Editorial 1: A thumbs down for the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme
Context:
- Private firms, companies, and public sector units can enter into agreements with the Union Ministry of Culture to adopt and maintain State-owned archaeological sites or monuments. Businesses that enter such agreements are going to be known as Monument Mitras.
The perils ahead
- The central government is eager that this scheme, which began in February 2023, leads to the adoption of 500 protected sites by August 15, and the adoption of another 500 sites shortly thereafter. This number represents a 10 times increase in the number of sites being brought under the ambit of the controversial ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme of 2017. Unless the ‘revamped’ scheme is suspended, the nation’s precious pluralistic heritage stands at the brink of disaster.
- Under the purportedly overhauled ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme, businesses may use their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds at select sites to construct and maintain ticket offices, restaurants, museums, interpretation centres, toilets, and walkways. They may illuminate monuments, set up guided tours, hold cultural programmes, and fix equipment for light and sound shows.
Issues with corporatisation of national heritages
- Giving businesses, rather than trained professionals, a chance to build museums and interpretation centres and develop their content threatens India’s fragile monuments.
- The current plan also sidelines the mandate of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and abandons The Sarnath Initiative, guidelines devised by the ASI, the Getty Trust, U.S., the British Museum, and National Culture Fund to safe keep excavated objects and present them to visitors in an engaging manner.
- Many monuments selected for the scheme — including the stupas at Sanchi, the Brihadeshwar temple in Thanjavur, and Akbar’s palace city at Fatehpur Sikri — already have tourist infrastructure.
- It is not acceptable to let businesses occupy prime public land and build their own brands –– another provision of the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme at the cost of further diminishing grounds around iconic monuments.
- Many monuments selected for the ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme are on ASI lists and are therefore protected by the central agency. Others chosen for the scheme are protected by the Archaeology Directorate of the State that they are located in. But, there are some monuments selected for the scheme that are not protected by the ASI and are in States without Archaeology Directorates. The businesses that sign agreements with the Union Ministry of Culture to adopt these monuments might be able to alter their historical character.
- The scheme will undermine local communities and their relationships with historical sites. Guided tours led by employees of large businesses who have received permission to adopt a monument may endanger livelihoods of those who have lived near the site.
- What will happen to monuments not adopted by Monument Mitras in the predetermined time frame? According to media reports, the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government has started turning over such monuments to the Tourism Department to convert them into hotels. They include Chunar Fort, a citadel overlooking Barwasagar Lake, and several residences built by Awadh’s Nawabs. The scheme is continuing to place reckless tourism and corporate interests over historical preservation.
|
Way forward: role of corporates in preserving India’s heritage
- Businesses can help citizens understand why monuments matter. This can be done by earmarking CSR funds for grants for researching, writing, and publishing high quality textbooks, and developing imaginative and effective ways of teaching history.
- Traders and shopkeepers can give funds to school libraries for collecting archival materials including books, maps, and old photographs relevant to monuments in their vicinity that will lead students to establish the value of monuments.
- Corporates might also follow the lead taken by Sudha Murthy and N.R. Narayana Murthy in giving gifts to organisations such as the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune to continue their missions of writing history by rationally coordinating the textual record and the archaeological evidence.
- Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, humanities and social sciences departments at some universities have been witnessing a hiring freeze. At other universities, these departments are being amalgamated. Corporates can give them a new lease of life by instituting fellowships, endowing professorships, and supporting research training programmes.
- Industrial houses can support the meaningful conservation of heritage buildings by looking within. Their CSR funds can be used to purchase new equipment that release fewer noxious gases that darken and corrode marble buildings and discharge fewer effluents into rivers, thus making these water bodies less likely to serve as breeding grounds of microbes that gather on the walls of ancient buildings erected on riverbanks and cause their decay.
- Now is the time for corporations to support interdisciplinary teams at the Development and Research Organisation for Nature, Arts and Heritage (DRONAH) Foundation and the Centre for Advancement of Traditional Building Technology and Skills that are trying to protect monuments from emergent threats such as climate change.
Conclusion:
- Currently, India’s progress in diverse fields is being projected at G-20 events across the nation. By embracing forward-thinking principles of historical preservation, businesses, government agencies, and civil society groups can showcase India’s genuine progress in this arena. Maybe their efforts will inspire more citizens to participate in the pressing task of safeguarding India’s pluralistic heritage.
Editorial 2: International courts and climate change
Context:
- A group of 16 countries has launched a gallant effort to fight the problem of climate change — an existential threat to human civilisation — at the United Nations (UN). Led by Vanuatu — an island country in the South Pacific Ocean — the group seeks an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the issue of climate change.
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
- The ICJ has two types of jurisdictions:
- Contentious jurisdiction: Resolving legal disputes between consenting states
- Advisory jurisdiction: UN General Assembly (UNGA), UN Security Council (SC) and other specialised bodies of the organisation can request the ICJ for an opinion on a legal question. Unlike decisions given under the contentious jurisdiction, the ICJ’s advisory opinions are non-binding. Yet, they carry normative weight and clarify international law on a relevant issue. The ICJ’s advisory opinion on climate change will also be handy in climate-related litigation at the national level.
- ICJ, sometimes known as the World Court, is one of the 6 principal organs of the United Nations (UN). It settles disputes between states in accordance with international law and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. The ICJ is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between countries, with its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of international law.
- Established in 1945, ICJ is the successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which was established in 1920 by the League of Nations. ICJ consists of a panel of 15 judges elected by the UNGA and UNSC for 9 year terms. No more than one judge of each nationality may be represented on court at the same time, and judges collectively must reflect the principal civilizations and legal systems of the world. Seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICJ is the only principal UN organ not located in New York City. Its official working languages are English and French.
|
Vanuatu’s initiative
- Notwithstanding the presence of several international legal instruments on climate change such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, the international community has fallen short of delivering concrete solutions to the problem of climate change.
- The recently concluded 27th UN Climate Change Conference (COP-27 of UNFCCC) where countries failed to narrow their differences on critical issues such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions perfectly exemplifies the failure of the international community to get its act together on the issue of climate change.
- Small Island Developing States (SIDS) such as Vanuatu are most vulnerable to rising temperatures and sea levels. Accordingly, in September 2021, Vanuatu launched an initiative, through the UNGA, to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ to “clarify the legal obligations of all countries to prevent and redress the adverse effects of climate change”. Since then, the initiative has gathered momentum with reportedly more than 100 countries backing the idea.
Questions to ICJ
- What are the international law obligations of countries toward the protection of the climate system from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for the present and future generations? In answering this question, the ICJ can use the ‘no-harm’ principle (states are under an obligation that activities within their jurisdiction do not damage other countries) to shed light on equivocal provisions of the Paris Agreement.
- Given these international legal obligations, what are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to the climate system, the SID states and other people of the present and future generations? This question seeks to determine the price that states should pay for not honouring their international legal obligations on climate change. As part of climate justice, there is a long-standing demand for climate reparations, that is, the rich countries that have historically caused maximum greenhouse gas emissions should compensate developing countries bearing a disproportionate brunt of climate change.
- At COP-27, while it was agreed to establish a “loss and damage” fund to financially assist vulnerable developing countries, there is little clarity on which countries will provide the funding. Moreover, the connection between funding and the historical responsibility of developed countries in emissions is yet to be determined. In this regard, the ICJ’s answer to the second question can predictably elaborate on the legal principles that might help the operationalisation of the ‘loss and damage’ fund.
Role of ITLOS
- It is not just the ICJ whose advisory opinion is being sought. The Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, comprising countries like Antigua and Barbuda and Tuvalu, has sought the advisory opinion of the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
- ITLOS has been requested to determine the specific obligations of the countries under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) about preventing, controlling, and reducing pollution of the marine environment. The challenges of ocean warming, sea level rise and ocean acidification are all linked to the marine environment.
Conclusion:
- Developed countries and groupings like the G-20 should support these laudable initiatives of the SID states. Environment and climate sustainability are important themes of G-20. India, as the president of the G-20, should take a lead given its relentless emphasis on LiFE (developing environment-friendly lifestyle) campaign.