Conservation-Led Marginalization: Making Heritage in the Walled City of Lahore Jannat Sohail Urban Studies Supervisor: Maroš Krivý May 25, 2020 Abstract The emerging trajectory of conservation and urban revitalization in the Walled City of Lahore is indicative of its preference for tourism. The shift in the objectives of conservation towards utilizing cultural heritage as a capital resource for negotiating meanings, representations, power, and politics promotes conservation-led marginalization. This is not limited to physical dispossession in the inner- city, but also involuntary social exclusion and the loss of access or restrictions on livelihood opportunities. The pattern of state-sanctioned attempts to render collective ownership of heritage capitalizes on the mediations with national and international institutions to authenticate their decision- making. The role of UNESCO as a status-defined marketing tool in lobbying the local heritage industry, as well as a source of global governance, is understated. The nature and conditions of ‘heritage’ conservation schemas require critical attention, while pivotal questions need to be addressed regarding its rhetorical deployment. The objective of the research is to explore the nature, scope, and effect of the multifaceted national and international institutional framework in the definition, production, consumption, and making of heritage. Keywords: heritage industry, bureaucracy, international agencies, marginalization. 2 Copyright Declaration I hereby declare that: 1. the present Master’s thesis is the result of my personal contribution and it has not been submitted (for defence) earlier by anyone else; 2. all works and important viewpoints by other authors as well as any other data from other sources used in the compilation of the Master’s thesis are duly acknowledged in the references; 3. I give consent to the Estonian Academy of Arts to publish my Master’s thesis in the repository thus making it available for the general public by means of the Internet. Pursuant to the above, I state that: - I, as the author of the thesis, am the sole owner of the individual copyright of the present Master’s thesis and the works included and/or described within the thesis and the disposal of the proprietary rights related with the Master’s thesis is subject to the procedures in force at the Estonian Academy of Arts; - as the Master’s thesis published in the repository may be accessed by an unlimited number of persons, I presume that the readers of the thesis comply with laws and other legal acts and good practices in good faith, in a fair manner and with respect to and consideration of the rights of other people. The copying, plagiarising or any use of the present Master’s thesis and the works included and/or described within the thesis that infringes the copyright is prohibited. 25-05-2020 __________________ (date) Jannat Sohail _________________________________ (the name and signature of the author of the Master’s thesis) The thesis complies with the Master’s thesis requirements: __________________ (date) _________________________________ (the signature of the Master’s thesis supervisor, academic or research degree) 3 Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 4 Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 5 Vignette ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 1: Understanding Heritage, Displacement, and the Walled City of Lahore ...................... 7 1.1. Displaced by Heritage ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.2. Brief Context: The Historic Inner-City as Image of Neglect ................................................................ 12 Chapter 2: Theories of Heritage: Production, Consumption, and Regeneration? ........................ 14 2.1. Lessons to Learn: Relevant Case Studies ............................................................................................. 22 Chapter 3: The Regional Realities: Readjustments in the Adjusted City ....................................... 27 3.1. Emerging Encounters: A City of Many, Reserved for Less .................................................................. 32 3.2. Evolution of the Conservation Narrative .............................................................................................. 36 3.4. From Efforts of Conservation to its Effective Selling: Major Government Interventions .................... 38 Chapter 4: Heritage Defined, and Re-Defined ................................................................................ 40 4.1. Intellectual Colonization and Nationalist Reclamation ........................................................................ 40 4.2. Segregation in Conservation: Whose Ancestry? ................................................................................... 42 4.3. Modernization via Economic Restructuring: At What Cost? ............................................................... 42 4.4. The Governance and Use of UNESCO ................................................................................................. 44 4.5. International Aid: For Sustainability? .................................................................................................. 46 4.6. Heritage Industry: Tourism for Beginners ........................................................................................... 47 4.7. Shared Spaces: Conflicting Experiences .............................................................................................. 49 Chapter 5: Making Heritage: A Cause for Marginalization? ......................................................... 52 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................ 55 References ......................................................................................................................................... 71 4 Acknowledgements I was continually challenged and concerned, if such a debate unfolding heritage as a vessel for politics will appear overambitious amidst the urban chaos that presents itself in the city every day – usually, bringing more visible and recognizable challenges to the table. Gratefully, I found myself in the company of people that understood and supported the research intentions, continually pushing me to put it forward. In their encouragement and the contention of others, I found to trust myself. I would like to thank all that engaged with the heritage dialogue and lent me their kindest encouragement; Rabia Ezdi, Kamil Khan Mumtaz, Nayyar Ali Dada, Ahmad Rafay Alam, Reza Ali, Yasmin Cheema, Attiq Ahmed, and Usman Sami. I am most in debt to my supervisor, Maroš Krivý, for inspiring me to put one foot forward each day; to my mentor, Keiti, who has given me strength in the toughest of times. I thank my family; Amma and Baba; Bhae and Nayab; Shanzeh Usman, Sofia Dominguez, Shiza Fatima, Minahil Arif, Larissa Franz, Ralph Söthe-Garnier, and Thomas Stammel. Thank you. 5 Vignette An authenticity, some continuity, and attached legacy – the popular constituents of what makes heritage revealed the Director-General of the Walled City of Lahore Authority (See Appendix 1.4). He stuttered, recalling what heritage is when I inquired in our meeting – a few attempts later, it came out as precise and adequately learned. “Heritage is what you inherit from your ancestors, from your history and what you need to pass on to the future generations.” I wondered, does that make the community the bearers of a historical treasure, dispensed with the task to preserve the national pride inserted in each heritage object – and inserted by whom? Were they to find in heritage a commonplace in the world? The definition seemed evasive and vague. While it sounded sufficient, coming from a public servant addressing the media, the expert opinion still reflected a disconnect with the local community. He took pleasure in listing the approval and completion of numerous conservation projects inside the historic center, ones even awarded. “UNESCO has great authenticity,” he insisted. Does it come in handy? The international institutions validated the conservation efforts he led. The involvement of the host community superseded that of bearing the historical objects – they were participants now and if not, then subject to probable sanitization. In attaching the ‘authenticity’ of the local heritage to the name of UNESCO, the Director-General disclosed the role of such reliance in the production, regulation, or management of cultural and social value and meaning. It appeared, if heritage was to be reanimated in ways that produced for it a global value, it required imported expertise that maximized the extraction of such value and promoted its universal consumption. The task of conservation, then, focused on the identification and exposition of such authenticity – often, at the cost of disruption to the existing patterns of life and the regional realities. The short encounter with the