Some people say that it is not necessary to safeguard historical buildings and government should spend that money on other things whilst others say government should spend on their repair. Discuss both views and give your opinion?

Some assert that preserving old buildings is not imperative and that money had better be expended on other crucial areas, whereas opponents argue, supremacy must incur expenditure on their restoration. In my opinion, I side with the latter view. To deliberate former view, it might be a cost dearing project. Since old premises belong to yesteryears, there will be a requirement of traditional artists, material and other stuffs, be repaired extremely challenging, for it is not facilitating to produce replica. Henceforth, government may have to spend astronomical ho generate unique and rare art again. For example, some Indian forts, especially in Rajasthan cost stupendously to authorities every year because workers are required there to solve everyday problems due to being feeble. To discuss opposite sides items, it is highly necessary to safeguard conventional infrastructure in order to preserve cultural heritage. Because these sites reflect the past living, events and art forms, masses may have glimpse of their culture abundance. How will publish get acquainted with their ancient lifestyle as long as these buildings disappear? Resultantly, provided future generation is to be made aware about their rich customs and rituals, it is exponentially significant to protect their symbols. In conclusion, although it is not economical to refurbish historical architecture, yet it is of utmost necessity to sustain traditional richness. However, I still believe, spending on it is worth to import right values in future generation.