A meeting of cultures

Ever since the historic world conference on culture, Mondiacult 2022, proclaimed culture a global public benefit it has vastly influenced international collaboration and policy. India’s G20 presidency has vividly reflected the essence of this global paradigm change through a year-long programme inspired by the slogan, Culture for Life.

This included promoting “an environmentally conscious lifestyle by utilising the potential of living heritage and cultural practises, positioning culture at the forefront of development and diplomatic dialogue, acknowledging its growing contribution to global GDP, and celebrating cultural diversity to revive multilateral cooperation,” said Govind Mohan, secretary, India’s Ministry of Culture, in a media briefing.

The Culture Working Group (CWG) formed to develop this theme set the ball rolling via four sessions held across four iconic Indian cities — Khajuraho, Hampi, Bhubneshwar and Varanasi — to guide the G20 conversation on four critical topics — the protection and restitution of cultural property; harnessing living heritage for a sustainable future; the promotion of cultural and creative industries and creative economy; and, leveraging technology for the promotion and preservation of culture.

While India’s G20 presidency seeks to promote creative economy across the Global South, does the creative community in India see this as a vindication of their long-standing demands? What are their expectations and apprehensions, if any?

Creative community vindicated

“The slogan, Culture for Life indeed represents a significant vindication of the creative community in India,” says Murali Cheeroth, visual artist, educationist, and Chairman, Kerala Lalitkala Akademi. “The vision of promoting and protecting intellectual property rights for artists and creators is a crucial step towards recognising the value and contribution of the creative economy. By ensuring the safeguarding of intellectual property rights, it can encourage innovation and foster a thriving creative industry that can contribute substantially to the nation’s economic growth.”

Cheeroth opines that the creative economy is poised to play a pivotal role in the coming times, as the knowledge industry remains dynamic and highly relevant. As part of this industry, the creative sector becomes integral to shaping the cultural landscape. Institutions, both public and private, need to adapt and align their activities with this emerging trend to harness its full potential.

So, what is the grey area that is collectively called ‘culture’ and why has it taken so long for the powers-that-be to recognize its potential? Co-founder of the prestigious Kochi Muziris Biennale and president of the Kochi Biennale Foundation Bose Krishnamachari gets to the root of the problem when he points out that culture is developed by people.

“Apart from the site, location, historicity, architecture, [and the art and craft] of the region, the people involved too play an important role when it comes to culture building. But [as far as the creative economy is concerned], so far, we have not had any kind of [serious] investment in the sector. Even in our GDP, to my knowledge, only 0.2 per cent is dedicated to art and culture. You look at countries like France or the UK or any other, to see [what kind of investment they make in the creative economy],” says Krishnamachari.

“Culture and the cultural economy are key points. Cultural economy is vitally connected to tourism. So, tourism plays an important role. [That is why I feel] this G20 Summit is an important moment for the nation.”

Global opportunity

The creative community also perceives the G20 Summit’s focus on culture as a positive step towards showcasing their work globally. “One of the expected outcomes of prioritizing the creative economy is the creation of a conducive environment for creative entrepreneurship. Artists and creators will be encouraged to explore their talents and ideas more when their intellectual property is protected. This, in turn, leads to increased investment and growth in the sector,” says Cheeroth.

Furthermore, the promotion of the creative economy opens doors for international collaboration and partnerships. “Such cross-border exchanges of ideas and talents can enrich the creative workforce and enhance India’s global presence in the creative industry. The impact of this growth will likely be seen across various fields, from education to creative infrastructure, making it a truly transformative force,” he adds.

However, to ensure the success and sustainability of India’s creative economy, Cheeroth feels certain apprehensions need to be addressed. “It is essential to establish inclusivity within the sector, allowing all stakeholders, including artists, creators, and cultural practitioners, to have representation and a voice. The creative industry should not be monopolized by a select few, and measures should be in place to promote fair opportunities for everyone involved.”

How to go about it

So, how can India capitalise on its huge potential for cultural economy? Krishnamachari has very definite views on this. “I would say we need to find economists who also understand the cultural world. Take for instance what is known as the Bilbao Guggenheim Effect. It is the cultural phenomenon that the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, has turned out to be. Bilbao is dissected by a river that separates the old and new parts of the city. The city authorities decided to commission Guggenheim to construct a museum connecting the city’s past and the present, the old and the new.

It cost less than 800 million euros, which the city recovered in merely six years. It is a rare example of a large-scale project, delivered on time and under budget, which more than met its objectives, transforming not only Bilbao but also the surrounding Basque region. So, we need to study how we can apply new thinking to transform our creative economy via cultural tourism, among other aspects. Even now, I believe 80 per cent of foreign visitors to India are cultural tourists.”

Culture for all

Eminent art historian, art critic and curator, R. Sivakumar strongly feels that it is not only the creative economy that has to be opened up, but also the accessibility to culture.

“If we are really interested in our cultural heritage, we should make a complete inventory, digitise all our holdings, and make them accessible to scholars and specialists, so that they are studied and expounded. None of our museums do that, and even if they have records, it is not made readily available to scholars and students. What little there is online is primarily due to the Google art and culture project rather than projects initiated by our institutions. And what is available there is a minuscule part of our museum holdings,” he says.

“Compared to this, many European and American museum collections are readily available to scholars and students. This has to change if we want our legacy to be a part of our living culture. It is easier for an Indian student to see the Metropolitan Museum’s Indian holdings than the holdings of the National Museum in Delhi or the Indian Museum in Kolkata. In India, access is limited to a privileged few; the holdings are treated as the personal property of the curators or directors. That is detrimental to the study of our heritage,” he adds.

Protection of cultural property

Mohan pointed out that armed conflict, theft, and illegal antiquities trade undermine collective memory and deny communities the ability to access and share their heritage. He added that illegal trafficking of antiquities had increased in recent times due to the globalisation of markets and unregulated online trade aided by easier cash flow. While 229 artefacts had been returned to India in the previous eight years from various nations (including the Parrot Lady from Khajuraho dating back to the 10th century), many more were still missing.

“The CWG has initiated an open and inclusive dialogue for strengthening existing mechanisms and frameworks to address the issue through the ethical lens of transitional justice and the moral obligation to correct a historical wrong,” he added.

Sivakumar feels that the recent focus has been primarily on the restitution of cultural property. “That is important, but more is needed. In the first place, cultural artefacts are stolen and taken out of the country because there are no effective systems for the prevention and speedy detection of such thefts, or what systems there are, are not working effectively. We need to build institutions that will prevent such thefts and illegal sales abroad as much as negotiate with foreign states to return stolen cultural properties that have entered their countries,” he says.

Cheeroth adds a caveat: “The growth of the creative economy should not come at the expense of cultural heritage and traditions. It is vital to strike a balance between commercial interests and preserving the unique cultural identity that India has nurtured over the years. Any development in the creative sector should be respectful of the nation’s rich cultural heritage, protecting it from undue exploitation.”

He adds that while fostering the creative industry, it is essential to be vigilant against any violations of intellectual property rights. “Transforming creativity into an industry should not lead to the misuse or appropriation of artistic expressions without proper acknowledgment and compensation for the original creators.”

Sivakumar adds a note of caution to the authorities concerned. “Culture is a broad concept that covers the country’s cultural heritage, living cultures, and practices. It also has a broad spectrum running from classical or high culture to the folk and the popular. And culture is shaped by both state policies and the work of individuals or social sub-groups. That has been the case all through human history. There have always been state interventions in the form of patronage and promotion, but the state did not control everything. Individual and social initiatives contributed to shaping cultures as much as centralised patronage.

"To achieve this in today’s world, the government should be an enabler and capacity builder rather than a regulator or arbiter. Once the institutions are built, they should be left to creative workers,” he concludes.