Archaeological Survey of India earned rebuke from the Supreme Court today. Supreme Court pulled up the ASI for its negligence in preserving the iconic Taj Mahal. The maintenance and preservation of Taj Mahal and other historical monuments in India is the duty of the ASI, a duty which has proven to be too much for the ASI owing to huge costs and lack of skilled personnel. The Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta asked the authorities and counsel representing ASI regarding the steps taken to control the spread of algae in Taj Mahal. Blue and green patches have emerged on places in the Taj Mahal and the building has started changing colour from yellow to greenish in recent days. The Supreme Court had earlier advised the Centre to hire experts from abroad if they deemed it necessary. The SC was listening to the ASI counsel regarding a plea filed by environmentalist M C Mehta who had filed the plea seeking protection of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. The Supreme Court Bench also questioned the effectiveness of ASI if it could not take proper care of the historical sites. The bench went so far as to say that the monuments should be taken care of by third parties. PM Narendra Modi’s government had earlier advised a brilliant plan to take care of the historical monuments in India through “Adopt a Heritage”.
Adopt a Heritage is an innovative idea by the BJP government; any private body could adopt a historical site and use it for promotion. In return a sum of money needed to be paid to the government while the adopting body had to take proper care and maintenance of the buildings and sites. The first maintenance contract the Indian government entered into was with the Dalmia group for the upkeep of the Red Fort and Gandikota Fort in Delhi and Kadapa (Andhra Pradesh) respectively. The 25 crore deal made Dalmia group the first company to sign a MoU under the project. There were a whopping 93 plus tourist places up for adoption under the Adopt a Heritage initiative.
This is a beneficial move for the government as it can focus on developing India rather than focusing on historical monuments. The bodies adopting the site would also benefit from using the historical monuments for brand promotion and enhanced social recognition. The upkeep costs of the monuments would have been borne by the adopting bodies, a win – win situation for everybody. This brilliant move by BJP and PM Modi was however used negatively against them; the opposition parties blamed the BJP and PM Modi for allegedly ‘selling the historical monument’. False and baseless accusations were levied against the BJP government as the misinformation spread in public by Congress and its allies knew no bounds.
The Supreme Court’s comments about Taj Mahal should give a new perspective to the myopic vision of the opposition. The Supreme Court understands that ASI is ill-equipped to deal with a national heritage site in Agra, bang next to the national capital. It would therefore be impossible to manage the monuments spread across the length and breadth of the country. Adopt a Heritage scheme would help the government to focus on the growing needs of the people around the country rather than struggling with the upkeep of old ones. The restoration of our monuments is an important issue and cannot be taken lightly. There is no selling involved under the Adopt a Heritage scheme and we will be able to keep our pride and monuments intact and in the best possible shape.