Corporate maintenance of heritage sites: Dalmia group has now adopted Red Fort for Rs 25 crore. Now, our Mattanchery museum and Bekal Fort could be up for grabs. Is this corporate responsibility a social obligation, branding opportunity or something that would yield high returns on investment?
Laxmisree, Kollam
India has always been proud of its rich heritage. However, in most of the cases, the government has been incompetent in maintaining its heritage structures and sites. I think it’s a good idea for corporate companies to adopt these historic monuments. With profit-making being the main objective of corporate businesses, they will ensure the sites are in pristine condition. Privatisation ensures improved operational efficiency, enhanced facilities, increased job opportunities and increased number of tourism spots. With world-class standards and facilities, more number of tourists will visit these places, increasing the revenue. The ‘adoption’ of heritage sites by corporates will also give the government a source for big revenue. I believe it’s a win-win situation. The corporates get their profit, brand name and also gain status in society as a social do-gooder, whereas the heritage site is preserved and well-maintained.
Dr Dolly Thomas, Kochi
Corporate responsibility is only a branding opportunity for industrialists. Corporate giants are only interested in making profits and they never invest without eyeing returns. If they are given this responsibility, it will only help in popularising their brand name. Gradually, the relevance, value and fame of our heritage structures and sites will be overshadowed by these corporate giants and they (heritage sites) will be known only as monuments of a particular brand.
This will, in fact, defeat the actual purpose - preservation and maintenance of heritage sites. Heritage sites are an important part of the country’s history. So, it’s the responsibility of the government to take care of such sites. The industrialists can make financial contributions to the government agencies like the Archaeological Survey of India(ASI), which can take care of these heritage sites.
O P S Menon, Palakkad
Most of the heritage monuments in our country are maintained by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). But things are slowly changing as the bureaucrats in ASI alone cannot ensure proper upkeep of these heritage structures. The trend is changing and these enchanting structures are being handed over to the corporates. Recently, the Ministry of Tourism and Culture signed an MoU with the Dalmia Bharat group for the ‘adoption’ of Delhi’s Red Fort.
There is nothing wrong if the Kerala Government hands over the Mattanchery Museum, Bekal Fort or any other monument to corporates for beautification work and maintenance for a certain period. Obviously, this is not a social responsibility, but if these heritage buildings are indeed handed over to the corporates, they can maintain them efficiently, better than any government departments. The corporates also bring in new technologies for maintenance and marketing, which will help attract more tourists and generate more revenue for the government.
JOSEPH SEBASTIAN MORRIS, Sakthikulangara
Under the veneer of ‘adopt a heritage scheme’ corporate giants have been exceedingly enthusiastic about keeping themselves in the spotlight as if it is a unique gesture of nobility. Scores of people, however, have been found arching their eyebrows against Dalmia Bharat Group, a cement company with no known experience in conservation of monuments, taking over the Red Fort. The GMR group and ITC Ltd too are greatly interested in adopting even Taj Mahal.
It seems the objective of the government is to safeguard the celestial symbols of Indian culture and tradition with no sheer waste of public funds. Dalmia has no surreptitious goals of generating returns but to bask in the national commercial and political spotlight. Had the government sought the services of the eminent heritage experts like Sir Alexander Cunningham, the grand old man of Indian archaeology, much ignominy could have been averted.
C Jayakumar, T’Puram
This is a matter of practical possibilities for maintaining heritages. There are several protected monuments in our state and to preserve them in their original charm needs large funds and manpower. In this situation, offers from corporates to undertake the maintenance of heritage sites for a specific period is a blessing in disguise, though they may be eyeing brand promotion and high returns. It is a social reality the corporates are largely dependent in many spheres and it has proven to be effective. Moreover, heritage sites should have an entertainment value for sustenance since many structures are now in a dilapidated state without any public proximity. The concerns and suspicions of the public towards such deals have to be looked into since the authorities are bound to maintain transparency.
best debater
V N Mukundarajan, T’Puram
The Centre’s ‘adopt a monument’ scheme is not a blunder as it is made out to be by a section of the media. A partnership with public-spirited non-governmental organisations to maintain heritage sites can be a win-win affair. It helps the sponsor make its brand more visible while ensuring the monuments/sites are well maintained to draw more tourists. Everybody has a stake in the upkeep of the nation’s cultural assets. It is wrong to presume corporates cannot be entrusted with social responsibility.
It is not a sell-out, but a five-year agreement which can be terminated by the government if the sponsor fails to fulfil the conditions laid down. The government must put in place a mechanism for an independent audit to evaluate the performance of the corporate managers of these sites. Public feedback must be ensured periodically to assess whether the desired level of maintenance has been provided consistently at the sites.
Pious Alummoottil, Ernakulam
As per the Tourism Ministry’s ‘Adopt a Monument’ scheme, private and public sector companies and corporate individuals are invited to adopt heritage sites and take up responsibility for making them more accessible and promote sustainable tourism through conservation and development. Accordingly, an MoU has been signed between the ministry and Dalmia Bharat to maintain activities related to the development of tourist amenities at the Red Fort.
Why is there a hue and cry over this arrangement? They will provide world-class amenities to the visitors and maintain the structures as per the guidelines. Most of the people want to work in private companies and at the same time they don’t like the major private sector players in the country . This double standard cannot be allowed. The present arrangement is found to be good to the country and the tourists, provided there is good governance and maintenance on the part of the authorities concerned.
A K ANIL KUMAR, Neyyattinkara
No corporate house will invest in anything without eyeing profits. Here, Dalmia has adopted Red Fort for I25 crore for a five-year period, which means they are very much confident about the returns. This is purely a business deal with the government and cannot be considered a ‘corporate social responsibility’ as there is no social obligation for investment in a business. If our Mattanchery Museum and Bekal Fort are adopted by corporates, they will definitely try to make profit from these investments. It is not a matter of concern for corporates since the maintenance of heritage should be done by the government itself. Here, it’s not just the corporates who are trying to make profit, but the government too eyes profit from the ‘deal’.
DR M P Sudhakaran, Chittur
With the Dalmia Group acquiring rights for the maintenance of Red Fort for I25 crore, a new avenue for corporate sponsorship has been opened. However, corporate maintenance of such heritage spots is not something to be frowned upon, as long as the arrangement is beneficial to both the parties. The resultant mileage such large business houses derive from such gestures is the motivating factor and for the cash-strapped states it comes as a great boon.
The whole issue when viewed from a practical perspective rather than an emotional one, will definitely appear rosy in the interest of the state. A mere maintenance contract should not be reason for any heartburn for patriotic people, as there is no risk involved for such heritage monuments and sites on account of this arrangement.
Jayan Mankara, Kochi
The Union Government’s latest policy of seeking corporate assistance for the maintenance of heritage structures will go a long way in the upkeep of these invaluable treasures. As this is only a process of outsourcing the specific work as in the case of the airports and highways - unlike the sell-off by some state governments - there is nothing wrong with this. Rather, the move will ensure a more responsible conservation of these structures. With this, the Archaeology Department can concentrate more on administrative matters and guidance.
Dr George Jacob, Kochi
Corporate ‘maintenance’ of heritage sites is neither a social obligation nor responsibility, but a smokescreen behind which the corporate sector operates to further its branding opportunity and design means to make a quick buck. Shylock will ensure he gets his pound of flesh anyway! There are certain areas which cannot be entrusted with the corporate sector. Hijacked by the private sector, Kerala is witnessing extinction of engineering courses, endangering the profession itself. Medical education and medicare are following suit.
Similarly, a nation’s heritage, symbolised by iconic structures, is something private sector cannot be entrusted with as (a) heritage involves national identity and history, and (b) their preservation is neither the interest nor concern of private players. Moreover, the heritage sites have immense tourist potential. They are the ‘goose which lays the golden egg’, to the corporate sector. For this reason, the government must stop at Dalmia’s ‘adoption’ of the Red Fort, and proceed no further!
E Sethuramalingam, Kollam
Dalmia Bharat conglomerate scripts history by adopting the Red Fort. Coming to the upkeep and maintenance of such prestigious sites and museums, the general view is that private agencies don the role of curators and caretakers better than the governments, whose servants possess some kind of mercenary attitude coupled with irresponsibilty. One cannot say Dalmia undertook the venture, as custodians of the fort for five years, only with an eye on the monetary benefits.
It is hoped it will realise and recognise the monument’s historical value and maintain the structure perfectly, periodically and systematically. The proposed paraphernalia of works like tactile flooring for physically challenged, signage etc will speak volumes for the corporate’s commitment to achieve superb upkeep and add more beauty to the fort. If any corporates or agencies come forward to adopt the Mattanchery museum, Bekal Fort etc we should welcome their exemplary social commitment.
Several debaters indeed felt the ‘adoption’ of heritage structures/sites by the corporates will ensure their proper maintenance and increase the tourist footfall. However, there were also others who viewed this as nothing more than a branding opportunity for the corporate houses. We at Express, though, believe the government move is beneficial to the heritage sites which have been poorly maintained. Under the scheme, the corporates are utilising the CSR Fund, which is tax-free since it is for a social cause. That apart, the government should ensure the initiative is not misused to fleece the tourists.