What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
The recent findings by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that 250 protected monuments are registered as Waqf properties have sparked a significant debate about heritage, ownership, and preservation. This revelation, which will be presented to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, underscores the intricate and often contentious relationship between historical conservation and religious endowments. Our stand is clear: no religious body should have any right to make claims to protected properties or public property.
The ASI’s discovery highlights a critical issue: the dual authority over these monuments. The Waqf Board, empowered by the Waqf Act of 1995, has the authority to declare any property as Waqf in the name of charity. This has led to several protected monuments being unilaterally registered as Waqf properties, creating conflicts with the rights granted under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR) of 1958. This dual authority complicates the management and conservation efforts of these historical sites, as both the ASI and the Waqf Board have overlapping claims and responsibilities.
The primary concern arising from this dual authority is the impact on the conservation and preservation of these monuments. The ASI has reported challenges in carrying out necessary conservation work due to the Waqf Board’s unilateral declarations. Unauthorized alterations and additions, such as shops and fittings, have compromised the authenticity and integrity of these protected structures. For instance, at Fatehpur Sikri, Waqf-appointed tour guides have replaced ASI-certified guides, leading to further complications in maintaining the site’s historical accuracy.
To address these conflicts, it is imperative to establish clear guidelines that define the roles and responsibilities of both the ASI and the Waqf Board. A structured framework should be developed to ensure that the preservation of monuments and the rights of Waqf properties are respected without conflict. This framework should include mechanisms for joint decision-making and conflict resolution, allowing both entities to work collaboratively towards the common goal of heritage conservation.
The issue of dual authority over protected monuments also raises broader questions about balancing heritage conservation with religious rights. Many of these monuments hold significant cultural and religious value for the communities they serve. It is essential to recognize and respect these values while ensuring that the historical and architectural integrity of the monuments is preserved for future generations.
