ASI’s Concerns over Waqf Properties and Protected Monuments

  • September 7, 2024
  • Posted by: OptimizeIAS Team
  • Category: DPN Topics
No Comments

 

 

ASI’s Concerns over Waqf Properties and Protected Monuments

Sub :History

Sec : Art and Culture

Context: The issue of dual authority over monuments arose during discussions on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024, where ASI officials raised concerns about being restricted from carrying out conservation work on such properties.

Introduction

  • The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has raised concerns over conflicts arising from protected monuments being notified as Waqf properties.
  • This issue was discussed during consultations on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2024.

Conflicts between ASI and Waqf Properties

  • ASI cited examples such as Fatehpur Sikri in Agra and Atala Masjid in Jaunpur to illustrate conflicts when protected monuments are also declared as Waqf properties.
  • The ASI stated that the dual authority of ASI and the Waqf Board over these monuments leads to administrative challenges.

Opposition’s Counterarguments

  • Opposition MPs argued that the Waqf Board does not arbitrarily declare properties as Waqf without historical evidence.
  • They pointed out that the AMASR Act equips the ASI to handle such cases of dual authority over monuments.
  • The opposition members contested that the current law ensures the balance between property rights and preservation.

List of Dual Authority Monuments

  • ASI presented a list of 53 monuments that have been declared as Waqf property after being protected under the ASI.
  • This dual status has led to conservation challenges, as per ASI officials.

Conservation Challenges Faced by ASI

  • ASI staff reported being restricted from conducting conservation work in monuments classified as Waqf properties.
  • Unauthorized alterations and additions, such as shops at Atala Masjid and fittings at Mecca Masjid, have compromised the authenticity and integrity of these protected structures.
  • At Fatehpur Sikri, Waqf-appointed tour guides have replaced ASI-certified guides.

Opposition’s Response to ASI’s Claims

  • Opposition members, including AIMIM MP Asadduddin Owaisi, pointed out that the ASI was neglecting the legal provisions of the AMASR Act.
  • They argued that the Act provides mechanisms to balance private ownership with the public interest in preservation.
  • Concerns were raised over the new law potentially eliminating the “Waqf by user” clause, which historically ensured legitimate claims over Waqf properties.

Criticism from Ruling Party MPs

  • ASI was also questioned by BJP MPs about its failure to act in cases where Waqf status was allegedly threatening the authenticity of protected monuments.

Way Forward

  • Clear Guidelines for Dual Authority:
    • A structured framework should be developed to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of both the ASI and the Waqf Board. This would ensure that both the preservation of monuments and the rights of the Waqf properties are respected without conflict.
  • Collaboration between ASI and Waqf Board:
    • Regular communication and collaboration between the ASI and the Waqf Board should be encouraged to avoid unauthorised alterations and ensure that conservation work can proceed unhindered.
  • Strengthening Legal Framework:
    • The government could consider refining the AMASR Act or the Waqf Act to specifically address issues related to dual authority. This would ensure a balance between heritage conservation and property rights, while protecting the historical significance of monuments.
  • Involving Local Communities:
    • Engaging local communities and stakeholders in the preservation process can provide a more sustainable approach to managing Waqf properties and protected monuments. This would also help in mitigating disputes and ensuring that cultural and religious sensitivities are respected.
  • Enforcement and Monitoring:
    • The ASI should be given more authority or resources to enforce preservation laws. Regular monitoring and penalties for unauthorised alterations could help maintain the integrity of these sites.

Conclusion

The dual authority over protected monuments that are also Waqf properties presents both administrative and legal challenges. While the ASI has raised concerns about unauthorised alterations and restricted conservation efforts, opposition MPs argue that existing laws can balance private rights with public preservation interests. Moving forward, collaboration between the ASI and the Waqf Board, along with clearer legal guidelines, will be essential to resolve these conflicts and ensure the protection of India’s rich cultural heritage.

ASI's Concerns over Waqf Properties and Protected Monuments History