The Prayas ePathshala

Exams आसान है !

Current Situation:

The Centrally Protected Monuments (CPM) list must to be “rationalised and categorised” according to their national significance, distinctive architectural merit, and historical significance, according to a recent recommendation from a legislative committee.
In addition, it has sparked concerns regarding the management, security, repair, and general maintenance of heritage sites carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which is in charge of all CPMs in India. As recommended by the committee

Making sense of the protected monument list:

According to the committee, there are a lot of little monuments on the list that have no national significance. This is thought to be the case for at least 25% of the 3,691 monuments that are now on the list.
It claims that 75 unremarkable soldiers’ or officials’ graves from the colonial era are on this list.
This strategy aligns with the decolonization agenda of the government. A number of additional monuments that “reflect Indian ethos” will be included in the CPM list, while those chosen by the British or those that exalt the colonial past would be removed.
The committee suggests rationalising and classifying the monuments with ASI list according to their relevance to the country, their distinctive architectural worth, and the specific heritage content they contain.

Relaxing the rules surrounding monuments:

The committee claimed that all ASI-protected monuments cause public annoyance when there is a 300-meter regulated area and a 100-meter forbidden area surrounding them.
This provision, which was added in 2010 by amending the AMASR Act, 1958, forbade and restricted any mining and construction operations within 100 and 300 metres of any protected monument.
The panel stated that this creates issues for the nearby local population. It can be challenging for the village to maintain its residential homes when everyone lives within a 300-meter radius in certain situations. In many locations, such a circumstance results in a hostile environment.
The panel declared that both noteworthy and unimportant monuments are subject to the same regulation. For example, the aforementioned guidelines also apply to tombs and cemeteries, as well as the monuments of Ajanta and Ellora.

Modifying ASI’s primary mandate:

The committee stated that the ASI’s primary responsibility is to preserve monuments and sites, and it advised the central organisation to create preservation plans for every project it undertakes, including those that don’t include excavations.
To guarantee that there is as little disruption to the integrity of the site as possible, this entails developing precise plans for recording findings, preserving artefacts, and repairing buildings.
The ASI ought to concentrate on topics that could provide important historical insights and advance knowledge of India’s rich past.
Alternatively, it suggested splitting the ASI into two separate entities in order to make it a more successful agency.
While the India Heritage Development Corporation (IHDC) can handle the ASI’s revenue-generating activities, such as ticket collection, auctions, licence issuance, cafeteria operations, souvenir sales, and sound and light systems, the ASI can handle its primary mandate of exploration, excavation, and conservation.

Using cutting-edge technology to improve findings at ASI:

Additionally, it promoted the use of cutting-edge technology to improve the precision and effectiveness of excavations, such as LiDAR, ground-penetrating radar, and 3D scanning.
A few of these methods were recently employed by the ASI for their non-invasive survey, which was mandated by the court and whose result has not yet been released, inside the Gyanvapi complex in Varanasi.

What happens to monuments that are gone?

The committee stated that 92 CPMs were deemed “missing” by the CAG. Of these, only forty-two have been found by the ASI; the other fifty are either lost to time, subject to increasing urbanisation, or buried behind dams or reservoirs.
Therefore, maintaining the physical security of every CPM in the nation should be the ASI’s first concern.
In order to confirm the monuments’ physical presence and security, it was suggested that the ministry survey every one that is still standing.
It also suggested that periodic physical surveys of all CPMs be conducted on a regular basis. The ASI shall keep digital logbooks including textual, picture, and video documentation of the monument’s physical condition as well as its coordinates.

Lack of resources and financial hardship:

According to the agency, there is a human resource shortfall when it comes to conservation activities.
The Ministry of Culture, which oversees the ASI, stated that it is looking for methods to hire people by contracting out some tasks. But the ASI noted that this has its own drawbacks because such knowledge isn’t even available outside.
India spends “a little amount” on maintaining and safeguarding its monuments, according to the panel. “It amounts to Rs 11 lakh per monument of national importance (Rs 428 crore for 3693 monuments in 2019–20),” the report stated, emphasising how little money this is in comparison to India, a nation with a rich cultural heritage.

Issues pertaining to restoration efforts:

The committee also stated that repair work is being done in some locations without regard for the monument’s original beauty or design.
Accordingly, it stated that the ASI must integrate “indigenous systems and traditional practises” when restoring the original structure while also considering its relevance and aesthetics.
It stated that the ASI should incorporate sustainable practises, such as the use of environmentally friendly materials and energy-efficient processes, into conservation and restoration projects. It should also take into account the long-term environmental impact of interventions.
The ASI responded by stating that it has carried out significant conservation efforts at several sites throughout the nation, including the
The Karnataka Hoysala Temples, which were recently inducted into the UNESCO World Heritage List, and
The panel was informed by the ASI that it had carried out conservation efforts in several nations, including the Friday Mosque in the Maldives, the My Son Group of Temples in Vietnam, the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, and the Ta Prohm and Preah Vihear temples in Cambodia.
The panel was informed that the international community has expressed great appreciation for the initiatives done outside of India, and the Uzbek authorities at the Karatepa and Fayaztepa Buddhist Sites expressed interest in entrusting ASI with their conservation efforts.

About the government’s “Adopt a Heritage” initiative?

The Ministry of Tourism aims to create, upgrade, and preserve facilities at cultural sites, monuments, and tourist destinations in close cooperation with the Ministry of Culture, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), State/UT Governments, and the Private/Public sector organisations.
The committee expressed worry regarding the private companies’ lack of past experience in conservation and restoration. There have been cases where businesses with no prior experience in the necessary field have been allowed to carry out those tasks, which has led to avoidable damage or devastation.
Therefore, it was advised that only Monument Mitras with experience be employed.

To summarize:

In addition to serving as symbols of India’s rich socioreligious past, monuments have a major economic impact on the country through tourism and allied industries.
As a result, it is necessary to implement the committee’s recommendations regarding protection, ASI reform, and the use of technology in excavation.