In reply to UKC News:
The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Hampi Demolitions on the pretext of the presence of archeological remains, Hampi's proto-historical past was also given importance. If we follow this line of reasoning then one need's to ask the question, What is conservation? Should the sites be treated as if they are an outdoor museum and we try to recreate them in all of their beauty and glory as they once looked hundreds or thousands of years ago? Or, should it be taken a more organic approach, recognizing and appreciating the current local population which makes the site a living heritage?
Recommendations followed by Unesco prove that internationally we need to follow a more integrated approach. Where we include people living in the area as 'living monuments'. Why didn't the Indian government renew the licenses of local businessmen is the question we need to ask. Here's a video that explains the case in more detail.