Archaeological Survey of India (ASI): UPSC Current Affairs

Description

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU

Context

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.

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)

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.

Its growing global stature was highlighted when it hosted the 46th UNESCO World Heritage Committee session in 2023.
Increased focus, excavation funding has more than doubled from ₹6.53 crore in 2014-15 to ₹15 crore in 2024-25.

Functions of ASI

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.

Constitutional Framework & Governance

Constitutional Duty: Article 49 (DPSP) obligates the State to protect monuments of national importance. Article 51A(f) makes it a Fundamental Duty for citizens to preserve India's rich heritage.

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).

Challenges and Criticisms

Resource Scarcity: The ASI suffers from shortages of both funding and manpower.

The Union Culture Minister in the Lok Sabha stated that, ASI employees stands at 4,845 against a sanctioned strength of 8,755.

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.

Standing Committee found that as many as 92 protected monuments had been declared “missing” at one point (only 42 later found).
Weak record-keeping hampers site management and recovery of stolen artifacts.

Regulatory Rigidities: Blanket 100/300m restrictions around every ASI site have drawn criticism.

Local residents and developers complain these zones hamper normal life (water/mining/roads) even around minor monuments. ASI must balance heritage norms with sustainable urban needs.

Bureaucracy & Expertise Gaps: Critics point to red tape and slow decision-making within ASI.

Parliamentary report noted that only 4 of 24 Monument Mitra agreements were fully effective, suggesting uneven execution. In some cases, unskilled contractors did restoration work, risking damage.

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.

In Rajeev Suri v/s ASI (2024) the Supreme Court raised concern that ASI initially supported declaring a Mughal-era “Gumti” structure as nationally important but later reversed course. The Court doubted “the bona fides of the ASI” and directed a CBI probe into how alterations at the site occurred.

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.

Way Forward to Reform ASI

Increase Resources: Dedicated heritage grants (through a trust/CSR) and hire more conservation scientists/archaeologists.

The Standing Committee urges ASI “explore options to increase funding” and to staff up for NMMA surveys.

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:

Adopt LiDAR mapping, GPR, and 3D digital twins for non-invasive surveys and effective monitoring of site health and encroachments.
Invest in training personnel in modern conservation science, heritage management, and digital archaeology.
Publish annual reports on projects. Strengthen the CAG’s role and include heritage experts on advisory boards will improve accountability.

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.