NEW DELHI: If the status quo on heritage conservation continues, not much will be left of India’s historical treasures, say the country’s conservation enthusiasts. While the Ministry of Culture, along with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), is responsible for the preservation, conservation and promotion of Indian heritage, experts rue the fact that not much is being preserved.
But let’s backtrack a bit. Does the ASI, which has been in existence for 155 years and which has been entrusted with the preservation and conservation work, have the manpower and resources to undertake this gigantic workload?
An ASI official, on conditions of anonymity, told Gulf News, “As far as the structural conservation of monuments is concerned, the ASI is capable of taking up such works. However, there are some challenges we face due to rapid urbanisation, pollution and other such issues.”
The official said he could not provide an example in particular, as work was on at numerous monuments simultaneously and all held equal significance for ASI.
Conservation policy
“The restoration of an archaeological monument is carried out as per the conservation policy. The basic concept of conservation is to maintain the monument in the same condition as it was when taken over by the ASI. No addition or alteration is allowed until and unless warranted. While taking up conservation work, efforts are made to use materials that were applied in the original construction,” he said.
- Himanshu Prabha Ray | Ex-chief of NMA
However, Sohail Hashmi, a heritage enthusiast, debunked the official’s theory, pointing to the ad hoc manner in which restoration efforts are often carried out across the country.
“At the time of the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, 27 monuments, which would be visible to sportspersons and visitors, were identified for being given a facelift by the ASI. All kinds of shortcuts were applied to carry out urgent repairs, including the use of cement plaster instead of limestone. The damage caused to monuments where such measures are applied will only be revealed after a few decades. By then, it will be too late,” said Hashmi.
Conservation experts in India believe that for several years, the functions of ASI have been in the hands of bureaucrats, most of whom have little interest and no idea about restoration, preservation and conservation.
“ASI needs dedicated archaeologists to understand the requirements of conservation. Just as a bureaucrat is not sent to head the space research programme, ASI should not be headed by an administrator,” said a conservation expert. Until this level of commitment is achieved, no amount of funding, he said, will help. Furthermore, both preservation and lands acts need to be simplified.
“Not much has changed,” said Hashmi, “If at all, the situation has only worsened.”
ASI castigated
While the ASI may have an onerous task on its hands, the fact remains that defacement and neglect are a visible reality haunting many of India’s heritage structures.
Castigating the ASI for its performance, the 2013 Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India on Performance Audit of Preservation and Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities, noted that the ASI did not have a reliable database of the exact number of protected monuments under its jurisdiction.
The report highlighted: “In the absence of this primary information, we were unable to conclude if the ASI was able to fulfil its basic mandate effectively.”
The report also emphasised that the World Heritage Sites did not receive appropriate care and protection and there were numerous cases of encroachment and unauthorised construction in and around these sites. “The ASI did not have an updated and approved conservation policy... We noted the absence of any prescribed criteria for prioritisation of monuments, which required conservation works. As a result, monuments were selected arbitrarily for carrying out conservation works. Further, many monuments were never considered for any kind of structural conservation despite need for the same,” the report stated.
According to the CAG report, the ASI’s jurisdiction includes 3,678 centrally protected monuments and archaeological sites as varied as megalithic sites, burials, rock cut caves, stupas, temples, mosques, churches, forts, water systems, pillars, inscriptions, relics, monolithic statues and sculptures.
Of these, what is preserved and what remains, only time will tell.
A past that lives into the future
Himanshu Prabha Ray, former chairperson of the National Monuments Authority (NMA), Ministry of Culture, told Gulf News, “The first event in relation to protection of monuments was the enactment of Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, when John Marshall was the director general of ASI and India was under colonial rule. Until the time of Independence in 1947, about 2,500 monuments were declared ‘nationally protected monuments.’”
In the 1950s, a second category of ‘state protected monuments’ was created in keeping with India’s federal structure.
- Sohail Hashmi | Heritage enthusiast
Under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act 1958, another 1,000 monuments were added to the list. These largely comprised 450 monuments that were under the princely states. “One of the problems that arose - and which was not considered at the time of renewal of the Act - was that when the monuments were declared protected in 1904, the land around them was considered part of it. But the precise definition (of the land) was not suggested. Thus, when the Lands Act changed, there was no clarity as to what percentage of land was private, how much was owned by the government and what came under the jurisdiction of monuments,” Prabha Ray said.
As if that was not enough, the AMASR Act 2010 came as the new law. Sohail Hashmi, a heritage enthusiast, recalled that this law greatly complicated the issue for those living around the monuments.
“Earlier guidelines prohibited construction of any building within a radius of 50-metres of a protected monument. But the new law states that no new construction can happen within 100 metres and no expansion or modification is permissible in existing structures within a 300-metre radius. This placed those who had built according to the original stipulation in a quandary. They could not make alterations to their homes,” he said.
Meanwhile, another (new) law now authorises the central government to allow construction within 100 metres of protected monuments in case the project is ‘in the national interest’,” Hashmi said.
Prabha Ray, former professor, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, said the ASI still follows the colonial principles on archaeological conservation. Whereas, practices adopted by agencies such as the Aga Khan Trust for Culture for Humayun’s Tomb, New Delhi, lead to a brilliant example of restoration and this needs to be considered.
Commenting on the government move to outsource the maintenance of Red Fort to a private entity (Dalmia Bharat), Prabha Ray said, “We should utilise our energies on the betterment of our heritage. What is urgent and important is to have a larger debate on the list of monuments that need to be protected and how.”
