Opinion One cupola at a time

The Humayun’s Tomb restoration project generates two views of the ASI’s capabilities. One is the agency’s perception of itself. The other consists of critical opinions from outside. The ASI protects about 3,678 monuments declared to be of national importance,of which Humayun’s Tomb is one of the major sites. This is only a fraction of the country’s extant architectural heritage,but the protected monuments are located across a wide and diverse geographic region and consist of equally diverse typologies. So the ASI faces a more complex task than similar agencies in other countries. Nonetheless,it has come in for much criticism in recent years,for example,in a recent CAG report. There is also a rising chorus of informed complaints from the nascent,but robust,non-governmental conservation movement. This has challenged not only the competence of the ASI but also its intellectual and professional hegemony. Friends of the ASI (and there are many) point out that it is an underfunded and understaffed organisation,but how long will that be used to justify status quo? Partly as a response to the criticism,the ASI started drafting a new National Conservation Policy (NCP) to improve its operational practices. A draft of the new policy was unveiled recently and discussed with experts at a meeting last week.

The NCP is an interesting document because it reveals more about the ASI’s capabilities than it perhaps intended. In brief,the message it conveys is this: we are a 150-year-old organisation and have done well to protect the monuments in our care; we only need to tweak our practices to take into account some “modern” issues such as the impact of tourism and the consequences of natural disasters on the monuments to upgrade our practice. Notwithstanding the introduction of some new terminology,the NCP remains unapologetically wedded to the principles enshrined in the guidelines drafted by John Marshall,the ASI’s first director general,in 1924. For all practical purposes,the new NCP is old wine in a new bottle.

This is ironic because even though the AKTC undertook the conservation work at Humayun’s Tomb,the ASI was the leader of the project. It represents a significant paradigm shift in conservation practice in India,but its lessons do not appear to have been absorbed by the ASI. Neither are they reflected in the NCP.

While the Humayun’s Tomb restoration project may be seen as an exemplar,some of its innovations had generated controversy. For instance,the project had to painstakingly undo much of the shoddy (and dangerous) conservation work the ASI had carried out on the monument in the past. Some,including an expert from the local Unesco office,have asked if this was really necessary. It was pointed out that even redoing bad work altered the existing fabric of the building. This broke a cardinal rule of conservation practice — never edit the extant historical layer of the building. That the process followed a detailed study and well-reasoned analysis is largely ignored while levelling such doctrinaire criticism.

But the most controversial aspect of the project was the decision to restore some lost architectural elements of the building,for example,the decorative plaster on the lower plinth area and the coloured tile work on the cupolas. Both dramatically altered the familiar,worn-down image of the building,which is widely regarded by the cognoscenti as representing its charm and authenticity. The ASI was clearly a reluctant partner to these significant conservation decisions,because it has resolutely forsworn such practices in the new NCP. The innovations of the Humayun’s Tomb project merit serious consideration,both by the ASI and the public,because they have the potential to alter our understanding of how the country’s architectural heritage should be conserved.

The writer is convenor,INTACH,Delhi chapter express@expressindia.com