Failing Preservation models in preserving community owned property

The Ayuguthi Sattal, an 18th century two-story pilgrims’ rest house (Newari: sattah) defining the northern perimeter of Patan Darbar Square, has been the focus of Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust’s efforts in collaboration with His Majesty’s Government’s Department of Archaeology since 1991.

This pilgrim’s rest house stands near the Trust’s[1] headquarters in Patan Darbar Square in near ruins. It was under negligent private ownership till the Nepal Supreme Court took a groundbreaking decision to nationalize it in 1996, a decision upheld by the Nepalese Supreme Court in 1998. The successful outcome of this legal battle, the first time the government has taken a building by eminent domain based on its cultural and historic value, is a landmark victory for architectural preservation. Sadly however, much of the historic building was lost to monsoon rains and the inability to carry out protective measures during the prolonged legal battle.

The reconstruction is the first international conservation project to rely totally on the historic building methods, materials, and crafts of Nepal. No modern materials will be introduced and the rebuilding will be a showcase of historic techniques, providing local craftsmen with the opportunity to refine and reproduce historic building skills, a key project component.
The case of the Ayuguthi Sattal, an important precedent for the region, sends a message to the public that the Government of Nepal will act to protect architectural heritage.[2]

What is a sattal?
A sattal is a community building which the general public could use for various cultural and religious functions. These structures were also used to house travelers and pilgrims during various ceremonies. The sattals were built by the devotees in order gain both social status and merit. With the passage of time the custom of constructing sattals, despite the socio-cultural and religious ethos remaining strong among the people, gradually began to taper off. Nevertheless, the sattals, built as they were from the best materials of those times, remained among the people's mind, all the while reminding them of their rich cultural and religious heritage.

The paper explores the role that preservationists have on traditional community property in the absence of law favoring community rights to property.

The Traditional Local can be defined within various parameters that include factors such as identity, interest, geographic boundaries, ownership and association. The extent to which a property has influence varies with the geographic distance molding the lives of people in the immediate vicinity. This influence gets reduced, as the distance gets larger. Cultural heritage has an ability to give identity to its owners. Clifford Geertz, a prominent anthropologist, suggests that human beings are compelled to impose on their experiences because without these meanings to help them comprehend experience and impose an order in the universe, the world would seem a jumble,

“….. a chaos of pointless acts and exploding emotions.” Human beings are “incomplete or unfinished animals who complete themselves through culture- not culture in general, but specific forms of it: Balinese, Italian, Ilongot, Chinese, and so on.”

Another anthropologist, Geoffrey Lewis takes this concept of culture and identity further and relates its to cultural property which he defines as representing:
“.,.in tangible form some of the evidence of man’s origins and development, his traditions and scientific achievements and generally the milieu of which he is part. The fact that this material has the ability to communicate, either directly or by association, an aspect of reality, which transcends time or space, gives it special significance and is therefore something to be sought after and protected.” [3]

As the scale of preservation intervention increases, the level of interaction between an individual and the heritage that is being preserved decreases. The personal interaction, which individuals have with heritage, becomes open to scrutiny and subject to various external values, significance, interpretation and legislation. Conflicts arise when a larger group recognizes the personal heritage or heritages of small groups as being significant and imposes their values on these groups. The determination of the values in preservation is dependent on the goals of the dominant group and is reflected in the manner by which the criteria for authenticity are determined.

Heritage is defined in various ways and put into various categories such as national, global etc.
In speaking of a “national” culture, one assumes that all persons belonging to that nation share a single cultural identity. Preservation adopts this conservative ideology of cultural harmony, which is reflected in many of the heritage laws and policies.[4] The role in preservation of the locals has been limited by the universal values embodied in the Venice Charter. This Charter as well as the international preservation related bodies focus on monumental architecture and heritage. In areas, where heritage of universal value is found, the locals lose a portion of their control over their local heritage as the preservation and the monitoring of such heritage passes into the hands of the “international” community governed by principles of universal values and preservation. Groups of people away from the local world make decisions regarding the cultural heritage while the burden of its maintenance and upkeep is left to the local groups who may not necessarily share in that opinion. Heritage when recognized by a larger audience takes away from the participating power of the locals in the determination of the values of the heritage in question, authenticity and the participation of the locals in both material preservation of the heritage and the extent to which it should be preserved.

An intimate relationship is shared between people and their heritage, which transcends the “art” and “aesthetic” value. This may not necessarily be the case with culturally “poor” countries where the acquired heritage of the other has a greater “art” value. Legislations and enforceable regulations are only applicable to movable cultural property while immovable cultural properties and any interventions to them have no enforceable internationally legislations[5]. Immovable cultural property falls within the jurisdiction of the national governments and is governed by national legislations; which play a role in the preservation of immovable cultural heritage. Some of the laws are the national property laws, national heritage laws and national preservation acts. Legislations at the national level may or may not reflect the values embodied by the heritage and in some cases conflict with the local heritage.

Preservation of cultural heritage, which started as a concentrated effort has expanded to incorporate a realm beyond the local with the formulation of the various charters, UNESCO and the recognition of cultural heritage of universal human value. As a result of this international movement a diverse group of professionals is involved in heritage, which spans beyond the technical field of conservation specialists[6]- each with their own set of values and criteria for defining the authenticity. The local is frequently lost in this myriad of heritage professionals[7], conservationists, international charters and other professionals. Determining what is local and what the role of the local is in this set up is sometimes a big challenge in the preservation activities. The question of the legitimate owners of the cultural heritage or the stakeholders and the shares they hold in the culture then come into play. In some cases, this may be clearly defined as in the case of the indigenous people where inheritance and strong ancestral association is present that may not be the case for others.

Cultural heritage of universal significance occur primarily in the local context except in cases where the local people and the heritage or the context is separated from each other. The recognition of the local significance occurs early in the international movement of preservation – in the Venice Charter where the settings of the heritage- building or groups of buildings are recognized as being a part of a setting. The various charters after the Venice engage the local “people” with greater intensities.

Background to the traditional set up in Nepal:

Much of the art and architecture of Nepal are concentrated in the Kathmandu Valley, which was the seat of both political, religious, and the art center of the country. The country of Nepal can be divided into three parts geographically:
a. Highlands-Along the Himalayan regions.
b. Midlands- In the Valleys and the Kathmandu region.
c. Lowlands-In the plains towards India.
Each of the regions is inhabited by peoples of different cultures with a greater concentration of one of two prominent cultures. In the Kathmandu region, one finds a greater concentration of the Newars. The other groups who make up the populace compose of the Brahmins, Chettris and the Ranas etc., with each group having its position in society and traditional tasks and roles to perform. The artisans and craftsmen- the Newaris were traditionally were highly respected and their works held in esteem – a tradition that continues to this day. The society of Kathmandu was and is still made up of various class and caste groups- such as the Newars, Ranas, Brahmins, Chettris etc.,
The Newars:
The origin of the term Newar is not yet fully established. According to D.R.Regmi “... Newar is a comparatively new term. It came to be used for the inhabitants of the valley about the 17th century. Today, the term Newar is used to designate those who have Newari as their mother tongue or are the offspring of such persons, e.g., descendants of Newari migrants who have forgotten the Newari language but, nevertheless, are identified as Newars in relation to other ethnic groups.”[8] The definition of who constitutes the Newaris has changed today. The Newars themselves sometimes say that those who observe Mhapuja[9] are Newars and that those who do not are not Newars.
The concern towards the preservation of ancient monuments was a result of the huge destruction brought about by an earthquake in 1934, which brought about the greatest disaster upon the ancient cities of Kathmandu[10]. It was not until the 1970s that with the aid of UNESCO a master plan for the ancient city of Kathmandu was developed.

The Department of Archaeology.

The Department of Archaeology[11] (DOA) was set up in 1951 and simultaneously the Ancient Monuments was adopted in 1956, which had its fifth amendment in 1996. Nepal ratified the Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage adopted by Unesco in 1972 as a result of which the government of Nepal requested UNESCO to assist the Department of Archaeology in the preparation of the nomination of the Kathmandu Valley as a world heritage site with seven monument zones[12]. Some of the responsibilities, which are entrusted to the DOA include:
· The classification of ancient monuments
· Preservation of ancient monuments and archaeological areas throughout the nation.
· To make building byelaws and guidelines for heritage zones and buildings.
· To oversee and issue permits or stay order for unauthorized structures, installations of telephone lines etc.
· To prepare inventories of monuments and to administer all existing museums etc.
· To take charge of building control and documentation of both monuments and domestic buildings in the monument zones.
The Guthi Sansthan.

Apart from the DOA, the other agency, which is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the historical monuments and fabric of the national heritage, is the Guthi Sansthan. The Guthi Sansthan claims ownership of most of the monuments and religious buildings and is the sole authority to collect revenues from such holdings.
The term “Guthi” derived from the Sanskrit term “Gosthi” meaning a meeting of cow herders, came to mean a gathering of people for a particular objective. The Guthi was created with a view to accomplishing a work not by an individual but by a group of persons collectively that shared a common view. [13] Nepalese Historians view the “guthi” as an organized institution to enhance the standards of living of the people, which were inspired by the religious spirit. Various kinds of guthis were later formed to fulfill the various needs of Nepalese society.

The Guthi was created for doing community based works, the fruits of which is shared by all the members, a selfless effort. It was the duty of the members to maintain the assets of the guthi. The guthi was formed with the concept that collective effort by the members made all activities successful and the guthi stood fro the welfare of the members.
Some of the principles of the Guthi are:
1. It is established in a particular locality or place.
2. the leadership is transferred or handed down in a hierarchial order.
3. the works to be done by the guthi is handed to its members in turn.
4. most of the members are the male representatives of the household.
5. each guthi believes in a god which unites the guthi and offerings are made to that god during various festivals.

Newaris are born into a Guthi and die in the course of the Guthi activities, thus the Guthi occupies a very important role in their lives. It is believed that “ those who neglect the vihara [14]and manipulate the account of the Guthi are subject to Panchamahapapa (five kinds of great sin) while those who do otherwise are blessed with happiness, wealth and family throughout their lives and a place in the Sukhavati Bhavan (heavenly abode) after their death. [15]
During the Rana rule, the rulers for constructing palaces used much of the Guthi lands. In 1951, with the introduction of democracy to the country, the government to build schools, office buildings without just compensation, misappropriated the Guthi lands. The guthi members viewed the introduction of the Land Act in 1964 by the government with suspicion; the guthi lands were not registered in the name of the Guthi Sansthan. The guthi lands were registered instead as private lands as a result of which disputes and mismanagement have occurred. The decline of the income of the guthis today has the added problem of inflation, which makes the functioning of the guthi more difficult. Democracy introduced into the traditional setup and the opening of various avenues for other cultural expression, the present state of the guthi is declining.

The deterioration of the Guthis has had adverse effects on the conditions of the historical and cultural fabric of Kathmandu. Historical structures which were a result of community effort and were maintained by the community by means of the guthi today find themselves neglected because the guthi does not have the traditional resources[16] that it once used for carrying out these works. The income from the guthi lands are gradually dwindling owing land acquisitions by the government on some pretext or the other.

“Most of the temples and other religious monuments or buildings in Nepal are guthis and enjoy a special protection under the legal code – They cannot be sold or gifted by persons who endowed them or their heirs, or seized by their creditors. The Law provides that the functions prescribed in the deed of endowment shall not be discontinued: maintenance of the buildings shall be ensured and the necessary repairs undertaken with the income derived from the property, which has been endowed. “[17]

The Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust.

The KVPT was started in 1990 as a result of the call of UNESCO for the preservation of the numerous monuments, which were endangered. The objective was to identify and save these monuments by publicizing and fundraising for preservation works to be implemented in conjunction with the Department of Archaeology. The Trust recognized that despite numerous local and bilateral conservation preservation projects in the Kathmandu Valley, the work being done was not enough. The volume of monuments at risk went beyond the extent of manpower and the limited funding that was available.[18] The problem was further exacerbated when resources identified in the World Heritage sites in the valley were being identified as being at risk. The trust as a private non-profit organization based in the United States and has since its inception been instrumental in numerous projects that combine international, local, public, and private funding.

Background to Ayuguthi Sattal:

Originally the "Ayu Guthi Sattal" belonged to one of the guthis of the "Shrestha" (one of the higher caste Newars) community (Ayu Guthi). They used to conduct certain rituals in the Sattal on certain occasions like Bhai Tika, etc. This community had appointed certain families of a "Jogi" community,(a lower caste Newar), as caretakers of the Sattal. Apart from tailoring, the traditional occupation of the "Jogi" community in the Newar caste hierarchy was to play traditional musical instruments during festivals and other rituals which were conducted by the higher caste Newars. The 'Jogi' family residing in the 'Ayu Guthi Sattal' also used to play the instruments for the Shrestha community whenever they had some rituals in the Sattal and on other days they were simply caretakers.

Later, the guthi members (the Shrestha community) discontinued their rituals resulting in a loss of use of the Sattal. The 2 "Jogi" families residing in the Sattal as caretakers claimed the 'sattal' as their private property following the Land Act of 1964. Some members of the "Shrestha" community went to court against the claim. But as the remaining members did not show enough interest, the remaining members also gave up the case. Hence, the "Sattal" became the property of 2 'Jogi' families residing there. These families used to live in the first floor whereas they had rented a portion of the ground floor to some shops. The sattal gradually started deteriorating due to the lack of proper maintenance. The "jogi" families did not have enough financial resources to pay for the maintenance. Since the 'Sattal' is in the middle of the historic monument zone of Patan, the dilapidated 'sattal' was becoming an eyesore.

Realising this the two major stakeholders, the municipality and the Department of Archaeology (DOA) decided to renovate the sattal. Initially the idea was to renovate the sattal and leave it as the property of the residing 'jogi' families. Hence, the government even sought nominal contribution from the families for the restoration.

Later, the Mayor of Patan, the representatives of DOA and KVPT came up with the idea of acquiring the 'sattal' by compensating the residing families. The initial compensation was fixed at NRS 200,000 which later on was increased to NRS 400,000.The occupant families were not very happy with the decision, so, they went to court against the decision of the government. The court gave the verdict in favour of the municipality and DOA. The sattal became State property and was then restored with financial assistance from KVPT.

After the renovation, the "sattal" by virtue of its location in the Monument Zone, came under the ownership of DOA. At present the sattal is being used as an 'Information Centre', the cost of which is being born by the municipality (through the Asia Orbs Programme) even though the ownership is with DOA.

The Sattal is located in the square of Patan-, which was declared a world heritage site in 1979. The nomination to the site defined the Patan Darbar Square Monument Zone as enclosing a large area, which incorporated all blocks around the palace and its squares. The boundaries run again along the streets and lanes. The revised boundaries of an extended Monument Zone, as proposed by the Patan Conservation and Development Programme and accepted in principle by the Department of Archaeology in August 1993, incorporates key landmarks on the edge of the Monument Zone, as well as buildings on both sides of the streets and lanes on its boundaries. The extension to the Patan Monument Zones had been gazetted and that this area of the World Heritage Site had been revised in 1996.The Ayuguthi Sattal was located in the monument zone but was not recognized as a landmark.

Issues at Ayuguthi Sattal:

Traditional ownership with the present ownership.
National property laws and the issue of public interest and eminent domain in acquisition of privately owned properties.
Universal values and its imposition over the locals.
Was the reconstruction of the guthi to convert it to a visitor information center a justified action?

Ownership of the Ayuguthi Sattal:

The Ayuguthi Sattal was traditionally owned by the Shrestha guthi who entrusted two jogi families with the responsibility of taking care of the “sattal”. These families had additional duties of taking charge of the various traditional performances.

In 1964 with the Land Reform program, lands were converted to either to Raikar land or guthi lands. According to the Raikar system there was a distinct relationship between landholders and land through rights, which could be held, used, sold, devised, mortgaged and inherited by the landholders under the conditions that they pay the tax annually. The trust institutions held the ownership rights on guthi lands, but the rights of the use could be alienated to individuals under the conditions imposed by the trust institutions. These land laws catered mainly to agricultural lands, which were the sources of income for the community. It did not take into account the various monuments, which were community owned. Under such circumstances, neither the landowner nor the tenant had the incentive to invest in improving the productivity of the land (agricultural) or restoration (in the case of the monuments), the tenants could not be evicted according to the law reducing landowner incentives and tenants had no ownership incentives either.

The guthi owing to various social and other reasons stopped functioning and the jogi families who lived in the sattal laid claim to the property, which though opposed by some of the guthi members was given to the two families. Group and Traditional ownership of land is not recognized according to the Nepalese Constitution. This lack of recognition of group rights has serious implications on the traditional architecture of the Kathmandu Valley, which was built by and taken care of by the community with the income from the traditional lands. This lack of acknowledgement of group rights to property allowed for the original guthi members to forsake their ownership to the sattal and the tenants – the jogi families to claim ownership. Also if the ownership of the property were granted to the guthi members, the tenants would not have been removed from the sattal.

National Property Law:

The Constitution of Nepal under Article 17: Right to Property provides the following:

(1) All citizens shall, subject to the existing laws, have the right to acquire, own, sell and otherwise dispose of, property.
(2) The State shall not, except in the public interest, requisition, acquire or create any encumbrance on, the property of any person.
(3) The basis of compensation and procedure for giving compensation for any property requisitioned, acquired or encumbered by the State for in the public interest, shall be as prescribed by law.

Under the constitution, as group ownership of property is not recognized, the sattal in the first place had to pass from the ownership of the guthi into the hands of two families. The land Tenancy Act [19] further gives a greater right to the tenants in the continued use of the property owing to which the original guthi members decided to leave aside their claims to ownership of the sattal.

As provided by Article 17. Section 2. The government by the use of eminent domain – “public interest” acquired the property against the wishes of the owners of the property. The original intention of the government was to restore the property and give it back to the traditional owners – however with the intervention of KVPT the government using tools of eminent domain acquired the property of the owners of the sattal. Just compensation was not paid to the owners for acquiring the property either.

The Sattal by virtue of its location in the Patan World Heritage Site falls within the purview of the Department of Archeology with the "Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 2013, 1956". The Department of Archaeology is responsible, within the Monument Zones, for granting permission for the installation of utilities, technological services, giving authorization for new construction, reconstruction, restoration work and repair. The Department also has the power to request the demolition of unauthorized construction or construction work that does not correspond with the standards it has prescribed. The Department of Archaeology bases its beliefs that the preservation of the World Heritage Site can only be attempted through the control of new construction, not through the safeguarding of existing historic structures. There is no law with any mechanism for designating any structure per se as a monument, but instead the "place or area" where the monument is located is declared a monument rather than the structure itself. The management plans of the Patan world heritage site recognizes that the historical settings of the monuments and surrounding fabric are being seriously eroded by new buildings, which permanently alter the historic fabric of the site. Some of the identified problems were:
(i) The demolition of historic houses and their replacement by unfitting modern building;
(ii) Additions of floors to historic buildings;
(iii) Building of new structures in spaces that have historically been left open.

The management plans call for a program of incentives and subsidies to be developed to encourage the retention and repair of traditional buildings. Designs for new buildings should harmonize with adjacent historic structures and model designs for typical facades and details should be developed. The plan also calls for the Local government to discourage new constructions in the Monument Zones, but should rather support adaptive re-use and acquire threatened historic properties in private ownership.

“His Majesty's Government and the three concerned municipalities should provide a funding mechanism to support the conservation of historic property in private hands where owners are unable to meet such costs. Maximum tax exemptions should be given to donors who contribute to the preservation of cultural heritage.” [20]
The reconstruction of the Guthi into a visitor center.
The management plan does not look at the social aspect of the heritage and buildings and looks at them as simply pieces of “outstanding universal values”. The nearby Patan museum- a palace converted into a museum is used as a perfect example of adaptive re-use. The Operational Guidelines for the World Heritage Committee specifies cultural heritage to stand the test of Authenticity of material, design, workmanship and setting. The criteria of setting, which is supposed to include the human aspect of heritage, have not been taken into consideration when making value judgments for the site. Issues of ownership of the heritage and the property have not been looked into. The Patan museum fails the test of authenticity in relation to “ original use, original design, material use, use of modern technology- electrical lamps, museum settings etc.” A traditional Nepali palace has been converted into a Nepalese museum with a distinct Austrian feeling. When a building is converted into a museum, it is converted into an archaeological item, which has lost its current cultural value. The same has happened at Ayuguthi Sattal using the example of the Patan Museum. A habited sattal has been taken up, beautified to cater to the aesthetics of the World Heritage Site requirements, its inhabitants displaced from their traditional homes and the sattal converted to a tourist information center to cater to a transitory non local public.

Heritage and its interpretation have various reactions on the residents of historical towns and cities. The emphasis on authenticity and the need sometimes to keep a site “frozen” in time leads to the formation of historic urban slums owing to the lack of modern infrastructure in these sites.

“law impedes the efforts of ordinary people to house themselves, to obtain an income, to get access to potable water, electricity and other urban services and thereby to survive and better themselves in an urban environment. Law turns homesteaders into squatters, self-build houses into ‘slums’ and ‘nuisances’ which must be demolished; petty traders into criminals and job seekers into vagrants. The less the law and lawyers have to do with uncontrolled urban settlement and the informal urban economy the more chance people in those sectors have of survival and development.”[21]

The plan instead calls for the “Central and local government to discourage new constructions in the Monument Zones, but instead support adaptive re-use and acquire threatened historic properties in private ownership.”[22] Instead of the practice of land confiscation, new approaches to land reform should be adopted which stress an inclusive and market-based approach of bringing together various stakeholders – the landless, landlords, civil society and the government - for the protection of durable property rights and decisions on how the cultural heritage should be represented.

Conclusions:

· Traditional ownership of property and the present ownership cannot be judged within the same parameters owing to changes in social as well as legislative patterns.
· Adoption of foreign legislations and principles without understanding its implications on local culture can be detrimental to that culture.
· The World heritage site listing of a site could become a “public burden “ to the local populations with regulations, which are not friendly towards locals, which could lead to the taking of private property based on public interest.
· Historic Properties with a history of group ownership needs special legislation beyond the provisions provided by the National Legislations. The current land and property laws in Nepal are based on acquisitions of agricultural lands and not historic architectural properties, which are more complex in terms of the current and historic “values” that it embodies.
· The “adaptive re-use” of historic properties that belong to the community should be done with community participation rather than catering to the “value- system” based on transnational principles.






[1] Read here as the Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust.
[2] http://www.asianart.com/kvpt/page8.html
[3] As quoted in the article “Cultural Heritage Protection: Legitimacy, Property and Functionalism” by Markus M Muller. International Journal of Cultural Property. Vol.7 (1998). No 2. Oxford University Press. P. 398.
[4] Ned Kaufman, “Heritage and the Cultural Politics of Preservation,” Places, 11:3 (1998): P. 58-65
[5] The exception to this would be the application of the Hague Convention, where protection is offered to immovable cultural property in times of armed conflict.
[6]Summary. Experts meeting on training programmes for cultural heritage protection. Online. http://www.nara.accu.or.jp.hp/English/expert/summary.html . Available 30th September 2002.
[7]Even the survey and the planning of the heritage resources management is based on non local standards.
[8] Regmi D.R., Ancient Nepal. Calcutta: Mukhopadhyay. 1969:14.
[9] Mhapuja (worship of the body) is intimately connected to the Newari calendar and is the first rite of the Newari year (Nepal Sambat). Normally, it falls on the full moon of November. The Nepal Sambat calendar is peculiar to the Newars. It prescribes a number of rituals and festivities which are not observed by other Nepalese people, although there are many which also do coincide with, have the same significance as, and closely resemble those observed by Non-Newars, e.g., Tihar, Sivaratri, Holi, Satya Narayan and Dussein. Thus, in Nepal one can distinguish different ritual levels. Certain rites and festivities are observed by most Nepalese people and can be called national, whereas others are peculiar to the different ethnic groups.
[10] The city of modern Kathmandu is composed of several ancient cities such as Patan, Bhaktapur and the Kathmandu which today as a result of the expansion of theses traditional settelements have all merged to form a metropolis in the making.
[11] The Department of Archaeology was based on the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The ASI was formed by the British in India and has been accused of having an approach which concentrated on the monumental architecture.
[12] Practical Maintenance and Management Methods for the World Heritage Sites- in relation to the urban growth in Kathmandu Valley. Paper presented by Surya Bhakta Sangache at the 7th Seminar on the Conservation of Asian Cultural Heritage.
[13] Role of Guthi in Newar Buddhist Culture- Phanindra Ratna Vajracharya. A Paper presented in Newari during the 'Conference on the Buddhist Heritage of Nepal Mandal' in 1998.
[14] The viharas are the Buddhist monasteries where there are resident monks and nuns. The Chaityas are on the other hand Buddhist temples.
[15] Role of Guthi in Newar Buddhist Culture- Phanindra Ratna Vajracharya. A Paper presented in Newari during the 'Conference on the Buddhist Heritage of Nepal Mandal' in 1998.
[16] The government refutes this notion of the dwindling resources of the guthi. In a document “ Master Plan for the Conservation of the Cultural Heritage in the Kathmandu Valley by UNESCO, 1977, the income of the the Rajguthis or the guthis whose administration is placed under the government and managed by the Guthi Sansthan, has increased appreciably while acknowledging that the relative compensation was not just. The income spent by the guthis on the restoration and renovation of monuments sometimes matches the annual budget of the DOA spent on historic monuments.
[17] Master Plan for the Conservation of the Cultural Heritage in the Kathmandu Valley. UNDP, UNESCO 1977. P.63.
[18] The Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust.
http://www.asianart.com/kvpt/
[19] The 1964 Act imposed landholding ceilings on tenancy holdings. These were set at 4 bighas in the terai and 10 and 20 ropanis in Kathmandu and the hills, respectively. In addition, the Act defined and extended rights of tenurial security and rent control to all tenants on raikar lands and to many tenants on guthi lands. (Particularly tenants on rajguthi land, whose administration was eventually given to the government Guthi Corporation). Those tenants who were actually cultivating the land at the time of the Act's implementation - i.e. those who were not thrown off in the pre implementation rush to avoid the Act's strictures - were confirmed and registered as the tenants. Likewise, it was provided that in the future, those who cultivated the main crop at least once as tenants were to be granted tenancy status. The rights granted to tenants include security of tenure so long as they pay the stipulated rent, do nothing to damage or decrease the value of the land and continue to cultivate it. Even if the landlord alleges failure to comply with one of these conditions of tenancy, the law bars the landlord from taking individual action to evict the tenant and requires him to make his.case for eviction in court. In certain limited circumstances the landlord is permitted to resume a portion or all of the land, e.g., if he has no other residence and wishes to build a house on the land, which he himself will occupy and cultivate. In such cases the resuming landlord is required to compensate the tenant at the rate of 25 percent of the market value of the lost land. While protected from arbitrary evictions on the one hand, the tenant is, on the other hand, also restricted in the uses to which he may put the land. Although a tenant's rights pass on his death to his surviving spouse or son (the choice is made by the landlord at his discretion), a tenant may not sell or sublease or in any other way alienate the land. To do so would be cause for eviction and loss of tenancy rights.
[20] PRACTICAL MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT METHODS FOR THE WORLD HERITAGE SITES in Relation to urban growth in Kathmandu Valley Surya Bhakta Sangachhe Town Controller, Kathmandu Valley Town Development Plan Implementation Committee, Bhaktapur, Nepal. Available online:
http://www.tobunken.go.jp/~kokusen/japanese/SEMINAR/7SEMINAR/sangachh.html
[21] Nick Devas and Carol Rakodi (Eds.), Managing Fast Growing Cities: New Approaches to Urban Planning and Management in the Developing World, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1993.
[22] Ibid.