House panel wants monuments list pruned: Some not important

According to sources, by bringing the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) (Amendment) Bill, the Government aims to effect a change in the current benchmark of a structure having to be at least 100 years old to be listed as a monument.  The Government, the sources added, believes that most of the current monuments are from the British-era despite India having a vast wealth of more ancient structures.  The relook on the monuments is in line with the Government’s aim to rid India of its ‘colonial past’, as announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at various events to mark Amrit Kaal or 75 years of Independence.

The Standing Committee’s report — Three Hundred Fifty Ninth Report on Functioning of Archaeological Survey of India — was presented in the Rajya Sabha and laid on the table of the Lok Sabha Thursday.

Highlighting “problems” with the list of centrally protected monuments, the report observed that it includes a large number of “minor monuments” and recommended it be “rationalised and categorised” on the basis of the national significance, unique architectural and heritage value.

The graves in Kumta are of public works department engineer John Albert Cope (died in 1880) and Henry Gassen (died 1877), an employee of a cotton ginning company.  “It is estimated that this applies to at least a quarter of the current list of 3,691 monuments. The list, for instance, includes 75 graves of colonial-era soldiers or officials of no notable importance,” the report said.

Citing a lack of clarity in the guidelines for preservation and a delay in classification, the report also noted that, till date, 531 monuments, or 14.4 per cent of ASI’s total 3,691 centrally protected monuments, have been encroached. And since 2015, it said, only nine of these monuments were cleared of encroachment.  “The committee recommends that ASI should conduct a comprehensive survey of encroachments around all monuments under its jurisdiction and document the nature, extent and impact of encroachments on each site to create a database for informed decision-making in this regard,” the report said.

On the functioning of ASI, the panel advised that the organisation be divided into two wings – Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the India Heritage Development Corporation (IHDC) – to make it effective.  While the new ASI, it said, can look after the core mandate, i.e. exploration, excavation and conservation aspects, the IHDC can deal with the ASI’s entire revenue.