Follow-up on the Performance Audit of Preservation and Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities, Ministry of Culture

Findings

1. Of over four lakh heritage structures and 58 lakh antiquities, only 1.84 lakh monuments and 16.83 lakh antiquities had been documented, a mission begun in 2007 to complete the national database in five years.

   “National Mission on Monuments and Antiquities (NMMA) was launched by the Government (in 2007) to prepare a national database of all monuments and antiquities in the country in five years. NMMA was extended for another five year period (2012-17) and later merged with ASI. Out of 4 lakh plus heritage structures and 58 lakh plus antiquities, only 1.84 lakh monuments and 16.83 lakh antiquities have been documented so far.”Executive Summary

2. Of 3,693 centrally protected monuments, heritage bye-laws — the instrument that governs what may be built around a monument — had been notified for 31, with 210 more at various stages.

   “National Monument Authority was constituted as a statutory body (in 2011) for providing no-objection certificates for undertaking construction activities in the prohibited/regulated area of the monuments. The basic objective was implementation of the statutory provisions through preparation of Heritage Bye-Laws (HBL) and Site-Plans for each monument. However, out of 3693 Centrally Protected Monuments, HBL for only 31 monuments have been notified while finalisation of HBL for 210 monuments were at different stages viz. notification, consultation, etc.”Executive Summary

3. The Archaeological Survey of India had no long or medium-term strategy for its own mandate and ran conservation on an ad hoc annual basis; its apex advisory board was inactive after March 2018 and had met once between 2014 and 2018.

   “ASI had no strategy or road-map (long term/medium term) to fulfill its mandate. The conservation activities were being undertaken on ad-hoc/annual basis. Central Advisory Board on Archaeology conceptualised as apex body to advise ASI on matters relating to archaeology was inactive after March 2018 and had only one meeting during 2014-18 (in October 2014). Despite recommendation of the PAC no coordination and monitoring mechanism was established at Central or Circle levels to check the incidents of encroachment.”Executive Summary

4. Vacancies in the Archaeological Survey of India stood at 29 per cent, unchanged since the earlier audit, and had worsened at management level and in the conservation branches.

   “With regard to human resource constraints, PAC had asked the Ministry/ASI to expedite the restructuring process of ASI and make effort in filling the current vacancies. However, overall vacancy position of ASI had remained static at 29 per cent since earlier audit. At management levels and in important conservation branches of ASI the position had further deteriorated.”Executive Summary

5. The ministry had assured the Public Accounts Committee it would raise spending on exploration and excavation to five per cent of its budget; the audit found it still below one per cent.

   “Ministry had intimated the PAC regarding its decision to increase the budget on exploration/excavation activities to five per cent of the total budget. Despite the assurance given by the Ministry, ASI's expenditure on excavation and exploration activities was still less than one per cent.”Executive Summary

6. The National Culture Fund, set up in 1996 to bring private money into conservation, held ₹76 crore by March 2021 and had used less than 14 per cent of it towards its objectives.

   “To provide external budgetary funding for heritage conservation National Culture Fund was established in November 1996… against the primary corpus of ₹ 19.50 crore, endowment available with NCF rose to ₹ 76 crore by March 2021. Less than 14 per cent utilisation towards the objectives of NCF indicate absence of its coordination with ASI.”Executive Summary

7. Guidelines for deciding which monuments are of national importance were never prepared and no survey or review of monuments was undertaken; the ministry told the audit the committee's view was "not relevant/possible to be implemented".

   “PAC had recommended that guidelines for determination of national importance of monuments to be finalised at the earliest and after this a comprehensive survey should be conducted to identify the exact number of monuments that can be protected. It was noted that guidelines was not prepared, no survey/review of monuments was undertaken by ASI. Instances defining absence of criteria for centrally protected monuments as reported earlier were still existing. In this regard, Ministry/ASI informed that taking of survey is an ongoing phenomenon and the view of PAC was not relevant/possible to be implemented.”Executive Summary

8. Discrepancies in the list of centrally protected monuments, and the de-notification of monuments recorded as missing, remained unresolved from the earlier audit despite an assurance that they would be rectified.

   “Discrepancies in the list of Centrally Protected Monuments and issues related with de-notification of missing monuments (as reported earlier) were still existing despite assurance that efforts would be made for their rectification.”Executive Summary

Fact-checks citing this report

• ◑Lacks contextWe will make sure that all UNESCO World Heritage Sites in India have facilities of international standard… we intend to expand support for protecting cultural/linguistic heritage, conserving sites of ecological/historical importance.