ASI should imbibe the innovative spirit of the Humayuns Tomb restoration project.
The inauguration of the restored Humayuns Tomb,on September 18,attracted well-deserved media attention. Most of the facts about the unique collaboration between the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI),the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) and other stakeholders,which resulted in this extraordinary conservation project,are widely known. But there are some less celebrated issues which were addressed by the project. It is important to view the project in the broader context of conservation in India and the competence of the ASI.
The NCP is an interesting document because it reveals more about the ASIs 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 ASIs 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 Humayuns 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 Humayuns 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 Humayuns Tomb project merit serious consideration,both by the ASI and the public,because they have the potential to alter our understanding of how the countrys architectural heritage should be conserved.
The writer is convenor,INTACH,Delhi chapter express@expressindia.com