Monetisation and Darjeeling Himalayan Railway: Its Implications and Challenges

 Rohini Sharma

The Center’s four-year plan on infrastructure asset monetization was already being discussed since the beginning of the year and the documentation was complete in July 2021. There has been a plan to raise Rs 6 lakh crore ($81 billion) under the National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP). The NMP will be carried out from 2022-2025 by the central  government and the top three sectors included for asset monetisation are railways, airports and coal mining. As per the clauses mentioned in the NMP, the ownership (of assets) will remain with the government and it will be mandatory to hand over these assets after a certain time period. With regards to this, the government is claiming that it is not selling off these assets to the private corporate. Although the government is confident about the NMP there are many queries and factual concerns regarding the NMP?  The center government states that there is a need for such a scheme in order to efficiently run and maintain some of the mentioned asset in the NMP which includes the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, but arguments have been placed in various social platforms that, leasing out these assets to private entities would bring forth multiple setbacks in due course of time. Under Section 1.3 in NMP the railways has been put under the Indicative Monetisation Value which is for private sector investment. To stress and quote, section 1.4 point (4) about the Indicative Monetisation Value (IMV) clause, “…several brown field asset classes are proposed to be monetized through Operate Maintain and Develop (OMP) based models or assets where significant capex may be involved over transaction life towards augmentation or rehabilitation of assets”. This could lead to handing over of the assets completely in private sectors. This remark has not been irrational as we do a fact-value laden study of the NMP.  The finance minister has remarked that whatever resource will be obtained by monetisation will be used for developing other infrastructure building, but the concern arises, at what cost and if it is worth it?

There is a growing realization that the developmental activities cannot be separated from the natural aspects which shapes the landscapes and maintains the natural attraction of a place. The idea of western dichotomy of culture and nature has a little or no basis for an empirical approach in contemporary developmental context and the long-term environmental management under such a developmental approach has been too farfetched a dream. These developmental activities have forcible elements which are both tangible and intangible in nature. The tangible elements are reflective in human behavior and the intangible elements are incorporated in the symbolic reflection of the developmental activities in any particular environment.  History has been a master which provides us with facts and also gives us scope to analyze, evaluate explore, observe and predict the result of certain politico-economic actions. Some of the study put forth here are also taken as, history as a witness to some of the predictive consequences.

There has been a major concern that as the addition of new sites in the UNESCO list is celebrated by some of the countries each year, the plans like NMP will cause the Government of India in delisting one of the most celebrated UNESCO heritage sites of DHR.  The arguments and critics from DHR enthusiasts and concerned citizens are seemingly rational when explored and studied. The Capex approach on section 1.3 with point (b) mentions that a sizeable capital expenditure will be made for expansion/augmentation or improving the quality of infrastructure. The railways, including the DHR have been categorized as IMV with a Capex approach. The clauses in the NMP also mention that if the monetisation of these assets would not have much fruitful result then a re-monetisation would be brought about.  DHR has until now maintained its criterion of uniqueness for ingenious engineering technicalities, integrity and authenticity despite the repairing that is done from time to time, for which it has been acknowledged as World Heritage of UNESCO. So the new innovative measures to improve the infrastructure can lead to dilute its criteria to be the heritage of culture. 

At present there are 53 endangered UNESCO sites, 3 delisted or removed and 1 partially removed from the UNESCO heritage list. The Center claims that there is a need to put these assets in resourceful way, as it would help in economic growth, by leasing out these assets to the private entities. The NMP has been focused on renovation and improving the infrastructure of the assets for better facilities to be provided. DHR is an acknowledged UNESCO site and if it has been in a critical condition, then the UNESCO under its framework has the power to enlist DHR in its list of World Heritage In Danger UNESCO site. In such a case, the international governing body must declare it under the list of World Heritage In Danger sites worthy of the world’s highest legal protection. So this claim about DHR that it lacks proper maintenance and is under financial crisis creates false consciousness among the citizens. Therefore UNESCO must ensure that the DHR which adds to cultural, natural, aesthetic and emotional value to the people be protected.  Once the monetisation projects are undertaken the UNESCO will not be able to ensure and protect the people, and the site from being removed from the heritage site as seen in case of the under mentioned delisted UNESCO sites.

As the NMP follows up with clauses of re-monetisation this could lead to complete privatization of such assets which do not generate income within the set time period. So there is an open scope and flexibility of privatization. The leasing out of many of the public assets has also been the reason for which there is mere scope of government jobs with less income benefits in India. This will lead to rise in contractual jobs pushing the young generation to mediocrity. The NMP will close ways to other ways of self reliant livelihood which is intertwined with the DHR. The negotiation with privatization and development would be a hard and unavoidable blow giving sufficient reasons to remove the DHR from the heritage list to displacement of people, rise in socio-economic disparity creating an imbalance resulting in lower income generation among the locals at a higher rate. This would affect the present generation who are in so many ways dependent on the DHR, show casing the intangible effects of the developmental plans. Also to draw attention to other railway projects undergoing in the hills, the disadvantages of which is vehemently visible. These examples of the disadvantages of the so- called big development projects has time and again been a back lash to the people of hilly areas looking at the unacceptable and difficult geographical terrain. The DHR has maintained its UNESCO site for these very technical reasons of being able to function smoothly even in the difficult slopes and terrains. Therefore, NMP innovations could destroy its criterion for being listed in the UNESCO site. 

What can be the reasons of being delisted from the UNESCO heritage list? Some of the background study of the removed and partially delisted UNESCO sites are analysed here with connection to the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway.

Liverpool’s port one the most important ports in the 18^th and 19^th centuries so along with the entire city center  earned the name of UNESCO site in 2004. In 2012, the Liverpool Waters project with the aim to modernize the city’s docklands led to Maritime Mercantile City on UNESCO’s endangered list.  Even though the project created some job and housing facilities but these developmental projects were regarded as “detrimental to the site’s authenticity and integrity” by the UNESCO.  The overdevelopment of the site led to its removal leading to a huge disappointment on the government’s side. The UNESCO decision has sparked debates and conversation regarding the balance needed to regenerate areas, without destroying the historical significance of a site. To quote Liverpool Metro Mayor Steve Rotherham, “We are proud of our history and do not shy away from it,” he further stated “It is on full display in some of our world-class museums and visitor attractions.”…“That does not mean that we should sit by and allow the city itself to become a museum.” There are cases of the dualism and ‘regeneration versus preservation’ that lies in between maintaining the status of heritage site and obstacle to other developmental schemes. Looking at the socio-economic position of Darjeeling, the idea of regeneration versus preservation is both hard to be applicable in the case of DHR. As many of the hotels, restaurants, local people dependent on tourism and transportation revolves around the DHR being the world heritage site. Not only this, huge populations of the Darjeeling hills are dependent on tea industry. The tea industry which is one of the factors in tourism will be equally affected by the monetisation of the DHR. 

The Volume I of NMP in a section mentions about the implementations and implications of monetization in Australia and Indonesia suggesting that such a scheme would be a key contributor to economic growth. Here to highlight the study made by C McLoughlin and Noriaki Kinoshita in ‘Monetization in Low- and Middle Income Countries’, the study explains  and states evidences that monetization has  growth prospects but it varies from country to country. Also failing in the executions and incompatibility with other heterogeneity of variables from one place to another can risk the existing economic structure. Failing in it, the countries can experience a period of stagnant monetization, financial deepening or even demonetization, which will have negative implications on growth. So, what will be the calculative consequences of DHR being delisted from the UNESCO World Heritage site?  The tourism in Darjeeling is intertwined with the up-down, zigzag joy ride in the Darjeeling toy train, which is a well known fact. The development that would be brought will be for the present generation of people to suffer the site being destroyed by big private entities, the upcoming generation to see remains of destruction and development with shiny buildings and for the unborn generation to see in the archives and museums.

There can be various criterions to be removed from the UNESCO heritage site. To state an example, Arabian Oryx Sanctuary was UNESCO acknowledged in 1994 for its Arabian Oryx on the World Heritage List was delisted in 2007 when the size was brought down by 90 percent in 2007 by the Omani government after oil was discovered in the site area.  With the plunging oil prices over the past few years, it is the wildlife once again that has become an increasing priority for the authorities. The authorities regretfully hope to lure the tourists with an ecotourism approach yet again. Some of the places consist of specific elements beyond the human component. As Casey (1996) puts that as "places gather." Among these "gathered" elements are specific histories, memories, thoughts, cultural traits, like symbolic meanings, linguistic features, etc. There is also specific experience attached to it. The places become powerful because of those particular identifications consisting of material and symbolic forms of the place.

The Darjeeling Himalayan railway consists of 88.48 kilometers of 2 feet (0.610 meter) gauge track connecting New Jalpaiguri with Darjeeling. The DHR runs through the lap of long beautiful stretch forest covers of Sukna, Rangtong, Tindharia, Gayabari, Mahanadi, Sonada, Ghoom which has an altitude of 2258 meters and finally to Darjeeling railway station.  The DHR properties and assets monetisation will have an implication on the long and wide stretch of land. It falls under areas where people have sustained their livelihood based on indigenous way of living. As the railway tracks falls in between the town areas with human habitation at so many zigzag zones, it puts a high risk of distressful displacement. The price to be paid in the name of development can be dreadful than imagined. The assets of the locals have been the aesthetic value of nature and the heritage site together. Due to this the people from remote locations are self sustained, focusing on eco-friendly home stays, agro forestry, small cottage industry and organic farming. The people of these indigenous locations are self-reliant and the monetisation of the DHR could make them economically and socially handicapped. There freedom to be self reliant and economically independent would be snatched by some other private entities. Therefore the monetisation and further privatization of DHR, its proportionality, possible probabilities and consequences following it are to be pre-calculative in a practical sense.

Not only this, the monetisation of DHR would have an immediate disadvantage on local tours and travel agencies, the independent tour guides, the potters and people who are running small businesses. The employment generated from the monetisation will contribute to the already existing inequality in procuring job opportunities. This will have an impact on the large amount of people who are unskilled laborers but have other ways of economic viabilities. The destruction brought to ground at present will take decades to generate the moderate employment that it promises to generate but the present economic status will be disturbed for decades. The recovery of which will make generations suffer and push towards poor socio-economic conditions. So, this new planning could make such a huge area of land, most of which still has its wilderness and aesthetic value, at a detrimental position to lose scope of tourism. 

How will the DHR still be worth to plan a visit after losing its UNESCO acknowledgement? The main criterion of DHR being acknowledged as UNESCO site are, its uniqueness of ingenious engineering technicalities, integrity and authenticity despite the repairing that is done from time to time.  The monetisation plan could have an impact of these criterions in later days to come in the name of renovation and impoverishing the DHR. Also to mention, the Bagrati Cathedral in Georgia lost half of its heritage site when major renovations were made which destroyed the authenticity and historical worth of the holy site. To mention another example, the Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany which was destroyed during the World War II was restored even before receiving the UNESCO status. In the year 2007 the construction of Waldschlösschen Bridge began even though funds were offered to build a tunnel. This was supported by the residents too. The Dresden City Council went ahead with the plan to build the bridge losing its UNESCO criterion in 2009. The project was completed in 2012. The place has lost the value that it provided for tourism. 

UNESCO has strongly placed that “no development can be sustainable without a strong culture component”; the monetisation of the DHR could be a very risky plan and fails to reflect a human-centered approach to development. Such projects can be a break point of inclusiveness producing inequitable results. With time the components of sustainable development and sustainable development culture has been missing from the development equation. At this critical point, the local stakeholders, heritage lovers and activists, the international community of DHR enthusiasts must set a stronger foot to safeguard the heritage and questions about the clear legal framework of policies to be implemented under the scheme must be raised. Not to the mention the disturbing question, is development enough to stake the DHR as UNESCO heritage? At what cost are the consequences of privatization in the name of monetisation and development worth the distressful displacement that it has time and again caused?  How much of the local population would thrive under such a model of privatization? The unanswered questions are for the readers to analyse before the time tip toes and the victims being helpless viewers of the game. 

In this new era of globalization and privatization, it seems that many countries today have an increasingly aware public demanding for preservation of their heritage. This awareness has practically emphasized that development without preservation and protection of the people's history and material heritage is not a sustainable development at any cost. These constitute the basic essentials for economic and political development. Therefore before looking for alternative tools to boost development for economic growth, the government should rather focus on protecting DHR as the World Heritage of UNESCO and not dismantle the whole economic structure based on tourism in Darjeeling based on the heritage site. So, the governmental bodies must look for ways to legally protect and preserve the heritage rather than ignoring a demand for preservation. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Web sources 

·      https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/944/

·      https://en.unesco.org/themes/protecting-our-heritage-and-fostering-creativity

·      https://matadornetwork.com/read/three-sites-lost-unesco-world-heritage-site-status/

·      https://www.euronews.com/travel/2021/07/26/liverpool-loses-its-unesco-world-heritage-status-but-does-anyone-care

·      https://www.arabianbusiness.com/travel-hospitality/386244-oman-eyes-boost-in-ecotourism-with-new-oryx-sanctuary

 

Other sources

·      National Monetisation Pipeline, Volume II: Asset Pipeline, NITI  Aayog, Government of      India, New Delhi. 

·      National Monetisation Pipeline, Volume I, Monetization Guidelines, NITI Aayog, Government of India, New Delhi. 

·      Casey, Edward, S., 1996, How to Get from Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time:Phenomenological Prolegomena. In Steven Feld and Keith Basso (eds.) Senses of Place, pp. 13-52. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, School of American Research Press, and Santa Fe: New Mexico.

·      Lozny, R. Ludomir (Editor)., 2006, Landscapes under Pressure Theory and Practice in Cultural Heritage Research and Preservation, Springer publication, New York.

·      McLoughlin,C., Kinoshita.Noriaki, 2012, Monetization in Low- and Middle Income Countries, International Monetary Fund.