Nicholson’s statue is one of the many missing monuments that continue to be listed by the government. According to a 2013 audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General, there are 24 “untraceable” monuments that are still being considered as the MNIs. the number might actually be higher due to a lack of proper documentation.
This and many other problems with India’s monuments are the subject of a recent government report titled ‘Report on Monuments of National Importance: The Urgent Need for Rationalization‘. The report identifies various problems with India’s MNIs and suggests ways to fix them.
The MNIs are officially conserved by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which functions in accordance with The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 2010 (AMASR Act 2010), but this report was prepared by Sanjeev Sanyal, Jayasimha K.R. and Apurv Kumar Mishra of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister.
The report identifies three main problems with the MNIs: selection issues; skewed distribution of monuments across the country; and inadequate expenditure used for protecting MNIs.
Selection issues
A key issue with the current list of monuments is the criteria based on which a number of monuments were considered of national importance, with nearly 2,584 monuments in the current list having been shifted en masse from the colonial era lists with most never having been reviewed for cultural significance, historical relevance or even national importance, over the years. The report calls for these monuments to be visited and reevaluated in order to be placed on the new lists.The report highlights three main selection errors being made: minor monuments as monuments of national importance; movable antiquities considered monuments of national importance; and untraceable monuments still being considered monuments of national importance.
The issue of minor monuments being considered MNIs is that minor monuments with no cultural significance are being accorded the same resources as major monuments which leads to the overall loss of an already limited resource pool.
Smaller, standalone antiquities that can be moved are also an issue because it is difficult to offer them individual protection, and moving them to a museum will not only free up space on the list but will bring the object closer to being viewed. Furthermore, antiquities that are located in the open also carry the imposition of ‘prohibited’ area and ‘regulated’ area rules, causing complications and logistical problems for development activities. Therefore, antiquities should not be included in the MNI list.
“Untraceable” monuments, like the statue of John Nicholson, must be removed from the list.
How to define an MNI?
Selection of the MNIs is also flawed because the existing criteria for declaring a monument as a “monument of national importance” in India is not well defined. Neither the AMASR Act 1958 nor the National Policy for Conservation, 2014 has a proper definition for what ‘national importance’ stands for. In the absence of any well-defined principles, the selection process is rather arbitrary. Currently, the ASI has a standard operating procedure that entails filling out a form and formation of a Technical Evaluation Committee, which is at best a procedural formality.
The lack of well-defined procedures also means that a number of existing monuments were just shifted from the colonial-era lists which may no longer have any significance to modern India. Many of these monuments don’t have any information about their provenance, including their historical importance, geographical descriptions, cultural and architectural significance, due to the lack of a comprehensive database for all the 3,695 MNIs that are currently registered with the ASI.
Geographically skewed distribution of monuments
The second overarching issue with the current MNI list is the overall imbalance in geographical distribution of the MNIs. Nearly 60% (2,238 out of 3,695) of them are located in just five states: Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.
While it is possible that a historically significant city like Delhi will have a cluster of sites, large forts, and palaces which may count as one site, it does not translate to why culturally and historically significant states like Bihar (70), Odisha (80), Chhattisgarh (46) and Kerala (29) have disproportionately fewer MNIs.
Inadequate expenditure for protecting MNIs
India’s total expenditure on the MNIs is very little and inadequate to take care of these large-scale monuments. What’s more, a significant proportion of the allocated amount is mostly spent on peripheral activities and annual maintenance. Furthermore, there is also an imbalance in the distribution of these resources across the country.
According to the report, of the Rs 428 crores allocated in 2019-20, the city of Delhi with 173 monuments was allotted Rs 18.5 crore, while Uttar Pradesh with 745 monuments was allotted just Rs 15.95 crore. Maharashtra with 286 monuments was only allotted Rs 20.98 crore.
The imbalance also exists because the revenue collected at selected monuments through various sources like ticketing, photography, filming, etc. is not properly utilised by the Ministry of Culture or by the ASI. Moreover, the government has not been able to come up with other sustainable revenue generation models.
The remedies
After identifying the problems, the report offers some recommendations. First, the ASI should review and rationalize the existing list periodically. It should also publish a list of notifications with detailed information on the monuments that do make it into the list.
Another important recommendation is that the ASI should hand over the protection and upkeep of each monument to the respective states and should denotify any standalone antiquities. These antiquities can be moved to a museum.
The funds allocated for the preservation of the MNIs should be increased and the ASI should make an effort to retain the revenue generated from tickets, events, fees and other sources.
The ASI should also create a comprehensive list of criteria and procedures for declaring a monument an MNI. The criteria should include: historical significance and provenance; geographical description; cultural and architectural significance; importance in the development of civilization or culture; and significance as a source of inspiration or education.
For all the latest world News Click Here
