Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:16:24.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heritage Listing as a Tool for Advocacy: The Possibilities for Dissent, Contestation, and Emancipation in International Law Through International Cultural Heritage Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2015

Lucas LIXINSKI
Lucas LIXINSKI*
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Australial.lixinski@unsw.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the possible uses of heritage listing under UNESCO for the promotion of broader political and social agendas by minority groups. The paper uses as a case-study the “Buddhist Chanting of Ladakh: recitation of sacred Buddhist texts in the trans-Himalayan Ladakh region, Jammu and Kashmir, India”. This heritage showcases issues of Tibetan autonomy (both within India and more broadly), relationships between Tibetan and Muslim cultures, and regional autonomy and accommodation of cultural minorities in the Indian state. There are many uses of listing Ladakhi heritage, ranging from listing as a means for autonomy of the Ladakhi, to listing as an instrument of domination, or even geographical control. I argue that heritage listing is not as “apolitical” as normally thought of, and it can be used as a mechanism to both benefit or harm minority groups and the advocacy of their claims within or against the territorial state.

Type
Articles
Information
Asian Journal of International Law , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 387 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Asian Journal of International Law 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

PhD in Law (European University Institute); Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, UNSW Australia. I am very grateful to Mr Guy Baldwin for his research assistance, and to the input from the audience and panel colleagues at the Asian Society of International Law Conference in New Delhi (November 2013), where I presented an early version of this paper. I am also thankful to Surabhi Ranganathan, Ben Saul, and Daniel Joyce for their comments on a subsequent draft, and to the anonymous reviewers. All errors remain my own.

References

1. See generally LIXINSKI, Lucas, “Luci e Ombre: The Bright and Dark Sides of International Heritage Law” (2012) 22 Italian Yearbook of International Law 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, 17 October 2003, UN DOC MISC/2003/CLT/CH/14 (entered into force 20 April 2006). Number of States Parties as of December 2014: 161.

3. PIRIE, Fernanda, Peace and Conflict in Ladakh: The Construction of a Fragile Web of Order (Leiden: Brill, 2007) at 9Google Scholar.

4. RIZVI, Janet, Ladakh: Crossroads of High Asia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) at 4Google Scholar.

5. Ibid., at 38–9.

6. Ibid., at 45–9.

7. Ibid., at 60–1.

8. Ibid., at 65–6.

9. On the history of partition from the perspective of the Muslim-Hindu divide, see THORNER, Alice, “The Kashmir Conflict” (1949) 3 Middle East Journal 17Google Scholar, and BOSE, Tapanet al., “India's ‘Kashmir War’” (1990) 25 Economic and Political Weekly 650Google Scholar.

10. On self-determination and nationalism in Bhutan, see SAUL, Ben, “Cultural Nationalism, Self-Determination and Human Rights in Bhutan” (2000) 12 International Journal of Refugee Law 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. Rizvi, , supra note 4 at 69Google Scholar.

12. Ibid., at 70.

13. BIRDWOOD, Lord, Two Nations and Kashmir (London: Robert Hale Limited, 1956) at 131Google Scholar.

14. Rizvi, , supra note 4 at 70Google Scholar.

15. Ibid., at 71.

16. KORBEL, Josef, Danger in Kashmir (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) at 228Google Scholar. It stands in contrast with militancy in Jammu. See PURI, Luv, “Tackling Militancy in Jammu” (2003) 38 Economic and Political Weekly 3243Google Scholar.

17. Korbel, , supra note 16 at 229Google Scholar.

18. Ibid., at 230.

19. BEHERA, Navnita Chadha, Demystifying Kashmir (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006) at 112Google Scholar.

20. Ibid., at 113.

21. Ibid., at 114.

22. Ibid.

23. For an account of the evolution of this conflict since partition, see HUSSAIN, Syed Rifaat, “Resolving the Kashmir Dispute: Blending Realism with Justice” (2009) 48 The Pakistan Development Review 1007Google Scholar.

24. Behera, , supra note 19 at 104Google Scholar.

25. Ibid., at 105.

26. BEHERA, Navnita Chadha, State, Identity and Violence: Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (New Delhi: Manohar, 2000) at 215–216Google Scholar.

27. Behera, , supra note 19 at 111Google Scholar.

28. Ibid., at 115–22.

29. Ibid., at 115.

30. Ibid., at 117.

31. Ibid., at 118.

32. Ibid.

33. LAHDCK—Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Kargil, online: <http://kargil.gov.in/lahdck/lahdck.htm>.

34. Behera, , supra note 19 at 118–119Google Scholar.

35. Ibid., at 119.

36. See LAHDCL—Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Leh, online: <http://leh.nic.in/>; and LAHDCK—Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Kargil, online: <http://kargil.gov.in/lahdck/lahdck.htm>. It is interesting to note as well that the Leh Hill Council website also appears on the Internet in a directory called “TibetSites.com”, whereas the Kargil Hill Council website does not.

37. Behera, , supra note 19 at 120Google Scholar.

38. Ibid., at 121.

39. Rizvi, , supra note 4 at 159Google Scholar.

40. UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, opened for signatures on 23 November 1972, UN Doc. WHC-95/CONF.203/16/Jan31/96 (17 December 1975). Number of States Parties as of December 2014: 191.

41. See generally LIXINSKI, Lucas, Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42. SCAFIDI, Susan, Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005) at 28–31Google Scholar.

43. UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, Tango, online: <http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00011&RL=00258>.

44. 224 elements since the first round of inscriptions on the list, and 90 elements inherited from the programme of Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, a precursor to the 2003 Convention. This incorporation happened by virtue of art. 31 of the Convention. For more details, see Lixinski, supra note 41.

45. LIXINSKI, Lucas, “Selecting Heritage: The Interplay of Art, Politics and Identity” (2011) 22 European Journal of International Law 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46. Supra note 2, art. 18.

47. For more, see Lixinski, , supra note 45Google Scholar.

48. For more on commodification, see Lixinski, , supra note 41 at 14–18Google Scholar.

49. Lixinski, , supra note 45Google Scholar.

50. Supra note 2, art. 2.2. For a discussion on the limitation of the inscription of languages, see Lixinski, , supra note 41 at 162–163Google Scholar.

51. Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Nomination File No. 00839 for Inscription on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2012, at 2.

52. General Assembly, Operational Directives, Rule 19.

53. General Assembly, Operational Directives, Rule 21. See generally Lixinski, , supra note 41Google Scholar.

54. Supra note 51 at 3.

55. Ibid.

56. On Buddhist chanting, see TSUKAMOTO, Atsuko, “The Music of Tibetan Buddhism in Ladakh: The Musical Structure of Tibetan Buddhist Chant in the Ritual Bskan-gso of the Dge-Lugs-pa Sect” (1983) 15 Yearbook for Traditional Music 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar; GREENE, Paul D.et al., “Buddhism and the Musical Cultures of Asia: A Critical Literature Survey” (2002) 44 The World of Music 135Google Scholar; and HELFFER, Mireille, “Regard sur les forms dans la musique rituelle du bouddhisme tibétain” (1994) 17 Cahiers de musiques traditionnelles 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57. Supra note 51 at 5.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Supra note 51 at 6.

61. Ibid., at 6–7.

62. Ibid., at 8.

63. “Safeguarding the Intangible Cultural Heritage and Diverse Cultural Traditions of India”, online: <http://sangeetnatak.gov.in/sna/scheme-safeguargingICH-new.htm>.

64. Supra note 51, annex.

65. Supra note 51 at 9.

66. Supra note 2, art. 12. For a commentary, see BLAKE, Janet, Commentary on the UNESCO 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (London: Institute of Art and Law 2006)Google Scholar.

67. The Jammu and Kashmir Heritage Conservation and Preservation Act, No. 15, 2010. Long Title.

68. The Jammu and Kashmir Heritage Conservation and Preservation Regulations, 2012, s. 4.

69. Which was famously used in Australia for the Commonwealth to override states in the protection of World Heritage Sites. See BOER, Ben, “Article 34: The Federal Clause” in Francesco FRANCIONI and Federico LENZERINI, eds., The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)Google Scholar, 355.

70. Constitution of India, 1950, ss. 29–30.

71. Louise TILLIN, “United in Diversity? Asymmetry in Indian Federalism” (2007) 37 Publius 45 at 47.

72. ALI, Amir, “Case for Multiculturalism in India” (2000) 35 Economic and Political Weekly 2503Google Scholar. For a more optimistic view, see BHATTACHARYYA, Harihar, “Multiculturalism in Contemporary India” (2003) 5 International Journal of Multicultural Societies 148 at 153Google Scholar.

73. For a full list, in alphabetical order, see Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Alphabetical List of Scheduled Tribes, online: <http://tribal.nic.in/WriteReadData/CMS/Documents/201212010250456513671File939.pdf>.

74. The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, No. 52, 1972; and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Rules, 1973.

75. Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Decisions Adopted in the Seventh Session, Paris, 3–7 December 2012. ITH/12/7.COM/Decisions, Decision 7.COM 11.16.

76. ENGLE, Karen, The Elusive Promise of Indigenous Development: Rights, Culture, Strategy (Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press, 2010) at 142CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77. Lixinski, , supra note 41 at 10–14Google Scholar.

78. Engle, , supra note 76 at 143Google Scholar.

79. NOTAR, Beth E., “Producing Cosmopolitanism at the Borderlands: Lonely Planeteers and ‘Local’ Cosmopolitans in Southwest China” (2008) 81 Anthropological Quarterly 615CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80. See generally ATTAR, Mohsen AL and THOMPSON, Rebekah, “How the Multi-Level Democratization of International Law-Making Can Effect Popular Aspirations Towards Self-Determination” (2011) 3 Trade, Law and Development 65Google Scholar.

81. UNESCO Office in Bangkok, 2007 Award of Excellence, Maitreya Temple—Project Description, online: <http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/wh/asia-pacific-heritage-awards/heritage-e-voices/maitreya/>.

82. World Monuments Fund, Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art & Culture Awarded Global Vision Award, online: <http://www.wmf.org/field/namgyal-institute-research-ladakhi-art-culture-awarded-global-vision-award>.

83. See supra note 80.

84. Ibid.

85. See supra note 81.

86. Behera, , supra note 19 at 111Google Scholar.

87. KREUTZMANN, Hermann, “Kashmir and the Northern Areas of Pakistan: Boundary-Making Along Contested Frontiers” (2008) 62 Erdkunde—Archive for Scientific Geography 201 at 209Google Scholar.

88. PURI, Balraj, “Major Identities of Jammu and Kashmir State” (2001) 28 India International Centre Quarterly 69 at 76Google Scholar.

89. AGGARWAL, Ravina, Beyond Lines of Control: Performance and Politics on the Disputed Borders of Ladakh, India (Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press, 2004) at 24–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. Rizvi, , supra note 4 at 5Google Scholar.

91. On more instances of common heritage across the different groups in Jammu and Kashmir, see Puri, , supra note 88Google Scholar.

92. Behera, , supra note 19 at 115Google Scholar.

93. Ibid., at 225.

94. UNESCO Constitution, 4 UNTS 275; 41 AJIL Supp. 1. Preamble: “That ignorance of each other's ways and lives has been a common cause, throughout the history of mankind, of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world through which their differences have all too often broken into war.”

95. Saul, , supra note 10 at 323Google Scholar.

96. Ibid., at 330–5.

97. For a critique of this idea, see Lucas LIXINSKI, “A Tale of Two Heritages: Claims of Ownership over Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Myth of ‘Authenticity’” (2014) 11 Transnational Dispute Management.

98. POVINELLI, Elizabeth A., The Cunning of Recognition: Indigenous Alterities and the Making of Australian Multiculturalism (Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press, 2002) at 176CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

99. Engle, , supra note 76 at 149Google Scholar.

100. For more detailed commentary, see SINDING-LARSEN, Amund, “Lhasa Community, World Heritage and Human Rights” (2012) 18 International Journal of Heritage Studies 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

101. KANNAN, Ramya, “India Files 20 Nominations to UNESCO” The Hindu (9 September 2009)Google Scholar, online: The Hindu <http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/india-files-20-nominations-to-unesco/article179365.ece>. See also BHELA, Anita, “Preserving India's Intangible Cultural Heritage: Issues and Challenges” (2010) 8 The International Journal of the Humanities 207Google Scholar.

102. NAVLAKHA, Gautam, “Jammu and Kashmir: Autonomy via Control” (2005) 40 Economic and Political Weekly 349Google Scholar.

103. TREMBLAY, Reeta Chowdhari, “Kashmir's Secessionist Movement Resurfaces: Ethnic Identity, Community Competition, and the State” (2009) 49 Asian Survey 924 at 933–934Google Scholar.

104. PURI, Balraj, “Jammu and Kashmir: The Issue of Regional Autonomy” (2008) 43 Economic and Political Weekly 8Google Scholar.

105. Tremblay, , supra note 103Google Scholar. On the background to some of these movements, see CHOWDHARY, Rekha and RAO, V. Nagendra, “Jammu and Kashmir: Electoral Politics in a Separatist Context” (2004) 39 Economic and Political Weekly 5449Google Scholar.

106. NAVLAKHA, Gautam, “Jammu and Kashmir: Winning a Battle Only to Lose the War?” (2008) 43 Economic and Political Weekly 43Google Scholar.

107. PURI, Ellora, “Understanding the Paradoxical Outcome in Jammu and Kashmir” (2009) 44 Economic and Political Weekly 31Google Scholar.

108. GANGULI, Sumit, “Will Kashmir Stop India's Rise?” (2006) 85 Foreign Affairs 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109. PAGE, Jeremy, “China Territorial Strife Hits Archaeology” The Wall Street Journal (2 December 2013)Google Scholar, online: The Wall Street Journal <http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304470504579164873258159410?mod=WSJAsia_hpp_LEFTTopStories&_ga=1.218813786.2117557883.1396231939>.

110. GUILFORD, Gwynn, “Shipwrecks Are China's Latest Approach to Claiming Contested Territory” Quartz (2 December 2013)Google Scholar, online: Quartz <http://qz.com/152716/shipwrecks-are-chinas-latest-approach-to-claiming-disputed-territory/>.

111. Al Attar and Thompson, supra note 80 at 102.

112. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 14 November 1970, 823 UNTS 231 (entered into force 24 April 1972). Number of States Parties as of December 2014: 127.

113. For an exploration of examples, see generally CHECHI, Alessandro, The Settlement of International Cultural Heritage Disputes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.