Locals many feel like the conservation laws are not made keeping them in mind, but they are. And there is more that we can do for these structures, than we think.
When we talk about heritage, history or pride, our focus automatically shifts to large monuments. And rightly so, the monuments are often showcases for the best of the skills and craftsmanship that a country has to offer. But much like human beings, our history is also not as straight forward.
There are a number of heritage spaces which double as public spaces that also includes the historical markets (‘peths’ in Pune, Bidar and Bangalore), water bodies (canals, lakes, rivers), tiny services like chabutras and water fountains built decades ago. These heritage spaces may have been constructed in and for a different era, but that does not mean that they have no usefulness anymore.
Many of these places have fallen into neglect and have been haphazardly changed, under the guise of development. The nalas in Pune were recently a part of flash floods. It turns out that the concretization of the bed of the nala, along with waste accumulation was responsible for these floods. At one point, these nalas were the sources of clean, drinking water to these areas. A visit to any of the old public spaces in the country are ridden with garbage, ill- maintained structures and washrooms, which in turn affects the living conditions of the people and animals living close by.
Thus, these spaces overlap with the regular functioning of the city, much more than we think.
Much of it has to do with what the public perception of the space is. First and foremost, we need to highlight the heritage value of these spaces. There are multiple examples around the world were countries have preserves ages- old markets as ‘living’ heritage.
An important, and perhaps, a thoroughly overlooked way of identifying these urban heritage spaces is to delve into public memory. Old dadas, dadis, chachis may just have a more thorough understanding of the space than history books.
More concentrated micro- levels groups could be formed to communicate their problems with local authorities. Each person could be responsible for their own neighborhood. Place-making activities could be conducted within neighborhoods. If we manage to maintain and preserve these structures, a major chunk of history woud be saved, which could have been lost to us. Depending on the neighbourhoods participation, further activities like heritage walks, interactions with residents, living libraries could be set up.
The important thing is to not tackle a problem as a whole. A varied country like India cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach to this problem. Smaller groups making decisions for their immediate area ensures a manageable responsibility on all the stakeholders, as well as a better on-ground approach to the space.
In Conclusion:
コメント