Conservation is an age-old tradition both in Nepal and in other regions of the world. Heritage conservation is not merely maintenance work of the worn out parts of an old building. This work, first and foremost, requires a recognition that the building or such built objects in question contribute to the sustenance of the culture of the relevant community or of the individual. If the artifact contributes to the sustenance of culture, then we understand that the value of the artifact is not limited to its functional matters, which could be met and even augmented by replacing the artifact with a new construction.

For instance, a temple structure of a srinkhala style with a series of receding roofs could be replaced with a white plastered dome roof or with a sikhara spire if the value of the temple is limited to being a place of worship. But if the temple is considered as a landmark, or if it is taken as a valuable art handed to us by our ancestors, then the temple structure crosses the boundary of its functional value.

Identity

Such artifacts that we associate with cultural heritage are symbols; they are the identity of a place and of a community, a landmark achievement of an age, a representative sample of a societal order or a rare example of some cultural phenomena. They represent monuments, such as temples. Temples, in most instances, belong to a community, and the size of the community related to the temple could extend from a neighbourhood to a world region.

For instance, in the settlements of the Kathmandu Valley, the shrine of Ganesh is the symbol of a neighbourhood tole community. Its usual location in a square with other associated artifacts such as a pati, well or a fountain makes the square the symbol of a neighbourhood locality. On the other hand, Char Vinayak - the set of Four Ganeshs, located at various parts of the valley, represent a ritual fixture in the valley. They are, in a group, the symbols of the valley settlement geography, thus belonging to the valley community.

Temples like the Pashupatinath or Swayambhunath have a history of a hoary past and are linked to the beginning of the valley’s settlements. Their historical, prehistorical and mythological legacy is profound, and their value as an identity of a culture is immeasurable. If it were only for the functional purpose, there are hundreds of Pashupatinath temples and thousands of Shivalayas in the valley. But only Pashupatinath makes for the identity of the age-old history of the Shaiva cult, which crosses the boundaries of present day Nepal.

It is to be noted that the concept of cultural heritage is not limited to monumental structures such as temples and palaces. Common structures such as a pati, a water spout or a community house are no less important. It is a traditional approach in the writing of our history that we only talk of gods and kings and nobles and then their dwellings - the temples and palaces. The conventional understanding of heritage conservation derives from this past nature of historiography that served primarily the purpose of the feudal rulers than of the common people.

In today’s historiography, however, the history of a nation is written in diverse forms and in various streams that record and reflect the dynamic mosaic of a nation. The history of a nation is complete only when we describe the past of a mason, an ironsmith, a serf, a farmer, a teacher, a priest, a village chief and also a noble and the ruler. Each of these social characters must be brought into focus one after another.

When we broaden our concept of heritage, the dimension of conservation work expands to a scale that exceeds the existing listing by institutions such as the Department of Archaeology to unmanageable proportions. To cite an example, the city of Westminster of England has listed more than 11,000 buildings in its conservation list, and the conservation area covers 75 per cent of the city. What it means is that the whole city is classified as a conservation zone where modern developments represented by towering buildings are not permitted. In area and population, this city is about three times the size of the historic town of Patan.

In conservation practice, a ‘buffer zone’ further introduces a concept that significantly expands the area and scope of conservation work. A buffer zone is a background setting to the monument or a site of primary importance. This zone is required because the monument site discloses its full meaning only in the context of its setting in a manner similar to that of a teacher in a classroom environment. The area designated as ‘Preserved Monument Sub-zone’ around the three palaces of Bhaktapur, Patan and Kathmandu are such instances.

What we are bringing to light is the importance of urban heritage that necessarily includes common people’s heritage represented by the town dwellings, places of daily activities such as a pati, a water spout, a courtyard and a square or a khel to cite some of the common settlement features of the Kathmandu Valley towns. The delineation of the ‘Preserved Cultural Heritage Sub-zone’ of the three cities is a development in this perspective.

However, in Kathmandu and Patan, this zone mainly incorporates the major streets of the historic town area - themselves again monuments. This approach of marking a cultural heritage zone is influenced more by facial and cosmetic consideration, and therefore, is far from the spirit of conservation of the common people’s heritage.

In this respect, it is laudable that the ‘Cultural Heritage Sub-zone of Bhaktapur’ includes a greater part of the historic city incorporating toles - the common people’s habitation zone in a more wholesome manner. When we consider these monument sub-zone and cultural heritage sub-zones, the coverage is more than five times larger than the area covered by the monument core area of the palace itself.

Further, when we take the town as a unit, and not just as the assemblage of neighbourhoods, the perspective of conservation takes another dimension, which is entirely different from the concept of monument conservation.

Once we realise the importance of this concept of conservation, conservation work becomes a matter of vital importance in the development of a town. The quantity of work, the number of concerned citizens and the complexity increases greatly. The job can’t be handled by one department such as the Department of Archaeology, not even by the municipal administration. The work demands the understanding and participation of all the citizens of the town. Only this way can the people’s heritage be preserved.

The destruction of our historic townscape is not only due to corruption and negligence of our officials in overseeing that the new developments abide by the rules, there are also problems in our perspective of history and mobilisation and development of the necessary human resources.

Does the task of extensive conservation go against the modern needs of development? And is this approach a conservative attitude that fights against the modern idea of architecture, town and urban culture? Is it that the low economic state of development and lack of trained manpower precludes the adoption of such conservation principles in countries like ours?

These questions are vital and should be debated when formulating our conservation strategy of cultural heritage, and must be linked to the national cultural policy. There are no principles or theories that can be taken for granted for our future development. However, there are already innumerable instances of experiences within our own country and elsewhere in the world that provide us valuable lessons and guiding references.

Urban design

The idea of urban design in the management of city development addresses the history of the built environment and its continuity in the context of contemporary development. Urban design studies the physical and cultural patterns of the environment at each hierarchic level from a courtyard to a neighbourhood and then to the town in its human and natural setting.

Unless and until we introduce urban design principles in the management of our cities and settlements, we will not only be destroying the old but also ending up with an environment that belongs to nobody’s heritage in future. They will merely be the product of a consumer society - of a throw-away culture. This is one of the bitter lessons that the development of modern cities has taught the world.

courtesy: Mohan Moorti Pant ,Rising Nepal