At Unnao,ASI has nothing to show except how it buried rulebook

Under the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act,1958,and Rules 1958,the state government is expected to send a detailed proposal to the central government explicitly outlining the historical and archeological objectives of excavating any unprotected site.

In case a proposal emerges from within the ASI (as it happened in the case of Unnao ),it is submitted for shortlisting before being sent to the standing committee of the Central Advisory Board of Archeology (CABA),a body of 5-6 experts headed by the director general of the ASI. The standing committee makes a recommendation for the ASI DG to approve or reject.

The proposal to dig at Daundiya Kheda reached the ASI at the end of September 2013,nearly two months after the deadline for inviting excavation proposals for 2013-14 had passed on July 31. The CABA standing committee was not in existence then,its term having come to an end a few days earlier.

“It is true that there is a procedure for conducting excavations. But the DG has the powers to order an excavation when it is deemed fit. This particular excavation was carried out largely on the basis of the report of the Geological Survey of India (GSI) and considering the historical value of the site,” Srivastava told The Indian Express.

ASI additional DG B R Mani said that several proposals had been taken up for excavation without vetting by the CABA committee. The ASI got the GSI’s report on October 10,and following quick in-house discussions,began digging on October 18.

A reputed former ASI official confirmed that the DG is the final authority on a range of issues,but was unable to recall any earlier instance of the DG ordering such a high-profile excavation without first consulting the standing committee.

A well regarded archaeologist who declined to be identified said,“There is little merit in excavating the Daundiya Kheda site if you consider its historical value. ASI carries out excavations with specific and very well thought out academic themes and research areas in mind. It would have been much better had the DG consulted the CABA committee. More so,when the DG is not an archaeologist himself,but an IAS officer with limited knowledge and expertise in the field.”

While the Ministry of Culture has been talking of unearthing weapons and remains related to events of the 1857 mutiny,the fact is the ASI has hardly excavated any such site so far — 1857 is not considered old enough.

Claims of finds dating to the 7th or 8th centuries are unimpressive — such remains would be expected at any site in the entire belt.

The ASI claims that Daundiya Kheda was always on its to-do list,and that its first DG,Alexander Cunnigham,had mentioned that the site might date back to the 7th-8th century BC or even earlier. But the fact is that it acted on this site only after Shobhan Sarkar’s reported dream galvanised a union minister and led to a GSI survey.

ASI officials could not recollect another occasion when the Survey had launched into an excavation only on the basis of a GSI report,without exhaustive fieldwork at the site. ASI usually calls in GSI when it is the middle of an excavation,and needs greater clarity which can come through radar-backed imaging.

The GSI report said that while there is “more or less uniform magnetic value” in the area,there is also a “prominent non-magnetic anomalous zone (10-20 m wide occurring at 5-20 m depth) indicative of possible gold,silver and/or some alloys etc”,and recommended that the site “may be tested by excavation for further interest…”

“What ASI should have done is taken this report further and deliberated upon this site,waited until the CABA standing committee was reconstituted,and then maybe decide to approve or reject it. Bypassing processes that should be the norm and ensure greater scrutiny,reflects poorly on the functioning of the organisation,” a senior ASI official said.

Incidentally,the ASI is routinely inundated with letters that speak of hidden treasures across the country.