The Archaeological Survey of India manages over 3,600 monuments, it faces significant challenges like underfunding, encroachments, and environmental threats. To counter these, the ASI must adopt modern technology, encourage more public-private partnerships, and increase citizen engagement in heritage preservation.
Copyright infringement not intended
Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) faces a credibility crisis due to political reason, controversial transfers of archaeologists, and accusations that its work is influenced by nationalistic zeal.
Foundational Years: Founded in 1861 with Alexander Cunningham as its first Director-General. Its early work led to discoveries, including the Indus Valley Civilization sites of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in the 1920s.
Post-Independence Consolidation: After 1947, the ASI was entrusted with the custody of "monuments of national importance" under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, 1958.
Current Status: As of 2024, the ASI, under the Ministry of Culture, manages 3,697 centrally protected monuments.
Core Functions: The ASI's mandate includes surveying, excavating, conserving, and maintaining ancient monuments. It also conducts epigraphical research and manages site museums.
Legal Mandate: The AMASR Act, 1958 is its foundational law. This Act defines strict conservation zones: a 100-meter "prohibited area" and further a 200-meter "regulated area" around monuments, with the National Monuments Authority (NMA) overseeing development.
Division of Powers (Seventh Schedule): Monuments of "national importance" are on the Union List (managed by ASI), while other archaeological sites fall under the State List.
Oversight Mechanisms: The ASI is accountable to Parliament through its Standing Committee on Culture. The Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) audits its finances, and the judiciary frequently intervenes to enforce heritage laws.
|
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Culture Report It noted ASI oversees 3,691 centrally protected monuments, but criticized the list as over‑inclusive (many minor colonial-era graves receive the same status as grand sites). They suggested rationalizing the protected list by significance. It flagged that the 2010 buffer-zone rules (100m/300m) impose hardship on communities and should be made more flexible. Other recommendations included pre-excavation conservation plans, advanced tech use (LiDAR, 3D scans). |
Resource Scarcity: The ASI suffers from shortages of both funding and manpower.
Encroachment and Destruction: Parliamentary Committee found that over 350 monuments are encroached upon. The ASI lacks the enforcement power to remove these illegal structures.
Documentation: Many sites lack proper documentation. The NMMA noted thousands of antiquities unrecorded.
Regulatory Rigidities: Blanket 100/300m restrictions around every ASI site have drawn criticism.
Bureaucracy & Expertise Gaps: Critics point to red tape and slow decision-making within ASI.
Lack of a Scientific Vision: Critics argue the ASI has become a bureaucratic maintenance agency rather than a scientific body, lagging in modern archaeological research, publication, and interdisciplinary studies.
Credibility and Politicization: The ASI is increasingly involved in communally sensitive disputes (e.g., Gyanvapi survey). Allegations of politically motivated findings and the transfer of independent-minded archaeologists undermine its credibility.
|
Case Studies Gyanvapi Mosque Survey (Varanasi): The ASI's survey and its report, which claimed the pre-existence of a Hindu temple, were central to the judicial process. This case has placed the ASI's role as an "expert witness" under scrutiny, blurring the lines between scientific archaeology and historical interpretation. Srirangapatna Mosque (Karnataka): Similar demands for a survey at the Jamia Masjid in Srirangapatna, believed by some to be built over a Hanuman temple, highlight a pattern of heritage sites becoming focal points of religio-political disputes, placing immense ethical pressure on the ASI. Conservation Failures: The recurring issue of waterlogging at the iconic Gol Gumbaz in Vijayapura and damage to ancient murals due to unscientific restoration efforts showcase the gap between intent and execution. |
Increase Resources: Dedicated heritage grants (through a trust/CSR) and hire more conservation scientists/archaeologists.
Grant Functional Autonomy: Restructure the ASI as a statutory body, insulating it from direct political control to restore its scientific credibility.
De-notify and Rationalize List: Delist monuments of minor local significance and transfer them to State Archaeology Departments, allowing the ASI to focus its limited resources on sites of true national and international importance.
Site-Specific Buffer Zones: Amend the AMASR Act to allow for flexible, evidence-based buffer zones determined by the unique context of each site, balancing conservation with community needs.
Leverage Technology and Build Capacity:
Strengthen Community Partnership: Transform the "Adopt a Heritage" scheme into a genuine partnership model. Empower local communities, NGOs, and universities to become "Monument Mitras," provide them a formal role in site management and protection.
|
What India Can Learn from Other countries Historic England (UK): Operates as an autonomous public entity. It serves as an expert advisor to the government, conducts research, and maintains a vast public archive. Its autonomy ensures scientific independence, a model India could emulate. Carabinieri TPC (Italy): Specialized police force for protecting cultural heritage is highly effective in combating antiquity theft and smuggling. Establishing a similar dedicated law enforcement wing in India could strengthen the enforcement of the Antiquities Act. Community-led Conservation (Peru): At sites like Machu Picchu, Peruvian law mandates that local communities, especially indigenous groups, are key stakeholders in heritage management, to ensure that conservation efforts align with local livelihoods and cultural values. |
Archaeological Survey of India must evolve from a bureaucratic custodian into an autonomous, technology-driven, and community-engaged organization.
Source: THE HINDU
|
PRACTICE QUESTION Q. Critically analyze the role of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in protecting and preserving ancient monuments. 150 words |
The ASI was founded in 1861 by Sir Alexander Cunningham.
The ASI is an attached office of the Ministry of Culture.
A scheme that encourages public-private partnerships for the maintenance of heritage sites.
© 2025 iasgyan. All right reserved
