Amity International Business School

Can we hold on to our Heritage Monuments

for long? Relooking the existing challenges
in Heritage Management through Alpha &
Omega Model of Mind (SERIES-1)

ICQRIT 2018 Prof. Dr. Nitin Arora

PAPER ID-ICQRITBO/2018/P_207
Professor
narora4@amity.edu
28th Dec 2019

1
Vote for me!
 Setting the Tone right!

• What does the past means?

• How can you own past?

• How do we connect to it?

• How do we use it?

• Is All Past Just a Joke/ Maya

 Relevance of Heritage In India

• Alive symbol of culture that gives meaning to the past!

• There are majorly 27 World Heritage sites in India, 5 are

natural & 22 are cultural.

• 70,000 monuments listed by ASI, 60000 are not cared.

• ASI administers and manages 3687 ancient monuments.

• Tourism sector contribution = IT Sector contribution

(Rich Heritage visits majorly)

2
 Modern world creating Heritage Sites
Current Situation

• The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and

Google launched 360-degree panoramic imagery of
30 out of 100 “nationally-important monuments”.
 Conservation Dilemmas
• Which heritage is important?
• Heritage are less priority compared to Infrastructure
development, poverty alleviation or job creation acts

• Does heritage evokes powerful human emotions?

• Tourists get attracted towards symbols of civilization!

• Is the heritage site the country’s common past?

• We can lose the heritage in dilemma of priorities.
• It’s not so simple to let go of one’s past.

• Who owns that past, that culture?

• This present or future or the past generation
2
 Objectives

1. To study the two existing approaches of

heritage management.

2. To provide a framework to close gaps between

the stakeholders (tourists, conservationists,
government and locals).

2
 The Two Approaches

(1) Conventional approach

(a) Define (identify) (significance implied) (b) Documentation
(c) Assessing conditions (d) Planning for conservation interventions.

(2) Value based approach.

(a) Collect data, (b) Assessing significance (Values, attributes,
authenticity, integrity; local values and attributes),
(c) Assessing conditions and (d) Planning for conservation /
management

2
 Problems with the two approaches

• Conventional approach follow rule of the law.

• First come first serve basis

• Value based approach is like a normative approach

• Value based approach is evasion of local responsibility
• But value itself is debatable and limited by space.

• Politically correct way that suits the people of the time.

• Declare universal responsibility / local responsibility.
• Heritage criteria.
• Criteria can be diluted suiting conservation bodies
• Historic --Significance • integrity • context. 2
 Propositions

1. Are the resources to be used for managing heritage

scarce?

2. Has proper communication to the stakeholders for the

site's designation been done effectively?

3. Has the site's heritage value been taken into account in

decision making?

2
Heritage Conservation Policy Dimension
Alpha & Omega Yog Model of Perception of
Heritage

(a) Buddhi (Intellect),

(b) Ahankara (Ego, Identity),

(c) Manas (Silos of Memory),

(d) Chitta (Unsullied Memory, Pure Intelligence).

2
 Elicit Concerns

• Include specific focus on the global status of the

property whilst responding to management issues of
local relevance.
• Protect the unique values of the property in an
ambitious yet responsible and realistic way.
• Deliver outcomes which safeguard and enhance the
integrity of the property’s natural values.
• Demonstrate clear, comprehensive and integrated
management between the different values and
interests of the property.
 Concerns that got Addressed

• Encroachment around sites of importance.

• Skies-Noise pollution of planes creating cracks
• Monumental blunders-negligence of ASI
• Promotion of tourism
• Little success in getting listed under World heritage
• Implementation of Laws for conservation
• Irresponsible visitors inscribing names on monument

Still Many Concerns remained Unaddressed

Influence is impact of existing level of rapport with the

past is still away
B-A-M Includes and much more
 B-A-M

All the recommendation is nothing but an interplay of

(a) Individual or Collective Intellect (Buddhi –B),

(b) Ahamkara (A) of the people w.r.t. the heritage site.

(c) Cultural memories Manas (M) of locals and pro-

heritage volunteers and professionals

The success of building rapport between the present and

the past can happen only when one can align B-A-M side
of human rather than the economics side of it
 Add on Challenges
• Government budgets decreasing (0.15% - < 1%)(1000-2400cr)

• Decreasing participation in traditional cultural activities.

• Urbanization & Tech changes diversifies audiences.

• High focus on tourism invokes environmental pressures

• Online accessibility of culture influences tourism

• Trafficking of cultural artefacts

• Global warming, climate change, rising sea levels. 2

Mind Approx. Feature Organizational Positive/ Negative
dimnsion ENGLISH Reference Dimensions
language
Chitta Soul, Pure Intelligence , Chooses yet Spiritual Leadership +Sustainable , Self
(Level 4) Atman, Choiceless Consciousness, and crystallized- Driven, Leading Examples
Bliss body, Witness, Observer, Watcher, No ethical followership / Heroic deeds/
Judgment, Observation, Mirror, (Ex: King Janaka) Enlightened actions,
Accepts all decisions, Subtle, Individual
Spiritual Principles, Universality,
Intelligence, Highest Will power - Can’t be communicated
to act (4 Level) in normal language, can
only be transmitted
Manas Memory Foundation, Culture, Glue, Team , Organization +Factual
(Level 3) Accumulation, Contradictory culture, climate, -Distorted, Implanted
possibilities, Higher Will power Policies facts
to Act (3 Level)
Ahamkara Identity, Identification to some society, Team Culture, +True Skill Values
(Level 2) community, nation, Moderate community of -False Skill Values
Will power to Act (2 Level) practice, Habit
Formation,
Buddhi Intellect Action mode, Skilled Worker in Individual Divisive + Can be Communicated
Action, Least will power to Act actions, At Strongly
(Level 1) (1 Level) Leadership level -Can be Communicated
Weakly
 Future Positive Directions

1. The next Series-2 of this research paper, the

author will elaborate the transactional
perspectives of the proposed “alpha and omega
perception model” .

2. India wide creative campaigns infusing conscious

B-A-M

3. Book Launch in Feb 2019 in support for B-A-M

2
 Amity International Business School

References
[1] World heritage challenges for the millennium (2007). [Online] Available:
http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_millennium_en.pdf [Accessed: Nov 18, 2016].
[2]. B. McKercher. & H.D. Cros, “Cultural tourism-The partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management,”.
New York: The Hawrth Hospitality Press, 2002.
[3]. C. Hall. And S. McArthur, (Eds), “Heritage management in new zealand and australia,”, Oxford: Oxford University
Press: 1993.
[4]. M.Hall & S. McArthur, “Integrated heritage management, principles and practice,”. UK:Stationary office, 1998.
[5]. A, Orbasli, “Tourists in historic towns-urban conservation and heritage management,”, London: E & FN Spon, 2000.
[6] Why cultural heritage matters: A resource guide for integrating Cultural heritage management into Communities
work at Rio Tinto. (2015). [Online]. Available:
https://www.riotinto.com/documents/ReportsPublications/Rio_Tinto_Cultural_Heritage_Guide.pdf [Accessed : Nov 12,
2016].
[7]. Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the european economic and social
committee and the committee of the regions Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe. Online
Available. http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/publications/2014-heritage-communication_en.pdf
[Accessed: Dec 30, 2016 ]
[8]. K. Clark, “Preserving what matters: Value-led planning for cultural heritage sites” [Online].
Available:http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/16_3/feature.html [Accessed Nov 1,
2016]
[9]. V. Dilawari and S. Ghosh, “An approach to heritage conservation policies. In Architectural and Urban Conservation,
Centre for Built Environment, (Ed.),Bombay, pp: 95-10. 1996
2
 Amity International Business School

References
[11]. H. Kaushik. “14% ASI monuments in Gujarat encroached.” Online. Available :
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/14-ASI-monuments-in-Gujarat-
encroached/articleshow/55898408.cms [Accessed: Dec 10 2016]
[12]. A. Goral, “Research on cultural tourism development in sacral and spiritual sites from the UNESCO world heritage
List,”. International journal of heritage and sustainable development.. Vol.1, No.1 pp: 49-59, 2011
[13]. M.A. Wani, A. Dutta, M. A. Wani, U. J. Wani, “Towards conservation of world famous dal lake – A need of hour”.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology. Vol. 1, No. 1, 2014
[14]. Problems and prospects of accessible tourism in india. A study report commissioned by government of india,
ministry of tourism October. 2010
[15]. T.A Binoy, Archeological and heritage tourism interpretation : A study. South Asian Journal of Tourism and
heritage. 2011, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp:100-104, 2011
[16]. M. Prakash, N. Chowdhary, “What are we training tour guides for? (India)” Turizam . Vol. 14, No. 2, pp: 53-65,
2010
[17]. Making Tourism Sustainable. A guide for policy makers. A report by UNEP and World Tourism Organization. 2005.
[18] L.Rincon, Intellectual property and protection of cultural heritage: The case of the national museums of arts and
civilizations in france. (WIPO). 2005. Online. Available:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/resources/pdf/rincon_report.pdf [Accessed: Nov 15 2016]
[19]. D.H. Olsen and A. Trono. Religious Pilgrimage Routes and Trails: Sustainable Development and Management.
Varanasi: Tara Book Agency, 1991
[20]. Y. Poria, R. Butler, D. Airey Links between tourists, heritage, and reasons for visiting heritage sites. An unpublished
paper, [Accessed: Dec 12, 2016]
2
 Amity International Business School

Prof. Dr. Nitin Arora narora4@amity.edu

Professor 8447968032