LETTER | I write in support of the article “Preserve Vivekananda Ashram, the soul of Brickfields” (June 8, 2025).

My concern regarding the decision by Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) to rezone the Vivekananda Ashram as “main commercial” stems not only from what I have read or researched, but also from personal experience - experiences that reveal how far the ashram’s trustees have strayed from its founding principles.

This is most evident in their proposal to construct a 23-storey tower over the ashram and their opposition to the building’s gazettement as a heritage site.

I offer two more moments that stand out vividly in my memory.

First, during a 2015 protest organised by concerned citizens under the banner Save Vivekananda Ashram Brickfields, I was explicitly told by an unknown person who claimed to be a member of the ashram that the issue “had nothing to do with me” - simply because of my racial background.

That comment was not only hurtful but deeply ironic. Swami Vivekananda stood for universality, spiritual unity, and inclusion beyond race or identity. To invoke his name while practising exclusion is a betrayal of the very values the ashram is meant to represent.

Second, the installation of a boom gate at the ashram’s main entrance feels like an act of quiet hostility. Even if intended for traffic control, it signals a shift in posture - from open to closed, from welcoming to wary.

As a gazetted heritage site, was this alteration approved by the National Heritage Department? If not, it raises troubling questions about whether the trustees see themselves as stewards or simply as owners.

Loud and clear

At the core of this issue, I strongly urge DBKL to make a wise and principled decision: rezone the Vivekananda Ashram land as “public facility”, not “main commercial”.

The public has spoken loudly and clearly - 876 formal objections from across communities, near and far. Classifying a spiritual and cultural landmark as commercial is illogical - unless, of course, there are commercial intentions at play.

Such a move benefits neither the public interest nor the values the ashram purports to uphold. Worse still, it sets a dangerous precedent where commercial gain overrules principle, even on sacred ground.

If DBKL is truly committed to building a “City for All,” this is the moment to prove it. Why is it so difficult for the authorities to hear the people’s plea? Must we wait until all of Kuala Lumpur’s cultural heritage is lost, only to mourn over spilt milk?

What, then, is the meaning of the “Warisan KL” initiative that the government so proudly takes ownership of, if it cannot fully guarantee the protection of a living heritage?

The success of “Warisan KL” depends not only on preserving iconic buildings but also on safeguarding living cultural sites like the Vivekananda Ashram - places where heritage is not just displayed but lived.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.