By??Frederick & Catherine Asher
A recent newspaper headline screamed the warning about the US National Park Service, whose responsibility essentially mirrors that of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI): ???Corporate Giants Buying Big Influence Over National Parks, Monuments???.
Or this somewhat more moderately stated headline from The Washington Post: ???Will Corporate Cash Save Roman Monuments or Diminish Them????
We need to ask whether the influx of corporate resources to support heritage necessarily translates to influence, or diminution of importance? In other words, whose heritage is at stake? And whose responsibility is it to maintain that heritage?
We have long lived in a world in which we assumed that it was government???s responsibility to maintain heritage, and that the money to do so came with no strings attached. But, in politics, as in the corporate world, that just isn???t true. ASI, even if it had unlimited resources, still would make decisions about where to put those resources.
Should they go into new exploration and excavation? Should they go to preservation of monuments? What about the museums at sites? Within those categories are the sorts of decisions that ASI makes routinely: what sort of excavations, monuments and museums get priority?
Is there a political agenda to the decision? Of course, there is, especially when the funds may be allocated in the hope that new exploration could demonstrate politically charged theories.
Or when the heritage of one religion is given priority of that of others that are also part of India???s heritage. ASI???s budget is small: only Rs 974.56 crore for the current fiscal year to protect some 3,686 monuments across India and about 50 museums. China, by contrast, allocates some Rs 23,565 crore just for its 4,000 museums. To that one must add the cost of maintaining an enormous number of ancient sites. Generally, in China, admission to these museums and monuments is free for both Chinese and foreign visitors, though there are some notable exceptions. Even with India???s dual-pricing policy by which foreigners pay as much as 20 times the price of admission for an Indian, a policy that frankly discourages foreigners from visiting monuments and museums, the income is insufficient to offset the cost of maintenance.
To cite just one example, Humayun???s tomb in Delhi, the number of foreign tourists has gone down from 3,30,216 in 2011-12 to 2,56,421in 2014-15. Foreigners generally feel that dual pricing is a form of discrimination. But if it were not for the dual pricing, ASI???s budget would be even more seriously strained.
In May, the Supreme Court argued that ASI was inadequately protecting the Taj Mahal in Agra, and that its upkeep should be assigned to another agency. If ASI spends more to maintain the Taj, then it will have to allocate less for the upkeep of other monuments and museums. So who should set the priorities? Judges, or ASI experts?
Which is where the private sector may have a role. But it must be a role with tight controls, ones that don???t cede authority over the monument to any entity other than the institution with expertise, the one charged with maintaining it. A carefully considered policy could limit the display of corporate recognition, review and establish levels of admission fees that may make monuments more accessible to Indian and international visitors (e.g., a student rate), and provide for the possibility of shared corporate sponsorship, that is, sponsorship from multiple corporations.
Finally, corporate sponsorship could provide sorely needed infrastructure: clean toilets, handicap access, railings along stairways and level pathways.
Both directly and indirectly, there is corporate sponsorship of professional athletic teams. In the US, teams play in stadia bearing the name of a corporate sponsor and endorse corporate products in media advertising, while electronic scoreboards flash brief advertisements for a range of products.
In India, the Chinese smartphone manufacturer Vivo sponsors the Indian Premier League (IPL). But it would be impossible to imagine the company being given any role in the selection of players or coaching decisions. That seems a perfectly reasonable model for the sponsorship of heritage in India and elsewhere. Sponsorship may provide discrete advertising, but not engagement with decisions appropriately left to professionals.
Is there a danger? Yes. The recent discovery that George Mason University, a public university in the US state of Virginia, allowed the far rightwing Koch Foundation to have a role in hiring and firing of faculty is an example. So, unquestionably, there must be a firewall between the corporate sponsor of heritage and the decisions of experts charged with maintaining and advancing knowledge about the sites.
This should be easy enough. A contract, one that is made available for public scrutiny, should stipulate that the corporation will receive credit for sponsorship and that its role ends with the gift. The public recognition of the sponsorship needs to be discrete, recognised on signage, but not so overwhelmingly blatant that great monuments become an extension of corporate identity.
The writers are professors emeriti, department of art history, University of Minnesota
Comments
Post a Comment