Sponsored Kumbh Mela: Does UP own it, to sell it?

It’s a possibility – that the rights to exclusively telecast the Mela, and, consequently, the rights to sponsor the exclusive telecast could be available to the highest bidder. The UP government is exploring the possibility of selling media rights to the Kumbh Mela to defray costs incurred by them, reports BBC . According to the report, the plans are now currently on hold, after protests from Hindu saints who say that the Mela belongs to ‘them’. [caption id=“attachment_441710” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Hindu devotees gather to take a holy dip in the Ganges river during Kumbh Mela in Haridwar. Reuters[/caption] Before we get to whether or not the Mela can be commercialized and rights sold, we need to understand who owns the property and, consequently, the rights. It’s apparent that neither the government (state or central) nor the saints who now lay claim to the ownership, has half a leg to stand on. The first recorded reference to the Kumbh Mela is one made by Chinese traveler, Huan Tsang or (602 - 664 AD) who visited India in 629 -645 AD, during the reign of King Harshavardhana. If the issue of ownership and revenue do get disputed in court, it’s going to be a long hard battle before it is settled. Till then, while we leave the revenue out of the discussion for the moment, who bears all the attendant costs? Not the saints – it’s the government. The total number of participants at the 2001 Kumbh Mela is estimated at 60 million people. That’s a mammoth logistical exercise; the government has to make investments in police forces and security, barricades for safety, water, hygiene, emergency medical help, sanitation, and so on. It’s the government which bears all these costs currently. Where the ownership is clear-cut, so are the costs and the revenue. For example, for the Mumbai Marathon, event rights owners Procam was charged by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation for costs incurred in road-repairing, etc. (The costs were waived later). Various state governments have recovered, or attempted to recover, police-related costs from the BCCI . So what happens when the event ownership is hazy, as is the case with the Kumbh Mela? Should the Mela at all be owned by anyone, and should anyone be allowed to offer exclusive telecast or branding rights? Claiming ownership to an event property so steeped in history is a dangerous precedent. If the UP government is allowed to go ahead with the proposal, governments across the country would scramble to ‘own’ such events as the Ganesh festival in Maharashtra, the Durga Puja in West Bengal (and other parts of east India), Onam in Kerala, and so on. While the costs related to such events (notably costs of policing and security in the case of the immersion dates of major religious festivals in India) are significant and there is no direct revenue accruing, there can be no doubt that there is a huge benefit to citizens of the state where such events are held. Such events bring in new tourists, who stay in hotels and other accommodation in the states, use local transport, eat food bought in local eateries and shops, buy souvenirs – and perhaps come back to visit more of the state. There can be no case to allow exclusive coverage by a channel or a newspaper – the event is public, and has been so for, in the case of the Kumbh, for many centuries. To restrict the broadcast of the content to a few selected media houses would be to prevent many from experiencing the event itself, and there can never be a case for that. The costs are real, and probably hurt the exchequer. But this is one instance where commercialisation will stunt the growth and popularity of the event, not increase it. Let the Kumbh stay as it is today. Let it belong to neither the government nor the sadhus who now claim ownership; let it belong to those who, in reality, make the event an event: the people who attend it and watch it.