| Title |
Understanding Trends and Challenges in the World Heritage Inscription of Colonial Architectural Heritage Through the Case of India |
| Authors |
정희선(Jung, Hee-Sun) ; 김영재(Kim, Young-Jae) |
| DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5659/JAIK.2026.42.1.207 |
| Keywords |
Colonial Architectural Heritage; UNESCO World Heritage; Difficult Heritage; India; Decolonial Heritage Discourse; Colonial Modernity; OUV |
| Abstract |
Colonial heritage is one of the most prominent forms of difficult heritage, carrying both the material legacy of colonial rule and the urban
remains of modernity. Such heritage may be preserved as national monuments, neglected or demolished, or commodified for tourism, often
generating social tensions. Within UNESCO’s system, the World Heritage framework established in 1972 serves as the main international
mechanism for safeguarding properties of outstanding universal value. As of 2025, only 40 properties on the World Heritage List can be
classified as colonial heritage. This study analyzes global inscription patterns of colonial heritage and then turns to India, which contains the
largest number of colonial architectural heritage properties. India’s overlapping colonial histories with Portugal, France, and Britain offer a
distinctive context for examination. By reviewing the nomination dossiers and evaluation reports for the Churches and Convents of Goa, the
Mountain Railways of India, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, and Victorian Gothic and Art Deco Mumbai, three key issues emerge. First,
inscriptions tend to foreground Western architectural and technical excellence, frequently emphasizing stylistic fusion, such as Victorian Gothic
and Art Deco, while overlooking the colonial conditions that produced these forms. Second, narratives of colonial violence and local memory
are largely absent from official documentation. Third, the touristification of colonial sites often reframes them as symbols of cultural blending.
These patterns reveal a persistent Eurocentric orientation within UNESCO’s heritage discourse and highlight the need for a more reflexive,
decolonial approach, one that acknowledges the architectural, historical, and affective dimensions of colonial heritage. |