HAMPI was declared a World Heritage site by Unesco in 1986. The world’s attention was on India and the government was suddenly awakened from its slumber, allocating money, facilities and a supposed carte blanche in policy-making to ensure that its development became top priority. Alongside, other non-government individuals, groups and trusts, showed great concern, mobilizing funds to ensure that the conservation and development of Hampi would be done in the right way and direction. Everybody wanted to get into the act.

Nineteen years later, Hampi remains a dismal tourist destination, an abode of encroachers and hippies who find solace in its clam environs, unperturbed by the world’s attention on the spectacular remains of the Vijayanagara Empire. This despite extensive documentation by two foreigners, George Mitchell and John Fritz, who over 30 years of work enabled not only its recognition as a heritage site, but paved the way for its restoration and conservation by the Archaeological Survey of India. Ideally, they should have been involved in Hampi’s development, but that was not to be, unfortunately.

Heritage tourism tends to blur in the Indian context as our understanding of these concepts remains vague. With 2500 years of India culture to showcase, we have not been able to even touch the surface of our own potential. It is cheaper and easier to fly to Thailand, stay at a seven star hotel for a week, than to attempt visiting a heritage site.

Hampi has all the ingredients that a heritage site could possibly need as outlined by the ICOMOS international cultural tourism charter, waiting to be exploited in a positive sense. Unfortunately, this has remained a non-starter where we are concerned, because all its well-wishers seem incapable of working in consonance to make this a reality.

Typically, both domestic and international visitors land in Hospet from Bangalore on the one overnight train available. Hospet is a dump, to put it mildly, with dirt tracks that pretend to be roads and lodging, guaranteed to make you catch the next train back. And a tourism infrastructure that leaves much to be desired. Bewildered visitors are left bereft of any words to describe their experience.

Let us now understand Hampi. It is the remains of a once vibrant Vijayanagara Empire spread over 400 acres and as many, if not more centuries. It is also a living heritage site as it has places of active worship that are pilgrim centres. It chronicles the evolution of a kingdom embodying secularism in its styles of architecture from Jain to Hindu to Islamic. It is an amazing maze of forts, palaces, places of worship, both living and in ruins, ancient bazaars, monuments, roads and waterways that reflect a very evolved architecture and town plan. Its natural environment is a feast to the eyes, with its rocky terrain and vegetation. The Tungabhadra flows through its northern part, ensuring eternal habitation and relief from the hot climate.

A visitor would need to spend at least four days to see Hampi in its entirety and enjoy its historical and natural environment. That of course is not possible for the reasons I have mentioned earlier. The state tourism department’s presence is manifest in two properties, one in Hospet and one in Hampi, that try to pass off as hotels. Other hotels have now mushroomed all over Hospet, setting no new standards. Any intervention in terms of infrastructure and support to tourists, apart from promoting Hampi, is conspicuous by its absence.

 

So let’s figure out where the problems lie. Government policy and legislation manifests itself through the departments of tourism and culture, and the Archaeological Survey of India. Each of these institutions, in the process of adherence to detail, tend to contradict each other and stem any kind of forward thinking. For a start they come under different ministries. Tourism has its own ministry while the ASI comes under the Ministry of Culture, Information and Broadcasting. That should say enough. This should be sorted out first.

The role of the ASI has been determined and defined ages back to restore, preserve and ensure that Hampi and other such sites be returned to their former glory, within the defined limits of its jurisdiction. This task is overwrought with rules, legislation and policies caught in some kind of archaic time warp.

At the ground level, the representatives of these institutions, generally, seems to be there by default, rather than on merit or because they have knowledge of the task/portfolio assigned to them. Should we not assign portfolios to people appropriate for the tasks proposed? There are exceptions to these situations, where certain individuals are dynamic enough to extend themselves beyond what is expected. But can we expect that a person whose interest and expertise lies in information technology to be able to deal with heritage!

Postings are defined by tenure rather than on a project basis. Concerned individuals are transferred as part of the giant mechanism of the system. And this applies to even those who are perhaps more qualified, in intent if nothing else. As a result of this arrangement most projects get sidelined. Any project of the scale as the restoration of Hampi takes time, and requires that those in-charge stay put till its completion.

As indicated in the ICOMOS Charter Principle 5.6, and I quote: ‘Conservation management and tourism programmes should include education and training opportunities for policy-makers, planners, researchers, designers, architects, interpreters, conservators and tourism operators. Participants should be encouraged to understand and help resolve at times conflicting issues, opportunities and problems encountered by their colleagues.’ Our government machinery unfortunately has few of these practitioners. And as legislation and policy is caught in a mediaeval time warp, any exercise of this sort is self-defeating.

 

Qualified practitioners from the private sector cannot participate in this exercise as they do not fit into the system in terms of remuneration and methodology. But, if detrimental to a project’s success, they will be taken on board in a most convoluted cloak and dagger manner, revealing the loopholes in the system and by flouting the very same rules that act as deterrents.

Over the years encroachment on the land and monuments has become a scourge. To acquire property is a long and laborious process for two reasons. Compensation is minimal, as funds are limited, and the ASI has not been given the authority to throw encroachers out, as a prerequisite of being custodians of a site. No clear policy is forthcoming from either the state or central government. And yet protecting Hampi, and other such sites, is the sole responsibility of the ASI. To confuse matters further, the ASI is represented by both the state and centre, and they cannot seem to work in conjunction with each other.

 

The state tourism department now comes into the fray. Its role is not defined nor is there any attempt made to work alongside the ASI in determining what needs to be done.

Religious institutions are the third players in this complex situation. They are a law unto themselves. And then you have other individuals who partake in the rampant vandalism prevalent for personal and commercial gain.

Government funding is available to the tourism department and ASI, but with no clear indication of allocation. The ASI is not permitted to generate revenue except through tickets, nor is it permitted to build any structure with 300 metres of a monument.

For some strange reason HUDCO has been assigned the task of designing a standard module of signage for all heritage sites and monuments in the country, regardless of provenance.

So who bells the cat? No one. Simply because there is no master plan forthcoming from any of the players – government of otherwise. To work out a master plan in not difficult, as what is required is so clear, and the solutions so blatantly apparent.

First, each situation has to be looked at as a project – a body assigned to monitor both funding and implementation, and liaising with the powers that be, to ensure that policies and legislation are put in place immediately, whenever the need arises. What applies to a coastal site does not necessarily apply to one that is in the interior. Distinctions need to be made between heritage sites of different kinds.

 

A master plan needs to be drawn up for each situation and budgets submitted for funding. Funding can come from both government and other sources, but routed through and monitored by the designated bodies. Qualified people from both government and non-government organizations should be identified to facilitate implementation. Legislation and policy decisions need to be redefined to suit each project individually, so as to involve the best that the country has to offer. A rigid policy structure can only be detrimental to any kind of successful development.

To enable the creation of infrastructure for tourism, the central and state government tourism departments need to be brought into the loop. Their inputs are essential to any kind of development in terms of facilitating access and connectivity, boarding and lodging, and other amenities that are particular to each site. There is no harm in allowing the private sector to stake a claim in this process, providing they adhere to the rules and regulations that apply.

Projects like these that enable tourism and economic growth need to be given special license and support. To succeed, heritage tourism development cannot be totally generalized, as it will always be site specific. What works for the Taj Mahal cannot totally apply to Hampi or vice versa.

Most heritage sites in India just need to be first cleaned up, starting with ridding them of all encroachment. Once the site is sealed, restricted and under the total control of the development body, the master plan can be implemented. To enable this the government has to look at the requirements and problems of each site and make the necessary intervention speedy and just.

Each agency or department has to be assigned its task and made to do what it is best at. For example, the ASI is best suited to carry out excavations, restoration and conservation. And perhaps creating access for the physically disabled, wherever possible, as well as signage. Setting up of amenities like toilets and drinking water should ideally be the task of the tourism department, that can be executed by appropriate government or private contractors.

 

Signage is an essential part of any site. This requires to be designed and installed, without being obtrusive, and merging with the style, architecture and landscape of the site. On a site like Hampi – directional, locational as well as information and prohibitory signage is necessary. At the moment, this is being implemented by both the ASI and Department of Tourism.

Information centres need to be set up and paid for by the tourism department. These should house ticketing, amenities, restaurants and restrooms, museum and other shops so that the site does not get pock-marked with kiosks, unless absolutely necessary. This would also prevent unnecessary littering on the site. Dustbins would be required to be strategically placed everywhere, but without becoming eyesores.

Landscaping of a site has always been a tricky problem. I was once told by an official of the ASI that when in doubt they follow the British tradition of laying out lawns. Surely there are enough experts available to creatively address this issue.

Lighting is another factor that needs to be determined and implemented appropriately. Most heritage sites close early in the evening. However, basic pathway lighting needs to be installed for security. And some monuments could be lit for festivals and functions held at night.

 

Good accommodation is of vital importance to any sort of development. If a site warrants a hotel/hostels close by, this should be sanctioned after a thorough survey by the ASI and the governing body. The Karnataka State Tourism Corporation has a spectacularly situated property in Kamalapuram near Hampi. It is a run-down, tacky place that has few takers. The KSTC needs to bring in professionals to design and manage all their hotel properties. The requirements of the average tourist are not grand – just clean, simple and functional rooms and bathrooms, and a menu that is manageable. Most of these hotels tend to go overboard by trying to cater Indian, continental and Chinese food! Instead, the local cuisine would be quite sufficient.

Setting up of museums and museum shops is an important requirement to generate funds for the upkeep and development of a site. Decisions require to be taken as to which agency should facilitate this and who funds it.

Sites need to be sealed off as much as is possible so that control is easier. The government at the highest level needs to intervene and remove tenants/encroachers/commercial setups, and relocate them with compensation. The civic and local authorities at a district level need to be brought in to enable this, ensuring an unencumbered site to the body under whose jurisdiction it comes.

Maintenance is an essential part of any site, and a corpus fund needs to be created to enable this, both in terms of manpower and material.

Many heritage sites are utilized as backdrops for music and dance festivals, films, special and private celebrations. The concerned body needs to assess the proposed activity and should be authorized to permit the site to be used for the stipulated purpose, at a price. This source of revenue should be sanctioned and approved by the government, as it can be a vital contribution to a site’s development.

Having done all this, connectivity whether by bus, train, road or by air has to be put into place as top priority. Transportation at the site also needs to be catered to and managed.

 

To sum up, each factor that contributes towards the development of a heritage site needs to be first listed, the appropriate agencies identified and assigned their tasks, and funds made available accordingly. Currently, there is constant duplication of work, resulting in haphazard development. In any case, projects of such vast proportion need to be phased out, and done well.

In essence, we have a major task ahead of us if heritage tourism is to become a reality and economically viable. And most importantly, to preserve our heritage. Active government participation at a ministerial level is of essence. The entire operation has to be decentralized once the masterplans are devised at the centre, with the concerned ministries. The implementation can then be done at a state level.

We have a heritage that defies description, one that can be showcased to our benefit, economically and otherwise. It’s management cannot, however, be limited to the government, but requires the joint efforts of both the public and private sectors to make it of international standing and commercially viable. Heritage tourism development in South East Asia and Sri Lanka are fine examples of the possibilities available to us. These have been time-tested, and the formulas can be applied appropriately to our situation. We are in the enviable position of being able to borrow from both the East and West solutions that can amalgamate with our own rich traditions of art, craft, architecture, design and hospitality so as to set new benchmarks in tourism.

 

I believe that above all, we need to wake up to the fact that we are now in the 21st century. We need to address our archaic laws, policies and legislation and throw out all that is irrelevant and dysfunctional. This has in many ways contributed to the rot that exists and has deterred us from being able to package our heritage in an affordable, comfortable and interesting manner, drawing both domestic and international travellers.

We are a nation of one billion, 50% of them youth. Why are we not looking at them and empowering them to take this initiative forward? The government needs to join hands with its people, and utilize their talent and enterprise to find solutions that can benefit us all. The demarcation between government and the private sector needs to be obliterated, casting away this blinkered approach that we inherited from the British. There is no dearth of talent – professionals, administrators, planners, managers and every other expertise required – in our country. All that is needed is for us to recognize it, seek involvement and implant a process of synergy that recognises no boundaries.