PARLIAMENT OF INDIA

RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT, TOURISM & CULTURE

NINETY-FIRST REPORT ON FUNCTIONING OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA

(PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 25.11.2005) (LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON 25.11.2005)

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI NOVEMBER, 2005/AGRAHAYANA, 1927 (SAKA)

CONTENTS
1.COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE 2.INTRODUCTION 3.REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 4.OBSERVATIONS/CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS GLANCE 5.MINUTES AT A

COMPOSTION OF THE DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT, TOURISM AND CULTURE (2004-2005)
1.Shri Nilotpal Basu - Chairman RAJYA SABHA Prof. Ram Deo Bhandary Shri S.S. Chandran Shri Dara Singh Chauhan Shrimati Hema Malini Shri Janardhana Poojary Shri Satish Kumar Sharma Shri Shatrughan Sinha Shri Rama Muni Reddy Sirigireddy Shrimati Ambika Soni LOK SABHA Shri Ramdas Athawale Shri Raj Babbar Shri Anil Basu Shri N.S.V. Chitthan Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury Dr. K. Dhanaraju Shri Dip Gogoi Shri Vijay Kumar Khandelwal

Shri W. Wangyuh Konyak Dr. Ramkrishna Kusmaria Shri Samik Lahiri Shri Sudam Marandi Shri Alok Kumar Mehta Shri Ravindra Naik Shri Gingee N. Ramachandran Shri Manabendra Shah Shri Dushyant Singh Shri Madan Lal Sharma Shri Sartaj Singh Shri Chengara Surendran Shri Umakant Yadav

(2005-2006) 1.Shri Nilotpal Basu - Chairman RAJYA SABHA 2. Shri Kamal Akhtar Prof. Ram Deo Bhandary 4. Shri S.S. Chandran Smt. Hema Malini Shri Janardhana Poojary Shri Satish Kumar Sharma

Shri Shatrughan Sinha Shri Rama Muni Reddy Sirigireddy Smt. Ambika Soni LOK SABHA Shri Ramdas Athawale Shri Raj Babbar Shri Anil Basu Shri Sartaj Singh Chhatwal Shri N.S.V. Chitthan Shri Adhir Chowdhury Dr. K. Dhanaraju Shri Ravindra Naik Dharavath Shri Dip Gogoi Shri Vijay Kumar Khandelwal Shri W. Wangyuh Konyak Dr. Ramkrishna Kusmaria Shri Samik Lahiri Shri Sudam Marandi Shri Alok Kumar Mehta Shri Gingee N. Ramachandran Shri Manabendra Shah Shri Dushyant Singh Shri Madan Lal Sharma

Shri Chengara Surendran Shri Umakant Yadav SECRETARIAT Shri N.C. Joshi, Additional Secretary Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Director Shri Jagdish Kumar, Under Secretary Shrimati Subhashree Panigrahi, Committee Officer INTRODUCTION I, the Chairman, Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture, having been authorised by the Committee to present on its behalf, do hereby present this Ninety-first report on Functioning of the Archaeological Survey of India. 2. The Committee considered the subject and held extensive discussions with the representatives of Ministry of Culture and the Archaeological Survey of India. The Committee took oral evidence of the Secretary and other officers of the Ministry of Culture and D.G. ASI on 19th November 2003, 29th November 2004, 27th December 2004 and 20th June, 2005. 3.In order to get wider views on the subject, the Committee also heard the views of S/Shri S.S.Biswas and Jagat Pati Joshi, former D.G. National Museum and former D.G. ASI on 17 th September 2004 and 1st October 2004 respectively on the subject. 4. The Committee wishes to express its thanks to the officers of Ministry of Culture, and Archaeological Survey of India for placing before the Committee the material and information desired in connection with the subject and for clarifying the points raised by the Members. The Committee also acknowledges the contribution of S/Shri S.S.Biswas and Jagat Pati Joshi, who submitted their valuable suggestions in connection with the subject. 5. The Committee considered and adopted the Report at its meeting held on the 19th September, 2005.

NEW DELHI ; September 19, 2005 Bhadrapada 28, 1927 (Saka)

NILOTPAL BASU Chairman Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism &

Culture.

Report India is one of the oldest civilizations in the world and its historical heritage and cultural glory has been the subject of interest of the entire humanity. In a country like India, endowed with both tangible and intangible heritage of an immense cultural and artistic value, which also has a multi-religious cultural fabric, archaeology assumes a position of crucial importance. 2. Keeping in view the importance of archaeology, the Archaeological Survey of India was established in the year 1861 with the primary object of surveying and recording the archaeological monuments in India. It has a long colonial history and its mandate has evolved at a very slow pace spread over centuries. For the first time in the year 1880, an organized attempt was made to preserve the monuments from decay by appointing Mr. H.H. Cole as a curator of monuments, which also coincided, with the recognition of the fact that the preservation of the monument was the permanent responsibility of the State. In 1899, the Archaeological Survey of India was administratively divided into five circles for the preservation, conservation, archaeological exploration and excavation on a permanent basis and with well defined polices. With the advent of Lord Curzon as Viceroy, the Archaeological Survey of India was placed on a formal footing during the first decade of the 20th century. He appointed Mr. John Marshal as the Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, who undertook great excavation at Taxila, Sanchi, Sarnath etc. The concept of archaeological conservation of ancient monuments was added during the time of John Marshall. Hundreds of monuments/sites were declared as protected monuments under the purview of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904. In 1944, Dr. R.E.M. Wheeler was appointed Director General of Archaeological Survey of India. During his tenure he incorporated modern methods for carrying archaeological excavations and trained the staff of the Survey in excavations at Taxila, Arikamedu and Harappa. Having indepth understanding and involvement he revolutionized the concept of archaeological excavation by introducing importance of stratigraphy. Wheeler also started Horticulture Branch in Archaeological Survey of India to develop suitable gardens to create pollution free ambiance around monuments. Thus, prior to independence a sound foundation was laid for the Archaeological Survey of India. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN THE POST INDEPENDENCE PERIOD: 3. With the promulgation of the Constitution of India from 26th January 1950, archaeology has been made a Concurrent subject under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which reads : List I (Union List), item 67: ancient and historical monuments and records, and archaeological sites and remains declared by or under law by Parliament to be of national importance. List II (State List), item 12: libraries, museums and other similar institutions controlled or financed by the State; ancient and historical monuments and records other than those declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance.

List III (Concurrent List), item 40: archaeological sites and remains other than those declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance. 4. In fulfillment of the provisions of the Constitution, Parliament passed the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act in 1951 by which all the monuments previously protected under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904 were redeclared to be of national importance. In 1953, after the merger of the princely states with the rest of India, the Archaeological Survey of India took the additional responsibility of upkeep of the monuments in princely states. 5. Currently, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Rules, 1959 and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 and Rules, 1973 are operational and empowers the Archaeological Survey of India in its functioning. PRESENT MANDATE OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA 6. The Archaeological Survey of India is the premier organization so far as the archaeological research, study, excavation of archaeological sites, conservation/preservation of centrally protected monuments, maintenance of site museums and overall regulation of antiquities and art objects are concerned. As an apex body in the field of archaeology, the functions of Archaeological Survey of India are very broad and varied which may be classified as under :Conservation and preservation of monuments/sites and remains; Archaeological explorations and excavations; Preservation of monuments and antiquarian remains; Architectural survey of monuments; Epigraphical and numismatic studies; Setting up of the Site Museums; Training in archaeology; Archaeologial publications; Archaeological expeditions abroad; Implementation of Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972; and Horticulture operation around ancient monuments and sites.

7. Since the functions of Archaeological Survey of India are very broad and varied and India is endowed with tremendous historical and cultural heritage, the Committee decided to study the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India. In order to get wider views on the subject, the Committee decided to elicit the views of some independent experts in the field of archaeology. Accordingly, the Committee heard the views of Shri S.S. Biswas, former Director General, National Museum and Shri Jagatpati Joshi, former Director General, Archaeological Survey of India on the 17th September and 1st October 2004 respectively. On the basis of the information provided by these two independent experts and other documents provided to the Committee by the Ministry of Culture, the Committee took the oral evidence of the Secretary, Ministry of Culture and the representatives of Archaeological Survey of India on the 29th November and 27th December 2004 and the 20th June 2005 to get an in depth insight into the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India. MONUMMENTS/SITES UNDER PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA 8. Archaeological Survey of India protects and maintains 3663 monuments/sites in total and also declared those monuments as of national importance. All the monuments/sites protected by the Archaeological Survey of India are being conserved/preserved on need based requirement. As regards classification of monuments into different categories, the ASI has drawn long term programme to protect all 3663 monuments/sites which are of historical, architectural and aesthetic value. Classification of monuments is an ongoing process and depends upon the requirements and feasibility of management, protection of monuments/sites. In view of the nature of importance, urgency for structural conservation, preservation and chemical preservation including environmental development and providing essential tourist facilities in all these monuments, the ASI has categorised the monuments as under: Category of Monuments 1. Group A 2. Group B 3. Group C No. of Monuments 18 (which are inscribed on the World Heritage List of UNESCO and are ticketed) 108 (These are other ticketed monuments/sites) 3537 (Un ticketed monuments/sites)

However, the Ministry made it clear that the above categorization is not a formal one, but for the convenience sake the monuments have been categorized. 9. The Committee notes that the ASI has drawn long-term programme to protect all 3663 monuments/sites of national importance out of which 3537 monuments/sites are unticketed. These monuments have also been classified into three categories viz. Group A, B and C for convenience. The Committee is however aware that there are many sites/monuments under the protection/maintenance of Archaeological Survey of India which are located in interior areas of various States but are lying unattended. Therefore, the Committee recommends that Ministry of Culture should equally treat the revenue earning and not-earning sites and efforts should be made for integrated infrastructure development and conservation/preservation of all

monuments/sites with encompassing facilities for tourists, so as to give a major fillip to cultural tourism in the country as well as attracting overseas visitors. ORGANISATIONAL SET UP AND THE POST OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA 10. At present the Archaeological Survey of India is functioning as an attached office under the Ministry of Culture, which is headed by the Union Minister for Culture. The Ministry of Culture has a Secretary level officer, who looks after various attached and subordinate office in the Ministry. Being an attached office, the Archaeological Survey of India has its own head designated as Director General. The Director General, in turn, is assisted by an Additional Director General, a Joint Director General and a group of Directors. At present there are 10 Directors assisting the Director General in performing duties. For administrative convenience and research purposes, the Archaeological Survey of India is divided into 21 Circles headed by a Superintending Archaeologist, who is further assisted by Deputy Superintending Archaeologist., Deputy S.A.E., A.S.A., A.S.A.E., Ass & C.As. There are 6 Excavation Branches, on Prehistory Branch, one Building Survey Project, two Temple Survey Projects, two Epigraphy Branches and one Science Branch functioning in the Archaeological Survey of India on different field and research project. 11. The Archaeological Survey of India is headed by a Director General. Some of the important functions and responsibilities of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India are as under: To function as the head of the Archaeological Survey of India which is primarily engaged on (a) basic research in various disciplines of archaeology, including (i)archaeological excavations and explorations (ii) protection of monuments/sites of national importance, their proper maintenance and upkeep and carrying of archaeological conservation as well as chemical preservation of these monuments/sites; prevention of vandalism/encroachment at these monuments/sites, setting up and maintenance of site, museums, environmental development of monuments/sites; (iii) bringing out of archaeological publications (iv) epigraphical research (v) operation of antiquarian law viz. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains Act-1958 and Rules 1959; as well as Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972 and Rules 1976; (vi) bringing out of archaeological publications (vii) maintenance and upkeep of archaeological libraries. Laying down of archaeological policy in the country, and to issue licences for conducting archaeological excavations by various states/research Institution and generally guide archaeological activities in the country. 12. The Committee noted that the post of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India was being filled up by the Government from Indian Administrative Service (IAS) for a fairly long period. During its interaction with one independent expert on the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India, the Committee was informed that the Government had issued a notification in May 2002, according to which the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India should have a Masters Degree in Indian History/Archaeology/allied subjects and should have eighteen years of administrative experience with, at least, five years in the field of

archaeology. The Committee noted that the notification had not been implemented, and since the last 12 years, the Director General deputed to the Archaeological Survey of India had no basic qualification or knowledge in archaeology. 13. The same independent expert while submitting his views before the Committee on the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India also emphasized that the practice of filling up the post of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India from Indian Administrative Service on deputation basis had adversely affected the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India and stated as under: This is relating to the appointment of all the scientific officers, specially the head of the department i.e. the Director General who has been coming on deputation basis from the Ministry. This aspect is very much related to the functioning of the ASI. If the bureaucrats who have little knowledge of it, are manning the scientific department or even the academic department, I need not tell you about the results. If you look at the recruitment rules, you will notice this anomaly. I will give you an example. Why I am saying this is that these are very important because unless the appropriate leader is there, no function can be carried out properly. 14. In the backdrop of above information, the Committee enquired from the Ministry of Culture whether there was any anomaly in recruitment rules of Archaeological Survey of India with regard to the appointment of Director General and whether the guidelines laid down in the official gazette, notified in May, 2002, had been followed in recruitment of Director General of Archaeological Survey of India. In reply, the Ministry of Culture informed the Committee that the Recruitment Rules for appointment of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India were notified by the Ministry of Culture in May 2002. The appointment to the post of Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India is made directly by the Government of India. Since the year 1993, no eligible technical officer in the feeder cadre of the organization was available for promotion to the post of Director General. 15. The Committee further enquired from the Ministry of Culture regarding the rationale to fill the post of Director General and other scientists, professionals and experts posts in Archaeological Survey of India with bureaucrats from outside and whether the recruitment of bureaucrats would not hamper developing Archaeological Survey of India as a spearhead of scientific discipline in the country. In response, the Ministry of Culture in their written reply stated that the Archaeological Survey of India is a multidisciplinary agency consisting of archaeologists, scientists, historians, engineers and architects. Therefore, appointment of a generalist administrator as DG, Archaeological Survey of India will not hamper the development of Archaeological Survey of India as a scientific organisation. It was also mentioned that there is no objective assessment which has established that appointment of officers from outside the Archaeological Survey of India has hampered the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India in any way. 16. The Committee is not in agreement with the argument put- forth by the Ministry of Culture that the appointment of generalist administrator as Director General will not hamper the development of Archaeological Survey of India as a scientific organisation. TheCommittee is shocked to note that even after the Gazette Notification of May 2002, the Government has not

been able to fill up the post of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India as per the requirements of the notification and has been merely filling up the post from Indian Administrative Service on deputation basis. The Committee is constrained to observe that the Government preferred to fill up the highest post of an apex institution requiring very high standards of technical qualification with a generalist administrator. The Committee is of the view that a person who has no basic qualification or knowledge of archaeology cannot handle the apex responsibility of a Scientific Institution like Archaeological Survey of India. Unless the leader of the Archaeological Survey of India is having the professional expertise, it is very difficult to give a lead. This has also dampened the spirits of the senior officers in the feeder grade of the organization who may never get the opportunities to serve as senior most officer of their parent organization. Therefore, the Committee recommends that steps should be taken to fill up the post of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India as per the requirements of the Notification of May 2002, at the earliest. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AS A SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT 17. During its interaction with another independent expert on the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India, it was brought to the notice of the Committee that the Archaeological Survey of India was declared as a Science and Technological Institution w.e.f. 1 st May 1989 by a Gazette Notification. However, no action was taken to implement the notification. Attention of the Committee was also drawn towards the Mirdha Committee Report submitted in the year 1984 in this context and the recommendations made therein. The second recommendation of the Report stated:The Archaeological Survey of India should not be considered merely an administrative organization, but in view of its highly specialized functions, should be accorded the status of a scientific and technical institution, enjoying autonomy in its functioning, like other comparable institutions under the Government. 18. The Committee enquired from the Ministry of Culture as to when the Archaeological Survey of India was declared a scientific and technical Department and whether the notification had been implemented or not. In response, the Committee was informed by Ministry of Culture that, on the basis of the recommendations made by a group set-up by the Department of Science and Technology, the Archaeological Survey of India was declared as a Scientific and Technological Department vide Notification No.A.36016/2/89-Estt. dated 27.10.1989 issued by Department of Culture. This Notification was operative w.e.f. 1.5.1989. However, inspite of this, the Archaeological Survey of India continued to function as an attached office of the Ministry of Culture. The nature of functions and activities of Archaeological Survey of India were of such nature that it could not be so far made into a wholly scientific and technical institution. However, efforts have been made to take advantage of technical and scientific expertise in various disciplines of archaeology. 19. The Committee further enquired from the Ministry of Culture regarding the action taken by the Ministry of Culture to develop Archaeological Survey of India into a scientific and technical department after the issue of the notification in this regard. In response, the Committee

was informed by the Ministry of Culture that as a follow-up action to the declaration of Archaeological Survey of India as Science & Technology Department, a proposal for the introduction of the benefits of the Flexible Complementing Scheme to the technical officers of the Archaeological Survey of India was sent to the Department of Personnel and Training on 28.2.1990. The matter was pursued with the Department of Personnel and Training from time to time. The Department of Personnel and Training referred the entire Flexible Complementing Scheme to the Fifth Central Pay Commission for review. Also, a proposal for the exemption of recruitment to technical posts of the ASI from the purview of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was submitted to the Department of Personnel and Training on 19.12.1989 for their approval on the ground that Archaeological Survey of India is a Scientific & Technical organization. The Department of Personnel and Training did not agree to the proposal for the exemption of the recruitment of technical posts in the Archaeological Survey of India from the purview of the Union Public Service Commission. 20. The Committee was not satisfied with the replies furnished by the Ministry of Culture and, during the course of oral evidence of the Secretary and other representatives of Ministry of Culture held on the 27th December 2004, enquired from the Secretary of the Ministry regarding the internal exercise undertaken by the Ministry to develop Archaeological Survey of India as a scientific and technical department. In response, the Secretary of the Ministry stated as under :There is no indication that any proactive work was done to take consequential action on the basis of this notification. But within the Archaeological Survey of India, some work was done, because the scientific organisations have got the benefit of flexible complementary scheme for staff promotions etc. and they had tried to undertake the work. 21. The Committee impressed upon the Ministry of Culture the importance of giving Archaeological Survey of India the status of a scientific and technical department. In response, the Secretary, Ministry of Culture further stated that there had been a lacuna in the matter which needed to be bridged. The Secretary, thereafter, assured the Committee that the Ministry would form a Committee under the Chairmanship of Director General, ASI to look into all the pros and cons of this issue and submit the findings of the Committee within six weeks. Ministry of Culture thereafter, set up a Committee with Director General, ASI as its chairman to recommend course of action for availing the benefits and privileges which could be extended to the Archaeological Survey of India as a Science and Technology Department. 22. Vide their O.M. No.F.5/2/2004-plg(pt.) dated the 11th February 2005 the Archaeological Survey of India intimated the Committee that after holding detailed deliberations on the implications and benefits which result from the declaring of Archaeological Survey of India as Science and Technology institution, the Committee set up by Ministry of Culture under the chairmanship of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India has inter-alia made the following recommendations:(i) The Archaeological Survey of India may send a proposal to the Ministry of Culture for the delegation of all financial and administrative powers of the Ministry/Department to the DG, ASI. This should be in addition to the financial powers of the DG under the Archaeological Works Code.

(ii) Secretary (Culture) should chair the EFC for the approval of projects of ASI costing Rs.100.00 crore and above but less than 200.00 crore. (iii) The Archaeological Survey of India as a Science & Technology institution should be exempted from the purview of DGS&D for the purchase of store items. Since the major component of procurements in the Archaeological Survey of India concerns with the conservation activities and carrying out the excavation and exploration activities, these are regulated by the Archaeological Works Code. (iv) The Archaeological Survey of India should have its own Civil Engineering Unit for examining and monitoring the conservation works being carried out in its monuments and archaeological sites. The existing conservation wing in the Archaeological Survey of India should be restructured and converted into a an effective Civil Engineering Unit for proper examination of estimates and monitoring of conservation/ preservation activities of monuments and archaeological sites of the Archaeological Survey of India. (v) Since the institution of Staff Inspection Unit (SIU) of the Ministry of Finance no longer exists, the Committee felt that as and when Archaeological Survey of India required additional technical posts, it should formulate a proposal on functional grounds for the creation of such additional technical posts and send it to the Ministry of Finance. This was done by the Archaeological Survey of India in the financial year 2003-04 when as many as 228 additional technical posts were sanctioned on functional grounds for the Archaeological Survey of India. (vi) The Archaeological Survey of India may consider sending a proposal to the Department of Personnel and Training for appropriate exemption of the recruitment to Group A technical posts from the purview of the UPSC. (vii) DG Archaeological Survey of India, being the Head of the Science & Technical organisation should have powers for deputation to abroad of the technical officers working in the Archaeological Survey of India (subject to the conditions). (viii) Since the officers of the Archaeological Survey of India in various cadres (as specified) have been performing duties of technical/ scientific nature and requires technical skill, knowledge and experience specific to their sphere of duties, a proposal for the extension of the benefits of Flexible Complementing Scheme to them may be submitted to the Ministry of Culture in terms of para (vi) above. 23. The Committee also desired to know whether the Ministry of Culture proposed to take any legislative action to accord Archaeological Survey of India the status of a technical institution. In response, the Ministry of Culture in their written reply dated 10.2.2005 mentioned that presently no requirement was felt for any legislative action for according the Archaeological Survey of India the status of a technical institution. However, necessary follow up action would be taken up on the recommendations of the Committee referred to above. 24. The Committee is constrained to note that even after a lapse of fifteen years from the date of issue of the notification in this regard no concrete action was taken by Ministry of Culture and

Archaeological Survey of India for developing Archaeological Survey of India as a Scientific and Technical Department, which amply indicates the administrative apathy towards the whole issue. The Committee regrets that no internal exercise was undertaken by Ministry of Culture and Archaeological Survey of India during the last fifteen years for availing the benefits and privileges which could be extended to the Archaeological Survey of India as a Science and Technology department. The Committee observes that there has been deviation in the working of Archaeological Survey of India and that it has failed in terms of developing Archaeological Survey of India not merely as an administrative body but also as a spearhead for consolidating the scientific discipline of archaeology in the country. The Committee is of the view that the Archaeological Survey of India needs to reinvent itself, not merely as an administrative wing of the Government, but as an agency for protecting and safeguarding our national heritage, which involves a lot of scientific and technical work. Unless the Archaeological Survey of India converts itself fully into a scientific and technical organization, the basic role and function of the organisation will be defeated. The Committee recommends that the Ministry of Culture and Archaeological Survey of India should, without any further loss of time, take necessary followup action on the recommendations of the Committee chaired by Director General, Archaeological Survey of India so as to avail the benefits which accrue to a Science and Technology department. The Committee also recommends that, if required, the Ministry of Culture should also take necessary legislative action to make Archaeological Survey of India Science and Technology department in the true sense. SARASVATI PROJECT 25. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, govern excavations in India. The Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India grants licenses to various excavation agencies, both government and autonomous, for conducting excavations on the recommendations of the standing Committee of the Central Advisory Board of Archaeology (CABA). The criteria for selecting a site for excavation are as under: bridging of missing gaps(s) in the cultural sequence of Indian archaeology, throwing more light on lesser known cultures. Salvage archaeology in the event of a site being submerged by a dam or being destroyed or damaged due to absolutely necessary development works, natural calamities. 26. The Committee desired to know the details relating to the Sarasvati Heritage Project. In response the Committee was apprised by the Ministry of Culture that the Sarasvati project aimed at conducting a multidisciplinary study of River Sarasvati and its basin stretching in India from the Sivaliks to the Arbian Sea, falling in the Indian states of Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat and formulating and implementing integrated development programmes in the area by creating 15 hub sites as centers of culture, tourism and good civic life. For providing a proper orientation as well as implementation of the Project, the Government of India through its gazette notification S.O. 1329 (E), dated 18th December 2002, New Delhi, constituted a 13 member committee namely, the Advisory Committee, for the Multidisciplinary Study of River Sarasvati (ACMS), under the chairmanship of the then Minister of Tourism and Culture.

27. During the oral evidence of the representatives of Ministry of Cultural and Archaeological Survey of India held on the 27th December 2004 the Committee enquired about the origin of the Sarasvati Heritage Project. In response, the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India informed the Committee that the same report was prepared in September 2003 on the basis of the recommendations of a Committee, which was formed in December 2002, with the Tourism Minister as the Chairman besides eight other Members who were experts in various fields and one Joint Director of Archaeological Survey of India as the Member-Secretary or Convenor of the Committee. The Committee then desired to know about the historical and the scientific basis on which the report was prepared. In response, the Ministry informed the Committee that there was a report of the Remote Sensing Agency in this regard which suggested that there was a channel. But the name Sarasvati was not indicated. 28. Not satisfied with the reply furnished by the representatives of Ministry of Culture and ASI, the Committee further enquired from the Ministry of Culture as to whether the Sarasvati Heritage Project was taken up by the ASI under the Chairmanship of the then Minister of Tourism and Culture and whether there were any similar precedent in this regard. The Committee also desired to know whether the Ministry had framed any guidelines in this regard. In response, in a written reply the Ministry of Culture informed the Committee that the project report for the Sarasvati Heritage Project was prepared initially in September 2003 at an estimated cost of Rs. 36.02 crores. This outlay was reduced to Rs. 4.98 crores as reflected in the financial concurrence accorded on 1.3.2004. The Committee was also informed that the former Minister for Tourism & Culture was not the Chairman of the project. The Committee was also informed about the objectives of the Sarasvati Heritage Project. It was mentioned that the Sarasvati Heritage Project was developed as a multi-disciplinary project with the following objectives:to define the River Sarasvati and its tributaries in the basin by adopting multidisciplinary approach; to identify special items of geotechnical studies; to promote multidisciplinary archaeological research by way of exploration, excavation and specialized studies such as ceramic, metallurgical, mineralogical, botanical, zoological, geotechnical, petrological, sedimentological; to carry out structural and chemical conservation of sites, monuments and excavated structures as well as moveable objects; to accomplish environmental upgradation of the sites; realize all these objectives in all integrated, concerted and planned manner under a special drive during a period of three years, to begin with. 29. However, in the same reply the Ministry also stated that prior to the preparation of the project report, the Government had constituted an Advisory Committee on 18.12.2002 with Minister for Tourism and Culture as Chairman and other expert members drawn from outside the

Archaeological Survey of India. The Ministry further added that they have not framed any special guidelines for implementation of this project. 30. The Committee enquired from the Ministry of Culture about the procedure followed by the Archaeological Survey of India while selecting a site for excavation and whether they consulted any experts and eminent academicians in the country before finalizing this project. The Ministry replied that the archaeological excavations in the country are approved by the Standing Committee of the Central Advisory Board on Archaeology (CABA) based on the requests for permitting excavations from Universities/Research Organisations. In light of the above replies submitted by Ministry of Culture, the Committee desired to know whether the Sarasvati Heritage Project was recommended by any academic body/university which clubbed this omnibus project under the river SarasvatiProject. The Committee also desired to know whether any proper scientific and technical appraisal for defining Saraswati had been taken or not. In response, the Ministry of Culture categorically informed the Committee that "no academic body or university has recommended the project". The Committee was also informed that in the past, scientific surveys were conducted in the dry bed of River Ghaggar, identified as River Sarasvati by some geoscientists. There were also remote sensing studies which have established palaeochannels, and the results of such studies have been published in journals like Journal of Arid Environments, Journal of Geological Society of India, Man and Environment, South Asian Archaeology, Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science (Earth and Planetary Sciences), etc. 31. The Committee further enquired that whether any scientific or technical study had led to the project or certain mythological sources had been used to determine its name. The Committee also enquired as to how a scientific department like Archaeological Survey of India proceeded in this matter, and from where did they get the name of the river Sarasvati. To these queries, the Ministry replied that explorations and excavations in parts of Haryana and Rajasthan on the dry bed of River Ghaggar and River Chautang (River Drisadvati) havebrought to light several settlements ranging from the early Harappan times to the modern ones. Besides, surveys carried out by various universities and research institutions like Kurukshetra University, Deccan College, etc. also brought to light a large number of sites. There were also independent studies by scientists who had made use of the aerial photographs and satellite imageries to delineate the palaeo-drainage course of a river. These studies were published in journals like Man and Environment, Geological Society of India Memoirs, etc. These scientific and archaeological studies had led to the formulation of the project and naming it as Sarasvati Heritage Project. 32. After going through the replies furnished by the Ministry of Culture, the Committee is of the firm view that Sarasvati Heritage Project did not conform to the criterion fixed for excavation of archaeological sites since no academic body or university had recommended the project. The Committee also notes that there is an element of contradiction in the replies submitted to the Committee by the Department of Culture. On the one hand, the Ministry of Culture has stated that the former Minister of Tourism and Culture was not the Chairman of the Sarasvati Heritage Project, while, on the other hand, the Ministry has stated that prior to the preparation of the project report, the Government had constituted an Advisory Committee with the then Minister of Tourism and Culture as Chairman and that this Committee had recommended the Saraswati Heritage Project. The Committee further notes that the Ministry is not clear as to which research

agency/scientific survey actually pointed out that the dry beds of River Ghaggar and River Chautang (River Drisadvati) are the bed of River Sarasvati. The Committee understands that existence of River Sarasvati is purely a mythological one and a scientific institution like Archaeological Survey of India has not correctly proceeded in the matter. The Committee regrets to note that a major project to the tune of Rs.36.02 crores was prepared which was, however, subsequently reduced to Rs.4.98 crores just to excavate a mythological river whereas, several other monuments/heritage sites of national importance are languishing in neglect due to acute shortage of funds. The Committee recommends that Archaeological Survey of India should strictly adhere to the criterion fixed for selection of excavation of sites. Further, decisions for excavations should be made on the basis of proper scientific and technical appraisal and no extraneous factors should go into the decision making. The Committee also recommends that before selecting a site for excavation, the Archaeological Survey of India should very carefully examine the potential of the site so that funds earmarked for the same do not go waste. The Committee would like to advise the Archaeological Survey of India that it should prevent itself from taking up exercises without a scientific basis which have all potentiality for subjective interpretation of historical facts thereby, leading to controversies. VACANCIES AND STAFF STRENGTH IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA 33. Another issue highlighted by a former Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, who appeared as an independent witness before the Committee, was the large-scale vacancies existing in various cadres of Archaeological Survey of India, which had affected the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India. Briefing the Committee on the subject, the above former Director General of Archaeological Survey of India stated as under:For looking after the conservation of about 5000 monuments including complexes and world heritage sites and monuments, there is an extreme paucity of technical and conservation staff. Only 501 technical staff is available for looking after repairs about 5000 monuments. More and more money is being pumped in, but the expertise is very limited. It is high time that the expertise is increased and more technical people are inducted. Merely giving money will not help. So, the need of the day is to have more technical experts in the Archaeological Survey of India.. The Archaeological Survey of India has not grown during all these years. It has only two-year diploma course in Archaeology for the facility of Archaeology, 45 posts were sanctioned. Only 5-6 posts have been filled and the rest have not been filled up on the ground that some recruitment rules have to be changed. 34. In view of the position brought out in respect of vacancies existing in the Archaeological Survey of India, the Committee sought to know from the Ministry of Culture regarding the details of the vacancies existing in the Archaeological Survey of India. In response, the Committee was informed vide O.M. No. F.5-2/2004-Plg. Dated the 23rd November 2004 from Archaeological Survey of India that there were 274 vacant posts laying in the Archaeological Survey of India in Group A, B and C. All the Group A and B posts are to be filled up by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The Group C posts are normally filled by the internal DPCs, and Group D posts are filled in the circles mostly. About 125 Group D posts are lying vacant in different circles.

35. The Committee was also informed that continuous efforts were being made to fill up all the vacant posts in Archaeological Survey of India through UPSC/SSC and by holding DPCs. The concerned circles had also initiated the selection process to make recruitment against all the group C vacant posts which fall in their jurisdiction. As regards about 125 Group D posts in various categories lying vacant in various circles/Branches, the Committee was informed that necessary action to fill up these posts had been initiated by the concerned circle/Branch. 36. The Committee then desired to know whether the present staff strength of ASI was sufficient to handle to task entrusted to the ASI. The Committee was informed by Department of Culture that at present there are 1251 technical posts under Group A, B and C in the ASI as per the following break-up:Group A Group B Group C 206 407 638

Total

1251

37. The Committee was further informed that there was acute shortage of manpower for technical posts also. A review of the technical manpower requirements in the ASI in the year 2003-04 was undertaken as a result of which the Ministry of Finance accorded its approval to the creation of 228 additional technical posts in the ASI and for the abolition of 105 non-productive posts. That had helped to bridge a lot of gap of technical manpower in the ASI. However, the ASI still felt shortage of manpower in the Conservation cadre and also in the Horticulture cadre to cope-up with the requirement. Also there was an acute shortage of the services of Conservation Architects, for which the ASI had made proposals to create some more posts and fill up the existing posts. 38. The Committee notes with concern that there are large-scale vacancies in various categories in the ASI, which has been hampering smooth and effective functioning of the Archaeological Survey of India. The Committee also notes that the Government had been rather lax and inactive in completing the formalities for filling up many of the vacancies, as can be seen from the status furnished by the Archaeological Survey of India in respect of these vacancies. The Committee recommends that the Ministry of Culture should take immediate steps to fill up the vacancies in the Archaeological Survey of India so that the works being undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India do not suffer. The Committee also notes that there is an acute shortage of manpower for technical posts for which the Archaeological Survey of India had made proposals to create additional posts. The Committee recommends that the Government should favourably consider the proposals submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India for creation of technical posts so that the Archaeological Survey of India is efficiently and smoothly able to carry out the voluminous work entrusted to it.

NON-WRITING/PUBLICATION OF EXCAVATION REPORTS 39. The Committee had, in the last few years' reports on Demands for Grants of Ministry of Culture, repeatedly taken up the matter relating to the non-writing/publication of excavation reports by the Archaeological Survey of India. However, inspite of repeated recommendations by the Committee for early completion of the excavation reports, the situation had not improved much. The Committee, therefore, asked for a detailed status note on the delay in publication/non-writing of excavation reports. The Committee also desired to know whether any time-limit had been fixed by the Archaeological Survey of India for expediting the reports. In the status note submitted to the Committee, the Committee was informed that the ASI has carried out 292 excavations after the Independence. Mandatory reports thereof have been published up to 1998-99 in the Indian Archaeology A Review (IAR), an annual bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India. The remaining issues are in various stages of compilation, editing and publication. Out of 292 excavations, 102 had been identified as requiring detailed reports, of which 45 excavations reports have been published, one is in press while 56 are pending for detailed report writing. 40. The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India had constituted a Steering Committee of serving professionals of ASI to look into the matter of delay in publication of the pending 56 excavation reports. The Departmental Steering Committee placed its recommendations on 14th /15th October 2004 before the Standing Committee (SC) of Central Advisory Board of Archaeology (CABA) for their consideration. The SC endorsed the findings of the Steering Committee that out of 56 excavations, 17 belong to the category of large-scale excavation and 39 to the small-scale excavation. It was also agreed to provide financial and technical assistance for writing reports with a time frame of about 6 months for small-scale excavations and 15 months for large-scale excavations. This matter was under process. 41. Meanwhile, both in service and retired officers of the Archaeological Survey of India have been requested to complete their pending excavation reports. Some excavators have responded positively to this, and even suggested tentative time frame for completing the report. Archaeological Survey of India has already engaged some serving and retired excavators to complete their pending reports. As a result of this, detailed report on Kalibangan pending since 1969 could be published in 2003, entitled Kalibangan the Early Harappans as memoirs of Archaeological Survey (MASI) No. 98 Likewise, report on Adam Excavations (1988-1992) is in press as MASI No. 99. Some excavations are still ongoing and some of them are at various stages of completion. 42. Regarding delay in writing the excavation reports, the Archaeological Survey of India informed that the delay is due to their nature and scope, as these are supposed to be the comprehensive research documents, containing information on excavated structures, stratigraphical features, supported by maps, illustrations photo-documentation and linedrawings of excavated structures, potteries, artifacts, and other materials. The report also would have to incorporate detailed technical and scientific reports and bibliographical references. Since a huge body of data is generated in course of excavation, it takes time to organize and describe that exhaustive database on factual and interpretative lines. For report writing, a team of excavators, who participated in that very excavation, is required to discuss, prepare research

notes, and correlate the excavation findings for description in terms of time and space. This is true in case of all excavations. This has been further complicated the officers were sometime transferred before they could complete the reports. 43. However, the important results of all excavations carried out by the Archaeological Survey of India are published in the Indian Archaeology A review (IAR), an annual publication of the Archaeological Survey of India. The latest IAR out is for the year 1998-99 and those of the subsequent years are under compilation. Reports on excavations are also published, in detailed format, in the Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India (MASI), another ongoing publication of Archaeological Survey of India. The latest MASI out is No.98 on Kalibangan the Early Harappans, published in 2003. Besides, the excavators have also published their excavation results in form of research articles in a number of research and popular journals of the country and abroad for dissemination of knowledge among the scholars and the public. 44. The matter also came up for discussion during the oral evidence of the representatives of the Ministry of Culture held on the 27th November 2004. Speaking on the subject, the ADG, Archaeological Survey of India stated before the Committee as under: It has been a problem with the Archaeological Survey of India for many reasons, one of which was that the officers, before they could really complete the task, were transferred. We are trying to follow a transparent transfer policy, although on paper we do not have any genuine transfer policy. 45. The Committee then desired to know from the Archaeological Survey of India regarding the transfer policy for staff of Archaeological Survey of India. The Committee enquired whether there was any time frame for transfer and whether there were any safeguards in the transfer policy to ensure that transfer of the officials did not affect the ongoing work assigned to them, especially in preparation of excavation reports. In reply, the Archaeological Survey of India informed the Committee that there exists no specific transfer policy for the staff in the ASI. However, according to the prevalent practice, efforts are being made to adjust the staff on promotion up to non-gazetted level in the same Circles/Branches subject to the availability of vacancies in the respective grades, failing which they are transferred to the next nearest Circle/branch. Requests from the officers and staff for transfer from one Circle to another are considered on the basis of merit keeping in view the facts and circumstances explained by them in their applications. In order to ensure the timely completion of the ongoing excavation works and their reports, it has been decided in principle to allow the concerned officers to complete the ongoing excavations and their detailed reports before they are transferred to other places. 46. The Committee is of the view that if excavation reports are not written, then all the taxpayers money spent on them goes waste. Also, in absence of timely publication of excavation reports, the achievements of Archaeological Survey of India largely remain unnoticed by the public. The Committee is extremely dissatisfied to observe that despite its repeated recommendations, the position in respect of writing of excavation reports has not improved much. However, the Committee is hopeful that the steps now initiated by Archaeological Survey of India for clearing the backlog in respect of writing excavation reports would yield some positive results. The Committee recommends that the Archaeological Survey of India should

enforce a fixed time frame for writing excavation reports after the excavation work has been completed, so that the public at large is not deprived of the vital right to information. The Committee also recommends that the ASI should ensure that officials engaged in a particular excavation work are not transferred till such time that they complete the excavations and submit their reports. ENCROACHMENT AND SECURITY OF MONUMENTS/SITES 47. The Committee observed that encroachment is a constant problem in a large number of protected monuments. In this connection, the Committee asked the Archaeological Survey of India to furnish detailed information regarding action taken for removal of encroachments at the monuments/archaeological sites. The Archaeological Survey of India vide their reply F.No.5/2/2004-Plg.(Pt) dated the 22nd February 2005 intimated the Committee that in order to restrict the construction and mining activities in the vicinity of protected monuments, the Government of India has issued a notification in 1992 under the provision of Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Sites & Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act) and rules framed thereunder declaring areas falling within a radius of 100 metres and 200 metres as prohibited and regulated areas respectively for the purpose of mining, construction etc. activities. While the above notification had helped to contain the construction activities around protected monuments after 1992, the provision of the notification did not apply to pre-1992 activities. 48. The Archaeological Survey of India further informed that they were facing problem in a large number of cases due to inaction by the State Administrations. It was brought out that as soon as the encroachment comes to the notice of Archaeological Survey of India, they issue notices under section 19(1) of AMASR, Act, 1958 directing the encroachers to vacate the unauthorized occupation. Simultaneously, a First Information Report (FIR) is lodged with the local police. If the encroacher refuses to vacate the premises, the DG, ASI is empowered to issue notice under Section 19(2) of the AMAS&R Act [read with Section 38(1) of the AMAS&R Rules 1959] ordering the illegal occupants to vacate the site and remove the illegal constructions. This requisition is also sent to the District Magistrate with the request to forcibly demolish and remove the illegal constructions. It was mentioned that although the Superintending Archaeologists have been vested with the power of Estate Officer and authorized to issue eviction notices under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants (Act), 1971, the successful removal of encroachment depends entirely upon the cooperation of the police and district authorities, which was seldom forthcoming. In actual practice, there is great delay/reluctance on the part of district administration to deploy police for removal of the illegal occupants. The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India had on various occasions requested the State Governments to extend their help to remove encroachments. 49. Whenever the above procedures fail to remove the encroachers, the only option available to the ASI is to initiate legal action by filing cases in the civil court. In a large number of cases, civil cases had been filed by the Superintending Archaeologists. The Archaeological Survey of India also furnished a statement indicating the number of monuments which had recently been freed from encroachment:-

Sl.No.

Name of Circle

No. of Monuments freed

from encroachment 1. 2. 3. Chennai Chandigarh Dharwad Delhi Guwahati Hyderabad Kolkata Lucknow Vadodara -----------Total -----------50. The issue regarding encroachment of monuments also came up for discussion during the meeting of the Committee held on the 29th March 2005 for examination of Demands for Grants 2005-06 of Ministry of Culture, where, speaking on the subject, the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India submitted before the Committee as under: "Encroachment in and around ASI monuments is one of the problems ASI is facing. 3,658 monuments are protected. If you put a reasonable number of people to protect it, it would require at least 7-8 thousand people. If you take monuments like the Taj or Red Fort, each would take at least 200 people. In fact, it is consuming one-third of the staff to protect just these two. There is no physical protection at all and the encroachment is going on for several years. We have powers to issue notice for the people to vacate. But we don't have the power to compel them to vacate. This State Government police support hardly ever comes." 51. The Committee also desired to know above the security arrangements made at the monuments/archaeological sites and the financial implications thereof. In response, the Archaeological Survey of India informed the Committee that it employs Monument Attendants for watch and ward duties at the protected monuments. Presently, there were 3463 Monument Attendants in Archaeological Survey of India. However, the number of monument attendants was inadequate to meet the needs and ASI had requisitioned the services of a private security agency (SIS) to supplement its watch and ward staff. A total number of 789 SIS personnel were deployed by Archaeological Survey of India. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) had also been deployed at two monuments namely the Taj Mahal and the Red Fort. For 459 CISF personnel employed in these two sensitive monuments, the financial implication per year is Rs.9.25 crore. Besides, 100 State Police personnel were being paid for deployment at some 48 Agra Aurangabad Bangalore 6 5 7 4 3 2 2 5 2 2 2 8

monuments and museums. The total payment involved to the State Police personnel is Rs.1.5 crore annually. However, a large number of protected monuments all over the country are not having any security. There is no precise estimate of the funds required for providing security guards to all these monuments. However, on purely tentative estimates, it is estimated that an amount of Rs.100 crore may be required annually for proper physical security to all the protected monuments by way of deploying private security guards. 52. The Committee was further informed that with the increase in the number of protected monuments and visitors, the strength of monument attendants and private security personnel was grossly inadequate. Subject to the availability of increased budget provision, the ASI proposed to deploy more private security personnel. It was proposed to requisition some more security personnel for the protected monuments falling under Bhopal, Dharwad, Patna and Vadodara circles which may require an additional provision of Rs.2.14 crore. The requirement in respect of other circles was being assessed. 53. The Committee is concerned about the illegal encroachment of monuments/archaeological sites under the protection of Archaeological Survey of India. In this context, the Committee would like to reiterate the recommendation made in its 85th Report on Demands for Grants 2005-06 of Ministry of Culture which is as under: "The Committee expresses its anxiety over the incidents of encroachment upon the land of Centrally Protected Monuments. The Committee is more concerned about the inability of Archeological Survey of India to get back the land from encroachers. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that a complete assessment should be made regarding encroachment of monuments/sites under the protection of Archaeological Survey of India all over the country. Prompt action ought be taken against the encroachers with the help of State Governments/Local Administrations and the matter should be pursued at the highest level. The Committee also recommends that adequate budgetary provisions should be made for security arrangements and protection of monuments, as this is the most crucial aspect of preserving our cultural heritage and wherever possible modern gadgets like, electronic surveillance cameras should be installed in the monuments. The Committee feels that security is a sovereign function. Hence, it is the responsibility of Central Government to get the monuments and other important assets protected. In view of this, the Committee is of the opinion that the Union Home Ministry should pay the bills towards the expenses incurred for paying the Central Security Agencies under this head. Accordingly, the Ministry of Culture should pursue the matter at the highest level." CONSERVATION/PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS AND REGISTRATION OF ANTIQUITIES 54. The Committee also enquired about the procedure adopted for conservation/preservation of the monuments. The Committee was informed that whenever an ancient structure or an archaeological site/remain is considered be of national importance, a proposal to this effect is initiated by the circle office and sent to the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India along with its historical, archaeological and architectural importance. On receipt of the approval of the Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, the proposal is forwarded to the State

Government with detailed drawings for the counter signature of the Deputy Commissioner/Commissioner concerned. On receipt of the revenue data duly counter signed, the Central Government issues a notification of its intentions to declare the monument as of national importance with a two months notice. On the expiry of notice period and after considering the objections, if any, a final Gazette notification is issued for declaring the said monument as a monument of national importance. 55. The State Governments are consulted if the proposed monument is State protected and is proposed to be taken over by the Archaeological Survey of India. In all other cases, State Governments are involved only to the extent of preparation of relevant revenue papers required for the notification or subsequently, if land or building compensation is involved. 56. The Committee was further informed that the basic guidelines for conservation have been framed with an objective to prolong the life of monuments without the loss of artistic and historical values. It is important for archaeological values to preserve the original fabric of the monument to the extent possible. Archaeological Survey of India follows a Conservation Manual which contains detailed guidelines for execution of conservation works. The conservation and preservation of monuments aim at : its preservation without disfigurement or alteration of its character; its maintenance in a proper and attractive condition; the complete examination of its remains and documentary evidence concerning it; and

the preparation of monographs, guide books and reports so that its historical and artistic interest may be perpetuated. 57. Apart from this the monuments which had garden around them as part of their original design are taken up for restoration and maintenance and wherever it was not part of original layout/feature, beautification through landscaping is also undertaken. However, it has been decided to compile a comprehensive conservation manual during the 10th Five Year Plan period incorporating extant guidelines of Archaeological Survey of India and relevant features of internationally acceptable conservation guidelines and norms. 58. The Committee is of the view that beautification and development of archaeological sites no doubt adds to the ambience of these sites. However, the Committee recommends that while taking up work, the focus should be on actual conservation/preservation of the sites and the beautification aspect should only supplement the conservation/preservation work undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India. The Committee also recommends that more amount should be spent on conservation/preservation of the sites in comparison to site development/beautification etc.

59. The Committee also desired to know about the registration of numerous antiquities in the country. The Committee was informed that the registration of the antiquities is carried out under sub-section 3(a) of Section 14 of the AAT Act, 1972 and is being implemented by the State Governments and funded by the ASI. A data bank for the registered antiquities is available at Hdqrs. Office of the ASI, New Delhi and is updated periodically. The Archaeological Survey of India further informed the Committee that there are 4.82 lakhs registered antiquities in India. It is felt that this represents only a fraction of the antiquities wealth of India. The Archaeological Survey of India has 28 Registering Officers located in different parts of the country. In addition to this, the Archaeological Survey of India has now proposed to nominate Assistant Superintending Archaeologists and Deputy Superintending Archaeologists working in the circles to act as Registering Officers. A proposal in this regard has been forwarded to the Ministry of Law for their vetting. Increasing the number of Registering Officers is expected to facilitate more registration of antiquities. Archaeological Survey of India is launching a National Mission on Antiquities and it is hoped that during the mission period of 5 years, there would be a quantum jump in the registration of antiquities as a major objective of the mission is the documentation of the antiquities. The mission proposes to take steps for creating public awareness which would facilitate voluntary registration of antiquities. 60. During the examination of Demands for Grants 2005-06 by the Committee, the Ministry of Culture informed that the Ministry had launched two Missions namely, National Mission on Antiquities and National Mission on Built Heritage, with following major objectives: To create widespread awareness about the antiquities and built heritage and the laws governing it. Creation of a credible National Data Bank of Built Heritage and Antiquities.

Selected monuments from different parts of the country will be taken up for structural conservation. Out reach programmes will be organized to create public awareness of our rich cultural heritage and the ways by which it can be sustained. Besides attempt will be made to create synergy amongst various institutions and organisations working towards a similar goal. Mission would help in capacity building in heritage care in State Archaeology, Museums and NGOs. Mission would help the concerned authorities in the formulation of national, state and local policy in safeguarding and management of heritage. 61. The Ministry has further informed the Committee that both these missions were proposed to be merged together. Subsequently, the Ministry was asked to justify the rationale behind launching these missions separately and merging it together afterwards. The explanation put forth by the Ministry was as follows:-

Initially it was proposed to set up two separate Missions National Mission on Built Heritage, Monuments and Sites and National Mission on Antiquities. The estimated cost for the two Missions when the proposals were initially formulated was Rs.250 crore and Rs.150 crore respectively. Based on the comments received from the Planning Commission, Department of Expenditure, IFD etc., the matter was reconsidered in consultation with the Archaeological Survey of India. It was suggested that since the nature of work for the two Missions was complementary to each other both the Missions should be carried out by one structural network since in both the cases, the nodal agency was going to be Archaeological Survey of India. The overall project cost of Rs.400 crore also needed to be pruned drastically since no provision had been made in the 10th Five Year Plan for these Missions. While merging and recasting the two Missions it was therefore decided to reduce the Missions outlay to about Rs.90 crore to make it compact and viable so that there is no time overrun beyond the five years period prescribed for the Project. The Mission would be able to generate public awareness and synergy between Archaeological Survey of India and several other institutions working in the field. The two Missions proposals on Built Heritage and Antiquities have been merged. Initially two documents for two Missions i.e. Antiquities and Built heritage were prepared with Archaeological Survey of India as the Nodal Agency. As the objectives of both the Missions were overlapping and Mission structure had been streamlined, it was felt that a single Mission structure for both the Missions i.e. for Built Heritage and Antiquities could undertake the work. Moreover the expertise required for undertaking the work of both the Missions is similar; hence twin Mission proposal has been recast into a single Mission proposal. By merging them together, the financial outlay required for undertaking both the Missions has been greatly reduced and the goals are also justified. 62. The Director-General, Archeological Survey of India during the course of oral evidence held on the 29th March 2005, submitted before the Committee as under: " there is a shortage of staff in the ASI mostly on the conservation side. We do not have conservation professionals in various disciplines. So far as the mission is concerned, we will be engaging people on short-term basis. Because the essential job is documentation." 63. In its 85th Report on Demands for Grants 2005-06 of Ministry of Culture, the Committee had observed that the whole process relating to first launching and then merging the two Missions i.e. National Mission of Built Heritage and National Mission on Antiquities indicates confusion in the decision making process and complete lack of farsightedness on the part of the Ministry in planning its programmes and projects which has not only affected the rich cultural heritage of the country but also led to valuable wastage of time and resources. The Committee had also expressed dissatisfaction regarding allocating so much additional work to Archaeological Survey of India when the organisation was not able to successfully complete the work already assigned to it. In response, the Archaeological Survey of India informed the Committee that the Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC) memorandum on the National Mission for Antiquities and Built Heritage has been modified in the light of the observations made by the Committee. There will be no recruitment of additional staff except a skeleton staff at the mission headquarters. The requirement of staff for documentation would be met by hiring people on contract on short-term basis. With the existing staff and expertise, Archaeological

Survey of India can undertake the work of National Mission for Antiquities and Built Heritage as an additional responsibility. 64. The Committee notes the response of the Archaeological Survey of India to the observations made by the Committee in its 85th Report on Demands for Grants 2005-06 of Ministry of Culture. The Committee hopes that with the existing staff and expertise, Archaeological Survey of India would be able to successfully execute the National Mission for Antiquities and Built Heritage and the laudable goals of the Mission would be achieved within the fixed time frame. 65. There were some reports in the print media regarding the proposal of Archaeological Survey of India to sign agreement with the American Institute of Indian Studies, New Delhi for handling the National Mission of Antiquities. Accordingly the Committee enquired from the Ministry of Culture whether the Archaeological Survey of India had signed or proposed to sign any agreement with the said American Institute to handle the National Mission of Antiquities and what was the locus-standi of that institute. The Ministry of Culture replied that the Archaeological Survey of India had not signed any agreement with the American Institute of Indian Studies with regard to National Mission of Antiquities. Also, the Ministry of Culture had not taken any decision to hand over the responsibility of National Mission of Antiquities to the American Institute of Indian Studies. 66. The Committee was further informed that the American Institute of Indian Studies was established in 1961. The institute offers support for research in wide variety of subjects in social sciences, natural sciences, humanities including fine arts and performing arts. Through its programme of research and documentation, the Institute claims expertise in contemporary India, its culture, history and languages. The Institute has a center for Art and Archaeology which recognized presence in the documentation of Indian and South-East Asian art and architecture having covered a large number of monuments and sites of this region. 67. The Committee also sought information regarding the financial estimate the American Institute of Indian Studies had quoted to the Ministry for the purpose of Mission of Antiquities and what was the estimate of Archaeological Survey of India in this regard. In response, the Ministry of Culture, while quoting the cost quoted by the American Institute of Indian Studies, informed the Committee that the Archaeological Survey of India had not made any estimate in this regard as the Mission Project was yet to be approved by the Expenditure Finance Committee (EFC). The Ministry of Culture further stated that Archaeological Survey of India would prepare estimates and compare the estimates with other eligible parties after the sanctions are obtained. At this stage the discussion were only for a pilot project, on which no final decision has been taken. 68. The Committee observes that the Ministry of Culture has decided to involve private agencies in handling the National Mission of Antiquities. The Committee recommends that adequate care should be taken while finalizing such kind of deal so that the expenditure to be incurred on the National Mission of Antiquities is spent in the best interest of the nation and the valuable information about Indian Antiquities and Monuments are not handed over to foreign hands. The Committee further

recommends that strict criteria should be fixed to determine expertise and professionalism in this field. OBSERVATIONS/CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE MONUMMENTS/SITES UNDER PROTECTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA The Committee notes that the ASI has drawn long-term programme to protect all 3663 monuments/sites of national importance out of which 3537 monuments/sites are unticketed. These monuments have also been classified into three categories viz. Group A, B and C for convenience. The Committee is however aware that there are many sites/monuments under the protection/maintenance of Archaeological Survey of India which are located in interior areas of various States but are lying unattended. Therefore, the Committee recommends that Ministry of Culture should equally treat the revenue earning and not-earning sites and efforts should be made for integrated infrastructure development and conservation/ preservation of all monuments/sites with encompassing facilities for tourists, so as to give a major fillip to cultural tourism in the country as well as attracting overseas visitors. ORGANISATIONAL SET UP AND THE POST OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA The Committee is not in agreement with the argument put- forth by the Ministry of Culture that the appointment of generalist administrator as Director General will not hamper the development of Archaeological Survey of India as a scientific organisation. The Committee is shocked to note that even after the Gazette Notification of May 2002, the Government has not been able to fill up the post of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India as per the requirements of the notification and has been merely filling up the post from Indian Administrative Service on deputation basis. The Committee is constrained to observe that the Government preferred to fill up the highest post of an apex institution requiring very high standards of technical qualification with a generalist administrator. The Committee is of the view that a person who has no basic qualification or knowledge of archaeology cannot handle the apex responsibility of a Scientific Institution like Archaeological Survey of India. Unless the leader of the Archaeological Survey of India is having the professional expertise, it is very difficult to give a lead. This has also dampened the spirits of the senior officers in the feeder grade of the organization who may never get the opportunities to serve as senior most officer of their parent organization. Therefore, the Committee recommends that steps should be taken to fill up the post of Director General, Archaeological Survey of India as per the requirements of the Notification of May 2002, at the earliest. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AS A SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT The Committee is constrained to note that even after a lapse of fifteen years from the date of issue of the notification in this regard no concrete action was taken by Ministry of Culture and Archaeological Survey of India for developing Archaeological Survey of India as a Scientific

and Technical Department, which amply indicates the administrative apathy towards the whole issue. The Committee regrets that no internal exercise was undertaken by Ministry of Culture and Archaeological Survey of India during the last fifteen years for availing the benefits and privileges which could be extended to the Archaeological Survey of India as a Science and Technology department. The Committee observes that there has been deviation in the working of Archaeological Survey of India and that it has failed in terms of developing Archaeological Survey of India not merely as an administrative body but also as a spearhead for consolidating the scientific discipline of archaeology in the country. The Committee is of the view that the Archaeological Survey of India needs to reinvent itself, not merely as an administrative wing of the Government, but as an agency for protecting and safeguarding our national heritage, which involves a lot of scientific and technical work. Unless the Archaeological Survey of India converts itself fully into a scientific and technical organization, the basic role and function of the organisation will be defeated. The Committee recommends that the Ministry of Culture and Archaeological Survey of India should, without any further loss of time, take necessary followup action on the recommendations of the Committee chaired by Director General, Archaeological Survey of India so as to avail the benefits which accrue to a Science and Technology department. The Committee also recommends that, if required, the Ministry of Culture should also take necessary legislative action to make Archaeological Survey of India Science and Technology department in the true sense. SARASVATI PROJECT After going through the replies furnished by the Ministry of Culture, the Committee is of the firm view that Sarasvati Heritage Project did not conform to the criterion fixed for excavation of archaeological sites since no academic body or university had recommended the project. The Committee also notes that there is an element of contradiction in the replies submitted to the Committee by the Department of Culture. On the one hand, the Ministry of Culture has stated that the former Minister of Tourism and Culture was not the Chairman of the Sarasvati Heritage Project, while, on the other hand, the Ministry has stated that prior to the preparation of the project report, the Government had constituted an Advisory Committee with the then Minister of Tourism and Culture as Chairman and that this Committee had recommended the Saraswati Heritage Project. The Committee further notes that the Ministry is not clear as to which research agency/scientific survey actually pointed out that the dry beds of River Ghaggar and River Chautang (River Drisadvati) are the bed of River Sarasvati. The Committee understands that existence of River Sarasvati is purely a mythological one and a scientific institution like Archaeological Survey of India has not correctly proceeded in the matter. The Committee regrets to note that a major project to the tune of Rs.36.02 crores was prepared which was, however, subsequently reduced to Rs.4.98 crores just to excavate a mythological river whereas, several other monuments/heritage sites of national importance are languishing in neglect due to acute shortage of funds. The Committee recommends that Archaeological Survey of India should strictly adhere to the criterion fixed for selection of excavation of sites. Further, decisions for excavations should be made on the basis of proper scientific and technical appraisal and no extraneous factors should go into the decision making. The Committee also recommends that before selecting a site for excavation, the Archaeological Survey of India should very carefully examine the potential of the site so that funds earmarked for the same do not go waste. The Committee would like to advise the Archaeological Survey of India that it should prevent itself

from taking up exercises without a scientific basis which have all potentiality for subjective interpretation of historical facts thereby, leading to controversies. VACANCIES AND STAFF STRENGTH IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA The Committee notes with concern that there are large-scale vacancies in various categories in the ASI, which has been hampering smooth and effective functioning of the Archaeological Survey of India. The Committee also notes that the Government had been rather lax and inactive in completing the formalities for filling up many of the vacancies, as can be seen from the status furnished by the Archaeological Survey of India in respect of these vacancies. The Committee recommends that the Ministry of Culture should take immediate steps to fill up the vacancies in the Archaeological Survey of India so that the works being undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India do not suffer. The Committee also notes that there is an acute shortage of manpower for technical posts for which the Archaeological Survey of India had made proposals to create additional posts. The Committee recommends that the Government should favourably consider the proposals submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India for creation of technical posts so that the Archaeological Survey of India is efficiently and smoothly able to carry out the voluminous work entrusted to it. NON-WRITING/PUBLICATION OF EXCAVATION REPORTS The Committee is of the view that if excavation reports are not written, then all the taxpayers money spent on them goes waste. Also, in absence of timely publication of excavation reports, the achievements of Archaeological Survey of India largely remain unnoticed by the public. The Committee is extremely dissatisfied to observe that despite its repeated recommendations, the position in respect of writing of excavation reports has not improved much. However, the Committee is hopeful that the steps now initiated by Archaeological Survey of India for clearing the backlog in respect of writing excavation reports would yield some positive results. The Committee recommends that the Archaeological Survey of India should enforce a fixed time frame for writing excavation reports after the excavation work has been completed, so that the public at large is not deprived of the vital right to information. The Committee also recommends that the ASI should ensure that officials engaged in a particular excavation work are not transferred till such time that they complete the excavations and submit their reports. ENCROACHMENT AND SECURITY OF MONUMENTS/SITES The Committee is concerned about the illegal encroachment of monuments/archaeological sites under the protection of Archaeological Survey of India. In this context, the Committee would like to reiterate the recommendation made in its 85th Report on Demands for Grants 2005-06 of Ministry of Culture which is as under: "The Committee expresses its anxiety over the incidents of encroachment upon the land of Centrally Protected Monuments. The Committee is more concerned about the inability of Archeological Survey of India to get back the land from encroachers. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that a complete assessment should be made regarding encroachment of monuments/sites under the protection of Archaeological Survey of India all over the

country. Prompt action ought be taken against the encroachers with the help of State Governments/Local Administrations and the matter should be pursued at the highest level. The Committee also recommends that adequate budgetary provisions should be made for security arrangements and protection of monuments, as this is the most crucial aspect of preserving our cultural heritage and wherever possible modern gadgets like, electronic surveillance cameras should be installed in the monuments. The Committee feels that security is a sovereign function. Hence, it is the responsibility of Central Government to get the monuments and other important assets protected. In view of this, the Committee is of the opinion that the Union Home Ministry should pay the bills towards the expenses incurred for paying the Central Security Agencies under this head. Accordingly, the Ministry of Culture should pursue the matter at the highest level." CONSERVATION/PRESERVATION OF MONUMENTS AND REGISTRATION OF ANTIQUITIES The Committee is of the view that beautification and development of archaeological sites no doubt adds to the ambience of these sites. However, the Committee recommends that while taking up work, the focus should be on actual conservation/preservation of the sites and the beautification aspect should only supplement the conservation/preservation work undertaken by the Archaeological Survey of India. The Committee also recommends that more amount should be spent on conservation/preservation of the sites in comparison to site development/beautification etc. The Committee notes the response of the Archaeological Survey of India to the observations made by the Committee in its 85th Report on Demands for Grants 2005-06 of Ministry of Culture. The Committee hopes that with the existing staff and expertise, Archaeological Survey of India would be able to successfully execute the National Mission for Antiquities and Built Heritage and the laudable goals of the Mission would be achieved within the fixed time frame. The Committee observes that the Ministry of Culture has decided to involve private agencies in handling the National Mission of Antiquities. The Committee recommends that adequate care should be taken while finalizing such kind of deal so that the expenditure to be incurred on the National Mission of Antiquities is spent in the best interest of the nation and the valuable information about Indian Antiquities and Monuments are not handed over to foreign hands. The Committee further recommends that strict criteria should be fixed to determine expertise and professionalism in this field. MINUTES XXII TWENTY SECOND MEETING The Committee met at 11.00 a.m. on Wednesday, the 19th November, 2003 in Committee Room C, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT 1. 2. RAJYA SABHA Prof. Ram Deo Bhandary Shri Suresh Bhardwaj Shri S.S. Chandran Shri K.Rahman Khan Shri K.B.Krishna Murthy Shri Satish Pradhan Dr. Alladi P. Rajkumar Shri K. Kalavenkata Rao Shri Vayalar Ravi Shri S. Viduthalai Virumbi LOK SABHA Shri G.M. Banatwalla Shri Anil Basu Shri P.S. Gadhavi Shri V. Dhananjaya Kumar Dr. Prasanna Kumar Patasani Shri Chandresh Patel Shri Gunipati Ramaiah Shri Th. Chaoba Singh Shri Nilotpal Basu Chairman

Shri Vinay Kumar Sorake Shri Kodikunnil Suresh Shri D. Venugopal SECRETARIAT Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Deputy Secretary Shri Jagdish Kumar, Under Secretary Shrimati Subhashree Panigrahi, Committee Officer REPRESENTATIVES OF DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE Shri Dhanendra Kumar, Secretary (Culture) Smt. Gauri Chatterji, Director General, ASI Shri K. Jayakumar, Joint Secretary Shri R. C. Misra, Additional Director, ASI Dr. R. S. Bisht, Joint Director General, ASI 2. The Committee took up the examination of the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India and heard the views of the Secretary, Department of Culture and Director General, Archaeological Survey of India on the subject. The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India also made a powerpoint presentation regarding the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India. The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India and other officials of the Archaeological Survey of India, while presenting their views, replied to the points raised by the Members on the subject. On certain queries, the representatives of the Archaeological Survey of India could not give immediate clarifications and assured the Committee to furnish written replies on those issues. 3. 4. 5. * * *

A verbatim record of the proceeding of the meeting was kept. The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 1.15 p.m.

__________________________________ ***Relates to matters not included in this report.

VIII EIGHTH MEETING The Committee met at 11.00 a.m. on Wednesday, the 8th September 2004 in Committee Room 'A', Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT Shri Nilotpal Basu Chairman RAJYA SABHA Prof. Ram Deo Bhandary Shri S.S. Chandran Shri Dara Singh Chauhan Shri Janardhana Poojary Shri Rama Muni Reddy Sirigireddy Smt. Ambika Soni LOK SABHA Shri Ramdas Athawale Shri Anil Basu Shri N.S.V. Chitthan Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury Dr. K. Dhanaraju Shri Dip Gogoi Shri Vijay Kumar Khandelwal Shri Samik Lahiri Shri Sudam Marandi Shri Alok Kumar Mehta

Shri Ravindra Naik Shri Sartaj Singh Shri Chengara Surendran Shri Umakant Yadav SECRETARIAT Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Director Shri Jagdish Kumar, Under Secretary Shrimati Subhashree Panigrahi, Committee Officer 2. The Committee discussed its future course of action. It was decided that the Committee will take up two subjects i.e. the Functioning of the Archaeological Survey of India and *** *** ***. 3. *** *** ***

4. The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 11.45 a.m. to meet again on the 17 th September 2004. _________________________________ ***Relates to matters not included in this report.

IX NINTH MEETING The Committee met at 12.00 noon on Friday, the 17th September 2004 in Committee Room 'D', Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1.Shri Nilotpal Basu Chairman RAJYA SABHA Prof. Ram Deo Bhandary Shri S.S. Chandran Shri Dara Singh Chauhan Shri Janardhana Poojary Shri Rama Muni Reddy Sirigireddy LOK SABHA Shri Ramdas Athawale Shri Raj Babbar Shri Anil Basu Shri Vijay Kumar Khandelwal Shri W.Wangyuh Konyak Dr. Ramkrishna Kusmaria Shri Samik Lahiri Shri Alok Kumar Mehta Shri Ravindra Naik Shri Gingee N. Ramachandran Shri Manabendra Shah

Shri Dushyant Singh Shri Madan Lal Sharma Shri Sartaj Singh Shri Chengara Surendran SECRETARIAT Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Director Shrimati Subhashree Panigrahi, Committee Officer WITNESS Shri S. S. Biswas, Former Director General, National Museum, New Delhi 2.The Committee heard the views of Shri S. S. Biswas in connection with the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India. Shri S. S. Biswas, while presenting his views, replied to the points raised by the Members on the subject. To certain queries, the Committee requested Shri Biswas to submit detailed replies at the earliest. 3.Due to the paucity of time, the Committee could not hear the views of Shri Jagat Pati Joshi and decided to hear him on the subject at a later date. 4.A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept. 5.The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 1.30 p.m. X TENTH MEETING The Committee met at 11.00 A.M. on Friday, the 1st October 2004 in Room No. 63, Parliament House, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1.Shri Nilotpal Basu Chairman RAJYA SABHA Shri Dara Singh Chauhan Shri Shatrughan Sinha

Shri Rama Muni Reddy Sirigireddy LOK SABHA Shri Anil Basu Shri N.S.V. Chitthan Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury Shri Samik Lahiri Shri Alok Kumar Mehta Shri Ravindra Naik Shri Sartaj Singh SECRETARIAT Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Director Shri Jagdish Kumar, Under Secretary Shrimati Subhashree Panigrahi, Committee Officer WITNESS Shri Jagat Pati Joshi, Former Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi

2.The Committee heard the views of Shri Jagat Pati Joshi in connection with the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India in detail. 4.A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept. 5.The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 1.05 p.m. XIV FOURTEENTH MEETING The Committee met at 11.00 a.m on Monday, the 29th November 2004 in Room No.'139', Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT

1.Shri Nilotpal Basu Chairman RAJYA SABHA Prof. Ram Deo Bhandary Shri S.S. Chandran Shri Rama Muni Reddy Sirigireddy LOK SABHA Shri Anil Basu Shri W.Wangyuh Konyak Shri Ravindra Naik Shri Sartaj Singh Shri Chengara Surendran Shri Umakant Yadav SECRETARIAT Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Director Shri Jagdish Kumar, Under Secretary Shrimati Subhashree Panigrahi, Committee Officer REPRESENTATIVES OF MINISTRY OF CULTURE Shri K. Jaya Kumar, Joint Secretary Shri R.C. Misra, Additional Director General, Archaeological Survey of India Dr. R.K. Sharma, Joint Director General, Archaeological Survey of India Dr. Amerendra Nath, Director, Archaeological Survey of India Shri J.R. Aggarwal, Director, Archaeological Survey of India Shri A.K. Singh, Director, Archaeological Survey of India

Prof. R.C. Agarwal, Director, Archaeological Survey of India 2. The Committee took up the examination of the subject - "Functioning of Archaeological Survey of India" and heard the views of the representatives of Ministry of Culture and Archaeological Survey of India on the subject. The representatives of the Ministry of Culture, while presenting their views, replied to the points raised by the Members on the subject. To some queries raised by the Members, the Ministry representatives were requested to give written replies. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept. 4. XVI SIXTEENTH MEETING The Committee met at 3.00 p.m. on Monday, the 27th December 2004 in Committee Room A, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1.Shri Nilotpal Basu Chairman RAJYA SABHA Shri S.S. Chandran Shri Shatrughan Sinha LOK SABHA Shri Ramdas Athawale Shri N.S.V. Chitthan Shri W. Wangyuh Konyak Shri Alok Kumar Mehta Shri Ravindra Naik Shri Manabendra Shah Shri Madan Lal Sharma The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 12.55 p.m.

Shri Umakant Yadav SECRETARIAT Shri Jagdish Kumar, Under Secretary REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA Smt. Neena Ranjan, Secretary Shri C. Babu Rajeev, Director General, Archaeological Survey of India

Shri R.C. Misra, Additional Director General, Archaeological Survey of India Dr. R.K. Sharma, Joint Director General, Archaeological Survey of India Dr. Amerendra Nath, Director, Archaeological Survey of India 2.The Committee took up the examination of the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India and heard the views of the Secretary, Ministry of Culture and Director General, Archaeological Survey of India on the subject. The Secretary and the Director General, while presenting their views, replied to the points raised by the Members on the subject. To some queries raised by the Members, the Ministry representatives were requested to give written replies. 3.A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept. 4.The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 5.20 p.m. XXII TWENTY-SECOND MEETING The Committee met at 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday, the 15th February 2005 in Committee Room 'E', Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1.Shri Nilotpal Basu Chairman RAJYA SABHA Shrimati Ambika Soni LOK SABHA

Shri Anil Basu Shri N.S.V. Chitthan Dr. K. Dhanaraji Shri W. Wangyuh Konyak Shri Samik Lahiri Shri Gingee N. Ramachandran Shri Madan Lal Sharma Shri Sartaj Singh SECRETARIAT Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Director Shrimati Subhashree Panigrahi, Committee Officer REPRESENTATIVES Shri P.K. Samantaray, Working President, Indian National Port and Dock Workers Federation 2. 3. 4. * * * * * * * * *

5. The Committee then took up the examination of the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India and after some discussions, directed the Secretariat to prepare draft report on the subject. Some Members raised question about the blatant encroachment and poor security arrangements at Archaeological sites maintained by the Archaeological Survey of India. It was decided to obtain the replies from the Ministry of Culture thereto before going for an on-the-spot visits to the Monuments in and around Delhi. 6. The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 12.40 P.M.

___________________________________ ***Relates to matters not included in this report.

XXXVI THIRTY-SIXTH MEETING The Committee met at 3.00 p.m. on Monday, the 20th June 2005 in Committee Room 'A', Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1.Shri Nilotpal Basu Chairman RAJYA SABHA Shri Kamal Akhtar Shri S.S. Chandran Shri Janardhana Poojary Shri Rama Muni Reddy Sirigireddy LOK SABHA Shri Ramdas Athawale Shri Raj Babbar Shri N.S.V. Chitthan Dr. K. Dhanaraju Shri W.Wangyuh Konyak Shri Samik Lahiri Shri Sudam Marandi Shri Ravindra Naik Shri Madan Lal Sharma Shri Sartaj Singh Shri Chengara Surendran SECRETARIAT

Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Director Shri Jagdish Kumar, Under Secretary REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA Smt. Neena Ranjan, Secretary Shri Jaya Kumar, Joint Secretary Shri C. Babu Rajeev, Director General, Archaeological Survey of India 2.The Committee took up the examination of the functioning of Archaeological Survey of India and heard the views of the Secretary, Ministry of Culture and Director General, Archaeological Survey of India on the subject. The Secretary and the Director General, while presenting their views, replied to the points raised by the Members. To some queries raised by the Members, the Ministry/Archaeological Survey of India representatives were requested to give written replies. 3.A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept. 4. The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 4.30 p.m. to meet again on 29th June 2005. IV FOURTH MEETING The Committee met at 3.00 p.m. on Friday, the 19th September 2005 in Committee Room 'E', Basement, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi. MEMBERS PRESENT 1.Shri Nilotpal Basu Chairman RAJYA SABHA Prof. Ram Deo Bhandary Shri S. S. Chandran Shri Janardhana Poojary Shri Shatrughan Sinha LOK SABHA

Shri Ramdas Athawale Shri Anil Basu Shri Sartaj Singh Chhatwal Dr. K. Dhanaraju Shri W. Wangyuh Konyak Shri Samik Lahiri Shri Alok Kumar Mehta Shri Manabendra Shah SECRETARIAT Shrimati Agnes Momin George, Director Shri Jagdish Kumar, Under Secretary Shrimati Subhashree Panigrahi, Committee Officer 2.The Committee considered the draft Ninety-first Report on the "Functioning of Archaeological Survey of India" and after some discussion adopted the report with minor modifications. The Committee also authorized the Chairman to fix a date and nominate the Members for presentation of the said report to the Parliament during the next session. 3. 4. 5. * * * * * *

The meeting of the Committee then adjourned at 3.30 p.m.

____________________________________ ***Relates to matters not included in this report.