Modi governments amendments to the Monuments Act threaten historical structures. By Vandana Chavan
The government has
approved changes to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains
(AMASR) Act, 1958 to allow “public works” near these structures. If Parliament
clears these amendments, national monuments will be threatened. When we think of the
iconic monuments in India, images of the Taj Mahal, Ajanta Caves, The Great
Stupa at Sanchi and the Sun Temple of Konark, among others, come to mind. But
there are thousands of amazing historical treasures in our country. My home
city, Pune, has the eighth century rock-cut temple of Pataleshwar, the more
“modern” Aga Khan Palace - which blends several architectural styles - and the
resting place of Kasturba Gandhi, as well as the Shaniwar Wada, the epicentre
of the mighty Maratha empire.
All these are
designated as “ancient monuments of national importance” and protected under
the AMASR Act. The Archaeological Survey of India is the custodian of these
monuments. That these monuments are in trouble is no secret. Despite its rhetoric
about protecting and promoting the ancient culture and civilisation of India,
the government has decided to dilute an important piece of legislation that was
passed when the UPA held office at the Centre. During the UPA regime, there was
a realisation that protecting critically threatened monuments was becoming
difficult.
Encroachments and
illegal construction close to these monuments were happening on a large-scale
and the penal provisions in the AMASR Act for endangering ancient monuments
were not stringent enough to provide effective deterrence. As a result of the
increased pressure of habitation, especially in urban areas, protected monuments
and sites were getting hemmed in from all sides. This affected their safety,
security and aesthetics. The AMASR Act was substantially amended in 2010 to
strengthen several of its provisions.
The main features of
the amendments were the creation of a “prohibited area” 100 metres around every
national monument where no construction, public or private is permitted,
“regulated area” 200 metres beyond the prohibited area, where any construction
requires permission of a newly constituted National Monuments Authority. Given
the unique nature of each monument, the Act also proposed heritage bye-laws for
each monument to be prepared by an expert body.
The UPA government’s
decision to designate a 100-metre prohibited perimeter around every monument
was upheld by the Supreme Court of India. Responding to a Delhi High Court
verdict, the apex court in Archaeological Survey of India vs Narender Anand And
Ors,opined, “High Court’s anxiety to maintain a balance between the dire
necessity of protecting historical monuments of national and international
importance and development of infrastructures is understandable, but it is not
possible to approve the fiat issued to the Central Government to review the
prohibition contained in the notification.
The notification was
issued by the Central Government for implementing the policy enshrined in
Article 49 of the Constitution and the 1958 Act i.e. to preserve and protect
ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of
national importance”. The Court went on to
say: “The Central Government must have issued said notification after
consulting experts in the field and keeping in view the object of the 1958 Act.
Therefore, in the name of development and accommo-dating the need for
multi-storied structures, the High Court could not have issued a mandamus to
the Central Government to review/reconsider the notification and that too by
ignoring that independence large number of protected monuments have been facing
the threat of extinction and if effective steps are not taken to check the
same, these monuments may become part of history.”
The National Monuments
Authority has been steadfast in refusing permission for construction within the
prohibited areas despite tremendous pressure from private companies, and even
the government. But the government in its zeal to push “development” at any
cost - social, environmental or cultural - has proposed to dilute the AMASR
Act. It must be kept in
mind that any construction, whether for a public project or private purpose,
will pose risks to a monument. Allowing an exception for “public works” will
open a Pandora’s Box, and it will be all but impossible for the National
Monuments Authority or the Archaeological Survey of India to ensure that such
construction do not pose a threat to a monument.
Public works are more
often than not very large infrastructure projects. Allowing these in the
immediate vicinity of a protected monument will defeat the very purpose of the
AMASR Act and will be a violation of Article 49 of the Constitution.
