By Nayanjot Lahiri
The finance minister's first budget has been seen as evoking Bollywood because of its Rs 100 crore obsession. This is what Arun Jaitley has proposed for developing metros and upgrading madrasas, and what he has allocated for ghats and the girl child.
Can small outlays lead to substantial changes? Should the Rs 100 crore allocation for preserving our monuments and archaeological sites be seen as tokenism? Would it make a difference to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)?
Since an excellent Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on 'Preservation and Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities' was tabled in Parliament last year, I looked at figures there for answers.
From the budget documents, the inadequate allocation for 'culture' stands out. The ministry of culture's budget in 2010 was a mere 0.12% of our total budget. Of this, the ASI's share was a third of the ministry's share.
In terms of real figures, the budgetary expenditure of the ASI for 2011-12 was a little over Rs 171 crore as the Plan component and Rs 275 crore as the Non-Plan component.
This was spent on activities under various heads, from maintaining site museums to excavations and research. Conservation figured prominently, though the largest chunk was earmarked for establishment charges.
Now, with this Rs 100 crore, the 2014-15 budget has been hiked by nearly 25%. Most importantly, this is exclusively for ensuring better heritage preservation.
This is far more than what the ASI has annually spent on monuments in recent years. Stunning submissions were made in 2010, when the amendment to the Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958 was being drafted by a committee appointed by then-PM Manmohan Singh.
Apparently, the ASI could allocate funds for a handful of non-ticketed monuments every year while there were several hundred monuments that had “not received a single rupee towards conservation in the last 20 to 30 years”.
Considering the magnitude of the problem, this one-time allocation of Rs 100 crore can only be considered as a first step; it has to be converted into an annual allocation.
How should this Rs 100 crore be spent? It would not be wise, for instance, if the ASI spent this money for preparing expensive site management plans such as those around the caves of Ajanta and Ellora, where over Rs 92 lakh and Rs 94 lakh respectively were paid to outside consultants. Nor should funds be spent on World Heritage monuments already the recipients of large annual outlays.
Instead, the hundreds of monuments where there has been little conservation work, or where the funds have been inadequate, should be taken up.
Some of these are unique, like the Kanaganahalli Stupa in Karnataka — its sorry state is evident from the photographs in the CAG report and what it says: “We found the excavated parts of the Stupa and the panels were lying scattered in the open, subject to the vagaries of nature. Water had accumulated in many parts and black patches had appeared on the panels.”
Other endangered monuments are more unprepossessing. The 220-odd mounds and 110 kos minars — conical columns which served as milestones for road users in medieval times — would fall in this category. There are precious structures unearthed from mounds, like the apsidal temple at Sonkh, which are in a pathetic state.
There are those like Hastinapur where temple encroachments and illegal structures have come up on the protected mound, including the statue of a former MP!
Considering this budget makes allocations for enhancing pilgrimage circuits, a substantial outlay for these markers along old travel routes should be considered, with cultural signages to explain their significance.
Finally, it would be a good idea for the ASI to restore some of the monuments which its own people have occupied. Amandapaat Kanyakumari's Vatakkottai has apparently been converted into a storehouse, while the verandah of the palace of Raja Suchet Singh in Ramnagar is a lounge with bathrooms and a kitchen!
Jaitley's Rs 100 crore allocation sends the right signal. The ASI must now display vision by spending it wisely.
The finance minister's first budget has been seen as evoking Bollywood because of its Rs 100 crore obsession. This is what Arun Jaitley has proposed for developing metros and upgrading madrasas, and what he has allocated for ghats and the girl child.
Can small outlays lead to substantial changes? Should the Rs 100 crore allocation for preserving our monuments and archaeological sites be seen as tokenism? Would it make a difference to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)?
Since an excellent Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report on 'Preservation and Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities' was tabled in Parliament last year, I looked at figures there for answers.
From the budget documents, the inadequate allocation for 'culture' stands out. The ministry of culture's budget in 2010 was a mere 0.12% of our total budget. Of this, the ASI's share was a third of the ministry's share.
In terms of real figures, the budgetary expenditure of the ASI for 2011-12 was a little over Rs 171 crore as the Plan component and Rs 275 crore as the Non-Plan component.
This was spent on activities under various heads, from maintaining site museums to excavations and research. Conservation figured prominently, though the largest chunk was earmarked for establishment charges.
Now, with this Rs 100 crore, the 2014-15 budget has been hiked by nearly 25%. Most importantly, this is exclusively for ensuring better heritage preservation.
This is far more than what the ASI has annually spent on monuments in recent years. Stunning submissions were made in 2010, when the amendment to the Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958 was being drafted by a committee appointed by then-PM Manmohan Singh.
Apparently, the ASI could allocate funds for a handful of non-ticketed monuments every year while there were several hundred monuments that had “not received a single rupee towards conservation in the last 20 to 30 years”.
Considering the magnitude of the problem, this one-time allocation of Rs 100 crore can only be considered as a first step; it has to be converted into an annual allocation.
How should this Rs 100 crore be spent? It would not be wise, for instance, if the ASI spent this money for preparing expensive site management plans such as those around the caves of Ajanta and Ellora, where over Rs 92 lakh and Rs 94 lakh respectively were paid to outside consultants. Nor should funds be spent on World Heritage monuments already the recipients of large annual outlays.
Instead, the hundreds of monuments where there has been little conservation work, or where the funds have been inadequate, should be taken up.
Some of these are unique, like the Kanaganahalli Stupa in Karnataka — its sorry state is evident from the photographs in the CAG report and what it says: “We found the excavated parts of the Stupa and the panels were lying scattered in the open, subject to the vagaries of nature. Water had accumulated in many parts and black patches had appeared on the panels.”
Other endangered monuments are more unprepossessing. The 220-odd mounds and 110 kos minars — conical columns which served as milestones for road users in medieval times — would fall in this category. There are precious structures unearthed from mounds, like the apsidal temple at Sonkh, which are in a pathetic state.
There are those like Hastinapur where temple encroachments and illegal structures have come up on the protected mound, including the statue of a former MP!
Considering this budget makes allocations for enhancing pilgrimage circuits, a substantial outlay for these markers along old travel routes should be considered, with cultural signages to explain their significance.
Finally, it would be a good idea for the ASI to restore some of the monuments which its own people have occupied. Amandapaat Kanyakumari's Vatakkottai has apparently been converted into a storehouse, while the verandah of the palace of Raja Suchet Singh in Ramnagar is a lounge with bathrooms and a kitchen!
Jaitley's Rs 100 crore allocation sends the right signal. The ASI must now display vision by spending it wisely.
