Context: 

• This article is based on a news “What House panel report on ASI says about ‘rationalizing’ protected monuments, and rules governing them” which was published in Indian Express. A parliamentary committee, led by Rajya Sabha MP V Vijaisai Reddy, has raised concerns about the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and its management of centrally protected monuments (CPMs).

More on News: Committee Recommendations for Archaeological Survey of India’s Cultural Heritage Enhancement

• The committee consists of MPs from various political parties.Recommendations have been made by the committee regarding the Archaeological Survey of India’s administration, security, restoration efforts, and overall maintenance of heritage sites.
• These recommendations are aimed at addressing the issues surrounding the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India in relation to CPMs in India.

Challenges and Concerns in Preserving India’s Heritage Monuments by Archaeological Survey of India

• Inclusion of Minor Monuments: The list of centrally protected monuments (CPMs) comprises a significant number of minor monuments lacking national significance, with an estimated 25% of the current 3,691 monuments categorized as such.
  • This includes the protection of 75 graves of colonial-era soldiers or officials that lack notable historical importance.
  • Some monuments, like a small brick wall enclosure in Kumta, Karnataka, containing two graves, receive the same level of protection despite their lack of architectural value and historical significance.
• Restrictions around Monuments: The 100-meter prohibited area and 300-meter regulated area around Archaeological Survey of India-protected monuments lead to public inconvenience and hostility in affected areas.
  • This provision was introduced in 2010 through an amendment in the AMASR Act, 1958, and prohibits and regulates all activities like mining and construction.
• Loss of Monuments: The CAG declared 92 centrally protected monuments (CPMs) as “missing,” with only 42 of them located by the Archaeological Survey of India.
  • Once lost, these monuments cannot be recovered, which poses a significant threat to India’s historical heritage.
• Shortage of Resources and Fund Crunch:
  • The Archaeological Survey of India faces a shortage of human resources, particularly in conservation work.
  • The panel said India spends “a little amount” on the protection and upkeep of monuments. “It amounts to Rs 11 lakh per monument of national importance (Rs 428 crore for 3693 monuments in 2019-20).
• Restoration Activities:
  • Restoration work is often undertaken without considering the original design and beauty of the monument, resulting in incongruities with the original structure.
  • Indigenous systems and traditional practices are not given the attention they deserve in restoration efforts.
• Ineffective Monument Mitras Engagement: Out of 24 agreements signed with Monument Mitras under the Adopt a Heritage scheme, only four have witnessed effective engagement.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of prior experience among private firms involved in restoration and conservation projects.
• Monument Encroachments: Approximately 14.4% of Archaeological Survey of India’s total centrally protected monuments (CPMs) have been encroached upon.
  • Only encroachments from nine monuments have been removed since 2015.
• Other Challenges with Monuments: 
• • Lack of Master Plan: Non-world heritage sites lack proper master plans.
    • Haphazard growth around sites diminishes their appeal.
  • Pollution: Environmental pollution damages heritage properties.
    • Taj Mahal affected by Sulphur dioxide from oil refinery and local furnaces.Restrictions around Monuments: The 100-meter prohibited area and 300-meter regulated area around Archaeological Survey of India-protected monuments lead to public inconvenience and hostility in affected areas.
      • This provision was introduced in 2010 through an amendment in the AMASR Act, 1958, and prohibits and regulates all activities like mining and construction.
    • Loss of Monuments: The CAG declared 92 centrally protected monuments (CPMs) as “missing,” with only 42 of them located by the Archaeological Survey of India.
      • Once lost, these monuments cannot be recovered, which poses a significant threat to India’s historical heritage.

Also read: Parliamentary Panel Report on ASI

Recommendations: Enhancing the Role of Archaeological Survey of India

• Pruning the List of Protected Monuments:
  • Rationalization and Categorization: The committee Suggests rationalizing and categorizing the list of Archaeological Survey of India-protected monuments based on national significance, unique architectural value, and specific heritage content.
  • Consideration of Removal: Recommends considering the removal of certain monuments, such as kosminars (Mughal milestones), that obstruct road-widening efforts.
  • Emphasis on Indian Ethos: Recommends including monuments that “reflect Indian ethos” in the protected list, emphasizing indigenous heritage and cultural significance.
• Reassess Restricted Zones: Reevaluate and potentially revise the restricted zones, taking into account monument significance, to reduce public inconvenience and mitigate hostility while maintaining monument preservation.
• Enhancing Archaeological Survey of India’s Core Mandate: The committee highlights the importance of preservation as a core mandate of the Archaeological Survey of India.
  • The Archaeological Survey of India should develop preservation plans for all its work, especially before excavations. 
  • These plans should include strategies for documenting findings, conserving artifacts, and restoring structures with minimal impact on the site’s integrity.
  • Emphasizes the use of advanced technologies like LiDAR, ground-penetrating radar, and 3D scanning to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of excavations.
• Recommendations for Bifurcation:
  • Core Mandate for Archaeological Survey of India: Archaeological Survey of India should focus on core mandates, including exploration, excavation, and conservation aspects.
  • Revenue Management by IHDC: The India Heritage Development Corporation (IHDC) can handle revenue-related activities, such as ticket collection, auctions, licensing, cafeteria operations, souvenir sales, and sound and light systems, to enhance Archaeological Survey of India’s efficiency.
• Addressing Missing Monuments:
  • Conduct a survey of all remaining monuments to ensure their physical existence and safety.
  • Implement regular physical surveys for all CPMs to monitor their condition and security.
  • Maintain digital log books containing textual and photographic/video records of the monument’s physical state and location coordinates. 
• Sustainability and Environmental Impact: 
  • There is a need to integrate sustainable practices in conservation and restoration projects, including the use of eco-friendly materials and energy-efficient techniques, while considering long-term environmental impacts.
• Experienced Monument Mitras: The committee recommends hiring only experienced Monument Mitras to ensure the quality of restoration and conservation work.

Conclusion 

• The Parliamentary Panel’s report on the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) highlights several challenges in preserving India’s heritage monuments. It recommends rationalizing the list of protected monuments, addressing resource shortages, enhancing conservation efforts, and improving the management of monument encroachments. The report emphasizes the need for a more strategic and sustainable approach to heritage preservation.