Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say that I rise to oppose the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment) Bill, 2017.

 I find it violative of two very important urgings of our Constitution. Article 51A which says it is a fundamental duty of every citizen of India to value and preserve our rich and composite culture

and Article 49 which places the duty upon the State to protect historical site and ancient monuments. This duty is enshrined in the 2010 Bill which the Government is seeking to amend. In that Bill, we created statutory buffer zones of hundred metres around each protected monument as a prohibited area in which construction was completely banned and then a further 200 metres as a regulated area in which there was a protective buffer zone so that we could actually investigatewhether construction would be appropriate. So, construction, reconstruction, repair, renovation was possible but only with the approval of the competent authority.

While replying to the debate that took place in this House back during the passage of the 2010 Bill, the then Minister of Culture, my good friend Mr. Veerappa  Moily, who is sitting right next to me today, seven years ago, made it very clear that the legislative intent was to completely prohibit construction within the prohibited area and he specifically said that this does mean that future Governments will have to plan projects in such a way that it will not permit any interference in  the prohibited area. So, this is on record. It is in the House debates. We can see what the intent of the Bill was. Now, what is the Government providing in clause 3 of the Bill? It says that public works may be carried within the prohibited area. What are the public works? Of course, they assure us that it is only infrastructure works, construction necessary for the safety and security of the public. But there is a lot of ambiguity in this. Who decides what is necessary for the safety and security of the public? We look at the Cabinet note that has been issued by the Ministry of Culture. It gives two examples that are very instructive.

 One is to build an elevated road near Akbar’s Tomb in Agra so as to facilitate traffic. Now, I ask you Mr. Chairman. Can we imagine the damage that a road right next to Akbar’s Tomb can cause and the damage that will be caused to any 400 or 500 years old Mughal monument when you have automobile fuels that are coming to the buildings?

 What is the second example they have given? They have given the construction of a Railway line near the Rani Ki Vav which is actually in Gujarat, in the Prime Minister’s State. It is a unique stepwell built in the 11th Century by King Bhimdev.

This has been listed as a UNESCO heritage site. They want to construct a railway line in front of it. They want to create construction. The irony, Mr. Chairman, is, this very site just last year was declared as the cleanest iconic place in India at a conference presided over by the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. I wonder how he would feel that the cleanest iconic site is now going to be threatened by a railway line running through it. Has the Government done its homework before presenting this Bill? I find that this kind of very liberal application of the definition ‘public works’ is very worrying.

 It will affect the safety of the monuments; it will affect the security of the monuments; and it will affect the aesthetics of the monuments. The fact is that historical structures and archaeological remains are always the most susceptible to any kind of heavy vibration from construction, road building and so on, chemical effects, mechanical stresses in the area, and construction within the prohibited area can severely damage the monuments beyond repair. On top of that, you ask an archaeologist. I consulted some archeologists. They say within this area there are unexcavated structural remains going back to the ancient monuments. The whole idea is that any construction activity will irreversibly damage both the monument and the future structural investigations and archaeology you may want to do. Even now as we know, for example, the whole Ram Janmabhoomi controversy.

The ASI by digging around the foundations of the Babri Masjid had found the ruin pillars of an old temple. Now if you had built a road right past the Babri Masjid, you will have never known this. You have to understand that modern construction also prevents future archaeology. Now I know what my friend, the Minister, is going to reply. He is going to say, do not worry, my friend. He is going to say, nothing can be done until the National Monuments Authority is satisfied that construction may take place. But what is this National Monuments Authority? Firstly, it is a part of the Government. Secondly, it does not have the mechanism, the staffing or the expertise to determine the feasibility of projects. It does not have the ability to look at alternative routes for public construction.

That is not its business. The mandate of the National Monuments Authority cannot be to determine what should be the best place to put a highway. On top of that, there are Departments of the Government. Their role is only to give recommendations to the Government. They cannot give orders to the Government. The Government is empowered to overrule them and once the Government overrules them, tha  Culture knows perfectly well. It only has three Members left now. He has not even hired or replaced seven of the 10 Members of the NMA. I would like to refer to an exchange in this House one month ago.

There was a question asked to the Minister on 18th of December, 2017 in the Lok Sabha about how many monuments have been encroached. He answered 321 monuments have been encroached under the present law--and he wants to weaken the law. Let me tell you, the C&AG Report of 2013 reveals that there is such a severe shortage of staff in the ASI to preserve and protect monuments in India that out of the 1655 monuments the ASI studied in scrutinizing the reports and physically inspected, 546 had been encroached. There is such a lack of basic manpower in the ASI that we do not even have one Monument Attendant per Indian monument. They only have 2500 and there are 7500 monuments

Mr. Chairman, I will just take two minutes. In 2009, the ASI had an Expert Committee that looked at the possibility of construction near Humayun Tomb, and they said, yes, go ahead. It took the Delhi High Court to stop it. The Delhi High Court had to stop a construction approved by the ASI in the Government. Can we trust our monuments in the hands of the ASI, the NMA and the Government of India if this is their attitude? There is one more last example. Section 20E of the existing Act mandates the enactment of heritage byelaws. Again, our Minister of Culture on the 10th April 2017 replied that no byelaws have been prepared under the Section. So, even without basic controls in place,  the Minister of Culture has given greater priority to clearing projects than to preserving monuments. The Ministry of Culture has in effect been reduced by this Bill into a Clearing House for the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. (d3/1605/vr/asa) That is what is happening with this Bill.

 I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, in half a minute. I do appreciate the need to balance heritage conservation with development. We are not against development; we are in favour of sensible development. We want to have development in places where our precious heritage and history will not be destroyed and damaged. Even in Lutyens Delhi where most of the Ministers in this Cabinet live, there is a ban on constructing overhead metro lines because it will spoil the aesthetics of the place. We seem to care more about Lutyens Delhi’s aesthetic appeal than thousands of monuments across our country, which are being jeopardised by this very irresponsible Bill. For this reason, I would have recommended that it should be submitted to a committee of historians, architectures and archaeologists for their views, failing which we have no choice but to oppose this Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.