Parliamentary Panels since 2008 have demanded more teeth for ASI for better protection of heritage

Prominent protected monuments such as the Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar have come under focus with some groups seeking to start worship and offer prayers in their premises. That begs the question: is the Archaeological Survey on India (ASI), responsible for the upkeep of heritage monuments in the country, adequately equipped to handle violations such as unauthorised worship? Perhaps it’s not.

Almost every parliamentary standing committee on culture – at least since 2008 – has flagged that ASI is not equipped enough to protect ancient and historical monuments from all violations, citing legal constraints and shortage of resources.

In March this year, a parliamentary standing committee report on the creation of a regulatory framework for protection of historical sites and monuments cited lack of ownership of monuments with ASI, inadequate penal provisions in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR Act), and crunch in manpower as challenges for the heritage conservation body.

It said the current regulatory framework, which was amended in 2010, does not provide adequate protection to sites and monuments. ASI’s lack of manpower and legal teeth to prevent initial encroachment and to punish adequately and swiftly those who encroach add to the problem.

The report also pointed out that the only provision in the AMASR Act that provides punishment to persons who are encroaching on protected monuments and sites is set out in Section 30 of the AMASR Act. “However, the wording of the same leaves a lot to be desired, and there are loopholes which require rectification,” it said. “Amendments are required in order to ensure that such encroachments are removed as fast as possible, in fast track courts, or by making the proceedings summary in nature.”

ASI's legal advisor had then called for legislative intervention to ensure that monuments and sites are once again the focus of the AMASR Act.

Noted archaeologist B R Mani said it is important to equip ASI with legal powers to be able to stop encroachments or any form of unauthorised worship by any group, and ensure that the body recruited a right mix of field archaeologists and those specialised in various fields of the domain.

“The legislation should be like the Forest Act where at least ASI can have the power to enforce some action to stop a violation, instead of just depending on law enforcement agencies,” said Mani, who has worked as an additional director general at ASI. “Like, right now, ASI can only write to police who can often wait for a while to take action. Also, the areas occupied by many monuments are huge, so the staff crunch in ASI definitely needs to be addressed. Otherwise, even for the body to know what is happening in one of its own monuments, it might take hours.”

Of the 3,691 centrally-protected monuments and archaeological sites maintained by ASI, 820 have places of worship and the rest are considered non-living monuments where no new religious rituals can be started.

According to a CAG report of 2013, out of 1,655 monuments where the auditor scrutinised records and conducted a joint physical inspection, 545 were found to be encroached. “This, incidentally, was more than double the figure given by the ASI to the CAG team,” final report of a select committee that looked into the AMASR Act in 2019 had said, citing the CAG report.

From 2008 to 2021, almost every panel on culture noted that there was a huge gap between the sanctioned strength and assessed strength of ASI almost in all categories of staff and officers.

In 2009, CPM leader Sitaram Yechury-led standing committee on culture had said ASI was “greatly handicapped on account of manpower, resources and necessary legal powers, and there was a distinct lack of required effort at different levels in regard to identification, notification and preservation/protection of our heritage”.

A year before that, the committee had said it was “greatly concerned about the failure of ASI to get back the land from encroachments” and recommended that the number of monument attendants should be suitably increased by recruiting more personnel on urgent basis.

Interestingly, 20 years ago, in 2002, a parliamentary committee under late CPM MP Dipankar Mukherjee had explored the possibilities of raising a separate team of professionals dedicated exclusively for the protection of top protected monuments such as the Taj Mahal and the Qutub Minar.

Last year, the parliamentary panel for culture headed by BJP MP TG Venkatesh asked the culture ministry to ensure that it was working in coordination with state governments to preserve national monuments and historical places, adding that the panel was specifically concerned about the 35% vacancies in ASI as its proper functioning “is critical for the development and maintenance” of archaeological monuments and sites across the country.

In 2011, parliamentary panel on culture had said ASI had “spread itself thin and a severe shortage of technical personnel has hamstrung the conservation efforts”.

The panel, quoting the recommendations of R N Mirdha committee, had said a minimum of 9,000 monument attendants was needed to provide security to the existing structures.

“The Government of India needs to rethink its ‘fence and forget’ approach towards the monuments. The monuments need to be protected just like any other assets of the nation,” it had said, and suggested activating a third level of institutional and legal arrangement to help ASI to protect monuments better.

In 2012, the committee went a step further and recommended that the government consider ASI as a scientific department and make available the benefits which are available to other scientific and technical bodies in the government.