Desktop version

Home arrow Sociology

  • Increase font
  • Decrease font


<<   CONTENTS   >>

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

PPPs framework between the key stakeholders within and between the countries for capacity building in world SHT monuments—cultural and natural sites is required. Under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO framework, partnerships are considered as the key dr iver or enabler for solving global problems and challenges. Innovative partnerships such as PPPs national and global between the key stakeholders such as building capacity for SHT conservation and preservation for the future generation is required to help to meet global, national, regional, and local challenges to bring about a sustainable development change and a long-term impact for the community (Haq and Medhekar, 2018, 2017). Through partnerships expertise, knowledge, resources, skills, and competencies required for capacity building can be pulled together for building capacity for SHT conservation and preservation having a sustainable long-term impact of the implemented projects and programs of capacity building for SHT conservation and préservation for socioeconomic benefit of the future generations.

The chapter proposes that the PPPs for SHT committee in case of India and Pakistan should consist of UNESCO representatives from world heritage Paris, cultural and management of heritage UNESCO sites, SHT representatives from the two countries, skilled architects in conservation and preservation, traditional artists, besides educational institutions, faculties of architecture, business and SHT management, local government, local NGO’s, and religious owners and protectors of SHT sites.

The first step is to start from schools, universities, and educational institutions. Partnerships between spiritual heritage archaeological sites, state and educational institutions will help to preserve SHT sites (Tilson, 2005). Following steps can be taken in case of India and Pakistan for capacity building in conserving and preserving SHT in both the countries, given the shared history and culture and nearly eight major religions namely: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism. Judaism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrian represented in these two countries with their centuries old religious/SHT cultural and natural sites.

i) Training young minds at school and universities regarding preservation and conservation of world heritage which includes natural and cultural, and SHT being part of cultural heritage in the curriculum, such as national and local “Heritage in Box” toolkit project, similar to the one organized in Mongolia by UNESCO.

ii) Capacity building workshops “Heritage in Box” toolkit project can be extended by involving school students and university alumni as promoters for building awareness among the society for preserving SHT sites for the future generation and for reaping social-economic benefit from such SHT capacity building and preservation for sustainable socioeconomic impact. This requires capacity building and respect for all SHT sites—cultural monuments and natural parks and sites, with the aim to protect by having interreligious/intercultural dialogue for long-term sustainable development and peace.

iii) Capacity building via education and skill development, training for SHT ethics, and respect for all heritage cultural and natural parks and sites are required for preparing successful nomination of SHT sites for world heritage listing by UNESCO.

iv) Capacity building through education and training in periodic reporting to preserve SHT sites for economic prosperity, promotion, and peace between India and Pakistan. Capacity building through educational workshops and training to preserve the original names, images, historical brand of heritage places, and monuments.

v) Capacity building at local, national, and global level for policing and being a neighborhood watch dog for protecting the SHT cultural and natural sites and monuments from being destroyed by nature or vandalized by illegal land encroachment and people and visitors.

vi) In recent years in India, names of heritage monuments of cultural and natural significance is changed by the government. For example, the name of Victoria railway terminus in Bombay was changed to Chhatrapati Shivaji terminus. Similarly, the government in power wants to change the name of Aligarh city to Prayag, its Aligarh Muslim University which was founded in 1875 by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Aligarh railway station etc. to Prayag or Harigrah. A forest area was cleared, and a city called Aligarh was founded and established by the Great Mughal emperor Akbar. The future generations to come will not know the true history of the monument. It is essential that academic scholars and historians should write and portray the fine history of the country irrespective of the colonial past or the religious affiliations of the rulers who built and named places and cities and also built forts and monuments. The government should preserve the significance of historical names given for future generations, and not change the names of historical places, heritage parks and monuments.

Haq and Medhekar (2018) have identified challenges hr capacitybuilding partnership arrd managenrent of heritage tourism for India and Pakistan in context of: conservation, accessibility, relevance, finance, quality of heritage conservation work, heritage education for awareness, recreational use of heritage sites for music arrd cultural festivals, arrd local community driving SHT protection, promotion, conservation, and preparing nominations with global PPPs for UNESCO listing as world spiritus heritage. These are important for capacity building from SHT preservation, protection, arrd promotion involving the various stakeholders. A recent example of peace arrd capacity building partnership through spiritual heritage tourism at the government to government level between India and

Pakistan is to bring about Sikh heritage awareness, protection, preservation, development, and promotion with the opening of ‘Kartarpur Spiritual Heritage Tourism Corridor’ on the 9th of November 2019, to celebrate 550 birth anniversary of the founder of the Sikh religion. Kartarpur Sikh Gurd-wara (temple) is a very sacred heritage place, site and spiritual monument to the Punjabi Sikhs and Punjabi Muslims alike. Kartarpur heritage site and temple is like pilgrimage to Mecca to the Sikhs from all over the world, being the resting place of the founder of Sikhism—Gum Nanak, where he spent the last 20 years of his life (Akhtar et al., 2019). Kartarpur spiritual heritage tourism corridor is focusing on the foundation for peace and capacity building initiative for conservation of centuries old spiritual heritage, besides the economic multiplier effect of socio-economic opportunities for bilateral travel, tourism and trade for the benefit of the two countries. Table 2.1 provides the challenges in capacity-building global partnership for planning, management, implementation, and promotion of SHT innovation for capacity building in India and Pakistan.

TABLE 2.1 Capacity-Building Partnership Challenges from Spiritual Heritage Tourism.

Heritage tourism Methodological approach for spiritual heritage tourism challenges innovation for capacity buildiug

Conservation • Driving forces—heritage awareness, protection, preservation, development, and promotion.

  • • Heritage education, expertise, and innovative skills.
  • • Availability of finance.
  • • Technological innovations.
  • • Quality of heritage conservation work.
  • • Economic performance and progress in identifying, preserving, protecting, promoting, and preparing submissions for spiritual heritage listing by UNESCO as cirltural or natural world heritage.

Accessibility • Driving forces—heritage awareness, protection, preservation, development and promotion.

  • • Heritage education, expertise, and innovative technical skills.
  • • Availability of finance.
  • • Quality of heritage conservation work.
  • • Technological innovations.

TABLE 2.1 (Continued)

Heritage tourism challenges

Methodological approach for spiritual heritage tourism innovation for capacity building

Relevance

  • • Driving forces—heritage awareness, protection, preservation, development and promotion.
  • • Heritage education, expertise, and innovative skills.
  • • Quality of heritage conservation work.
  • • Technological innovations.
  • • Cultural, social, recreational, and economic contribution.

Education

  • • Driving forces—heritage awareness, protection, preservation development and promotion.
  • • Heritage education, expertise, and innovative skills.
  • • Availability of finance.
  • • Technological innovations.
  • • Quality of heritage conservation work.
  • • Economic performance and progress in identifying, preserving, protecting, promoting, and preparing submissions for spiritual heritage listing by UNESCO as cultural or natural world heritage.
  • • Innovative transformation for capacity building and spiritual heritage conservation.

Local Conununity

  • • Driving forces—heritage awareness, protection, preservation, development and promotion.
  • • Heritage education, expertise, and innovative skills.
  • • Technological innovations.
  • • Quality of heritage conservation work.
  • • Cultural, social, recreational, and economic contribution.
  • • Local and global PPPs for capacity building
  • • Economic performance and progress in identifying, preserving, protecting, promoting, and preparing submissions for spiritual heritage listing by UNESCO as cultural or natural world heritage.

Source: Developed for this chapter and adapted from Haq and Medhekar (2018).

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter has highlighted the need for capacity building between India and Pakistan in partnerships in order to conserve, preserve, and promote

SHT sites and spiritual cultural heritage which is thousands of years old for economic prosperity, progress, and peace between the two countries at all levels people to people, government to government, and at the diplomatic level to bring about sustainable transformation between the two countries. The intergenerational socioeconomic benefits in capacity building for SHT development, conservation, and preservation are far gr eater for local communities in terms of job creation, growth in national income, foreign exchange earned, than the costs of neglect and destroying centuries old SHT sites based on religious divide and communal riots. It is the government’s archaeological societies’ responsibility to list the SHT sites belonging to all religions, no matter how small or significant, in the two countries and preserve, protect, and promote them for economic prosperity, communal harmony, all inclusivism, and peace within and between the two countries.

Government, educational institutions, private sector businesses, and the local community along with global partners like UNESCO, developed countries, other private charitable and philanthropic individuals and organizations are the key driving force for capacity building via educational institutions, and participatory workshops and training necessary for any preservation, protection, and promotion to bring about innovative transformation of the centuries old SHT sites of all religions for socioeconomic benefit, economic prosperity, and peace between India and Pakistan.

Capacity building is possible by implementing heritage protection policy without bureaucratic delay and corruption, building infra structure for access, appointing local educated people, and expertise with knowledge of built heritage and history of the local areas and development of heritage conservation skills through educational institutions. However, G-PPPs are essential for capacity building on one hand to conserve and protect heritage sites with “innovative capacity-building transformation strategies ” for empowering local communities to conserve, preserving the SHT for the future generations. On the other hand, to ensure that “SHT development” is based on identifying and mapping “spiritual heritage tourism circuits” (SHTC), places of worships, and monuments from a localized knowledge perspective for protection, conservation, restoration, transformation, and promotion, in a responsible manner so that SHT sites are not neglected as “belong to the other” or vandalized by the locals in communal riots or by the tourists.

Future research direction can apply Lernpert (2015) classification of historical sites for India and Pakistan. Local educational institutions with community and local council’s involvement could take up the public consultation and grassroots participation of the local stakeholders meeting, project to identify and classify heritage sites based on generic heritage, abandoned, deteriorated, and restored/conserved and the transformation stage for reuse as heritage museums along with responsible heritage tourism development.

Secondly, framework from Table 2.1 can be empirically tested qualitative and quantitatively to determine the factors that drive spiritual heritage conservation, preservation, and promotion in India and Pakistan. The need of the 21st century in both the countries is to conserve and protect the spiritual heritage sites by adopting responsible innovative transformational strategies, respect for all religious/spiritual sites amidst rapid demolition of the heritage sites for land clearing, for commercial development by builders. Local communities backed by educational institutions, funding bodies, UNESCO, local businesses, and government should take pride in preserving theh heritage and culture and transform their lives for the benefit of the future generations. As they will be directly committed to preserving then-tangible and intangible heritage, to reap the social, cultural, recreational, and economic benefits from spiritual heritage conservation, fluid raising, holding music, interfaith and cultural festival, experience innovative social transformation, leading to sustainable development of centuries old SHT circuits and clusters in India and Pakistan for the future generations. This will also bring about an innovative transformation in the visitors (tourists, students, volunteers, funding bodies, and scholars) to build capacity and push for heritage conservation and rejuvenation by preparing submissions for world heritage UNESCO listing of the SHT sites in India and Pakistan.

KEYWORDS

  • spiritual heritage tourism
  • capacity building
  • preservation
  • protection and peace
  • regional development
  • public-private partnerships

REFERENCES

Akhtar, M.S.; Jathol, I.; Hussain, Q. A. Peace Building through Religious Tourism in Pakistan: A Case Study of Kartarpur Corridor. Pakistan Social Set. Rev. 2019, 3(2), 204-212.

Bandyopadhyay, R.; Morais, D. D.; Chick, G. Religion and Identity in India’s Heritage Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2008, 35(3), 790-808.

Chakraborty, S. Developing an Integrated Tourism Circuit in Gar Mandaran-Kamarpukur-Joyrambati in the State of West Bengal, India. South Asian J. Tour. Heritage 2011,4(1), 144-155.

Gamod, B.; Fyall, A. Managing Heritage Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27(3), 682-708.

Haq, F.; Jackson, J. Spiritual Journey to Hajj: Australian and Pakistani Experience and Expectations. J. Manage. Spiritual. Relig. 2009, 6(2), 141-156.

Haq, F.; Medhekar, A. Branding Spiritual Tourism as an Innovation for Peace between India and Pakistan. IJSEI2013, 2(5), 404-414.

Haq, F., Medhekar, A. Spiritual Tourism between India and Pakistan: A Framework for Business Opportunities and Threats. World J. Soc. Sci. 2015, 5(2), 190-200.

Haq, F.; Medhekar, A. Is Spiritual Tourism an Innovation in Tourism for India and Pakistan. In Business and Economics: Leadership, Innovation and Entrepreneurship as Driving Forces of the Global Economy, Benlamri, R., Sparer, M., Eds.; Springer International: Switzerland, 2017; Chapter 44, pp 519-530.

Haq, F.; Medhekar, A. Challenges for “Innovative Transformation” in Heritage Tourism Development in India and Pakistan. In Conservation and Promotion of Heritage Tourism; Srivastava, S., Ed.; IGI Global Publishing: Penn, USA, 2018; pp 127-154. https://www. igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/213400.

ICCROM. World Heritage Capacity Building, 2019. https://www.iccrom.org/section/ world-heritage/world-heritage-capacity-building.

Kumar, A.; Singh, P. Cultural Heritage Tourism of Ayodhya-Faizabad. Geographer 2015, 62(2), 66—74.

Lempert, D. Classifying Heritage by States of Decay, Restoration, and Transformation for Tourism, Teaching, and Research: “un-freezing” Sites in Time to Reveal Additional Meanings. J. Heritage Tour. 2015, /0(4), 378-398.

Medhekar, A.; Haq, F. Growth of Spiritual Tourism in India: A Public Private Partnership Approach. Int. J. Busi. Intell. Manage.2009,1, 1-12.

Phukan, H.; Rahman, Z.; Devdutt, P. Emergence of Spiritual Tourism in India. Int. J. Market. Technol. 2012, 2(4), 300-317.

Qureshi, R. B. Lineage, Shrine, Qawwali, and Study Circle: Spiritual Kinship in Transnational Sufism. Relig. Stud. Theol. 2003, 22(1), 63-84.

Seraphim, J.; Haq, F. Challenges for Promotion of Heritage Tourism: Case Study of the UAE. In Conservation and Promotion of Heritage Tourism; Srivastava, S., Ed.; IGI Global Publishing: Penn, USA, 2018; pp 35-56. https://wvw.igi-global.com/gateway/ chapter/213400.

Sharpley, R.; Srmdaram, P. Tourism: A Sacred Journey? The Case of Ashram Tourism, India. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2005, 7(1), 161-171.

Shinde, K. A. Visiting Scared Sites in India: Religious Tourism or Pilgrimage? In Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage Management: An International Perspective; Raj, R., Morpeth, N. D., Eds.; CAB International: UK, 2007; Chapter 15, pp 170-183.

Simone-Charters, M. T.; Boyd, S. W. Development of Religious Heritage Tourism in Northern Ireland: Opportunities, Benefits and Obstacles. Tourism 2010,53(3), 229-257.

Tilson, D. J. Religious-Spiritual Tourism and Promotional Campaigning: A Church-State Partnership for St. James and Spain. J. Hosp. Leisure Market 2005, 22(1-2), 9-40.

Timothy, D. J. Cultural Heritage and Tourism: An Introduction. Channel View Publications: Bristol, 2011.

Timothy, D. J.; Boyd, S. W. Heritage Tourism-, Prentice Hall: Harlow, 2003.

Timothy, D. J.; Olsen, D. H. Conclusion: Whither Religious Tourism? In Tourism, Religion & Spiritual Journeys; Timothy, D. J., Olsen, D. H.; Eds.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp 271-278.

UNESCO,2019a.http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafEicking-of-cultural-property/capacity-building/.

UNESCO. Historic City of Alunedabad—World Heritage Centre UNESCO, 2019b. http:// whc.unesco.org/en/list/1551.

UNESCO. Protecting World Heritage of Pakistan through Awareness Raising and Capacity Building, 2019c. http://unesco.org.pk/culture/capacity_building.html.

UNESCO. Pakistan UNESO World Heritage Listing, 2019d. http://whc.unesco.org/en' statesparties/pk.

 
<<   CONTENTS   >>

Related topics