Why the Supreme Court is angry with the ASI
Over the years, several steps have been taken to clean up the Taj Mahal. But nothing seems to be working. Is it time to call foreign experts?
The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the 157-year-old Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for failing to take proper steps to prevent the Taj Mahal from turning green, which the organisation said in court was due to insects that breed in the stagnant water of the nearby Yamuna river. Displeased by the explanation, the SC made it clear that international experts, not the ASI, should be given the responsibility of protecting the world famous 17th-century monument. The court’s exasperation with the ASI, which is in charge of the monument, is understandable because none of the steps it tried to clean up the marble monument, which earlier was turning yellow, seems to be working. Last year, the government told the Rajya Sabha that a kind of mud therapy, involving the application of a paste of ‘multani mitti’, was being undertaken to preserve the colour of the monument.
Archaeologists have long battled pollution to defend the building’s beauty. In 1996, the SC ordered closure/relocation of the foundries around Agra, and a nearby refinery was compelled to switch to natural gas. Yet these steps have not stopped the deterioration, thanks to challenges: air pollution and changes in climatic conditions. Despite these, which all monuments across the world face in varying degrees, the SC is not wrong in feeling upset about the ASI. A Comptroller and Auditor General’s report (Performance Audit on Preservation and Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities) in 2013 had this to say about the ASI: “The World Heritage Sites did not receive appropriate care and protection. There were numerous cases of encroachment and unauthorised construction in and around these sites.” It also accepted that there were acute shortages of staff in all key positions in the ASI. This adversely affected the security and maintenance of monuments. At the time of the CAG inspection, the ASI also did not have a reliable database on the exact number of protected monuments under its jurisdiction. Unsurprisingly, the state of affairs in many of our heritage site is dire.
While it is easy to fault the ASI, a big part of the blame must go to the ministry of culture, which oversees it. Along with the ASI,it must also answer for failing in its duty to maintain the heritage sites better.