Rock Garden’s legacy crumbles under urban pressure

In India, a debate is on about doing away with Mughal or British heritage sites. The Central Vista and Lutyens' Zone in New Delhi, integral to India's history, are being redeveloped, with many heritage buildings already razed. Based on ideological leanings, people take sides on such emotional issues while the larger question of historical consciousness gets overlooked.

When Connaught Place was rechristened Rajiv Gandhi Chowk and Mughalsarai renamed Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Nagar, my first thoughts were that history should not be meddled with. Even if we deplore the history of the Mughal rule and the British Raj in India, we should let it be, perhaps, as a reminder of the past, and, largely, because you cannot undo history by wiping out its traces with shifting power equations.

This raises important questions about how we treat our cultural heritage and what we choose to preserve. It is not just a local issue, but a reflection of a broader problem. Preserving cultural heritage is not just about safeguarding tangible assets like monuments and artefacts but also about protecting intangible aspects like traditions, customs and the history of a city that ensures the continuity of our identity, values and beliefs.

The last few days have witnessed a storm swirling around the demolition of a wall of the Rock Garden in Chandigarh. The administration's decision to prioritise parking over preservation is a cultural travesty that distorts the site's cultural significance. We cannot wipe the damage done to the Rock Garden and its green space but we can certainly bring it to the forefront and maybe rectify the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Indeed, the memorial to Nek Chand and his unique imagination enables visitors to emotionally respond to the contempt for waste matter and the love of metamorphosing it into a work of art, a living example of creativity and public memory. Such symbolic objects rekindle the critical response to the past by fearlessly confronting it to set the stage for the future. To wipe out history would be to betray the values a city needs to bring home to its future generations. The decision to knock down the wall or cut down the long-preserved trees is offensively distasteful.

The creation of parking spaces, ostensibly a practical necessity, will be perceived as a symbol of colonial-era values and a blight of unchecked urbanisation, leaving an indelible mark on our city's landscape. Tearing down parts of the heritage is not the answer to the reality of confronting the nightmare of plunder and mindless occupation for the expediency of finding space for the burgeoning vehicles.

For those deeply invested in preserving our city's cultural heritage, this decision is nothing short of tragic, and we cannot help but feel outraged by the shortsightedness of it all. The destruction of the heritage wall is an unjust act, considered offensive and disrespectful to its cultural significance.

Urbanisation, while bringing numerous benefits, often comes at the cost of cultural heritage and artistic spaces. As cities expand and develop, historic buildings, monuments and public art installations are frequently demolished to make way for new infrastructure, high-rise buildings and parking lots. This erases the physical manifestations of a city's history and threatens the intangible cultural heritage that is rooted in these spaces.

The unique character and identity of City Beautiful, shaped by its cultural and artistic heritage, are being slowly erased, leaving behind a regimented and soulless urban landscape. The encroachment of urbanisation on artistic and cultural spaces is particularly devastating because it severs the connection between a city's past and its present. When these spaces are destroyed or neglected, the stories, memories and cultural practices that they embody are lost forever.

As a result, urbanisation can be seen as a form of cultural amnesia, where the relentless pursuit of development leads to the erasure of a city's cultural heritage and artistic identity.

Moreover, the unremitting march of expansion has brought human advancement to the threshold of nature, menacing the very existence of the natural world. As cities grow, forests are cleared, wetlands are drained and wildlife habitats are destroyed to make way for new buildings, roads and parking lots. This impingement on the natural world has shattering consequences for birds, animals and wildlife that consider these ecosystems home. The loss of habitat around the Rock Garden and disruption of delicate ecosystems, all contribute to the disquieting decline of biodiversity in urbanising areas.

The end of nature, as we know it, is a stark reality that threatens us as we gaze out upon the rambling metropolises of the world. The once pristine landscapes, teeming with life and colour, are now a distant memory, replaced by the steel and concrete of urbanisation. The songs of birds, the rustle of leaves and the gentle babbling of brooks are silenced, replaced by the cacophony of car horns, construction and human chatter.

As we stand at the rock face of this ecological crisis, we are forced to confront the consequences of our actions and to consider the future of the natural world in the face of inexorable development.

Preserving cultural heritage, therefore, is a collective responsibility that requires concerted efforts from individuals, communities and governments. Moreover, cultural heritage conservation promotes cross-cultural understanding, nurtures community engagement and contributes to justifiable expansion.

As keepers of our cultural legacy, it is essential that we prioritise preservation efforts, raise mindfulness about the status of cultural heritage and support initiatives that protect and promote our shared cultural treasures. As we move forward, it is crucial that we learn from history, acknowledge and engage with it and build an intellectual environment that is critical, inclusive and civil.

The goal of citizens and preservationists is to critically examine the high court's decision and its far-reaching consequences. It might also help in grasping the material designs behind the installation or dismantling of walls or buildings that apparently reflect the political ambitions of the ruling class, supported by conformist historians.

The damage that the decision to flatten the wall of the Rock Garden does to our cultural sensibilities is as vital as the damage it does to the cultural heritage of this iconic monument. In the wake of the brutal demolition, discussions and demonstrations must target the urban symbols of atrocities and aggression against art and nature.