NEW DELHI: A panel of parliamentarians has recommended the removal of ‘minor’ heritage sites that have no ‘national significance’ from the list of protected monuments of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
In its report on the functioning of the ASI, the standing committee on transport, tourism and culture of Rajya Sabha suggested rationalisation and re-categorisation of the list.
Noting that at least 25 per cent of the structures recorded in the coveted list has zero national significance; the 31-member committee said that they get protection similar to the ‘most cherished monuments’.
The report, tabled in both Houses of Parliament during the special session, mentioned 75 graves of colonial-era soldiers and officials including a monument in Karnataka to justify the recommendation for downsizing the inventory.
“For example, a small brick wall enclosure containing two graves located in Kumta, Karnataka, is a centrally protected monument under the supervision of the ASI. The graves are those of public works department engineer John Albert Cope (died in 1880) and Henry Gassen (1877) who worked for a cotton ginning company. The structure had no architectural value, yet, they are supposed to get the same level of protection,” read the report.
The panel said that the list should be rationalised and categorised on the basis of their national significance, unique architectural value and specific heritage content. The committee headed by V Vijayasai Reddy of YSR Congress also advised the ASI to develop preservation plans for all its work, especially before commencing excavations.
It called for establishing clear strategies for documenting findings, conserving artefacts, and restoring structures to ensure minimal impact on the site’s integrity.
It also flagged the random restoration being carried out by the ASI without referring to the original design. “We recommend that the ASI must draw from its vast expertise in the field and adhere to the cardinal tenets of restoration that seeks to repair retaining the structural originality rather than replacing it,” the report said.
Why re-categorise?