Three architects, known more for their contribution to Mumbai's skyline than for conserving the history of the city - Hafeez Contractor, Shashi Prabhu and Mahesh Khanolkar - have been nominated by the state government to the Heritage Conservation Committee, in a move considered nothing short of blasphemous by conservation experts.

And though conservation experts are also critical of the other nominees on the committee; like Vijaya Gupchup, a historian, not known for any interest in conservation work; Satish Duphelia, a structural engineer of repute but not known for preserving Mumbai Fort, it is the nominations of Contractor and Prabhu that excites most indignation.

Conservation architects are keeping their fingers crossed expecting the worst from the `king of skyscrapers' Hafeez Contractor and the state government's own FSI embracing builder ShashiPrabhu on a board that is supposed to be committed to fight the present to preserve the past.

And as all controversies go, this too exposes the cracks in the movement that conservation architects would like to cover up. Indeed there are a few who believe that this is not half a disaster as the movement itself is in danger of becoming. The committee for one, they say, needed to come out of its `elitist' clubhouse culture where the chosen few who are into conservation continue to be on the board, use it for pushing their own projects and be the last word on heritage preservation.

``It is a `balanced' decision,'' says Harshad Bhatia, conservationist and urban designer, ``architects who earn their bread and butter through conservation work in Mumbai should not be in the committee, simply because it is a conflict of interests''. Agrees another conservation architect who prefers anonymity, ``Heritage conservation has to be taken to the people... But could we at least have architects who have done conservationwork?''.

Contractor's answer to this could be the heritage movement's biggest embarassment. He is constructing a residential tower on 80 feet stilts to protect the heritage structure of ``The Buckley Court'' at Colaba. It is being termed an eyesore, and by allowing an unheard-of-80-feet stilts the committee only improved the real estate value of the structure: but nobody would would like to own up to it. ``That was a failure, we would not like that to be repeated'', says a conservationist. ``Why do you blame Contractor for it? It is the heritage committee that approved the project,'' says Bhatia.

The earlier heritage committee whose term ended in February 1999 and which consisted of allegedly true blue conservation architects has not come out with laudatory colours either. Structures in grade III of the heritage list, that includes buildings in the heritage precincts of Fort, Banganga, Bandra village have been allowed to be demolished. Many have been reconstructed in a deplorable ``conservation'' stylewhere modern RCC is used to resemble yesteryears' brick and stone masonry.

Kisan Mehta, who has been at the forefront of the movement since 1960, cannot defend his position against architects like Prabhu and Contractor vis a vis conservation architects. ``I would say there are very few in the city who can be termed `conservation architects', and I don't think any of these nominated know anything about conservation''. Mehta's a lone voice when he bemoans the lack of transparency in the committee. ``These are assets of the people. Before allowing Buckley Court to happen, should there not have been a public debate on it?'' he asks.

There is nothing in the committee's resolution that could stop Contractor or Prabhu from being on the board. Both are architects and urban designers, with arguable experience in conservation. ``In fact, I would say that by being on this side of the board, Contractor would be more aware of the regulations binding the committee members,'' said Bhatia. Says former civic chief D MSukthankar who is on his second term as chairperson, ``Now that they have been appointed, let us see how they shape up''. He is not too afraid for the movement. After all, two persons have yet to be nominated by the committee, that could perhaps balance it out. ``The movement has been placed on a firm footing where much of the basic work of identifying heritage precincts has been complete. Now what we require is more focussed decision making''.

Contractor though, is sure he is the right choice. ``I am very much for heritage,'' he says with his usual nonchalence and explains the Buckley Court issue saying, ``I did not agree when they said I should construct a low structure next to the heritage one. Because then it would be competing with the old structure''.

Asked how he intended to work on the committee, Contractor says he was not for putting down stifling conditions to the architect. ``I won't be saying you cannot be doing this or that. I would be saying, well, if you did it this way, it would bebetter''.