Rethink India’s nationally protected monuments list

India has 3695 nationally protected monuments (NPMs) that are under the protection of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). There is occasional public debate about the level of protection/preservation, the complications caused by the 100m plus 200m restriction zone, the quality of visitor amenities, the availability of funds, the unclear role of the National Monuments Authority and so on. However, there is almost no discussion about the existing list of NPMs, and why a monument is deemed to have national significance. As a result, we now have an unwieldy list that requires drastic rationalisation.

There are several problems with the list of NPMs. The first and most obvious is that it includes a large number of minor monuments that do not have any national significance. We estimate that this applies to at least a quarter of the current list. The list, for instance, includes 75 graves of colonial-era soldiers/officials of no particular importance. An example is a small brick-wall enclosure containing two graves located in Kumta, Karnataka. The graves are those of PWD engineer John Albert Cope (died in 1880), and Henry Gassen (died 1877) who worked for a cotton ginning company. The structure has no architectural value, and the individuals were of no historical consequence. Yet, they are supposed to get the same level of protection as our most cherished monuments!

Similarly, the list includes 109 “kos minars” – brick columns that acted as milestones on Mughal highways. They account for 49 of Haryana’s 91 NPMs. Although there is a case for protecting them, it is unclear why they should be treated as national monuments (along with attendant complications for expanding today’s highways). Surely, it would be better to offer a more limited protection to them, perhaps as state-level monuments.

The second major problem with the NPM list is the inclusion of several moveable antiquities as monuments. This includes pieces of sculpture, statues, cannons and so on. An example is a 17th century forge-welded iron cannon in Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu. Another example is a 100cm by 50cm sculpture of a tiger in Kumta, Karnataka. Not only is it difficult to provide protection to an isolated standalone antiquity, the blanket imposition of the 100m plus 200m restricted zone causes many complications on the ground.

A third problem is that of untraceable monuments. A Comptroller and Auditor General audit in 2013 attempted to physically verify NPMs. Of the 1655 it looked up, it could not find 95 NPMs! ASI was later able to trace some of them but dozens are still missing. Examples include the remains of a copper temple in Lohit (Arunachal Pradesh); the guns of Sher Shah in Tinsukhia (Assam); megalithic site in Chandauli (UP); a fort in Nadia (West Bengal); a 12th-century temple in Baran (Rajasthan). Yet, these monuments continue to be included in the NPM list. What is the point of according the highest national status to a monument that we cannot even find?

Fourth, there is serious imbalance in the geographical distribution of the NPMs. Delhi has a disproportionate 173 NPMs, while a large state like Telangana has only eight. A culturally rich state like Manipur has only one. While it is understandable that a historically important place like Delhi will have a cluster of sites, remember that large forts and palaces count only as one site each. Therefore, Delhi’s list contains several obscure tombs and ruins that are definitely not of national significance.

There are many other problems with the NPM list but the reader will hopefully now have a sense of the issues. Note that these problems were not inherited from the colonial period. In 1951, the country only had 368 national monuments, most of them of genuine importance.

The source of the problem is that the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 (amended 2010) has neither a precise definition nor a process for identifying a monument for preservation. It is currently done on the whims of the ASI circle by simply issuing a notification.

In order to resolve this situation, the government should do the following:

• Decide on a few simple rules for what constitutes historical, cultural and architectural significance. Then de-notify the minor monuments and/or hand over to state governments (or even a conservation agency like INTACH).

• Moveable stand-alone antiquities should be moved to a museum or a public space where they can be protected as well as appreciated by visitors.

• A systematic effort should be made find missing NPMs. Those that still cannot be found should be removed from the list.

• An effort should be made to restore geographical balance as well as include additional sites that satisfy the new rules.

There is a lot more that needs to be done in order to preserve our national monuments, but having a sensible list of NPMs would be a good first step.

(Sanjeev Sanyal is Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister; Jayasimha K R is Consultant, EAC-PM. All opinions are personal)