THE websites of the Ministry of Culture, Government of India, and one of its subordinate offices, the Archaeological Survey of India, cannot be accused of attaching any special significance to archaeological research. The ‘mission statement’ of the Ministry refers to only the “maintenance and conservation of heritage, historic sites and ancient monuments”, and following this, the Archaeological Survey announces that the “maintenance of ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance” is its “primary concern”.
From this official point of view, the Archaeological Survey of India is not a research or academic body. It is essentially a maintenance organisation on the model of the PWD. Whereas the PWD is concerned only with the construction and maintenance of modern structures, the Archaeological Survey of India’s focus is on the maintenance and preservation of historic sites and monuments. We should soon get rid of the notion that the Archaeological Survey and its State level counterparts are supported by the Government to advance the academic cause of archaeology . After all, in very few countries of the modern world the governments would take the direct responsibility of conducting archaeological research. That research has played only a minor part in the Archaeological Survey’s post-Independence agenda is also clear from the sheer number of the unpublished explorations and excavations done by it.
Once we see things in this light, we shall realise that the head of the Archaeological Survey of India, i.e. its Director General, need not have much to do with archaeology as an academic discipline. He need not have the position of the chief archaeologist of the country. His basic qualification should be that of a conservator with expertise in one of the two aspects of conservation – structural and chemical.
If only this simple issue was kept in mind, the recent selection of the Director General of the Archaeological Survey would not have been as disgusting as it has been. First, this was preceded by some media interest. The Hindu of April 24, 2002 carried a news item on the “move to appoint archaeologist as the ASI Director General”. The ASI had, in fact, been without an archaeologist Director General since 1993. More than seven years later, on 25 October, 2009, the same newspaper reported that the Ministry of Culture had set in motion “the process of professionalising premier institutions of art, culture and literature under it” and that the first post to be advertised and filled up on ” search-cum-selection” basis under this scheme was that of the ASI Director General.
Secondly, when the advertisement came out ( F.No-4-36/2009/ASI), the only firm requirement was that the aspiring candidates had served three years on a specified senior salary-scale. Otherwise, the net thrown was very wide: a post-graduate qualification (subject unspecified and no emphasis on the academic track record) and 15 years’ experience in the fields of any of the following subjects: Archaeology, Architecture, Conservation, History, and Anthropology. Further, there had to be five years experience (out of the specified fifteen years) in ‘administration matters’. A bachelor’s degree of Management was considered desirable. Apparently, the Ministry was not looking exclusively for a field- archaeologist of proven brilliance to run its Archaeological Survey which, incidentally, is possibly the largest organisation of its kind in the world.
In a sense, this lack of emphasis on research or even on Archaeology was not surprising. As noted earlier, the Ministry and the Survey both consider conservation to be their main task.
Thirdly, the selection of the three ‘experts’ was equally interesting. One of them, Dr Lokesh Chandra, had never anything to do with archaeology in his working career. The second one, Sr S Nagaraja Rao, is not known to have published anything significant related to field-archaeology since 1974. The academic credibility of the third one, Prof K Paddayya, is beyond dispute, but let us note that, although a retired Director of a research institute and an archaeologist, he has not worked in any other part of India except two districts of Karnataka which happens to be the only professional field of the second ‘expert’ as well.
The selection process did not pass through the Union Public Service Commission. There are reasons to believe that this process was controlled basically by the Ministry, and the fact that the selected person, Shri Gautam Sengupta, and the present Secretary to the Ministry, Shri Jawhar Sircar, have had their administrative experience in the same CPI(M)-controlled State government lends some credence to this belief. The ‘experts’ did not form a coherent group; the first one, in fact, did not reputedly turn up after the first day of meetings.
As I look at it from a distance, I realise that the whole hype about handing over the leadership of the Archaeological Survey of India to a professional was nothing but a charade. Before the Selection Committee met, the Prime Minister gave a speech to the members of the Central Advisory Body of Archaeology, and one suspects that the people who contributed to this speech were simply not aware of the malaise which afflicts the subject in India. To add more spice to the proceedings, the serving officers of the Archaeological Survey of India decided to make a representation to the Government, outlining what they thought was their specialist work.
The Archaeological Survey of India has been the victim of mediocre leadership, both academically and otherwise, for a long time. It has not even been able to find a balance between archaeological research and the maintenance and preservation of protected sites and monuments as its objectives. One finds that the present state of affairs weighs heavily in favour of ‘conservation’ but has one looked closely at the state of structural and chemical conservation all over the country ? The Government of India, if it were serious about the things it announces in the relevant websites, could try to improve things by appointing at least an efficient conservator at the helm of the ASI. If it were serious about pushing archaeological research in a new direction, it could have appointed somebody whose research track-record is impeccable. The fact that it threw all academic criteria to the winds while appointing the person it has appointed shows that whatever pious thought the PM may utter in the name of Archaeology, that is one of the last priorities the country has, if it can be considered a ‘priority’ at all.
(The writer is a world famous archaeologist and historian. He was Professor of South Asian Civilisation in Cambridge University. After his retirement in 2009 he was appointed Professor Emeritus in Cambridge University.)
