Abstract
It is true that the state parties are often unaware of the technical nuance of World Heritage processes, evaluation methods and rigour of technicality involved. This is not purely due to their lack of interest but also due to the complicated operational guidelines that most people (other than professionals involved with World Heritage) find difficult to decipher. The case of Ahmedabad is not singular and has many other precedents as already mentioned by the author. It definitely needs to be recognised that the ICOMOS recommendations may be erroneous in some cases and may be overruled by the World Heritage Committee but this should only be allowed in the presence of an equally exhaustive analysis by the committee members and a sound technical argument to establish the reasoning for such overruling. The political nature of decisions clearly undermines the value of a World Heritage Inscription. On the other hand, we have enough precedents where the arguments for inscription of a World Heritage Site have been presented well through an encouraging dialogue between ICOMOS and World Heritage Committee members. This is a win-win situation where the state party and committee members truly contribute in strengthening the World Heritage processes. Possibly, one needs to showcase such examples to the state parties and newly elected committee members to make them understand and value this process and to avoid complete overruling of recommendations based on pure political pressure.