For some, invoking human rights is a heartfelt, morally justified demand to rectify all sorts of injustice; for others, it is no more than a slogan to be treated with suspicion, or even hostility. Human rights also encompass the wide ranging cultural rights which are often overlooked by governments when engaging with compliance of international human rights instruments which guarantee these cultural rights. The main international law instrument safeguarding cultural rights is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
A violation of economic, social and cultural rights occurs when a state fails in its obligations to ensure that they are enjoyed without discrimination or in its obligation to respect, protect and fulfil them. Often a violation of one of the rights is linked to a violation of other rights. Developing states often use the ‘doctrine of progressive realisation’ to justify them not being able to effectively protect these rights. By rightly using the lacunas in this international legal instrument, however, this debate has lost its essence since governments fail to realise that in actuality this concept is realistic but at the same time is demanding along with the obligations on governments to continuously improve conditions that are fundamental to the realisation of ESC rights.
Translating this into a domestic perspective, it’s hard to say that the government is trying to move towards the effective protection of these rights. While our country faces issues related to national security, extremism and terrorism which give rise to unwanted issues – it’s a rare account where cultural rights or cultural property is discussed at a national level.
The recent issue of Orange Line Metro Train and protecting a few monuments, which are national heritage along with a recognised World Heritage Site that might be compromised due to the construction of this project — has given rise to a debate in the civil society for the first time where they have come forward, advocating to protect these cultural properties. Instead of jumping onto conclusions, it is important to understand the legal issues involved. The question posed is not that of what is right or wrong, but to strike a balance between the two impeding interests.
The issue at hand is the construction of the Orange Line Metro which is a project pushed by Punjab government through a Chinese loan. In order to build this transport system a few national heritage sites might be compromised. The sites include Chauburji Chowk, GPO, Shalamar Gardens among others. These monuments are an evidence of the rich history which originates from the centre of Lahore. The Antiquities Act 1975 banned all new construction within a distance of 200 feet from protected antiquities. The issue of enforcement comes into play when in certain urban areas it is increasingly difficult to stop modern encroachments around monuments. The executing agencies need authorisation under the antiquity laws to demolish unauthorised structures which obstruct a clear view or mar the beauty of the monument.
While the government might’ve satisfied UNESCO’s concerns as to no irreversible damage would be caused by this project to Shamalar Garden, as it is a World Heritage Site, the government has not been able to assure that the national heritage sites will be protected. This is a clear violation of domestic laws and directly flouts Section 22 of the Antiquities Act 1975 and Punjab Special Premises Preservation Ordinance 1985.
The other issue which has come into play is the displacement of the people living in the adjacent areas to where this transport system is to be constructed. There has been much outcry as to the procedure through which land is being acquired. People are claiming that they have been pushed out of their homes overnight and the money which has been promised as compensation is not even 25 percent of the original rate. ICESCR also guarantees the right to adequate housing and forcibly evicting people from their homes might amount to a violation of the ICESCR.
It is important for the government to satisfy the masses for whom they intend to establish a better transport system. When so many factors get involved it becomes more challenging to carry on with a project which would contradict national and international laws. Moreover, it has become extremely important to regard cultural rights as serious as other human rights and states should work towards recognising them and subsequently take measures in order to protect them. Cultural property ought to be owned by the state institutions and all efforts should be made to protect them as they depict history, thousands of years old in certain cases, associated with this area.
