Monumentally limited

The ASI has had a conservation policy and guidelines at least since 1923,when John Marshall,its first director general,drafted the Conservation Manual. The need for a new policy arose because,over the years,the anomalies and inadequacies of Marshalls Manual were increasingly foregrounded in the works of the ASI. For one,Marshalls Manual reflected a profoundly English attitude towards the preservation of architectural heritage,an attitude that had become dated not only in England but also the world over. The numerous UNESCO charters on conservation are evidence of the ideological distance travelled by the conservation movement since 1923. For another,it was becoming increasingly obvious that for the post-Independence ASI to continue protecting only 3,675 monuments,mostly identified by the colonial government,missed the woods for the trees. It perpetuated a short-sightedness that gave rise to great losses in the countrys architectural heritage.

The new policy,therefore,had an opportunity to address these and other important issues,and to produce a forward-looking document. Instead,it stubbornly cleaves to Marshalls original intents and purposes. It also continues to focus on the upkeep of only centrally protected monuments. Nevertheless,it has attempted some change by making references to concepts like restoration,the issues of heritage tourism and the need for greater engagement with the public in developing conservation strategies. But that aside,the contradiction inherent in grafting new ideas to Marshalls original text remains unresolved. For example,the new document recognises the role of traditional craftsmen but what happens if they employ their traditional knowledge systems to alter the historic fabric of the monument?

In the ultimate analysis,the limitations of the ASIs new conservation policy are starkly highlighted in instances such as the institutional failure to protect the fate of Lal Mahal in Nizamuddin,the oldest Islamic palace in India,built around 1240 AD. Such examples abound around the country so should the new policy not have tried to address such problems?

Will the new policy make any difference? If truth be told,the old Manual was only a fig leaf to provide a semblance of credibility to the workings of the ASI. In the field,the ASI officials responsible for conserving the centrally protected monuments did what was expedient; the new policy will be a new fig leaf to carry on business as usual. Thus,what one has in hand is partly self-congratulatory the initiative,after all,emanated from the 150th anniversary celebrations of the ASI and wholly self-referential in its contents. By privileging the old,it has failed to live up to the mandate of the original expert committee,which was to incorporate best international practices in conservation.

At a systemic level,however,it would not be fair to fault the ASI for its limited vision. It is a severely underfunded and understaffed arm of the government. Except for the conservation of a few iconic buildings,it has received little support from either the government or civil society to enlarge its role in protecting the countrys architectural heritage. We conserve the remnants of our past to ensure cultural continuity. But this unexceptionable objective in theory is often fiercely contested in practice,both within and outside government. When the remains of the past are so prolific and the future advances like a juggernaut,establishing continuity between the two becomes fraught with complexities that pit the imperatives of one against the other. The ASI is inevitably torn between the two but has few resources,intellectual or otherwise,to tackle the complexities.

By drafting this new vision,the ASI has reinforced its increasing irrelevance in the countrys emerging conservation scene. There are many new actors in the field who have many more heritage buildings to deal with than the 3,675 centrally protected monuments: their policy for conserving Indias architectural heritage would be of greater relevance. For example,the International Council on Monuments and Sites India has begun its activities and the Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage INTACH already has its own charter. Both address the many shortcomings of the ASIs new policies. It is time the ASI took stock of its own great legacy to chart a more relevant role for itself.

The writer is convenor of the Delhi chapter of the INTACH

expressexpressindia.com