India boasts of 27 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) heritage monument sites, including such historical and architectural gems as the Taj Mahal, Sun Temple, Konark, Ellora Caves and the Red Fort. Thousands of tourists from all over the world come to visit these sites every year.

But are all these heritage sites as well preserved as they should be? Apart from the most famous ones, do the innumerable other valuable monuments and archaeological sites get the maintenance and attention they deserve?

The National Commission for Heritage Sites Bill, 2009, introduced in the Rajya Sabha earlier this year, seeks to beef up the entire system of preserving India’s architectural treasures. If passed, it will set up a National Commission for Heritage Sites to give effect to the UNESCO Convention, 1972. The Convention aims at the preservation of immovable cultural property, such as buildings and monuments, and of natural sites, such as geological formations and the habitats of endangered species of animals and plants.

The Commission will recommend policies to the government with respect to the conservation, protection, and management of heritage sites, conduct research to identify heritage sites, publish heritage maps and prepare a list of heritage sites for nomination to the World Heritage Sites list. It will also maintain a roster of heritage sites all over the country that are of national importance. The central government is supposed to appoint a member secretary, chairperson and seven members to the Commission.

Says S.B. Ota, director, National Mission on Monuments and Antiquities, “Only a handful of sites is protected by the government of India, the respective state archaeology commissions and state authorities. This is less than 1 or 2 per cent of the cultural and archaeological resources of the country. The number of heritage sites lying unprotected runs into lakhs. The Commission will help frame policies on the conservation of heritage sites which are yet to be streamlined.”

The Bill states that even though the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has brought 3,675 monuments and sites under the purview of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, these constitute a very small fraction of the total number of ancient monuments in the country. Moreover, the present legislation does not extend to modern architectures of heritage value.

Says A.K. Sinha, director, Monument, ASI, “The Bill is welcome as till date data regarding national heritage monuments lie in a scattered form. The Bill will help in the creation of a proper data bank. The ASI can ensure protection to only those monuments that have been designated as being of national importance by the government. But apart from these, there are a number of heritage sites that lie in a state of neglect. There is not even any record of such monuments that lie scattered throughout the country.”

However, some experts believe that the Bill could have done better. The Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (Intach), a non governmental organisation set up in 1984 to protect and conserve India’s natural and cultural heritage, has submitted a statement of objection, highlighting certain omissions in the Bill. Says Yogendra Narain, member secretary, Intach, “The Bill is welcome but it has some serious lapses. Nowhere does it mention that the directions issued by the Commission will be binding upon all areas governed by existing Acts such as the Indian Forest Act or the Wildlife Protection Act.”

Adds Calcutta High Court counsel Protik Prokash Banerji, “Maybe we need a composite law relating to not just heritage or religious or cultural sites but a broad definition of any place or structure that is worth preserving for historical, antiquarian, archaeological or scientific reasons.”

The Bill also sets out guidelines directed at individuals who may be in a position to protect or endanger a historical site: “The Commission may issue directions to any person who is the owner of, or is in control of, any heritage site to provide access to such site for the purpose of its maintenance and preservation or to desist from doing any act, which in the opinion of the Commission is likely to endanger, damage or destroy such site. Any person who fails to comply with the directions issued by the Commission shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs 10 lakh.”

But experts point out that the Commission should be empowered to issue directions to local bodies or municipal boards rather than just individuals. Says Narain, “Right now the Commission can only issue directions to an individual. But the main culprits are these local authorities that pay no heed to even existing heritage conservation laws. The Commission should also have the right to issue directions to such local bodies or the Bill will fail to serve its purpose.”

Besides, says Narain, the Bill ought to have given the Commission the power to punish offenders directly. Clause 17 of the Bill empowers the Commission to file a case in a court of law against an individual who fails to comply with its directions. “This will leave the Commission fairly toothless. It will not have the power to directly punish anyone not complying with its directives but will have to run to a court every time such a lapse occurs. And we all know that court cases can take years. Hence, such a provision is bound to handicap the Commission.”

Despite its shortcomings, there is little doubt that the proposed law will go some way in toning up India’s patchy efforts at protecting and preserving its rich storehouse of historical, cultural and archaeological treasures.