documents which, although formulated in a national context, have been important for the development of urban heritage. Box 3: Urban cultural heritage: regional charters (Source: Bandarin 2012: 51)

Australia ICOMOS Guidelines for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (Burra Charter) (1979) (ICOMOS) mentions for the first time the concept of ‘places of cultural significance’ and establishes a distinction between the values to be preserved, which means the significance, and the place itself, which is defined as its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects (revised 2013)1. Brazil Itaipava Charter 1987 (ICOMOS) characterises the city not only as a physical artefact that consists of built and natural features, but also as a ‘living’ heritage which is constituted of the ‘experience’ of its inhabitants. Japan Machi-nami Charter 2000 (ICOMOS) looks to the historic urban core as an interplay of both its tangible and intangible components, as well as its physical and spiritual aspects. Charter of European Cities and Towns towards Sustainability (Aalborg Charter) 1994: This charter supports the picture of cities being centres of social life, economic drivers, and guardians of culture, heritage and tradition, as well as of industry, craft, trade, education and government. It emphasises the relationship between contemporary urban lifestyle, environmental problems and lack of social equity that humankind is facing today. Declaration on Heritage and Metropolis in Asia and the Pacific (2007) ICOMOS: This declaration characterises cultural heritage “as a diverse and non-renewable asset, essential to the sustainable and human development of metropolitan areas in Asia and the Pacific” ((ICOMOS) 2008). It stresses the need to give greater attention to aspects of community involvement in urban conservation as well as the need to integrate aspects of modern development that visually and physically influence the authenticity and integrity of historic areas (Taylor 2012: 269).

2.3 Cultural heritage as social construction

29

The lists above consist of charters, recommendations and conventions. Recommendations and charters have the character of principles, guidelines or even a moral code. They function as invitations to the signing parties to take necessary steps, like the formulation or adaptation of national laws, in conformity with their national contexts (Ndoro et al. 2008: 22). Conventions, however, are so-called law-making treaties. This means that they are intended to have universal applicability and that they are formulated with the aim of guiding the participating state parties in their national performance. They function as normative instruments as they “prescribe rules of conduct to be followed” (ibid.:14). Contentwise, the compilation in boxes 2 and 3 shows that the perspective towards urban cultural heritage within international charters developed according to changing objectives of conservation approaches (cf. 2.1), from the conservation of individual historic monuments towards the conservation of encompassing cultural properties and vernacular fabrics taking immaterial aspects into account (Hosagrahar 2013). There exist mutual relationships between the charters and conventions and conservation practice. On the one hand, international documents reflect the development of the notions of urban cultural heritage, and vice versa, these documents are influencing conservation practices on the ground (Punekar 2006: 103). Due to a growing awareness of the existence of enormous threats and challenges in regard to urban cultural heritage and its safeguarding, there is currently a great dynamic within the international discourse. According to Bandarin & Van Oers (2012: 65) “a new paradigm is gradually taking shape” in this context. In order to meet these challenges, issues like values and meaning, authenticity and integrity of historic urban areas, layers of significance, the management of change, social economic development, environmental sustainability and new urban conservation tools are increasingly discussed (ibid.: 68). In this context, UNESCO currently promotes the Historic Urban Landscape approach (HUL)9, which was designed as a holistic method towards urban conservation and which aims to incorporate social and economic development. The approach defines urban heritage as a resource and is based on the objective of preserving and conserving ‘shared values’ in order to benefit from them. It further transcends the perspective towards urban heritage away from a focus on individual or a group of buildings and on visual and architectural aspects, towards the “encompassing idea of overall context and setting, enmeshing tangible and intangible values and associations that people have with place or landscape” (Taylor 2012: 273). 2.3 CULTURAL HERITAGE AS SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION Academic literature of the 1980s and 1990s shows the rediscovery of the perspective that cultural heritage is socially constructed (Graham et al. 2000, Schmitt 2011b: 100). In 1988, Marion Wohlleben (1988: 47) wrote that “[i]t is not the pieces 9

UNESCO (2011): Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. (http://portal.unesco. org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html; access: 2018-09-23).

30

2 Contextualisation

themselves that have the meaning and significance of monuments by virtue of their original purpose. But we modern subjects are the ones who ascribe the meaning to them” (translated by the author10). It is important to speak of a rediscovery here, as, in the early 1900s, Alois Riegl, the Austrian theoretician, already ascribed a social character to cultural heritage by noting that the selection of monuments or memorials is done in a collective and normative way (Schmitt 2011b: 100, Wohlleben 1988: 47; cf. 2.1). The perspective of a rediscovery implies that before that time there was no public reflection about the process of and the criteria for the selection of monuments and cultural heritage objects, at least not in Europe and the US. In this context, Thomas Schmitt (2011b: 100) identifies the discourse about industrial heritage or dark heritage, which emerged in the 1980s, and the associated broadening of the notion of cultural heritage as a starting point for a wider social reflection on the role of monuments and memorials and on the processes of their selection11 (cf. Biran et al. 2011, Edwards & Coit 1996, Frisch 1998, Soyez 1986). In geography, this broadened understanding and the application of the constructivist paradigm to the subject of cultural heritage can be associated with the cultural turn that brought a fundamental shift into the humanities and the social sciences in the second half of the 20th century. Following this perspective, the world can generally be understood as an accumulation of socially constructed signs and symbols. What is crucial is that the meaning of these signs and symbols is not codified within objects, but it is determined by actions, perceptions and thoughts and is hence strongly context-sensitive. The focus within the social sciences in this context is on processes of production and reproduction of these signs and symbols (Kögler 2006: 21, Lossau 2008). The cultural turn brought a different concept of culture to academia as well as to society, and the understanding developed away from high culture of the elites. Culture, being a vague and complex term, now started to encompass popular culture as well as cultural practices, symbols and social processes of communication, identity, beliefs and values. The following publications are examples of the great variety of research on cultural heritage that has been undertaken in geography from a constructivist perspective in the last two decades. Graham et al. (2000) focus on questions of cultural heritage production and its social function and consequences. Escher et al. (2001), Kraas (2002), Popp (2001) and Schmitt (2009) describe conflicts and consequences related to the nomination of heritage sites as UNESCO World Heritage. The commodification of cultural heritage and the impact of tourism plays a role in the work of Mertins (2003), Mitchell & Shannon (2018) and Scarpaci (2000). Schmid (2002) and Kögler (2006) elaborate on the conflict between the preservation and demolition of historic buildings from the the action-oriented geographic perspective. They try to identify the different actor groups, their objectives and their respective interests to find out about their power relations and their strategies. Neighbouring disci10 11

Original quote: “[N]icht den Werken selbst kraft ihrer ursprünglichen Bestimmung kommt Sinn und Bedeutung von Denkmalen zu, sondern wir modernen Subjekte sind es, die ihnen dieselben unterlegen” (Wohlleben 1988: 47). Schmitt (2011b) mentions the inscription of the concentration camp Auschwitz on the UNESCO-world heritage list in 1979 as a specific marker for the beginning of this discussion.

2.3 Cultural heritage as social construction

31

plines, like cultural anthropology, also developed a growing interest in the topic of cultural heritage (e. g. Hemme et al. 2007 and Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004). Since the late 20th century, Critical Heritage Studies, an interdisciplinary academic field has emerged that “positions heritage within a wider field of global institutions, discourses, and power relations” (Coombe & Baird 2016: 337) and aims to consider critical study of the various layers of cultural heritage as a material, intangible, emotional and intellectual research field. Critical heritage studies focuses attention on topics such as power, contestation, dissonance etc. and still works on its coherent conceptual and methodological foundations12. According to Harrison (2013: 3), Critical Heritage Studies is “part of a broader consideration of heritage as a social, economic and political phenomenon of late-modern societies”. In this understanding, heritage “is not primarily about the past, but instead about our relationship with the present and the future” (ibid.: 4). From this perspective, conservation is seen as “an active process of assembling a series of objects, places and practices that we choose to hold up as a mirror to the present, associated with a particular set of values that we wish to take with us into the future” (ibid.: 4) and not a process of simply preserving remains from the past. Values-based approaches to heritage protection The ongoing disourse about values-based approaches to heritage conservation is closely linked to the constructivist perspective towards cultural heritage. By applying values-based approaches, values that become ascribed to cultural heritage sites, are used in order to identify and to assess significance, to inform decision-making processes, and to define policies and strategies concerning the management of cultural heritage (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016: 466, Orbaslı 2008: 38). Monteiro et al. (2015: 157) call values the “intrinsic reason” for the conservation of cultural heritage based on the assumption that “(i)t is self-evident that no society makes an effort to conserve what it does not value” (ibid: 3). Such approaches currently experience increasing attention in academic and within conservation profession (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016: 466, Orbaslı 2008). They have become the fundamental concern of international conventions (cf. 2.2; Harrison 2013: 145, McClelland et al. 2013: 584), and national legislations and guide many conservation efforts (Ardakani & Oloonabadi 2011a, Poulios 2010, Punekar 2006, Thakur & Gupta 2008). Since their first introduction by Alois Riegl in the end of the 19th century (cf. 2.1), a vast number of possible heritage values emerged and a great number of heritage typologies developed. Heritage typologies “are thought to encompass heritage significance” (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016: 467) and are often utilized to assess the significance of a heritage site in order to prepare heritage management plans or conservation policy documents (ibid.). Heritage typologies differ tremendously in scope and detail. Table 1 introduces a selection of heritage typologies that have been suggested so far. 12

Association of Critical Heritage Studies (2017): President’s welcome. (http://www.criticalher itagestudies.org/presidents-welcome/; access: 2018-09-23).

32

2 Contextualisation Table 1: Typologies of heritage value (Source: Mason 2002, McClelland et al. 2013, Monteiro et al. 2015)

Riegl (1929)

Burra charter (1979 revised 1981, 1988, 1999, 2013)13

Lipe (1983)

Dix (1990)

Age Historical Commemorative Use Newness

Aesthetic Historic Scientific Social Spiritual

Economic Aesthetic Associative/ Symbolic Informational

Emotional (Wonder, Identity, Spiritual, Symbolic) Cultural (Historic, Archaeological, Scarcity) Usage (Functional, Economic, Social, Political)

Feilden/ Jokilehto (1993)

Carver (1993)

Frey (1997)

English Heritage (1997)

Cultural (Relative artistic or technical) Rarity Contemporary socioeconomic Economic Educational Social Political

Market (Capital/estate value, production value [including agricultural, mineral extraction, etc.], commercial, residential) Community (Amenity value [provides something to be shared by the community], political value, minority/disadvantaged/descendant value [wins the support of the disaffected], local style value [wins the support of the elders]) Human (Environmental value, archaeological value)

Monetary Option Existence Bequest Prestige Educational

Cultural Educational and academic Economic Resource Recreational Aesthetic

Deeben et al. (1999)

Mason (2002)

Thorsby (2006)

Worthing/Bond (2007)

Perception (Aesthetic value, historical value) Physical quality (Integrity, Preservation) Intrinsic quality (Rarity, Research potential, Groupvalue, Representativity)

Sociocultural (Historical, cultural/symbolic, social, spiritual/ religious, aesthetic) Economic Use (market) Non-use (non-market) (Existence, Option, Bequest)

Aesthetic Spiritual Social Historical Symbolic Authenticity

Aesthetic Scenic and panoramic Architectural/technical Historical Associational Archaeological Economic Educational Recreational Artistic Social Commemorative Symbolic/iconic Spiritual and religious Inspirational Ecological Environmental

13

ICOMOS (2013): The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013. (http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/The-Burra-Charter2013-Adopted-31_10_2013.pdf, access: 2018-07-05).

2.3 Cultural heritage as social construction

33

Based on this overview it is obvious, that significance is a multidimensional matter. Each of the typologies presented in table 1 was formulated in specific (spatial and historical) contexts by different persons or stakeholder groups. Typologies like these “minimize some kinds of value, elevate others, or foreground conflicts between the cultivation of certain values at the expense of others” (Mason 2002: 8). Bearing in mind their reductionist character, heritage typologies can be helpful by providing flexible frameworks for the structuring of cultural heritage management (McClelland et al. 2013: 593). However, table 1 shows that each author or institution that formulated the different typologies sets other priorities. Some include economic values; others focus more on socio-cultural values. In general, it seems that the range of values expanded over time and that values with an intangible character became more prominent in the course of the typology development (ibid.). Heritage values can compete with each other, overlap each other and they can change over time (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016: 475, Orbaslı 2008: 39). Earlier, the group of people that worked in the field of heritage protection was quite isolated and consisted mainly of small groups of experts and specialists. They decided on what was actually seen as heritage and what was not, and how it should be conserved. Only in the last three decades, when the concept of What is heritage? expanded (cf. 2.1), were new groups included in this process of evaluing and defining heritage values (de la Torre & Mason 2002: 3), such as citizens, professionals of other fields or representatives of special interests. Hence, the topic became more complex and questions of What to conserve?, How to conserve?, Who should decide? and How to handle and balance conflicting interests? became increasingly prominent. McClelland et al. (2013: 593) argue that values-based approaches hold several advantages over more traditional expert-led and regulatory-focused approaches. Values-based approaches are more democratic by allowing greater input from a broad range of stakeholders. They “reflect the multivalent nature of heritage and the contingent manner in which it is judged by different people and organisations over time” (ibid.: 594). They support community engagement in conservation projects and they allow the integration of a great diversity of values, especially of those values that support contemporary efforts towards sustainability, and towards the integration of economic, social and environmental attributes. Nevertheless, within processes of managing and protecting cultural heritage that apply values-based approaches, a great potential for contestation remains, and debates about which typology of values to use, what to preserve or to destroy, what to develop etc. will continue amongst the various stakeholders. By looking at the protection and management of urban cultural heritage in the context of values-based approaches, it is necessary to have a closer look at the specificities of the urban context. The many facets of the urban environment have to be taken into account and hence, emphasis needs to be put on buildings and spaces as well as on social and cultural processes (Ardakani & Oloonabadi 2011b, Bandarin & Van Oers 2012: 107, Fredheim & Khalaf 2016, Punekar 2006: 104). Furthermore, a typology suitable for assessing urban cultural heritage should be designed in order to capture the view of professionals as well as non-professionals, to make it possible to include the views of all stakeholders that are involved and

34

2 Contextualisation

affected by urban conservation efforts (Orbaslı 2000/2008, Fredheim, 2016). As the urban environment is characterised by constant change and development, a value typology for urban heritage also needs to be able to reflect the changing nature of urban cultural heritage (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016: 470, Orbaslı 2000: 1). However, today, heritage values and values-based approaches are subject to controversial debates in academia and in professional practice (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016, Walter 2014). The idea, that it is self-explanatory and uncontested as to what makes a heritage site valuable is now generally called into question (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016: 466). From a constructivist perspective, heritage values are seen as being socially constructed and ascribed, rather than existing intrinsically (Harrison 2013: 197). In addition, there is greater recognition of the fact that the valuation of varying stakeholders towards various heritage sites is diverging (Harrison 2013: 145, Punekar 2006, Sullivan 2004: 52). Therefore, some authors see value typologies (cf. Table 1) as being inadequate for capturing the complex nature of cultural heritage sites and understanding their significance in detail (Fredheim & Khalaf 2016). In this context, Walter (2014: 634) criticizes that the theoretical foundation of heritage typologies and their genealogy has not yet been given enough attention. McClelland et al. (2013) emphasise in this context that, when working with values-based approaches, one must critically assess potential consequences and implications arising from their implementation. They criticise the overexposure of positive heritage values within values-based approaches over so-called “dark side values”. They understand dark side values as values that are often concealed or ignored or that can be in direct opposition to positive characteristics of cultural heritage (ibid.: 585). They argue that the integration of dark side values would make it possible to include a broader range of stakeholders and their views and would hence ensure that a more complete picture about heritage sites be drawn. This would then lead to more holistic cultural heritage planning and management. Furthermore, a number of authors point to the normative aspect of values-based approaches and emphasise the existence of questions about power and power relations between different stakeholders in heritage protection processes, especially in the context of defining heritage values (cf. McClelland et al. 2013, Poulios 2010: 173, Yildirim 2015: 124). 2.4 URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT In India, the awareness about the specificities of urban cultural heritage and urban conservation only started to grow at the end of the 20th century. In order to set the context for understanding how urban cultural heritage is governed in Delhi, the following chapter first outlines the historical development of heritage conservation in India. Secondly, it introduces circumstances and processes that influence the present state of (urban) cultural heritage in India.

2.4 Urban cultural heritage in the Indian context

35

2.4.1 Historical development of heritage conservation in India The first people who were interested in understanding and documenting India’s cultural heritage in an archaeological sense were voyagers like John Huighen Van Linschoten in the late 16th and Pietro de la Valle in the 17th century (Chakrabarti 1988: 1). In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, military surveyors, antiquarian scholars and members of the East Indian Company, like Colin Mackenzie, James Prinsep and James Lewis, gathered information and documented Indian historical sites and monuments (Sengupta & Lambah 2012: 19, Singh 2004). An initial institutional focus on antiquarian research started with the establishment of the Asiatic Society in 1784, an institution that was founded in Calcutta to explore the history, antiquities, arts, sciences and literature of Asia (Singh 1997: 101). The Asiatic Society “was entirely in keeping with the scientific spirit of 18th century Britain”14 (Chakrabarti 1988: 15). With the beginning of the modern movement in the 18th and 19th centuries and the evolvement and development of diverse scientific disciplines that studied the material world (like geology, chemistry etc.), scientific forms of knowledge were applied to the debates in arts and cultural disciplines. They explored overlapping fields of interest, like landscape, nature and architecture. This anticipated the situation that scholars in fields like archaeology and architectural conservation “drew on empiricism and natural history” (Winter 2014: 129) to start constructing increasingly technical methodologies and to set the focus on the “texts of heritage” (ibid.), such as objects, buildings, artefacts, paintings or inscriptions, among others. Winter (2014: 129) calls this phenomenon “a consolidation of a scientistic materialism of heritage conservation”.15 Although it has never initiated any archaeological excavation, the Asiatic Society had a great influence on the establishment of the discipline of archaeology in India (Johnson-Roehr 2008: 508). Throughout the rule of the East India Company from 1765 to 1858, only sporadic efforts were made to preserve historical structures in India (Sengupta 2013: 23). From 1861 onwards, Alexander Cunningham, the Archaeological Surveyor to the Government of India (GoI) at that time, undertook a systematic survey of monuments, to document and map the landscape and history of ancient India. He was not particularly interested in the contents of the sites he explored but rather in their sheer existence and their location (Johnson-Roehr 2008: 510). At the end of the 19th century, the Central Government entrusted archaeological responsibility and the work of preservation of historic monuments to the local governments (Chakrabarti 1988: 120, Menon 1989). This marked a change in the government’s approach from excavation, which was the main concern of archaeology at that time, towards architectural documentation and preservation (Sengupta & Lambah 2012: 34). However,

14 This scientific spirit was characterised by a systematic examination of the nature and environment of the country. This approach of systematic exploration was brought to India then (Chakrabarti 1988). 15 For a detailed elaboration of conservation in India in relation to the history of scientistic materialism see Winter (2013).

36

2 Contextualisation

until the early 20th century, there was no precise approach that dealt with the question as to how preservation should take place in India (Sengupta 2013)16. Historical archaeology and principles of conservation, as they are understood in the Western context today, were introduced in India by Lord Curzon. He was appointed to the office of Viceroy of India in 1899 and radically restructured and centralised the department of archaeology. By appointing John Marshall as the Director-General of Archaeology, he brought an “element of purposeful leadership” (Chakrabarti 1988: 169) onto the scene, and consolidated the ASI in 1902 as a centralised body17 (Menon 1989, Sengupta 2013: 24). At that time, a systematic and comprehensive preservation agenda was developed (Johnson-Roehr 2008: 511). In order to establish a certain amount of discipline and commitment to archaeological excavations, the Ancient Monuments and Preservation Act was passed in 1904. It was aimed at regularising the acquisition, protection and preservation of monuments and other historic objects (Sengupta & Banerji 2012: 77). In 1923, based on the Act, John Marshall published conservation guidelines that steered conservation strategies in India from then on. Marshall’s guidelines are rooted in the idea of a linear concept of time where the “‘authenticity’ of a building is fixed in the past and cannot ‘evolve’ over time. There is a clear distinction between time past and time present” (Menon 2003a). Despite this clear definition of ‘authenticity’ and the related rejection of restoration and rebuilding (Weiler 2013: 244), Marshall faced difficulties with the establishment of general rules on conservation due to India’s great local cultural varieties. Still, he drafted a manual, which determined the general way in which monumental preservation should be regulated and practised, even if implementing it into the ground reality proved to be disenchanting (Nanda 2017: 95, Weiler 2013: 246). British interventions in the field of conservation had significant impacts on the Indian conservation scene and their influence continues to this day. Conservation practices in postcolonial India showed a lot of the characteristics of those practices applied before independence. A number of legacies have been passed on from the colonial ASI to the ASI after independence. Johnson-Roehr (2008: 507) argues that in postcolonial India, “the ASI deliberately positioned itself as a scientific institution (attempting to) separate modern India from the image of ancient India created by the colonial government”. Under the guidance of Mortimer Wheeler, who was ASI’s Director General at the time of Independence (1944–1948), Indian archaeology underwent some significant changes and was henceforth dominated by positivist methodologies (Johnson-Roehr 2008: 512, Roy 1961: 123, Sengupta 2012: 85). Amajananda Ghosh, who was Director General of the ASI from 1953 to 1968, however, initiated a process of modernisation of the institution. He formulated clear policies for excavation, conservation and what he called landscaping. The standards and methods formulated during Gosh’s directorship are still valid today (Sengupta 2012: 91). 16 17

A detailed review of Indian archaeology and conservation before the 20th century would exceed the scope of this work. For detailed information about that time see Roy (1961), Chakrabarty (1988) and Singh (2004). For a detailed overview over the milestones in the ASI’s history see Sengupta (2012).

2.4 Urban cultural heritage in the Indian context

37

2.4.2 Urban cultural heritage in India today Today, the cultural heritage of Indian cities is endangered. However, this situation is not unique to India, as all over the world, cities experience major transformation processes that significantly influence urban heritage and its safeguarding and management. Bandarin & Van Oers (2012: 76) identified six phenomena, that impact urban conservation today: exponential increase in urbanisation on a global scale; growing concern for the environment and the sustainability of urban development; the vulnerability of cities in terms of the impact of climate change; the changing role of cities, with ongoing market liberalisation, decentralisation and privatisation as new drivers of development; the emergence of tourism as one of the largest industries in the world; and a broader understanding and appreciation of the concept of cultural heritage, including the essence of the urban condition in relation to urban heritage values to be protected. Furthermore, UNESCO identified a list of ‘new challenges’ for the cultural heritage of urban historic areas: growing pressure of urbanisation, tension between globalisation and local development, incompatible new development, unsustainable tourism and environmental degradation including climate change (UNESCO 2009: 4 f.). These aspects influence the cultural heritage of Indian cities and its conservation as well. Urban cultural heritage in India is threatened with destruction in order to make space for new development (Hosagrahar 2013: 20). Furthermore, it is being put under pressure by commodification processes which make cultural heritage available for (global) cultural consumptions, and which cause their detachment from their local, spatial and temporal continuity (Hosagrahar 2012: 291, Taylor 2012: 266, Zetter & Watson 2006: 3). The processes of globalisation and urbanisation take place at such high speed that those institutions and actors involved in urban conservation are, most of the time, unable to respond and react in a timely manner (Winter & Daly 2012: 29). In India, it is not only the complex contemporary processes of globalisation and urbanisation that are a challenge for the protection of urban heritage, but also the vast and diverse geographical and cultural diversity of the country. The built urban cultural heritage of India ranges from single historic sites like the Taj Mahal or medieval forts like Jaiselmer, to urban areas like Old Delhi, colonial cities like Mumbai and Chennai, temple towns like Madurai and Srirangam and to modern and planned cities like Chandigarh and Jamshedpur (Hosagrahar 2013: 23). Beyond being rich in built cultural heritage, India is a country with countless living traditions, various cultures and multiple pasts. Tangible and intangible heritage is entwined in complex ways. Hence, Indian cities are very dynamic organisms that undergo constant transformation processes, from their origins until today. Their physical and societal character is permanently changing and evolving. Indian cities are “vibrant, living entities where life on the streets and a sense of living history are palpable” (Taylor 2012: 266). Embedded within the impact of modernity and rapid (urban) development on the one hand, but very diverse cultures and traditions on the other hand, India’s cities represent an “incredible fusion of the past and the present” (Baig 2003: 1). This situation is also reflected in the urban fabric of these cities.

38

2 Contextualisation “Urbanism in India today is a medley of contrasting forms. On the one hand are glass and steel skyscrapers of financial centres, the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) for multinational corporations, exuberant shopping malls and vast gated communities, all signs of a global modernity. On the other hand are countless historic towns with their palaces, mosques and temples, their lively bazaars, traditional neighborhoods and living heritage” (Hosagrahar 2012: 291).

Against this background Hosagrahar (2012) explains that in Indian cities two opposing images come together: global imaginaries that are marked, for example, by glass and steel towers and shopping malls, and local identities that are rooted in historic urban areas like Old Delhi. She argues, however, that in Indian cities, modernity and tradition are intertwining in all aspects of life (formal, social, economic and symbolic) and that the “heterogeneous local forms operate within homogenising global networks” (ibid.: 291). Hence, she suggests that one should acknowledge their hybridity, rather than categorising architecture and societies into modern and traditional, or even Western and non-Western aspects. For Indian cities, it implies an enormous challenge to balance these complex and sometimes conflicting positions to achieve (economic and social) development and to safeguard cultural heritage at the same time (Hosagrahar 2013: 21, Lambah 2012: 251).

3 THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS: THE GOVERNANCE OF URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE The concept of governance has been used and developed extensively in various disciplines in the last three decades (Benz et al. 2007: 10, Pierre & Peters 2000: 1). It has become highly popular especially in social sciences, but also in political and the economic sciences. As governance at first sight is a fuzzy term, it is important to exactly define the way in which it is applied. Using the concept of governance in research means looking at a complex reality from a particular perspective and by concentrating on certain characteristics while leaving out others. There is a selective element in this and one has to carefully decide which perspective is most suitable in order to answer the respective questions (Benz & Dose 2010: 27). After contextualising the term and concept of governance, the following sections will give an overview of the fields of cultural and urban governance. In the last part of this chapter, governance will be introduced as a tool for empirical research and the research framework of this study will be presented. 3.1 CONTEXTUALISING GOVERNANCE The term and concept of governance include different facets and characteristics and are described and defined in many different ways depending on the different disciplines and contexts in which they are used. The following sub-section will firstly contextualise governance in its different dimensions: descriptive, normative and analytical and secondly elaborate on subjects, scales and fields of governance. 3.1.1 Governance: descriptive – normative – analytical dimensions The descriptive dimension The descriptive dimension of governance describes the development from traditional forms of government “to a new process of governing” (Rhodes 1997: 15). It has been observed, that collective decisions in modern societies increasingly take place in non-hierarchical forms of cooperation between private and public actors and that the authoritative power of the state became less important (Benz et al. 2007: 14, Swyngedouw 2005: 1992). The term governance has long been used in the manner of governing, describing the processual aspect of government, and was hence used as a synonym for political steering (Mayntz 2009b: 13). However, since governance as a concept became very popular in the 1980s/1990s, its meaning and application has been con-

40

3 Theoretical Reflections

stantly changing and evolving (Pierre 2014: 866). It has increasingly been used to describe phenomena other than political steering. Benz et al. (2007: 10) are calling the emergence and the development of the concept of governance a “triumphal procession” as it is now used in political, economic and social contexts on all scales, in science as well as in practice. The reason for its popularity, however, is not that governance marks a new scientific paradigm or theory or a new model to explain social processes. Its rise can rather be explained as a reaction to the fact that traditional hierarchical terminologies of reigning and ruling were not enough to adequately describe decision making and implementation processes in local and regional as well as in global contexts (Benz et al. 2007: 9, Schmitt 2011b: 37). According to Benz et al. (2007: 11) one can, roughly speaking, say that the governance-concept has two different disciplinary roots, one in economic and one in political sciences. In economic sciences, the historic origins of the concept can be traced back to the 1930s. At that time, Ronald Coase questioned the mainstream neoclassic thinking about the market being the unsurpassed mechanism of coordination of interdependently acting actors (Coase 1991). Obviously, problems of coordination existed within the economic dimension of modern societies that could not be solved only by market mechanisms (cf. Benz et al. 2007: 11, Benz & Dose 2010: 17). Building on the early ideas of Ronald Coase, Williamson (1985) developed the research programme institutional economics with the so-called transaction cost theory at its centre. In short, this theory describes that the costs of economic transactions are not necessarily at their lowest if these transactions are coordinated through market mechanisms. There are certain circumstances that show that organisational hierarchies or inter-organisational networks can be more efficient and effective modes of coordination. Hence, institutional economics focuses on institutional frameworks of transactions and modes of economic organisation beyond the market (ibid.). Governance in this context is defined as “the different modes of coordinating individual actions, or basic forms of social order” (Mayntz 2009b: 14). This meaning of governance is much more general than the one described in the following section. In political sciences, however, two different fields were relevant for the development of the governance concept: international relations and policy research. In the field of international relations, governance is generally seen as a “politically attractive alternative to government” (Pierre & Peters 2000: 7, Rhodes 1997, Rosenau et al. 1992). Initially, this understanding has developed by examining the relations between different states. These relations are, by nature, not hierarchical and the coordination of action at this scale is not an easy task. It is obvious that, in this context, hierarchy is not the superior mode of coordination (Benz et al. 2007: 12). Hence, governance is understood as a new mode of governing that is cooperative in nature, with state and non-state actors participating in “mixed public-private networks” (Mayntz 2009b: 13). It is not entirely clear where and when this understanding of governance developed. The issue of the International Social Science Journal in March 1998, which completely focused on governance in the sense of non-hierarchical modes of coordination, traced it back to a World Bank Report from 1989 (Bank 1989, Leftwich 1993, Mayntz 2009b: 13). This report marks the

3.1 Contextualising governance

41

emergence of the governance concept within the international context. Attempts on European and international levels to solve collective problems outside of existing hierarchical frameworks have contributed significantly to the development of the meaning of governance as being a different mode of governing. Policy research is another field within political sciences in which it was found that hierarchy is not necessarily the best and only possible mode of coordination. According to Benz et al. (2007: 12) one can summarise the development of the research focus in this field with the sequence planning – steering – governance. In the 1960s and 1970s, the focus was on the development of a theory of planning (how to steer), meaning the mainly hierarchical organisation of social problems and processes by political actors and bureaucracy. It was noticed, however, that most of the objects of political steering were not static but active, and consisted of complex constellations of individual and cooperative actors with their own dynamics and interests. This made it obvious that planning from above by an interventionist state did not work well in reality (Benz et al. 2007: 12, Mayntz 2009b). The failure of governing by planning from above and by institutional restrictions was proven by various empirical studies (Mayntz 1987, Scharpf 1975, Benz et al. 2007: 12). This led to an orientation towards alternative control instruments, like positive or negative financial incentives or information and awareness, and to the emergence of the terminology political steering. The political sciences moved away from focussing their research on hierarchies between state and society and started looking at cooperative and horizontal forms of societal self-regulation and policy development and into policy networks, professional communities, the civil society, ways of negotiations etc. (Benz et al. 2007:13, Mayntz 2009b: 16, Rhodes 1997). This, however, led to a situation where the term political steering could not anymore explain the processes happening in a cooperative state, where collective problems had to be negotiated in cooperation between public and private actors and the civil society (Mayntz 2010: 39). Hence, in the beginning of the 1990s, governance seemed to be a more suitable term to describe the situation. Governance was understood as describing all forms of collective regulation of social issues (Mayntz 2010: 37). At the same time, it was found that social self-regulation does not automatically mean loss of state control, but that self-regulation does take place within institutional frameworks that are established and ensured by the state. Hence, the state as an important player in dealing with societal problems has been rediscovered within the last two decades (Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 49; cf. 3.1). It became clear that hierarchical steering and self-control are not mutually exclusive forms of governing but often exist in combination (Mayntz 2009b: 18, Rhodes 1997, Rosenau et al. 1992, Zürn 1998: 25). Hence, Kooiman (2006: 151) argues that the consequence should no longer be to talk about regressing steering activities of the state, but should be about changing steering activities by the state. Consistently he emphasizes that governing is no longer a “one-way-street”, but a “two-way-traffic-model” (Kooiman 2003a: 79), referring to extensive interactions, back and forth, between governing and governed actors, and to public-public as well as public-private interactions. In social and political sciences, researchers started to look for answers to the question What causes the shift from government to governance? Zimmer (2012: 20)

42

3 Theoretical Reflections

distinguishes three main strands of literature in this context: Authors like Baud & De Wit (2008), Kooiman (2003b), Leach et al. (2007), Mayntz (2009a) find an answer to this question in the processes and challenges caused by globalisation. The situation, between and within nation states, became more and more complex, diverse and dynamic. Hence, new forms of steering and regulating societal change developed, as ever more resources and knowledge were needed to handle the complex new situations. Other authors give a different answer to this question. They refer to the failure of states in delivering services to their citizens and in dealing with the above-mentioned changes in societies. To cope with the increasing complexity, actors other than the state, together with their expertise and knowledge, are needed (Coaffee & Healey 2003, Zimmer 2012). A third strand of literature answers the question by referring to neoliberal practices. Many countries and cities feel the pressure of competing with others under neoliberal conditions (Baud & Dhanalakshmi 2007, Jessop 2002). Hence, in order to pave the way for economic development, neoliberal strategies are adopted within policy-making. Accordingly, and as a reaction towards changes in the economic systems, one can observe political changes and a shift from strict hierarchical practices towards more flexible forms of governance in which the state is one actor among various other cooperating nonstate actors (Ghertner 2015, Shatkin & Vidyarthi 2014, Zimmer 2012: 21). The normative dimension Starting from the descriptive dimension of governance, which means from recognising that there is a shift from government to governance, it seems to be quite logical to take a step further towards a normative dimension. Accordingly, there are various attempts that use governance as a concept to provide orientation for the practices within the fields of politics and administration, especially in development practice (World Bank 1992, Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 49, UNDP 1997). In this context, governance is often used synonymously with good governance. This normative dimension of governance can be traced back to the 1980s, when, as a response to the failure of the welfare state, the Anglo-American nations called for an economisation of the social welfare provision and hence, for a withdrawal of the state. At the same time, the term good governance was introduced in the international development debate to set indispensable rules and principles on how a development-oriented polity should look like (Hill 2006: 221, Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 49). Soon, a definition by the World Bank on good governance followed (World Bank 1992: 3). This definition had the function of a guideline for decisions on the bank’s funding of development projects and aimed to increase the effectiveness of its development efforts. Good governance, seen as a covetable goal, is applied in development practice. The World Bank considers it crucial for the management of development and as a tool to translate development interventions and financial investments into reality. It defines governance as an “exercise of authority, control, management, power of government” (ibid.). Nuissl (2011: 49) summarizes the content of this definition as follows: Good governance is “(1) state action according to the law, (2) trans-

3.1 Contextualising governance

43

parency and accountability in the governance of public funds and an independent audit system, (3) political accountability, respect for human rights, (4) transparency of governance processes and institutions, and (5) an independent judicial system”. Such criteria show, on the one hand, some aspects of neoliberal thinking and underline an earlier understanding of governments having an unrepresentative character and of non-market systems being inefficient (Weiss 2000: 801). On the other hand, these criteria show that governance without government cannot be the answer in dealing with societal challenges. They show that the role of the public sector and public institutions, even though it is changing, remains important. “We are moving towards common ground that good governance does not necessarily mean less but sometimes more appropriate government” (Weiss 2000: 804). UNESCAP (2010) added eight important characteristics to these government-oriented aspects1. By doing so, they complement the World Bank’s initially mainly managerial approach (Leftwich 1993: 610). According to UNESCAP (2010), good governance is participatory, consensus-oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. Furthermore, corruption is minimised, minorities are taken into account and the most vulnerable are included in decision-making. Zimmer (2012: 19) summarises that, according to this discourse, both, structures and practices need to be reformed in order to achieve good governance. The suggested interventions, though, mostly aim at getting the institutions right, assuming that changes in the practices will ensue. Hence, good governance in this discourse is the prerequisite for participation, a functioning economic system and democratic practices (Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 19). Nuissl et al. (2011: 49) describe the contemporary normative governance concept as focussing on the interrelations between the state, the market and civil society. By doing so, it replaces the “preoccupation with rolling back the welfare state” (ibid.) and starts to link up with a more analytical understanding of governance. Mayntz (2004), however, argues that applying the concept of good governance, in the sense of a model for achieving, in an analytival way, efficient administrative practices close to the citizen and based on the rule of law, causes difficulties. From a postcolonial perspective, its transferability from the Western context to states and cities in other cultural contexts is called into question in this context (Follmann 2016a: 58). The analytical dimension Looking through an analytical lens, governance is used as a general term for all patterns of coordination of interdependencies between different states and between the state and other societal actors. In social sciences, this approach is generally used to understand interaction and decision-making processes in societies. Pierre & Peters (2000: 24) call governance in this context “a way of viewing the world of politics and government”. 1

UNESCAP (2010): What is good governance? (http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/ good-governance.pdf, access: 03.06.2015).

44

3 Theoretical Reflections

By using governance in an analytical way, the emphasis is on the things that happen, and on how they happen. This implies a certain perspective towards reality by focussing on interlinkages and interdependencies between actors and their behaviour in the context of institutions and social sub-systems. Within this dimension of governance, a toolbox of terminologies has been developed in order to explore the mechanisms that are at work while problems of interdependencies are solved. Nevertheless, as governance is not a theory, it is rather, within the boundaries of its analytical perspective, open towards a pluralism of theories (Benz et al. 2007: 16). Schuppert (2006: 374) calls governance “not more and not less than a scientific bridge term” (translation by the author) that can enable problem-oriented communication among scientific disciplines. Several authors use the analytical perspective of governance for their work and their research, each of them emphasising different aspects. Within geographical research, governance is, for example, applied for studying issues in urban areas. Alexander Follmann (2016a) studies urban environmental change along the river Yamuna in Delhi and Caroline Höhnke (2012) looks at public transport in Santiago de Chile and Bogotá. Within empirical research, the placement of governance between structure- and actor-orientation is contested (Zimmer 2012: 22). Some works mainly emphasise the structural aspects (Sonderforschungsbereich 700: 2009) whereas others are more actor-oriented (Schmitt 2011b). Jan Kooiman (2003b), for instance, conceptualises governance as socio-political governance or interactive governance and explicitly puts the interactions between public as well as private actors into the focus. 3.1.2 Subject, scale and fields of governance A precise designation of a specific governance field is usually made by policy or subject areas or by territorial or administrative units, or by a combination of both. From a constructivist point of view, these governance fields are constituted socially, which is why innumerable different fields of governance exist (Schmitt 2011b: 41). Examples of governance fields based on specific governance subjects are environmental governance (Foo et al. 2015, Scott 2015), risk governance (Renn 2008, van Asselt & Renn 2011) and corporate governance (Jürgens 2006, Mitton 2002). Each of them deals with a certain governance subject and specific problems or topics within this subject. Works drawing on territorial or administrative units as the main criterion of demarcation exist across the entire range of scales, from local governance (Bauriedl 2016) to global governance (Zürn 2006). There are works on regional governance (Macleod & Goodwin 1999, Nuissl et al. 2012) and European governance (Torfing & Sorensen 2014) among others. By looking at a certain problem through the governance-lens, it is always important to recognise that the choice of scale for the analysis has an impact on the outcome. The “choreography of actors” (Swyngedouw 2005: 2001), the distribution of power and the (legal) framework change according to the scale. Depending on the scalar configuration, certain actors enter the stage and others become excluded. For example, as a re-

3.2 Cultural governance

45

sult of processes of transnationalisation, the state as an actor of central steering no longer exists. When talking about the global scale, the perspective of governance as a refined successor of steering from above becomes dominant, as it does not make sense to talk about central political steering in the context of international relations (Mayntz 2004). Social theorists, however, emphasise that scale2 is a socially constructed term, and in academic literature a lot of attention has been paid to the production of scale (Brenner 2001, Marston 2000, McCarthy 2005). “Spatial scale is what needs to be understood as something that is produced; a process that is always deeply heterogenous, conflictual and contested. Scale becomes the arena and moment, both discoursively and materially, where sociospatial power relations are contested and compromises are negotiated and regulated” (Swyngedouw 1997: 140).

Research with the focus on the production of scale, hence, has to ask by whom scale is produced, how it is produced and for what purposes it is produced (McCarthy 2005: 733). If one now takes a closer look at the configuration of different governance fields, it is important to note that these fields are always situated in specific relation to each other and that different governance fields overlap or compete with each other. These overlapping areas create new governance fields, often as a composition of governance subject and scale, for example urban environmental governance (Follmann 2016a, Jacobi et al. 2016) or global cultural governance (Schmitt 2009), where the relationship of all involved governance fields is negotiated. The objectives of the different governance fields are often competitive in character and hence, there have to be negotiation processes regarding the realisation of these objectives (Schmitt 2011b). Competing governance fields are often reflected by incompatible discourses. So if one wants to analyse the governance of a certain sector or subject, one has to analyse competing governance fields including their main actors, institutions and ideas. 3.2 CULTURAL GOVERNANCE Schmitt (2011b: 59) defines cultural governance as “the social negotiation and steering of the production of collective offers of sense and meaning, cultural orientation systems, their symbols as well as cultural and artistic forms of expression” (translation by the author). What becomes obvious through this broad quote is that the term cultural unites a huge range of specific governance subjects. Culture is a far-reaching concept and different understandings of it can have an impact on the configuration of different cultural governance approaches (Saltiel 2014: 913, Schmitt 2011a/2011b). For example, if one understands culture as being “a reference to overarching sense and meaning relationships in human practices and institutions” (Schmitt 2011a: 30), a cultural governance would be “equivalent to a reconstruction of the social steering of the production of sense and meaning” (ibid.). If one relates cultural governance to the term (high) culture as it is used in everyday 2

In contrast to the term level, which refers to the political-administrative level.

46

3 Theoretical Reflections

language, it would be about the governance of institutions, e. g. theatre, opera and art (Moon 2001). By integrating media, film education and language, one could understand cultural governance in the sense of cultural politics (Schmitt 2011a: 30/2011b). Figure 1 provides an overview of different concepts of cultural heritage, ranging from sectoral concepts to wide concepts of cultural governance, according to different governance subjects and their underlying concepts of culture.

Figure 1: Different objects of cultural governance, depending on which concept of culture is used (Source: Schmitt 2011a: 31 / 2011b: 47)

The overview in figure 1 shows that a common concept of cultural governance does not exist and that the areas in which governance is applied to explain cultural phenomena is manifold. Hence, in academic literature a great number of different notions of culture are examined under the umbrella term cultural governance. The following paragraphs will present some of these, but due to limited space it can by no means be exhaustive. Schmitt (2009/2011a/2011b) and Logan (2012), for instance, deal with a rather globally set up cultural governance of the UNESCO regime, whereas Pratt (1997) focuses on the regulation of cultural economy and Yue (2006) examines Singapore’s recent cultural policy developments in tourism, broadcasting and new media. There are a number of works that use cultural governance as a term for sectoral cultural policy. Moon (2001) for example compares, in his study, three cases of cultural governance based on the examination of three ‘cultural districts’ in the USA. He defines cultural governance as “government’s direct or indirect involvement in the promotion and administration of programmes of cultural organizations (including museums) existing in specific geographic boundaries with unique financial and administrative arrangements” (ibid.: 433). He concentrates mainly on institutions of high culture and fine arts and hence uses a sectoral concept of cultural governance (cf. Figure 1).

3.2 Cultural governance

47

Saltiel (2014) examines in her paper the relationship between cultural governance and development in Vietnam. Her main effort is to analyse Vietnam’s cultural policy and legal framework and to evaluate the country’s failures and successes in promoting sustainable human development. To do so she applies the definition of cultural governance that is given by the UNESCO-initiative Cultural for Development Indicator Suite (CDIS) which aims at establishing a set of indicators that highlights how culture contributes to development at the national level: “Cultural governance encompasses, on the one hand, standard-setting frameworks and public policies and, on the other hand, institutional capabilities and cultural infrastructures” (UNESCO 2014: 62). By examining Vietnam’s approaches towards different cultural fields – cultural heritage, heritage tourism, World Heritage Sites, the arts sector and non-heritage cultural industries – she concludes that a nation’s support of sustainable development with the help of cultural governance3 “differs greatly depending on the nature of culture that it purports to support” (Saltiel 2014: 913). Chan (2011) compares the two case studies of China and Taiwan. She sees cultural governance “as a process through which governments exercise control by managing the identities of local places and shaping cultures” (ibid.: 372). She found out that there is a huge difference in the ways the two countries implement cultural governance and that the respective governance practices reflect differences that can be found in their differing socio-political developments. A different field in which the term cultural governance is used, is post-colonial studies. However, the concept is used here in a slightly different way, as culture is understood “not as an object so much (but) as a medium of governance or political steering” (Schmitt 2011a: 44). Shapiro (2004) for example “describes the role of cultural production, whether landscape painting or the film industry, in the homogenization of nation states or the creation of national identity” (cited in Schmitt 2011a: 43). Based on Shapiro (2004), Campbell (2003: 57) defines cultural governance as “a set of historical practices of representation – involving the state but never fully controlled by the state – in which the struggle for the state’s identity is located”. He uses visual media’s representation of recent wars to explore cultural governance today and to find out how these have contributed to the expression of a collective identity. Callahan (2006) goes in the same direction. He looks at the mutual influence between culture and politics and examines how states in Pacific Asia try to match territorial and cultural boundaries. He found that they do so not only through military compulsion and fiscal regulations, but also by managing identity practices. Against the background of this diverse use of cultural governance, it becomes obvious that it is important to clarify which concept of cultural governance is used as a basis when the governance approach is applied to examine cultural phenomena. According to the classification of Schmitt (cf. Figure 1) cultural heritage requires a sectoral concept of cultural governance. This means that cultural heritage, in the sense of its material appearance (including connected immaterial aspects) is the object at which the governance practices to be examined are targeted.

3

Cultural governance in the sense of cultural policy.

48

3 Theoretical Reflections

3.3 URBAN GOVERNANCE Urban governance, a research field that is still evolving (Pierre 2014: 877), explicitly deals with urban development, urban planning and urban politics. From this perspective, urban change is perceived in general, not to be determined by governments alone, but by a great variety of actors and processes that shape and transform cities. The focus of urban governance research lies on understanding the interaction and coordination processes between public actors, the private sector and the civil society in urban contexts. Furthermore, urban governance looks at urban collective action and the economic, political and ideological framework conditions, and hence at the institutional environment, within which such processes of interaction and coordination are embedded (Hohn & Neuer 2006, Höhnke 2012: 36, Pierre 1999: 377). Under current circumstances, economic, political, social, technological and value-related transformation processes take place within urban areas. Hence, it is important not only to analyse which actors, organisations, instruments and procedures are involved in governing the city, but furthermore “to reveal, not only the persistent forces, but also the transformation potential of the respective constitutive institutional configuration. The central issues are: to identify the common values, norms and rules, orientation and guidelines, patterns of communication, behaviour and decision-making, actors’ perceptions of their roles and duties, balances of power, and networks which currently constitute the core of a governance culture” (Hohn & Neuer 2006: 293).

The concept of urban governance implicitly contains a strong territorial and space-related component. And as it is “mostly framed around the scale of the city” (Follmann 2016a: 62) urban governance is often seen to be a kind of local governance (cf. 3.1.2). Hence, several researchers focus in their work on local aspects of urban governance (e. g. Baud 2008, Pinto 2000). Zimmer (2012) for example analyses everyday practices of wastewater governance in the megacity Delhi and Haus and Heinelt (2015) provide a theoretical approach towards local urban governance by arguing that “urban leadership and community involvement can be complementary in terms of not only responding to government failure, but also to governance failures” (ibid.: 13). However, it has to be kept in mind that there exist a great number of links – in administrative, fiscal, political and in social terms – between the local level and various other levels, vertically as well as horizontally (Baud & De Wit 2008: 8). The character of these links always depends on the specific issue that is being analysed, and on the perspective of how a city is seen. This is why the interest in understanding policymaking in urban areas by including actors at the regional and national scales (eg. ministries and planning bodies) has been growing (Follmann 2016a, Klink 2014, Pearce & Ayres 2009, Wheeler 2000). In this context, the shift from government to governance and the decreasing role of the state is widely recognised as a fact in governance literature (Brenner 2004, Evers & de Vries 2013: 537, Follmann 2016a: 61). Hence, governance is understood in the sense that decision-making processes take place in less of a hierarchical way, but rather in a joint way, and that civil society and the private sector gain increasing importance. There is an ongoing discussion as to whether cities can be seen as being embedded within various levels of governance at all, or whether they constitute nodes within

3.4 Governance as tool for empirical research

49

complex city networks (Baud & De Wit 2008: 8, Hill & Fujita 2003: 207). Evers & de Vries (2013) however argue, based on a comparison of five mega-city-regions in Europe and the United States, “that hierarchy and the role of central government might have been too easily dismissed in the academic literature and that these aspects of governance should receive more attention in future research” (ibid.: 538). They relate this argument in particular to the solution of collective problems in urban regions, such as, for example, preserving urban space or guiding urbanisation (ibid.: 549). Other authors share this point of view (e. g. Hendriks 2014, Kooiman 2003b, Stoker 2011, Swyngedouw 2005; cf. 3.1.1). 3.4 GOVERNANCE AS TOOL FOR EMPIRICAL RESEARCH A great number of empirical studies exist on governance in the urban context or with regard to cultural heritage (e. g. Baud & Dhanalakshmi 2007, Follmann 2016a, Höhnke 2012, Nuissl et al. 2012, Schmitt 2011b; cf. 3.2, 3.3). However, it is not possible to simply transfer one of the research designs or the analytical frameworks of other works onto a study of Delhi’s cultural heritage. For the understanding of governance processes, the specificities of the respective governance configuration are of greatest relevance (Höhnke 2012: 55). The object of governance in this study – urban cultural heritage – is specific, as it unites aspects of the urban and the cultural realm (cf. 3.1) on the one hand and acts as a projection surface for manifold imaginations. This calls for a research framework within which both sectoral and territorial governance processes can be examined (cf. 3.2, 3.3). Furthermore, the aspect of imagination has explicitly to be included in the analysis. In order to meet these requirements, a framework has been developed based on the works of Kooiman (2003b), Kuder (2007), Nuissl et al. (2011) and Schmitt (2011b). By doing so, this study does not primarily aim at working out a better way of governing Delhi’s urban heritage, meaning that governance is not understood in a normative way (cf. 3.1). Rather, governance is applied in its analytical dimension to reconstruct how Delhi’s urban heritage is governed today and to understand the underlying decision-making processes of involved actors. Nevertheless, the findings of this study might help the actors and decision makers in this field to eventually review their work and their role in heritage protection in Delhi and to process those aspects and findings of the analysis that might be helpful for their work. Hence, at some point there is a certain normative element in this, which is probably the case in every governance study. The following chapter presents the research framework that structures the empirical analysis of this study in more detail. First, key elements of urban cultural heritage governance will be introduced, second, following Kooiman (2003b), three governance orders are presented and third, the two will be brought together in the framework Urban Cultural Heritage Governance.

50

3 Theoretical Reflections

3.4.1 Key elements for an empirical governance analysis In order to do justice to the specificities of the research object (cf. 3.4) and to understand the governance of Delhi’s urban heritage, the key elements included in the analysis are (1) actors and (2) their relationships, (3) institutional framework, (4) images and imaginations (Kooiman 2003b, Nuissl et al. 2012, Schmitt 2011b). Actors One of the most important questions when studying governance processes is Who shapes decision-making processes? (Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011). Hence, the formal and informal actors are one of the key elements of a governance analysis. In this context, it is important to look at all spheres of society (the public sector, the private sector and the civil society) to identify the public authorities and decision-making bodies, as well as the private actors and individuals involved in governing a specific object. Furthermore, it is essential to investigate the different roles of these actors as well as their respective interests and goals (Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 53, Schmitt 2011a: 26). Although governance research emphasises the shift from ‘government to governance’, and governance research studies ways of collective steering (cf. 3.1), various studies still distinguish between public and private actors (cf. Follmann 2016a, Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011, Schmitt 2011b), even if there is a general attempt to overcome the strict distinction between state and society (Börzel 2006: 3). Mayntz & Scharpf (1995b: 27) argue that this distinction does not only make sense in a normative way but also theoretically. Public actors, contrary to private actors, have the ability to act in a sovereign way, even when they abandon that ability in case they are involved in negotiations or competition. They can define and change the institutional rules for negotiations and competitions in a mandatory way and can hence influence the respective composition and structure of the constellation of actors (Mayntz 1996: 156). Public actors are committed to act in the public interest and are therefore the subject of legitimate constraints and sanctions. The ability to act in a sovereign way often produces a ‘shadow of hierarchy’, in which processes of collective steering take place and which has an important influence on the non-hierarchical mode of social coordination of actions (Börzel 2006: 4, Koch 2013, Mayntz 2001). Relationships and coordination When it comes to understanding the behaviour of actors involved in governance processes it is important to take a closer look at the relationships and the coordination processes between them. A number of authors share the theoretical assumption that, analytically speaking, governance consists of a structural as well as of a processual component (Benz et al. 2007, Börzel 2007, Kooiman & Jentoft 2009, Mayntz 2004, Mayntz & Scharpf 1995a, Pierre & Peters 2000). This means, that there are governance structures on the one hand, which Kooiman & Jentoft (2009:

3.4 Governance as tool for empirical research

51

820) refer to as “frameworks within which actors operate”, and on the other hand, there are processes of coordination and interaction arising from these structures. Kooiman (2003b) explicitly puts these interactions at the centre of his understanding of governance that he calls “social-political or interactive governance” (ibid.: 149). Pierre & Peters (2000) argue similarly that governance is dynamic and processual in character in both its configuration as well as in its objectives. “It is not so much about structures but more about interactions among structures” (ibid.: 22). Governance structures, its rules and institutions are subjected to changes and the influence of actors is likely to change over time and across different sectors. The rules and structures can either be changed explicitly through negotiation processes, or more subtly through gradually modified practices. By transferring these theoretical thoughts to the category of relationships between actors, one can take a closer look at the mechanisms of coordination between actors. The “structures of interaction” (Benz et al. 2007: 14) can either be institutionalised by formal rules or can result out of permanent co-action. Certain governance structures, however, foster certain mechanisms of coordination of steering interactions. Scharpf (2000) calls these forms modes of interaction4 and distinguishes two basic ones: hierarchical and non-hierarchical modes. Hierarchical coordination is often equated with sovereign instruction (e. g. acts, laws etc.) being binding for actors. Hence, actors can be forced to act against their preferences and interests by rules legitimised by institutions or even by physical power (Börzel 2006, Scharpf 2000: 282). Majority decisions also contain a great amount of hierarchical elements, as the minority has to accept and to follow the decisions of the majority (Börzel 2007: 5). Non-hierarchical coordination, however, is based on voluntariness. Conflicts of interest are solved through negotiations. Voluntary agreements are either achieved through compromises and exchange processes against the background of fixed interests of the actors (bargaining), or through non-manipulative communication and persuasion processes (arguing) through which actors can develop shared interests, adapt their own interests and develop the best solution for a common problem (Börzel 2006: 5, Heinelt 2006: 239). In competitive systems, the coordination of action happens through competition between the actors by mutually adapting their performance standards (Benz et al. 2007). Primarily, actors pursue their own interests, but aim at jointly achieving a target or acquiring a (scarce) commodity, of which they can acquire more through being rated better in comparison to others (Benz et al. 2007). This can be transferred to political competition where the aim is to achieve social values or collective goods. Other than in private or economic competition, the comparative evaluation must be legitimised following institutionally determined criteria. In reality, most of the time it is not possible to find these pure forms of governance-modes, as solving collective problems is complex and dynamic, due to changing constellations of actors and/or evolving modes of governance (Kooiman 2006: 162, Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 50). 4

There is a great variety of governance typologies and further definitions of different modes of interaction. Nuissl and Heinrichs (2011) for example, introduce welfare, managerial, corporatist, pluralist, populist modes of interaction, whereas Kooiman and Jentoft (2009) talk about self-, co-, and hierarchichal governance.

52

3 Theoretical Reflections

In order to make the governance-approach empirically operational, this study will, following Nuissl et al. (2011: 54), try to understand whether there exist coalitions and/or oppositions between actors that reflect converging or conflicting interests. Furthermore, it will be essential to consider the way in which these relationships are organized. They can be organized either hierarchically vertical (e. g. defined through the territorial responsibility of the various tiers of the administrative system), or market-based and supported by contracts or unwritten agreements (e. g. as a result of deregulation and devolution of public services), or network-like horizontal (e. g. embedded in the framework of NGO umbrella organisations). Concrete examples of relationship patterns are certain interest coalitions among actors from different spheres of society, public-private partnerships, clientelistic networks, traditional oppositions between organisations, individuals or kinship. Furthermore, new actors might, over time, be in- or excluded into the governance-process and might change the patterns and the process of content-related negotiations (Pierre & Peters 2000, Schmitt 2011a: 28). Institutional framework The third key element of the analytical framework in this study is the institutional framework. Institutions and institutional frameworks provide arenas for social coordination of actions, they allocate competences and resources to actors, they regulate access to (political) decision making, they influence the action orientation and the “rules of conduct” (Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 54) of actors and hence set the frame for the different modes of coordination (Börzel 2007: 2, Pierre & Peters 2000: 22). This means that there is a logical link between the structural and the processual components of governance (cf. above). Which mode of coordination is chosen within this framework does not least depend on the action orientation of the respective actors, which again is influenced by the institutions (Börzel 2007). The understanding of institutions as a guiding framework for actors’ actions is rooted in the disciplines of historical and sociological neo-institutionalism (Hall & Taylor 1996, Schmitt 2011b; cf. 3.1). According to Quack (2006: 347), institutions are objectified societal structures and rules, including normative and cognitive guiding principles for societal order that are expressed in these rules. These guiding principles provide regularity and stability for the social behaviour of actors. Actors shape institutions through social processes. Once institutions exist they in turn shape social behaviour, but they do not determine it (Scharpf 2000: 91). Institutions are socially recognized through mutual behavioural expectations. These expectations are shared not only by the actors directly involved in an interaction, but also by their social environment (although not necessarily within the society as a whole) (Quack 2006: 348). This understanding of institutions goes beyond the definitions of other scholars. DiGaetano & Strom (2003: 363), for example, narrow it down to political institutions and define them as being “the organisational means by which collective decisions are made and carried out”. They see these political institutions embedded in complex

3.4 Governance as tool for empirical research

53

relationships and include political parties, interest groups, governing bodies and agencies, as well as “partnership arrangements that give organisation and definition to the political process” (DiGaetano & Strom 2003: 363). Institutions always have a regulative as well as a symbolic function. They not only guide the behaviour of actors in a regulative way through binding rules that work either in an enabling or in an obstructive way. They act furthermore on norms and values, which are internalised by individuals, groups or organisations and are considered as guiding principles for the society (Quack 2006: 347). Institutions are understood as being culturally embedded and are themselves “sedimentations of common cultural public codes” (translated by the author from (Schuppert 2006: 436). These public codes are the outcome of social and political negotiations among different groups of actors and hence always reflect the power relations among these actors. Institutions can be distinguished into formal and informal institutions (ibid.). Being codified, formal institutions include laws, regulations, ordinances, planning instruments and other constitutional mechanisms. Formal institutions function as control mechanisms for decision-making processes. Institutions can have constraining effects and might even prevent change and development (Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 54). It is important to distinguish between institutions and formal organisations (Pierre 1999: 373). Formal organisations are seen as complex institutions with material and personal configurations (Schmitt 2011b: 42), which are aiming to fulfil certain goals by structuring and planning action processes. Institutions and organisations share a dynamic relationship, whereas there does not exist an unbiased harmony between the two (Pierre 1999: 373). Informal institutions shape the behaviour of actors or of the members of a certain society through shared knowledge. They are in a constant state of production and reproduction through interaction of these actors (Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 54). As social rules of action, informal institutions must be differentiated from meta-governance (cf. 3.4.2). Informal institutions can be, for example, social norms, shared objectives, overarching systems of values, traditions, planning models or unwritten laws (Höhnke 2012: 64, Pierre 1999: 373). Institutions can change. If one wants to explain institutional change, one must bear in mind that this change is always linguistically and discursively-imparted change. Certain actors side with certain issues, produce certain arguments for or against specific institutions and can, under certain circumstances, lay down the tracks and the direction in which the interests of these actors might develop (Weber 1978: 252, cited in Quack 2006: 347). According to their characteristic of being the frame for social behaviour, the changing character of institutions has the effect that forms of interaction can equally change, as can the ways of solving political and societal problems (Scharpf 2000: 92). Images and imaginations Every actor involved in governance processes forms images of what he or she is governing. Due to the complex character of urban cultural heritage, it is necessary to pay special attention to images and imaginations within the underlying research

54

3 Theoretical Reflections

framework. Such images can be developed through analytical review or informed simply through personal experiences. Images can be either clearly formulated and made explicit or can billow implicitly in the background. All existing images about a certain subject “govern those who govern” (Kooiman 2003b: 29). By emphasising images and imaginations in particular, this study goes beyond a social-science based structural-theoretical perspective (cf. 3.1) and incorporates a cultural studies perspective (Schmitt 2011b: 34). This will help to focus attention on (competing) ideas and interpretations and in this way to understand the discursive environment in which institutions exist and develop and in which the actions of the involved actors are embedded. In order to attain this understanding, it is important to look at the genealogy of existing ideas and imaginations as well as at their variations and their specific effects in the governance process (Schmitt 2011a: 27). Max Weber (1920) explained the relationship between ideas, interests and actions as follows: “People’s actions are directly controlled by interests (material and ideal), not by ideas. But: ‘worldviews’ created by ‘ideas’ have very often set the direction in which the dynamic of interests pushed the actions” (Weber 1920: 252 cited in Schmitt 2011a: 17). The realisation of such ideas, however, depends on the respective social context. This social context can facilitate, hamper or even prevent the implementation of these ideas (Cappai 2001: 81 cited in Schmitt 2011a). According to their social and historic context, ideas, key concepts and sets of rules can be interpreted in different ways and change over time (Schmitt 2011a: 27). “In daily actions, in daily practice, ideas and concepts function as cognitive schemata; they can be tied to institutions (…), but they can be separated analytically from institutions. An idea or concept such as that of World Heritage can “exist” (i. e. can occur in texts, discourses, reflections, etc.) without necessarily being reflected in institutions” (Schmitt 2011a: 18).

Ideas and concepts have a dialectical relationship with human actions as well as institutions. Ideas shape the actions of actors, but at the same time, actors can change ideas and concepts by taking them on board and adapting them to their needs. Actors can even create new ideas. Furthermore, even if the relationship between ideas, concepts and institutions is strictly speaking “always mediated by human agency” (Schmitt 2011a: 18), institutions can take up ideas, spread them and even reshape them. Hence, “ideas and institutions mutually ‘frame’ each other” (ibid.). Understanding images about governance subjects is important, as making them, as well as the process of image formation explicit, can help to identify possibilities and limitations within the governance process. Accordingly, necessary measures can be taken or adapted, and governing instruments can be chosen. Furthermore, making images explicit can help to legitimise governing actions as the process of elaboration of image formation problems, their opportunities and their normative impacts forms the basis for their acceptance (Kooiman 2003b: 29). 3.4.2 Orders of governance In order to integrate the key elements for an empirical governance analysis presented above (cf. 3.4.1) in a coherent analysis framework, which will guide and structure

55

3.4 Governance as tool for empirical research

the analysis of the empirical data, this thesis draws from Kooiman’s (2003b, 2006) conceptualisation of three governance orders5. Kooiman distinguishes first-order, second-order and third-order or meta-governance: first-order governance targets direct problem solving, second-order governance includes the institutional framework in which problem solving takes place, and third-order or meta-governance represents underlying ideas and phenomena in which the actors and their actions as well as the institutions are embedded. Table 2 gives an overview of these orders including their scope and time references. Table 2: Governance orders: their scope and time reference (Source: own draft based on Heinelt 2006, Kuder 2007: 45) Governance

Scope and components

Mode

Time reference

Frequency

First-order

Individual procedures, projects, permissions, small scope

Arguing, bargaining

Short-term

Frequent

Second-order

(Local) sets of rules, bylaws, laws, medium scope

Arguing, bargaining

Medium-term

Regular

Meta-order

Action orientations, values, visions, images, guiding principles, long range

Arguing

Long-term

Infrequently

The following section specifies the three governance-orders. However, it is important to mention at the outset that these different orders should generally not be understood as territorial nor as temporal layers, rather purely as analytical frames. First-order governance In first-order governance, public and private actors are dealing with societal problems and trying to create opportunities for action on a day-to-day basis. It should be borne in mind that the distinction of the government being the ‘problem-solver’ and the private sector being the ‘opportunity-creator’ is overcome (cf. 3.1) and that, in complex, dynamic and diverse societies, problem solving and opportunity creation are public and private challenges at the same time (Kooiman 2003b: 135)6. First-order governance refers to direct action and is mainly oriented towards operative action and the implementation of projects and plans (Kuder 2007: 42). In this order, the public bureaucracy meets those (private) actors that are directly affected through a certain plan or a political intervention. But even if a number of aspects in first-order governance are determined on a general legal basis (through hierarchical processes), due to specific local action requests, implementation of projects 5

6

Kooiman (2003b) has developed an extensive governance concept by bringing together a set of concepts in order to present “a ‘rich’ picture of the totality of (…) governing without losing sight of the parts and aspects it consists of” (ibid.: 8). His theoretical conceptualisation of governance orders, which is used here, represents one part of this extensive concept. For an extensive definition of problems and opportunities see Kooiman (2003b: 135 ff.).

56

3 Theoretical Reflections

and plans can only be achieved through individual tailor-made solutions (Heinelt 2006: 242). Therefore, arguing and bargaining are the main modes of interaction in this order (cf. 3.4.1). The interaction and communication processes that are taking place here are often influenced by the negotiation of different interests and by group processes. The importance of the participation of different actors in first-order governance can be seen in the context of achieving and guaranteeing efficiency in implementation and not so much in the context of ‘ethical standards’, as is the case in meta-order governance (cf. 3.4.1). This means that interaction and communication processes in this order are tools for implementing plans and programmes in accordance with political objectives (ibid.: 241). Therefore, applying a constructivist perspective, “governance is seen to be as much about shared problem construction as it is about collective solutions” (Leach et al. 2007: 28). This means that the identification of problems and the formulation of goals is often problematic and contested as problems are not an objective reality but are socially constructed. Different actors might “frame the ‘object’ of governance and its boundaries differently” (ibid.). So, the attention can only shift to the solution space once problems have been interactively and mutually negotiated and formulated (Kooiman & Jentoft 2009: 822). Kooiman (2003b: 226) argues that problem or opportunity creation are closely linked to image formation. Although the formation of images takes place in meta-order governance, in their function of being action-guiding they are of primary importance for problem-solution and opportunity-strategy systems that are negotiated in the first order of governance. Second-order governance Second-order governance refers to the institutional setting and the governance conditions in which negotiation processes between the different actors on the level of first order governance take place (Kooiman 2003b: 153, Kuder 2007: 42). The institutional framework (cf. 3.4.1) is controlling and creates opportunities for problem-solving or opportunity-creating processes. When analysing second-order governance, the focus is on the design, the maintenance and the renewal of the institutional setting (Kooiman 2006: 167). Second-order governance-processes take place relatively less frequently than first-order governance processes. They are fundamentally different from first-order governance-processes in terms of both content and structure (Kuder 2007: 43). Kooiman (2003b: 153) describes the main differences between the two as follows: First, the processes happening in first-order governance will be ‘social’ rather than ‘political’ in character, whereas the issues that come up in second-order governance are, due to their institutional nature, more ‘political’. Second, “in first-order (…) the main direction of the governing ‘system’ perspective emanates from a part, runs through considerations for the whole, and refers to the part in question again. In second-order governing when a governance issue is formulated, the main perspective is the whole (…). In the first order the emphasis is on parts, while in the stages of the problem-solving process within parts, as much attention as possible is paid to consequences for the whole of the system to be governed. In second-order governing the opposite occurs: governing needs

3.4 Governance as tool for empirical research

57

and capacities are phrased with an emphasis on the system as a whole. In the process the consequences for a particular set of interactions are scrutinised. But finally the measures (which might apply to a part or a set of parts only) will be taken with the whole as a frame of reference” (Kooiman 2003b: 153).

Within second-order governance, structural aspects are more prominent than processual ones, whereas in first-order governance the processual component plays a more important role. Nevertheless, there exists also a processual component in second-order governance. The institutional framework is not ideal but is constantly evolving around historical path-dependent processes (Kooiman 2003b: 153). (Political) framework conditions are, in general, mainly formed through formal and democratically legitimised processes and parliamentarian structures, whereas the modes of interaction of communication (‘arguing’) and negotiation (‘bargaining’) (cf. 3.4.1) are still important here (Kuder 2007: 43). Meta-order governance The third governance order embeds the first and the second orders and holds them together. (Kooiman & Jentoft 2009: 824) calls meta-governance the “mortar that binds all attributes of governance and makes it a whole”. Meta-governance can be reflected upon in two ways. On the one hand, the focus can be on the values and norms that play a role in the context of a particular governance subject. On the other hand, meta-governance can be examined in relation to the governance itself and its mechanisms and in terms of how the principles and values are applied to governance activities, institutional arrangements and meta-governance practice (Haus & Heinelt 2005: 22, Kooiman & Jentoft 2009: 824). Meta-governance in general deals with the normative notions of governance. Here, values, norms and principles are formulated and negotiated on the basis of which governance practices are formed and evaluated (Kooiman 2003b: 188 / 2006: 167, Kooiman & Jentoft 2009: 823). Those values, norms and principles play a crucial role in governance, as they “underpin all decisions since they inspire those who govern how to think and make judgements about how the world works and how to act in particular situations” (Kooiman & Jentoft 2009: 818). Meta-governance guides institutional and problem-solving choices while they are made and thus, provides criteria for evaluation afterwards (ibid.: 823). Within meta-governance fundamental questions about the objectives of governance are discussed to achieve a consistent understanding of governance. The main question that is raised here is Who or what governs those who govern in the end? (Kooiman 2006: 163). The normative notions that are negotiated in the meta-governance order are dual in nature: First, in form of concepts, visions, ideas or imaginations, they directly guide the behaviour of the governing actors. By doing so they form a “meta-normative framework that directs and sets boundaries for actual governing at the first and second governance order” (Kooiman 2003b: 188). These meta-norms are either followed or neglected and even tested or changed. Second, the meta-norms are not only a normative frame that sets the borders of governing, but they are under con-

58

3 Theoretical Reflections

stant negotiation and are themselves subject of a governance debate. This critical review aims at constantly scrutinising the appropriateness of the meta-norms, their relevance and their up-to-dateness. The origins of the components of meta-governance can lie either within an ethical stance with their source in religious thought or philosophy, or they can have a more applied source, such as, for example, the striving for effectivity (Kooiman & Jentoft 2009: 823). The normative notions of governance often remain implicit. But in some cases they precipitate in the form of overall concepts, which, when “made explicit (…) are rarely absolute. They are not always deliberated, and when addressed they often lead to nothing concrete and practical” (Kooiman & Jentoft 2009: 818). Kooiman & Jentoft (2009: 833) argue in that context that by addressing problems and developing solutions for them, “fundamental assumptions and worldviews are drawn upon” which need to be brought to light in order to be able to explain, defend and examine them. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that problem definitions, image formations and strategies of action in meta-order governance undergo a linguistic coding. According to Kooiman (2003b: 174) “the most important event in image formation is arriving at collective images, either shared ones or the acknowledgement of differences”. Hence, other than in first and second order governance, arguing is the prominent mode of interaction (Kuder 2007: 43; cf. 3.4.1). The actors that are involved in this process can use their voices to put forward convincing arguments and influence the discourses that are shaped here. It is therefore crucial to analyse the communication and interaction processes as well as the conditions of argumentative influences and the distribution of voice options that are taking place at this level. These processes can only be consciously shaped and developed, or even institutionally formed, by understanding how they function (Heinelt 2006: 241). 3.4.3 Urban Cultural Heritage Governance – a research framework The analytical framework that was applied in this study to understand governance processes in the context of urban heritage and its protection in Delhi is called Urban Cultural Heritage Governance. The framework covers different dimensions that are considered in the analysis: first, the research subject is located in an urban setting; second, the term ‘urban’ defines the spatial scale of the study and implies a planning dimension; third, as ‘culture’ is a term with many meanings, the term ‘cultural heritage’ intrinsically contains an intellectual and discursive dimension. Therefore, the research approach Urban Cultural Heritage Governance brings together aspects of urban governance (cf. 3.3) and of cultural governance (cf. 3.2). By combining these two governance fields, a new governance field was created. Working in this new governance field meant that the governance of urban heritage was analysed within the interplay between the urban and the cultural realms and their respective conflicting and overlapping conditions. In this context it was especially crucial to understand the discursive debate between heritage protection and urban development (Schmitt 2011b: 42). Hence, it is not only the set of negotiations, actions, institutions and rules which are explicitly directed towards Delhi’s

3.4 Governance as tool for empirical research

59

urban cultural heritage in its capacity as a “cultural object” (ibid.: 48) that will be examined. Rather, more forms of governance, rules and political steering will be analysed, which do not treat Delhi’s heritage structures explicitly as cultural objects, but which consider their capacity as being part of the urban fabric. Nonetheless, the cultural aspect of Delhi’s urban cultural heritage will play an important role in the analysis as “different interpretations, attributions of sense and meaning, and conflicting claims” (ibid.) have a great influence on how it is governed. The aim of this study was to draw a holistic picture about the special configuration of the governance of urban cultural heritage in Delhi. As the tool that helped comprehend this configuration, the Urban Cultural Heritage Governance approach is more than the sum of its parts. Based on a new governance field, this analysis was done beyond a purely sectoral or spatial approach (cf. 3.1). The analysis focussed not only on processes of coordination and collaboration among involved actors and their ways of problem solving. Rather, special emphasis was given to the negotiation of values, norms and principles and to the formation of images that guide the actors and their actions. In order to understand the interconnections between imagination, regulation and implementation in regard to urban heritage protection in Delhi, the key elements (1) actors, (2) relationship and coordination, (3) institutional framework and (4) images and imaginations (cf. 3.4.1) were looked at with the help of the three governance orders first-, second- and meta-order governance (cf. 3.4.2; Figure 2).

Figure 2: Urban Cultural Heritage Governance: a research framework (Source: Graphic by the author; contains ideas of Heinelt 2006: 244 and Kuder 2007: 42)

Using orders instead of (hierarchical) levels as the main structuring element enables progression beyond a multi-level perspective and the basic understanding of levels

60

3 Theoretical Reflections

being (more or less) static and creating clear boundaries between hierarchies and competences (Höhnke 2012). Examining governance orders and their interlinkages enables the consideration of aspects in the analysis that lie beyond the operational actions of actors, as well as the inclusion of both structural and processual components of governance (cf. 3.4.1). Additionally, working with orders allows the analysis of interactions and interconnections between the governing actors at different levels and in different governance modes. It provides the opportunity to distinguish between the constantly negotiated discourse about the conditions and opportunities for action on the one hand, and the ongoing conflicts and consensus-finding processes in order to implement binding societal provisions on the other hand. While applying this research framework for the empirical analysis, the focus was set on particular aspects within each governance-order. In general, it depends on the governance object under examination and the target outcome, as to which aspects need to be considered. In order to answer the main research question of this study “How is Delhi’s urban cultural heritage governed?”, the following section describes the research targets and specific research questions that guided the analysis, structured by the three governance orders. Within the first order of urban cultural heritage governance, implementation processes were analysed. The focus here was on the implementation of specific conservation projects in Delhi as well as on the implementation of laws and regulations. It was crucial to identify the involved actors and their respective interests, motivations and their interactions in this context. Looking at the implementation activities, it was important to consider obstacles and barriers on the one hand and to look at the factors supporting the actors in implementing their targets on the other hand. 1. Research questions that guided the empirical analysis of first-order governance: 1.1 Who are the actors that take an active part in implementation processes in the context of urban cultural heritage and its protection in Delhi? 1.2 Which interests and motivations guide the actors’ actions? 1.3 What kind of interaction- and communication-processes take place among the actors? 1.4 What kind of obstacles and barriers and which supportive factors exist in the context of implementation? Within second-order urban cultural heritage governance, the institutional setting of urban conservation in Delhi was examined. This means identifying the actors involved in creating the relevant regulations and in negotiating the institutional framework conditions. In this study, the emphasis was on formal institutions and hence, the legal framework, in particular, was analysed (cf. 3.4.1). Thereby, the aim was not to hold a general theoretical debate about what institutions are, but to analyse the institutional setting of urban conservation in Delhi. Hence, the focus of this analysis was on rules and regulations, mainly heritage-specific regulations and urban planning instruments. It was analysed how these enable or hinder conservation efforts and how they influence actors’ action in first-order governance.

3.4 Governance as tool for empirical research

61

The aim of analysing second-order urban cultural heritage governance was twofold: First, the question as to what happens within the second order was considered. This involves looking at how the institutional framework is constituted and considering which negotiation processes take place among the actors. Second, the way in which the institutional setting influences and is influenced by the other two governance orders was examined. 2. Research questions that guided the empirical analysis of second-order governance: 2.1 Who are the actors that are actively involved in second-order governance of urban cultural heritage in Delhi? 2.2 Which communication and interaction-processes are happening among the actors in second-order governance? 2.3 How is the legal framework for the conservation of urban cultural heritage constituted? 2.4 How are first- and second-order governance interlinked? In conceptualising empirical governance approaches that include governance orders, one difficulty is in distinguishing between meta-governance and (informal) institutions7 (Höhnke 2012). This, and the different use of the term ‘meta-governance’ in different contexts, as described above (cf. 3.4.2), makes it crucial to very clearly indicate how it is empirically used. In this study, however, the analysis focused on normative aspects and imaginations about the governance subject of urban cultural heritage. It was the main aim of the research to find out, which are the discourses and imaginations that currently exist about urban cultural heritage and its conservation in Delhi and how do these discourses and imaginations influence the actors’ activities in first- and second-order governance? 3. Research questions that guided the empirical analysis of meta-order governance: 3.1 Which current discourses and imaginations about urban cultural heritage exist in Delhi? 3.2 Who participates in shaping the discourses about the normative notions and imaginations of urban cultural heritage in Delhi? 3.3 What kind of interaction- and communication-processes take place among the actors in meta-order urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi? 3.4 How do the discourses and imaginations about urban cultural heritage in Delhi influence actions and decision-making processes in first- and second- order governance?

7

Kooiman (2003b: 171) argues, that his theoretical conceptualisation of meta-governance is still in its initial phase. Nevertheless, his structuration of governance is helpful for making the governance approach empirically operational.

4 MATERIAL AND METHODS For this study a qualitative approach was chosen. Empirical data was collected through different methods at different points of time: field visits and observation, qualitative interviews and an expert workshop. Furthermore, academic literature, newspaper articles and official documents were included in the analysis. The following chapter will give a detailed overview of the research process. 4.1 RESEARCH DESIGN The following section presents the research design of this study in detail. The research process consisted of four main phases – exploration, conceptualisation, empiricism and documentation. While every phase had a different focus, theoretical reflections, methodological approaches and (interim) results of this qualitative study are mutually interdependent and were reflected upon in a circular way throughout the whole process (Flick 2014: 123, Witt 2001; cf. Figure 3). In the first phase of research (exploration) the focus was placed on exploring the research environment and creating an initial understanding of the most important issues and stakeholders associated with urban conservation and the protection of urban heritage in Delhi. Methods included interviews, field visits and observations. The aim was to provide a sound basis for the subsequent procedure (Meier Kruker & Rauh 2005: 44). In this phase, the author approached the research context by interviewing key persons in the field in order to get an initial broad understanding. The interviews in this phase of research were explorative in character. The interviewees were mainly experts (29 expert interviews out of 32) (cf. 4.2.2; Appendix I) and the aim of the interviews was to obtain what Bogner et al. (2009: 2) call their “practical insider knowledge”. As many of these interviews elicited high quality results and provided substantial information, they are included in the final analysis and interpretation of this study. The interviews were of an open character containing focused questions targeting factual knowledge, as well as open questions aimed at encouraging narrative answers. During the explorative phase, a preliminary analysis of the interviews took place, so that first conclusions could be drawn. These interim results were included in the ongoing interview process. This approach enabled the author to constantly refine the interview questions and guides (Flick 2014: 126). Moreover, the pool of interviewees expanded, as many interviewees could recommend further potential interview partners or directly establish new contacts (cf. 4.2.2). During the second phase (conceptualisation), a detailed theoretical reflection upon the research subject and the methodological approach took place. On the one hand, the research questions of the study were precisely formulated, based

4.1 Research design

63

Figure 3: Research design (Source: Graphic by the author. Includes ideas of Bork-Hüffer 2012: 106, Selbach 2009: 51)

on knowledge of the research object and the feeling for the research environment gained during the explorative phase. On the other hand, the theoretical research framework – Urban Cultural Heritage Governance – was developed (cf. 3.4.3). From then on, this framework served as an orientation for the further research process. It should be noted here, though, that during the subsequent empirical phase the

64

4 Material and Methods

author explicitly used the theoretical frame as a broad orientation, leaving enough space for encountering the research subject as unbiased as possible, and for a revision of the framework at a later stage. In the third phase, again empirical in character, a set of qualitative methods was applied (field visits, interviews, workshop). During the process of data collection, an ongoing analysis of preliminary (interim) findings took place in order to inform the steps that followed. Interviews were conducted purposefully, focussing on topics that were relevant in the scope of the theoretical frame. The open character was still retained to prevent influencing the interviewees and their answers. In the last phase of the project (analysis and documentation), the final analysis and interpretation of the empirical data took place and the interim conclusions that were drawn during the research process were brought together. Furthermore, this phase included the final revision of the theoretical framework, the final analysis and interpretation of the data accordingly, and finally the writing of the thesis. 4.2 DATA COLLECTION For this study, different methods of data collection were used: field visits and (participatory) observation, qualitative interviews and an expert workshop. For data collection, the author undertook three research stays: October 2011 – March 2012, September–December 2013, September–November 2014. 4.2.1 Field visits and observation During the fieldwork, various field visits took place flanking the qualitative data collection. These field visits took the researcher to a number of places that were of interest in the context of urban cultural heritage in Delhi and its protection. Some of these places were visited by the researcher alone in order to grasp the atmosphere and to get a feeling for the research context. These were mainly places of classic touristic interest, world heritage sites or restored monuments or buildings. The researcher gained specific knowledge about their existence through interview partners or through newspapers, books and further literature. Other places of interest for the study (e. g. sites related to the case studies presented in chapter 6.2 or lesser known heritage sites) were visited accompanied by either a fieldwork assistant for translation reasons, or by interview partners who invited the researcher to meet at a specific place. During these field visits, photographs, as well as minutes about interesting observations, were taken. Furthermore, the field visits had the effect of bringing the researcher emotionally closer to the research subject. The cognitive impressions gained on these occasions certainly implicitly found their way into the interpretation of the data.

4.2 Data collection

65

In addition, the researcher attended events (workshops, talks, conferences)1 that took place in the context of urban conservation and heritage protection in Delhi. By observing the behaviour of other participants and by following ongoing discussions, the understanding of the research context and of the role of certain actors increased. According to the character of the events, the researcher either applied observation or participatory observation (Flick 2014: 281, Schnell et al. 2008: 391). 4.2.2 Qualitative interviews In the course of this study, 104 qualitative interviews were conducted during three empirical phases (cf. Figure 3; Appendix I). The sampling strategy was purposive and the interviewees were chosen by theoretical sampling (Bogner et al. 2014: 34, Flick 2014: 158). The aim was to cover a broad spectrum of actors in different positions in the research field in order to gain reliable, profound information and the broadest possible perspective towards the research subject. Theoretical sampling refers to the gradual selection of interwiewees during the (whole) process of research. Hence, this kind of sampling process is not concerned with representativity or working with random samples, but aims at finding persons able to inform the researcher about the research subject. The qualification of an interviewee depends on the research subject and the research environment (Bogner et al. 2014: 35). The interviewees of this study can be grouped into two main groups: experts and laypeople (cf. Appendix I). People considered as experts deal with the research subject in a professional way. This means that they have an overview of the topic and are able to contextualize it more broadly. The group of experts that were interviewed consisted of government officials, representatives of public agencies, NGO-members, scientists and practising conservation architects. Laypeople refer to those who encounter the research subject in their everyday life, but do not deal with it in a professional way (Meier Kruker & Rauh 2005: 5). Hence, interviews were conducted with persons living close to heritage structures, who have been directly affected by conservation projects in some sense or that own heritage buildings. However, in academic literature the term ‘expert’ is often considered contested. According to Meuser & Nagel (2002: 73), “being an expert is a relational status” (translated by the author; cf. Bork-Hüffer 2012: 88). This means that it depends on the respective research situation as to who is considered an expert (Bogner et al. 2014: 11). When working with the term ‘expert’, one has to be careful of a “naïve belief in the totality of expert knowledge” (Bogner et al. 2009: 2) or of 1

The author attended, for example, a seminar on “Delhi’s Colonial Period” in the context of the preparation of Delhi’s bid as UNESCO World Heritage City organised by INTACH on 14th November 2011, an international conference and workshop titled “Filling the Gaps: World Heritage and the 20th Century” in Chandigarh, organised by ICOMOS from 3rd to 7th October 2013, and several smaller discussion events on heritage or urban topics organised, for example, by INTACH Delhi chapter (http://www.intachdelhichapter.org/), Observer Research Foundation (ORF) (https://www.orfonline.org/), the School of Planning and Architecture New Delhi (SPA) or the Sanskriti Foundation (http://www.sanskritifoundation.org/kendra.htm).

66

4 Material and Methods

using “the expert as a source of objective information” (Bogner et al. 2009: 5). By using a broad concept of ‘experts’, some authors argue that everyone can be an expert (Gläser & Laudel 2010: 10, Meuser & Nagel 2009: 18). Others argue that ‘expert’ is a status that is constructed and ascribed by the researcher (Meuser & Nagel 2002: 73). This study, though, follows an understanding of ‘experts’ being constructed by the specific research interest on the one hand and being at the same time socially recognised due to a certain social position and the associated specific knowledge (Bogner et al. 2014). Expert knowledge can be described as “socially institutionalized expertise” (Sprondel 1979: 141 cited in Meuser & Nagel 2009: 19). Expert knowledge, however, is not restricted to the ‘traditional’ professional contexts but is, in the context of societal change, complemented by ‘new’ forms of expert knowledge (Meuser & Nagel 2009: 19, 21). This understanding of expert knowledge being “generated in pluralized networks, negotiated by networks and publics of laypeople, and applied to concrete societal problems” (Meuser & Nagel 2009: 21) goes hand in hand with the development from government to governance (cf. 3.1.1). Hence, the pool of experts for this study includes “people actively involved in shaping public affairs” (Bogner et al. 2009: 7) for example in the context of NGOs or within the profession of conservation architects. The procedure of choosing experts is intended to include coexisting spheres of knowledge (Meuser & Nagel 2009: 18) into the analysis. This understanding, though, results in the situation that the information generated by interviewing experts can not be taken as ‘the unquestionable truth’ but has to be interpreted, taking into account their respective contexts. Although the characters and personal situations of interviewees are not the subject of investigation when interviewing experts, personal orientations and subjective opinions cannot be completely avoided and remain a part of the interview. This must be kept in mind when analysing the qualitative data. This discussion shows that the “link between expert knowledge and professional role is loosened (and) (…) the sharp distinction between expert and layperson weakened” (Meuser & Nagel 2009: 19). Nevertheless, this study adheres, from a pragmatic point of view, to the distinction between experts and laypersons, as the knowledge background of these two groups and hence the interview questions and interview situations differ greatly. The interviews were organised as ‘problemzentrierte Interviews’ (problem-centred interviews) (Witzel 2000). A non-standardised guide that was prepared in the run-up to each interview supported the structure of the interview situations. The guides contained open questions and the order in which they were asked was adjusted according to the course of conversation. This semi-structured procedure made it possible to customise the guiding questions according to the position and level of knowledge of the interviewees. The advantage of this interview technique is that interviews can be guided enough to keep them on track, while at the same time providing interviewees the freedom to formulate their own thoughts and potentially widen the discussion to include new issues. In this way it is possible to get insight into tacit aspects of the experts’ knowledge. Another advantage of this technique is the fact that the interviewer prepares properly and brings previous knowledge into the interview situation, which fosters the quality of the conversation (Meuser &

4.2 Data collection

67

Nagel 2002: 77, 2009: 32). Witzel (2000) argues that by using problem-centred interviews, knowledge production is organised as an inductive-deductive reciprocal relationship both during data collection as well as during evaluation. This procedure implies that the interviewer has to regularly reveal his previous knowledge. At the same time, the practice of ‘openness’ has the effect that the interviewee gets the chance to emphasise what is relevant in his opinion, through narrative prioritisation. This “elastic procedure” (Witzel 2000) is designed to ensure that the interviewer’s perspective cannot cover up the interviewee’s perspective. With the qualitative interviews two different main targets were pursued throughout the study, whereas the main character of the interviews varied during the different empirical phases (cf. Figure 3). First, the general aim of interviewing experts was to query their factual knowledge (expert-knowledge) about the research subject (the experts’ specialist field) by posing concrete questions and by encouraging them to talk about certain topics. Second, the interviews with laypeople, being themselves separate units of analysis, were used to obtain their “lay practical knowledge” (Bogner et al. 2009: 3) and, even more importantly, to uncover their orientations, personal perceptions and, to a certain extent, their life-situations (Meuser & Nagel 2002: 72). 4.2.3 Expert workshop In order to present and discuss interim findings of the study so far and to further address the topic “Delhi’s urban heritage in the 21st century”, the author and the leader of the project organized an expert workshop. The workshop was held on October 27th, 2014 in cooperation with the Delhi chapter of the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) and Goethe Institute Max Mueller Bhavan, New Delhi. In total 21 experts from NGOs (INTACH, Aga Khan Trust for Culture, Virasat, ITIHAAS), from the field of conservation architecture, from academia (School of Planning and Architecture / SPA New Delhi, Polytech University Milan), from public authorities (National Monuments Authority (NMA)) and from the National Institute of Urban Affairs, NIUA New Delhi, as well as one conservation writer/ consultant participated in the workshop. The objective of the workshop was to discuss current problems and challenges in the scope of urban conservation in Delhi and to actively think of actions and measures that could be undertaken to protect Delhi’s urban heritage and to make it a significant and visible part of the city’s future. The workshop was divided into two parts – one session with input presentations and discussion and an interactive second session. Presentations were given on the following topics: Cultural heritage and urban development in Delhi, Urban heritage: key principles and considerations, Heritage legislation in India/Delhi, Heritage and economic development, Heritage education and cultural perception of urban heritage. As an input for the interactive session, interim results of the study were presented. Subsequently, a world café was organised in order to create an open and creative work atmosphere. The world café is a method that was developed in the

68

4 Material and Methods

mid-1990s to encourage open dialogues between participants, based on unconstrained and interactive conversations (Brown & Isaacs 2005, Preller et al. 2014: 6). This dialogue is operationalised as follows: the group of participants is divided into groups of four to five persons. Each group is positioned around one table. At each table the participants are invited to discuss and exchange opinions on one topic or question. In this study, the tables were covered with plain paper, which provided the opportunity to visualise and textualise important points and thoughts. After a certain amount of time the groups change to the next table while one fixed table host stays back to summarise the content of the previous conversation for the next group. This procedure is repeated until every group has had a discussion on every topic. The process can then be complemented by a plenary presentation and discussion to share the totality of the generated information among all participants and offer opportunity for further comments (Preller et al. 2014: 7). The world café method helps participants to engage in constructive dialogue through which (tacit) knowledge is activated and (re-)connected in order to bring about new ideas and foster a collective understanding (Fouché & Light 2011: 29, Preller et al. 2014: 7). Three questions were put up for the discussion in the world café: (1) Heritage protection for whom? Who are the target groups? (2) What to do in which way? Who should start acting and how? (3) Vision 2030: What would be striking achievements for Delhi’s heritage? In the course of the workshop (which is indicated with the code WWC-2014) a lively discussion among the participants took place, with many of the insights gained through interviews being confirmed and new questions raised, especially about future aspects of urban heritage protection in Delhi. 4.2.4 Secondary data Supplementing the primary data, a set of secondary data was included in the analysis of the governance of urban cultural heritage in Delhi. Academic and non-academic literature Academic literature was used in this study to create a pre-conception about the research subject, Delhi’s urban cultural heritage and its governance. It was further used to discuss the findings of this study against the background of the current state of the art. This section will give a brief overview of the academic literature that has been helpful in the context of working out the empirical approach and in analysing the data. There exists a growing body of literature on Delhi’s urban development and neoliberalisationinduced urban transformation processes, whereas many studies focus on Delhi’s world class city aspirations (Ahmad et al. 2013, Ahmed 2011, Baviskar 2003/2006, Dupont 2000/2011, Ghertner 2011/2015, Schindler 2017, Shatkin & Vidyarthi 2014). Furthermore, a number of (edited) books exist on urban govern-

4.2 Data collection

69

ance issues in India (Baud 2008, Hust 2005b, Kennedy 2014, Ruet 2005, Sivaramakrishnan 2015) as well as journal articles, book chapters and monographs using Delhi as a case study in this context (Follmann 2016a/2016 b, Follmann & Trumpp 2013, Ghertner 2015, Pinto 2000, Zimmer 2012). Academic literature, particularly on urban cultural heritage in the regional context of Delhi and India, is difficult to access. There exist a number of publications, which look at Delhi’s urban heritage from a historical perspective. Most of them concentrate on a specific historic period (Singh 2004/2010) and emphasis is mainly on Shahjahanaband/Old Delhi (Blake 1991/1986, Ehlers & Krafft 1993, Krafft 1996, Mann 2005, Naqvi 1986, Spear 1951) or Lutyen’s Delhi (Metcalf 1984, Metcalf 1989, Mann 2006). Beyond this, there exists non-academic literature, whereas the authors of these books or book sections often are experts in their field or even academics participating in these book projects, for example (Peck 2005, Nanda 2012, Singh 2009). Delhi’s urban cultural heritage has not yet found extensive written recognition in the context of contemporary development, even if there are some texts on contemporary challenges in Old Delhi (Garella 2006, Jain 2004). Urban heritage in India and Delhi from a broader perspective is so far not so much the content of academic literature. Nevertheless, a number of texts have been written by members of NGOs or experts in the field. Examples are (Baig 2003, Mehrotra 2009, Menon 2003/2007/2014b, Nayak 2003, Singh 2014). Planning documents and legislative texts Of special interest for the analysis of this study were planning documents (Master Plan for Delhi 2021 (MPD-2021), Zonal Development Plans) and legislative texts (for example Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR Act), Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi 2016, the Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi 2016) (cf. 6.3.2). These were important as they are, in the sense of formal institutions (cf. 6.3.2) guiding the actor’s actions. Their content reflects the current state of the public line in the protection of cultural heritage in Delhi and India. Newspaper articles Newspaper articles from the main English-speaking daily newspapers (Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Times of India) are part of the analysis of this study. Articles from 2009 until 2018 have been included in order to gain insight into the public coverage of urban heritage in Delhi in general and into current events and relevant case studies. This was helpful, especially in the explorative phase (cf. Figure 3), to get an initial overview of the situation in Delhi. As newspapers are a journalistic medium that transports certain information, possibly at the expense of other details,

70

4 Material and Methods

and is thus involved in shaping public discourses, the relevant information gained through them has been thoroughly checked and discussed with interview partners and other relevant sources of information (like academic literature, observations). Nevertheless, newspaper articles have been used at different points in the course of this study to illustrate certain facts and to reconstruct the course of specific events (cf. Follmann 2016a). 4.3 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS For documentation, most of the interviews (cf. 4.2.2) were voice recorded. This procedure enables the whole communication process to be authentically and precisely captured (Witzel 2000). Directly after the interviews, postscripts were written down containing situative or non-verbal notes about the interview-situation. In the rare instance that the interviewee didn’t agree to being recorded, minutes where taken. The records were transcribed with the help of the transcription software f52. During the transcription process, major linguistic or grammatical mistakes were corrected without losing the authenticity of the statements. In this study, it is not the language in the linguistic sense that is the research subject, but rather the verbal exchange that is the medium to examine specific contents. Hence, standard orthography was chosen as the form of transcription and the extent of precision of the transcription was adapted to the research question3 (Flick 2014: 380, Kowal & O’Connell 2012). The texts produced in this way served as the basis for a qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2012). When analysing qualitative problem-centred interviews the focus is set on systematically finding thematic units. That means that passages of similar content or referring to the same topic that are scattered across the textual material are searched for (Mayring 2012: 468, Meuser & Nagel 2009: 35). In order to develop relevant thematic units (categories) and sort the interview statements according to these categories, in this study the software MaxQDA 11 was used. This processing of the empirical data was done in a way that (Mayring 2012: 472) refers to as “inductive categorisation”. The main aim was to identify aspects that were considered important by the interviewees, to gain relevant information and to detect ongoing discourses in the context of urban cultural heritage and its protection in Delhi. Hence, no theoretically pre-defined categories were used. Categories were rather developed inductively (Mayring 2012: 472). This means that category-development was fluid in this stage, as, during the process, new categories evolved step-by-step while they were constantly reviewed and if necessary subsumed. This procedure allowed an unbiased approach towards the text material. After a certain amount of the text material was examined, a more detailed review of the categories took place. The categories were, where necessary, adjusted to the conceptual research framework in order to be able 2 3

https://www.audiotranskription.de/f4.htm. This means that non-verbal expressions like pausing or harrumphing and paralinguistic elements (like laughing) are not part of the transcripts. As well, deviations of the standard language like elision or assimilation were neglected.

4.4 Reflecting the research process

71

to interpret the empirical data accordingly. By means of these categories the text material was structured for the analysis and interpretation. To include the empirical material into the final text, relevant interview passages were either summarised and important statements were extracted, or exact quotes were inserted. In order to ensure intersubjective transparency of the process of analysis, interpreting and argumentatively presenting the empirical data, references to the interviews are indicated as follows: (NUMBER OF INTERVIEW/CODE) (cf. Appendix I). In the subsequent stage of data analysis a rearrangement of the categories took place, according to their internal relations. A theoretically-inspired perspective defined these relations. During the final interpretation of the data and the contained contexts and interrelationships, it was important to take into account the institutional-organisational context in which the interviewees were embedded (Meuser & Nagel 2009: 35). 4.4 REFLECTING THE RESEARCH PROCESS When working with qualitative methods, it is crucial to deal with one’s own position as a researcher. In the context of this study two aspects are of special interest: the fact that the author is a (young) female researcher and, from a post-colonial perspective, the existence of eurocentrism in research. Especially when interviewing experts, the interview situation and atmosphere depends on “the mutual perceptions of the participants” (Meuser & Nagel 2009: 34). Thereby, how the interviewer is assessed depends on factors like age, gender and social status. Meuser & Nagel (2009: 34) emphasises that when interviewing experts, status relation as well as gender relation play an important role. Regarding status, the outcome of an interview can be determined by the answer to the question as to whether the interviewed expert perceives the interviewer as a competent interlocutor. This perception is not only based on behaviour, but also on formal status, like the academic degree (ibid.). Especially when (young) female researchers interview experts, there is the possibility that “in the experts’ understanding gender status dominates over professional status” (ibid.: 34). In the course of empirical data collection for this study, such experiences were gained in some interview situations. But, in some cases it was possible to change the dynamic and utilise the described constellations. The following quote by Abels and Bebrens (1998: 86) describes such circumstances: “In many talks with experts we claim to have received important pieces of information just because men find it necessary to explain matters through and through or to come up with facts which we as women in an ascribed lower status are not believed to be capable of getting right. These projections and the concomitant frankness can be further increased through naïve and humble questions appealing to the expert’s readiness to enlighten us” (cited in Meuser & Nagel 2009: 34).

Hence, the interview constellation of this study cannot be considered as a disadvantage per se. However, it is important to permanently and consciously reflect about one’s own role and position as an interviewer.

72

4 Material and Methods

When researching in an international environment, especially when working as a European researcher in countries of the Global South, an epistemological reflection about the (normative) assumptions on which our research based is important (Lossau 2012a: 130). One has to be aware of one’s own values rooted in one’s origin to avoid tapping into the trap of “naïve and unthinking eurocentrism” (Göll 2009: 351; translated by the author). As this study deals with a topic located within the broader field of ‘culture’, and in a country where path dependent processes trace back to British colonialism, special care is required. Hence, findings and their interpretations have to be formulated very sensitively and constantly checked for a Eurocentric point of view.

5 SITUATING THE CASE STUDY: DELHI – CONTEMPORARY MEGACITY WITH AN EVENTFUL HISTORY Delhi, being India’s capital city, is located in the Northern part of the country1, bordering the two other Indian states Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. It lies in the Ganges plain and has two prominent geographical features, the river Yamuna and its floodplains and the Delhi ridge, being a northern extension of the Aravalli range (Ahmad et al. 2013: 641). In order to set the spatial frame of this study, the following section outlines Delhi’s development from a historical perspective, describes contemporary development processes and future aspirations, introduces Delhi’s built cultural heritage and concludes with an overview of the city’s administrative set-up. 5.1 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: DELHI – A TALE OF MANY CITIES Delhi’s eventful history2 and its changing importance for India over the centuries becomes noticeable in the following quote by Jawaharlal Nehru: “In Delhi, we observe the good and bad of India. It is a gem with many facets, some bright, others darkened with the passage of time; even its stones whisper of the bygone ages… graveyard of many empires, it is the nursery of a new republic”3.

Archaeological excavations have revealed that, as early as the Palaeolithic age, there already existed many pre-urban and non-urban settlements in the area where today’s Delhi is located (Singh 2010: 17). Continuous settlement activities have been taking place there ever since the third or fourth century B. C. In the course of its history, Delhi has been marked religiously and politically by Hinduism, Islam, British colonisation, and – after it gained independence – by the creation of a democratic India (Trumpp & Kraas 2015). Throughout history, the area of today’s Delhi has been repeatedly politically important. The so-called “Delhi triangle” (Blake 1991: 5), being surrounded by the Aravalli hills to West and South and by the river Yamuna to the East, marks a strategic area. It is located between the Deccan tableland and the Thar dessert and the Himalayas and between the Punjab and the Ganges flood plains. Furthermore, by hitting the Yamuna, Delhi “encompassed the major break on transportation between the two great river systems of the subconti1 2 3

Delhi’s exact geographical location is between 28°-24’-27’’ and 28°-53’-00’’ North and 76°50’-24’’ and 77°-20’37’ East (Ahmad et al. 2013: 641). This chapter is partly based on Trumpp & Kraas (2015). As quoted in Nagarlok, No. 2 1991: 90 cited in Pinto (2000: 132).

74

5 Situating the Case Study

nent, the Ganges and the Indus” (Blake 1991: 5). Experts still argue about the exact number, but it is said that there have existed between seven and nine, if not up to eleven, capitals of former dominions on this area (Menon 2014b, Nanda 2012, Peck 2005: 1). The city of Delhi was first mentioned as Indraprastha in the national epic “Mahabharata”, which was written around 1000 B.C4 and which is one of the major scriptures of Hinduism. An Islamic imprint of the area began with the erection of the Delhi Sultanate in 1206. Due to the changing dynasties of the Delhi Sultanates (Fernandes 2006) between the 13th and 17th century, numerous new cities (namely Lal Kot / Qila Rai Pithora, Siri, Tughlaqabad, Jahanpanah, Firozabad, the city around Purana Quila / Shergarh) were built on the territory of today’s Delhi. After that, the Islamic empire of the Mogul dynasty arose, covering the area of today’s North India, and was ruled from various places, including Delhi intermittently. With the foundation of Shahjahanabad between 1638 and 1648, known today as “Old Delhi”5, Delhi reverted to being the permanent capital (Krafft 1996; cf. Figure 4). During the establishment of British colonial power in the second half of the 18th century, Delhi’s political position initially diminished gradually, before the decision was made in 1911 to transfer the capital of British India from turbulent Calcutta back to Delhi again (Krafft 1996, Selbach 2009: 60). As a result of this decision, Delhi’s population grew by 100,000 inhabitants within a decade, and the British constructed a new city, New Delhi, with the aim of creating one of the most magnificent capitals in the world. The dualism resulting from this – the traditional old city (Shahjahanabad) and the planned new city in the centre – persists today (Mann 2006; cf. 5.3). India’s independence and the division of the subcontinent in 1947 had a great influence on Delhi’s development. Due to the population movements among Muslim and Hindu inhabitants in Pakistan and Bangladesh as well as in India during the phase of partition of the former British colonies, the fastest population growth in the history of the city occurred: within a decade, Delhi’s population doubled from 700,000 (1941) to 1.4 million (1951). Together with deficient infrastructural conditions, this led to significant problems: insufficient watersupply, inadequate sewage and waste disposal, lack of accommodation, transport facilities, and, most of all, employment opportunities (Mann 2006). The total population of 5 million that was expected for 1981 had already been achieved in the late 1970s; in 1981, 5.7 million inhabitants lived in Delhi (Nath 1993). This trend has continued ever since, and the city’s population has kept on growing at a high rate. 4

5

The historicity of the Mahabaratha events has been neither proved nor disproved by archaeological excavations although there are findings that “various sites connected with the Mahabaratha story were inhabited from about 1000 BC onwards and that they shared a similar material culture” (Singh 2010: 19). The historic core of Delhi is referred to as Old Delhi by some, and as Shahjahanabad by others. In this study, Old Delhi will describe the historic area in its contemporary form, whereas the name Shahjahanabad will refer to the Mughal city around the time of its foundation in the 17th century.

5.1 Historical perspective: Delhi – a tale of many cities

Figure 4: Former capital cities on the territory of today’s Delhi

75

76

5 Situating the Case Study

5.2 PRESENT PERSPECTIVE: DELHI’S WORLD CLASS CITY ASPIRATIONS In 2011, Delhi had a population of around 16.7 million people (Government of India 2011)67. Along with this demographic growth, an enormous spatial expansion of the urbanised areas occurred in all directions (Dupont 2000: 229). Before India’s independence in 1947, Delhi mainly developed around the colonial city of New Delhi and the historic core of Old Delhi (Follmann 2016a: 118). In the decades after 1951, Delhi’s urbanised area expanded rapidly from 201 km2 to 792 km2 (Ahmad et al. 2013: 644). Delhi has continued to grow into a huge urban agglomeration and its “multi-directional urban sprawl” (Dupont 2011: 6) has led to the connection of surrounding build-up areas with the former core city. Hence, Delhi nowadays appears as a “multi-modal urban area” (ibid.) incorporating a number of satellite towns located in the surrounding states of Haryana (e. g. Gurgaon, Faridabad) and Uttar Pradesh (e. g. Noida, Ghaziabad) (Dupont 2011: 7, Follmann 2016a: 120). Beyond its political function as the capital of India, Delhi’s importance on the global stage and its integration into international networks (e. g. production networks, trading networks) is growing (Ahmad et al. 2013: 641, Ahmed 2011: 168, Shatkin 2014: 2). The city is an important industrial centre and has a wide range of production industries spanning from traditional crafts to the production of commodities and consumer goods – and even has an automotive sector of its own (Nath 2007). The main contribution to Delhi’s Gross State Domestic Product hence comes from the tertiary sector (Ahmad et al. 2013: 644), from the service-oriented industries and the production of information technology. Since the beginning of the 21st century, Delhi has been undergoing a rapid neoliberalisation drive (Ahmed 2011). Public policy and public finance priorities have gradually changed and shifted away from, for example, education, public housing, healthcare and food subsidies towards highly visible prestige projects (Ghertner 2011: 280). The “Dream of Delhi as a global city” (Dupont 2011) and the neoliberal orientation of the urban development is evident in the current town-planning objectives and measures included in the MPD-2021: the infrastructure is to be extended, economic growth is to be kept high, and residents’ living conditions are to be improved. However, the main aim of the MPD-2021 is to turn Delhi into a “global metropolis and a world-class city” (Delhi Development Authority 2007: 2). The private sector as well as foreign investment is to be increasingly included in the urban development process, as the investment potential of the public purse alone is too low to be able to achieve the ambitious aims (Ahmed 2011, Baviskar 2006). A profound change in this context can be found in the opening of the land- and housing markets to private investors in the wake of the economic liberalisation that has been taking place since the 1990s. This has led to an enormous rise in the price of land and consequently to an increase in land speculation (Baviskar 2006, Kundu 2003). This development is affecting Delhi’s urban fabric, as the city undergoes an 6 7

The last census data are available from the year 2011. This chapter is partly based on Trumpp & Kraas (2015).

5.3 Delhi’s urban cultural heritage

77

enormous transformation and is gradually turning into a globalised metropolis with modern infrastructure (new high-speed metro network, fly-overs etc.), luxurious housing estates, exclusive shopping malls, large-scale evictions and relocations being visible characteristics (Bhan 2009, Dupont 2011, Ghertner 2011, Shatkin 2014). Mega events like the Asian Games 1982 and the Commonwealth Games 2010 have been milestones catalysing this process (Ahmad et al. 2013: 645, Dupont 2011, Follmann & Trumpp 2013, Ghertner 2011). Consequently, there is increasing pressure on the remaining vacant land and urban spaces that are potentially available for future urban development, like barren land settled by the urban poor or unlisted heritage structures. Hence, Delhi’s aspirations of becoming world-class has led to a number of beautification measures, including major slum-clearances (Baviskar 2006, Bhan 2009, Dupont 2011, Follmann & Trumpp 2013: 122, Ghertner 2011). However, despite lots of efforts, Delhi remains a city with high contrasts where extreme differences coexist: modern and highly developed areas and buildings line up next to neighbourhoods with historic character or low standards of living. Large parts of Delhi’s development is taking place in an unplanned manner, only about 24 % of the population live in planned neighborhoods (Ahmad et al. 2013: 647, Ghertner 2011). A large part of Delhi’s population still lives in slums or on the streets and Delhi’s urban area is highly segmented socio-spatially (Dupont 2004). Nevertheless, not only the urban poor live in so-called unauthorised colonies. Many middle class and even high-class residential areas were also built outside of building regulations. Many of these colonies have grown on agricultural land or rural-urban fringe areas. Dupont (2005: 311) refers to this process as “uncontrolled suburbanisation”. Still, Delhi has to deal with many basic problems. In many parts of the city waste disposal and water supply is lacking and the capacities of the transportation system are often largely exceeded. Rapid spatial growth, high population pressure, weak institutions, high degrees of informality, infrastructural congestion, environmental challenges, housing issues and other consequences of urbanisation and globalisation processes still exist and impact the city’s population (Ahmad et al. 2013, Ghertner 2011, Pinto 2000). 5.3 DELHI’S URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE The following section will introduce Delhi’s built urban cultural heritage in more detail. First, a description will be given of what is left in Delhi today from medieval and early modern architecture as well as from colonial architecture, before a short overview of contemporary architecture is given. All epochs of Delhi’s rich history (cf. 5.1) have left their traces: remnants of walls, ruins, small tombs and mosques, great monuments and gardens as well as historic areas and urban patterns still exist today. These ruins provide monumental evidence and prove the outstanding significance of the former metropolises that were located on the site of today’s Delhi (cf. Figure 4). Considering Delhi’s built

78

5 Situating the Case Study

urban heritage8, medieval and early modern structures and the historical remains of colonial India are most prominent. It must be noted, however, that while architectural traces from epochs ranging from ancient to modern still exist, most ancient remains, such as stone tools, terracotta and pieces of pottery, can no longer be viewed in their original settings. The only pieces that are accessible at all are displayed in museums and hence do not play a role in today’s urban fabric (Singh 2010: 16). The earliest built structures still visible in Delhi are relics of an early settlement (a tank and a dam) from late Rajput rule from before 1192 (Peck 2005: 10). Most buildings that survived from medieval and early modern times are important structures like temples, mosques, forts, mansions of the rich or structures connected to water collection such as tanks or reservoirs (ibid.: 8). The discussion about recognising contemporary architecture as cultural heritage is just starting in Delhi and India respectively. Hence, contemporary buildings and structures that might deserve this status do exist in Delhi, but as yet, there is no law that protects this kind of heritage. 5.3.1 Medieval and early modern architecture in Delhi From 1206 onwards, the Delhi Sultanate, an Islamic kingdom in northern India that was reigned successively by five dynasties9, was established (Gupta 2006: 167, Kulke & Rothermund 1998: 207, Rothermund 1995: 86). This event had far-reaching consequences for the whole country, as an epoch of rather isolated development was succeeded by a period of political and cultural influence from Central Asia and the Middle East (Kulke & Rothermund 1998: 207). Builders in the early Islamic period in Delhi used both indigenous (e. g. corbelled constructions) as well as imported (e. g. true arches) methods and techniques for construction and decoration of buildings (Harle 1987: 423, Peck 2005: 11). The style of architecture of that time is often described as Indo-Islamic architecture. One very important feature of this style was the dome, which was seen as a substitute for the sky (Peck 2005: 11). Harle (1987: 421) calls the dome “the supreme achievement” of the architecture of that time, whereas it must be mentioned that the techniques were imported from the Middle East. As residential homes were destroyed and the only surviving buildings from this era are important religious or public buildings, such as temples, mosques or court buildings, along with a number of tombs, the remaining structures show an incomplete picture of architecture from that time. One of the most important monuments of the early Islamic period in Delhi is the Qutb Complex, which is today listed as a World Heritage Site (cf. 6.2.4).

8

9

The author is aware, that in the context of Delhi, the built urban heritage is deeply interwoven with the intangible heritage. Nevertheless, the main focus of this study is on the governance processes of the protection of the built cultural heritage. To give an elaborate overview of the intangible heritage of Delhi would be beyond the scope of this study. The five dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate were namely: Slave Dynasty (1192–1290), Khalji Dynasty (1290–1320), Tughlak Dynasty (1320–1414), Sayyid Dynasty (1414–1451), Lodi Dynasty (1451–1526) (Peck 2005).

5.3 Delhi’s urban cultural heritage

79

With the takeover of the Tuglakhs, the third of the dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate, in the 14th century, buildings were very well proportioned, massively built and often appeared fortress-like. They were built to be very strong and solid, from plain stone covered with plaster and often with sloping walls. The architecture appeared simple with little decoration and ornamentation (Harle 1987: 425, Peck 2005: 13, Spear et al. 2008: 104). The Tughlakhs built three of Delhi’s former capitals (Tughlaqabad, Jahanpanah, Firozabad; cf. 5.1 / Figure 4) and hence left a great mark on Delhi’s architectural landscape (Harle 1987: 425). During the following Lodi period (1414–1526), Indo-Islamic style reached its climax. True arches, domes and decorated post and beam doorways remained the basic construction techniques. They were complemented by the so-called chatri, an ornamental feature decorating domes that were now lifted onto columns (Harle 1987: 426, Peck 2005: 14). The buildings that remain from that time are almost, with some exceptions, tombs, most of them of octagonal or square shape (Harle 1987: 426). Some of the best-known ones are grouped in an area that is known today as Lodi garden. When the Mughals arrived in Delhi in the 16th century, they introduced a new style of architecture with innovative ideas of building and decoration. Although this new style was not a complete break with what had been built before, it was lighter and more delicate. The most prominent example of that time is the Taj Mahal in Agra, which was built under the emperor Shah Jahan (reigned from 1628–58) (Bautze 1995: 261, Harle 1987: 442). The following characteristics and key principles distinguish the architecture of the Mughals from previous ones: great emphasis on decorating flat surfaces with relief carving; increasing emphasis on applied decoration rather than decorative use; onion domes and curved roofs (bangla); columns became bulbous and were often fluted; cusped arches reappeared; gardens became important and were laid out symmetrically along a central axis, with flowing water brought into the enclosure; buildings were on a monumental scale, the likes of which had previously not been seen, and were sited in prominent locations, often along a river; red sandstone and white marble were used in great quantities; textiles as floor and wall coverings were used extensively to mitigate the effect of climate and to ensure greater privacy (Nanda 2012: 152, Peck 2005: 15). In general, Mughal architecture in India was of Persian character and, for the Mughals, symmetry was more important than functionality (Harle 1987: 437, Nanda 2012: 152, Peck 2005: 16). Delhi’s Mughal era can be divided into an early and a late period. Remaining buildings of the early Mughal period, built under the reigns of Humayon, Akbar and Jahangir between 1530 and 1628, can be found around the shrine of Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya in Central Delhi. The most renowned one from the era is Humayon’s Tomb, Delhi’s second World Heritage Site (Harle 1987: 437, Nanda 2012: 149; cf. 6.2.4). The most prominent architectural remains of the Mughal Period in Delhi, however, are the former capital of Shah Jahan’s Empire – Shahjahanabad or Old Delhi as it is often called today. Shah Jahan started to build his new capital in 1639 in proximity to the western banks of the river Yamuna. He used the city “to reaffirm [his] supremacy and legitimise [his] right to rule in an alien land” (Nanda 2012:

80

5 Situating the Case Study

149). During that time, capital cities were seen as symbols of power and wealth and a sign of a ruler’s ability “to order the world about him into regular, harmonious, even beautiful shapes and patterns” (Blake 1986: 67). Shahjahanabad quickly became the administrative centre of the Mughal Empire as well as an important and lively cultural, commercial and industrial hub (Naqvi 1986: 59). The layout of Shahjahanabad showed an interspersed pattern with madrassas, mausoleums, monasteries, mosques, temples, serais, reservoirs and bazaars scattered through the whole city. It was designed in a way that several homogeneous units evolved in order to divide public spaces from semi-private and private spaces. With vast open areas, Shahjahanabad had the atmosphere of a garden city. Furthermore, a number of significant gardens existed beyond the surrounding city walls. The principal built elements of the city were the palace-fort (Red Fort) (cf. 6.2.4), several mosques, including India’s biggest mosque Jama Masjid, the north-south axis of Faiz Bazaar and the east-west axis of Chandni Chowk, an elaborate system of aqueducts/water channels and a massive boundary wall (Nath 1993: 172). Different craft communities (like leather workers, wax workers etc.) were clustered in different quarters and the city’s nobility occupied so-called mohallas or wards, homogenous areas that had the character of gated communities, being semi-private spaces with one principal haveli and several courtyards, most of them with great gardens and orchards (Nanda 2012: 154 ff., Naqvi 1986: 61). For the other inhabitants of Shahjahanabad there existed a variety of dwellings: houses which were six or seven stories high for well-to-do Hindu merchants, smaller houses with walls of stone, brick or clay and roofs of straw for lower ranking military commanders, quarters behind their shops for ordinary merchants or straw-thatched mud huts for soldiers, servants, craftsmen, small traders (Blake 1986: 88). Shahjahanabad is seen as the peak of Islamic urban development on the Indian Subcontinent (Blake 1991: 1, Krafft 1996: 105) and “Shahjahan’s architecture is defined as the classical phase of Islamic architecture in India” (Nanda 2012: 154). Shah Jahan limited architectural decoration to Islamic norms, which means that only geometric patterns or plant forms were permitted (ibid.: 161). Traveller’s testimonies refer to Delhi as being magnificent and one of the largest and most populous cities in the world of its time (Blake 1986: 98, Nath 1993: 172). “Its heart-ravishing houses have perfect beauty and charm; (…) its streets look like flower beds; (…) the squares of every ward of this town are beautiful and heart-ravishing like the squares of a garden; (…) in every lane and street are canals filled to the brim with water of a sweet taste; the roads of its bazars are bright and heart-attractive like the veins of jewels; (…) its shops are full of happiness and beauty” (Sarkar 1901: 5).

Under the British Colonial rule during the 18th century, the Mughal Empire declined significantly. This dynamic caused a decrease in trade and economic power and hence, building activities almost stopped and Shahjahanabad lost its supraregional importance (Krafft 1996: 105, Nanda 2012: 178, Pinto 2000: 131). After the first war of independence in 1857, widespread destruction took place under the British and large parts of the Red Fort and the urban fabric surrounding the Jama Masjid were levelled to the ground. A huge incision in the original urban context of Shahjahanabad was the destruction of Jahanara Begum’s garden north of Chandni Chowk

5.3 Delhi’s urban cultural heritage

81

to make space for the newly built railway (Jain 1990: 70, Nanda 2012: 178, Pinto 2000: 131). 5.3.2 Colonial architecture in Delhi When the British settled in India from the 18th century onwards, they brought, according to their needs, completely new building forms like churches, railway stations, schools and administrative buildings. In the early years of British rule, colonial architecture was characterised by contemporary European style with mainly classical and gothic forms (Metcalf 1984: 39). In the following years, a debate was held whether colonial architecture should represent British or Indian traditions. “The choice between styles did not reflect solely aesthetic concerns. (…) such decisions involved as well larger conceptions of national identity and purpose” (ibid: 37). All architects working in the Empire were united in the idea that their buildings should differ from the architecture of their home countries. Their perception of their task of building a new empire was influenced by the ancient Romans (Singh 2009: 56). “With its roads, its system of law, and its monumental structures spread across the face of the ancient world, Rome stood always as an exemplar to spur the British on in their own imperial enterprise” (Metcalf 1984: 38). But British builders quickly came to the conclusion that they had to take into account special demands of climate and colonial lifestyle during their architectural planning processes. This led to the inclusion of indigenous design elements into colonial architecture. “Colonial architecture in sum, no matter of what elements particular buildings were constructed, always remained distinct. Neither European nor Indian, it made tangible, and helped define, the uniquely colonial culture of which it was a part” (ibid.: 39). During the late 19th century, British architecture in India was characterised by a combination of elements of Gothic revival and neo-classical style that was common in Victorian Britain and indigenous architectural elements from Hindu and Islamic building traditions in India. This building style was subsumed as “Indo-Saracenic” architecture10 (Metcalf 1984: 45/1989: 77). Until the British decided to shift their capital from Calcutta to Delhi in the beginning of the 20th century, Delhi had no special importance for the British Empire and was a classical provincial town (Pinto 2000: 129). Before 1857 the British community in Delhi lived in the northeastern parts of Shahjahanabad or in the suburbs to the north (Peck 2005: 242). In 1828, the British troops were shifted to the so-called cantonment area. After 1857 the British community moved to the Civil Lines, a residential area with bungalows, which was established north of Shahjahanabad. This allowed the British to distance themselves from the inhabitants of Shahajahanabad (ibid.: 243). 10

However, due to the fact that a huge variety of architectural elements and styles was subsumed under the term ‘Indo-Saracenic’, it is today not used any more in academic discourses on Indian architecture. Nonetheless, it remains useful to describe British colonial architecture that has been inspired by elements and styles from earlier epochs (Metcalf 1984).

82

5 Situating the Case Study

When Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker started to build the new capital New Delhi in 1912, they refrained from the “Indo-Saracenic” style of building. Lutyens complained that many buildings in colonial India were “put together with no sense of relation or of scale” (Metcalf 1984: 61). He wanted “old England to stand up and plant her great traditions and good taste where she goes and not pander to sentiment and all this silly Moghul-Hindu stuff” (ibid.). His vision for building the new capital was characterised mainly by European and classical forms. Nonetheless, some indigenous details found their way into the new planning following the idea of capturing for the British empire “the majesty of their redecessors” (ibid.). Lutyens, for example, included Mughal garden layouts, courtyards and local materials, textures, colours, shapes and motifs, and “absorbed what he believed fitted into the grand imperial scheme” (Singh 2009: 57). Hence, a decorative scheme was designed to give the classical structures an Indian appearance. The layout of the new capital was thought to represent the power and greatness of the colonial rulers (Jain 1990: 50) and the classical forms embodied “the idea of law and order which has been produced out of chaos by the British Administration” (Metcalf 1984: 61). Large parts of Lutyen’s Delhi still exist in their original form and are in use by the government and its administration (Peck 2005: 261). New Delhi is located West/South West of Shahjahanabad and was originally separated from the old town by a huge green open space and a railway line (Jain 1990: 73, Nath 1993: 173). The original layout planned by Lutyens and Baker can be traced well in the fabric of today’s Delhi (cf. Figure 4). The street pattern of New Delhi follows classical ideas and is organised around wide and open arterial roads and avenues arranged in a hexagonal pattern. All the main streets have beautiful vistas or views at their ends. By building New Delhi, the British wanted to put their imperial stamp on India and thus strengthen their Empire’s claim over the country (Metcalf 1984: 38, Nath 1993: 174, Peck 2005: 18). As the new city was planned to be the administrative and political centre of India, it contained monumental government and administration buildings as well as important memorials and public spaces. The main features of New Delhi are the Imperial complex, which is still used in its original function, including the Imperial Secretariat, the Viceregal Lodge, the residence of the Viceroy of India and the building of the Central Legislative Assembly, the Central Vista, a 3 km-long representative road flanked by lawns and artificial canals, and a zone of single-storied bungalows within spacious compounds, that served as private residences for clerks and messengers. Throughout the area several churches, schools and hospital were built. Another major landmark in New Delhi is the so-called Connought Circus, one of the main shopping areas of the city (Jain 1990: 49 f., Menon 2014b, Nath 1993: 173). Today, the original shape and layout of New Delhi, and especially the Lutyen’s Bungalow Zone, is under threat, due to a high pressure of development. As the bungalows are expensive to maintain and the building density is very low, discussions are ongoing about redensification and redevelopment of the area (Agarwal 2010: 4, Menon 2014b).

5.3 Delhi’s urban cultural heritage

83

5.3.3 Contemporary architecture in Delhi After India gained independence in 1947, Delhi had to cope with a massive influx of people, many of them refugees from Pakistan (cf. 5.1). Hence, the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) initiated a large programme for land and housing development. During that time, thousands of single- or double-storey houses for displaced persons and two-storey-houses for the purpose of sale were built. Until today, most of these houses have been extended by their owners (Lang 2002: 31, Nath 1993). Additionally, the DDA played a role in developing large residential colonies (Lang 2002: 36, Nath 1993: 1975). Furthermore, private developers as well as cooperative societies started to develop large areas and built houses for sale. These developments took place mainly in the South and the South West of Delhi and largely targeted the middle and high-income parts of the society (Nath 1993: 1975). The aim was to provide “salubrious, reasonably comfortable shelter in symbolically acceptable settings” (Lang 2002: 38). Hence, the architecture of these living areas was mainly characterised by simple and basic design principles. Mostly blocks of two storey houses were built around open spaces that served as parks or parking. Later in the 1960s, higher density levels were aimed at and buildings became even more uniform, being built rather in rows than in groups (ibid.). Chopra (2008) describes the development of these housing areas as a “series of disjointed settlements” caused by a rapid Post-Independence growth and the pressure to act fast. In post-Indepence India, attempts developed, influenced by the Indian state, to erase the recent architectural past and to find a new style of “‘Indian’ architecture by looking either further into the past or into the future” (Menon 2000: 148). Since most significant buildings were built on behalf of the government at that time, architects were not given much room for their own ideas. On the one hand, a “revivalist position” (ibid.) evolved, within which architects incorporated traditional elements into their designs of buildings built with contemporary materials meeting contemporary needs (Lang 2002: 36, Menon 2003b). On the other hand, architects tried to create “an indigenous version of ‘Indian modernism’” (Lang 2002: 54, Menon 2000: 148/2003b). This approach towards architecture reflects the attitude of the time, to quickly modernise the country and to catch up with the West (Menon 2003b). The great influence of modernism on Indian architecture was caused largely by the fact that many architectural practitioners went to Western universities for their education and returned with modern Western ideas and styles (Lang 2002, Menon 2000: 149/2003b). Many significant buildings of the time were commercial buildings, such as the headquarters of the DDA (Lang 2002: 93). Urbanisation of the areas to the East and North of Shahjahanabad and across the Yamuna did not begin until the 1970s and 1980s. Since then rapid development has taken place and thousands of residential houses have been built. Mostly private individuals built houses on plots that had been sold to them by private developers or cooperative societies (Nath 1993: 1975). At the same time massive government-led development projects were undertaken throughout the city according to the credo of creating simple, inexpensive designs for quick implementation (Lang 2002: 38,

84

5 Situating the Case Study

Menon 2000). Hence, there was a lack of proper planning and reflexive thinking about the spatial requirements and almost “anything [was] acceptable” (Menon 2000: 150). Residential architecture of the time was characterised by flat roofs, external surfaces of plaster or limewash and functional sunshades. This rather uniform development was countered by a small group of members of the (elitist) middle class, reinforced by the economic liberalisation of the 1980s and 1990s, through the construction of individual buildings representing different elements of foreignness (Lang 2002: 144, Menon 2000: 151). Menon (2003b) calls this kind of architecture “the architecture of popular middle-class taste”. From the 1980s onwards, two further trends in housing architecture emerged: developer housing, which replaced and extended old housing stock in already established residential areas; and group housing projects which were realised on the outskirts of the city (Menon 2000: 152). In the course of Delhi’s urban development three mega-events played an important role: The Asia 72 exhibition, the 1982 Asian Games and the 2010 Commonwealth Games (Menon 2000: 153/2003b, Uppal 2009; cf. 5.2). These events have “stocked the city with memorable architectural objects by private architects” (Menon 2000: 153) like the Hall of Nations at Pragati Maidan (cf. 7.1.2), the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, the Asian Games Village, the Commonwealth Games village, and extensions of the Delhi Metro (Uppal 2009). These mega events had great influence on Delhi’s architectural scene, as great time pressure meant “few limits to architectural intent” existed (Menon 2000: 154). Hence, architects in Delhi became more confident, and innovative architectural projects were started in the city (ibid.). Ever since economic liberalisation in 1991, global processes and the demands of big (international) companies have been increasingly influencing Delhi’s architectural landscape. Glass and steel facades and a universal stylistic idiom are characteristics of current buildings (Gast 2007: 11). In the housing sector there is a trend to build huge (gated) residential complexes, often with a design based on classical European architectural topics and providing modern amenities in order to make them attractive for members of the middle class (Gast 2007: 11). At the same time, traditional design and building principles find their way into the designs of great architects (Lang 2002: 144, Menon 2003b). Some of them let themselves and their designs be guided by sociocultural (e. g. Raj Rewal) or climatic (e. g. Ashok Lall) determinants or by the tradition of creating sustainable buildings (e. g. Karan Grovers) (Gast 2007: 11, Menon 2003b)11.

11 Lang (2002: 205) writes: “It is difficult enough, even with the advantage of hindsight, to describe what has happened in the architectural world. Describing our contemporary world is hazardous”. And Menon (2003b) adds in this context: the future directions of the architectural scene in Delhi “are not yet clear, and even confusing”. Against this background, and as contemporary architecture is not the main focus of this study, this section about contemporary architecture in Delhi ends here.

5.4 Delhi’s administrative and political set-up

85

5.4 DELHI’S ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL SET-UP Being the capital as well as one of India’s seven Union Territories12, the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT) is under the direct administration of the GoI. The NCT is part of the National Capital Region (NCR), an administrative creation integrating Delhi and parts of the states of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. It was formed in 1985 with the aim of promoting balanced development and regulating urban and economic growth in the region collectively (Ahmad et al. 2013: 641). Beyond this, Delhi is often perceived as a state (Zimmer 2012: 6) even if the Parliament of India never formally conferred this status on the NCT13 14. However, NCT Delhi is not only under the direct administration of the GoI, but has an elected government as well: the Government of National Capital Territory Delhi (GNCTD), which is executively headed by a Chief Minister, has a Legislative Assembly with 70 members and the Lieutenant Governor as its administrative head (cf. Figure 5). The Lieutenant Governor is nominated by the President of India, which means that the Central Government has significant influence in Delhi (Zimmer 2012: 6). The Legislative Assembly has the power to make laws, except for in matters of public order, police and land, which fall under the responsibility of the Central Government (Mann & Banerjee 2011: 179). At the local level, Delhi is governed by five municipal agencies. These are responsible for implementing planning and for providing civic services. The Cantonment Board is responsible for the smallest, military part and the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC1) for what is known as Lutyen’s Delhi, the part of the city built by the British. The rest of Delhi is divided into three parts governed by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC2), East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC), and South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC)15, which are elected bodies headed by municipal councillors. Administratively, Delhi is divided into nine districts and 27 subdistricts (Ahmad et al. 2013: 643).

12

The seven Union Territories of India are Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep, National Capital Territory of Delhi and Puducherry. 13 For reasons of comprehensibility, it is referred to as such in the remainder of this study. 14 Rautray, S.: “Delhi cannot claim state status via judicial order: Centre”, in: The Economic Times, 21.11.2017. (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/delhi-cannotclaim-state-status-via-judicial-order-centre/articleshow/61745301.cms, access: 2018-04-20). 15 Until 2012, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) governed these three parts as a single unit. In 2012, however, the MCD got trifurcated into smaller units with the aim of achieving better provision of civic amenities, making the new units workable and enhancing their performance.

86

5 Situating the Case Study

Figure 5: Delhi’s government set-up (Source: Graphic by the author (cf. Follmann 2016a, Zimmer 2012))

6 EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS: URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE GOVERNANCE IN DELHI – AN INVENTURY The following chapter presents an inventory of the governance of urban heritage in Delhi. It is structured in three parts. First, the actors involved in urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi are introduced. Second, five illustrative case examples are presented, in order to visualise the great bandwidth of aspects related to urban heritage and its protection in Delhi. Third, according to the analytical framework developed for this study (cf. 3.4.3), the current state of Delhi’s urban cultural heritage governance is presented. 6.1 ACTOR SET-UP OF URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE GOVERNANCE IN DELHI The following section portrays the most important actors involved in urban conservation and the protection of Delhi’s urban heritage. To provide an overview, the actors are, in the tradition of multi-level governance (Höhnke 2012, Olowu 2003), grouped according to the different hierarchy levels of national (central), state and municipal (cf. Figure 6). As this study works at the interface of urban and cultural governance (cf. 3.4), this overview includes actors from the spheres of urban development and planning as well as urban conservation1.

1

This compilation leaves out some actors that are involved in urban issues (like Land and Development Office (L&Do) at the national level or National Capital Planning Board (NCRPB) at the regional level) as they do not play any role in the field of heritage protection in Delhi (cf. e.g. Follmann 2016a).

88

6 Empirical Analysis

Figure 6: Actor set-up of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi (Source: Graphic by the author based on information from interviews (cf. Follmann 2016a: 140))

6.1.1 Public agencies on the national level In the context of urban heritage in Delhi two main ministries under the GoI are relevant at the national level: the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) and the Ministry of Culture (MoC). Being the nodal agency for urban planning and development at the central level, the direct constitutional and legal authority of the MoUD is limited to Delhi and the other Union Territories. It is mainly responsible for framing policies, guidelines etc., coordinating and disbursing funds and coordinating autonomous and statutory bodies, as well as urban research and training. Subordinate agencies to the MoUD that are relevant in the context of this study are the Town and Country Planning

6.1 Actor set-up of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

89

Organisation (TCPO) (functions as a subordinate office), CPWD (functions as an attached office), DDA, Delhi Urban Arts Commission (DUAC) (both function as statutory and autonomous bodies) and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) (which is a joint venture of GoI (50 %) and GNCTD (50 %)) (Follmann 2016a: 161, Kulshrestha 2012: 35). Town and Country Planning Organisation (TCPO) The TCPO functions as the technical wing of the MoUD. In the context of heritage protection and urban conservation TCPO plays a role at the planning level, whereas it has no relevance in the context of day-to-day operations. It has an advising and assisting function towards the MoUD and towards planning departments at state level. Hence, its impact lies in the context of formulating development plans (like Masterplan, Zonal Plan or Building Bye-laws) (47/ARCH; Kulshrestha 2012: 37). Central Public Works Department (CPWD) The CPWD is the operative agency of the MoUD. It is responsible for construction, maintenance and repairs of public-built environment and infrastructure all over India, exluding railway, defence, communication, atomic energy and airports (Kulshrestha 2012: 37). In regard to urban heritage in Delhi, the CPWD is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of those historic buildings that are owned by the GoI (e. g. Rashtrapati Bhavan, Secretariat Buildings, Parliament House, Central Vista and architecturally significant historic bungalows in the NDMC1-area) (47/ARCH)2. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) The DDA, whose chairman is the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, is a corporate body under the MoUD. It is controlled by the GoI and has the power to acquire, hold, and dispose of property in Delhi. The DDA is responsible for planning the city and preparing its MPD-2021 as well as zonal plans. Furthermore, it is in control of the police. This means that spatial planning in Delhi is done neither by the state government (GNCTD), nor by municipal bodies. As for safeguarding urban cultural heritage in Delhi, the DDA plays no role in day-to-day operations,3 but it is important for the urban planning process in which cultural heritage is and should be included (07/OWN, 33/NGO). In 1999, the DDA set up a foundation called Delhi Urban Heritage Foundation (DUHF). Its objectives are to promote the appropriate reuse of old buildings as 2 3

INTACH (2015): INTACH: Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage. (http://www. intach.org/, access: 2018-07-05). With the exception of a handful of small conservation projects implemented by the Delhi Urban Heritage Foundation (DUHF).

90

6 Empirical Analysis

well as providing assistance to individuals, institutions and NGOs in their efforts towards promoting heritage. Besides that, the DUHF prepares and reviews proposals and policies related to heritage. However, only in exceptional cases can it permit major alterations to heritage structures that are under DDA’s responsibility4. In 2016, the DDA proposed to amend DUHF regulations with the main objective to include intangible heritage. But still, the amended regulations emphasise that “DDA shall focus on ‘tangible’ heritage”5. Delhi Urban Arts Commission (DUAC) The DUAC provides advice and guidance to the GoI as well as to municipal bodies on maintaining the aesthetic quality of urban and environmental design in Delhi, especially with regard to projects with a large-scale impact on the urban fabric (Agarwal 2010). It is responsible for providing “advice and guidance to any local body in respect of any project of building operations or engineering operations or any development proposal which affects or is likely to affect the skyline or the aesthetic quality of surroundings or any public amenity provided therein”6. The DUAC further has the power to scrutinise, approve and even reject or modify proposals relating to development, redevelopment, architectural design, planning, conservation, transportation, power and communication (Kulshrestha 2012: 57). The major role of DUAC in relation to Delhi’s urban heritage is to guide the municipal bodies and all development authorities by reviewing project proposals for heritage buildings or within the vicinity of historical structures including their expected impact. In this respect, all development proposals have to be cleared by DUAC. However, it only reviews proposals once they have been evaluated and cleared by HCC. To summarise, DUAC’s role is of a strict advisory character albeit with the power of rejecting or modifying non-conforming projects (Indian National Trust for Cultural Heritage s. a.) 7. The MoC is charged with the promotion and preservation of the art and culture of India. Three subordinate institutions under the MoC are of interest for urban conservation in Delhi: the ASI, the NMA and the National Culture Fund (NCF).

4 5

6 7

Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (1999): The Delhi Urban Heritage Foundation Regulations, 1999. (http://www.bareactslive.com/Del/DL53.HTM, access: 2018-03-10). Delhi Development Authority (2016): Public Notice: Modifications in the Delhi Urban Heritage Foundation Regulations 1999. (https://dda.org.in/tendernotices_docs/march15/Public% 20Notice%20Ad.%20File%20 No.%20F.3%20(114)%202013%20HUPW%20WZ%20&%20 DWK30216423).pdf; access: 2018-07-02). Government of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs (1974): The Delhi Urban Art Commission Act, Section 11. (http://www.duac.org/content_page.aspx?Id=RULES%20 DUAC%20ACT& language=ENGLISH, access: 2018-07-05). Due to its responsibilities, the DUAC appears to be very powerful. However, it has been highly criticised for ineffectiveness by several authors (Agarwal, 2010, Menon 2003b, Singh 1989). To analyse the functioning of this specific body in detail would go beyond the scope of this study.

6.1 Actor set-up of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

91

Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) The HCC was established in 2004 through an order of the Supreme Court of Delhi (as per provisions of Section 23 in Delhi Building Bye-laws, 1983) as a section of the DUAC with some additional charge. Its responsibility lies in monitoring the implementation of bye-laws regarding the protection of state- and locally-protected heritage structures through the municipal bodies (cf. 6.1.3). No alteration or addition to these buildings may be undertaken without the permission of the respective body and the HCC. Proposals for alterations to listed buildings or buildings in their direct vicinity have to be sent to the responsible municipal bodies, which forward them to HCC. Once the HCC gives its approval it either refers the proposal to the respective municipal body for final sanctioning or, if the scope of the project necessitates, it forwards the proposal to DUAC for clearance. Only then permission is given to implement the project (20/NDMC1). This means that the work of HCC is rather passive than active in character (21/HCC). The members of HCC are compiled from different authorities (MoUD, DUAC, CPWD, TCPO, MCD, DDA, NDMC1, ASI) and are from interdisciplinary backgrounds (Urban Design, History, Conservation Architecture, Landscape Architecture). They meet every two to three months depending on the agenda (07/DDA, 08/MCD, 11/OWN). Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) The ASI, which comes under the MoC, is the premier organisation in India for archaeological research and for the protection of cultural heritage. Its main concern is the maintenance and management of ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance (cf. 6.3.3) with a focus on the monument itself. ASI is responsible for more than 3600 monuments all over India (Stubbs & Thomson 2017: 369) and additionally regulates and coordinates archaeological activities in India. With its headquarters in Delhi, ASI is administratively divided into 24 local circles. These are responsible for the implementation of policies and guidelines, formulated by the central core organisation, and are further in charge of the actual maintenance of the monuments (24/ASI). ASI’s legal basis is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010 (AMASR Act 2010), defining two important obligations for the ASI. The first is to prepare customised heritage bye-laws for every single protected monument / protected area, wheres the responsibility to work these out is with the the so-called competent authority. The second is to conduct surveys of every single protected monument or heritage site in order to be able to prepare detailed site plans (cf. 6.3.2)8. 8

Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) (2010): The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 2010 (Act No. 1 of 2010). Published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary, Part II, Section 1, New Delhi, 23rd January, 2010, Article 35A. (http://asi.nic.in/PDF_data/notifica tion_ancient_monuments.pdf, access: 2018-03-10).

92

6 Empirical Analysis

In the case of Delhi, the Additional Director General of the ASI functions as the competent authority9. Its responsibility lies in monitoring development activities in the direct vicinity of protected monuments of national importance. This means that every development proposal for these areas needs to be sent to the competent authority, which forwards it to NMA for review10. Residents of Delhi as well as public agencies can directly contact the competent authority for information or to file complaints about unauthorised construction in the vicinity of protected monuments. These complaints are made public on the authority’s interactive website11. National Monuments Authority (NMA) The NMA was set up under the MoC as per provision of the AMASR Act 2010 (cf. 6.3.2). According to this Act, NMA’s functions are: first, to make recommendations to the GNCTD for the grading and classification of protected monuments and protected areas declared as being of national importance according to their historical, archaeological and architectural value; second, to oversee the work of the competent authorities; third, to suggest measures for implementation of provisions of the AMASR Act to consider the impact of large-scale developmental projects, including public projects and projects essential to the public which may be proposed in the regulated areas and make recommendations in respect thereof to the competent authority; fourth, to make recommendations to the competent authority for grant of permission12. It turns out, however, that, in reality, the main responsibility of NMA is to regulate development and building activities in the direct vicinity of centrally-protected monuments (protected and regulated areas). Therefore, together with the respective competent authority, it is in charge of the preparation and approval of site-specific bye-laws (cf. 6.3.2). The aim of NMA’s activities is to balance development with the needs of individuals in these areas on the one hand, and the requirements of preservation and protection of the monuments on the other (INTACH s. a.: 56). The main focus, however, lies on the monuments themselves 9

In general, the AMASR Act 2010 defines ‘competent authority’ as “an officer not below the rank of Director of archaeology or Commissioner of archaeology of the Central or State Government or equivalent rank” (Ministry of Culture, Government of India (2011): Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Framing of Heritage Bye-Laws and other Functions of the Competent Authority) Rules, 2011). In the case of Delhi, the GoI exercised the option to specify a different competent authority. 10 Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (2010): The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. Act No. 10 of 2010. (http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Acts/Ancient%20Monuments%20and%20Archaeo logical%20Sites%20and%20Remains%20Act%202010.pdf, access: 2018-07-09). 11 Competent Authority Delhi, (2011): Competent Authority Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. (http://competentauthoritydelhi.co.in/Default.aspx, access: 2018-02-14). 12 Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (2010): The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. Act No. 10 of 2010. (http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Acts/Ancient%20Monuments%20and%20Archaeo logical%20Sites%20and%20Remains%20Act%202010.pdf, access: 2018-07-09).

6.1 Actor set-up of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

93

and “in case of any conflict in interest then it is [their] job to save the interest of the monument” (46/NMA). In case construction is planned within the prohibited or regulated areas, the NMA cannot be approached directly. Instead, plans and proposals must be submitted to the competent authority, which will forward them to NMA for clearance. NMA does not actively monitor the situation on the ground. If any construction is taking place in the area NMA is responsible for, ASI is supposed to report to NMA and to send (through the competent authorities) notices to the respective parties to inform them that they are supposed to request permission from NMA. Therefor, the ASI is referred to as “the eyes of NMA on site” (46/NMA). Before the NMA came into being in 2010, ASI was only concerned with the monuments themselves, and did not care about what was happening in the surrounding area. That was neither their jurisdiction nor their mandate. This situation changed with the Amendment of AMASR Act (cf. 6.3.2) and it is now ASI’s mandate by law (46/NMA). National Culture Fund (NCF) The NCF was established in 1996 as a trust under the MoC. The motivation for establishing the NCF was to create a funding mechanism for the arts and culture in India distinct from existing sources and patterns of funding. NCF’s purpose is to foster and facilitate public-private partnership in the field of heritage conservation and promotion. Through NCF, institutions and individuals are enabled to support arts and culture by directly partnering with the government. The reason for establishing it as a trust was to increase non-government representation within the decision-making process. One important feature of the NCF is that the donations to it are eligible for tax benefit (INTACH s. a.; 42/CONS). 6.1.2 Public agencies on the state level At the state level, two state departments that can be rated among the field of urban development play a role in relation to urban heritage and its protection in Delhi: the Department of Urban Development (UD) and the Public Works Department Delhi (PWD). Furthermore, the State Department of Archaeology (SDA) as well as the Delhi Transport and Tourism Development Corporation (DTTDC) and the Shahjahanabad Redevelopment Corporation (SRDC), all agencies with a focus on arts and culture, are of interest at this level. Department of Urban Development (UD) Unlike in other Indian states, GNCTD does not have any power over urban planning and development or over the police. This is caused by the strong role of DDA in this respect. Hence, the role of the Department of Urban Development of GNCTD (UD)

94

6 Empirical Analysis

lies in planning infrastructure projects and providing basic services in the areas of water supply, sewage disposal, sanitation and poverty alleviation. In this context, GNCTD (UD) cooperates with various implementing agencies (like the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), the Trans-Yamuna Area Development Board or the Delhi Transportation Corporation). In regard to urban heritage and its protection, the major role of UD is as notifying agency. Public Works Department Delhi (PWD) Like the CPWD at the national level, the PWD manages and maintains the properties of GNCTD, including heritage structures. It is responsible for infrastructure development and maintenance of the built environment (INTACH s. a.). Delhi Transport and Tourism Development Corporation (DTTDC) The DTTDC was incorporated in 1975 for the overall development and promotion of Delhi as a tourist destination. In 1989 it was additionally entrusted with the construction of flyovers in Delhi. In the context of urban heritage in Delhi, DTTDC was functioning as the nodal agency for the application as UNESCO World Heritage City (cf. 6.2.4.) Shahjahanabad Redevelopment Corporation (SRDC) The SRDC is a so-called ‘company limited by shares not for profit’ and was set up in 2008 by the GNCTD under the administration of UD (92/NGO). Its main objective is to promote the conservation of built and natural heritage in NCT Delhi. According to its website, the corporation works towards incorporating “conservation as an attitude in the city’s urban development process, [focussing on] conservation of the civic and urban heritage which would include architecturally significant and artisan works, historical landmarks and living monuments having socio-cultural value not with the motive of profit”13. Despite its name, the corporation was initiated for projects in the whole area of NCTD. Nevertheless, ongoing projects (redevelopment of Chandni Chowk and Jama Masjid precinct) are located in Old Delhi (cf. 6.2.3), whereas SRDC does not implement its own projects but assigns and monitors other agencies (like e. g. PWD) and extern consultants (92/SRDC).

13

Shahjahanabad Redevelopment Corporation (SRDC) (2015): Shahjahanabad Redevelopment Corporation. (http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_shahjahanabad/DoIT_Shahjahanabad/ Home, access: 2018-04-23).

6.1 Actor set-up of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

95

State Department of Archaeology (SDA) The Delhi SDA is responsible for the protection, conservation, maintenance and notification of monuments of regional importance in Delhi. It derives its authority and jurisdiction under the provisions of the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004 (cf. 6.3.2). Besides the actual work at the monuments themselves, the SDA is also responsible for the following tasks: first, landscaping and development of gardens around the monuments as well as their development as tourist spots; second, supervising the maintenance of monuments through NGOs, Residential Welfare Associations, Public Sector Undertakings and Corporate Bodies; third, surveying, listing and documentation of monuments; fourth, conducting archaeological explorations and excavations; fifth, undertaking of educational activities, including mass awareness programmes to arouse consciousness among the citizens of Delhi about their cultural heritage; sixth, setting up an Archaeological Museum, releasing departmental publications14. However, to implement their projects, SDA most often collaborates through MoUs with other agencies, mainly with INTACH (68/NGO, 73/GNCTD). In other states, the SDA functions as the competent authority for heritage issues. Nonetheless, for Delhi the competent authority is located within ASI. 6.1.3 Public agencies on the local level Municipal Corporations From the urban development perspective, three municipal corporations (SDMC, NDMC2, EDMC) play a role in urban conservation and in the context of safeguarding Delhi’s heritage. Their main mandate is to cater to the civic needs of the public and to provide essential services like waste collection, hospitals, and disease surveillance (Ansari 2004: 7). With regard to Delhi’s urban heritage, their main responsibility lies in maintaining and monitoring heritage structures and their surroundings that are located within their areas (cf. 5.4). Beyond this, the Cantonment Board (responsible for the military part of Delhi) and NDMC1 (responsible for Lutyen’s Delhi) are relevant in the context of this study. Other civic services are provided by specific agencies at the state level, like water provision and sewage treatment by the DJB or transportation issues by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC)15. Compared to other states, the municipality in Delhi has the smallest portfolio of tasks and power and in terms of urban planning, Delhis urban local bodies (ULBs) do not play any role (Gosh et al. 2009: 32).

14 15

Government of NCT Delhi, Department of Archaeology (SDA) (2017): Department of Archaeology. (http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_art/Art+Culture+and+Language/Home/ Department+of+Archaeology/objective, access: 2018-21-04). These agencies are examples of centralising processes and a shift of responsibilities away from local municipalities (Follmann 2016a: 144).

96

6 Empirical Analysis

Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) The DWB is a statutory body responsible for the management and maintenance of any movable or immovable Waqf property in Delhi. The DWB consists partly of elected members and partly of members appointed by the GNCTD. ‘Waqf’ is a term that is used in Islamic law to describe property of religious or charitable character. These properties are dedicated to specific purposes and any other usage of them is not permitted. Furthermore, the DWB donates income generated through Waqf properties to charity, to assist the poor, and to educational institutions and hospitals (INTACH s. a.). In the context of Delhi’s urban heritage, the DWB plays an important role, as it owns a huge number of historic buildings, mainly mosques, dargahs16, tombs and graveyards. A number of properties, mainly mosques, that are under the custody of the DWB are listed as protected and are hence at the same time under ASI’s or the SDA’s responsibility. Nevertheless, theoretically, there does not exist a legal contradiction. By law, a “building can, without contradicting the law in any way, simultaneously be in the custody of the Waqf Board, open for worship, and protected by the Archaeological Survey of India” (Taneja 2013: 146). In reality, however, conflicts exist among the two institutions about the usage of these heritage sites. 6.1.4 Civil society actors Besides the administrative and public agencies described above, further actors are relevant in the context of urban conservation and the safeguarding of Delhi’s urban heritage. One is the civil society as such. Delhi’s citizens in general, and in particular residents who live close to (listed) monuments or within historic areas, do play an important role. So too, do religious bodies, such as the Church of North India, for example, as they are responsible for maintenance and management of their properties. In cases where these properties are listed as heritage sites, respective rules have to be followed. In addition, NGOs as civil society agencies are of major significance. Heritage related NGOs in Delhi (and all over India) can be roughly differentiated by size17. On the one hand, there is one large key NGO, INTACH, which operates all over India and works on various scales and in different fields. Beyond that, the Aga Khan Trust for Culture is involved in one major urban conservation project in Delhi (cf. 6.2.4). At the other end of the scale, there are several smaller NGOs (e. g. ITIHAAS, Youth for Heritage Foundation) that are mostly dedicated to specific aspects, such as heritage education, raising public awareness, organising heritage walks etc. Furthermore, there are several enthusiastic individuals and private initiatives that are active in the field of cultural heritage in a number of ways (cf. 6.2). As INTACH (in particular the INTACH Delhi Chapter) plays an important role in the governance of Delhi’s urban heritage, it is introduced here in more detail: 16 17

A dargah is a Muslim shrine that has been built over the grave of a religious figure or a saint. The same is reported by (Follmann 2016a) about environmental NGOs working on the river Yamuna in Delhi.

6.1 Actor set-up of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

97

INTACH was founded in 1984 and its mission is to protect and conserve India’s vast natural, built, and living heritage. It is administered as a membership organisation of volunteers that functions through its members. The headquarters is located in Delhi and contains 12 divisions (e. g. Architectural Heritage, Natural Heritage, Heritage Tourism etc.). Furthermore, it has local networks across India, all working relatively independently and adopting flexible approaches in their internal structures. Their activities are coordinated and facilitated by the Chapter Division of the headquarter18. Table 3 summarises the information given in this section by assigning the actors involved in the governance of urban heritage in Delhi to relevant heritage-specific responsibilities. Table 3: Urban heritage-specific responsibilities in Delhi Responsibilities

Level

Actors

Item

Formulation of regulations

Central State

GoI GNCTD

Local

NMA

Central laws (AMASR Act) State laws (Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act) Site specific bye-laws

Notification and Central designation State Local (MCD-areas)

ASI GNCTD GNCTD (UD)

Municipalities* ASI (Delhi), SDA Monitoring and advise

Central

DUAC ASI (Delhi) NMA (ASI)

State

Competent Authority (ASI) SRDC HCC SDA

Local

18

Municipalities* NDMC1

Monuments of national importance World Heritage Sites State-protected monuments Monuments located in MCD/NDMC1areas Buffer Zones around state-protectedmonuments Urban fabric Monuments of national importance and buffer zones Monuments of national importance and buffer zones Buffer zones of M. of national importance Single projects State-protected monuments and buffer zones State-protected monuments and buffer zones Monuments located in MCD-areas Monuments located in NDMC1-areas

Indian National Trust for Art and Cutltural Heritage (INTACH) (2015): INTACH: Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage. (http://www.intach.org/, access: 2018-07-05).

98

6 Empirical Analysis

Responsibilities

Level

Actors

Item

Conservation and preservation

Central

CPWD

GoI properties (M. of national importance) M. of national importance Historic properties owned by GNCTD Historic properties owned by GNCTD Monuments located in MCD-areas Monuments located in NDMC1-areas Public projects in cooperation with public agencies Private projects; Public projects in cooperation with public agencies Private properties

State Local Other

ASI PWD SDA Municipalities* NDMC1 INTACH

Conservation Architects Private owners Management and maintenance

Central State Local

ASI CPWD SDA PWD Municipalities* NDMC1

Cantonment Board Delhi Waqf Board Religious Bodies Private owners

Monuments of national importance Historic properties owned by GoI Monuments of regional importance Historic properties owned by GNCTD Monuments of local importance MCD-areas Monuments of local importance NDMC1-area Historic buildings cantonment area Waqf properties Church properties, temples Private properties

* Municipalities includes EDMC, NDMC2, SDMC

6.2 SPOTLIGHT ON DELHI’S URBAN HERITAGE – FIVE ILLUSTRATIVE CASE EXAMPLES The following chapter introduces five case studies of heritage sites in Delhi, which differ in character and configuration. The purpose of portraying these case studies is to exemplarily illustrate ongoing processes, conflicts and structural issues related to Delhi’s urban heritage and its safeguarding. Figure 7 shows the location of the case studies and further places described in this chapter.

6.2 Spotlight on Delhi’s urban heritage – five illustrative case examples

Figure 7: Five illustrative case examples

99

100

6 Empirical Analysis

6.2.1 Bijri Khan’s tomb In 2009, the Delhi SDA and INTACH signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the execution of a project called ‘Conservation and Illumination of Monuments in Delhi’. The aim of the project was to subsequently protect, conserve and notify 250 monuments under the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004 that were legally unprotected (cf. 6.3.2). In a first step, 91 such unprotected monuments were intended for protection and conservation19. However, SDA’s part in this project is of a rather passive and conceptual character, whereas INTACH’s job is to execute the project and provide for the protection, conservation and management of the monuments (15/GNCTD). The project has two phases: in phase one, the process of notification and protection of monuments under the provisions of the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004 (cf. 6.3.2) (including photo documentation, structural description of the monuments in form of a conservation statement and a detailed site plan) is brought forward. In phase two, INTACH provides architectural drawings and conservation proposals and executes conservation work and refurbishment of the site around the monuments, as well as maintenance and security of the monuments20. In light of the 2010 Commonwealth Games, 14 monuments located near stadiums or on the route of the event were selected for conservation and illumination21 (34/NGO). In this context, the aim of the project was “to attract people. (…) you know, if it [the heritage building] is illuminated it becomes part of the society. (…) in the night it becomes an attraction” (34/NGO). The 14 monuments were finally notified as being protected under the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004 in 201322. The funds for realising these conservation works were given by the Ministry of Tourism of the GoI. The majority of these monuments were in a dilapidated condition and encroached at that time (34/NGO). Hence, the implementation of the project included not only the execution of conservation works but dealing with encroachment as well. Later on, in 2014, another 16 monuments were chosen for restoration and work on these has now been completed. Subsequently, a third set of 18 monuments were selected and conservation statements for them have been prepared. Some of the work had been executed, however the project came to a halt, due to a dispute be19

Another MoU was signed in 2012 for the protection of 155 further monuments under this project (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage Delhi Chapter (s. a.): INTACH Delhi Chapter. (http://www.intachdelhichapter.org/protection-conservation-delhi.php, access: 2018-04-25). 20 (ibid.) 21 Alawadhi, N.: “Delhi's cultural legacy gets a facelift for Games”, in: The Hindu, 06.09.2010. (http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/Delhis-cultural-legacy-gets-a-facelift-forGames/article15904272.ece, access: 2018-04-25). 22 Government of NCT Delhi, Department of Archaeology (SDA) (2013): Notification No.F.3 (19)/2013/Monu./1011. Published in Delhi Gazette: Extraordinary. Delhi, 23rd September, 2013. (http://it.delhigovt.nic.in/writereaddata/egaz20171641.PDF, access: 2018-04-23).

6.2 Spotlight on Delhi’s urban heritage – five illustrative case examples

101

tween the SDA and the Defence Ministry over jurisdiction regarding historic sites that are included in SDA’s list but are located on land belonging to the Defence Ministry23. There is a general fear among residents living close to these monuments that official notification would create problems in the surrounding areas. Hence, although a number of the 250 monuments identified for conservation have been restored under the MoU between the SDA and INTACH, the final notification of most of them, is still pending24. One of the 14 monuments that had been restored before the Commonwealth Games 2010 was Bijri Khan’s tomb. It is prominently located at the main road Venkateshwara Marg in the South Delhi neighborhood R. K. Puram Sektor III. According to INTACH, the tomb, which is a structure from the Lodi period (15th century) (cf. 5.1), is more of architectural than of historical value. It is a massive structure and stands on a raised mound. Its high dome is crowned by a red sandstone and marble pinnacle25 (cf. Figure 8). The tomb contains four graves that might be of the family of the noble Bijri Khan, although not much is known about him and his life. Until the SDA started restoration and security works in 2004, the tomb was in a dilapidated state. It was inaccessible due to a slum dwelling directly surrounding the site (34/NGO) and is not protected in any way26. In the course of the project the direct encroachments of Bijri Khan’s tomb were removed (ibid.) and walls and fences now surround its precinct. To avoid new encroachment, a guard watches the site around the clock. The area within the walls is landscaped. However, the slum settlement called Ravi Das Camp still exists on the other side of the wall. When asked about changes since the start of conservation works in 2009, the residents of Ravi Das Camp explain that before 2010, the space around the monument was used as a free space and as a park where children met and played. Furthermore, there existed a footpath to a temple which is located on the other side of the tomb. Now they spend their time on the sidewalk close to the street (97/RES). 6.2.2 Dotted with history: South Delhi residential areas Due to the settlement history of Delhi, a great proportion of the nationally- and state-protected monuments are located in the southern part of the city. At the same time, many middle class and upper middle class residential colonies exist there (cf. 5.1, 5.3.3). This subsection takes a closer look at Green Park, Safdarjung Enclave and Hauz Khas. These middle-class residential areas were developed by the 23 Sultan, P.: “17th century inn lies in ruin as Delhi govt, Centre fight, in: Hindustan Times, 23.11.12017. (https://www.pressreader.com/india/hindustan-times-delhi/20171123/281646780 445731, access: 2018-09-11). 24 Verma, R.: “Heritage sword over many more localities”, in: The Times of India, 19.03.2013. 25 Basu, A.: “Bijri Khan's tomb lies in shambles”, in: The Times of India, 23.05.2004. (https:// timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Bijri-Khans-tomb-lies-in-shambles/articleshow/ 692708.cms?referral=PM, access 2013-10-10). 26 Ibid.

102

6 Empirical Analysis

private developer DLF (Delhi Land & Finance)27 in the late 1950s (87/RES), just before modern urban planning started in Delhi. In the early years of Independence, after 1947, the development of the city took place in a haphazard and unplanned manner caused by high population pressure (cf. 5.1). This situation led to the preparation and implementation of the first Master Plan for the city, the Master Plan 196228. This plan aimed at regulating the spatial development of the city, whereas the creators of the plan incorporated ‘Western’ ideas of planning into their work. The sprawl of the city was meant to be regulated by the reorganisation of space and the definition of planning divisions and cellular neighborhoods, as well as the functional separation of different land uses (commercial centres, institutional areas, green areas, housing areas, industrial estates etc.) (Baviskar 2003: 90, Sundaram 2010: 50). In order to create accommodation for the city’s growing population, huge portions of agricultural land were acquired from the villages located close to the city boundaries and further distributed by the DDA, as laid out in the new Master Plan 1962. The former agricultural area known today as South Delhi, was dotted with a great number of heritage structures from various historic origins. As the main vision of urban planning at that time was the creation of a planned city (Baviskar 2003: 90), the functional separation of space left only “a sanitised slot for history in the form of protection for monuments deemed archaeologically important” (Khilnani 1997 cited in Baviskar 2003: 90). Urban planning in India at that time can be seen in the “broader technocratic landscape of the 1950s where planning in general appeared as the mix of technology, information and secular magic to propel modernisation” (Sundaram 2010: 49)29. Today, Green Park, Hauz Khas and Safdarjung Enclave are densely populated residential areas where the (upper) middle class lives in three- to four-storey houses. As mentioned above, these areas are dotted with heritage structures, such as Bara Khamba and Kali Gumti from the Tuglakh period (1320–1398), Chor Minar from the Khalji Dynasty (1290–1316), Choti Gumti and Munda Gumbad from the Lodi-period (1451–1526) and many more (Peck 2005: XI; cf. Figure 9). As many of these monuments are centrally protected monuments of national importance, they are listed under the AMASR Act (cf. 6.3.2). This means that no construction is allowed within 100m around each monument (prohibited zone) and only minor construction within 200m (restricted zone). This rule directly impacts the residents and the owners of the houses in these areas. Figure 10 shows that a great portion of Green Park, Safdarjung Enclave and Hauz Khas lie within the buffer zones and hence any development is prohibited or strictly restricted there. 27

Before DDA came into existence in 1957, the private real estate developer DLF, having the monopoly of acquiring and developing land, developed 22 residential colonies in Delhi and sold the properties to private owners (Srivastava 2015). 28 This first Master Plan was produced with the help of American expertise supplied by the Ford Foundation (Baviskar 2003). Since then, two more Master Plans (2001, 2021) were produced in order to regulate Delhi’s spatial development. 29 The social impact of the Master Plans for Delhi have been discussed extensively in academic literature. Going deeper into detail here would go beyond the scope of this study. For further reading see among others Baviskar (2003), Prakash (2016) and Sundaram (2010).

6.2 Spotlight on Delhi’s urban heritage – five illustrative case examples

103

When today’s residents or their families bought their plots from DLF and built their houses in the 1960s, there were no (building) regulations that included specific legal requirements in terms of the proximity to heritage structures (70/RES, 87/ RES; cf. 6.3.2). Hence, building activities took place directly up to the boundaries of the monuments. The situation has now been reached that residents are unable to pursue any development activities. In a letter titled “Mercy petition for rescinding the draconian provision of 1958 (AMASR Act) to provide much-needed relief to the law-abiding residents of Green Park adversely affected by the provision of the act”, which representatives of the Resident Welfare Organisation (RWA) Green Park have sent to the Delhi Government, the situation is described as “helpless”30. Some residents consider this situation as being “unfair” (71/RES) and think that “this law is discriminatory” (70/RES) as in other colonies, where no heritage structures are located, people are allowed to add to their houses, yet due to the heritage regulations, they are not (64/RES, 96/RES). “When we, people around such monuments, bought the property 50 years back, there was no such rule. And all of a sudden you form a rule, which is affecting somebody’s life, somebody’s commercial interests, somebody’s social interest, somebody’s life, is not correct. You can’t have retrospective, this is affecting the society” (87/RES).

For the residents this means, for example, that they do not have the opportunity to adapt their properties to changing life situations: “In my case, we were two and our two daughters. That’s all. But some cases there are four brothers, five brothers. They have got three children now, they are all grown up. When their parents made the house 60 years ago, it was only a ground floor. Today they want ground, first and second, because the families have increased. The number has increased, it is not fair on them. Totally unfair” (64/RES).

Another resident reports in this context: “Now, how do you subdivide the property? Either you vacate the property, go, three owners, joint owners, they sell the property, they go (…). Or other ways, you rebuild this house, with the three separate portions, three apartments, and you continue to stay in the same joint property, joint family type of culture. And another issue is, with that increasing the number of units within the family, you need more space. You need more apartments. So like in our case, probably, if there’s no embargo, we would like to go out for the construction and have separate apartments (…). So this is one aspect which is probably a very major aspect which is affecting the people staying around this thing. And you must have noticed this kind of problem is more in South Delhi rather than other parts of Delhi” (87/RES).

This situation of lacking development opportunities in residential areas brings up processes that evolve in the background. In this context, one major issue is corruption (70/RES). Residents report that by paying bribes it is possible to get permission for building activities that would not be permitted officially: “But it’s a bureaucratic system, there are vested interests also, commercial interests also involved. It’s the one kind of source of corruption, also, in India, to give permission for such, you know, to those people like us who are affected party. When we have to build, probably we have two pay some money to get extension. So it is a source of corruption” (87/RES). 30

This letter is not published, but is available to the author.

104

6 Empirical Analysis

This means that within buffer zones around legally-protected monuments, numerous examples of illegal construction can be found. One common practice is to win permission for renovation (which might be possible within the restricted zone) and interpret this as an allowance to reconstruct or extend houses instead (cf. Figure 11). “What is happening, the people are taking the permission in the path of renovation and they are doing a reconstruction. They cover the outer periphery with high mounted screens (…). And this is all happening in connivance with the police, in connivance with the civic agencies, in connivance even with the Archaeological Survey of India and NMA, the bureaucrats. So the complete system, even we have also been offered, okay, we’ll get you sanction for renovation. Because reconstruction is – they don’t give it, they say, okay, you’ve got it, permission for renovation and do it. So this is the thing” (87/RES).

This procedure again has further effects, like for example the loss of property tax for the Government. Taxes that need to be paid for newly constructed houses are much higher than for existing houses, as age is one of the parameters for calculating property tax31. 6.2.3 Old Delhi and the redevelopment of Chandni Chowk Studying Delhi’s urban heritage and its contemporary state is not possible without taking a closer look at Old Delhi. The overall shape of the Mughal street pattern as it existed in Shahjahanabad and its colonial modifications still exist today32. Nevertheless, the appearance and the function of Delhi’s old city have fundamentally changed over time (Menon 2014b). Several layers of history, from the Mughal to colonial times through to the modern day, can be traced in contemporary Old Delhi. Having once been “the largest and most renowned city, not only of India, but of all the West from Constantinople to Canton” (Spear 1951: 1) (cf. 5.3.1), it is today one of the most important wholesale and retail centres in Northern India (Jain 2004: 31, Nanda 2012: 178 f.). Examples for the range of traded goods in Old Delhi are food grain, spices, hardware, paper, cloth, clothes, iron and cement, electrical appliances, motor parts and cycles (Dutta & Bandyopadhyay 2012: 696). The different sectors are spatially organised into specified quarters, whereas most parts of Old Delhi are highly congested. Since the 1960s, the population decreased continually, whereas trade and commerce increased (Dutta & Bandyopadhyay 2012: 691, Jain 2004: 31). Nevertheless, Old Delhi still has to deal with high population pressure. Due to difficult urban conditions parts of Old Delhi were officially designated as ‘slums’ in 31

32

Government of National Capital Territory Delhi (GNCTD) (1957): Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 Compelet Act – Bare Act. (https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/ 1410/1/195766.pdf, access: 2018-07-05), Government of National Capital Territory Delhi (GNCTD) (2004): The Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Taxes) Bye-Laws, 2004. (https:// www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/state-acts-rules/punjab-state-laws/delhi-local-laws/delhimunicipal-corporation-property-taxes-bye-laws2004/, access: 2018-07-05). The original Mughal street pattern of Shahjahanabad has undergone some changes mainly during British colonial times, when an exchange and dramatic increase of population took place, and after the partition of India in 1947, when measures for redevelopment and slum clearances were implemented Dutta & Bandyopadhyay 2012: 695, Mann 2005: 258, Menon 2014.

6.2 Spotlight on Delhi’s urban heritage – five illustrative case examples

105

the 1961 Master Plan (Nanda 2012: 178 f.). Today, Old Delhi struggles with traffic congestion, intense commerce, infrastructure deterioration, unauthorised construction, misuse of residential premises for non-residential activities and dilapidated housing conditions (Dutta & Bandyopadhyay 2012: 691). Much of the historic fabric still exists in many parts of Old Delhi. And even though most of it is in a dilapidated state (Nanda 2012: 178 f.), a great number of buildings, like hawelis, schools, gateways and mosques are worthy of protection33. Most of the historic buildings in Old Delhi are privately owned, and, in the sense of living heritage, still in use (cf. Figure 12, 13). Only a few of these buildings have any kind of legal protection under ASI, the SDA or are listed by the municipalities (Jain 2004: 31). However, Old Delhi is not only important due to the location of single historic buildings and monuments within its boundaries, but as well as an urban ensemble and due to its intangible heritage (e. g. food traditions, languages, traditional craft forms like gold and silver leaf making, herbal products etc.) (42/CONS). However, there are several reasons behind the deterioration of the urban and built fabric of Old Delhi. One is that due to growing commercialisation of the area, many of the former residential houses were converted into stores or godowns (cf. Figure 14). This process was supported by the proximity of the railway (74/ACAD, 88/OWN, 89/OWN). Currently, a lot of small businesses are being established (mainly small-scale manufacturing or trading setups). This means that a great deal of labour is coming in and former residential localities are being converted into workshop spaces or storage areas. These traders and businessmen coming from outside do not have any particular feelings or attachment to buildings and these areas; they are not interested in the heritage value or the historic character of these buildings but rather in running a business. What is of interest to them is usable space (36/NGO, 42/CONS, 49/ACT, 74/ACAD). Furthermore, increasing commercialisation and wholesale trade attracts many unskilled labourers, who, for example, manually transport goods from trucks into godowns and from godowns back to the trucks. Many of these labourers are poor migrants from outside Delhi who do not have any choice other than to bear the difficult living conditions in Old Delhi (42/CONS, cf. Figure 15). Another reason is the fact that many of the owners of historic buildings do not live in Old Delhi. Hence, they do not have great interest in restoring or even maintaining them. They prefer to rent them out. As many of these buildings have been family properties for generations, they have been rented out for a long time. Thus, a complex system of multiple-tenantship has emerged over time. This leads to the situation that today, there does not exist a strong feeling of attachment among the people actually living in such historic buildings or using them for business. 33 It is difficult to give precise information about the exact number of heritage buildings in Old Delhi as different lists and tallies exist. Some publications talk about 411 buildings worthy of protection in Delhi (Jain 2004: 31). Other sources build upon a recent documentation by INTACH, which talks about 1,604 such buildings within Old Delhi (Verma, R.: “New survey adds 300 buildings to Old Delhi’s heritage”, in: Times of India, 13.12.2015. (https://timesof india.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/New-survey-adds-300-buildings-to-Old-Delhis-heritage/ articleshow/50155563.cms, access: 2018-01-11)).

106

6 Empirical Analysis

Furthermore, a great number of the tenants in Old Delhi are struggling to earn their livelihood so they can not afford to think about heritage protection and conservation (12/ACAD, 25/MCD, 36/NGO, 42/CONS, 74/ACAD). In this context the Delhi Rent Control Act34 35 plays an important role as it cements a situation where rents remain static, sublet of properties is allowed and eviction of tenants is almost impossible (20/NDMC1, 89/OWN). Hence, landlords do not own enough money to reinvest, nor do they have any incentives to motivate them to restore and renovate their historic properties. A representative of NDMC1 reports this: “The rent of a shop must be 10 lack rupees a month. Some of the shops are just paying 10 rupees. Because the owner is not in the position to evict that tenant. That’s how. And if I am not earning anything, then why should I restore it? There is no incentive” (20/NDMC1). Generally, land tenure in Old Delhi is a complicated topic. In many cases, ownership was over generations into uncountable parties (e. g. within families). Hence, for many owners, selling the property is unavoidable (05/OWN, 20/NDMC1). In some cases, it is more profitable for the owners to leave the buildings until they collapse (as they are not allowed to tear them down) and build something new, rather than to maintain them (36/NGO). An extreme rise in land value in Old Delhi reinforces this process. By building high-rise, owners can earn a lot more than by maintaining and developing the historic stock (39/NGO, 88/OWN, 89/RES). A number of residents of Old Delhi report that the area is not really liveable any more. For them, dirt, lack of sewerage, a shortage of open public spaces, parking problems, and a shortfall of schools and opportunities for higher education make life increasingly difficult (50/RES, 76/RES). This is the reason why many of those who can afford it, leave (05/OWN, 42/CONS, 50/RES, 88/OWN, 89/OWN). On the other hand, there still exist residential areas of established communities in Old Delhi where the owners still live in their houses, even though they would prefer different circumstances. They appreciate the safety of the area and their community, culture and tradition, as well as their social network which is rooted there (74/ACAD, 90/OWN). Those aspects are highly important, especially for the older generation (50/RES, 76/RES, 88/RES). For younger generations, such well-established social networks, often determined through cast or (family) profession, no longer have the same importance (42/CONS, 50/RES). The social fabric that used to exist is losing its value, and traditional neighborhoods are being eroded, as in the area around Old Delhi Railway Station in Old Delhi (74/ACAD). It is no longer common for children to adopt the same profession as their parents. Furthermore, social ties in the neighborhood are not as strong as they were in earlier generations, so people find it easier to move away from their old community (42/CONS). But even for those who stay in Old Delhi, the protection of heritage buildings is a difficult task. Even if there is some sense of pride in properties and their historic value, buildings still need to be adapted to changing needs in the sense of space and mod34 35

To date, in Delhi the Rent Control Act 1958 is still applicable. An amendment was planned in 2013, but due to lacking constitutional backing, this is still pending. Government of India (1958): The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. (http://www.delhihighcourt. nic.in/library/acts_bills_rules_regulations/The%20delhi%20rent%20control%20act%20 1958[1].pdf, access: 2018-04-30).

6.2 Spotlight on Delhi’s urban heritage – five illustrative case examples

107

ern standards. One common problem is the growth of families and hence the need for larger houses. Due to spatial constraints, the only possibility is to build upwards, which is why people either add floors onto their hawelis, or keep the ground floor and build new houses on top. Even if they would like to keep the old structures, they cannot, due to a lack of options (90/OWN). The lack of a coherent planning framework that guides building and (re-)development activities in the area contributes to the difficult conditions in Old Delhi. While the Masterplan 2021 has designated Old Delhi as part of a so-called ‘Special Area’, in which urban renewal is planned, no binding regulation is in place that controls development on the ground. Were Old Delhi not designated as such, the basic regulations of the MPD-2021would not enable any development36. Hence, the Masterplan stipulates that Special Development Plans should be worked out in order to conserve and improve the area and that specific regulations should be formulated (Delhi Development Authority 2007: 36). In 2010, a Zonal Development Plan, called the Zonal Development Plan for Zone “A” Walled City, was prepared by DDA and approved by the MoUD. This plan gives broad directions for the (re-) development of the special area and mentions important redevelopment policies, use zone areas, delimitation of non-residential activity, urban design and development of open spaces and zonal level community facilities. Citing the MPD2021, the Zonal Plan for Zone “A” Walled City states, concerning heritage, that “Built heritage of Wall City needs to be protected, nourished and nurtured by all citizens and passed on to the coming generations. It is suggested that with the aim of framing policies and strategies for conservation, appropriate action plans may be prepared by all the agencies. These should include promotion of conservation of the civic and urban heritage, architecturally significant historical landmarks, living monuments, memorials and historical gardens, riverfront, city wall, gates, bridges, vistas, public places, edicts and the ridge37”.

It is further recommended that such action plans be “suitably incorporated while preparing layout plans/schemes” and that “in case of major monuments it is necessary that the surrounding area should be identified in the layout/detail plan, and should have building controls in relation to height, material and spread of the monument”38. The Zonal Development Plan for Zone ‘A’ Walled City determines six specific control zones around monuments for which the following measures are to be adopted: i) control over the volume & façade treatment in adjoining buildings, ii) landscaping & streetscaping, iii) provision of properly designed approach/ access, iv) use of building materials in harmony within those originally used in repair/upkeep of monuments. As Zonal Plans are quite broad in nature, a more detailed redevelopment scheme for the “Special Area” was needed. The responsibility for preparing such a scheme was entrusted to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). MCD outsourced this work to M/S Rudrabhishek Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which has prepared the plan. This plan was sent for approval to DDA in 2011 36 37 38

Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (2010): Zonal Development Plan Zone “A” Walled City (Past Zone A and C). Delhi: Ministry of Urban Development. Ibid.: 14. Ibid.: 35.

108

6 Empirical Analysis

and again in an amended version in 201239, but was rejected due to objections. To overcome this problem, INTACH was asked to prepare guidelines and special byelaws for Shahjahanabad. These guidelines, including proposals for developing the area without demolishing heritage structures, were submitted to NDMC2 in 201540. Now, however, the approval of the guidelines has foundered between NDMC2 and DDA, who both prescribe the responsibility for the notification of the guidelines to the respective other41. Chandni Chowk Redevelopment The following paragraph describes one specific redevelopment project within Old Delhi – the redevelopment of Old Delhi’s main market street, Chandni Chowk. This project exemplarily shows the complex configuration of public actors involved in such redevelopment projects and the difficulties in successfully implementing them. In 2006, the political representative of the area, Member of Parliament Kapil Sibal initiated the project. By that time, the MCD has been assigned with implementation. DUAC granted its preliminary conceptual approval in October 200942 and works on the concept started (13/ARCH). The general vision of the Chandni Chowk redevelopment project is to redevelop the main market street of Old Delhi by decongesting and pedestrianising it. Besides infrastructural improvements, heritage aspects are supposed to play a major role. Initially, it was planned to put utilities underground, to reorganise traffic by employing trams and/or electric buses, to create parking space and to restore the facades on both sides of the road (13/ARCH). In 2010, the MCD decided to clear the Walled City of loosely hanging cable wires and issued a public notice to all residents of Chandni Chowk, including information on penalties for those ignoring the directions43. In November 2011, however, the redevelopment project became stuck in procedural delays, as the GNCTD had not released the funds44 (09/ 39 40 41 42 43 44

North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) (2017): Town Planning Department. (http:// mcdonline.gov.in/tri/ndmc_mcdportal/townplan/, access: 2018-01-15). Chitlangial, R.: “Old Delhi special in name only”, in: Times of India, 08.09.2015. (https:// timesofindia. indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Old-Delhi-special-in-name-only/articleshow/48862414. cms, access: 2018-01-11). Chitlangial, R.: “Too many cooks spoil the broth for areas marked special”, in: Times of India, 02.11.2017. (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/too-many-cooks-spoil-the-brothfor-areas-marked-special/articleshow/61427994.cms, access: 2018-01-11). Art. “Slow pace of Chandni Chowk redevelopment worries MCD panel”, in: The Indian Express, 29.12.2009. (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/slow-pace-of-chandni-chowk-rede velopment-worries-mcd-panel/560704/, access 2013-08-20). Art. “Remove open cables in Chandni Chowk: MCD”, in: The Indian Express, 15.01.2010. (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/remove-open-cables-in-chandni-chowk-mcd/56759, access 2018-10-03). Chitlangia, R. / Akram, M.: “Chandni Chowk makeover yet to take off”, in: The Times of India, 15.11.2011. (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Chandni-Chowk-makeover-yet-totake-off/articleshow/10734383.cms?prtpage=1, access: 2018-07-03).

6.2 Spotlight on Delhi’s urban heritage – five illustrative case examples

109

SRDC). Meanwhile, SRDC and PWD were responsible for planning and executing the project, and in 2012, the responsibility was completely transferred to PWD45. The DMRC was also asked to consult on implementing the project, but declined the offer of implementation. Hence, responsibility was back in the hands of PWD46. In Feburary 2013, redevelopment of Chandni Chowk was once again back on the agenda of the GNCTD and a meeting was held, chaired by Sheila Dikshit (Chief Minister) and attended by Union Communication minister Kapil Sibal, Principal Secretary (Finance and Power), Principal Secretary (PWD), Managing Director of DMRC and Chief Executive Officer of DJB47. In June 2013 the United Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure (Planning and Engineering) Centre (UTTIPEC) agreed upon the proposal48 and in July 2013 GNCTD cleared the finances for the project49. In June 2014, works on the Chandni Chowk redevelopment project began with the excavation of trenches for utilities ducts50. It was not until December 2017 that NDMC2 issued a notice to finally conceal all overhanging tangled wires, giving the deadline of December 25th 2017, which was then extended to January 2nd, 201851. The reason for the delay was that there was no clarity on whether a tram would be part of the redevelopment plan or not52. In the original scheme, a tram system was planned, which was inspired by the historic tram system of colonial times. It was about slow-moving heritage trams on a single track. In the early years of the project this proposal was rejected due to high costs (13/ARCH). In August 2015, however, PWD was asked to start the work with the presumption that the tram would be implemented53. The GNCTD finally revived the proposal to introduce trams into Old Delhi. But the idea of a slow heritage tram was converted into a high-speed tram system on dual tracks, planned and operated by DMRC (91/ARCH). Later, the 45 Art. “Chandni Chowk decongestion hits a wall”, in: Times of India, 08.02.2017. (https://times ofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/chandni-chowk-decongestion-hits-a-wall/articleshow/ 57031681.cms, access: 2018-01-11). 46 Art. “Chandni Chowk redevelopment: Delhi Metro Rail Corporation takes up first non-Metro job”, in: The Indian Express, 02.05.2013. (http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/chandnichowk-redevelopment-delhi-metro-rail-corporation-takes-up-first-nonmetro-job/1069469/, access: 2018-07-02). 47 Art. “Chandni Chowk revamp work handed over to PWD”, in Hindustan Times, 02.05.2013. (https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/chandni-chowk-revamp-work-handed-over-topwd/story-aCUQcDfL9eEbi9B7vRvFXM.html, access: 2018-03-10). 48 Art. “Old Delhi makeover plan gets nod”, in: Hindustan Times, 14.06.2013. (https://www. hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/old-delhi-makeover-plan-gets-nod/story-am8dnCqIqpo4Oek9 SiwxxM.html, access: 2018-03-10). 49 Art. “Chandni Chowk revamp on track”, in: The Times of India, 19.07.2013. 50 Art. “Finally, work on Chandni Chowk makeover begins”, in: Hindustan Times, 18.06.2018. 51 Singh, P.: “Chandni Chowk can't untie its knots”, in: Times of India, 04.06.2018. (https://times ofindia. indiatimes.com/city/delhi/chandni-chowk-cant-untie-its-knots/articleshow/62287019. cms, access: 15.01.2018). 52 Art. “Delhi govt gives green signal to run trams in Walled City”, in: Times of India, 05.08.2015. (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-govt-gives-green-signal-to-run-trams-inWalled-City/articleshow/48355532.cms, access: 2018-01-11). 53 Ibid.

110

6 Empirical Analysis

Metro plans for Chandni Chowk were withdrawn again by the AAP Government, due to high costs54. A major setback occurred in 2016, when the main architect of the project, who had been involved since the beginning, opted out and a new architectural consultant had to be engaged. He said that he was “quitting out of frustration and did not see a future for the much-delayed project”55. He blamed “the multiplicity of authorities and lack of will as main reasons for the plan never taking off”56. Upon completion of this study, the implementation of the project was still pending. 6.2.4 World Heritage in Delhi and the Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative In Delhi, three world heritage sites exist: Qutb Minar and its Monuments, Red Fort and Humayon’s Tomb (Menon 2014b). These sites are protected as monuments of national importance under AMASR Act, 2010 (cf. 6.3.2) and are maintained and managed by ASI (cf. 6.1.1). Qutb Minar complex contains a 72.5 m-high red sandstone tower that was built during the 13th century, as well as of a number of historic buildings in its surrounding area (gates, mosques, tombs etc.). The complex is an outstanding example of early Indo-Islamic architecture in Delhi (cf. 5.3.1). It became a World Heritage site in 1993. Today, the complex is one of the most important tourist attractions in Delhi. It is well maintained, surrounded by walls and fences and can be visited by paying an entrance fee (Harle 1987: 424; cf. Figure 16). Red Fort complex was built by Shahjahan as the palace complex of Shahjahanabad (cf. Figure 17). According to UNESCO, it “is considered to represent the zenith of Mughal creativity”57. The complex contains the main palace, which reflects a fusion of different traditions (Persian, Timurid and Hindu) and a great garden area. In contrast to the other palaces built by Shah Jahan in Lahore and Agra, Red Fort in Delhi has a unique second enclose which is surrounded by gardens (Harle 1987: 442). During British rule it was used by the military, and barracks and military buildings from that time still exist (cf. Figure 18). Hence, today the complex “is a layered expression of both Mughal architecture and planning, and the later British military use of the forts”58 (cf. Figure 19). Red Fort was declared a World Heritage site in 2007. In order to visit the complex, an entrance fee must be paid. The third World Heritage site in Delhi, Humayon’s Tomb, was built in the 16th century by Humayon’s son Akbar and “is of particular cultural significance as it was the first garden tomb on the Indian subcontinent”59. Among others, it inspired 54 Art. “Chandni Chowk decongestion hits a wall”, in: Times of India, 08.02.2017. 55 Verma, R.: “Chandni Chowk revival plan receives fresh jolt”, in: Times of India, 13.07.2106. (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Chandni-Chowk-revival-plan-receives-freshjolt/articleshow/53183874.cms, access: 2018-01-11). 56 Art. “Chandni Chowk decongestion hits a wall”, in: Times of India, 08.02.2017. 57 UNESCO (2018): World Heritage Convention: World Heritage List. (http://whc.unesco.org/en/ list/231, access: 08.03.2018). 58 Ibid. 59 UNESCO (2018): World Heritage Convention: World Heritage List. (http://whc.unesco.org/en/ list/231, access: 08.03.2018).

6.2 Spotlight on Delhi’s urban heritage – five illustrative case examples

111

the construction of the Taj Mahal in Agra. Humayon’s Tomb became a World Heritage site in 1993. The declared area contains the mausoleum itself, which is placed on a terraced platform, together with the Mughal garden it is located in, and several other outstanding buildings that exist within its direct vicinity (like gateways, pavilions, Barber’s Tomb, Nila Gumbad and its garden setting, Isa Khan’s garden tomb and other contemporary 16th century structures) (cf. Figure 20). Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative The restoration of the Mughal gardens of Humayon’s Tomb was the first privately- funded restoration project of a World Heritage site in India. It was funded by the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) and was carried out under the aegis of ASI (Nanda 2004). After the successful completion of the project in 2003, AKTC was asked to undertake further conservation work in India. Thereupon, the so-called Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiaitive was started in 2007. Spatially, the initiative includes the World Heritage site Humayon’s Tomb, the Hazrat Nizamuddin Basti60 as well as Sunder Nursery, a park area (Mathur & Ray 2014). Being a densely populated urban area, Hazrat Nizamuddin Basti (cf. Figure 21) contains the shrine of the 14th century Sufi Saint, Nizamuddin Auliya (cf. Figure 22), and is furthermore known as the densest ensemble of medieval Islamic buildings in India. Hence, it attracts millions of pilgrims today (Menon 2014b). Sundar Nursery is a historic park dating back to the 16th century, which contains 15 heritage buildings (cf. Figure 23, 24) (e. g. the monuments of national importance Sundarwala Burj and Lakkardwala Burj). During colonial times it was used as a nursery to grow experimental plants (Mathur et al. 2014). Before it was made part of the Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiaitive, it was threatened by being eaten up by urbanisation processes. The Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative aims at achieving urban renewal by combining heritage conservation, environmental development and socio-economic development components (30/NGO, 80/NGO; Nanda 2016). It is called a “People Public Private Partnership”61 and is based on a MoU between five partner agencies (ASI, CPWD, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Aga Khan Foundation and the Aga Khan Trust for Culture and the Aga Khan Development Network). It is implemented in close collaboration with the residents of the area and brings together classic conservation and garden restoration efforts with social development initiatives in the fields of employment generation, health, education, waste and sanitation, environment and cultural revival (Mathur et al. 2014, Nanda 2016). When restoration works began at Humayon’s tomb, it turned out that the historic building had suffered, due to inappropriate conservation methods (18/ASI). Tons of concrete and cement plaster had been laid on the roof and other portions 60 61

Basti is a word of Urdu origin and is, in the Indian context, usually equated with poor, overcrowded urban area or slum. Aga Khan Development Network (2018): Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative. (http://annual report2015.nizamuddinrenewal.org/, access: 2018-04-30).

112

6 Empirical Analysis

of the building to prevent rainwater ingress. Furthermore, original elements like doors and tile works had been removed and partly replaced with plain plaster. The conservation strategy for Humayon’s Tomb included the removal of inappropriate past repairs and the replacement of these using traditional materials, like sandstone, quartzite and lime mortar (Nanda 2016). In order to do so, a combination of modern conservation techniques and traditional building techniques carried out by master craftsmen like stone carvers, masons and carpenters was applied (Weiler 2013: 258; Figure 25, 26). Thereby, the project focused not only on the repair of the building but furthermore on the revival of ancient techniques that were applied at the time of the original building of the tomb (80/NGO). In order to achieve this goal, craftsmen from different places (e. g. Smarkand, Uzbekistan) were brought to Delhi to train local artisans (Nanda 2017, Stubbs & Thomson 2017: 373, Weiler 2017). World Heritage City Delhi: it was worth a try In order to introduce and reinforce a heritage-centric strategy in the planning and management of the city, INTACH started the initiative to apply for the inscription of Delhi onto UNESCO’s World Heritage list (Menon 2014b). The aim was to promote the potential of Delhi’s urban heritage and to broaden the perspective of how heritage is perceived in the city: “One of our rationals taking Delhi as a heritage city was that to break that monumental thing on heritage. INTACH has been working on it for a long time, saying that broaden the definition of heritage. Not only monuments and especially intangible” (33/NGO).

In the process, a detailed dossier was prepared to present Delhi’s outstanding universal value. As INTACH is not a public authority, it cannot apply for the status itself. Hence, it had to gain official support. After intensive persuasive efforts, various municipal bodies, the GNCTD and even the GoI supported the application (Menon 2014b). In August 2008, INTACH signed a MoU with GNCTD, specifying mutual effort to work towards achieving World Heritage status. DTTDC was declared to be the nodal agency responsible for coordinating the application activities (61/DTTDC). Subsequently, INTACH initiated a consultation process, including public lectures, workshops and conferences, to invite residents and experts to participate in the procedure of specifying the scope of the dossier. In doing so, a communication process had been kicked off between different agencies and stakeholders, who had previously never spoken to each other about the issue of heritage conservation. INTACH consulted, among others, GNCTD, DDA, MCD, residents, intellectuals and GoI (104/NGO). Finally, in 2012, Delhi was put on India’s tentative list62. In the final dossier ‘Delhi: Imperial Capital Cities’ two main areas were 62

Tentative lists are prepared by state parties (preferably with the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders) to declare which sites they consider to be cultural and/or natural heritage of outstanding universal value and therefor suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List (UNESCO (2018): World Heritage Convention: World Heritage List. (http://whc.unesco.org/ en/list/231, access: 08.03.2018).

6.2 Spotlight on Delhi’s urban heritage – five illustrative case examples

113

covered: Shahjahanabad and Lutyen’s Delhi, as examples of innovative Mughal and colonial city planning. After scrutiny by the GoI, the Union Minister for Culture submitted the dossier in January 2014 to UNESCO. In May 2015, “surprisingly for everyone” (103/NGO), Delhi’s bid for UNESCO World Heritage Status was withdrawn by the Indian permanent representation to UNESCO, which comes under the Ministry of External Affairs, without any given reason. Subsequently, the discourse within the media and among the interviewees of this study about the reasons for the withdrawal, pointed into the direction of heritage being seen as opposing development63 64. India’s culture minister is cited with the words “We had a long discussion on the issue with the urban development ministry. There were reservations from the urban development ministry that if Delhi is declared World Heritage City, there would be lot of restrictions”65.

Others went into more precise detail and describe dynamics that push development within Lutyen’s Delhi. There may be no proper plans as yet, but there are some indicators for it. According to a representative of INTACH, DUAC has been told to review the bungalow zone, and CPWD has been asked to do studies on multi-storey buildings in the area. “Right now this is all theoretical, but it indicates that there might be some plans” (104/NGO). In this context, GoI is worried that development cannot take place once the area is listed as UNESCO World Heritage. Furthermore it was said, that “the quarrel began when the new government in Delhi came into power. Central Government now uses this in their battle against the state government in Delhi. (…) Central Government wants to teach Delhi a lesson” (104/NGO). As such, political reasons might even be playing a role in this issue66. 6.2.5 The djinns of Feroz Shah Kotla One heritage site that vividly represents the living character of Delhi’s urban heritage is Firoz Shah Kotla (cf. Figure 4). Today, it is listed as a monument of national importance under the AMASR Act, but it is still heavily in use. Feroz Shah Kotla was built as the fortified palace of Sultan Feroz Shah Tughlak during the 14th century and was the centre of the surrounding city of Firozabad (Peck 2005: 82). Today 63 Art. “Delhi pulls out of heritage city race”, in: The Hindu, 23.05.2015. (http://www.thehindu. com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-pulls-out-of-heritage-city-race/article7237621.ece, access: 201805-02). 64 Verma, R.: Heritage tag could have slowed growth, in: The Times of India, 23.05.2015. (https:// timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Heritage-tag-could-have-slowed-growth/article show/47392252.cms, access: 2018-05-02). 65 Art. “Delhi gives up bid to get world heritage city tag”, in: Hindustan Times, 23.05.2015. (https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/delhi-gives-up-bid-to-get-world-heritage-citytag/story-ArhLBl8gculOwEJjhA4dTO.html, access: 2018-07-02). 66 In the course of research, the author came across various statements concerning other political reasons that might have led to the GoI’s decision. The extent to which political issues, such as the fact that the sites proposed for the World Heritage tag were of mughal and colonial and not of hindu origin, are relevant in this context can not be properly answered in this study.

114

6 Empirical Analysis

it appears as a vast open area surrounded by high walls. Scattered over the field are ruins of the old fort, of a (still functioning) mosque, of gateways and walls, a baoli and the famous Ashoka’s pillar (cf. Figure 27, 28). Feroz Shah Kotla is “a place where religious practice has emerged outside of and parallel to existing institutional structures” (Taneja 2018: 2). Every Thursday, a huge number of visitors come to Feroz Shah Kotla. They do not come, however, to admire the historic remnants, but because they believe in the presence of djinns67 in this place (cf. Figure 29, 30). People come here to pray and to write letters to the djinns and hope their wishes will become true (99/RES). The mosque was raised above ground level and at each side there are colonnades containing rows of small chambers. These chambers are used to assuage the djinns. The idea of djinns goes back to pre-Islamic beliefs (Peck 2005: 85). According to (Taneja 2013: 141), Feroz Shah Kotla has been associated with djinns for almost a century, although it only became popular for people to interact with djinns in 197768. One practice of veneration in Feroz Shah Kotla is sticking coins to the walls, hoping that they remain there and make wishes come true (100/RES). 6.3 URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE GOVERNANCE IN DELHI: THE CURRENT STATE This chapter describes the current state of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi by employing the analytical framework elaborated in chapter 0 to the empirical data of the study (cf. 4). The empirical data will be analysed according to the three governance orders: first-, second- and meta-governance. This chapter, however, is structured in reverse order to the chapter on the conception of urban cultural heritage governance as a tool for empirical research (cf. 3.4). This is due to the fact that processes in meta-order governance influence the other two governance-orders. It is thus helpful to know about these processes in order to be able to better understand first- and second- order governance. In the first sub-section, the meta-governance of urban cultural heritage will be analysed and current social and professional discourses on urban heritage and its protection will be looked at. The second sub-section analyses the institutional environment of urban conservation in Delhi and describes the formal and informal institutions relevant in the context of urban cultural heritage in Delhi. The final sub-section of this chapter will analyse the level of implementation and will analyse what kind of obstacles and supportive factors exist in the context of urban conservation in Delhi.

67

68

According to Taneja (2013: 140), djinns are “a separate species of being, different from and older than humans (…). Formed of a completely different substance than humans, they are also said to be physically stronger and to have the ability to shape-shift and to travel vast distances very quickly”. Taneja (2018) extensively explains the emergence of the prominence of Feroz Shah Kotla as a religious site in 1977 in the context of the time after the Emergency 1975–1977.

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

115

6.3.1 Meta-order urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi This section analyses the meta-order of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi (in this order values and norms regarding the governance subject are negotiated; cf. 3.4.2). The empirical data showed that, on the one hand, different ideas exist within society regarding urban cultural heritage and its protection and, on the other hand, that there are contradictory professional perspectives on this subject. The societal discourse on the safeguarding of urban cultural heritage The current societal discourse about urban cultural heritage and its protection in Delhi can be divided into two broad strands. The societal discourse taking place at a higher level is subsumed here under the term ‘societal perception’, whereas ideas and imaginations of urban cultural heritage existing on the individual level are described by the term ‘everyday awareness’. Societal perception of cultural heritage The empirical data of this study show that India’s society does not generally share the basic idea that (built) cultural heritage must be preserved, protected and conserved in any case. One interviewee describes the Indian way of dealing with the past as follows: “I think, we in India, we do not see any point in conservation; here, new is always better than old. We always like the new things better than the old and we have no sense for preserving anything. What’s the point in preserving the old things? Maybe you should preserve some of the outstanding architecture out of respect or out of appreciation for the architects, but what is the point in keeping other things? That’s just for identity purposes, isn’t it? But we always want to forget what was, we like the new things better” (101/RES).

There is a general difference in how the passage of time in relation to the transformation of urban nature is perceived. In Europe, different periods of time are seen as following each other in a linear way, whereas in India, this process is perceived as being cyclic in nature (91/ARCH). This argument is confirmed by the following quote: “The notion of heritage in the West is different from the notion of heritage in the East. For us, it is not a great deed. We live in the heritage all the time. European cities transform. There was the Renaissance and there was the Baroque and medieval [period] before that and it became a great stylistic change. Many cities like Delhi, it happened in layers. Everything co-existed and except for the two or three major monuments, everything was used, and is continuously used today” (13/ARCH).

Building on this idea, one interviewee even questions conservation efforts entirely and states, that for him “[p]reserving (…) monuments is a kind of resistance against the flow of the things and the flow of life. So by letting them just decay, by starting to lose your identity, you once become one with the universe” (35/RES).

116

6 Empirical Analysis

In this context, a representative of INTACH describes the traditional way of dealing with historic buildings as a process of constant renewal. This approach challenges the ‘Western’ concept of conservation. “I think conservation is against the whole Indian philosophy of how to look after the past. I mean, if you had an old building, we’d lovingly renovate it, change it, improve it, put plastic tiles and so on, the purist can jeer at you, but that is the way you see it. I mean, it’s always renewal. (…) When every time there is Durga Puja or a Ganesh Puja, at the end of it the idol is thrown into the river. The idea is that the craftsmen will then recreate it next year. So, you know, re-creation, renewal, renovation, these are what really are the spirit of India. And looking at old stones and things, there’s something that it is a completely, I think, I’m sorry, Western concept” (75/NGO).

In the Indian context, the sanctity of a site is often seen as being more important than the built structure itself. Buildings are seen as continuously evolving artefacts and not as static objects (17/ARCH, 55/RES, 89/RES). It becomes obvious now, that in India, the intangible and living aspects of a heritage site are often more important than the material and the tangible aspects. This is the reason why the ‘Western’ idea of safeguarding material remnants has not penetrated deep into the Indian society (33/NGO, 41b/ASI). In line with this goes the observation, that historicity of a building or a site is not highly recognised within Indian society as important criteria for conservation. In particular, historic buildings and sites of a smaller scale are not seen as being generally worth of protection (87/RES). One resident of one of the South Delhi residential areas (cf. 6.2.2), for example, compares Tefewala Gumbat, a Lodi period tomb, with major monuments like Red Fort and Jama Masjid (cf. 6.2.4) and comes to the conclusion that “the monument is not that important” (64/RES). Another resident of this area states in this context that “you can talk about the Taj Mahal, you can talk about the Madrasa [of Hauz Khas], you can talk about the Qutb Minar or Jama Masjid. But why take this [local monuments]? Because they are heritage? This is not heritage” (96/RES).

That this attitude towards small-scale monuments is shared among Delhi’s residents becomes further obvious through the content of a letter that the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of Shahpurjat 69 wrote to NMA: “We members of Resident Welfare Association Shahpur jat village of Delhi request you to transfer the protection of monuments from Central Govt to Delhi State Govt which are not so much of national importance as of Lal Qila, Qutub minar, Taj Mahal, Khujarao etc. We are requesting transfer of monuments because Archeological survey of India is not properly taking care of the monuments which are really of national heritage and wasting its precious time and money on monuments which are nowhere close to the status of Taj Mahal and lal Qila but are declared of National Importance. Nobody understand the logic of inclution of the rubbles and ruins of old structure & kabristans70 included in the list of protected monuments without any name & history can be equal to the status of Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar.

69 70

Shahpurjat is another residential area located in South Delhi. ‘Kabristan’ means cemetery in Hindi.

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

117

Declaring a structure of national importance in list of monument by ASI with out even having any knowledge of the name of structure and with no history attached and where there is nothing to see for the TOURISTS coming in Delhi from all over the world, is completely non application of mind and of no use. How can this type of structure anyone can compare with the TAJ MAHAL and LAL QILA. SAVE THE HERITAGE & CULTURE donot waste precious public money on wasteless works in the protecting structure not of any meaning” (RWA Shahpurjat)71.

However, the conservation of monuments of greater historic importance seems to be perceived as being worthy of protection: “India would also like to have tourism. It gives that I think it puts India on a historical platform. It puts India on the world also. So definitely, monuments of that calibre, that value, that importance, certainly required. And not only required, should be well maintained. Not only maintained, it should be one of the educational system. But certainly, just because people ruled India, they had a system of putting such small tombs, in fact, I would say some of these tombs are eyesores” (87/RES).

Hence, the capacity of historic buildings to represent India’s cultural wealth on a global stage seems to play a more important role to some of Delhi’s residents than the protection of buildings on a local scale. Everyday awareness Looking at the individual level, it becomes apparent that a great proportion of Delhi’s residents are not exposed to questions about cultural heritage at all and are hence simply unaware of the issues of heritage protection and urban conservation. Reasons for this situation might be their level of education (47/ARCH, 54/RES, 55/ RES) or just a lack of interest (58/NGO, 81/RES, 85/RES). Others do not have the economic opportunities to even think about heritage protection (22/CONS). For example, in the walled city of Shahjahanabad (cf. 6.2.3) many residents struggle with securing their livelihood and simply do not have the capacities to care about their built environment (47/ARCH, 54/RES, 55/RES). A conservation consultant working in Old Delhi describes this situation by saying that “I mean for [many Old Delhi residents] life is such a challenge, to just exist day after day and this is not only the case in Delhi. This is the case in all kinds of walled cities and in fact, this is a very important phenomenon” (42/CONS).

A conservation consultant working in the area of Nizamuddin in the context of the Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative (cf. 6.2.4) describes a similar situation there: “The problems in the community [of Nizamuddin Basti] are just too deep rooted. I mean, 70 % malnutrition, almost 0 % women employment, 21 % of the community without private toilets… I mean, who the hell cares about monuments?” (41a/NGO).

Another phenomenon that plays a role in the context of ‘everyday awareness’ towards urban cultural heritage in Delhi is the fact that many of the city’s residents long for a modern, global lifestyle and “Western” standards. In this regard, con71

This letter can be accessed under http://competentauthoritydelhi.co.in/uploads/Articles/Requet to ASI transfer_2052012_176.RTF (access date 22.02.2018).

118

6 Empirical Analysis

structions made of glass and steel fit into their understanding of modernity much better than traditional houses do: “A lot of people (…) think that if you have your old house, people will perceive them as being poor because they don’t have [modern] houses. So a lot of people demolished their houses (…). They didn’t want to be associated with poverty and they didn’t want people to think that they were that poor. So this is really a very important part of what is happening to heritage” (47/ARCH).

Consequently, many people are not willing to invest money in old buildings and deal with the inconveniences that life entails in such buildings. This leads to the situation where members of the middle class leave their traditional dwellings to move to modern houses in different areas of the city72 (05/OWN, 50/RES). Two businessmen from Old Delhi reported, in this context, that they kept their offices in Old Delhi due to the necessity of keeping the spatial proximity to their business partners. But, as they perceived the living conditions there as being very uncomfortable, they shifted the centre of their life to modern South Delhi residential areas (88/OWN, 89/RES). One conservation architect behind a project to conserve a historic haweli in Old Delhi explains, in this context, that the owner of the haweli only started to restore his property for use as a residence after he became convinced that modern lifestyle and traditional architecture are compatible with each other. The architect reports that “it was hard work because it took four years so far. And the greatest work was to create awareness so that the owner values the old features of the house” (77/ARCH).

Only when the architect promised to create a 21st-century dwelling unit within the historic building, with everything that the owners would find anywhere else, did they “realize that they had a gem” (77/ARCH). One interviewee, however, argues in this context that these kinds of aspirations are not only existent within India’s middle classes but within Indian society in general: “I think it is not only the class thing. I think the general perception of people is that modern is equal to glass. Ok, this whole IT industry has happened and they have brought in these glass and steel buildings. And people look up to those things. You know, people think that this is the image of a modern India; this is the image of a global India. So people want to break down their old structures and be part of that global scene. So, it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor. But that’s what they want” (47/ARCH).

One conservation expert working in Old Delhi places this phenomenon into a broader perspective by adding deeper sociological reasons and points out transformation processes within the Indian society: “Certainly, the coming generations and their aspirations are very dominated by Western models and stereotypes, but also we have to remember that there is a deeper sociological reason. That the identities of cast, of community, these identities are not that strong any more among the younger people. While living in the walled city, people used to live very close to each other, but used to become very distinct from each other. So you had neighborhoods that were determined

72

For a further discussion of the role of the new Indian middle class in this regard see 7.1.1.

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

119

either by their cast or their occupation or their craft. So you had craftsmens’ neighbourhoods, which are named after the particular craft or product” (42/CONS).

With more and more families choosing to no longer live in the traditional way or within the setup of joint families, the old built structures are either subdivided or individual families move to other areas (cf. 6.2.3). Besides the situation described above, of people being unaware of or not interested in cultural heritage and its protection, there even exists a negative attitude among some of Delhi’s residents towards the issue. One resident states in an interview that “It [the heritage building] is like any other building in any other park. I wouldn’t mind, even if the government demolishes it. I will not protest why it has been demolished” (87/RES).

This attitude is pursued, for example, by residents and property owners of buildings within the buffer zones of listed heritage buildings (cf. 6.3.2). When the residents of some South Delhi residential areas were asked what the monuments in their neighborhood mean to them, most of them did not seem to be very attached (cf. 6.2.2). Some find the monuments quite nice (70/RES, 71/RES) and others even have very negative feelings: “Because I’m living around these monuments, I’ve developed a hate for these monuments. Why should I like it? And a monument or history can only be protected if I’m proud of it, I’m interested in it, and I like to be part of it” (87/RES).

People living close to monuments experience them more as a burden than something they feel proud about: “It is really not a very big blessing to have a property near the monument” (11/OWN). The residents and property owners of the areas feel betrayed and discriminated (70/RES). Especially since in some cases they experience blanket restrictions in restrospect, which were not been foreseeable at the time they bought their properties (87/RES; cf. 6.2.2, 6.3.2). However, the negative attitude described above is contrasted by a growing number of people in India who call themselves “heritage lovers” (58/NGO). They are practically creedal about the importance of protecting cultural heritage and passionately run a number of initiatives like NGOs, heritage walk initiatives73 and heritage photography clubs74,aimed at raising awareness. A number of interviewees reported that, in the last two decades (49/ACT, 59/NGO, 62/NGO), increasing media coverage and the efforts of NGOs and other initiatives have led to a slowlyincreasing awareness about heritage protection in Delhi, not only within the society but also at the political level (42/NGO, 58/NGO, 59/NGO).

73 74

See for example https://1100walks.com (access 31.03.2017), http://www.youthforheritage.org/ activities (access 21.02.2018). See for example http://www.dhpc.in/ (access 21.02.2018).

120

6 Empirical Analysis

The professional discourse on the safeguarding of urban cultural heritage There exist two different professional perspectives towards the safeguarding of urban cultural heritage in Delhi: a conventional approach on the one hand, which is practised by those institutions that have an official mandate towards safeguarding cultural heritage in India, and an extended approach on the other hand, which is promoted mainly by NGOs and other civil society organisations. Conventional perspective Those institutions that have a public and official mandate for safeguarding Delhi’s urban cultural heritage (ASI, MoC, SDA; cf. 6.1) take a rather conventional perspective. Their approach towards the safeguarding of cultural heritage is to date, still guided by principles and ideas that were brought to India by British colonial power. The contemporary configuration of this conventional approach is the result of a path-dependent process that started in the late 16th century, when archaeology and the practice of conservation in the proper meaning of the word were brought to India by foreign visitors (Chakrabarti 2001: 211, Piplani 2015b: 84; cf. 2.4.1). Today the ASI, which comes under the MoC, is the primary formal organisation responsible for the protection of India’s cultural heritage (cf. 6.1.1). Its conservation activities are, in general, still focused on individual monuments, buildings, and tangible historic structures (03/NGO, 33/NGO). A representative of the ASI explains the strategic orientation of the organisation’s work as follows: “Strange as it is… (…) our act, or the nature of our act, focuses on the monument. ASI, when it was founded, and until today it is looking after 3667 monuments. It is basically focussing on the monuments, its conservation, preservation and management” (18/ASI).

Nevertheless, the ASI is currently trying to broaden its approach as the following quote shows: “All these changes in perception which have taken place (…) in our country in the last 20, 25 years or so have actually even forced ASI to expand its understanding. (…). 20 years back we didn’t bother. We bothered for 100 or 200 meters but with a very different mandate. Otherwise cultural practices, communities, blablabla we just didn’t bother. People live, people don’t live, two roots. But now we are much more proactive” (18/ASI).

But, despite this slow opening up and widening of its focus beyond a monumental understanding of cultural heritage and towards an inclusion of the urban fabric and community issues, the ASI is still, in an operational way (cf. 6.3.3), limited to the traditional understanding. The reasons for this are, according to a representative of the ASI, that the organisation tries to be as impartial as possible in their work. Therefore, conservation decisions are based only on the criteria of architectural importance, architectural value and age. “See, our way of looking is objective. We cannot have criteria based either on the way of dynastical sort of attribute of a monument, or related settlement of a monument, or a political affiliation. (…) So we are that way very impartial. For us the criteria are its archeological importance, its architectural value and the age. These three are important parameters. We do not look at the cultural value. Because that’s where the subjectivity comes in. If there is a site that is living in nature, if there is a site which has its particular cultural affiliation and all that

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

121

it becomes very difficult for us to handle that case. (…) Even though in ASIs pure view there are a lot of living sites by the way. (…) our focus is on the physical fabric. (…) And therefore, we would be concerned that the physical fabric of the monument is not damaged, and that the immediate environs around the monument, even though they are in the state of flux, are not impinging among the monument in any way. The issues related to the protection of the urban fabric is not the prime mandate of ASI” (18/ASI).

This monument-centric orientation of the operational work of the ASI leads to a neglect of the setting of heritage buildings and their relationships with their direct spatial and cultural environment. The ASI applies the same approach towards heritage structures no matter how the setting is designed. This lacuna is elaborated by an ASI-representative as follows: “Where we stop short is in defining the setting. Whether the setting is urban, or rural, or historic or contemporary. Whatever the qualitative aspect of that setting is, we sort of stop short. And even with the new amendment, where we are concerned about the fabric or the setting around the monument, we stop short of defining what is it that we are looking at. So a monument in a city and a monument in a village or a monument in a forest or a monument in any other setting, for that matter we haven’t actually taken cognisance of the fact that in most situations the setting around the monuments is in some ways integral to the existence of the monument, which is both in terms of a physical relationship which is architectural, planning, spatial or it is in terms of intangible relationships” (41b/ASI).

Furthermore, the ASI does not only neglect the relationship of the monuments to their surroundings, but also does not have any strategy to deal with the ‘living aspect’ inherent in many cultural heritage sites in India. The following quote shows that the ASI has great difficulties protecting historic buildings that are still in use: “We are extremely sceptical of new notification or new monuments being added. Because we say: ‘Please clear the monuments from everything, and please give us a monument which is clean space’. (…) For example, we have a huge problem with Jaiselmer Fort, because it is a living fort and people are living in it. And because people are living in it, and because of the increased commercial activity within it (…), we are extremely uncomfortable with this development. And so an archaeologist is fighting with the local people from time to time. So we say ‘Please give us the empty fort and we’ll conserve it. We’ll maintain it. Tourists can come and visitors can come and we can do whatever we can do for them, but not living inside’” (18/ASI).

Extended perspective Parallel to the conventional approach described above, in Delhi (and all over India) an (new) approach towards the protection of urban cultural heritage has been evolving since the 1980s (18/ASI, 58/NGO). This approach is based on a rather extended perspective and addresses larger socio-cultural needs and interrelations (Baig 2004). One important event in this context was the establishment of INTACH in 1984 (Baig 2004, Menon 1989, Stubbs & Thomson 2017: 370; cf. 6.1.4). Within the extended approach the term ‘urban heritage’ is starting to be rethought and an attempt is being made to overcome the limitations of focussing conservation strategies mainly on single large monuments and buildings (Baig 2004). Until today, this approach is mainly reflected in the work of non-governmental organisa-

122

6 Empirical Analysis

tions (NGOs) and initiatives75. In their understanding, urban cultural heritage is associated with vernacular housing, historic settlements, cultural landscapes, and with traditional skills, traditions, culture, and the livelihoods people have (Mehrotra 2009: 101). One interviewee, for example, sums up INTACH’s understanding of urban heritage as follows: “When we are talking about urban heritage, what we find is that it is something, which is part of the living culture of the city. You cannot have a boundary around it. It is something that has to be included in the whole planning and development aspect of a city” (03/NGO).

This means that heritage buildings and sites are seen as dynamic, everyday spaces rather than physically static objects (17/ARCH). This extended strand of the professional debate about urban conservation in India is informed and inspired by discourses and developments at the global level among international organisations like UNESCO, ICOMOS etc. (cf. 2.2). However, these approaches are viewed critically within the Indian conservation scene. Two of these international initiatives will be looked at here in further detail: UNESCO’s Historic Urban Landscape Approach (HUL) and the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (cf. 2.2). The Historic Urban Landscape Approach (HUL) propagates shifting the focus away from a solely architectural, visual or monument perspective towards protecting individual buildings or even groups of buildings. Moreover, it promotes the inclusion of the context and the setting of heritage structures into conservation efforts as well as intangible values, associations and different layers of perception of different stakeholders that exist toward places or landscapes (Taylor 2012: 273). Hosagrahar (2013) examines the relevance of the HUL approach in the Indian context and identifies five key aspects that are of immense significance for the preservation and development of historic urban areas in the country: one, including living heritage; two, including local knowledge, practices and the natural environment as heritage assets; three, including the social and economic dimensions and hence viewing heritage assets as resources for development and poverty alleviation; four, evaluating and guiding proposed development through a variety of mechanisms, such as master plans, development control guidelines and cultural and environmental impact assessments; five, engaging and benefitting the communities that inhabit the historic urban areas. What makes the Indian context extremely complex in this regard is the fact that its “cultural geography is in constant dynamism” (60/NGO) and that most urban spaces consist of many historic and cultural layers. Through great migration processes, for instance, refugees and migrants have always brought about various regional identities with them. This leads to a constant reconfiguration of space and of the identity of the cities like Delhi (20/NDMC1, 60/NGO). Hence, the question arises: “When we get down to saying I want to preserve urban heritage, whose heritage will I preserve?“ (16/ACAD). This issue can be illustrated using the example of Red Fort (cf. 6.2.4). One interviewee explains: 75

See, for example, the Humayon’s Tomb – Sunder Nursery – Hazrat Nizamuddin Basti Urban Renewal Project by the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKDN) (cf. 6.2.4) and the work done by the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) (cf. 6.1.4).

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

123

“There is a long-standing controversy in the Red Fort, where the British built these barracks. Now the controversy is, are the barracks going to be preserved or does demolition of the barracks help about preservation of the original …? Or how do you go about that …? Deciding which layer is going to be preserved” (16/ACAD).

Being asked about the relevance of the HUL approach in the Indian context, one representative of INTACH expresses his critical view by questioning the necessity to follow the approach, which for him represents a rather Eurocentric perspective. In his view, a similar approach is already followed in India without it being specifically labelled. “You see, as to put my position very clearly, I have been contesting a Eurocentric point of view. I don’t deny validity [of the HUL approach], because it is perfectly valid. But I am contesting it. I am saying why should I conform to it? I should follow my agendas. Now, cultural landscape is very much a part of our interest. Because if you look at any culture, it is so interrelated with the environment, with the rituals with the thing, it is a cultural landscape. Now that UNESCO is talking about cultural landscape I am saying fine, it is OK, but we have been doing it all the time. So you know, cultural landscape is fine but that is something one has been talking about a lot. But I don’t have to reorient my perspective” (33/NGO).

In this context, the UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention (cf. 2.2) is also seen critically within the Indian context. The application of Delhi to be featured as a World Heritage City on UNESCO’s World Heritage List (cf. 6.2.4) was an attempt to bring an extended understanding of urban heritage into the limelight and translate it into action. An ASI representative calls the dossier that was prepared by INTACH during the application process “the first attempt for India where you are looking at urban areas” (41b/ASI). INTACH tried to foster the transition of the monumental-oriented approach towards heritage protection into the direction of safeguarding urban cultural heritage in a holistic way (ASI/33; cf. 6.2.4). This attempt was based on the belief “that each city must have its what you call a genius loci, must have a purpose, a sense. And Delhi’s purpose and sense is its heritage” (10/NGO). So, by promoting the application for Delhi as a World Heritage City, INTACH tried to transform cultural heritage protection from a necessary evil into a strategy to guide the future transformation and development of the city. However, the application of the World Heritage concept in the Indian context is criticised within Delhi’s conservation scene. One interviewee raises the question whether Delhi really needs the status of a World Heritage City and whether UNESCO’s approach of urban conservation is suitable for the Indian context. He argues that Indian cities are not in a condition where stringent conservation strategies can be applied unless the current status is undone, and asks the question if this would then be worth it. He further advocates the development of an Indian approach to safeguarding urban cultural heritage. “My question of course is, do we need [the World Heritage Status]? Do we need all these labels? And should we be trying for it? (…) Maybe we don’t need it, if our understanding of urbanism is not the purity of preservation of a style or an idea. Then maybe because the World Heritage Centre requires a certain clarity of preservation, you know, it looks at urbanism as an architectural extension. And there are cities, beautiful cities. I’ve been to Tallinn, they’ve been fabulously presented. And it’s great, it’s for the world, it’s heritage, truly. We’ve gone beyond, I think. Unless we are willing to undo now. And there is talk now of you remove some of the

124

6 Empirical Analysis additions that have been made. The havelis come back to the original status. On the other hand, is it worth doing it? Should we just move forward to a new idea, what heritage means to us? (…) And should we not be looking at our own understanding of what urbanism should be for us in heritage environments? And I think that’s more important. So when a labelling authority comes in, maybe it’s even killing the alternative. And that’s what’s going to happen. The fact is that India should have its own thinking” (91/ARCH).

The views of one INTACH representative are similarly aligned: “I will put it this way: I think in our own way, we are managing heritage. But are we managing it that is universally appreciated? Perhaps not. Because we have our own limitations and we have our own perspectives. In fact, much of my work as a professional conservationist, has been the point of view that we should not be Eurocentric. This whole field is so dominated by Eurocentrism that it doesn’t make much sense. It is not that we don’t have as much heritage or that we don’t protect it, but it is not the Eurocentric way” (33/NGO).

This discussion about the compatibility of international approaches and contemporary Indian conditions shows that in India, the search for an own understanding of urban cultural heritage and an approach to safeguarding it is currently ongoing. A representative of INTACH formulates this as follows: “[In India], the concept of urban heritage [still] has got to establish itself. (…) urban heritage is not developed yet. It’s not that no one talks about it. But the concept of urban heritage has still to be created” (04/NGO).

If we take a closer look at the way in which this search for an Indian understanding and approach towards urban cultural heritage takes place, it becomes obvious that NGOs, and especially strong individual NGO-representatives, as well as conservation architects and activists play the main role in this context. It could be observed during this study that academic research institutions and universities are not involved in the process as much as they could be. Within these institutions, research in the field as well as knowledge production, academic exchange and publishing activities take place on the one hand. And on the other hand, heritage professionals are educated there. However, the state of the academic debate about heritage conservation in India is criticised as not being up to date and as being shaped mainly from an architectural point of view. One interviewee criticises the lack of a creative and innovative discourse within the academic landscape in India thus: “I would like the universities to participate [in the debate about urban cultural heritage and its protection]. Unfortunately very little is happening. I think that most of the departments are either history departments or art history departments. What we need are really heritage studies departments, which address not just the past but more crucially the present. So that is happening very little in the universities. Whereas the people who are interested are the architects. The School of Planning and Architecture. But there it is happening from the point of view of conservation, of architecture and a point of archaeology of history. And if the discourse on heritage has to become relevant to the present, then that discourse must be a creative and innovative discourse. You cannot recycle stuff that was not meant for heritage. It is meant for something else, you grab it there and bring it into heritage. Unfortunately for that you need good research, you need even looking at the context, the archaeology and the historicity of the places. That I think India still has a long way to go” (78/NMA).

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

125

Another interviewee deplores the lack of substantial research on the specificities of urban cultural heritage and the requirements for a suitable approach to safeguarding it in the Indian context. “In India, I feel we don’t have enough of an academic debate on the idea of heritage. I think we do have now I think in colleges, I think several courses are offering now courses on heritage management and so on. (…) But there doesn’t seem to be enough of a, you know, like subjects like history and sociology and political science in India. You have a very solid body of academic research in these areas whereas in the area of heritage, it is still very unsubstantial” (42/CONS).

6.3.2 Second-order urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi The following sub-section will provide an overview of those institutions that are relevant in the context of urban cultural heritage and its protection in Delhi (cf. 3.4.1, 3.4.2). The empirical data showed that there exists a legal framework for urban conservation on the one hand (heritage specific legislations as well as urban planning instruments) and informal institutions (heritage values and urban planning visions) on the other hand, that influence urban planning and development processes as well as urban conservation. Formal institutions of urban conservation in Delhi This section provides an overview over the formal institutions relevant in the context of safeguarding Delhi’s urban cultural heritage, with special emphasis given to the legal framework. As urban cultural heritage is part of the urban fabric of a city, it is necessary to take laws and regulations specifically relevant to cultural heritage into account, as well as relevant urban planning instruments. Before introducing these regulations, the section starts with an overview of the different heritage categories that are defined in Delhi. Heritage categories There exist three different official categories of man-made cultural heritage that are legally protected in Delhi: monuments of national importance, state-protected monuments, and monuments that are locally protected (cf. Table 4).

126

6 Empirical Analysis Table 4: Official heritage categories in Delhi

Heritage Category

Regulation

Responsible agency

Number

Specific Categories

Monuments of national importance

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR Act), 2010

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)

174

1) World Heritage sites (3), 2) Monuments that are part of the tentative list of the World Heritage Committee (34), 3) Sites identified for inclusion in the tentative list (18), 4) Ticketed monuments (10), 5) Sites with adequate flow of visitors identified for levying tickets (1), 6) Living monuments (8), 7) Other monuments in densely populated urban areas (41), 8) Others, e. g. heritage zones (48) and archaeological parks (7)

State-protected monuments

Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004

State Department of Archaeology (SDA)

33*

Locally protected monuments

Delhi Building Bye-laws

Municipalities

767 (municipalities) 526 (NDMC2) 25 (SDMC) 141 (NDMC1)

e. g. Waqf Board, Church of India, NGOs

Innumerable

(Legally) unprotected monuments

I)

Exceptional historic or architectural value II) Buildings or precincts of regional or local importance III) Buildings of importance for townscape

*There are 238 monuments identified as being worthy of protection in this category. To date, 33 of these have been declared as protected monuments by the GNCTD, whereas the rest will be declared protected in a phased manner

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

127

The protection of monuments of national importance is the ASI’s responsibility (cf. 6.1.1). In Delhi, there are 17476 monuments of national importance, including the two World Heritage sites Humayon’s Tomb and Qutb Minar (cf. 6.2.4). These monuments are protected under the AMASR Act. According to the requirements of the AMASR Act Amendment from the year 2010, the NMA prescribed eight categories of monuments of national importance in Delhi: 1) World Heritage sites (3), 2) monuments that are part of the tentative list of the World Heritage Committee (34), 3) sites identified for inclusion in the tentative list (18), 4) ticketed monuments (10), 5) sites with an adequate flow of visitors identified for levying tickets (1), 6) living monuments (8), 7) other monuments in densely populated urban areas (41), 8) others, e. g. heritage zones (48) and archaeological parks (7)77. On the state level, there are 238 monuments identified as being worthy of protection. To date, 33 of these are declared as protected monuments by the GNCTD under the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004 (cf. 6.3.2)78 79 80, mainly tombs and ancient city gateways. The rest will be declared protected in a phased manner. On the local level, the State Department of Urban Development (UD) published a list of 775 heritage sites located in the area under jurisdiction of the municipalities. This list has been prepared by the Municipal Corporation Delhi (MCD) on the advice of the HCC Due to various bureaucratic problems and a lack of clarity as to who was responsible for notifying the list (namely the MCD or the GNCTD), the document only became official in 2010. Ultimately, 767 structures were listed under Section 23 of the Delhi Building Bye-laws81. Furthermore, 141 buildings located within Lutyen’s Delhi (cf. 5.3.2) have been classified as heritage buildings by UD

76

There is different information to be found in the exact number of monuments of national importance under the responsibility of ASI. According to the websites of the ASI (http://asi.nic. in/, access: 2015-04-21) and the SRDC (http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_shahjahana bad/DoIT_Shahjahanabad/Home, access: 2018-04-23), the number is 174. NMA, however, counts 160 monuments of national importance in Delhi, whereas 14 are identified as being missed or de-notified (Ray s. a.) 77 Ibid. 78 Government of NCT of Delhi (2014): Unprotected Heritage Monuments Notified. (http://delhi. gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_shahjahanabad/Do IT _Shahjahanabad/Home/Monuments+ in+Delhi/Unprotected+Heritage+Monuments+Notified, access: 2018-02-07). 79 Government of NCT Delhi, Department of Archaeology (SDA) (2007): No.F. 2(25)/2006/ Monu.(i)/120. Published in Delhi Gazette, Delhi, 1st November, 2007. (http://it.delhigovt.nic. in/writereaddata/egaz20171641.PDF, access: 2018-04-23). 80 Government of NCT Delhi, Department of Archaeology (SDA) (2013): Notification No.F.3 (19)/2013/Monu./1011. Published in Delhi Gazette: Extraordinary. Delhi, 23rd September, 2013. (http://it.delhigovt.nic.in/writereaddata/egaz20171641.PDF, access: 2018-04-23). 81 Government of NCT Delhi, (Urban Development Department (UD)) (2010): Notification. Annexure A – List of heritage sites including heritage building, precincts and natural feature areas of Delhi under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Published in the Delhi Gazette, National Capital Territory Govt.: March 4, 2010. (http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/con nect/40ffa8004b14ba01a240be926f0f9a50/mcd.pdf?MOD=AJPERES& lmod=-290096735, access: 2018-04-23).

128

6 Empirical Analysis

under Section 23 of the Delhi Building Bye-laws in 200982. These buildings fall under the jurisdiction of NDMC1. In 2016, a supplementary list was published by the UD, which mentions a further 526 heritage sites in Shahjahanabad, including heritage buildings, heritage precincts and natural feature areas under the jurisdiction of NDMC2 and 25 heritage sites under the jurisdiction of SDMC83. According to the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, heritage sites are graded into three categories: Grade I) means that the respected building is of national or historic importance and either exceptional in terms of architecture, design, material or technology or associated with a special historic event, personality, institution or movement. No changes can be made to the graded structures, only authentic conservation can be done, which means only absolutely essential and minimum changes in conformity with the original. Grade II) is given to buildings or precincts of regional or local importance, which contribute to the image and identity of the region. In these structures internal changes and adaptive re-use can be allowed. Grade III) is given to buildings and precincts of importance for townscapes. These sites contribute to determining the character of the locality and can be representative of lifestyle or a particular community or region and may also be distinguished by setting, or special character of the façade and uniformity of height, width and scale. Here, internal changes and adaptive re-use may be allowed. Changes can include extensions and additional buildings in the same plot or compound. Every development in areas surrounding listed structures has to be regulated and controlled, ensuring that it does not mar the grandeur of, or view from the protected structure. Adaptive re-use is permitted under all categories, but the appropriateness of the new function has to be approved by the respective local body or the HCC, in accordance with the MPD-2021 / Zonal Plan (cf. 6.3.2). Furthermore, any development, construction, demolition or renovation to heritage buildings themselves, or which would affect buildings listed by MCD, DDA and NDMC1, are considered by the HCC for approval84. The respective municipal bodies, together with the private owners are 82

83

84

Government of NCT Delhi, (Urban Development Department (UD)) (2009): Notification. Annexure A – List of 141 heritage buildings in NDMC area for notification. Published in the Delhi Gazette, National Capital Territory Govt.: March 4, 2010. (http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/con nect/40ffa8004b14ba01a240be926f0f9a50/mcd.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&lmod=-290096735, access: 2018-04-23). Government of NCT Delhi, Urban Development Department (UD) (2016): Notification. Annexure A – List of heritage sites including heritage buildings, heritage precincts and natural feature areas of Delhi (the walled city) under the jurisdiction of North and South Delhi Municipal Corporations. Supplementary List of 551 Heritage Sites in Shahjahanabad to be notified under section 7.26 of Delhi Building Byelaws for Conservation and Protection. Published in the Delhi Gazette: Extraordinary. Delhi, July 29th, 2016. (http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/7ddcd 8804593042ca350ff348f12a918/Supplementary+List+of+554+Heritage+Sites.pdf?MOD= AJPERES&lmod=-1443181404&CACHEID=7ddcd8804593042ca350ff348f12a918, access: 2018-04-23). Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (2016): Notification: Unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi 2016. Published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (ii), 22nd March, 2016. (https://www.ndmc.gov.in/public_notice/MODEL%20BUILDING%20BYE%20LAWS2016.pdf, access: 2018-04-23).

129

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

responsible for the protection and maintenance of these heritage structures, and are supported and monitored by the DUAC and HCC (cf. 6.1.1). Beyond these heritage sites that are included in administrative categories, either as legally-protected heritage structures or as listed heritage buildings, there are innumerable historic edifices that are not listed or protected by any legislation. These might be for example religious sites, which come under the responsibility of religious bodies (e. g. the DWB or the Church of North India), small structures, living heritage sites or modern heritage sites no older than 100 years. To date, there exists no legal way of protecting modern heritage in Delhi. However, INTACH and other organisations compiled a list of 62 buildings that were built in Delhi between 1955 and 201085, that are suitable for being classified as heritage structures in order to protect them and avoid their demolition. These legally unprotected heritage sites play a major role in the local urban fabric and, in the sense of ‘living heritage’, for the social environment of the city. The fact that there is no heritage-specific public body that is responsible for this category constitutes a major threat for these living heritage structures (cf. 6.1). Heritage-specific regulations and policies The heritage-specific legal framework in Delhi includes policies and regulations that are relevant at different levels and have different scopes of application. Table 5 gives an overview of these regulations, their scopes of application, the respective preparatory and legislative agencies and the responsible implementing agencies. Table 5: Heritage specific regulations in Delhi Scope of application

Regulations and policies

Preparatory and legislative agencies

Urban conservation

International charters and conventions (e. g. UNESCO World Heritage convention (1972), Venice Charter (1964), Nara Document of Authenticity (1994), Burra Charter (1999/2013))*

e. g. UNESCO, ICOMOS

Monuments of national importance (and their precinct) (incl. World Heritage)

AMASR Act (1958/2010), AMASR Rules (1959/2011)

Government of India (MoC)

ASI (HCC, DUAC, ULBs)

Site-specific bye-laws**

Government of India (MoC)

NMA, HCC, DUAC, ULBs

National Policy for Conservation of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Protected by the ASI of India (2014)*

ASI

ASI

85

Implementing agencies

The tentative list of post-independence buildings to be noted as modern heritage buildings of Delhi can be accessed under https://architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-166747 (last access 2018-07-14).

130

6 Empirical Analysis

Scope of application

Regulations and policies

Preparatory and legislative agencies

Implementing agencies

Monuments of regional importance protected at the State level (and their precinct)

Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (2004)

Government of National Capital Territory Delhi

HCC, DUAC, ULBs

Government of India

Delhi Waqf Board

INTACH

INTACH

Heritage Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013 buildings notified at the Indian Charter for the Protection of local level Unprotected Monuments (INTACH)* Unprotected/ religious sites * not legally binding ** in the process of preparation Source: Various sources and interviews

Heritage specific regulations and policies at the national level The safeguarding of monuments of national importance is regulated by the AMASR Act from 1958, which is based on an act formulated in 1904 by the British86 (cf. 6.3.1). The AMASR Act provides “for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of sculptures, carvings and other like objects”87. Subject to the Act are ‘ancient monuments’ (including built structures, caves, rock sculptures) and ‘archaeological sites’ (which means ruins or relics), which are of archaeological or artistic interest and which are at least 100 years old88. The Act is flanked by the Ancient Monument and ArchaeoThis Act was called The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904 and aimed at providing for “the preservation of ancient monuments, for the exercise of control over traffic in antiquities and over excavation in certain places, and for the protection and acquisition in certain cases of ancient monuments and of objects of archaeological, historical or artistic interest” (Ministry of Culture, Government of India (1904): The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904 (VII of 1904); cf. 6.3.1). 87 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) (1958): The Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. (http://asi.nic.in/pdf_data/6.pdf, access: 2018-03-10). 88 The exact wording of the Act is as follows: “‘Ancient Monument’ means any structure, erection or monument, or any tumulus or place of interment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, inscription or monolith which is of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and which has been in existence for not less than 100 years and includes- (i) remains of an ancient monument, (ii) site of an ancient monument, (iii) such portion of land adjoining the site of an ancient monument as may be required for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving such monument, and (iv) the means of access to, and convenient inspection of, ancient monument; (…) ‘archaeological site and remains’ means any area which contains or is reasonably believed to contain ruins or relics of historical or archaeological importance which have been in existence for not less than one hundred years, and includes- (i) such portion of land adjoining the area as may be required for fencing or covering in or otherwise preserving it, and (ii) the means of access to, and conven-

86

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

131

logical Site and Remains (Framing of Heritage Bye-laws and Other Functions of the Competent Authority) Rules, 2011, which are based on the original rules drawn up in 1959, and which give details about functions and procedures to support the AMASR Act89. In 2010, the AMASR Act was amended and several new aspects were included. The most important ones are firstly, the constitution of the NMA (for details about NMA’s functions and procedure cf. 6.1). Second, ‘prohibited areas’ as well as ‘regulated areas’ around protected monuments of national importance were introduced (cf. case study South Delhi Residential Areas 6.2.2). This means that no private or public construction is allowed within 100 metres of listed monuments (prohibited area), and that, within an additional 200 metres (restricted area), construction and renovation work can be carried out provided that permission is granted by the competent authority (cf. 6.1.1). Figure 31 shows Monuments of National Importance as well as State-protected Monuments and their buffer zones90. The third new important aspect introduced by the AMASR Act 2010 is that NMA and the competent authority are required to prepare heritage bye-laws in respect of each protected monument and protected area in consultation with INTACH or other expert heritage bodies. Fourth, the Director General of Archaeology (ASI) is assigned to conduct a survey or arrange for a survey to be conducted in respect of all prohibited areas and regulated areas for the purpose of detailed site plans within five years of the publication of the Act. Fifth, the amended Act increases the sentence for to two years’ imprisonment or a fine of one lakh rupees. This also applies to construction within prohibited or regulated areas91. In January 2018, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment) Bill, 2016, which amends the AMASR Act 2010, was passed in the Indian Parliament. This amendment was aimed at enabling public works92 ient inspection of the area;” (Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) (1958): The Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act 1958; Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (2010): The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. Act No. 10 of 2010. (http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/ Acts/Ancient%20Monuments%20and%20Archaeological%20Sites%20and%20Remains%20 Act%202010.pdf, access: 2018-07-09). 89 Ministry of Culture, Government of India (2011): Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Framing of Heritage Bye-Laws and other Functions of the Competent Authority) Rules, 2011. 90 The figure does not display all listed Monuments of National Importance or State-protected Monuments, as some can no longer be found or localised. 91 The original act from 1958 empowered the GoI to punish everybody who destroys, removes, inquires, alters, defaces, imperils, or misuses a protected monument, or who removes from a protected monument any sculpture, carving, image, bas-relief, inscription, or other like object, with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both (Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) (1958): The Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. (http://asi.nic.in/pdf_data/6.pdf, access: 2018-03-10). 92 According to the bill, ‘Public works’ “means construction works related to infrastructure which is financed and constructed by the Central Government for public purposes, being essential to public safety or the security of the public at large and its emergent necessity is based upon

132

6 Empirical Analysis

and projects essential for the public within the protected areas93 to be carried out. Hence, subsection (4) of Section 20 A of the AMASR Act 2010 with the wording “No permission (…) including carrying out any public work or project essential to the public or other constructions, shall be granted in any prohibited area”94 shall no longer apply to public works. Instead, proposals for public works shall be given to the NMA, which gives its recommendation and opinion, whereas the final decision for clearance of such projects now lies with the GoI. In 2009, a bill was prepared, which was supposed to enhance ASI’s scope of heritage and include a number of broadening facets. The bill was called The National Commission for Heritage Sites Bill, 2009. The text of this document mentions the necessity of ensuring “effective and active measures for protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage”95 according to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 1972 and of implementing “the decisions to take appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of cultural and natural heritages”96. It defines ‘heritage site’ as “a cultural heritage site, a natural heritage site, a mixed cultural and natural heritage site or a cultural landscape of outstanding value”97. The main objective of this bill was to constitute a commission called the National Commission for Heritage Sites to support the Central Government (GoI) and the State Governments in questions regarding conservation, protection and management of heritage sites. In 2016, however, the press information bureau of the MoC, GoI, announced that “The Government does not intend to constitute a National Commission for Cultural and Heritage Sites”98 and, after consultations with various stakeholders, the bill was withdrawn. As described above, on the basis of the provisions of the AMASR Act, 2010, the NMA is in the process of preparing site-specific bye-laws for the buffer zones around each of Delhi’s monuments of national importance in order to provide a basis for their management. These site-specific bye-laws shall be framed on the basis of relevant site plans and be completed within a period of 60 days from the

93 94

95 96 97 98

specific instance of danger to public safety or security of public at large” (Ministry of Culture, Government of India (1904): The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904 (VII of 1904)). Ministry of Culture, Government of India (1904): The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904 (VII of 1904). Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (2010): The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. Act No. 10 of 2010. (http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Acts/Ancient%20Monuments%20and%20Archaeo logical%20Sites%20and%20Remains%20Act%202010.pdf, access: 2018-07-09). Government of India (2009): The National Commission for Heritage Sites Bill, 2009. Bill No. VII of 2009. (http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/1237548287/1237548287_National_ Heritage_Bill_2009.pdf, access: 2018-03-21). Ibid. Ibid. Art.2 (c). Ministry of Culture, Government of India (Press Information Bureau) (2016): National Commission for Cultural and Heritage Sites. (http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid= 137877, access: 2018-03-21).

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

133

date of the preparation of the site plans99. The idea is that these bye-laws are created through consulting bodies (such as INTACH, Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC), SPA Bophal and IIT Kanpur and are given to the competent authorities for scrutiny and to the NMA for approval (46/NMA, 78/NMA). The bye-laws shall include matters relating to heritage controls, such as elevations, facades, drainage systems, roads and service infrastructure (including electric poles, water and sewer pipelines). Each heritage bye-law shall be made available to the public by the competent authority and the NMA, by exhibiting the same on their website100. Upon completion of this study, no site-specific bye-law ways had been published on either of the two websites101. A DDA representative states in this context that “right now, because of the multiplicity of stakeholders, everybody is passing the form from one to the other” (69/DDA). However, there are various other reasons, why these bye-laws had not been enacted at the due date. First, there is a lack of a solid database. As yet, the site plans do not exist. Second, there is not enough experience in formulating such site-specific bye-laws. Third, there is, as yet, no clarity as to who implements the laws. A member of the NMA explains this in detail (78/NMA): “These site plans have not been prepared as yet because these have to be authentic. So (…) the houses have to be very carefully plotted. I mean if you define prohibited and regulated areas, you can’t just do it up in the air. In the absence of site plans, INTACH made its bye-laws on Google maps which I think is not in an adequate way. I mean you can’t notify it legally. (…) This is the first time in India where guidelines or bye-laws have been formulated for the urban space as distinct from the monument and that is something for which there were no models. So they didn’t have any prototype (…). And that I think is still a problem area because the byelaws need to be very clear, very crisp and short whereas the bye-laws that were then prepared by INTACH, were quite long and quite detailed. And the third I think is the issue, which is also an issue of the development of the institution itself. That unless you have an implementing agency and unless one links up with the urban city authorities, all of this is pointless. Who is going to implement it? I mean it can be the best bye-law in the world but if nobody is implementing it, it is pointless. So I think (…) that is only now that we manage to get that interface with the Delhi Development Authority (…). So it is only now that both sides, NMA as well as DDA, have come to accept that, you know, NMA is going to be there; and unless these are in the master plan it is meaningless” (78/NMA).

As the site-specific bye-laws with detailed building regulations for the buffer zones are not yet in place, any repair or renovation in the prohibited zone, or repair, renovation, construction or reconstruction in the regulated zone, needs to be the subject 99

Ministry of Culture, G. o. I. (2011): Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Framing of Heritage Bye-Laws and other Functions of the Competent Authority) Rules, 2011. 100 Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (2010): The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. Act No. 10 of 2010. (http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Acts/Ancient%20Monuments%20and%20Archaeo logical%20Sites%20and%20Remains%20Act%202010.pdf, access: 2018-07-09). 101 Competent Authority Delhi, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) (2011): Competent Authority Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. (http://competentauthoritydelhi.co.in/Default.aspx, access: 2018-02-14). National Monuments Authority (Ministry of Culture) (2018): National Monuments Authority (http://www.nma.gov.in:8080/#_; access: 2018-09-25).

134

6 Empirical Analysis

of a case-to-case decision,taken by the competent authority. Therefore, property owners currently need to apply for approval of their building projects with the relevant municipal corporation102. In February 2014, the ASI published its new conservation policy, National Policy for Conservation of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Protected by the ASI of India103. This is the first serious review of the ASI policy since John Marshall’s conservation manual was published in 1923 (cf. 6.3.1). The policy focuses on monuments, archaeological sites and remains of national importance protected by ASI’s AMASR Act. With this policy, the ASI slowly starts to formally acknowledge that the monuments are not objects in isolation but that they are part of a larger setting (41b/ASI). It tries to include important innovations, such as putting monuments into perspective and seeing them as part of their surroundings, and recognising the importance of local communities and traditional craftsmanship as an integral part of the conservation process. The policy “aims to, not only draw lessons and inspirations from the ASI’s rich legacy for conservation but also acknowledges the adoption of contemporary approaches to conservation, management and protection of monuments and archaeological sites, and proposes various principles of interventions within and around them. The policy also acclaims available traditional craftsmanship in the country and the use of traditional building materials and skills as an integral part of the conservation process. The policy, for the first time, deals with topical aspects like the management of tourism and development (within and around a monument), as well as issues of capacity building and building of partnerships with multi-disciplinary organisations and institutions. The policy attempts to put a monument in perspective (as a ubiquitous part of its setting) and underpins the role of local communities”104.

With the policy, the ASI attempts to follow a more inclusive and contemporary approach to conservation by drawing on the long-lasting experience of the ASI in conservation on the one hand while including various international guidelines on the other hand (INTACH Delhi Chapter 2013: 29). However, this document is only relevant for monuments of national importance. And, as it is not legally binding and the ASI has neitherthe capacity nor the manpower to follow and implement it, its suggestions provisionally remain on paper only (cf. 6.3.2). Heritage-specific regulations at the state level The state-protected monuments (cf. Table 4) are protected under the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004, which is enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the GNCTD and covers the whole of the NCTD. The Act provides “for the preservation of Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains other than those declared to be of national importance and for the regulation of exca-

102 Ibid. 103 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) (2014): National Policy for Conservation of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains (NPC – AMASR). Ministry of Culture, Government of India. 104 Ibid.

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

135

vation of archaeological sites other than those declared to be of national importance in the National Capital Territory of Delhi”105.

It applies to monuments and areas that are declared protected under this act and to other monuments in danger of being destroyed either deliberately or otherwise and which need to be preserved in the public interest. The Act declares the area up to 50 metres from the protected limits of a monument as being a ‘prohibited area’ (i. e. construction and mining activities are prohibited) and the area up to 100 metres as a ‘regulated area’. In the prohibited, as well as in the regulated area, construction and mining activities can be undertaken only after permission is given by the GNCTD106. Under the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004, the GNCTD is empowered to evict unauthorised occupants from the premises of protected monuments and areas. Furthermore, the GNCTD has the power to punish anyone who violates the rules with imprisonment up to two years or with a fine of up to fifty thousand rupees, or with both107. Further relevant heritage-specific regulations At the international level, India has signed and adopted a number of charters and conventions that represent international principles for the protection of (urban) cultural heritage (cf. Table 5; 2.2). Among them are the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972), the Venice Charter (1964), the Nara Document 1994, the Australian ICOMOS Burra Charter (1999/2004) as well as the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). In 2004, INTACH (cf. 6.1.4) formulated the Charter for the conservation of unprotected architectural heritage and sites in India. This charter focuses on heritage that is worthy of protectioned but that does not have any legal status. Special emphasis is given to the ‘living heritage’, meaning the interplay of tangible and intangible heritage: “The tangible heritage includes historic buildings of all periods, their setting in the historic precincts of cities and their relationship to the natural environment. It also includes culturally significant modern buildings and towns. The intangible heritage includes the extant culture of traditional building skills and knowledge, rites and rituals, social life and lifestyles of the inhabitants, which together with the tangible heritage constitutes the ‘living’ heritage. Both tangible and intangible heritage, and especially the link between them, should be conserved”108.

With this charter, INTACH proposes a flexible approach with case-to-case decisions about which conservation strategy is best. According to the charter, strategies can be guided either by formal and legal instruments of conservation and interna105 Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs (2005): The Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004 (Delhi Act 9 of 2005). 106 According to the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004 ‘Government’ means the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (ibid.). 107 Ibid. 108 Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) (2004): Charter for the Conservation of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India. (http://www.intach.org/ about-charter-guidelines.php, access: 2018-07-05).

136

6 Empirical Analysis

tionally-accepted principles, conservation principles rooted in indigenous building traditions or even hybrid approaches. The charter has the character of voluntary self-commitment. However, as INTACH plays a key role in the protection of Delhi’s urban cultural heritage (cf. 6.1.4, 7.1.3) and this charter guides its approach towards heritage protection, it has a certain relevance for Delhi’s urban cultural heritage. Besides these heritage-specific regulations and policies published by public authorities, there are further documents that play a role in the context of heritage protection in Delhi: One is the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2013. This Act regulates the management and maintenance of Waqf property in Delhi (cf. 6.1.4), whereas aspects of heritage conservation as such do not play a specific role here109. If encroachment occurs, however, the Waqf has the right to evict encroachers from their properties, even penalise unauthorised occupants for their illegal occupation and to recover possible damage. Urban planning instruments and regulations relevant for heritage protection in Delhi Besides heritage-specific regulations, there are a number of urban planning instruments relevant for urban conservation in Delhi. Table 8 gives an overview of these instruments, their scope of application and the agencies responsible for their preparation and implementation. Table 8: Urban planning instruments relevant for urban conservation in Delhi Scope of application

Regulations and policies

Preparatory and legislative agencies

Implementing agencies

City level

Master Plan for Delhi 2021

DDA Government of India

DDA, ULBs

DUAC Act (1973)

Government of India

DUAC, ULBs

City zones

Zonal Development Plans

DDA Government of India

ULBs, CPWD/ PWD

City wards / single Buildings

Local Area Plans*

ULBs in cooperation with consulting agencies (INTACH etc.) DDA (approval)

ULBs, CPWD/ PWD

Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi 2016 (DDA)

DDA

ULBs, CPWD/ PWD

*In the process of preparation. Source: Various sources and interviews

The MPD-2021, prepared by DDA, deals with the city as a whole and formulates the overall planning goals and visions for Delhi’s future development110. The intro109 Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (2013): The Wakf (Amendment) Act, 2013. 110 The Delhi Masterplan is legislatively backed with the Delhi Development Act 1957.

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

137

duction of the MPD-2021 specifically includes the city’s past into the future vision for Delhi and mentions the preservation of heritage as one of the most important measures for future development: “Delhi [is] the focus of the socioeconomic and political life of India, a symbol of ancient values, and aspirations and capital of the largest democracy, is assuming, increasing eminence among the great cities of the world. Growing at an unprecedented pace, the city needs to be able to integrate its elegant past as well as the modern developments into an organic whole, which demands a purposeful transformation of the socioeconomic, natural and built environment. The city will be a prime mover and nerve centre of ideas and actions, the seat of national governance and a centre of business, culture, education and sports” (Delhi Development Authority 2007: 2).

As the MPD-2021 only lays out the development of Delhi in a general manner, the city has been divided into 15 planning zones, for which more detailed zonal development plans are to be developed by the DDA. These zonal plans are meant to contain a site plan and use-plan for the development of the zone, including information about land-use, population and building density, development and redevelopment areas, etc.111. The elaboration has so far only been sanctioned for eleven of the planning zones. What is relevant for the protection of Delhi’s cultural heritage is the declaration of six heritage zones within the MPD-2021 (specific heritage complexes within Shahjahanabad, Lutynes Bungalow Zone, Nizamuddin and Humyon’s Tomb Complex, Mehrauli, Vijay Mandal-Begumpur-Sarai Shahji-Lal Gumbad, Chirag Delhi) as areas that have “significant concentration, linkage or continuity of buildings, structures, groups or complexes united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development” (Delhi Development Authority 2007: 127). Furthermore, the MPD-2021 defines three archaeological parks (Mehrauli Archaeological Park, Tughlaquabad Archaeological Park, Sultan Garhi Archaeological Park) as areas “distinguishable by heritage resource and land related to such resources, which has potential to become an interpretative and educational resource for the public in addition to the value as a tourist attraction” (Delhi Development Authority 2007: 127). The MPD-2021 recommends creating a sound basis for decisions regarding built heritage and archaeological parks through the evaluation of pertinent aspects like “form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, spirit and feeling and other internal and external factors” (ibid.). It furthermore states that the local bodies and land-owning agencies should formulate Special Development Plans for the conservation and improvement of listed heritage complexes and their appurtenant areas (ibid.). However, this concept has not yet been translated into applicable law (78/NMA). Induced by the MPD-2021, municipalities are preparing local area plans laid out on ward level (Prakash 2016: 148). The prime objective of these plans is to create area-specific development controls and building bye-laws based on local needs, characteristics and contexts. The localisation of heritage structures is a specific task 111 Government of India (1957): Delhi Development Act 1957. (http://rgplan.org/delhi/Delhi_ Development_Act_1957.pdf, access: 2018-07-05).

138

6 Empirical Analysis

in this exercise. The process of local area plan-preparation started with a pilot project in 2009 with 33 wards. As the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) are not able to prepare these plans by themselves, they assign consultants to support them. In the case of wards with heritage character, the preparation of the local area plans was done by INTACH. An architect who was involved in the pilot project told of the major problems in the process of preparing these plans: one was the absence of a proper database and the difficult access information about the situation on the ground. For example, the MPD-2021 classified heritage zones and archaeological parks, but the boundaries of these have as yet not been clearly defined. Second, as local area planning was meant to be a tool for public participation in planning processes, residents of the respective wards, RWAs, business associations, councillors etc. were supposed to be included in the preparation of the plans, but most of the invited people were not interested or were even sceptical and “not happy” (48/ARCH) about it (e. g. about the fact that the working staff took photographs to portray the situation etc.) (37/ACAD). Also, the local authorities were reserved concerning public consultation. Although the plans were supposed to be people’s plans, when the draft plan was ready, the project team could only talk to the councillors or presidents of RWAs. They could not again talk to the inhabitants (48/ARCH). After preparation, the respective municipalities sent the plans to DDA for approval (08/MCD, 34/NGO), but upon publication of this study, none of the local are plans had yet been approved. Of relevance are also the Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi 2016. These regulate building activities at the level of individual buildings in the area under the jurisdiction of DDA and concerned local bodies (cf. 6.1). Building bye-laws for Delhi were originally formulated in 1983 and were amended in 2003 and 2016. They are read in conjunction with other specific notifications (like regulations for urban villages / rural villages, unauthorised regularised colonies or special areas)112. In the context of heritage protection, Section 23 of the building bye-laws is of particularly great importance. This section regulates building activities in the context of heritage structures of local importance listed by the ULBs. According to this, the owners of heritage buildings are responsible for their regular repairs and maintenance. No (re-) development, additions/alterations, repairs, renovations (including painting), replacement of special features or plastering or demolition of any listed buildings or listed precincts are allowed without the permission of the responsible ULB in consultation with the HCC113. According to the building byelaws for listed heritage buildings and precincts, change of use or ownership is not completely precluded, but a change in use can only be undertaken with the approval of the HCC. Being listed under the Delhi Building Bye-laws 2016 does not mean “any blanket prevention of demolition or of changes to Heritage Buildings”114. The 112 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (2016): Notification: Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi 2016. Published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (ii), 22nd March, 2016. (https://www.ndmc.gov.in/public_notice/MODEL%20BUILDING%20BYE%20LAWS2016.pdf, access: 2018-04-23). 113 Ibid. 114 Ibid.

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

139

only requirement is that clearance must be obtained from the respective ULB and the HCC, from a heritage point of view. In case of violation of the regulations of the Delhi Building Bye-laws 2016, the owner of a listed heritage building can be punished under the provisions regarding unauthorised development. Informal institutions in the context of safeguarding Delhi’s urban cultural heritage The following section introduces those informal institutions (cf. 3.4.1) that play a role in regard to the safeguarding of Delhi’s urban cultural heritage. Emphasis is given, on the one hand, to the general vision about Delhi’s future as a world class city (cf. 5.2), which highly influences urban planning and development, and on the other hand, there exist a number of heritage values that guide the actors and their decision-making (cf. 2.3). Urban development vision The vision of a modernised and globalised urban development in Delhi, which is introduced in chapter 5.2, has implications for the city’s cultural heritage as it regularly leads to disputes over the safeguarding of heritage structures. One recent and very prominent example where modern development was put before the protection of cultural heritage was the demolition of the famous Hall of Nations that took place in 2017. The Hall of Nations was located within Pragati Maidan, the main exhibition ground of Delhi, and had to give way to a state-of-the art modern convention complex. It must be mentioned here, though, that the Hall of Nations is not legally considered as heritage, as it was built only in 1972 (Vandini et al. 2016). But, the building, designed by the famous Indian architect Raj Rewal, was internationally recognised as being an example of “world-class architecture”115 of historic relevance. It was built to celebrate 25 years of India’s independence and was used as an exhibition hall. Its architectural peculiarity lay in the way it was built. The Hall of Nations was the largest span concrete space frame structure in the world. A number of Indian and international architecture professionals (including representatives of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, Centre Pompidou in Paris, ETH Zurich, TU Berlin) had long been fighting for the recognition of this building’s heritage and to prevent its demolition116. They argued that the Hall of Nations represented a milestone in India’s architectural history. But despite these (international) efforts, the HCC and the DUAC, being the authorities responsible for giving approval for the demolition, referred to the 100-year-rule included in the AMASR-Act and hence did not consider

115 Gupta, N.: “With custodians like these”, in: The Indian Express, 22.02.2017. (https://indian express.com/article/opinion/columns/agencies-charged-with-the-upkeep-and-protection-ofdelhis-historic-buildings-find-little-thrill-in-their-job-heritage-4536883/, access: 2018-07-04). 116 S. a. (2017): Letters in support of an appeal to save the Hall of Nations, Pragati Maidan. (https:// architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-182030, access: 2018-07-04).

140

6 Empirical Analysis

the opportunity in declaring the Hall of Nations as heritage117. Commenting on the demolition, a representative of the India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO)118, according to The Indian Express newspaper, highlighted that “such a venue of international standards is in sync with India aspiring to be a global power”119. Heritage values If we want to detect informal institutions relevant for safeguarding Delhi’s urban cultural heritage from the perspective of urban conservation, we can have a look at heritage values (cf. 2.3). Shared values about a certain subject shape the behaviour of actors and their decision-making (cf. 3.4.1). Hence, it is interesting in this context to take a closer look at the question as to which heritage values play a role in the Indian context and which do not. There are a number of values that underlie the work of the public authorities. These can be derived from heritage-specific policies and guidelines. These legal documents and policies (cf. 7.3.1) use specific heritage values as criteria to define what is worth being protected. The AMASR Act for example, refers to historical, archaeological and architectural values as well as to the age of the historic structures (not less than hundred years old)120. The Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, uses slightly different values and includes ancient monuments that are of historical, archaeological or artistic interest and age (not less than hundred years old) as well. The Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi, however, refer to a wider variety of values by including “heritage sites which shall include those buildings, artefacts, structures, streets, areas and precincts of historic, architectural, aesthetic, cultural or environmental value (…) and those natural feature areas of environmental significance or of scenic beauty”121. And ASI’s National Policy for Conservation of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Protected by the ASI of India goes even further by stating that 117 Art. “Delhi’s iconic Hall of Nations demolished”, in: The Indian Express, 24.04.2017. (https:// indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhis-iconic-hall-of-nations-demolished-4626629/, access: 2018-07-04). 118 The India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO), being under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, is the nodal agency of the Government of India (GoI) for coordinated trade promotion. It is in charge of managing Delhi’s exhibition complex Pragati Maidan (India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO) (2018): India Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO): A Government of India Enterprise. (http://indiatradefair.com/information/details/itpo_profile, access: 2018-07-04). 119 Art. “Delhi’s iconic Hall of Nations demolished”, in: The Indian Express, 24.04.2017. (https:// indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhis-iconic-hall-of-nations-demolished-4626629/, access: 2018-07-04). 120 Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (2010): The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2010. Act No. 10 of 2010, Section 4A. (http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Acts/Ancient%20Monuments%20and%20 Archaeological%20Sites%20and%20Remains%20Act%202010.pdf, access: 2018-07-09). 121 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (2016): Notification: Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi 2016. Published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 (ii), 22nd March, 2016, Annexure II`, Art. 1. (https://www.ndmc.gov.in/public_notice/MODEL%20BUILDING %20BYE%20LAWS-2016.pdf, access: 2018-04-23).

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

141

“All monuments that are declared nationally important are deemed to have high value/significance – archaeological, architectural (including artistic and engineering), antiquity (age), historical (including association), cultural (including religious and intangible). Monuments can have either a single or a combination of these values which contribute to their importance at the national level”122.

This policy even explicitly proposes a values-based approach towards conservation: “It is important to define nature of conservation intervention for monuments based on their value/significance which is to determine nature and extent of intervention required for the conservation of a monument. The imperative of such a value-based approach derives from the nature/typology of a monument and interpretation of its value/significance”123.

Heritage values do not only play a role for the work of public authorities, but in further contexts beyond that. Based on the societal perception of cultural heritage within the Indian society, as described in chapter 6.3.1, traditional, religious and spiritual values play a very important role in relation to cultural heritage (cf. 6.2.5). These values are also represented, for example, in INTACH’s Charter for the conservation of unprotected architectural heritage and sites in India, 2004, which calls for protection for those (unprotected) heritage sites that embody “Beyond [their] role as a historic document[s] values of enduring relevance to contemporary Indian society”124. The charter states that “The traditional knowledge systems and the cultural landscape in which [the heritage sites] exist, particularly if these are ‘living’, should define the authenticity of the heritage value to be conserved”125. Furthermore, it promotes a flexible approach towards conservation: “Traditional knowledge systems and cultural landscapes vary from one regional/cultural context to another or within the same region/culture. Thus, the values of ‘living’ architectural heritage can differ from one context to another, reflecting the cultural diversity of the country. In each case, however, conservation should faithfully reflect the significant values which define the heritage”126.

Furthermore, the social value of urban heritage plays a role in NGO initiatives. One project that exemplarily shows how the social value of heritage sites can be included in urban conservation is the Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative (cf. 6.2.4). One of its main objectives is to demonstrate “that cultural heritage assets can be leveraged for the socio-economic benefit of local communities and residents of historic cities”127.

122 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) (2014): National Policy for Conservation of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains (NPC – AMASR). Ministry of Culture, Government of India. 123 (ibid. Art 3.01). 124 Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) (2004): Charter for the Conservation of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India. (Art. 1.1) (http://www.intach. org/about-charter-guidelines.php, access: 2018-07-05). 125 (ibid. Art. 3.1.1). 126 (ibid. Art 3.1.2). 127 Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN) (2018): Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative. (http://annualreport2015.nizamuddinrenewal.org/, access: 2018-04-30).

142

6 Empirical Analysis

The educational value is also part of several NGO initiatives (WWC-2014). The Youth For Heritage Foundation128 for example, focuses on educating the citizens of Delhi about the heritage sites of the city and their history. The NGO ITIHAAS129 follows an integrated approach to reach out to schoolchildren and teachers. One representative of the organisation makes an important point in this context by saying that “We [in India] have used [cultural heritage] more in the angle of tourism and not so much as a resource for learning, which is very important. If we don’t value what is our own, then there are few chances of anyone else valuing it” (62/NGO).

INTACH has its own division called ‘Heritage Education and Communication Service’130, which is active in the fields of teacher-training, capacity building, heritage clubs, heritage and citizens training workshops etc. Furthermore, INTACH Delhi Chapter131 participates in heritage education by organising heritage walks, exhibitions and other outreach programmes. A small survey among visitors132 of the Hauz Khas Complex, an area in Delhi which contains a medieval water tank and other structures (a madrasa, a mosque and several tombs) from the Tuglakh period in the 14th century (cf. 6.2.1), showed that, for the citizens of Delhi the recreational value of heritage plays a significant role: Two visitors reported that they “came here also for the monuments but mainly because it is peaceful and calm” (81/RES). Others mentioned that they “came here because it is peaceful and nice” (84/RES). In this context the scenic and panoramic value was also mentioned several times. One visitor said that he liked “the nice nature and the beauty” (83/RES). Another one reported that he has “not much interest in these historic things, but [he] very much likes the nature and the scenic beauty; it is important to capture the whole scene” (83/RES). Others liked “the environment here” (85/RES) and the “atmosphere” (86/RES). Cultural heritage as an economic value is in India mainly seen in the context of tourism. This is reported by a representative of INTACH: “India is not a destination like beaches. It’s basically a heritage, cultural heritage destination. So that is our main ingredient of tourism. Then we have to protect it, we have to preserve it and we have to present it properly. So that is why that is our biggest challenge. And one is the government’s mind-set and two is the community or the stakeholders’ mind-set, that they should feel that if this heritage monument or heritage whatever, is ours, and tourism increases, we will get income, employment generation and income generation. But unless they cf. that linkage, they will always think that it’s an impediment for them, you know, it’s not going to help them” (59/NGO). 128 129 130 131 132

http://www.youthforheritage.org/activities (access 24.02.2018). http://www.itihaas.net/ (access 17.02.2018). http://heritageeducation.intach.org/ (access 24.02.2018). http://www.intachdelhichapter.org/outreach_programmes.php (access 24.02.2018). This small survey conducted in the course of this study shows that the recreational value of heritage plays a role for the visitors of this specific heritage site. Nevertheless, it was not detailed enough to allow for further statements about laypeople’s perception towards heritage and the relation of the recreational value of heritage to other heritage values in Delhi in general. To extensively study laypeople’s perception on heritage in Delhi would have been beyond the scope of this study.

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

143

The understanding of the economic potential beyond cultural tourism as a basis for creative industries, for building social capital, and job creation, has not yet been properly developed in India (36/NGO, 58/NGO). One interviewee reports that “ASI used to be very teased of what they call vendors and encroachers and people hopping into the site and selling stuff. The point is, why do they do it? Because there is a market for it. A visitor wants something. A visitor doesn’t want to come into a graveyard, you know” (20/CONS).

Many interviewees, however, are of the opinion that ”the most important thing is to link the economies to the people” (39/NGO). They argue that “In India the base of the problem of conserving heritage is the economics. Unless you do not address the economics you will never be able to achieve anything” (69/DDA) and ask “How can you bring the economic values to the people?” (53/TCPO). Against this background, cultural heritage is often perceived as an obstacle to (urban) development (10/NGO). “The chief minister says, once it comes to urban heritage, development will stop. We say, development is not stopped, it goes on, but a bit more sensitively … but the misunderstanding still exists” (04/NGO).

This understanding might be supported by the fact that there is a lack of academic studies from within the Indian academic system that conducts research on the issue. One interviewee reported that, as yet, there have been no scientific studies on the question of the economic potential of (urban) cultural heritage within Indian academic institutions (36/NGO). This problem has been recognised by a number of NGOs in India and several initiatives have been started in order to find solutions. The Indian Heritage Cities Network (IHCN)133 for example organised an international seminar on “Economics of Heritage “ in 2012 and devoted its fourth biennale conference in 2013 to the topic “Economics of Living Heritage Cities”, calling it “one of the least explored issues in urban conservation works in India” (Indian Heritage Cities Network 2013: 4). INTACH is part of the Asia-Europe Network of Urban Heritage for Sustainable Creative Economics, a network founded by five international partners (Europa Nostra, INTACH, International Institute for the Inclusive Museum (IIIM), International National Trusts Organization (INTO), and the Yangon Heritage Trust) in 2013 in order to “bring together cultural practitioners and creative professionals from within Asia and Europe to address the key issues related to the sustainable management of heritage cities” (Piplani 2015a: 3). In 2018 INTACH organised a conference on “Economics of Urban Heritage: Conservation, Hurdles and Opportunities” in Karnataka in order to bring together representatives of the government, conservation professionals, investors, property owners and urban planners to discuss the potential of built urban heritage.

133 Indian Heritage Cities Network (IHCN) (s. a.). Indian Heritage Cities Network – IHCN. (https:// ihcnmysore.wordpress.com/about/, access: 2018-09-29).

144

6 Empirical Analysis

6.3.3 First-order urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi The following section will present empirical findings about processes taking place at the operational level of urban conservation in Delhi (first-order governance; cf. 3.4.2). The emphasis hereby is given to challenges and obstacles in the context of implementation of conservation efforts. As section 6.3.1 shows, the assumption, that preservation and conservation of cultural heritage are generally shared objectives does not hold true for the Indian context. However, protection strategies are guided mainly by legally-binding regulations, which are based on this fundamental idea about heritage protection (cf. 6.3.2). Hence, the evaluation of first-order urban cultural heritage governance processes will also take place under this assumption. Multiplicity of actors Several interviewees from the public agencies reported that the fact that a large number of actors from different administrative levels are involved in the protection of historical monuments in Delhi is a major obstacle to the successful implementation of conservation efforts (13/ARCH, 14/ARCH, 17/ARCH, 20/CONS, 41a/NGO, 61/DTTDC, 69/DDA, 72/ACAD; cf. 6.1). Responsibility for implementing heritage protection in Delhi lies mainly with the municipalities located at the local level (NDMC1, NDMC2, SDMC, EDMC, Cantonment Board). Furthermore, the SDA as well as the PWD and the CPWD play a role as implementation agencies of the governments at the state and at the central levels. This multiplicity of involved actors leads to gaps in responsibilities, as a representative of the DTTDC reports: “The jurisdiction is different; all are responsible for different kinds or works. There is always some gap. It is difficult for us to get anything done in a smooth way; it takes a lot of time to persuade other departments to assist us or to help us” (61/DTTDC).

The redevelopment project of Chandni Chowk in Shahjahanabad (cf. 6.2.3) illustrates the negative effects of this situation (61/DTTDC). The fact that the various authorities have conflicting interests, as well as unclear responsibilities, results in the project progressing only slowly. A newspaper article about a hearing of the Delhi High Court in 2016, in the course of a PIL that was filed in 2007 about the congestion of Chandni Chowk134, gets to the heart of this. The article cites the judges involved with the words “Delhi is under siege by you (authorities). What is this multiplicity of authorities? Somebody should have power over all of you”135. The process, to initiate a concept for the management of traffic on Chandni Chowk, started in 2007. In 2018, it was still not in place, due to gaps and overlaps in responsibility and a lack of communication between the involved authorities like NDMC2, 134 PIL Manusha Sangathan, Delhi vs Govt. of Delhi And Ors W. P. (C) 4572/2007. 135 Art. “Delhi under siege, clear Chandni Chowk”, in: Times of India, 18.11.2016. (https://timesof india.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/City-under-siege-clear-Chandni-Chowk-mess/articleshow/ 55485144.cms, access: 2018-02-16).

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

145

SRDC, traffic police, UTTIPEC and GNCTD. The example further shows that the successful implementation of (heritage-related) large-scale planning projects is as much a political challenge as it is a planning or implementation problem.. This becomes clear in the billowing discussion of whether or not to introduce a tram service in Chandni Chowk (cf. 6.2.3). One of the involved architects underlines this when he says “So it [to build a tram along Chandni Chowk] was initiated by this one minister who was from that area. I think his ministry then got transferred or something, so you know it is about the person who is handholding the project” (47/ARCH).

This leads to a situation in which (technical) planning issues and best planning solutions do not take the centre stage of the decisions and the professional practitioner holds the lowest position within the hierarchy of decision makers. One architect involved in the project additionally emphasises the role of other powerful actors by reflecting on his role: “Then there is always a negotiation. But it’s a negotiation from a position of weakness. The professional in this environment is only helping them put together a packet. You know, that’s about it. And that’s the problem (…). Unfortunately, it’s a negotiation of unequals. Because a Metro Rail Corporation chairman can override me in the hierarchy of events. So there is negotiation, but a difficult negotiation” (91/ARCH).

The example shows, that due to the multiplicity of involved actors, decision making in the context of urban heritage protection is informed and steered by a complex set of interests, powers and political sensitivities. Communication processes The empirical results of the study show that the communication processes between the actors involved in cultural heritage protection in Delhi are difficult. However, it is not only the large number of actors that plays a role here, but also the nature of the relationships between the actors themselves. The conflicting character of these relations becomes clear in the following quote by a member of GNCDT: “If you ask someone of the planners, actually who are planning the city, I can safely dump them into the Yamuna and feel not really bad about these fellows” (15/GNCTD).

The difficult relation between involved actors is further confirmed by an NGO representative who talks about the resumption of the application for Delhi to be listed as a UNESCO World Heritage City (cf. 6.2.4). “The Delhi Government is trying to take it up with the Central Government, but sadly they are in such a mess in their relations with the Central Government that this issue seems very insignificant” (104/NGO).

Several interviewees report in this context that public agencies often even compete with each other. The following statement by a representative of the GNCTD illustrates this situation:

146

6 Empirical Analysis “So this [historic building] is part of a huge archaeological park. But unfortunately this [park] is under another entity, DDA, and I am trying very hard to get it under my control, but DDA is probably taking some more time to do it. And is not that interested” (15/GNCTD).

These difficult relationships between the involved actors lead to the situation that public agencies do not practise active exchange and mutual support (33/NGO, 63/ACAD), as reported by an NGO-representative: “You see, these are all different government agencies; they don’t even talk to each other. (…) MCD will not talk to NDMC1, NDMC1 will not talk to Delhi Government, Delhi Government will not talk to … and it goes on” (04/NGO).

The following extensive description of the process of notifying heritage buildings under the Delhi Building Bye-laws (cf. 6.3.2) by a representative of Municipal Corporation Delhi (MCD) exemplarily illustrates the complicated communication among the agencies and possible implications of this situation. “The Building Bye-laws say that the HCC will approve that list [of heritage buildings]. And then it will be notified. So we took that list to HCC [in 2005], they also discussed about the list, then they asked us to put all the buildings into grades (1, 2, 3). Then we did all that exercise again. Then they formed a subcommittee, where certain people had objections. (…) ‘This should be in … This should not be in …’ MCD doesn’t have the provision to notify anything. Notification is always done by Government agency. (…) So we sent our list to Delhi Government. Please notify it. After getting approval from our competent authorities, it was approved by the corporation. And then sent to Delhi Government, Urban Development Ministry. Some time in 2005 or 2006. Then they said, why are you sending this to us? We’ve sent it to Urban Development Department of Delhi Government to notify it. After keeping them in correspondence with us for a few months they sent it to the Ministry of Culture. They sent the list to the Ministry of Culture, please notify this as received from MCD. (…) And after a few months they sent it back to Urban Development Ministry. So this exercise kept on going for quite some time and we were fed up waiting for Delhi Government, please notify it. And HCC asked MCD why it is not being notified. Because unless the list is notified there is no legal sanctity. People kept on doing things with their heritage buildings. So we needed something, ultimately. (…) Then we wrote again to Delhi Government (…). Ultimately in 2010, Februrary or March, it was notified by Delhi Government, Ministry of Urban Development. Ultimately they notified it” (08/MCD).

In this context, NGOs play an important role. Due to their objectives to initiate progress, dynamics and movement, they constantly try to talk to all involved actors. One NGO representative describes these efforts: “There are these bodies, bodies, bodies. They are doing nothing. They (…) just sit there. And do nothing. And I feel, that our job is to push them. (…) We have succeeded slightly (…) with the Delhi Government. (…) We are the only ones talking to every [agency] (…). And yet, all of them are dealing with Delhi. So we seem to be the only people talking to each another. Now, with the Delhi Government we have a MoU” (04/NGO).

However, NGOs not only try to advance their own agenda but also act as mediators between the public agencies, as another NGO representative explains: “So the moment I know one department is doing something, I go to them and say: This was done and you need to incorporate. So there has to be someone telling the departments all the time (…). So I talk to the officers and I am telling the officers, oh this department is doing this and probably you should… and your department is going to get from that heritage thing. So it works to an extent” (28/NGO).

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

147

Since NGOs have no legal power, they are ultimately dependent on the support and goodwill of the public agencies in order to assert their interests. This becomes evident through the following quote: “We could do a lot more if we had a lot of [the government] in support. We actually have to fight for every single piece of [letter]. So, I mean, I could say we are absolutely zero. (…) No government agency is going out of their way to support us. So you’re ultimately beating your head against the wall, even to get them to sign some letters. (…) It’s the way the government works” (80/NGO).

One event that represented a glimmer of hope in this context, in the sense that cooperation and communication between the multiple agencies might have improved, was the application for Delhi for to become a UNESCO World Heritage City (cf. 6.2.4). During the preparation process for the application dossier, INTACH tried to involve all relevant agencies. An NGO-representative commented on this as follows: “There was everybody from every agency sitting at our conference. Everybody was together. Whether that will lead to something, I don’t know. (…) I don’t think it’s ever happened before, that all these different agencies were together in the same room, so that’s good, yes. But whether it will result in anything, I don’t know” (80/NGO).

Another interviewee expressed her hope that this process may initiate a change in the communication situation between the agencies: “I am hoping that maybe this dossier changes the activity. (…). Actually that even when the nomination doesn’t happen, maybe this whole process of speaking to CPWD, speaking to NDMC1, you know they have realised that Delhi has something. I mean it might not make it to a World Heritage city but maybe some official’s attitude has changed too” (74/ACAD).

A further attempt to actively overcome the problem of multiplicity of authorities in the context of heritage conservation in Delhi was the creation of the SRDC with the aim of coordinating the great number of involved actors. But, a missing binding mandate and lack of expertise among its members got in the way of the organisation’s success (04/NGO, 08/MCD, 31/NGO). One interviewee explains that by saying: “They don’t have a real mandate, they have just a little for getting some money to do projects and they really don’t have anybody on the top with any professional expertise or anything. They are just file pushers. So it is bad for the resources” (63/ACAD).

Even a representative of SRDC confirms the weak position of his agency by saying: “Only if there is a team, which is really focused, which is very result-oriented and which is passionate about it. Otherwise, what happens is when you make it a more of a bureaucratic thing, then things die out gradually. So that is why. And perhaps that is the reason the government in 2008 thought that the SRDC will be created with this special purpose rating. And so we have not managed to achieve so much success” (92/SRDC).

In summary, this section shows that the involved actors are aware of their difficult relationship, their complex communication situation and the negative consequences thereof. However, the initiatives designed to combat this situation have so far been unsuccessful.

148

6 Empirical Analysis

Expertise Another major obstacle at the operational level in the context of heritage protection in Delhi is a lack of expertise within several of the public authorities, from local to central level (06/OWN, 41a/NGO, 61/DTTDC). The ASI, for example, is mainly run by administrative officers and bureaucrats (49/ACT). Most of the people working within the ASI in the field of (urban) conservation are trained civil engineers with no training in heritage-related issues136 (41a/NGO). However, a small number of conservation architects have begun to be employed in recent years (20/CONS, 33/NGO, 41b/ASI). This means that only very few people within the leading agency for heritage conservation in India have a professional background which supports the field of (urban) conservation and heritage protection. The problem of lacking expertise can be found not only within ASI, but also within other relevant institutions. Within the SDA, for example, the situation is similar, as most of the employees there are state level bureaucrats (15/GNCTD, 49/ACT, 68/NGO; cf. 6.2.1). To further illustrate this aspect, a former member of the NCF describes his reaction when he was appointed to this position as follows: “I wanted to go to the Ministry of Defence and was appointed to the Ministry of Culture. That was a shock. I am the most uncultural person you can imagine” (79/NCF).

Another interviewee comments on incidents of that kind: “At times, if you want to get rid of a bureaucrat, because he’s either not doing what the government wants him to do or is too independent, (…) you send them to the Ministry of Culture” (49/ACT).

The rotational system that exists within the Indian government reinforces the problem of lacking expertise (15/GNCTD, 46/NMA, 72/ACAD, 104/NGO). It leads to a frequent exchange of officers, with each of them having their own priorities and preferences (102/NGO). One NGO representative describes the implication of this practice for his work: “The trouble in India is, by the time I go back to MCD new officers will come, and they’ll have to be brainwashed all over again. Ok, that’s part of the job. As an NGO that’s part of the job” (04/NGO).

This situation is even more problematic, as in the context of heritage protection, progress is very much person driven (46/NMA). One member of GNCTD Delhi states that “Earlier I thought the system worked, but it really depends on the drive of individuals” (15/GNCTD). Hence, many projects, like for example the Chandni Chowk Redevelopment (cf. 6.2.3) have not been able to be pushed forward continuously or to be successfully completed because of this fluctuation (14/ARCH, 79/ NCF, 92/SRDC).

136 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) (2013): Draft Seniority List of Conservation Assistant Gr. I as on 28.02.2013-reg. F. No. 15/1/2013-AdmnI. (http://asi.nic.in/rti/Conservation_Assis tant_Gr_I_list.pdf, access: 2018-03-14).

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

149

Institutional capacities of the municipalities A lack of expertise, together with inadequate institutional capacity can also be found within the municipal corporations at the local level (cf. 6.1). The municipalities’ staffers are often not skilled enough to deal with the complexity of problems and sometimes are not even able to handle basic tasks, like solid waste management and maintenance of basic infrastructure (23/ARCH; 7.1.3). Hence, the incorporation of heritage protection into their portfolio is a big challenge (58/NGO). In the town planning department of the MCD, for example, there are only a few dedicated urban planners, with little or no expertise in the field of heritage conservation (US Aid 2008: 27) (58/NGO). This situation weakens the position of the municipalities towards the residents of the area under their responsibility, in the sense that they have no authority over them: “How can you go and talk to them if you are not giving them basic services? You are not even picking up the garbage. How can you go and tell them ‘go and preserve your house’, when you are not even picking up the garbage from the cities?” (23/ARCH).

Another consequence of the weak institutional capacity of the municipalities is that even NGOs that try to cooperate with local bodies often do not know whom to approach: “The problem with MCD is that we do not know whom to address; the thing is that the commissioner is too senior, he would not be interested to talk to us or to come to our events; and then there only come an uncountable number of officers and engineers, with not much expertise, so that we do not know whom to address” (68/NGO).

A representative of the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) describes his work with public agencies as being “a total battle everyday” (41a/NGO). He further reports that “there is a huge suspicion of public organisations; even within the ASI. In every government department, officers come up with one reason or another why it can not be done” (41a/NGO).

Approval procedures The weak position of the municipalities influences, in particular, the private owners of heritage buildings or of buildings located in the buffer zones around listed heritage structures and their relationship towards heritage protection (cf. 6.2.2) Since there exist neither adequate databases nor enough knowledge and expertise about heritage protection within the municipality, it is very difficult for private owners to recognise that they even own a listed building, never mind or to get information about how to deal with their property. If someone owns a listed heritage building or a building close to a listed monument, there are rules to follow and restrictions to be heeded. The procedure to get approval for plans in the area of heritage conservation is very complex:

150

6 Empirical Analysis “What happens is that every owner (…) should take approval from a number of bodies. If there is a change in land use: MCD, DDA, DUAC; and in cases where the monument is within 300 m then again take an approval from ASI. So what happens is that he would take approvals from everybody. Before undertaking any work. That is how it is. And suppose there is government building within. Even that government building would also follow the same process. Nothing is except for a government building. Even they would have to take their instances from all these bodies in order to undertake any new construction, any construction, modification to an existing construction, change of heights, visual characters etc. Anything that is to be done has to be well taken an approval before” (18/ASI).

In case affected persons seek assistance in questions concerning heritage issues, it is very difficult for them to find someone who can provide competent support. One conservation architect reports on the application process of one of his clients: “So [my client who wanted to restore his Haweli] went to the local authority. The local authority says‚ ‘you are the first person to seek permission – we don’t know what to do’. So it took us one entire year to get that one letter saying that you can restore your house (…). So imagine the applied people who want to build new buildings in historic areas or something like that. They just don’t go to the authority, because the authority themselves just don’t know what to do” (47/ARCH).

Another owner, who owns a property within the regulated area of one of the monuments of national importance, reports that it took him five years to pass through the jungle of authorities and to finally get clearance for his project from the HCC. When asked how long the process took, between first approaching HCC and finally receiving permission, he responded: “You’ll not believe! 5 years! (…) You know, we can not approach HCC directly. We have got to go through MCD. We have got to go through chief town planner who will approve that ok, this property is fit to be recommended to HCC for approval. Then the committee will consider our case. It is not that we can approach, nobody can approach HCC directly. (…) It is really not a very big blessing to have a property near the monument” (11/OWN).

This complicated procedure of approvement of development projects located around listed heritage buildings contributes to the situation that (almost) “no private person wants his property to be listed as a heritage property” (20/NDMC1) or agrees to it being located within prohibited/regulated areas. Furthermore, there is general opposition against the procedure of notifying further heritage buildings under legal heritage acts by residents living close to historic sites (cf. 6.2.1). A representative of the Shahjahan Redevelopment Corporation (SRDC) offers an exemplary description of the effects of this complicated situation for heritage proptery owners in Old Delhi: “Why the people are using it [heritage buildings] for warehouses? Why people are using [them] for trading activity rather than inputting for the better adaptive use, like the spa, restaurants, art gallery, performing art dealers, many more things? You understand, the first thing is, even if somebody wants it, the regulations and the bye-laws are so strict that getting permission to do these activities, the restoration work, becomes unbearable. So they find this out, that it is better to demolish it than to do it through” (92/SRDC).

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

151

Law enforcement and corruption The weak equipment and capacity of the municipal authorities leads to the situation that the enforcement of the law is weak. The fact that, in many cases, the authority responsible does not know how to proceed, paves the way for laws to be broken, sometimes deliberately, sometimes unwittingly (28/NGO, 47/ARCH, 64/RES). This situation, in combination with the unwillingness of private property owners to accept restrictions (due to the heritage status of their properties as such or due to their location within prohibited/restricted areas), supports the phenomenon of corruption (31/NGO, 70/RES, 87/RES; cf. 6.2.2, 6.2.3). A resident living close to a listed heritage building reports in this context: “These MCD people, they wanted (…) not less than 25, 30, 40 lakhs to permit you to start” (64/RES). Another resident confirms: “In some places they are giving approval by taking money. The ASI is taking money. (…) We are looked after by MCD. They will clear your documents. But you can’t start construction as long as you don’t have the clearance from ASI. That one takes money, gives you a letter, then you can build. Then you don’t have a problem. Some houses have been built. They are taking bribes, and they are built. The builder can afford to give. A resident can’t. Everybody does not have that kind of money to pay” (96/RES).

Public space, ownership and encroachment Beyond these operational obstacles and problems, there exist hurdles for the implementation of heritage-related projects that can be found in the tension field between public space, ownership and encroachment (WWC-2014). Generally speaking, the number and dimensions of open public spaces in Delhi is limited. Hence, every small portion of land that is available is used for recreation or settlement activities (81/RES, 83/RES, 84/RES). By regularising access to these spaces (by, for example, locking the direct precincts of heritage sites), excludes certain groups of people from using this space (cf. 6.2.1). Residents of the Nizamuddin neighbourhood (cf. 6.2.4) describe that several public spaces (e. g. the area around Chausath Khamba, a mughal tomb), previously, when they were not looked after, belonged to the community. But since restoration work started, these places have been taken away from the community (97/RES, 98/RES). One resident reports playing there in his childhood, but now feeling that the government has taken away the land to attract more tourists (57/RES). This opinion is supported by local staff of MCD: “That’s the tragedy; who is putting them [the locks] in? I don’t know who is putting the lock on the park. You know, there was a park, open place, kids used to play, children used to play, the boys, teenage boys. Now they put the lock …” (93/MCD).

The same is happening on a larger dimension to other public spaces, for example to an open field in front of Red Fort (cf. 6.2.4) which was previously used for a public market: “If you look at the lawn behind the Red Fort, there’s a place which used to be a local market. But that is now kind of all sealed off and is a large grassy thing, which nobody can go onto. So by contrast there is also a cutting off of certain areas, which are otherwise being used. But in

152

6 Empirical Analysis the name of preservation you kind of ordinate something off. So that kind of thing happens” (16/ACAD).

The other side of the coin in this context is the issue of encroachment (cf. 6.2.1). A great number of heritage sites and buildings in Delhi are illegally occupied (34/NGO, 69/DDA, 92/SRDC). This happens mainly to heritage sites that are not officially protected (15/GNCTD). Using them as living space can lead to people causing harm to the heritage structures. But, in such cases, the question of ownership often arises. Some heritage structures have been encroached for decades137 (34/NGO). One interviewee emphasises the question of ownership by asking “If people are living in some abandoned old tomb and have all kinds of things to make that space habitable, apart from the property issue, whether it belongs to the ASI or something else. How does one say that this use is wrong?” (40/ACAD).

Another interviewee elaborates about the implication of declaring certain structures as heritage at a certain point of time: “There’s a long period when nobody looked after these monuments. (…) people started going and living inside. They started – they built houses et cetera, et cetera. This happened in Tuglakhabad, this happened in Delhi, in Humayun’s Tomb, this has happened in deserted fortresses all over the country. People have taken over temples. They have taken over mosques that need to be protected, churches that need to be protected. They were lying in ruins; people moved into them. And they’re not even using them as places of worship. Many of these places have been used for people to live in. (…) Nobody has bothered about it for 300 years. (…) Now you go and declare it as a protected monument. These people become illegal because you have legalised that structure” (49/ACT).

Now a conflict of interest emerges and the public authorities have to balance a certain degree of social responsibility with their job of protecting cultural heritage. One important question in this context is about the rights of the encroachers and their likelihood of claiming compensation138 (51/IITP). This situation is summarised by a member of DDA as follows: “We have large percentage of economically weaker group. And then we have low enforcement and they have political support because they are their vote bank. And these places where enforcement is weak, they find an economic place for their shelter. So around monuments earlier there were some illegal houses or still they are there. But it is to be seen that if we take them out, then where will they be rehabilitated? This is a big question. So for the important monuments, those which are under ASI, the government is more serious, but for the monuments which are not given protection, so they are at the mercy of Delhi government and the people, so they do not enjoy so much importance there” (07/DDA).

An eviction of illegal encroachers on behalf of heritage protection is only possible in the case of monuments and sites officially protected under the AMASR Act (cf. 6.3.2) or under the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeologi137 Verma, R.: “600-yr-old Delhi tomb freed of encroachers”, in: The Times of India, 06.02.2009. 138 The right to fair compensation is regulated by the “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013“ (Government of India (2013): The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparancy in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2121/1/20 1330.pdf, access: 2018-07-05).

6.3 Urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi: the current state

153

cal Sites and Remains Act (09/SRDC). One specific case of property disputes over heritage sites can be found for example in Mehrauli139, one of the heritage zones declared by the MPD-2021. Within this zone are a vast number of religious structures, which various religious communities claim to own, be it due to religious values of a certain space or to historic path dependency (23/ARCH). To clarify the ownership status in such examples is a very complex issue: “So it is so complicated that even at times they do not even have original ownership documents but they have other documents like electric connection, water bills, phone bills and it becomes so complicated. The courts are not going to allow you to take away something unless it is established beyond doubt that the property is not theirs but completely yours” (69/DDA).

Everyday practices Besides the public and professional approaches to heritage preservation, there also exists a range of everyday practices relating to cultural heritage in Delhi. These practices reflect the societal perception of urban cultural heritage (cf. 6.3.1) and revolve around continuous renewal and rebuilding on the basis of a circular understanding of time and the great importance of place. Such everyday practices mainly affect religious buildings or spiritual sites, such as temples. The handling of the Kalkaji temple140 in Delhi shows this in an exemplary way. One interviewee explains in this context: “And temples are constantly rebuilding themselves. So because of that, even when you have practising temples, living temples, which have any antiquity, you don’t see it. Because it has been obliterated by subsequent enlargement and so forth. So you go to, for example, the Kalkaji Temple in Delhi. Which is (…) recorded as an old temple. (…) At least a couple of hundred years. A hundred years? Five hundred years old, at least, if not more” (49/ACT).

Kalkaji Mandir, which is dedicated to the Hindu goddess Kali, is according to the Shri Kalkaji Mandir Trust, the most visited Hindu temple in Delhi141. It is said to be 3000 years old and it is believed that it can be traced back to the times of the national epic Mahabaratha142 (cf. 5.1). The oldest shrine existing today, however, is said to have been built in 1764143. In 1816 Raja Kidar Nath, who was the Peshkar of Akbar II, made changes and extensions to the original structure of the temple144, whereas the present structure was built in the early 19th century145. Within recent 139 Since the 1990s great efforts have been made to create an archaeological park in the area called Mehrauli. A number of monuments have been conserved and heritage trails and signages have been installed (Nanda 2004). 140 As everyday practices in regard to urban cultural heritage are not the main focus of this study, the description about the Kalkaji Temple is mainly based on literature and web research. 141 https://www.shrikalkajimandir.in/about (access 2018-09-07). 142 The Hindu, 4th January 2004: ‘Fascinating tale of the Kalkaji Temple’. https://www.thehindu. com/mp/2004/01/26/stories/2004012600750200.htm (access 2018-09-07). 143 Some sources date the first elements to 1734; https://www.shrikalkajimandir.in/history (access 2018-09-07). 144 https://www.templepurohit.com/hindu-temple/kalka-devi-temple-delhi/ (access 2018-09-07). 145 https://www.thedivineindia.com/kalkaji-mandir/5779 (access 2018-09-07).

154

6 Empirical Analysis

decades a number of adjoining structures and buildings have emerged in the direct vicinity of the temple. In its current, modern appearance, the temple does not give the impression of representing 3000 years of history.

7 DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS: URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE GOVERNANCE IN DELHI 7.1 SYNTHESISING URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE GOVERNANCE IN DELHI The empirical analysis of the governance of Delhi’s urban heritage (cf. 6.3) unveils the high complexity of processes that take place around the issue of urban conservation and heritage protection in the context of a South Asian megacity. Practical problems and concrete obstacles at the level of implementation as well as regulations, legal instruments and informal institutions play an important role. At the same time, different understandings of cultural heritage and philosophies of conservation exist and influence these processes on the level of implementation as well as the institutional framework. There exist not only antagonistic fundamental philosophies and societal perspectives about cultural heritage, but also professional approaches and theoretical concepts towards its protection that are continuously evolving over time. The first part of the following chapter summarises and synthesises the empirical findings of this study and completes them with existing literature. The second part of the section will put the findings into a broader context and discuss the interlinkages between imagination, regulation and implementation. The chapter will close with a section on questions that will be relevant for the future development of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi. 7.1.1 Societal and professional discourses on the safeguarding of urban cultural heritage in Delhi – conflicting perceptions The discourse that takes place in the meta-order of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi is divided into two main strands, with two secondary strands each (cf. 6.3.1). On the one hand, there is the societal discourse on urban heritage, consisting of ‘societal perception’ and ‘everyday awareness’. The term ‘societal perception’ describes the understanding of cultural heritage and its protection at the societal level, whereas ‘everyday awareness’ describes individual attitudes and everyday experiences in this context. On the other hand, there exist two different professional perspectives, a conventional one and an extended one, each of which follows different underlying philosophies and pursues different approaches to cultural heritage (cf. 6.3.1). This sub-section first sets the societal and professional discourse about urban cultural heritage in Delhi and its protection into a broader context and examines second, the mutual influences of the four strands of discourse.

156

7 Discussion and Synthesis

Reflecting on the societal discourse on safeguarding urban cultural heritage The empirical analysis of this study showed that within the Indian society, the general desire to preserve and conserve the original physical fabric of historic remnants as evidence from the past and of stages of common progress does not exist by nature (cf. 6.3.1). Hence, concepts of conservation and preservation that underlie conservation strategies in the Western context are perceived critically within the Indian society. This traces back to a circular understanding of time and space, which is rooted in religious and spiritual beliefs. The past is no longer separated from the present and the future. Rather, time is regarded as a continuity and hence, fluent modernisation and adaptation of traditions, skills, beliefs, and practices need to be included in the image of the future and seen as resources for it (Mehrotra 2009: 101, Piplani 2015b: 84, Stubbs & Thomson 2017: 360). Hence, the past “is not to be learnt or embalmed, but interpreted and incorporated creatively in everyday life” (Piplani 2015b: 84). Based on this idea of the past, in the Indian context the sanctity of a site is often considered more important than historic buildings and structures themselves (Gutschow 2017: 30). In this context, the ‘living’ components of heritage play an important role, which means it is believed that tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage are strongly interwoven. Against this background, interviews with residents of Delhi revealed that material heritage structures, especially minor ones like small medieval tombs, are not something they consider worthy of protection, at least not because of their historical origin (cf. 6.2.2, 6.3.1). This shows that in the Indian context, historicity is not perceived as the (most) important criterion for the protection of heritage (cf. 6.2.2). Rather, spiritual or religious connections to heritage sites or buildings are relevant in this context (cf. 6.2.5, 6.3.1). It became further apparent, that if people have no spiritual or religious links to specific sites or buildings, they do not have any connection and do not consider them to be their heritage. Nevertheless, there exists some sense of pride towards outstanding heritage sites like the Taj Mahal, Qutb Minar or Red Fort and hence a general agreement that these sites are worth protecting. As important reasons for their preservation, however, prestige and the opportunity for visibility on the global stage were given (cf. 6.3.1). Looking at the individual level and the ‘everyday awareness’ towards conservation and preservation of (urban) cultural heritage (cf. 6.3.1), three main positions on cultural heritage protection among Delhi’s residents were noticeable: for some, cultural heritage and its protection does not play any role at all, some developed a negative attitude and some are very positive. Depending on the spiritual or religious background of the inhabitants, however, individual practices in relation to particular sites can play a role (cf. 6.2.5, 6.3.1). For many residents of Delhi, heritage protection simply does not play any role in their everyday life (Chakrabarti 2001: 185). Due to economic reasons or a lack of interest, deficient education or exposure to the topic, there is a general lack of awareness about urban heritage and the issue of its protection (cf. 6.3.4). The empirical analysis showed, however, that even in the case where people have

7.1 Synthesising urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

157

an awareness of cultural heritage and its protection, the topic does not play an important role for them. One aspect that is relevant in this context is a phenomenon that can be subsumed under the term ‘middle class aspirations’. The so-called ‘new Indian middle class’ developed after the economic liberalisation of the 1990s (cf. 6.3.1). Although there exist certain elements that can be used to characterise this part of the Indian society (they often live an urban lifestyle, are employed in the private economic sector, are attracted by commodity consumerism, are involved with formal education, etc.), the new Indian middle class cannot be seen as a homogeneous group. In contrast to the ‘old Indian middle class’, which was mainly constituted by civil servants of the state apparatus shaped by a colonial past and a planned socialist economy (Brosius 2009: 221), this ‘new Indian middle class’ is very heterogeneous and elusive in character. There are still many differentiating factors such as language, religion and ethnicity which characterise it as “diverse and multifaceted” (Donner & De Neve 2011: 17). The ‘new Indian middle class’ is constantly growing, which means that the Indian sub-continent becomes more and more important as a consumer market within the world economy. But, it is not only the rising economic power that constitutes the high dynamic of this section of Indian society but furthermore a great variety of social transformation processes (Brosius 2009: 222). What becomes relevant in the context of urban cultural heritage, however, is the fact that many members of the new middle class prefer living in an environment that represents a global lifestyle and that offers modern infrastructure and amenities (Dupont 2011, Hosagrahar 2012)1. Consequently, members of Delhi’s middle class leave traditional neighbourhoods and historic buildings to live in modern parts of the city. In this context, not only the pull effect of a modern and global lifestyle plays a role, so too do phenomenena like weakening social relations or the decreasing importance of the joint family model (Brosius 2009; cf. 6.2.3). A negative attitude towards heritage protection develops mainly when property owners are negatively influenced by heritage-related regulations. This is especially the case when people who are living within the buffer zones around nationally- and state-protected monuments or who own properties in these areas are limited in their freedom to rebuild and develop their properties (cf. 6.2.2, 6.3.1; Figure 10). Nevertheless, there exists a small but growing group of people in Delhi who call themselves ‘heritage lovers’. They have developed a positive and supportive attitude towards the protection of urban heritage. Most of them can be associated with the new Indian middle class. They show passionate interest in historic structures and their histories and engage themselves in (small) actions to support the safeguarding of Delhi’s urban heritage (cf. 6.3.3).

1

It must be mentioned here, though, that these aspirations are not limited to the Indian middle class alone but exist within all parts of the Indian society (Ghertner 2011).

158

7 Discussion and Synthesis

Reflecting on the professional discourse on safeguarding urban cultural heritage The conventional approach that mainly guides the action of those public institutions officially mandated to protect Delhi’s heritage (ASI, MoC, SDA; cf. 6.1) is still based on conservation principles and legal instruments that were established during colonial times (cf. 6.3.1). These principles and their implementation have highly influenced the relationship between society and monuments within India. In pre-Independence India, conservation efforts focused on the preservation of individual monuments and conservation strategies were based on the idea of “scientistic materialism”. This means that the construction of technical methodologies was key to preserving the observable and material aspects of cultural heritage, not the immaterial (Winter 2014: 129). Using new scientific techniques and technologies of excavation, restoration and documentation to unlock and interpret the cultural past of India, this approach clearly represented a Eurocentric perspective (cf. 2.4.1) (Menon 2009: 19, Winter 2014: 129). Aesthetic and visual aspects of heritage were emphasised and “that which was magnificent became significant, often disregarding local traditions and associations” (Prothi-Khanna 2004). During that time, “symbiotic linkages” (Ray 2012: 69) that had previously existed between different places in Asia, as well as the perception of monuments, especially of religious structures, had changed. Monuments were no longer recognised as “abodes of spiritual power [but as] objects of artistic and aesthetic appreciation” (ibid.). Furthermore, the Indian past was perceived as an homogeneous entity and hence, the colonial approach to heritage protection marked a break with the country’s multiple pasts (Menon 2007: 265). The significant influence of the colonial approach to heritage protection continues to this day. Although the colonial instruments and regulations have been developed further and have been partly amended (cf. 6.3.2, 7.1.2), the principles of that time are still valid today. The ASI still identifies heritage sites based solely on their historical importance and on material aspects, and not on their contemporary meaning for communities. This approach often ignores the ground realities and the living character of many heritage sites. Based on the content of its newly-formulated National Policy for Conservation of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Protected by the ASI of India, the ASI has recently been slowly opening up towards a more inclusive understanding of urban cultural heritage (cf. 6.3.2). Nevertheless, the organisation’s operational activities are still guided by a monument-centric approach. The empirical findings of this study show, however, that there is a conscious element in this positioning, as the ASI tries to remain (politically, socially and culturally) impartial this way (cf. 6.3.1). In contrast to the conventional perspective, the extended professional perspective towards urban conservation tries to overcome the monument-centric approach of the official institutions by addressing larger socio-cultural interrelations and incorporating the current ground conditions in the country (cf. 6.3.1). Cityscapes, sacred spaces and cultural landscapes do play a role in this context (Baig 2004). Hence, questions outside the conservation realm, like urban planning, societal de-

7.1 Synthesising urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

159

velopment and education, community issues, poverty alleviation, spiritual aspects etc. also play a significant role (cf. 6.2). The evolvement of the extended perspective is, among other things, shaped by the international discourse on urban conservation (from focussing on individual historic monuments to encompassing cultural properties/vernacular fabrics by incorporating intangible aspects; cf. 2.2, 6.1.3). However, the suitability of international approaches and the application of international charters and conventions (cf. 2.2) for the Indian context is critically discussed within literature (Chapagain 2013, MacKee 2009, Menon, 2003a) and within Delhi’s conservation scene (cf. 6.3.1). Especially the “‘universal’ view which was first imposed, and then accepted by us [India] in our dialogue with the West” (Menon 1994: 43) plays a role in this discussion. This becomes obvious, for example, by looking at UNESCO and their World Heritage system, which originates in the Western value system (Chapagain 2013, Sullivan 2004: 49). The organisation functions as a powerful disseminator of global standards of conservation (Askew 2010: 17). In general, the idea of the significance of cultural heritage being all-encompassing, which still is the basis of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, is criticised in the Indian context. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 2017, for example, state that “(o)utstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity”2. Furthermore, the Historic Urban Landscape Approach (HUL), (holistic approach towards urban conservation, aimed at incorporating social and economic development, cf. 2.2) is relevant in this context. The Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape states that “Urban heritage, including its tangible and intangible components, constitutes a key resource in enhancing the liveability of urban areas, and fosters economic development and social cohesion in a changing global environment. (…) In the course of the past half century, urban heritage conservation has emerged as an important sector of public policy worldwide. It is a response to the need to preserve shared values and to benefit from the legacy of history”.3

In this context, Chapagain (2013: 11) argues, that within the UNESCO heritage system, tangible and intangible heritage conservation are seen as two distinct instruments that need to be combined in order to reach a holistic approach. This however, does not do justice to the long-prevailing Indian understanding that material and immaterial aspects form a closely intertwined unity. Hence, it is questioned whether an approach, like the Historic Urban Landscape Approach, formulated in the Western context, is required, since cultural landscapes have long played a role in the Indian context (cf. 6.3.1). As the extended approach to conservation in India is still evolving and is not yet defined, conservation professionals have to practice within an environment where 2 3

UNESCO (2017): Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. (https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/, access: 2018-09-19). UNESCO (2011): Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, including a glossary of definitions. (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html, access: 2018-03-21).

160

7 Discussion and Synthesis

different understandings of authenticity clash with each other. Menon (2017: 88) calls this an “additional burden” and explains that “Working in the field of conservation I have learnt that conserving architectural heritage requires intellectual reflexivity and a catholicity of approach not common among purists in the profession” (ibid.).

Conservation practitioners have to find a balance between conventional, international and traditional ideas and need to adapt their conservation strategies to the respective circumstances. They look at cities or urban areas as a whole and try to integrate the urban fabric, as well as the living component and the societal perspective, into conservation efforts. By doing so, conservationists in India face great challenges. For example, applying international standards to the Indian context, with a highly pluralist society, where cultural memory is a fluid process and dynamic urban socio-spatial changes are going, on is a great challenge (Shatkin & Vidyarthi 2014: 12). While trying to protect World Heritage Sites, they need to balance demands of specific local socio-cultural and geographical contexts on the one hand and global aspirations on the other hand. The need to display the ‘outstanding universal significance’ of the respective sites and the search for an all-uniting authenticity concept often results in loss of other significant associations (Falser 2008: 130, Menon 2003a, Prothi-Khanna 2004: 6). Furthermore, the aim of preserving something for the world community often has the effect of taking control over heritage sites away from traditional owners and communities (Sullivan 2004: 52). In this context, (global) heritage tourism plays an important role (Nasser 2003: 467, Salazar 2015: 122). Following a constructivist perspective, the meaning ascribed to heritage places is always selective (Nasser 2003: 471; cf. 2.3). Hence, the attempt to satisfy the desires of both the local inhabitants and (inter-) national audiences creates tensions. To select stories about the sites, that represent heritage for all audiences, is a great challenge. The perception of heritage places by locals and by (global) tourists often differs to a great extent and “although the global heritage dialogue tends to present the built environment as an empty container, places of heritage remain places where real people live and where real conflicts may arise” (Al Sayyad 2001: 22). To overcome these challenges, many conservation projects carried out outside the conventional realm, refer to approaches of a hybrid character (Menon 2017, Weiler 2013: 258; cf. 6.2.4). In such cases, parts of the conventional approach are combined with indigeneous understanding and traditional practices (cf. 6.3.3, 7.1.3). In doing so, conservation practitioners take a “hybridised” (Menon 2017) version of authenticity as a basis for their work (Nanda 2017, Weiler 2017). One example of such an approach can be found in the Nizzamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative (cf. 6.2.4). In the proposal for this project it is stated that the conservation philosophy is based on John Marshall’s Conservation Manual from 1923 and some influential international charters like, for example, the Venice Charter and the Burra Charter (cf. 2.2), whilst also integrating traditional skills of Indian craftsmen (Weiler 2017: 141). In summary, the empirical findings of this study show that, against the background of highly dynamic urban spaces with a multi-layered history that are subject

7.1 Synthesising urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

161

to constant reconfiguration and change, Indian conservation professionals do not generally share the idea of conserving urban heritage and preserving a certain stage in time. However, at present, the discourse about the configuration of an approach that suits the Indian context is still ongoing and the demand for finding an Indian approach to urban conservation is currently pressing. Those actors that are most active in this discourse are NGOs, practitioners in the field and heritage activists. Scientific institutions are also involved, but the state of academic debate in this context is criticised as being insufficient (cf. 6.3.1). As public institutions do not contribute much, exchange and communication processes take place in a non-institutional, non-formalised way, where involved actors meet on equal terms and aim for mutual exchange to further the discourse. Hence, the interaction proceeds in a discoursive way of arguing and interaction activities are more or less open-ended processes, which can take place either intentionally, through specific events or publishing activities, or unintentionally on various occasions. As a common approach to (urban) conservation in the extended sense does not yet exist, activities in this field appear to be more of a “broad-based movement” (Baig 2004), within which different conservation strategies are adopted by NGOs, professionals and activists, and are adapted to the individual cases and role model projects (Piplani 2015b: 86, Woods 2017: 120; cf. 6.3.1). 7.1.2 The institutional framework of cultural heritage protection in Delhi – a patchwork carpet The following sub-section reflects on the formal as well as the informal institutions in the context of urban cultural heritage governance that emerged from the empirical analysis of this study (cf. 6.3.2). Formal institutions The analysis of the legal framework for heritage protection in Delhi showed that heritage specific regulations were first introduced into the Indian context by the British colonial power in 1904 and have been extended since then (cf. 6.3.2). It became obvious that, at the international level, new charters and conventions with modernised contents were formulated and continuously further developed (cf. 2.2), whereas a modernisation of heritage regulations in Delhi and India started only in 2004 (cf. Figure 32). The consideration of the interplay of heritage-specific regulations and urban planning instruments relevant for urban conservation in Delhi revealed that this legal framework is fragmented and contains gaps with regard to the safeguarding of Delhi’s urban heritage in an integrated way (cf. 6.3.2). This situation is caused by the monumental orientation and the restrictive and non-supporting nature of this legislation, as well as by a lack of a local planning strategy involving the protection of urban heritage.

162

7 Discussion and Synthesis

Figure 32: Timeline of heritage specific regulations in Delhi

The empirical data showed that there exists a lack of connection and cohesion between the heritage-specific legal regulations and urban planning instruments in Delhi. This holds true for over the whole of India, as heritage-specific regulations, at both national and local levels, generally aim at protecting individual historic buildings (Hosagrahar 2013: 21, Lambah 2012, Shorey 2006), and urban planning regulations do not effectively include urban conservation4. By emphasising their specific objective as being the preservation of the material remains of ancient, archaeological, monumental and artistic built environments and focussing only on listed monuments of national and regional importance (cf. 6.3.2), heritage legislations do not take into account any links to the spatial environment. Accordingly, the Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi 2016 (which guide the day-to-day work of the municipalities and private building measures) focus on individual buildings and plots. Hence, the connection between single buildings and plots and their surrounding areas is not given specific attention (cf. 6.3.2). This means that as soon as one “steps out” of the building and looks at a street or an urban pattern, the cohesion is lost. Zooming out from a neighbourhood to an area or even the whole city magnifies this situation. In regard to heritage protection in an inclusive sense (which means involving cultural, religious and spiritual entanglements), the legal instruments in Delhi are also not very sophisticated. There are some policies and documents that

4

One prominent exception in this context is Mumbai, where the government published the Heritage Regulations for Greater Bombai in 1995. These were the first heritage regulations in India focussing on the ‘non-monumental’ heritage of a city and including buildings and their precincts, structures, fountains, open spaces, etc.

7.1 Synthesising urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

163

address heritage protection in a broader sense, but these are not legally binding and hence there is no pressure for them to be implemented (cf. 6.3.2). There is, in general, no legal difference between public and private ownership in Delhi, and hence no specific policy for private heritage buildings that might include supporting instruments like tax incentives, loan opportunities or a coherent strategy for adaptive reuse. This situation poses a big problem in the context of heritage protection in Delhi (cf. 6.2.2, 6.2.3). A decisive detail in this context is the fact that when it comes to financial support for private heritage owners, Indian law is sometimes even obstructive. In India, banks usually only give loans for buildings that are no older than 15 years, which means that it is almost impossible to get loans for investment in heritage buildings, as they are, per definition, at least 100 years old. That means that owning a historic building puts one in a dilemma, as one is not allowed to tear it down to rebuild it, nor is it possible to get a loan for its restoration (cf. 6.2.2, 6.2.3). ASI’s National Conservation Policy (Art. 3.06) (cf. 6.3.2), however, proposes to allow adaptive reuse, but only in ancillary portions of a listed monument and only if the usage is suitable for enhancing or upgrading the monument or incorporates complementary functions to the monument (like ASI’s field offices, interpretation centres, inspection rooms, storage space, public amenities etc.). According to the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (Chapter II, 6.2c), adaptive reuse is not allowed for monuments listed under it5. The MPD-2021, however, mentions the necessity of preparing guidelines for the reuse of heritage buildings (Art. 10.2), but it explicitly does not permit mixed-use (in the sense of commercial activities including small shops) in the Lutyen’s Bungalow Zone and within buildings and precincts “listed by the Heritage Conservation Committee” (Delhi Development Authority 2007: 216). However, there seems to be a contradiction with the Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi. According to the bye-laws, (Annexure-II, Art. 1.9), incentive uses for heritage buildings may be allowed by the HCC in cases where the owner agrees to maintain and preserve the listed property in its existing state. In Delhi, there exists no proper planning strategy on the ground level that takes heritage issues into account. There are neither site-specific heritage bye-laws regulating the development in the buffer zones around monuments of national importance and state-protected monuments6. Nor are there, as yet, (urban) planning instruments that effectively regulate local development processes in place (cf. 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.3.2). Site-specific heritage bye-laws, which should already exist (cf. 6.3.2), might have the potential to highly improve the situation within the buffer zones. It must be mentioned, though, that these bye-laws are generally meant to cater for the monuments rather than for the surrounding urban fabric. But, when properly formulated, they could provide important guiding principles for the development of these areas. 5 6

Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs (2005): The Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004 (Delhi Act 9 of 2005). As described in chapter 6.2.2 and 6.3.2, development activities are either completely prohibited or highly restricted in these areas.

164

7 Discussion and Synthesis

Currently, development and building proposals for the buffer zones are approved on a case-to-case basis, without an overarching strategy that focuses on the special heritage character of each of the areas (cf. 6.2.2). In the empirical analysis of this study, three major reasons were identified that make the process of preparation of these site-specific bye-laws very difficult (cf. 6.3.2). One is a missing database that reflects the ground reality of the respective areas. Neither site-specific plans of the monuments and their direct precincts nor up to-date maps of the urban surrounding exist. Second, there are no role models of such bye-laws in India, so their preparation is a pioneering work and therefore takes a lot of time. Third, it is not yet clear where these bye-laws will be embedded within the legal system. And yet, without them being legally binding for the implementing agencies at the local level, the byelaws remain a nice idea on paper (cf. 7.1.3). The MPD-2021 includes a great deal of wishful thinking in regard to an urban planning strategy that integrates heritage as an important element (cf. 6.3.2). Yet it does not include an effective road map to explain how this can be translated into action and brought to the level of implementation. Although it mentions urban heritage being more than (individual) historic monuments, but also historic complexes and cities, historical gardens, etc., (Delhi Development Authority 2007: 127) this idea has not been integrated into the plans and legislation that regulate the actual work on the ground. For example, the heritage zones that are proposed in the MPD-2021 do not have any effect at the level of implementation as the boundaries of those zones are not legally demarcated and hence the concept can not be translated into binding legal instruments (like special development plans, zonal plans or local area plans; cf. 6.3.2). Furthermore, the zonal plans, which are meant to regulate Delhi’s development in greater detail, first do not substantially differ from the MPD-2021 content-wise; second, they are generally too broad in nature to effectively guide measures on the ground; and third, are not comprehensively available for Delhi’s urban area (cf. 6.2.3, 6.3.2). Local area plans, the preparation of which was provided by the MPD-2021 so that local conditions and requirements could be included into the planning process, are not yet at the implementation stage (cf. 6.3.2). The reasons why t he local area planscannot be successfully completed are similar to those of the failure of site-specific heritage planning. One, a proper database displaying the ground reality is missing. Two, the process of public participation is very complicated and could not be carried out in a satisfactory manner. This means that in the whole process of shaping the legally-binding regulations for heritage protection, there is no opportunity for those who are affected in their everyday life, to participate and to make their voices heard. Three, municipal agencies were not willing to effectively cooperate with the teams preparing the plans. Four, due to the multiplicity of involved agencies the approval process could not be successfully completed (cf. 6.3.2). In summary, it can be said that the legally-binding instruments that are in place to guide the protection of urban heritage in Delhi (AMASR Act, Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi 2016; cf. 6.3.2) reflect a hierarchical top-down approach (cf. 3.4.1). The overarching legal instruments have little connection to the on-the-

7.1 Synthesising urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

165

ground realities and are prepared and enacted by agencies located at central- or state levels of government. In regard to the AMASR Act 2010 and to the site-specific bye-laws, the GoI has the legislative power. The ASI prepared its National Policy for Conservation of the Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Protected by the ASI of India (2014), though it must be mentioned again, that this policy is not legally binding. And the GNCTD’s role in regard to legal aspects of heritage protection in Delhi lies in the enactment of the Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (2004), which applies to monuments of regional importance. Participation of the civil society and municipal agencies does not actively take place in the process of the preparation and formulation of heritage-related legal instruments. In the context of urban planning instruments that are relevant in regard to the protection of Delhi’s urban heritage, the Delhi Development Agency (DDA) plays a major role. Under its responsibility is the preparation and enactment of the MPD2021, of zonal development plans, as well as of the Unified Building Bye-laws for Delhi. Furthermore, DDA is responsible for the approval of the local area plans that are prepared by the municipal bodies in cooperation with consulting agencies. This means that the DDA, which is located at a central government level (cf. Figure 6), plays an important role in every level of planning. It becomes obvious now, that the actors with the greatest power in designing the guiding framework of heritage protection in Delhi are, through its legislative authority, the Government of India (MoC) and, in a minor role, the Government of the NCT Delhi (GNCTD). By preparing and enacting legal instruments, they are providing sovereign instructions that have to be followed by implementing agencies and by private property owners, even if this means that these suffer disadvantages (like e. g. through the prohibition of extensions to residential buildings; cf. 6.2.2) or that they have to act against their own beliefs or interests (like e. g. allowing public works within the prohibited zone; cf. 6.3.2). Experts from science and research as well as from NGOs and professional practice usually support the preparatory and review process of official documents. In the case of the review of MPD-2021 for example, a ‘Management Action Group on Heritage Conservation for Review of MPD-2021’ was formed, which consisted of official (political) representatives of UD GNCTD, the Department of Archaeology GNCTD, SDA, DDA, NMA, CPWD, and DUAC, of representatives from the municipalities (NDMC1, SDMC/NDMC2, Cantonment Board) as well as experts in architecture and conservation practice (INTACH Delhi chapter) and science (SPA/Delhi)7 8. In these cases, non-hierarchical processes of communication and 7

8

Delhi Development Authority, (Master Plan Review Section) (2013): Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of Management Action Group on “Heritage Conservation” for Review of MPD-2021. (https://dda.org.in/tendernotices_docs/june13/Minutes_3rd_MAG_Heritage%20Conservation-280613.pdf, access: 2018-02-14). Delhi Development Authority (Master Plan Review Section) (2012): Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of Management Action Group on “Heritage Conservation” for Review of MPD-2021. (https://dda.org.in/tendernotices_docs/jan13/Minutes_2nd_MAG_%20Heritage%20Conserva tion.pdf, access: 2018-02-14).

166

7 Discussion and Synthesis

cooperation (cf. 3.4.1) also take place, with respective parties arguing about the content of the documents and trying to persuade each other. A representative of INTACH describes the relationship between INTACH and the ASI thus: “Talking to ASI is talking to an elephant. You can try and push him and push him with all the force…” (33/NGO) shows, however, that such processes are often rather laborious in character. Furthermore, as the consulting experts do not have any legal power, it is often difficult for them to make their arguments heard. Often, political reasons play a superior role over expert knowledge when it comes to decision-processes in second order cultural heritage governance (cf. 6.3.2). Informal institutions Although values-based approaches to heritage conservation are currently subject to a controversial debate in academic literature and in professional practice (cf. 2.3), they are seen as an opportunity to successfully conserve and manage heritage sites (McClelland et al. 2013: 593, Orbaslı 2008: 38, Thakur & Gupta 2008). Values and their attribution to cultural heritage are generally utilised to assess the significance of specific places and to set the basis for decision-making processes about their protection and for suitable management strategies (cf. 2.3). The empirical findings of this study show that in India, a great bandwidth of values plays a role in the context of urban conservation (cf. 2.3, 6.3). Legally-binding conservation regulations (AMASR Act, 2010, Delhi Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 2004) are based on rather conventional values like historical, archaeological, architectural/artistic, and age. The ASI’s National Conservation Policy (cf. 6.3.2), which is not a legallybinding document, adds religious and intangible values and explicitly proposes a values-based approach to heritage conservation. INTACH’s Indian Charter for the Protection of Unprotected Monuments, however, goes beyond these values. It specifically emphasises the relevance of heritage sites for the contemporary society as important criteria for conservation efforts, and proposes that traditional knowledge systems and the related cultural landscape should define the authenticity of the value to be conserved (cf. 6.3.2). Approaches of several NGOs and activist groups make educational and social values of cultural heritage the focus of their work (cf. 2.3, 6.3.2). Recreational values of heritage sites have been observed as being important for the residents of Delhi (cf. 6.2.2, 6.3.2) but could not be identified as being part of the objective of any particular conservation project. On the contrary, the use of heritage sites as spots for recreation is prevented in several cases (cf. 6.2.1, 6.2.4). One issue that is currently in the focus of the debate concerning heritage protection in the Indian context is the economic value of urban heritage (cf. 6.3.2, 7.1.3). Whereas the economic value of cultural heritage in relation to tourism is generally acknowledged, the further economic potential, for example in the context of job creation and development of local industries, is recognised neither by official institutions nor by the citizens. Hence, the development and the utilisation of this potential has not thus far

7.1 Synthesising urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

167

been part of conservation projects (cf. 6.3.2, 6.3.1). In general, although the efforts of many NGOs and activist groups aim at promoting the idea of (urban) heritage as an asset rather than a liability, in the eye of public agencies it is still seen as an obstacle for (urban) development (cf. 6.3.2). What became obvious in this study, however, is the fact that the fundamental assumption, that value is the intrinsic reason for heritage to be protected (de la Torre & Mason 2002, Monteiro et al. 2015) needs to be handled with great care in the Indian context (cf. 2.3, 6.3.1). At the very least, the (practical and theoretical) implications and consequences of taking specific values as a basis for conservation efforts, management strategies and for the preparation of legal documents, do need to be critically engaged with (McClelland et al. 2013, Prothi-Khanna 2004). Coombe & Baird (2016: 350), for example, point out in this context, that a concentration on the economic value of heritage might lead to the commercialisation and exploitation of the economic potential of heritage and that new actors, such as corporate or industrial ones with their respective interests, will enter the field. Furthermore, stressing the economic value in this way runs the risk of creating a onesided focus while neglecting other values. Although, the economic value does not play an important role in actual conservation efforts in India, as described above, the discussion about the economic potential of cultural heritage is currently ongoing. The empirical analysis of this study showed that on the one hand, a broad consensus exists among NGO representatives, practitioners and residents in Delhi about the necessity to further include this potential into conservation and heritage management strategies (cf. 6.2.2, 6.3.2, 7.1.3). On the other hand, however, the (legal) conditions for utilising the economic potential of cultural heritage are not optimal. In this respect, the ASI is rather reserved due to the negative impact that commercial activities might have on monuments. This attitude certainly contributes to the lack of a legal basis for adaptive reuse and prevents the establishment of a supportive incentive strategy and economic utilisation of cultural heritage sites in Delhi (cf. 7.1.3). Another major point of criticism towards values-based approaches of heritage conservation concerns their normative implications. McClelland et al. (2013: 598) emphasise the role played in this context by the power and power relations between different stakeholders in heritage protection processes. Over-privileging values by some (powerful) stakeholders might lead to the ignorance of values that are important for other stakeholders. Thus, it is crucial to make explicit, Who has the sovereignity of interpretation? within conservation processes and Who is it that identifies and determines the values of a specific heritage site? In Delhi, the sovereignity of interpretation in most cases lies clearly with the legislative institutions and the public authorities, and not with those directly affected by conservation efforts. Hence, conservation efforts are guided by the architectural or archaeological values promoted by public institutions, rather than by values such as social, religious or recreational ones that are shared by the civil society (cf. 6.2).

168

7 Discussion and Synthesis

7.1.3 Implementing heritage protection in Delhi – a tedious undertaking When projects and plans of heritage protection are to be implemented, problems have to be solved directly and concrete action has to be actually taken. During the process of implementation, negotiations take place between public bureaucracy and those directly affected by a particular plan, legal requirements or political interventions. In the course of this study, a number of obstacles and challenges have been identified (cf. 6.3.3), that influence the implementation of urban conservation projects in Delhi at the operational level. The most influential are the multiplicity of agencies, lacking expertise, inadequate equipment and capacities of the authorities, lacking incentives and monetary support, and encroachment. The following section discusses these challenges and obstacles in more detail. Multiplicity of agencies and complicated relationship and communication patterns The empirical findings of the study revealed that the multiplicity of actors in the context of the implementation of conservation efforts in Delhi (cf. Figure 6) is a major obstacle to safeguarding Delhi’s urban heritage. The great number of public agencies and other actors involved leads to the fact that there exist gaps in responsibilities and that different interests meet and need to be negotiated (cf. 6.3.3). This situation is made even more difficult by the existence of complicated relationships and communication patterns among these different actors. The empirical insights of this study showed, that communication processes in first-order urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi are characterised by hierarchical as well as by nonhierarchical communication and decision-making processes (cf. 6.2, 6.3). If we look into the relationship among public agencies, it becomes obvious that little communication or coordination takes place between them, be it horizontal communication or coordination (e. g. between municipalities or between sectoral agencies) or vertical communication or coordination (e. g. between different administrative tiers) (Nuissl et al. 2012: 97). Sometimes even competitive or conflicting relationships exist between different authorities, making cooperation efforts even more difficult (cf. 6.3.3). This results in the situation that municipal bodies are cut-off to a great extent from state- and central-government bodies, reinforcing the separation of implementation and conception in the field of heritage protection described above. This situation is not unique in Delhi. A study about the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 2012: 37) found out, that only 25 % of the participating states report having effective cooperation between different levels of government. Communication processes between public agencies and other actors are mainly hierarchical in nature (cf. 3.4.1). Public agencies, in this case, have the decisive and legal power on their side (cf. 6.3.2). This means that if actors from the societal realm (NGOs, residents, owners) approach them, the relationship among the parties is always hierarchical. The societal actors can try to argue (cf. 3.4.1), but as they do

7.1 Synthesising urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

169

not have anything to offer in exchange or as they do not have any legal power or strong means of pressure, their position is always the weaker one. What becomes apparent in this context is, that the public agencies seldom take the proactive part in regard to heritage issues in Delhi (cf. 6.3.3). The monitoring bodies (DUAC, HCC, NMA, competent authority), for example, mainly only become active if they are approached by other agencies, private actors or project implementors (e. g. NGOs) and are asked for project clearances. This also holds true for the implementing agencies (e. g. ULBs), which are, for example, not very active in taking action against unauthorised construction around heritage buildings and sites. They often even play a rather enabling role in this regard, not least through corruptive actions (cf. 6.2.2). In general, there is not even great interest in heritage protection within the implementing agencies themselves. Including it into their day-to-day operations would add to their workload and they simply do not have the necessary expertise and workforce (cf. 6.3.3). There exist demands within Delhi’s conservation scene to install heritage cells within the organisational set-up of public authorities in order to overcome this situation and to ensure that heritage protection becomes part of their agendas and responsibilities9. This requirement, however, had not been implemented at the time of this study. As communication processes among public agencies and between public agencies and other actors are weak or are very burdened, NGOs dedicated to heritage protection do hold a very important, proactive and mediating part in this context (cf. 6.3.3). However, as NGOs rarely have anything to offer in exchange for their demands, these communication processes can be better described by the term ‘arguing’ than by the term ‘bargaining’ (cf. 3.4.1). In the end, the power of decision lies with the public agencies. In Delhi, INTACH is the most important actor in this respect. It not only promotes various aspects of urban conservation (focussing on unprotected heritage, organising public awareness programmes, producing documentation, policy-making, consultancy, fundraising, project implementation, heritage education, staging cultural events), but, in the course of its work, tries to initiate a dialogue with all involved actors and agencies. In summary, the multiplicity of agencies and actors involved in the protection of Delhi’s urban heritage, as well as the communication patterns among them, creates a number of problems. Each of the actors has its own interests that are often contradictory (e. g. one property owner’s desire to expand his property vs. ASI’s endeavour to protect a monument’s buffer zone) (cf. 6.2.2). In the case of public agencies, gaps and overlaps in responsibilities and jurisdictions exist and responsibilities are often not clearly divided (Pinto 2000: 160). This often leads to situations where authorities pass on tasks and responsibilities, such as the formulation of site-specific bye-laws, back and forth between each other. This often leads to 9

O. P. Jain, the former Chairman of INTACH, formulated this demand during the 3rd Meeting of the Management Action Group on “Heritage Conservation” for the Review of the Masterplan MPD-2021 Delhi Development Authority, Master Plan Review Section (DDA) (2013): Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of Management Action Group on “Heritage Conservation” for Review of MPD-2021. (https://dda.org.in/tendernotices_docs/june13/Minutes_3rd_MAG_Heritage%20 Conservation-280613.pdf, access: 2018-02-14).

170

7 Discussion and Synthesis

delays in decision processes and in many cases prevents conservation projects from ever being started (cf. 6.2.3, 0). There have been attempts to install an overarching body for heritage concerns in Delhi, but these, to date, have not beensuccessful10 (cf. 6.3.3). Due to complicated power relations between the different levels, the question as to where this body should be located is very delicate and has not, as yet, been answered. Lacking expertise Another major obstacle for the implementation of conservation efforts is lacking expertise about the subject within the public authorities as well as within the private sector (cf. 6.3.3). Architectural conservation as a subject for higher education developed in India only at the very end of the 20th century (Thakur 1990: 344). And even if the opportunities to complete courses of study in heritage conservation in India have been growing since then11 (Jain & Dalela 2010: 142), the professional basis in this field is still very weak. Hence, the number of trained professionals in the context of architectural and urban conservation is low compared to the number of historic sites (Jain & Dalela 2010: 143). Courses on heritage conservation in India are mostly offered in architectural schools and focus more on the structural, technical and material aspects of conservation than on traditional construction materials or social and cultural aspects (Menon 2014a: 5). The interdisciplinary requirements of heritage conservation tend not to be reflected in the curricula of these schools, and architectural practitioners are mainly trained in modern practices of construction only (ibid.). Furthermore, specific courses on urban conservation are very rare and urban planning issues play only a minor role in higher education on cultural heritage. Most courses in urban planning lack the aspect of historic urban fabric and urban conservation (23/ARCH). Also relevant is the fact that, due to limited opportunities within India, many practitioners study abroad, for example in York (Britain), and bring back a very European idea of heritage conservation (67/ACAD). A lack of expertise is also a problem within public authorities, namely in both heritage and culture specific bodies (like ASI, NCF, SDA) as well as in other involved public agencies (like DDA, CPWD, UD) (cf. 6.2.2, 6.3.3). The fact that ULBs, as well as state agencies like SDA, are mainly staffed by bureaucrats, means specific expertise in the field of (urban) conservation is lacking. The same holds even true for ASI, which is run mainly by administrative officers. Even if there are rare occasions on which skilled individuals are working in the right positions while at the same time being interested in the topic, they often have a huge workload and 10 11

For this purpose for example the DUHF under DDA at the central level has been reinstalled, but this body is not very active. SRDC at the state level is not very powerful and weakly equipped with funds and (expert) staff (cf. 6.1.2). An overview over Heritage courses in India, including architectural conservation, can for example be found here: https://www.gounesco.com/heritage-related-college-courses-indiacomprehensive-list/#Architectural Conservation (access: 2018-08-17).

7.1 Synthesising urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi

171

so many different responsibilities that heritage protection ends up near the bottom of their list of priorities (cf. 6.3.3). The procedure of rotational reassignment of civil servants within the Indian government system reinforces the problem of lacking expertise, as continuity and success in completing municipal tasks can often not be guaranteed. This is even more the case, as successful urban conservation projects are often a matter of individual commitment and progress is often very much person-driven (cf. 6.2.1, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.3.3). Another issue related to the context of missing expertise in the field of urban and architectural conservation is the fact that political interests are often put before planning issues and what are professionally the best solutions. The empirical analysis of this study showed that decisions in the field of heritage protection are often informed and steered by a complex set of interests, power and political sensitivities (cf. 6.2.3). Hence, technical planning and best planning solutions, as well as integrative heritage protection, do not necessarily take the centre stage in decision making in the context of heritage protection, as the practitioners do not have a strong position in this context (cf. 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.3.3). Rather it seems to be evident that the political will to protect Delhi’s cultural heritage and to support the modernisation and enforcement of the regulations is crucial. In this context, the amendment of the AMASR Act in 2016 is important. It leaves final decisions regarding the allowance of public work within a prohibited area around protected monuments of national importance to the GoI (cf. 6.3.2). This fact leads to the GoI putting development before heritage protection. Weak position of the municipalities When we look closer at the functioning of the local municipalities in Delhi, it becomes obvious that not only the above-described issue of lacking expertise (together with the effects of the rotational system) plays a role, but also their inadequate equipment. Both issues contribute to the fact that, although they “constitute the most nodal local government institutions in urban areas in post-independence India” (Ansari 2004: 8), the municipalities occupy a rather weak position (Devkar et al. 2013). A lot has been written about the situation of municipalities in India generally not having a very strong mandate and being financially rather poorly equipped (Ansari 2004: 8, Follmann 2016a: 44, Kennedy 2014: 112, Pinto 2000: 160, Ruet 2005: 71, Shatkin & Vidyarthi 2014: 10, Vira & Vira 2005). In the Indian constitution, local self-governance is generally given little importance. Most responsibilities for infrastructure, housing, economic development and further municipal matters are instead ascribed to the state governments (Shatkin 2014: 6). In the case of Delhi, due to its status as the capital city, many duties (e. g. police, planning, land) are even performed by the GoI (Baud 2008). This means that control over urban development and the urban space lies mainly with the central gov-

172

7 Discussion and Synthesis

ernment12, whereas the general maintenance of essential public services is the job of the municipalities (Ansari 2004: 7; 6.1). These municipal corporations are run by municipal commissioners who are Indian Administrative Service (IAS) civil servants and are appointed by state governments. The civil servants often lack “any direct accountability to either citizens or business, knowledge of their city or of planning, or incentive to focus on much beyond preserving their own power and prerogative” (Weinstein 2009 cited in Pinto 2000: 142; Shatkin 2014: 7). Furthermore, due to their poor financial situation, municipalities are not very attractive for well-qualified staff (Ansari 2004: 8). These conditions result in the situation that in Delhi, the municipalities are often not able to properly handle basic tasks like urban sanitation, sewerage, garbage collection etc. (cf. 6.2.3). As such, they simply lack the capacity to effectively protect cultural heritage. The above-described situation within the authorities, and the weak position of the municipalities has various consequences at the operational level of heritage protection in Delhi. Urban conservation and the protection of cultural heritage is not a key priority of the authorities and the municipalities, not uncommonly it is rather an obstacle with regard to their operative actions. As municipalities do not play a proactive role in this regard, there is no authority that actively takes the responsibility for making property owners aware of the heritage status of their buildings, in cases where they own a (listed) heritage building. This means that there are many who don’t even know that their property is listed (cf. 6.3.3). Hence, they unknowingly might undertake destructive action towards these buildings. For those owners and residents of heritage areas that want to participate in heritage protection, and even for NGOs active in the field, it is often difficult to find adequate and knowledgeable contact persons that can provide support regarding heritage matters (cf. 6.2.2, 6.3.3). This is problematic, especially in the context of a very complex approval procedure in the case of heritage-related development projects in which agencies at every level might be involved (cf. 6.2.2, 6.3.3). In many cases, representatives of the ULBs themselves either don’t know how to proceed or do not acknowledge their responsibility (cf. 6.2.2). The fact that there exists a high amount of unauthorised construction activities in the vicinity of heritage properties as well as encroachment of heritage sites (cf. 6.2.2) has several reasons. The weak position of the municipalities, being the agencies closest to the ground realities, results in the situation that they are not necessarily being recognised by the inhabitants in their function of issuing directions. Hence, low law enforcement capacities (including patrolling and surveillance, penalties and a persecution system, adequate budget, staff and equipment to put legal systems in place (UNESCO 2012: 38)) together with the existence of corruption (Ansari 2004: 8, Vira & Vira 2005: 50; cf. 6.2.2) foster uncontrolled development around heritage structures (cf. 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3). 12

The 74th Constitutional Amendment, passed in 1992, was an attempt to adress the situation and to devolve significant powers to the ULBs. But, this Amendment remains largely unimplemented to date. However, it provides, for the first time, a legal basis for ULBs to claim power (Shatkin 2014).

7.2 Reflecting on the interlinkages between imagination, regulation and implementation 173

Everyday practices and traditional craftspeople Although it has been argued in the introduction to this chapter, that most conservation efforts are guided by the conventional approach to urban conservation in Delhi, everyday practices also play an important role regarding the safeguarding of cultural heritage. This holds true especially for religious and spiritual buildings and sites in Delhi, many of which are in the possession of trusts that are responsible for their maintenance (Weiler 2017: 140; cf. 6.3.3). In this context, the work of traditional craftspeople plays an important role (Gutschow 2017: 140). Even though British interventions replaced forms of conservation that existed in pre-colonial times, and although the ASI’s conventional conservation approach (cf. 6.3.1) has appeared to remain dominant since then (Weiler 2017: 137), traditional conservation practices have not been completely wiped out, but continue to co-exist (Menon 2017, Vasavada 2017, Weiler 2013). Traditional craftspeople still apply (locally varying) conservation practices, such as the replacement of sandstone or marble works. These methods are interwoven with rituals, traditions and religious practices related to heritage buildings, in particular to living heritage structures like religious buildings, temples, mosques etc. (McClelland et al. 2013, Stubbs & Thomson 2017: 360, Vasavada 2017: 125). In this regard, continuity of place is more important than the historicity of built structures (Gutschow 2017: 29). However, the craftsmen do not work on the basis of profound archaeological or historical research and investigations. Instead, from an indigenous perspective, they rely on oral traditions and explanations of archaeological features of particular buildings and landscapes. These explanations are associated with Indian epics rather than with historic realities (Chakrabarti 2001: 211). Traditional craftspeople understand buildings as living entities, which exist in an organic process between dying and rebuilding (Piplani 2015b: 84). In correspondence with the societal perspective described above (cf. 6.3.1), authenticity and significance are not static but continuously evolving. Therefore, the site itself is more important than the building on it. The practice of conservation is hence seen as a seamless kind of continuum and it is difficult to distinguish between repair, conservation, preservation, restoration and reconstruction in this context. In addition, even imitation is a preferred strategy of traditional craftspeople in India (Menon 2003a, Stubbs & Thomson 2017: 23, Weiler 2013: 257). 7.2 REFLECTING ON THE INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN IMAGINATION, REGULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION In governance literature, the shift from government to governance, meaning from a state-centred, hierarchichal way of governing towards network-like horizontal governance arrangements, is a generally accepted fact (cf. 3.1.1). This study shows, however, that even if “new actors” (Swyngedouw 2005), like NGOs, enter the stage and gain importance in the context of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi, the state as the legislative institution continues to play a dominant role in defining the way in which cultural heritage protection is undertaken in Delhi. The Govern-

174

7 Discussion and Synthesis

ment of India holds the power over land-use planning in Delhi, controls spatial development and is responsible for formulating legally-binding heritage specific regulations. Furthermore, the ASI, the only agency specifically charged with heritage protection, is a central government body. This situation leaves little space for the direct influence of other actors, like the state governments, local authorities and the civil society (including NGOs). Beyond the existence of some NGOs and private initiatives (cf. 7.1.1), the civil society at large is not interested in institutionalising itself in order to be able to approximate a balance of power in regard to urban heritage protection in Delhi (Yildirim 2015: 141). The following section will evaluate the power relations within urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi in more detail (cf. Figure 33). The findings of the study showed that within first-order urban cultural heritage governance, central-level (and to a minor extent state-level) public agencies have the greatest power. They determine how cultural heritage protection is implemented (and monitored). Even though they do not proactively foster cooperation and communication with other actors (neither with municipalities, nor with NGOs, residents/owners of conservation professionals), through their mandate to enforce existing laws and regulations they guide implementation activities by hierarchical communication. The municipalities, being the essential public interface responsible for interacting with private heritage owners and enforcing heritage regulations, have an important role to play. Their influence, however, depends on their capacities and the willingness of their (individual) staff to accept and to enforce the legal procedures for heritage protection. Against the background of the weak position of the municipalities in Delhi (cf. 7.1.3), this is a problematic situation. But, even if the position of the municipalities is comparatively weak (cf. 7.1.1), they still communicate with other actors in a hierarchical way. NGOs play an important role within first-order governance. They act mainly as a mediator between public agencies and offer their expertise. Furthermore, they proactively lobby for heritage protection and try to approach residents and owners of heritage buildings. Hence, they engage themselves in communication processes of a discoursory character. However, even if in some cases NGOs and public agencies cooperate in implementing specific conservation projects and the public authorities enter into a partnership with NGOs in order to use their expertise and their profound knowledge of the complexities of the subject (Kennedy 2009: 69), the public agencies remain the decision-maker (cf. 7.1.3). The residents of Delhi and heritage property owners, however, do not generally have any active power in the sense of enforcing cultural heritage protection (cf. 7.1.1). Their power unfolds rather in the form of ignorance or non-acting in this regard13. They knowingly or unknowingly ignore or bypass specific regulations regarding cultural heritage protection, or the issue does not play a role at all within their everyday reality. What becomes relevant in this context is the fact that the “new Indian middle class” currently plays an important role in the “remaking of Indian cities” (Ghertner 2015: 56) and gains increasing power by reclaiming and re13

Except on the rare occasion when a property owner wants to preserve his heritage buildings or, in the case of a “heritage lovers”, engaging himself in conservation efforts. In these cases communication processes with NGOs or conservation professionals take place in a non-hierarchical way.

7.2 Reflecting on the interlinkages between imagination, regulation and implementation 175

Figure 33: Power relations among the actors involved in safeguarding Delhi’s cultural heritage

176

7 Discussion and Synthesis

structuring public space through instruments like RWAs, Public Interest Litigations (PILs) and entrepreneurial activities (Chatterjee 2004, Dupont 2011, Fernandes 2004, Ramakrishnan 2013, Shatkin 2014: 8, Vidyarthi 2014; cf. 6.2.2, 7.1.1). In second-order governance the greatest power lies with those public agencies at the central (and the state) level that are responsible for the preparation of legally-binding regulations: in particular the DDA and ASI (and SDA). This study highlighted that there exists a certain tension between the local (municipalities) and the central level of the government in this context. The strong position and great influence of the Central Government on Delhi’s urban fabric is a general fact. In fact, its influence here is even stronger than in other Indian cities, due to Delhi’s status as India’s capital city (Baud 2008, Follmann 2016a: 45, Hust 2005a: 19). What is important for the field of urban conservation in this context is the situation that spatial planning (including the preparation of the Masterplan for Delhi) is neither under GNCTD nor the municipalities, but is done by the DDA, the principle planning authority of Delhi, which is controlled by the GoI (cf. 6.1.1). It must be mentioned here, though, that the state-level agencies in this context play a rather passive role (cf. 6.2.1, 6.2.3). The local level is not involved in overarching concerns and planning activities (cf. Table 3). The fact that the competent authority, responsible for controlling and monitoring developments in the buffer zones around monuments of national importance, is located within the ASI, again underlines the strong influence of the Centre on the urban fabric of the city and the weak position of the state and the local level in this regard (cf. 6.1). This allocation of responsibilities leads to the situation that those actors involved in the actual implementation of heritage protection projects and day-to-day operations (e. g. heritage management) have only limited opportunities to incorporate their knowledge and experience into planning and conception processes. In contrast, those working conceptually and directively (e. g. DDA, ASI) do not have much to do with the situation or with the requirements on the ground. In second-order governance, communication between the actors is very limited. The public agencies do not proactively interact with non-state actors (except when they invite other actors for advice). NGOs, however, offer their expertise and try to make their voice heard when legal instruments are being formulated. However, in the end, the power of decision-making remains with the public authorities. In meta-order governance, non-hierarchical communication is the central mode of interaction (Heinelt 2006: 244). It became obvious, though, that civil society, in the form of Delhi’s residents and the public authorities, played a rather passive role in this context. The social debate and the evolvement of societal perceptions are rather implicit processes taking place subliminally. The public authorities, despite being mandated to protect Delhi’s cultural heritage, behave rather statically and do not actively contribute to the ongoing process of finding a suitable Indian approach to heritage conservation. They are not interested in changing their fundamental philosophy and stick to their conventional perspective, which has developed in a path-dependent way since the time of British colonialism and which does not meet the challenges of contemporary urban heritage in Delhi and its “hybrid monumentality” (Sutton 2017). In contrast, NGOs and, to a certain extent independent conservation professionals, actively try to push ahead the negotiation about basic

7.2 Reflecting on the interlinkages between imagination, regulation and implementation 177

perceptions and principles of cultural heritage protection. This means that due to non-participation of the public authorities and the residents, the NGOs claim the power to advance the debate. However, as they do not have the power to make their philosophy trickle down to first- and second-order governance in a binding way, the actual effects of this claim to power remain limited. By formulating legally-binding instruments that guide day-to-day operations according to their understanding, only the public authorities are able to make their conventional perspective effective. The strong position of the public agencies in regard to heritage protection in Delhi has two sides. On the one hand, strict legislation and its enforcement is needed to prevent the deterioration of (important) cultural heritage structures. Even if this might be a Eurocentric evaluation, it does prevent, in the first instance, a loss of sites of historic origin. Since an Indian approach towards heritage protection is still developing, strict legislation can save valuable time. Once heritage structures are destroyed, they will be gone forever. However, Evers & de Vries (2013: 549) argue that for hierarchical interventions to be successful, they are in need of a certain degree of “bottom-up support”. As this support is (almost) missing in Delhi, the cultural heritage of the city is in constant danger. On the other hand, the powerful role of the public authorities can have controversial impacts in the context of heritage protection. This becomes obvious when not only the sectoral perspective on urban cultural heritage governance is considered, but also its spatial component. In this context, the neoliberal orientation of urban development policies in Delhi becomes relevant (cf. 6.3.2). First, since the power to formulate legally-binding documents lies mainly with the Central Government, it needs political will and political support to change and further develop the content. Recent adjustments in the field of heritage-specific legal instruments (like the amendment to AMASR Act in 2016), however, tend to place development before cultural heritage protection (cf. 7.1.3). Second, since the Central Government has the power over land-use planning it also has the power to decide which importance is ascribed to the integration of cultural heritage protection in this context. Recent events (for example the demolition of the Hall of Nations (cf. 6.3.2), the withdrawal of Delhi’s application to become a World Heritage City (cf. 6.2.4)) indicate the tendency for modern development to be prioritised. Furthermore, the fact that (central) public authorities are able to make their conventional, monument-centric perspective effective through the legally-binding heritage regulations, has a number of implications at the level of implementation. One is, that by concentrating particularly on listed monuments and their direct vicinity, isolated island projects emerge. This leads to the (spatial) disconnection of heritage structures from adjoining heritage elements (e. g. heritage structures of minor importance, elements connected to the ‘living’ component of heritage, entangled natural features, or historic areas and urban ensembles). Chanchani (2013)14 compares the approach of focussing only on listed monuments without considering links to other heritage structures into account to “a project (…) to protect the tiger without factoring in 14

Chanchani, N.: Leaving no stone unturned, in: The Hindu, 2013-08-17. (https://www.thehindu. com/opinion/lead/leaving-no-stone-unturned/article5029723.ece?css=print, access: 2013-12-17).

178

7 Discussion and Synthesis

the other elements in an ecosystem” (ibid.). This spatial and cultural disconnection leads furthermore to the disconnection of the society from its heritage. Another implication of the monument-centric orientation and the related definition of buffer zones around listed monuments (including prohibited and regulated zones) leads to a frozen situation in these areas (cf. 6.2.2). Property owners there have very limited opportunities to develop or extend their buildings and find themselves stuck in a situation where development is stagnant and the opportunity for change or improvement is almost non-existent. This effects their ‘everyday awareness’ and induces generally negative attitudes towards the protection of historic structures (cf. 6.3.1, 7.1.1). This situation generates and reinforces a general opposition to notifications of further heritage sites and to declarations of legal protection (cf. 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.2). This means that the monument-centric orientation of the heritage legislation in Delhi, which neglects social attitudes, needs and desires, leads to a general lack of public- and social support towards heritage protection. Two further questions now arise from the power-relations within urban cultural heritage governance outlined above: the question of participation possibilities and the question of legitimacy. In academic literature and among international organisations like UNESCO and ICOMOS there is a strong consensus that more importance must be given to the inclusion of local communities in the field of the protection of cultural heritage15 (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012, Taylor 2012: 269, Tweed & Sutherland 2007, Wescoat Jr. 2014, Yildirim 2015). Special emphasis is currently given in this context to indigenous peoples and local minority communities16 (Baird 2013, Coombe & Baird 2016). The study shows, however, that the civil society (residents/ owners) currently hardly participates in the protection of cultural heritage, even if there are some NGOs, and a small group of committed citizens and property owners, dedicated to cultural heritage and its protection. This has several reasons. In first-order governance, the “willingness to communicate” and if “actors are (…) able to interact” (Kooiman 2003b: 7) are prerequisites for participation to happen (Follmann 2016a: 66). Since, as outlined above, cultural heritage protection does not play a role in the everyday life of a large proportion of Delhi’s residents, and, at the same time, public authorities do not have the intrinsic urge to interact with them, there exists a vacuum in regard to participation at the level of implementation. In order to achieve participation within first-order governance it is crucial to create an environment, institutionally as well as optionally, to foster interaction and communication. The conditions for this are created in second-order governance (Heinelt 2006: 242) where traditional forms of participation, like political representation and parliamentarian structures, in general, have an important role to play (Heinelt 2006: 243). However, since heritage protection is currently not a main priority of Delhi’s political institutions, heritage aspects are rarely represented in this way. In this context, the study showed that, although the 74th Amendment to the Constitu15 16

see for example: ICOMOS (2017): Delhi Declaration on Heritage and Democracy. (https:// www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/GA2017_Delhi-Declaration_20180117_ EN.pdf, access: 2018-09-14). see for example: UNESCO (2017): UNESCO Policy on Engaging with Indigenous Peoples (http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0025/002587/258772e.pdf, access: 2018-09-14).

7.2 Reflecting on the interlinkages between imagination, regulation and implementation 179

tion of India from 199217 paved the way for a greater involvement of citizens in local planning and decision-making processes (Bugga 2016: 223), great challenges still exist in regard to the participation of the local community (e. g. it turned out to be very difficult to involve them in the creation of local area plans in wards with heritage character; cf. 6.3.2). The study further showed that NGOs, in their function as mediator between the different groups of actors, play a crucial role in the context of citizen participation in the field of urban heritage conservation. This observation is an example for an overall development. From the end of the 20th century onwards, NGOs have had significant influence and provided important forms of advocacy and action in South Asia (Kooiman 2006: 151, Singh 1997, Vira & Vira 2005: 49, Winter & Daly 2012). This is true not only for the field of heritage protection, but in many fields in which public authorities leave gaps which then need to be filled by societal agencies, such as, for example, environmental issues (Follmann 2016a/2016b, Sud 2017), implementation of urban planning (Ghertner 2011, Kulabkar 2005) or empowerment of minorities (Hirsch & Warren 2002). In the case of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi, NGOs can, as institutionalised representatives of civil society, bundle their power in order to actively advocate a better consideration of the extended perspective within the institutional framework for urban cultural heritage. Furthermore, by undertaking awareness programmes and by consciously involving local communities in specific conservation projects, they can mobilise the civil society and force the public authorities into exchange processes. In order to develop suitable awareness programmes and participation opportunities, it is crucial, however, to become aware of the respective target groups and the specific interest groups to be included in the process of urban conservation. The study showed, for example, that in Delhi there exist a number of religious, spiritual or traditional local communities that are connected to specific cultural heritage sites (cf. 6.2.4, 6.2.5). Hence, opportunities should be developed to cooperate with them in a sensitive way. Beyond these however, there is the large mass of the new Indian middle class (cf. 7.1.1), which is hardly involved or even interested in urban heritage conservation. Awareness and incentive programmes regarding urban heritage protection especially tailored to this group, could use their channels of power to be translated into effective actions. In order to make this possible, however, there is a need to better understand the relationship of the new middle class with the cultural heritage of their city. The urban poors are a third large group of people whose participation in heritage protection efforts is important. In many Indian cities, historic urban centres, like Old Delhi, are inhabited by people with lower economic opportunities (cf. 6.2.3). As they are living in and around heritage sites, their everyday involvement in conservation projects is a prerequisite for them to be successful. This rough distinction of target groups shows that all of them have a different configuration and different economic, educational, cultural and religious backgrounds. This means, the design and objectives of awareness programmes must be adapted 17 The Constitution (74th Amendment Act), 1992 (http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/ files/74th_CAA13/, access: 2018-09-13).

180

7 Discussion and Synthesis

to different needs and desires in order to enhance the willingness to participate and in this way achieve positive effects. Against this backdrop, it is important to look at the question of legitimacy in more detail. Legitimacy is critically discussed in the governance literature. In general, the “governance discourse (…) often implicitly assumes that horizontal methods are better than vertical ones, and non-formal methods better than formal ones” (Hendriks 2014: 570). However, as governance networks are not able to involve all citizens or persons concerned by societal problems into finding solutions, they are more or less selective in their performance. That means that there are no “codified rules and regulations that shape or define participation and identify the exact domains or arenas of power” (Swyngedouw 2005: 1999). Dahl (1994) calls this phenomenon the “democratic dilemma” whereas Pierre (2014: 876) and Swyngedouw (2005: 1999) summarise it as “democratic deficit”. If these thoughts are translated to the context of urban cultural heritage in Delhi, the question arises as to who has the legitimacy to define what to conserve and how? First of all, in Delhi there exists no agreement on what should be protected (cf. 7.1.1): some actors question the general purpose of safeguarding heritage, some actors propose to safeguard only exceptional architectural examples and leave the rest to the time and their changing processes (societal perception), some actors promote to protect heritage sites of outstanding value and of (national) importance (conventional perspective) and some actors try to find ways of safeguarding Delhi’s urban cultural heritage in an inclusive and holistic way (extended professional perspective). Furthermore, nor is agreement among the actors on how to protect cultural heritage; rather, two controversial professional perspectives compete: the conventional and the extended perspective (cf. 7.1.1). This means that, in regard to urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi, there exist different understandings as to what is the actual problem that needs to be solved and whether there is a problem at all which needs to be solved. This leads to the question of legitimacy. As outlined above, in Delhi, there are, on the one hand, government bodies that claim a sovereign mandate for compiling binding lists of monuments that are worthy of protection, and who set the course (through legally-binding regulations) as to how they should be protected. They have legal legitimacy to do so and it is therefore difficult to question their underlying convictions effectively. On the other hand, the new actors, NGOs and, to a certain extent, conservation professionals, actively push the current discourse (cf. 7.1.1) and challenge the conventional perspective of the public authorities. This means, however, that only a small group of people are actively engaging themselves in the negotiation of fundamental imaginations and paradigms of conservation. In this context, Kooiman’s (2003b) argument, that in meta-order governance problems and strategies of action undergo a linguistic coding (cf. 3.4.2), becomes relevant. Swyngedouw (2005: 2001) argues from a perspective of post-modern theories of political consensus formation (cf. Hajer 2003), that by aiming to produce perceptions about a certain problem in a discursive way, alternatives can get ignored or even silenced. According to him, “discursive or representational strategies have become powerful mechanisms for producing hegemony and, with it, legitimacy”

7.3 The future of urban cultural heritage in Delhi – an outlook

181

(ibid.). In India, NGOs may be generally recognised as “legitimate representatives of civil society” (Kennedy 2009: 77) but this view is not without criticism. A number of authors argue that, as many NGOs are “middle-class dominated” (Harriss 2007: 2716), their approaches reflect rather the thinking of elite, educated and affluent groups than representing the interests of the whole civil society (Follmann 2016a, Harriss 2007, Kennedy 2009; cf. 7.1.1). In regard to urban heritage protection in Delhi, this discussion leads directly to the topics of ownership and public space (cf. 6.3.3). Recalling the examples of Bijri Khan’s tomb (cf. 6.2.1) and Nizamuddin (cf. 6.2.4), where monuments and their precincts were earlier used as public space by local residents and then locked for conservation reasons, fundamental questions arise like Urban conservation and heritage protection for whom? and, on a more abstract level, Who owns the city? (Sassen 2018). In summary, this study showed that in the context of urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi, government authorities still play a major role. Nonetheless, new actors are becoming increasingly important, especially when it comes to involving Delhi’s residents and their perceptions and needs. Currently there seems to exist a vacuum between the hierarchically organised urban cultural heritage governance at the one end and the network-like governance structures at the other: in particular the work of the NGOs. By taking a closer look at the process of problem-definition in particular, it becomes obvious that different actors have different ideas about what to conserve and how, based on different world-views and knowledge systems. While the conventional approach still plays the dominant role regarding effectiveness at the implementation level, this perspective becomes increasingly eroded within meta-order governance and the extended approach increasingly claims space. This observation coincides with what Meuser & Nagel (2009: 20) call the emergence of “new forms of knowledge production”. Conventional forms of knowledge production that have been dominated by science-based conventional expert knowledge are now “exposed to systematic doubt and put into competition with the expertise originating from heterogeneous knowledge systems and spheres of interest” (ibid.: 21). This means that, for example, local knowledge, experiential knowledge and viewpoints of laypeople become increasingly incorporated in the negotiation process. In the case of negotiating the approach towards urban heritage in Delhi, NGOs and other civil society actors and their knowledge systems become ever more important. In order to achieve a balance between the two in the future, it would be necessary for the state to open up more opportunities for the civil society to actively participate in urban conservation and heritage protection in Delhi. 7.3 THE FUTURE OF URBAN CULTURAL HERITAGE IN DELHI – AN OUTLOOK In order to avoid falling into the trap of Eurocentristic paternalism, this study refrains from concluding with recommendations for action. Nevertheless, the analysis can be used to derive a series of questions whose answers, in the Indian context, may be helpful in future dealings with urban cultural heritage.

182

7 Discussion and Synthesis

In order to facilitate the implementation of conservation efforts (first-order governance; cf. 7.1.3), it will be relevant in future to answer the following questions: − Which are the relevant target groups and what are their specific needs and desires regarding Delhi’s urban cultural heritage? − How can local communities be motivated and empowered to participate democratically in the protection and management of urban cultural heritage in Delhi? − How can existing (local) initiatives be supported, in order to further promote social (grassroots) engagement? − How can the expertise and capacities of the involved public agencies be increased? − How can communication and cooperation between involved actors be enhanced? − How can (approval) procedures be facilitated for owners of heritage buildings or properties within buffer zones? − How can the enforcement of existing laws and regulations be effectively ensured? − How can urban cultural heritage be integrated to become a visible part of Delhi’s urban fabric? − How can everyday practices be included in conservation efforts? Answers to the following questions will contribute towards adapting the institutional framework of heritage protection in Delhi (scond-order governance; cf. 7.1.2) in order to improve the conditions for action at the operational level: − How can the preservation and conservation of urban cultural heritage be integrated into the urban planning process and legislations? − How should the legal framework be adapted to the (local and social) on-theground realities? − How can participation processes (on both an operational level as well as in the preparation of legislation/regulations) be institutionally anchored in the field of urban conservation? − How should existing heritage values among the residents of Delhi be integrated into the institutional framework? − What form can a system of incentives (financial and others) take, in order to create economic opportunities related to urban cultural heritage and its protection? − How can higher education programmes be improved in order to prepare future professionals holistically for current and future demands in the field of urban conservation? − How can a balance be found between conservation and development? Advancing the social and professional discourse taking place in meta-order governance will be crucial. First, it will be important to further understand the many facets of perception of urban cultural heritage and its protection that exist in Delhi, and second, to make them effective in first- and second-order governance processes.

7.3 The future of urban cultural heritage in Delhi – an outlook

183

This will bring cultural heritage protection efforts closer to local and social reality. In this context, answering the following questions will help: − In a city with a multiple past and present that is in constant flux, what does cultural heritage mean? − How can local communities and the civil society be empowered and provided with opportunities to participate in the identification and definition of processes of urban cultural heritage in Delhi in a democratic way? − How can conservation professionals, researchers, intellectual thinkers and representatives of public authorities be motivated to contribute to the heritagerelated discourse? − What form does an Indian approach to heritage conservation take, that takes existing societal and professional perspectives, as well as future aspirations into account? Depending on how these questions are answered and how these answers are translated into effective actions in future, different scenarios are conceivable18. Scenario 1: Delhi – Indian megacity with an eventful history reloaded The future Delhi being an Indian megacity with an eventful history reloaded will appear as a puzzle of the many fabrics that emerged and vanished over time. Due to its long history, a great number of heritage structures will be scattered all over the city. Some of them will get attention, whereas others will not. The professional and societal discourse in this Delhi will be promoted mainly by NGOs and some heritage enthusiasts, while the civil society and the public authorities will stay calm in this respect. The institutional framework will be slightly adapted here and there. However, urban development will continue to follow a neoliberal agenda in which the protection and integration of urban cultural heritage will not be a priority topic. The definition of the contents of heritage-specific regulations will remain with the public authorities. Hence, societal perceptions, needs and desires will not be strongly represented within the legal framework and will hence not become effective on the ground. There will be some heritage efforts and projects that are (successfully) implemented. Some will be backed by (international) money (like the Nizamuddin Urban Renewal initiative). And at the same time, continuous decay and destruction of (minor) heritage structures will take place. A great number of heritage sites (for example mosques, temples and shrines) will be used by their local communities, who will deal with them according to their social, spiritual and religious backgrounds.

18

The scenarios described here are not based on an empirical process that particularly aimed at their development. They are rather used as an interpretative tool in order to summarise the results of this study and give a future outlook.

184

7 Discussion and Synthesis

Furthermore, the public authorities involved in urban conservation will do business as usual, struggling with lacking expertise and capacities. They will thus not proactively engage themselves in conservation efforts. Those owners and residents affected by the topic will, against the background of a lack of incentive and support strategies, continue to try to find themselves an (individual) way of dealing with their situation. The great mass of Delhi’s urban middle class however, will practice and long for a modern and cosmopolitan lifestyle. Further, future conservation professionals will be mainly trained with a focus on technical and managerial aspects of urban cultural heritage, whereas a great number of them will study abroad. Still, there will be a number of NGOs and initiatives from heritage enthusiasts to promote heritage protection in Delhi and hence, the topic will get a certain amount of (public) attention. In general, the actors involved in the protection of Delhi’s heritage will find it difficult to find a way to reconcile the protection of cultural heritage and urban development, and do one without stopping the other. Scenario 2: Delhi – neoliberal utopia came true In a worst-case scenario from the perspective of Delhi’s cultural heritage, Delhi – neoliberal utopia come true, the city’s protection will be completely subordinated to modern development and a neo-liberal reconfiguration of the city will be in the foreground of all urban development processes. None of the actors that are relevant for safeguarding urban cultural heritage (public agencies and the civil society) will be interested in the topic. The only dream of the inhabitants will be to live in a smart environment with modern amenities and infrastructure. Thus, a meta-governance level on urban cultural heritage will not exist, and discourses about the future of Delhi will be geared to its further technical and economic development. Based on today’s situation, there will be some laws and regulations targeted at cultural heritage protection, but no public authority will be interested in enforcing them. The only exception will be a number of particular sites that are selected to be of outstanding (universal) value and that are of relevance for a global audience, in terms of tourism and the positioning of Delhi within the global competition of cities. These sites will be conserved and valorised in order to showcase Delhi’s cultural wealth to the world. There will still be some local communities valuing particular heritage sites. They will apply their everyday practices to them, but due to lacking (financial) support they will have difficulties in safeguarding them. The result of these processes will be that most of Delhi’s heritage will be constantly threatened by decay and will get lost over time.

7.3 The future of urban cultural heritage in Delhi – an outlook

185

Scenario 3: Delhi – a living heritage paradise In the living heritage paradise of Delhi, cultural heritage will be a visible part of the urban fabric. Its physical as well as its immaterial elements will be integrated into urban planning processes and visions. There will be a lively debate among all groups of Delhi’s residents, their institutionalised representatives (NGOs), conservation professionals and the public authorities involved about the notions of cultural heritage and its protection. Researchers, conservation professionals and intellectual thinkers will be actively engaged in creating a profound understanding of social and cultural peculiarities in the perception of urban cultural heritage in the Indian context. Furthermore, the people of Delhi will have the opportunity to participate in every level of decision-making. Heritage-specific legislation and urban planning instruments will take into account social needs and desires and will complement each other, aiming to provide a flexible and supportive framework guiding the operational activities in regard to heritage protection in Delhi. There will be a sound system of incentives and support strategies in order to give the owners and residents of heritage properties the chance to actively engage in conservation efforts. In general, a balance will exist between everyday use (e. g. spiritual, religious, recreative activities) of heritage structures and their protection. All actors involved will join hands in purposefully implementing conservation strategies and will try to remove, rather than create, possible obstacles. In all areas related to cultural heritage, an approach is being pursued to its protection, which is characterised by flexibility, locality, adaptability and a certain amount of pragmatism.

8 FINAL CONCLUSIONS: SAFEGUARDING DELHI’S CULTURAL HERITAGE This study explored how urban cultural heritage is governed in Delhi. For the empirical analysis, a research framework based on the conceptualisation of three governance-orders (Kooiman 2003b) was applied to evaluate the interconnections between actors, their relationships, the institutional framework and imaginations. The strength of this approach lies in its ability to systematically analyse governance processes taking place at different layers of governance and to understand and visualise the interlinkages between them. The application of this approach to the example of Delhi showed that it has the potential to better understand the governance of urban cultural heritage in a holistic way. The safeguarding of urban cultural heritage in Delhi is a complex task due to the mega-urban context, a multilayered cultural history and a controversial relationship between society and its cultural heritage. Furthermore, due to its continuing importance throughout history, Delhi is extraordinarily rich in cultural heritage and a vast number of cultural heritage sites are spread across the entire city. Delhi’s status as India’s capital city reinforces the complexity of the issue, as the Government of India has a great influence on urban development. For this reason, Delhi’s cultural heritage is governed by a multiplicity of actors and a great number of public agencies from all government levels (from local to national) are involved as well as NGOs and the civil society. There is agreement now in academic literature and among international organisations that (urban) cultural heritage must be understood as being embedded in and connected to its cultural, traditional, social and material environment (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012, Falser 2008, Harrison 2013). In order to understand these relationships and the way in which people think and experience cultural heritage in their everyday lives, Harrison (2013: 226) proposes to use a dialogical and relational model of cultural heritage. This understanding emerges “in the connection between people, objects, places and practices” (ibid.). He argues that applying this relational model will not only influence how we think about cultural heritage, but also, how it should be managed in future and that conservation strategies based on this understanding will be “as much a ‘social’ process as a physical or technical one” (ibid.). Against this backdrop, this study showed, however, that the way in which urban cultural heritage is governed in Delhi today, causes various forms of disconnection between cultural heritage and its cultural, social and material environment. Various factors lead to the situation that people are not involved in conservation efforts, have to overcome major obstacles should they try to participate or that they even develop a rejection of cultural heritage because they experience disadvantages through it (first-order governance). Hence, they become disconnected in an operational sense from the heritage in their surroundings. Furthermore, monument-cen-

8 Final Conclusions

187

tric regulations, building activities (e. g. boundary walls, fences) and management measures (e. g. access restrictions) disconnect people spatially from their heritage. In addition, the link between cultural heritage sites themselves and their material environment is cut in this way. Beyond that, the strategy to safeguard cultural heritage sites as “empty containers” (Al Sayyad 2001: 22), practised by the public authorities leads to the disconnection of cultural heritage and the people, in a cultural and spiritual way. These different levels of disconnection of the people from their cultural heritage lead to an “alienation of the people from their heritage” (Baig 2004: 1) and hence to the situation that current official protection efforts in Delhi do not have full public support. Due to the anchoring of urban cultural heritage in both the cultural and the urban realms, urban cultural heritage protection takes place in the overlapping area of sectoral and spatial policies (second-order governance). As urban cultural heritage is part of the urban fabric of a city, in the context of its governance, two conflicting objectives collide: the objective to safeguard cultural heritage and the objective of (future-oriented) urban development. In this context it is, however, widely acknowledged in academic literature that heritage protection and urban development do not oppose each other but can go hand in hand, and that cultural heritage plays an important role for social cohesion, identity purposes and the identity of cities (Bandarin & Van Oers 2012, Friedmann 2007, Rypkema 2005). To achieve this it is crucial to include protection strategies into spatial urban planning and into spatial development processes. In Delhi, however, sectoral approaches to the governance of urban cultural heritage prevail. Those legal instruments that regulate heritage protection in Delhi in a legally-binding way are heritage-specific instruments. Policies and plans that regulate the spatial development of the city do not include urban cultural heritage and its protection in an effective and legally-binding way. It became obvious in this study that the governance of urban cultural heritage in Delhi is based on a fragmented legal framework, which does not support and guide the responsible actors in safeguarding the city’s historic fabric in an integrated way. These findings correspond with observations by Follmann (2016a), who argued that urban environmental governance is fragmented in Delhi. The forms of disconnection (first-order governance) and the fragmented character of the regulatory framework (second-order governance) are caused and influenced by contradictory perceptions that exist in Delhi about urban cultural heritage and its protection (meta-order governance). This observation corresponds with the widely acknowledged constructivist idea that governance is not about dealing with given problems that have to be identified, delineated and then tackled, but about the definition of the challenges that need to be coped with (Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 52). In this respect it became obvious that in the context of urban cultural heritage and its protection, due to its complex nature, the definition of the “problem” plays a particularly important role. This holds especially true for the Indian context, as here the discourse about how to protect urban cultural heritage and the search for an Indian approach is in full swing. Contradictory ideals and imaginations about cultural heritage in general, and its safeguarding and conservation in particular, are currently part of a lively debate. In contrast, in most Western societies, overarching

188

8 Final Conclusions

communication processes about fundamental paradigms and orientations for action in regard to safeguarding urban heritage rarely take place any more (Kuder 2007: 45). Hence, by explicitly including the meta-governance order, the approach of urban cultural heritage governance was suitable for visualising the contradictory societal and professional perceptions that exist and evolve in Delhi about urban cultural heritage and its protection and for analysing their implications. Detecting these “hidden powers” (Nuissl & Heinrichs 2011: 52) helps achieve an understanding of many of the conflicts that exist among the involved actors and of further problems that emerge at the level of implementation. Relevant in this context is the fact that those who define the problem and are able to make their definition effective (e. g. through the legal framework), and those who moderate the negotiation of underlying principles and paradigms, have the opportunity to assert their interest and have great influence on how a governance problem is approached. In the case of Delhi this means that the public authorities, due to their legal legitimacy, are able to make their conventional perspective to urban conservation effective on the ground. NGOs, however, by actively moderating current negotiation processes, are in the process of developing a certain power in this regard. The results of this study confirm the argument of Kooiman (2009: 834) that “[i]t does not make sense to propose (…) policies on the basis of conflicting normative considerations” and that, in order to find solutions to certain governance problems, “fundamental assumptions and worldviews (…) should be brought to the surface so they can be explained, defended and examined” (ibid.: 833). Since there is no consistency regarding the underlying imaginations of urban heritage and its protection, and social support is generally missing, there is a need to provide Delhi’s residents with the opportunity to participate in the process of urban conservation in order to achieve a stable basis for effective and expedient decision-making processes in first- and second-order urban cultural heritage governance. Currently, however, participation of the civil society in the context of urban heritage protection hardly takes place. Considering the fact that cultural heritage in Delhi is destroyed on a daily basis and is then irretrievably lost, its protection cannot be guaranteed without clear rules and a powerful state. Therefore, there cannot be governance without government in this context (cf. Follmann 2016a: 339, Rosenau et al. 1992), but rather, as Singh (2014: 18) argues “[o]nly a working partnership of those who govern, and the citizen, can deliver living public spaces that will shelter, nurture and grow the vibrancy and energy of a modernizing and transforming India”. Hence, in order to govern Delhi’s urban cultural heritage in a way that prevents destruction and at the same time does justice to the social and spatial conditions, enables participation and reconnects the people to their heritage, an Indian approach to urban heritage conservation needs to be created. Against the background of the high complexity of the situation in India’s cities, it will probably not be possible to develop the “right way” of undertaking urban conservation, but there is a need for an approach that is highly flexible and that can be adapted to the respective local conditions. As the study showed, describing the interplay of heritage-specific regulations and spatial urban policies, their impact on the level of implementation and their

8 Final Conclusions

189

correspondence to the societal and professional discourses about the protection of urban heritage, has a strong explanatory power. As such, the governance concept is helpful in order to systematically analyse ongoing governance processes and relate them to the wider societal context. Applying Kooiman’s (2003) concept of three governance-orders is explicitly helpful in making visible underlying imaginations and perceptions and their implications, which have turned out to play a crucial role within urban cultural heritage governance in Delhi. The research framework developed for this study proved to be very suitable for a study in urban areas, but it can also be applied to other study areas, for example at village level or at individual heritage sites, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the ongoing governance processes and configurations. Looking through the governance lens generally means looking at how collective problems are solved. Mayntz (2004), however, critically points to the issue of a problem-solving bias of governance research, which is based on the fact that the conception of governance assumes that the actions of the actors involved are generally oriented towards solutions. In this study, however, it became obvious that not all involved actors are willing or interested in cultural heritage protection, at least not in the conventional sense. This does not mean, however, that they do not act at all in this regard, but rather that it is difficult to conceptually map their spheres of action – more precisely their everyday practices towards urban cultural heritage – with the approach of governance. Since everyday practices, however, play an important role for the protection of urban heritage, it seems crucial to gain better insights in this regard. Hence, in order to be able to include everyday practices towards urban cultural heritage into conservation strategies in Delhi, further research in this field would be important. In this context, it is crucial to better understand traditional approaches and traditional knowledge systems, to examine specific case studies and to systematically capture the societal perception of cultural heritage in Delhi. In this context, a comprehensive mixed-methods study, building on the findings of this study, could explore the relevance of cultural heritage for different groups of people, which heritage values (religious, spiritual, aesthetic, recreational, economic, historical) are important for whom and which cultural heritage elements are perceived to be worthy of protection. Other connected fields in which further research is needed are heritage-related economic development opportunities and incentive systems and the creation of participation possibilities. As urban cultural heritage is anchored in both the cultural as well as the urban realms, it emerges as crucial to emphasise the urban specificities of the subject within future cultural heritage research on the one hand, and to increase the attention towards cultural heritage issues and their importance for city development within literature focussing on urban issues on the other hand. However, in order to avoid a strong Western or Eurocentric influence in this respect, it will be crucial to strengthen the Indian academic landscape, to do research on the topic and to foster mutual interaction between academics, politicians, bureaucrats and representatives of the civil society. Beyond that, it will be crucial to increase inter-Asian (academic) exchange in this context. These thoughts correspond with a strand of the current discourse within the field of urban studies which claims to go beyond earlier ex-

190

8 Final Conclusions

isting (hegemonic) theories produced from the perspectives of cities of the global North, towards a “southern (…) point of departure” (Oldfield & Parnell 2014: 1) in order to create an understanding of the contemporary Asian city.

REFERENCES Agarwal, S. K. (2010): Design review in a postcolonial city: The Delhi Urban Art Commission. In: Cities, 27 (5), 397–404. Ahmad, S., Balaban, O., Doll, C. N. H. and Dreyfus, M. (2013): Delhi revisited. In: Cities, 31 641– 653. Ahmed, W. (2011): Neoliberal Utopia and Urban Realities in Delhi. In: ACME: An International E-journal of Critical Geographies, 10 (2), 163–188. Al Sayyad, N. (ed.) (2001): Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism. London: Routledge. Ansari, J. H. (2004): Urban Planning and Management Reforms in India. In: ITPI Journal, 1 (1), 7–17. Ardakani, M. K. and Oloonabadi, S. S. (2011a): 2011 International Conference on Green Buildings and Sustainable Cities. Collective memory as an efficient agent in sustainable urban conservation. In: Procedia Engineering, 21 (2011), 985–988. Askew, M. (2010): The magic list of global status: UNESCO, World Heritage and the agendas of states. In: S. Labadi and C. Long (eds.): Heritage and Globalisation. Key Issues in Cultural Heritage London, New York: Routledge, 19–44. Baig, A. (2003): Managing cultural significance. In: seminar, 530 (October 2003). Baig, A. (2004): The Problem. In: seminar, 542 (October 2004). Baird, M. F. (2013): “The breath of the mountain is my heart”: indigenous cultural landscapes and the politics of heritage. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19 (4), 327–340. Bandarin, F. and Van Oers, R. (2012): The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban Century. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Baud, I. and Dhanalakshmi, R. (2007): Governance in urban environmental management: Comparing accountability and performance in multi-stakeholder arrangements in South India. In: Cities, 24 (2), 133–147. Baud, I. S. A. (ed.) (2008): New forms of urban governance in India: shifts, models, networks and contestations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Baud, I. S. A. and De Wit, J. (2008): Shifts in Urban Governance: Raising the Question. In: I. S. A. Baud and J. De Wit (eds.): New forms of urban governance in India: shifts, models, networks and contestations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 1–36. Bauriedl, S. (2016): Formen lokaler Governance für eine dezentrale Energiewende. In: Geographische Zeitschrift, 104 (2), 72–91. Bautze, J. K. (1995): Aspekte der indischen Kunst. In: D. Rothermund (ed.): Indien: Kultur, Geschichte, Politik, Wirtschaft, Umwelt – ein Handbuch. München: Beck, 228–270. Baviskar, A. (2003): Between violence and desire: space, power, and identity in the making of metropolitan Delhi. In: International Social Science Journal, 55 (1), 89–98. Baviskar, A. (2006): Demolishing Delhi: World Class City in the Making. In: Mute, 2 (3), 88–95. Benz, A. and Dose, N. (2010): Governance: Modebegriff oder nützliches sozialwissenschaftliches Konzept? In: A. Benz and N. Dose (eds.): Governance: Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen – eine Einführung. 1. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 13–36. Benz, A., Lütz, S., Schimank, U. and Simonis, G. (eds.) (2007): Handbuch Governance: theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Bhan, G. (2009): “This is no longer the city I once knew”. Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millenial Delhi. In: Environment and Urbanization, 21 (1), 127–142.

192

References

Biran, A., Poria, Y. and Oren, G. (2011): Sought Experiences at (Dark) Heritage Sites. In: Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (3), 820–841. Blake, S. P. (1986): Cityskape of an Imperial Capital: Shahjahanabad in 1739. In: R. E. Frykenberg (ed.): Delhi through the Ages: Selected Essays in Urban History, Culture and Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 66–105. Blake, S. P. (1991): Shahjahanabad: The Sovereign City in Mughal India, 1639–1739. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bogner, A., Littig, B. and Menz, W. (2009): Introduction: Expert Interviews – An Introduction to a New Methodological Debate. In: A. Bogner, B. Littig and W. Menz (eds.): Interviewing Experts. Research Methods Series Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan, 1–16. Bogner, A., Littig, B. and Menz, W. (2014): Interviews mit Experten: Eine praxisorientierte Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer. Bork-Hüffer, T. (2012): Migrants’ Health Seeking Actions in Guangzhou, China. Individual Action, Structure and Agency: Linkages and Change. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Börzel, T. A. (2006): Was ist Governance? Think piece. http://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/polwiss/ forschung/international/europa/team/Boerzel/Was_ist_Governance.pdf, access 2018-09-13). Börzel, T. A. (2007): European Governance: Verhandlungen und Wettbewerb im Schatten der Hierarchie. Berlin: FU Berlin. Brenner, N. (2001): The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration. In: Progress in Human Geography, 25 (4), 591–614. Brenner, N. (2004): New State Spaces. Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood. New York: Oxford University Press. Brosius, C. (2009): Die Vorstellung vom “Neuen Indien”. Anmerkungen zur unfassbaren Mittelklasse. In: Der Bürger im Staat, 59 (3–4), 220–227. Brown, J. and Isaacs, D. (2005): The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Bugga, V. K. (2016): Local Area Plans in Delhi: Experiences of Public Participation. In: A. Kumar and P. Prakash (eds.): Public Participation in Planning India. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 222–231. Callahan, W. A. (2006): Cultural governance and resistance in Pacific Asia. London: Routledge. Campbell, D. (2003): Cultural governance and pictorial resistance: reflections on the imaging of war. In: Review of International Studies, 29, 57–73. Cappai, G. (2001): Kultur aus soziologischer Perspektive. In: H. Appelsmeyer and E. BillmannMahecha (eds.): Kulturwissenschaft. Felder einer prozeßorientierten wissenschaftlichen Praxis. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft, 54–96. Carver, M. (1993): On archaeological value. In: Antiquity, 70 (267), 45–56. Chakrabarti, D. (1988): A History of Indian Archaeology: From the Beginning to 1947. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. Chakrabarti, D. (2001): Archaeology in the Third World: A History of Indian Archaeology since 1947. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld. Chan, S. C. (2011): Cultural Governance and Place-Making in Taiwan and China. In: China Quarterly, 206, 372–390. Chapagain, N. K. (2013): Introduction: contexts and concerns in Asian heritage management. In: K. D. Silva and N. K. Chapagain (eds.): Asian Heritage Management: Contexts, concerns, and prospects. London, New York: Routledge, 1–30. Chatterjee, P. (2004): The Politics of the Governed. New York: Columbia University Press. Chopra, D. (2008): Towards Compact Cities: “In-between” zones as resource – Case: Delhi. 44th ISOCARP Congress 2008, Delhi. Coaffee, J. and Healey, P. (2003): “My Voice: My Place”: Tracking Transformations in Urban Governance. In: Urban Studies, 40 (10), 1970–1999. Coase, R. (1991): The Nature of the Firm (1937). In: O. E. Williamson and S. G. Winter (eds.): The Nature of the Firm. Origins, Evolution, and Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 18–33.

References

193

Coombe, R. J. and Baird, M. F. (2016): The Limits of Heritage: Corporate Interests and Cultural Rights on Resource Frontiers. In: W. Logan, N. C. Máiréad and U. Kockel (eds.): A Companion to Heritage Studies. Wiley Blakwells companions to anthropology Chichester: Jon Wiley & Sons, 337–354. Dahl, R. A. (1994): A Democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness Versus Citizen Participation. In: Political Science Quarterly, 1, 23–34. de la Torre, M. and Mason, R. (2002): Introduction. In: M. de la Torre and R. Mason (eds.): Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 3–4. Deeben, J., Groenewoudt, B. J. and Hallewas, D. P. (1999): Proposals for a practical system of significance evaluation in archaeological heritage management. In: European Journal of Archaeology, 2 (2), 177–199. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (2007): Masterplan for Delhi: with the perspective for the year 2021. New Delhi: Rupa&Co. Devkar, G. A., Mahalingam, A. and Kalidindi, S. N. (2013): Competencies and urban Public Private Partnership projects in India: A case study analysis. In: Policy and Society, 32 (2), 125–142. DiGaetano, A. and Strom, E. (2003): Comparative Urban Governance. An Integrated Approach. In: Urban Affairs Review, 38 (3), 356–395. Dix, G. (1990): Conservation and Change in the city. In: Third World Planning Review, 12 (4), 385–406. Donner, H. and De Neve, G. (2011): Introduction. In: H. Donner (ed.): Being middle-class in India: A way of life. New York: Routledge, 1–22. Dupont, V. (2000): Spatial and Demographic Growth of Delhi since 1947 and the Main Migration Flows. In: V. Dupont, E. Tarlo and D. Vidal (eds.): Delhi: urban space and human destinies. New Delhi: Manohar, 229–239. Dupont, V. (2004): Socio-spatial differentiation and residential segregation in Delhi: a question of scale? In: Geoforum, 35, 57–175. Dupont, V. (2005): Residential Practices, Creation and Use of Urban Space: Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi. In: E. Hust (ed.): South Asian studies 42. New Delhi: Manohar, 311–342. Dupont, V. (2011): The Dream of Delhi as a Global City. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35 (3), 533–554. Dutta, B. K. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (2012): Regeneration of Heritage Urban Space of Delhi, Shahjahanabad, the Walled City. In: M. Schrenk, V. V. Popovich, P. Zeile and P. Elisei (eds.): Proceedings REAL CORP 2012 Tagungsband 14–16 May 2012, Schwechat. 691–701. Edwards, J. A. and Coit, J. C. L. (1996): Mines and Quarries: Industrial Heritage Tourism. In: Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2), 341–363. Ehlers, E. and Krafft, T. (1993): The Imperial Islamic City: a Map of 19th Century Shahjahanabad. In: Environmental Design: Journal of the Islamic Environmental Design Research Centre 1–2, 170–179. English Heritage (1997): Sustaining the Historic Environment. London: English Heritage. Escher, A., Petermann, S. and Clos, B. (2001): Gentrification in der Medina von Marrakech. In: Geographische Rundschau, 53 (6), 24–31. Evers, D. and de Vries, J. (2013): Explaining Governance in Five Mega-City Regions: Rethinking the Role of Hierarchy and Government. In: European Planning Studies, 21 (4), 536–555. Falser, M. S. (2008): From Venice 1964 to Nara 1994 – changing concepts of authenticity? In: M. S. Falser, W. Lipp and A. Tomaszewski (eds.): Conservation and Preservation: Interactions betweeh Theory and Practice. In memoriam Alois Riegl (1858–1905). Proceedings of the International Conference of the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee for the Theory and the Philosophy of Conservation and Restoration (23–27 April 2008, Vienna, Austria). Vienna: Edizioni Polistampa, 115–132. Feilden, D. and Jokilehto, J. (1993): Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites. Rome: ICCROM.

194

References

Fernandes, L. (2004): The Politics of Forgetting: Class Politics, State Power and the Restructuring of Urban Space in India. In: Urban Studies, 41 (12), 2415–2430. Flick, U. (2014): Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Einführung. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Follmann, A. (2016a): Governing Riverscapes: Urban Environmental Change along the River Yamuna in Delhi, India. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Follmann, A. (2016b): The role of environmental activists in governing riverscapes: the case of the Yamuna in Delhi. In: India South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal (SAMAJ) [Online], 2016 (14). Follmann, A. and Trumpp, T. (2013): Armutsbekämpfung oder Bekämpfung der Armen? Weltstadtvisionen und Slumräumungen in Delhi. In: Geographische Rundschau, 65 (10), 4–11. Foo, K., Martin, D. and Polsky, C. (2015): Social well-being and environmental governance in urban neighbourhoods in Boston, USA. In: Geographical Journal, 181 (2), 138–146. Fouché, C. and Light, G. (2011): An invitation to dialogue: “The World Café” in social work research. In: Qualitative Social Work, 10 (1), 28–48. Fredheim, L. H. and Khalaf, M. (2016): The significance of values: heritage value typologies re- examined. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22 (6), 466–481. Frey, B. S. (1997): The evaluation of cultural heritage: some critical issues. In: M. Hutter and I. Rizzo (eds.): Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. Palgrave Macmillan, 31–49. Friedmann, J. (2007): The Wealth of Cities: Towards an Assets-based Development of Newly Urbanizing Regions. In: Development and Change, 38 (6), 987–998. Frisch, M. (1998): De-, Re-, and Post-Industrialization: Industrial Heritage as Contested Memorial Terrain. In: Journal of Folklore Research, 35 (3), 241–249. Frykenberg, R. E. (ed.) (1986): Delhi through the Ages: Selected Essays in Urban History, Culture and Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Garella, V. (2006): Safeguarding Shahjahanabad – Heritage Buildings in a Living City. Paper presented at the Forum UNESCO University and Heritage 10th International Seminar “Cultural Landscapes in the 21st Century”, Newcastle upon Tyne, 11–16 April 2005. Gast, K.-P. (2007): Moderne Traditionen: Zeitgenössische Architectur in Indien. Basel: Birkhäuser. Ghertner, D. A. (2011): Rule by Aesthetic: World-Class City making in Delhi. In: A. Roy and A. Ong (eds.): Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of being Global. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 279–306. Ghertner, D. A. (2015): Rule by Aesthetics: World Class City Making in Delhi. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2010): Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalsyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Göll, E. (2009): Zukunftsforschung und -gestaltung: Anmerkungen aus interkultureller Perspektive. In: R. Popp and E. Schüll (eds.): Zukunftsforschung und Zukunftsgestaltung. Heidelberg: Springer, 343–356. Gosh, A., Kennedy, L., Ruet, J., Lama-Rewal, S. T. and Zéràh, M.-H. (2009): A Comparative Overview of Urban Governance in Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai. In: J. Ruet and S. T. Lama-Rewal (eds.): Governing Indias Metropolises. Cities and the urban imperative London: Routledge, 24–54. Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J. and Tunbridge, J. E. (2000): A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture, and Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gupta, B. B. (2006): India through the ages. New Delhi: Niyogi Books. Gutschow, N. (2017): Architectural Heritage Conservation in South and East Asia and in Europe: Contemporary Practices. In: K. Weiler and N. Gutschow (eds.): Authenticity in Architectural Heritage Conservation: Discourses, Opinions, Experiences in Europe, South and East Asia. Switzerland: Springer, 1–71. Hajer, M. A. (2003): Policy without polity? In: Policy Sciences, 36 (2), 175–195. Hall, P. A. and Taylor, C. R. (1996): Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. In: MPIFG Discussion Paper (June 1996), 96 (6).

References

195

Hall, P. G. and Pfeiffer, U. (2000): Urban 21: der Expertenbericht zur Zukunft der Städte. Stuttgart, München: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Harle, J. C. (1987): The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent. London: Penguin Books. Harrison, R. (2013): Heritage: Critical approaches. London and New York: Routledge. Harriss, J. (2007): Antinomies of Empowerment. In: Economic and Political Weekly, 42 (26), 2716– 2724. Haus, M. and Heinelt, H. (2005): How to achieve governability at the local level? Theoretical and conceptual considerations on a complementarity of urban leadership and community involvement. In: M. Haus (eds.): Urban governance and democracy: leadership and community involvement. Routledge studies in governance and public policy 8. London: Routledge, 12–39. Heinelt, H. (2006): Planung und Governance. Der Beitrag der Governance-Debatte zum Planungsverständnis. In: K. Selle (eds): Zur räumlichen Entwicklung beitragen. Konzepte, Theorie, Impulse. Planung neu denken 1. Dortmund, 235–247. Hemme, D., Tauschek, M. and Bendix, R. (eds.) (2007): Prädikat “Heritage”: Wertschöpfungen aus kulturellen Ressourcen. Berlin: LIT Verlag. Hendriks, F. (2014): Understanding Good Urban Governance: Essentials, Shifts, and Values. In: Urban Affairs Review, 50 (4), 553–576. Hill, C. and Fujita, K. (2003): The Nested City: Introduction. In: Urban Studies, 40 (2), 207–217. Hill, H. (2006): Good Governance. Konzepte und Kontexte. In: G. F. Schuppert (eds.): Governance-Forschung: Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien. 1. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 220–250. Hirsch, P. and Warren, C. (2002): Introduction: through the environmental looking glass. In: P. Hirsch and C. Warren (eds.): The Politics of Environment in Southeast Asia: Resources and Resistance. London: Routledge, 1–28. Hohn, U., Lötscher, L. and Wiegandt, C.-C. (2006): Governance: ein Erklärungsansatz für Stadtentwicklungsprozesse. In: Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde, 80 (1), 5–15. Hohn, U. and Neuer, B. (2006): New Urban Governance: Institutional Change and Consequences for Urban Development. In: European Planning Studies, 14 (3), 291–298. Höhnke, C. (2012): Verkehrsgovernance in Megastädten: Die ÖPNV-Reformen in Santiago de Chile und Bogotá. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Hosagrahar, J. (2012): Heritage and modernity in India. In: P. T. Daly and T. Winter (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. London, New York: Routledge, 283–294. Hosagrahar, J. (2013): Recommendation on Historic Urban Landscapes: Relevance in India. In: Context: Built, Living and Natural, X (2), 19–27. Hust, E. (2005a): Introduction: Problems of Urbanization and Urban Governance in India. In: E. Hust and M. Mann (eds.): South Asia Studies 42. New Delhi: Manohar, 1–29. Hust, E. (eds.) (2005b): Urbanization and governance in India. New Delhi: Manohar. Indian Heritage Cities Network (IHCN) (2013): Indian Heritage Cities Network: Fourth Biennal Conference Summary Report, Oune, Maharashtra, India. 20.–22. November 2013. Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) (s. a.): Management of Delhi’s Heritage. Unpublished chapter of the Dossier for Delhi as a UNESCO World Heritage City. Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH Delhi Chapter) (2013): Delhi’s Imperial Capital Cities: World Heritage nomination and management of change. In: Context: Built, Living and Natural, X (2), 27–34. Jacobi, P. and Peres, U. (2016): Urban Environmental Management and Governance. Challenges for the 21st Century. In: DISP, 52 (205), 26–34. Jain, A. K. (1990): The Making of a Metropolis. Planning and Growth of Delhi. Delhi: National Book Organization. Jain, A. K. (2004): Regeneration and Renewal of Old Delhi (Shahjahanabad). In: ITPI Journal, 1 (2), 29–38. Jain, K. K. and Dalela, N. (2010): Academic Conservation Training Programmes in India and International Networking. In: G. Krist and T. Bayerová (eds.): Heritage Conservation and Research in India: 60 Years of Indo-Austrian Collaboration. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau Verlag, 139–146.

196

References

Jessop, B. (2002): The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity Press. Johnson-Roehr, S. (2008): The Archaeological Survey of India and Communal Violence in Post-independence India. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies, 14 (6), 506–523. Jokilehto, J. (1986): A History of Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French, German and Italian Thought towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Porperty. D. Phil Thesis. The University of York, England: Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies. Jürgens, U. (2006): Corporate Governance: Anwendungsfelder und Entwicklungslinien. In: G. F. Schuppert (ed.): Governance-Forschung: Vergewisserung über den Stand und Entwicklungslinien. 1. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 47–71. Keitumetse, S. (2009): Methods for investigating local’s perceptions of a cultural heritage product for tourism: Lessons from Botswana. In: M. L. Sørensen and J. Carman (eds.): Heritage studies: methods and approaches. New York: Routledge, 201–216. Kennedy, L. (2009): New Patterns of Participation Shaping Urban Governance. In: J. Ruet and S. T. Lama-Rewal (eds.): Governing Indias Metropolises. Cities and the urban imperative London: Routledge, 24–54. Kennedy, L. (2014): The Politics of Economic Restructuring in India. Economic Governance and State Spatial Rescaling. London, New York: Routledge. Khilnani, S. (1997): The Idea of India. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2004): Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production. In: museum international, 56 (1–2), 52–65. Klink, J. (2014): The Hollowing Out of Brazilian Metropolitan Governance As We Know It: Restructuring and Rescaling the Developmental State in Metropolitan Space. In: Antipode, 46 (3), 629–649. Koch, P. (2013): Overestimating the Shift from Government to Governance: Evidence from Swiss Metropolitan Areas. In: Governance: an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 26 (3), 397–423. Kögler, O. (2006): Der Umgang mit dem urbanen Kulturerbe im Nachkriegslibanon. Heidelberg: Universität Heidelberg (Dissertation 2005). Kooiman, J. (2003a): Activation in governance. In: H. Bang (eds.): Governance as cultural and political communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 79–100. Kooiman, J. (2003b): Governing as Governance. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE. Kooiman, J. (2006): Governing as Governance. In: G. F. Schuppert (eds.): Governance-Forschung: Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien. 1. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 149–172. Kooiman, J. and Jentoft, S. (2009): Meta-Governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. In: Public Administration 87 (4), 818–836. Kowal, S. and O’Connell, D. C. (2012): Zur Transkription von Gesprächen. In: U. Flick, E. von Kardorff and I. Steinke (eds.): Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch. 9. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 437–446. Kraas, F. (2002): Angkor und Pagan: Konflikte zwischen Schutz des Weltkulturerbes und Ferntourismus? In: H. Karrasch (ed.): Ferntourismus: Potentiale, Konflikte, Nachhaltigkeitsanspruch. HGG-Journal der Heidelberger Geographischen Gesellschaft 17. Heidelberg, 125–149. Krafft, T. (1996): Delhi: Von Indraprashta zur Hauptstadt Indiens. In: Geographische Rundschau, 48 (2), 104–112. Kuder, T. (2007): Governance im Städtebaulichen Denkmalschutz. In: Städte im Umbruch, 4 42–47. Kulabkar, P. (2005): NGOs and Urban Planning in India: The Case of Pune´s Development Plan. Project Report. In: Architecture & Developpement-Association de solidarité internationale. Kulke, H. and Rothermund, D. (1998): Geschichte Indiens: von der Induskultur bis heute. München: Beck. Kulshrestha, S. K. (2012): Regional Planning in India: A Handbook for Professional Practice. New Delhi: SAGE. Kundu, A. (2003): Politics and Economics of Land Policies. In: Economic and Political Weekly, 3530–3532.

References

197

Lambah, A. N. (2012): Mumbai: Historic Preservation by Citizens. In: H. Anheier, Y. Isar and M. Hoelscher (eds.): Cities, Cultureal Policy and Governance. The Cultures and Globalization Series 5. London: Sage, 251–256. Lang, J. (2002): A Concise History of Modern Architecture in India. Delhi: Permanent Black. Leach, M., Bloom, G., Ely, A., Nightingale, P., Scoones, I., Shah, E. and Smith, A. (2007): Understanding Governance: Pathways to Sustainability. Brighton: STEPS Center. Leftwich, A. (1993): Governance, Democracy and Development in the Third World. In: Third World Quarterly (TWQ) 14 (3), 605–624. Lipe, W. D. (1983): Value and Meaning in Cultural Resources In: H. Cleere (ed.): Approaches to the archaeological heritage: comparative study of world cultural resource management systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–11. Logan, W. (2012): States, governance and the politics of culture: World heritage in Asia. In: P. Daly and T. Winter (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. London, New Yorl: Routledge, 69–84. Lossau, J. (2008): Kulturgeographie als Perspektive: Zur Debatte um den cultural turn in der Humangeographie – eine Zwischenbilanz. In: Berichte zur deutschen Landeskunde, 82 (4), 317–334. Lossau, J. (2012a): Postkoloniale Impulse für die deutschsprachige Geographische Entwicklungsforschung. In: Geographica Helvetica, 67 (3), 125–132. Lowenthal, D. (1998): The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacKee, J. (2009): Conserving cultural built heritage in South and Southeast Asia: A conceptual framework for the conservation of non-secular built heritage based on the philosophical and cultural experiences of the region. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. Macleod, G. and Goodwin, M. (1999): Space, scale and state strategy: rethinking urban and regional governance. In: Progress in Human Geography, 23 (4), 503–527. Mann, A. and Banerjee, T. (2011): Institutions and Megaprojects: The Case of Delhi Metro Rail. In: Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 2 (1), 77–91. Mann, M. (2005): Town-Planning and Urban Resistance in the Old City of Delhi, 1937–77. In: E. Hust and M. Mann (eds.): South Asia Studies 42. New Delhi: Manohar 251–278. Mann, M. (2006): Metamorphosen einer Metropole: Delhi 1911–1977. In: R. Ahuja and C. Brosius (eds.): Mumbai – Delhi – Kolkata: Annäherungen an die Megastädte Indiens. Heidelberg: Draupadi-Verlag, 127–142. Marston, S. (2000): The social construction of scale. In: Progress in Human Geography, 24 (2), 219–242. Mason, R. (2002): Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices. In: M. de la Torre (ed.): Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage: Research Report. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 5–30. Mathur, S. and Ray, D. (2014): The Nizamuddin urban renewal initiative. In: Seminar, 657 (May 2014). Mayntz, R. (1987): Politische Steuerung und gesellschaftliche Steuerungsprobleme: Anmerkungen zu einem theoretischen Paradigma. In: T. Ellwein, J. J. Hesse, R. Mayntz and F. W. Scharpf (eds.): Jahrbuch zur Staats- und Verwaltungswissenschaft. Bd. 1. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 89– 110. Mayntz, R. (1996): Politische Steuerung. Aufstieg, Niedergang und Transformation einer Theorie. In: K. von Beyme and C. Offe (eds.): Politische Theorien in der Ära der Transformation. PVS Sonderheft 26. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 148–168. Mayntz, R. (2001): The State and Civil Society in Modern Governance. Conference Paper: VI International Congress of CLAD on State and Public Administration Reform. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 5–9 November 2001. Mayntz, R. (2004): Governance Theory als fortentwickelte Steuerungstheorie? Working Paper: Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.

198

References

Mayntz, R. (2009a): New Challenges to Governance Theory (1998). In: R. Mayntz (eds.): Über Governance: Institutionen und Prozesse politischer Regelung. Schriften aus dem Max-PlanckInstitut für Gesellschaftsforschung; Bd. 62 62. Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verlag, 13–27. Mayntz, R. (2009b): Zur Selektivität der steuerungstheoretischen Perspektive (2001). In: R. Mayntz (eds.): Über Governance: Institutionen und Prozesse politischer Regelung. Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung 62. Frankfurt am Main: Campus-Verlag, 29–40. Mayntz, R. (2010): Governance im modernen Staat. In: A. Benz and N. Dose (eds.): Governance: Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen: eine Einführung. 1. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 37–48. Mayntz, R. and Scharpf, F. W. (eds.) (1995a): Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, Verlag. Mayntz, R. and Scharpf, F. W. (1995b): Steuerung und Selbstorganisation in staatsnahen Sektoren. In: R. Mayntz and F. W. Scharpf (eds.): Gesellschaftliche Selbstregulierung und politische Steuerung. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag, 9–38. Mayring, P. (2012): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff and I. Steinke (eds.): Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 468–475. McCarthy, J. (2005): Scale, sovereignity, and strategy in environmental governance. In: Antipode, 37 (4), 731–753. McClelland, A., Peel, D., Hayes, C.-M. L. and et al. (2013): A values-based approach to heritage planning: raising awareness of the dark side of destruction and conservation. In: TPR: Town Planning Review, 84 (5), 583–604. Mehrotra, R. (2009): Conservation and Change: Questions for Conservation Education in Urban India. In: R. Mehrotra and B. Amita (eds.): Thinking Conservation: Contemporary Perspectives for India. Meier Kruker, V. and Rauh, J. (2005): Arbeitsmethoden der Humangeographie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Menon, A. (2014a): Heritage Conservation in India: Challenges and New Paradigms. Conference Paper: SAHC2014–9th International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions. Pena, F. and Chávez, M. (eds.). Mexico City, Mexico, 14–17 October 2014. Menon, A. G. K. (1989): Conservation in India: a search for direction. In: Architecture and Design, 1989, 22–27. Menon, A. G. K. (1994): Rethinking the Venice Charter: The Indian Experience. In: South Asian Studies, 10, 37–44. Menon, A. G. K. (2000): The Contemporary Architecture of Delhi: The Role of the State as a Middleman. In: V. Dupont (eds.): Delhi: Urban Space and Human Destiny. New Delhi: Manohar, 143–156. Menon, A. G. K. (2003a): The case of an Indian charter. In: seminar, 530 (Restoration & Renewal: a symposium on preserving our cultural heritage). Menon, A. G. K. (2003b): The Contemporary Architecture of Delhi: a Critical History. New Delhi: TVB School of Habitat Studies. Menon, A. G. K. (2007): Heritage and Development – Reflections in INTACH´s Experience. Conference Heritage and Development: Papers and Recommendations of the 12th International Conference of National Trusts New Delhi, 3rd-5th December 2007. New Delhi: INTACH. Menon, A. G. K. (2009): Afterlife of the Venice Charter in Postcolonial India. In: (eds.): Venice Charter Revisited: Modernism and Conservation in the Post-War World. Cambridge Scholars Press, 16–23. Menon, A. G. K. (2014b): Delhi as a world heritage city. In: Seminar, 657 (May 2014). Menon, A. G. K. (2017): The Idea of Place in the Practice of Restoration and Replication in India. In: K. Weiler and N. Gutschow (eds.): Authenticity in Architectural Heritage Conservation: Discourses, Opinions, Experiences in Europe, South and East Asia. Switzerland: Steiner, 87–92. Mertins, G. (2003): Städtetourismus in Havanna (Kuba). In: Geographische Rundschau, 55 (3), 20–25.

References

199

Metcalf, T. (1984): Architecture and the Representation of Empire: India 1860–1910. In: Representations, 6, 37–65. Metcalf, T. (1989): An Imperial Vision: Indian Architecture and Britain’s Raj. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press. Meuser, M. and Nagel, U. (2002): ExpertInneninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht: Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In: A. Bogner, B. Littig and W. Menz (eds.): Das Experteninterview: Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 71–94. Meuser, M. and Nagel, U. (2009): The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In: A. Bogner, B. Littig and W. Menz (eds.): Interviewing Experts. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan, 17–42. Mitchell, C. J. A. and Shannon, M. (2018): Exploring cultural heritage tourism in rural Newfoundland through the lens of the evolutionary economic geographer. In: Journal of Rural Studies, 59 (2018), 21–34. Mitton, T. (2002): A cross-firm analysis of the impact of corporate governance on the East Asian financial crisis. In: Journal of Financial Economics, 64 (2), 215–241. Monteiro, V., Painho, M. and Vaz, E. (2015): Is the heritage really important? A theoretical framework for heritage reputation using citizen sensing. In: Habitat International, 45 156–162. Moon, M. J. (2001): Cultural Governance: A Comparative Study of Three Cultural Districts. In: Administration and Society, 33 (4), 432–454. Nanda, R. (2004): Negotiating Conservation. In: seminar, 542 (October 2004). Nanda, R. (2012): Architecture of Shahjahanabad. In: J. P. Losty (ed.): Delhi: Red Fort to Raisina. New Delhi: Roli Books, 148–159. Nanda, R. (2016): Conservation and communities. In: Seminar, 680 (April 2016). Nanda, R. (2017): Humayon’s Tomb: Conservation and Restoration. In: K. Weiler and N. Gutschow (eds.): Authenticity in Architectural Heritage Conservation: Discourses, Opinions, Experiences in Europe, South and East Asia. Switzerland: Springer, 93–114. Naqvi, H. K. (1986): Shahjahanabad: The Mughal Delhi, 1638–1803: An Introduction. In: R. E. Frykenberg (eds.): Delhi through the Ages: Selected Essays in Urban History, Culture and Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 55–65. Nasser, N. (2003): Planning for Urban Heritage Places: Reconciling Conservation, Tourism, and Sustainable Development. In: Journal of Planning Literature, 17 (4), 467–479. Nath, V. (1993): Planning for Delhi. In: Geo-Journal, 29 (2), 171–180. Nath, V. (2007): Urbanization, Urban Development and Metropolitan Cities in India. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Nayak, D. (2003): Revitalising our walled cities. In: seminar, 530 (October 2003). Ndoro, W., Mumma, A. and Abungu, G. (eds.) (2008): Cultural Heritage and the Law: Protecting Immovable Heritage in English-Speaking Countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Rome: ICCROM. Nuissl, H. and Heinrichs, D. (2011): Fresh wind or hot air: does the governance discourse have something to offer to spatial planning? In: Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31 (1), 47–59. Nuissl, H., Höhnke, C., Lukas, M., Durán, G. and Rodriguez Seeger, C. (2012): Megacity Governance: Concepts and Challenges. In: D. Heinrichs, D. Krellenberg, B. Hansjürgens and F. Martínez (eds.): Risk habitat megacity. Berlin Springer, 87–108. Oldfield, S. and Parnell, S. (2014): From the South. In: S. Oldfield and S. Parnell (eds.): The Routledge Handbook on Cities of the Global South. Routledge Handbooks London, New York: Routledge, 1–4. Olowu, D. (2003): Challenge of multi-level governance in developing countries and possible GIS applications. In: Habitat International, 27, 501–522. Orbaslı, A. (2000): Is Tourism Governing Conservation in Historic Towns? In: Journal of Architectural Conservation, 6 (3), 7–19. Orbaslı, A. (2008): Architectural conservation: principles and practice. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Pearce, G. and Ayres, S. (2009): Governance in the English Regions: The role of the regional development agencies. In: Urban Studies, 46 (3), 537–557.

200

References

Peck, L. (2005): Delhi: a thousand years of building. New Delhi: Roli Books. Pierre, J. (1999): Models of urban governance: The institutional dimension of urban polities. In: Urban Affairs Review, 34 (3), 372–396. Pierre, J. (2014): Can Urban Regimes Travel in Time and Space? Urban Regime Theory, Urban Governance Theory, and Comparative Urban Politics. In: Urban Affairs Review, 50 (6), 864– 889. Pierre, J. and Peters, G. B. (2000): Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke, London: Macmillan Press. Pinto, M. R. (2000): Metropolitan City Governance in India. New Delhi: SAGE. Piplani, N. (eds.) (2015a): Asia-Europe Network of Urban Heritage for Sustainable Creative Economics. New Delhi: INTACH. Piplani, N. (2015b): Theoretical underpinnings of conservation in India. In: V. M. Meurs and L. G. Robles (eds.): Conversaciones … con Paul Philippot. 1. Córdoba: Institutio Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 81–86. Popp, H. (2001): Weltkulturerbe Ait ben Haddou (Marokko): Lokale Vermarktung eines Standortes von globalem Interesse. In: Geographische Rundschau, 53 (6), 44–49. Poulios, I. (2010): Moving Beyond a Values-Base Approach to Heritage Conservation. In: Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 12 (2), 170–185. Prakash, P. (2016): Reflections on Participatory Practices in Urban Planning: Experiences of the Delhi Master Plan 2021. In: A. Kumar and P. Prakash (eds.): Public Participation in Planning India. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 143–154. Pratt, A. C. (1997): Production values: from cultural industries to the governance of culture. In: Environment and Planning A, 29 (11), 1911–1917. Preller, B., Affolderbach, J., Schulz, M., Fastenrath, S. and Braun, B. (2014): Sustainability Research and Interactive Knowledge Generation: The Green Building Sector. Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning University of Luxembourg and Institute of Geography the University of Cologne. Prothi-Khanna, N. (2004): Conflicting perceptions. In: Seminar, 542 (October 2004). Punekar, A. (2006): Value-led Heritage and Sustainable Development: The Case of Bijapur, India. In: R. Zetter and G. B. Watson (eds.): Designing Sustainable Cities in the Developing World. Asgate Pub. Co. Aldershot Hampshire, England, Burlington: Gower House, 103–119. Quack, S. (2006): Zum Werden und Vergehen von Institutionen: Vorschläge für eine dynamische Governanceanalyse. In: G. F. Schuppert (eds.): Governance-Forschung: Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien. Schriften zur Governance-Forschung 1. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 346–370. Ramakrishnan, K. (2013): City Futures: Aspirations and Urban Imaginaries in Delhi. In: Kaleidoscope: The Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Journal of Durham University’s Institute of Advanced Study, 5 (1), 100–108. Ray, H. P. (2012): From Multi-Religious Sites to Mono-Religious Monuments in South Asia. In: P. Daly and T. Winter (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 69–84. Ray, H. P. (s. a.): Acts and Regulations governing Preservation of Monuments and Sites (Unpublished Presentation). (http://spa.ac.in/writereaddata/Day2NMA.pdf, access: 2018-04-23). Renn, O. (2008): Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London, Sterling: Earthscan. Rhodes, R. R. W. A. (1997): Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press. Riegl, A. (1929): Der moderne Denkmalkultus, sein Wesen und seine Entstehung (1903). In: K. M. Swoboda (ed.): Alois Riegl: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Wien: Dr. Benno Filser Verlag, 144– 193. Rosenau, J. N. and Czempiel, E.-O. (eds.) (1992): Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

201

Rothermund, D. (1995): Geschichte und Gesellschaft. In: D. Rothermund (ed.): Indien: Kultur, Geschichte, Politik, Wirtschaft, Umwelt – ein Handbuch. München: Beck, 77–100. Roy, S. (1961): The Story of Indian Archaeology. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Ruet, J. (2005): Planning of Indian Mega-Cities: Issues of Governance, the Public Sphere and a Pinch of Civil Society. In: E. Hust and M. Mann (eds.): South Asia Studies 42. New Delhi: Manohar, 61–84. Rypkema, D. D. (2005): Globalization, Urban Heritage and the 21st Century Economy. In: Global Urban Delvelopment, 1 (1), 1–8. Salazar, N. B. (2015): The Local-to-Global Dynamics of World Heritage Interpretation. In: L. Bourdeau, G.-B. Maria and M. Ronbinson (eds.): World Heritage, Tourism and Identity: Inscription and Co-production. London, New York: Routledge, 121–130. Saltiel, L. (2014): Cultural governance and development in Vietnam. In: University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 35 (3), 893–915. Sarkar, J. (1901): India of Aurangzib: Topography, Statistics and Roads. Sanyal&Co. Sassen, S. (2018): Who owns the city? In: UN Habitat (ed.): The quito Papers and the New Urban Agenda. London: Routledge, 48–52. Scarpaci, J. L. (2000): Reshaping Habana Vieja: Revitalization, historic preservation, and restructuring in the socialist city. In: Urban Geography, 21 (8), 724–744. Scharpf, F. W. (1975): Politische Durchsetzbarkeit innerer Reformen. Göttingen: Schwarze. Scharpf, F. W. (2000): Interaktionsformen Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Politikforschung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. Schindler, S. (2017): Beyond a state-centric approach to urban informality: Interactions between Delhi’s middle class and the informal sector. In: Current Sociology 65 (2), 248–259. Schmitt, T. (2011a): Cultural Governance as a conceptual framework. MMG Working Paper 11–02. Schmitt, T. (2011b): Cultural governance: zur Kulturgeographie des UNESCO-Welterberegimes. Erdkundliches Wissen 149. Stuttgart: Steiner. Schmitt, T. M. (2009): Global Cultural Governance. Decision-Making concerning World Heritage between Politics an Science. In: Erdkunde, 63 (2), 103–121. Schnell, R., Hill, P. B. and Esser, E. (2008): Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. München, Wien: Oldenbourg Verlag. Schuppert, G. F. (2006): Governance im Spiegel der Wissenschaftsdisziplinen. In: G. F. Schuppert (ed.): Governance-Forschung: Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien. Schriften zur Governance-Forschung 1. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 371–460. Scott, M. (2015): Re-theorizing network analysis and environmental governance. Insights from human geography. In: Progress in Human Geography, 39 (4), 449–463. Selbach, V. (2009): Wasserversorgung und Verwundbarkeit in der Megastadt Delhi/Indien (Dissertation). Köln: Universität Köln. Sengupta, G. (2012): Custodians of the past. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India. Sengupta, G. and Banerji, A. (2012): The First Hundred Years of the ASI. In: G. Sengupta and A. N. Lambah (eds.): Custodians of the Past: 150 Years of the Archaeological Survey of India. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, 70–91. Sengupta, G. and Lambah, A. N. (2012): Early Explorations in Indian Archaeology and the Foundation of the ASI. In: G. Sengupta and A. N. Lambah (eds.): Custodians of the past: 150 years of the Archaeological Survey of India. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, 16–39. Sengupta, I. (2013): A Conservation Code for the Colony: John Marshall’s Conservation Manual and Monument Preservation Between India and Europe. In: M. Falser and M. Juneja (eds.): ‘Archaeologizing’ Heritage?, Transcultural Research. Heidelberg Studies on Asia and Europe in a Global Context. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 21–37. Shapiro, M. J. (2004): Methods and Nations. Cultural Governance and the Indigenous Subject. New York: Routledge. Shatkin, G. (2014): Contesting the Indian City: Global Visions and the Politics of the Local. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38.1 (January 2014), 1–13.

202

References

Shatkin, G. and Vidyarthi, S. (2014): Introduction: Contesting the Indian city: global visions and the politics of the local. In: G. Shatkin and S. Vidyarthi (eds.): Contesting the Indian city: global visions and the politics of the local. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 1–39. Shorey, S. P. (2006): Hesitating in Hyderabad: Urban Heritage Conservation in India. In: P. S. N. Rao (eds.): Urban governance and management: Indian initiatives. New Delhi: Kanishka Publishing House. Singh, M. (ed.) (2009): New Delhi, making of a capital. New Delhi, India: Lustre Press. Singh, M. (2014): Cityspaces, public domains. In: Seminar, 657 (May 2014). Singh, P. (1989): New aesthetic guidelines for city development. In: P. Singh and R. Dhimja (eds.): Delhi: the Deepening Urban Crisis. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 115–124. Singh, R. P. B. (1997): Sacredscape and urban heritage in India: contestation and perspective. In: B. J. Shaw and R. Jones (eds.): Contested Urban Heritage: Voices from the Periphery. Aldershot: Ashgate, 101–131. Singh, U. (2004): The discovery of ancient India. Delhi: Permanent Black. Singh, U. (2010): Discovering the ancient in Modern Delhi. In: M. Dayal (eds.): Celebrating Delhi. Ravi Dayal Publishers and Penguin-Viking: New Delhi, 15–27. Sitte, K. (1889): Der Städtebau nach seinen künstlerischen Grundsätzen. Wien: Birkhäuser. Sivaramakrishnan, K. C. (2015): Governance of Megacities: Fractures Thinking, Fragmented Setup. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Sonderforschungsbereich 700: Governance in Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit (ed.) (2009): Grundbegriffe der Governanceforschung. In: SFB-Governance Working Paper Series 8 (Juni 2009). Soyez, D. (1986): Industrietourismus. In: Erdkunde, 40, 105–111. Spear, P. (1951): Twilight of the Mughals: Studies in late Mughal Delhi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spear, T. (2010): The Delhi Omnibus. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Spear, T., Gupta, N. and Sykes, L. (2008): Delhi: Its Monuments and History. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Srivastava, S. (2015): Entangled Urbanism. Slum, Gated Communitiy, and Shopping Mall in Delhi and Gurgaon. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Steinberg, F. (1996): Conservation and Rehabilitation of Urban Heritage in Developing Countries. In: Habitat International, 20 (3), 463–475. Stoker, G. (2011): Was local governance such a good idea? a global comparative perspective. In: Public Administration 89 (1), 15–31. Stubbs, J. H. and Thomson, R. G. (2017): Architectural Conservation in Asia: National experiences and practice. London, New York: Routledge. Sud, M. (2017): Political Ecology of the Ridge: The Establishment and Contestation of Urban Forest Conservation in Delhi. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Sullivan, S. (2004): Local Involvement and Traditional Practices in the World Heritage System. In: World Heritage Papers, 13 (Linking Universal and Local Values), 49–55. Sundaram, R. (2010): Pirate modernity: Delhi’s media urbanism. London: Routledge. Sutton, D. (2017): Inhabited Pasts: Monuments, Authority and People in Delhi, 1912–1970s. In: Journal of Asian Studies, 2017 Dec 1 (forthcoming). Swyngedouw, E. (1997): Neither global nor local: ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In: K. Cox (eds.): Spaces of globalization: reasserting the power of the local. New York: Guilford, 138–66. Swyngedouw, E. (2005): Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond the State. In: Urban Studies, 42 1991–2006. Taneja, A. V. (2013): Jinnealogy: Everyday life and Islamic theology in post-Partition Delhi. In: HAU: Journal of Ethographic Theory, 3 (3), 139–165. Taneja, A. V. (2018): Jinnealogy: Time, Islam, and Ecological Thought in the Medieval Ruins of Delhi. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Taylor, K. (2012): Heritage challenges in Asian urban cultural landscape settings. In: P. T. Daly and T. Winter (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. Oxon: Routledge, 266–279.

References

203

Thakur, N. (1990): A Holistic Franework for Architectural Conservation Education. In: Third World Planning Review, 12 (4), 344–349. Thakur, N. and Gupta, S. (2008): Hampi: Statutory spatial planning tools for sustainable and valuebased development of a World Heritage Site. In: Context – Journal of the Development and Research Organisation for Nature, Arts and Heritage, V (1), 127–136. Thorsby, D. (2006): The value of cultural heritage: what can economics tell us? In: K. Clark (ed.): Capturing the Public Value of Heritage. London: English Heritage, 40–43. Torfing, J. and Sorensen, E. (2014): The European debate on governance networks: Towards a new and viable paradigm? In: Policy and Society, 33 (4), 329–344. Toyoyama, A. (2012): Asian orientalism: Perceptions of Buddhist heritage in Japan. In: P. T. Daly and T. Winter (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Heritage in Asia. London, New York: Routledge, 339–349. Trumpp, T. and Kraas, F. (2015): Urban Cultural Heritage in Delhi, India: An Asset for the Future or a Neglected Resource? In: Asien, 134 (Januar 2015), 9–29. Tweed, C. and Sutherland, M. (2007): Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. In: Landscape and urban planning, 83, 62–69. UNDP (1997): Governance for sustainable human development – a UNDP policy document. UNESCO (2009): Preliminary study on the technical and legal aspects relating to the desirability of a standard-setting instrument on the conservation of the historic urban landscape. access: UNESCO (2012): Understanding World Heritage in Asia and the Pacific: The Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting 2010–2012. World Heritage Papers 35. UNESCO (2014): Culture for Development Indicators: Methodology Manual. Paris: UNESCO. Uppal, V. (2009): The Impact of the Commonwealth Games 2010 in Urban Development of Delhi. In: Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 1 (10), 7–29. van Asselt, M. B. A. and Renn, O. (2011): Risk Governance. In: Journal of Risk Research, 14 (4), 431–449. Vandini, M., Mehndiratta, R. R. and Huber, A. (2016): Hall of Nations and Hall of Industries, New Delhi, 1972. In: M. Vandini, R. R. Mehndiratta and A. Huber (eds.): The Structure – Works of Mahendra Raj. Chicago: University of Chicago Presss, 152–179. Vasavada, R. J. (2017): Sompura: Traditional Master Builders of Western India. In: K. Weiler and N. Gutschow (eds.): Authenticity in Architectural Heritage Conservation: Discourses, Opinions, Experiences in Europe, South and East Asia. Switzerland: Springer, 115–126. Vidyarthi, S. (2014): Building a “World Class Heritage City”: Jaipur’s Emergent Elites nad the New Approach to Spatial Planning. In: G. Shatkin (ed.): Contesting the Indian City: Global Visions and the Politics of the Local. Malden, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 241–264. Vira, B. and Vira, S. (2005): Governing India’s Urban Environment: Problems, Policies and Politics. In: E. Hust and M. Mann (eds.): South Asia Studies 42. New Delhi: Manohar, 29–60. Walter, N. (2014): From Values to Narrative: A New Foundation for the Conservation of Historic Buildings. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20 (6), 634–650. Weber, M. (1920): Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie I. Tübingen. Weiler, K. (2013): Lebendige Handwerkstraditionen: ein transkultureller Mythos am Beispiel Indiens. In: M. Falser and M. Juneja (eds.): Kulturerbe und Denkmalpflege transkulturell: Grenzgänge zwischen Theorie und Praxis. Architekturen 12. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, 242–262. Weiler, K. (2017): Contested Evaluations: Authenticity and the “Living Traditions” of Master Builders and Stonemasons in India. In: K. Weiler and N. Gutschow (eds.): Authenticity in Architectural Heritage Conservation: Discourses, Opinions, Experiences in Europe, South and East Asia. Switzerland: Springer, 127–168. Weinstein, L. (2009): Redeveloping Dharavi: toward a political economy of slums and slum redevelopment in globalizing Mumbai. Unbublished PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago. Weiss, T. G. (2000): Governance, good governance and global governance: conceptual and actual challenges. In: Third World Quarterly, 21 (5), 795–814. Wescoat Jr., J. L. (2014): Some reflections. In: Seminar, 657 (May 2014).

204

References

Wheeler, S. M. (2000): Planning for Metropolitan Sustainability. In: Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20, 133–145. Williamson, O. E. (1985): The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Firms, Markets and Relational Contracts. New York: Free Press. Winter, T. (2013): Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19 (6), 532–545. Winter, T. (2014): Beyond Eurocentrism? Heritage conservation and the politics of difference. In: International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20 (2), 123–137. Winter, T. and Daly, P. (2012): Heritage in Asia: converging forces, conflicting values. In: S. Labadi and C. Long (eds.): Cultural Heritage and Globalisation. London: Routledge, 1–35. Witt, H. (2001): Forschungsstratgien bei quantitativer und qualitativer Sozialforschung. In: Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung, 2 (1). Witzel, A. (2000): Das problemzentrierte Interview. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 1 (1). Wohlleben, M. (1988): Alois Riegl: Der moderne Denkmalskultus, sein Wesen und seine Entstehung. In: M. Wohlleben and G. Mörsch (eds.): Georg Dehio und Alois Riegl. Konservieren, nicht restaurieren. Streitschriften zur Denkmalpflege um 1900. Bauwelt Fundamente Braunschweig: Birkhäuser, 43–87. Woods, M. N. (2017): Women Architects in India: Histories of Practice in Mumbai and Delhi. New York: Routledge. World Bank (1989): Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth. Washington: The World Bank. World Bank (1992): Governance and Development. Washington, D. C.: The World Bank. Worthing, D. and Bond, S. (2007): Managing Built Heritage: The Role of Cultural Significance. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Yildirim, A. E. (2015): The changing role of urban heritage: Governance and stakeholders’ perceptions in Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. In: METU JFA, 32 (1), 121–145. Yue, A. (2006): The Regional Culture of New Asia: Cultural governance and creative industries in Singapore. In: International Journal of Cultural Policiy, 12 (1), 17–33. Zetter, R. and Watson, G. B. (2006): Designing Sustainable Cities in the Developing World. Aldershot, UK and Burlington: Ashgate. Zimmer, A. (2012): Everyday governance of the waste waterscapes: A Foucauldian analysis in Delhi’s informal settlements (Dissertation). Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Bonn. Zürn, M. (1998): Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaates. Frankfurt: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Zürn, M. (2006): Global Governance. In: G. F. Schuppert (ed.): Governance-Forschung: Vergewisserung über den Stand und Entwicklungslinien. 1. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 121–146.

APPENDIX APPENDIX I: LIST OF INTERVIEWS No.

Code

Date

Actor

Category*

Transcript**

1

03/NGO

8-Nov-2010

NGO

e

ft

2

04/NGO

9-Nov-2010

NGO

e

ft

3

05/OWN

14-Nov-2010

Property owner

l

n

4

06/DDA

17-Nov-2010

DDA

e

ft

5

07/DDA

23-Nov-2010

DDA

e

ft

6

08/MCD

24-Nov-2010

MCD

e

ft

7

09/SRDC

30-Nov-2010

SRDC

e

ft

8

10/NGO

10-Jan-2011

NGO

e

ft

9

11/OWN

14-Jan-2011

Property owner

l

ft

10

12/ACAD

14-Jan-2011

Academic

e

ft

11

13/ARCH

15-Jan-2011

Architect

e

ft

12

14/ARCH

17-Jan-2011

Architect

e

ft

13

15/GNCTD

18-Jan-2011

GNCTD

e

ft

14

16/ACAD

20-Jan-2011

Academic

e

ft

15

17/ARCH

20-Jan-2011

Architect

e

ft

16

18/ASI

24-Jan-2011

ASI

e

ft

17

20/NDMC1

28-Jan-2011

NDMC

e

ft

18

21/HCC

1-Feb-2011

HCC

e

ft

19

22/CONS

3-Feb-2011

Conservation architect

e

ft

20

23/ARCH

3-Feb-2011

Architect

e

ft

21

24/ASI

17-Feb-2011

ASI

e

ft

22

25/MCD

22-Feb-2011

MCD

e

ft

23

28/NGO

2-Mar-2011

NGO

e

ft

24

30/NGO

10-Mar-2011

NGO

e

ft

25

31/NGO

15-Mar-2011

NGO

e

ft

26

33/NGO

19-Sep-2013

NGO

e

ft

27

34/NGO

25-Sep-2013

NGO

e

ft

28

35/RES

26-Sep-2013

Resident

l

n

29

36/NGO

26-Sep-2013

NGO

e

ft

30

37/ACAD

27-Sep-2013

Academic

e

n

31

38/DDA

30-Sep-2013

DDA

e

ft

32

39/NGO

1-Oct-2013

NGO

e

n

206

Appendix

No.

Code

Date

Actor

Category*

Transcript**

33

40/ACAD

1-Oct-2013

Academic

e

ft

34

41a/NGO

10-Oct-2013

NGO

e

n

35

41b/ASI

10-Oct-2013

ASI

e

n

36

42/CONS

14-Oct-2013

Conservation architect

e

ft

37

44/NGO

15-Oct-2013

NGO

e

n

38

46/NMA

16-Oct-2013

NMA

e

ft

39

47/ARCH

17-Oct-2013

Architect

e

ft

40

48/ARCH

18-Oct-2013

Architect

e

n

41

49/ACT

18-Oct-2013

Activist

e

ft

42

50/RES

20-Oct-2013

Resident

l

n

43

51/IITP

21-Oct-2013

IITP

e

ft

44

53/TCPO

23-Oct-2013

TCPO

e

n

45

54/RES

25-Oct-2013

Resident

l

n

46

55/RES

25-Oct-2013

Resident

l

n

47

57/RES

25-Oct-2013

Resident

l

n

48

58/NGO

26-Oct-2013

NGO

e

ft

49

59/NGO

28-Oct-2013

NGO

e

ft

50

60/NGO

28-Oct-2013

NGO

e

ft

51

61/DTTDC

29-Oct-2013

DTTDC

e

n

52

62/NGO

27-Nov-2013

NGO

e

ft

53

63/ACAD

29-Nov-2013

Academic

e

ft

54

64/RES

29-Nov-2013

Resident

l

ft

55

67/ACAD

24-Jul-2014

Academic

e

n

56

68/NGO

6-Oct-2014

NGO

e

n

57

69/DDA

7-Oct-2014

DDA

e

ft

58

70/RES

8-Oct-2014

Resident

l

n

59

71/RES

8-Oct-2014

Resident

l

n

60

72/ACAD

11-Oct-2014

Academic

e

n

61

73/GNCTD

14-Oct-2014

GNCTD

e

n

62

74/ACAD

15-Oct-2014

Academic

e

ft

63

75/NGO

16-Oct-2014

NGO

e

ft

64

76/RES

18-Oct-2014

Resident

l

n

65

77/ARCH

18-Oct-2014

Architect

e

n

66

78/NMA

21-Oct-2014

NMA

e

ft

67

79/NCF

27-Oct-2014

NCF

e

n

68

80/NGO

27-Oct-2014

NGO

e

n

69

81/RES

31-Oct-2014

Resident

l

n

207

Appendix I: List of interviews No.

Code

Date

Actor

Category*

Transcript**

70

83/RES

31-Oct-2014

Resident

l

n

71

84/RES

31-Oct-2014

Resident

l

n

72

85/RES

31-Oct-2014

Resident

l

n

73

86/RES

31-Oct-2014

Resident

l

n

74

87/RES

2-Nov-2014

Resident

l

n

75

88/OWN

4-Nov-2014

Property owner

l

n

76

89/RES

5-Nov-2014

Resident

l

n

77

90/OWN

5-Nov-2014

Property owner

l

n

78

91/ARCH

5-Nov-2014

Architect

e

ft

79

92/SRDC

12-Nov-2014

SRDC

e

ft

80

93/MCD

12-Nov-2014

MCD

e

ft

81

96/RES

17-Nov-2014

Resident

l

ft

82

97/RES

18-Nov-2014

Resident

l

n

83

98/RES

18-Nov-2014

Resident

l

n

84

99/RES

18-Nov-2014

Resident

l

n

85

100/RES

18-Nov-2014

Resident

l

n

86

101/RES

19-Nov-2014

Resident

l

n

87

102/NGO

20-Nov-2014

NGO

e

ft

88

103/NGO

11-Jun-2015

NGO

e

n

89

104/NGO

24-Jun-2015

NGO

e

n

*e=expert; l=laypeople **n=notes; ft=full transcript

208

Appendix

APPENDIX II: FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 8: Bijri Khans Tomb

Figure 9: Monuments and middle-class residences in Hauz Khas

Appendix II: Figures and tables

Figure 10: Monuments of national importance and state-protected monuments and their buffer zones located in South Delhi residential areas

209

210

Appendix

Figure 11: Temporary wall in Green Park usually used to hide unauthorised building activities within the restricted area of listed monuments in Delhi

Figure 12: Haweli in Old Delhi used for residential purposes

Figure 13: Haweli in Old Delhi used as common kitchen

Figure 14: Haweli in Old Delhi used as godown

Figure 15: Trading at the Spice Market Old Delhi

Appendix II: Figures and tables

Figure 16: Qutb Minar, Delhi

Figure 17: Red Fort, Delhi

211

212

Appendix

Figure 18: British baracks within Red Fort Complex

Figure 19: Mughal Palace within Red Fort Complex

Figure 20: Humayon’s Tomb, Delhi

Figure 21: Hazrat Nizamuddin Basti

Figure 22: Nizamuddin Dargah

Appendix II: Figures and tables

213

Figure 23: Sunder Nursery Park

Figure 24: Sundarvala Burj

Figure 25: Traditional craftsmen Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Initiative

Figure 26: Stone carvings Sundarvala Burj

214

Appendix

Figure 27: Mosque in Feroz Shah Kotla

Figure 28: Prayers in Feroz Shah Kotla

Figure 29: Rituals in Feroz Shah Kotla

Figure 30: Worshipping Djinns in Feroz Shah Kotla

Appendix II: Figures and tables

Figure 31: Monuments of national importance and state-protected monuments and their buffer zones in Delhi

215

216

Appendix Table 6: Monuments of national importance in Delhi (Source: ASI 2010)

Appendix II: Figures and tables Table 7: State-protected monuments in Delhi (Source: SDA 2007/2013)

217

As a result of current urbanization dynamics the cultural heritage of Indian cities is under enormous pressure and threatened by decay. At the same time it makes a central contribution to social and societal identity of these cities and has a major influence both economically and aesthetically on the competitiveness of cities in international and national contexts. The responsibility for safeguarding urban cultural heritage, however, does not lie with public authorities only, but is embedded in the complex structures of public and private, individual and collective stakeholders acting at different levels with their respective interests. This study shows that social and professional discourses on urban cultural heritage and its protection highly influence conservation efforts. To overcome the sectoral perspective that dominates the existing research on urban cultural heritage in the Indian context, it draws on an analytical governance approach. This approach makes it possible to identify three governance orders and thus to make visible the interconnections between imagination, regulation and implementation.

ISBN 978-3-515-12338-9

9

7 83 5 1 5 1 2 3 389

www.steiner-verlag.de Franz Steiner Verlag