ASHA: Blast From The Past

The ASI and the Indian Archaeology Today

Irfan Habib, KM Shrimali and DN Jha

17 July 2000

SAHMAT

Archaeology, the science of reconstructing man’s past through a study of physical remains, especially man’s own artifacts, has come to develop an increasingly humane face, a concept of comprehensiveness of man’s culture, that it explores with tools that are daily getting more and more sophisticated and sensitive, derived from advances in different branches of science.

It is time to think where, in this context, archaeology in India stands today. It has certainly a distinguished past and many achievements behind it. While the formation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784 gave impulse to antiquarian interests, it was with the officially recognized archaeological ‘surveys’ of Alexander Cunningham, beginning in 1861, that exploration became systematic, and immediately reported upon, through his classic Archaeological Surveys. In 1904 came the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, re-legislated as the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. This provided the legal means to preserve monuments, a task which was increasingly seen to be a responsibility of the state. Under the stewardship of John Marshall and Mortimer Wheeler, improved techniques of excavations and scientific reporting were established.

After independence the Archaeological Survey, as a department of the Government of India, was greatly expanded, and under A. Ghosh as Director General, it obtained repute throughout the scholarly world for its rigorous techniques in excavations, care in preservation of monuments, punctual reporting of results, and regularity of issue of its publications. Under H.D. Sankalia, the Deccan College became the torch‑bearer of application of scientific techniques, and much work began to be done by the State Departments of Archaeology.

What is most regrettable is that during the last decade and more, the Archaeological Survey has so badly fallen behind in most of the ordinary technical respects. Reports on excavated sites do not appear for decades, and when they appear, their quality often leaves much to be desired. As has been proved by the case of B.B. Lal’s Ayodhya excavations carried out in the 1970s, new claims began to be made well over ten years after the excavations were completed: there is legitimate suspicion of afterthought here. Surely, if findings are fully and promptly published, there would be no room for such suspicion. While reports of many sites on which large funds were spent are yet to appear, even the annual survey reports of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) are many years in arrears, and so too the Epigraphica Indica and its Arabic and Persian suppliments, the major source for  new  inscriptions discovered. Ancient India, the highly respected journal issued by ASI in the late 1940s and the 1960s, is long defunct. The Advisory Board of Archaeology has not met for nearly twelve years, so that there is no formal body to which the ASI is even ritually answerable. The internationally accepted norms that archaeological finds should be available for inspection to bonafide researchers, and transparency maintained about methods adopted in excavations and technical studies of finds, is being largely ignored by the ASI. Preservation of monuments is also increasingly neglected. It is often that the courts of law have had to direct the ASI to take certain measures to prevent pollution. While in British times lists of historical monuments with reasons for giving or withholding protection were printed for various provinces, the ASI no longer publishes such lists. Let alone such protection, very recently Akbar’s famous palace complex at Fatehpur Sikri was wilfully damaged to dig up  Anup Talao, under an impulse for which no rationale has yet been provided.

As if this was not enough, the ASI has increasingly begun to adopt a narrow and parochial approach to archaeology. The beginning of this approach was signalled by the publication in 1955 of B.B. Lal’s report on Hastinapur, which aimed explicitly at providing an archaeological proof for the Mahabharata tradition. This drew upon him the reproof of the then Director General A. Ghosh, who printed the ASI’s official disavowal of his conclusions in the preface to his report. Later on, M.C. Joshi also contested B.B. Lal’s thesis of Ramayana archaeology centred on Ayodhya. But now, as the ‘saffron’ forces have come into power, a complete shift is noticeable in official archaeology. Puratattva, a journal funded by the ASI, is intent on proving that the Harappan or Indus culture was really based on the Sarasvati, and was Aryan and not Dravidian in its ethnic basis.

Several official publications of the recent past have also adopted this new-fangled designation, which incidentally puts Gujarat with its great site of Dholavira outside the zone of the Harappan culture. The new nomenclature ‘Sindhu‑Sarasvati culture’ is on its way to being given official recognition, to replace the more neutral ‘Harappan’ or ‘Indus’ culture (Sarasvati being also a river of the Indus system). Such chauvinistic attempts are drawing ridicule from archaeologists in other parts of the world.

While historical archaeology, that is, exploration and excavation of settlements in times covered by written record, has often been given a secondary place in ASI, even here there has come to be an increased emphasis on excavations of religious sites and relics, often with divisive overtones. In 1994 the World Archaeology Congress was compelled to de‑recognize its Congress at Delhi hosted by the ASI, because of the host’s refusal to let it consider a resolution condemning the destruction of monuments on sectarian grounds. Recently, the Fatehpur Sikri excavations were so announced to the press as to invite speculations that Muslim rulers, such as Akbar or Aurangzeb, were responsible for the destruction of the Jain images.

Legitimate concern in this matter is far from being set at rest by the intemperate remarks of the excavator, an ASI official, about the ‘lies’ of ‘Delhi historians’ who have protested against such misuse of publicity. Similarly, the saffronized ASI’s concern with proving the ‘Aryan’ origins of everything Indian does not only have the potential of provoking a ‘Dravidian’ backlash, but has put Indian archaeology to world ridicule, as may be seen in  Possehl’s recently published, monumental Indus Age, Vol. I.

In such a situation, it is hardly to be expected that the ASI can pay attention to what is now generally held to be the core object of archaeology: the study of human culture in all its dimensions, from everyday life to art, transcending ethnic, linguistic and religious boundaries, to be undertaken with total scientific rigour. If Indian archaeology is to regain its repute, Parliament and the people of India must wake up and take the necessary steps to restructure ASI and give it a proper direction and orientation.

Some of these steps have already been suggested by the Indian History Congress in its resolutions passed in the last decade or more, and by ASHA in its 1997 conference. These have unfortunately not received the attention they deserve.

The primary need is to isolate the ASI from direct subordination to the government of the day. From a Department of the Ministry of Culture, Government of India, it should become an autonomous organization, directly reporting to Parliament. It should be headed by a person of impeccable academic credentials; and what is now the Advisory Board should have greater powers of supervision and guidance and should meet regularly, under a fresh constitution prescribed by an Act of Parliament.

The ASI should have separate preservation and excavation branches under separate Directors reporting only to the Director‑General, on the analogy of the present Epigraphy Branch. It is also to be considered whether preservation of monuments may be entirely taken out of the purview of ASI and put under a separate national trust formed for the preservation of our architectural and art heritage. Until such a trust is created, the creation of a separate Preservation Branch is essential. All over the world preservation of monuments is a discipline by itself, and it requires recognition as a separate profession in India as well. Moreover, had the two branches been separated, it is hard to imagine how any excavator could have been allowed to mutilate such a World Heritage site as Akbar’s palace at Fatehpur Sikri. The Preservation Branch, as also the Excavation Branch, should, of course, have adequate trained staff and funds at their disposal.

The licence to excavate should be carefully granted only after a fully justified proposal is submitted. An enquiry should also be held to find out why excavation reports have not been published and responsibility fixed in each case, so that such delays do not occur. The site notebooks and antiquities should always made available to scholars.

There is also need to strengthen the Epigraphy Branch, which, despite the importance of inscriptions for ancient and early medieval history, has been suffering from so much neglect for so long: it was noted by the Indian History Congress in 1993 that it is woefully understaffed.

All efforts to improve archaeological education need to be supported. The syllabi have to be constantly upgraded in the universities, from where most of the officials of the ASI come, even if the ASI sets up a large institute for training archaeologists, which, according to press reports, it plans to do. But no archaeology education will be successful if its products are not liberated from parochial and chauvinistic biases: such biases are bound to negate the very basis of archaeology. This is the reason why the RSS’s take-over of Indian archaeology must be opposed.

Let us deal with some instances of blatant ‘tailoring’ and ‘manipulating’ structures to suit particular interests.

According to the report on the excavations conducted at Fathpur Sikri by the Aligarh team under the National Project in collaboration with the Archaeological Survey of India, a structure identified at that timer officially as “the Ibadatkhana” was exposed as a result of excavations conducted in the years 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1983-84.

The Aligarh team which under Professor R.C. Gaur, as its director, exposed this structure included Jamal M. Siddiqui, K. K. Muhammad, Sami Alam, Nasir Husain Zaidi, Muhammad Anis Alvi, Muhammad Abid, Q.S. Usmani and some others.

By 2001, one of the ‘technical assistants’ of the Aligarh team, K.K. Muhammad, after joining the Archaeological Survey of India came to be posted at Agra as Superintendant Agra Circle. Soon after taking charge as Superintending Archaeologist, he started claiming the questionable identification of the ‘Ibādatkhana’ as his “discovery”. This is far from the truth, not only because the suggestion is an old one, made in published lists, but also because he was merely a junior member of the team which carried out work at Fathpur Sikri.

His role in the matter was limited to one, acknowledged by late Prof. R.C. Gaur who thanks him in a foot note for bringing to his notice in 1982 ‘a miniature copy of the painting’ housed at India Section of Victoria and Albert Museum, based on which the ibādatkhāna was identified by Gaur himself.

Akbar the Great (r. 1556–1605) holds a religious assembly in the Ibādatkhāna (House of Worship) in Fathpur Sikri; the two men dressed in black are the Jesuit missionaries Rodolfo Acquaviva and Francisco Henriques. Illustration to the Akbarnama, V&A Museum, Ms 117, London: miniature painting by Nar Singh, ca. 1605.

After making his claim, Muhammad made the matters worse by resorting to active measures to “conserve” the site. Taking a cue from the miniature, he started “tailoring” the site to suite it.

The Akbarnāma miniature in question depicts a screen wall of foliated blind arches behind the platform where Akbar, some religious divines, including Jesuit fathers, are shown seated. The excavated site comprised a screen of two full and a partial arch of some structure, which however does not seem at all aligned with the exposed structure. The Superintendant Archaeologist went on to extend (and thus bring it to an acceptable distance) and ‘complete’ the “mosque” by providing it with the missing arches. Totally ignoring the orientation of the structure vis a vis other Akbari structures around it, but in a hurry to prove his point, Muhammad re-shaped the structures to confirm his theory.

The Original Structure: Mark the niches

Below: The Tailoring of the structure

Had the interest been genuinely academic, then the attempt should have been directed at publishing the report of the excavations conducted by the ASI team! This attempt is best summed up by the well known historian of Mughal Architecture, Prof. Ram Nath:

It is a pity that the Government department which styles itself ‘Archaeological Survey of India’ and claims, authoritatively, to conduct and supervise all public archaeological activity in the country…acted under the guidance of an ignorant presiding officer. He misused his official position and floated a hoax, in order to earn the credit of discovering the ever elusive ‘Ibadat Khana of Akbar, and he did this, not for any pious academic purpose, but for self-glorification through publication of this wonderful news in the press, as he also did in respect of his (so-called) discovery of Akbar’s Gang Mahal (Dumb-House) at Churiyari (Fatehpur Sikri), and several other adventures….He is guilty in wasting public money on his private venture and whim, outside the scope of the ASI’s protection and conservation of national monuments and he is guilty of altering the original form and fabric of a protected monument which is an offence under Section 30 (1) (i) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, besides being in flagrant violation of the ASI’s Conservation Manual (1923) Section 25. This amounts to ‘official vandalism’ which must be taken seriously in the interest of our cultural heritage.

Dr. D.V. Sharma, who had served the ASI as its Superintending Archaeologist in different circles and branches of ASI including Delhi and Agra Circles, and been involved in a number of major archaeological projects like those of BB Lal and KN Dixit and has been one of the esteemed colleagues of Muhammad at Agra, has the following words for him:

“… (he) has not only misinterpreted it grossly, he has also fabricated the things which are not there..”

Sharma goes on to sum up K.K. Muhammad’s work as follows:

“Not only did he claim, academically, to have discovered Akbar’s Ibadat-Khanah, he has also rebuit, anew, both the Qiblah-wall and the platform, in the name of archaeological conservation and restoration, in his capacity as the incumbent superintending archaeologist of Agra Circle of the ASI. He has rebuilt, at enormous cost, both the terraces of the platform (i.e., their floors) with red sand stone which was not there originally. He has also extended the Qiblah-wall (Qanati-Masjid) of the graveyard, lying at a distance of 39’1” from the platform, in order to bring it in line of the north-east bastion of the Jami Masjid, to prove its resemblance with the painting, and add three arches to it, a largest one in the middle and two smaller on the northern side. Their form has been changed and the broad intrados of the original two arches is missing in the three new arches. Instead of the original material, viz., rubble masonry, the new arches have been built of Lakhauri bricks. Instead of the original cusped niche, he has built a plain oblong niche on the other side of the central arch. Thus he has altered the original form and fabric of these protected monuments, and he has also destroyed their original historical character.”

What the Archaeological Survey of India did under the guidance of its Superintendant, Agra Circle, in 2002 was in direct contrast to the demands of the well established conservation policy of the government. The late- Sultanate style rectangular tāqs (niches) with multi-foliations in the mosque were converted by K.K. Muhammad into square niches. Secondly, in the three newly constructed arches, as pointed out by Sharma, the very architectural technique and material of construction was changed and given a new form. This amounts to planting evidence to perpetuate a false notion of the site under consideration.

K.K. Muhammad’s ‘inspired’ commissions do not end here:

There are other structures as well whose original form was drastically changed by him.

An example can be given of two structures situated on the edge of the ridge beyond the Diwan-i ām, adjacent to the so-called ‘Treasury’ in front of the ‘Mint’ (Karkhanas). Exhibiting a slight tapering of walls (still visible in the original portion on the left) these structures are considered amongst the earliest constructions on the ridge at Sikri.

K.K. Muhammad, in the name of its upkeep, rebuilt one of its walls (thus destroying the tapering effect) and added drooping red-sand stone eaves where none existed before!

Fortunately, another extension of contemporary structure, jutting from the southeastern side of the diwan-i ām escaped Muhammads’s attention.

Another structure whose form got transformed as a result of ASI’s version of conservation was the Stone Cutters’ Mosque near the Chishti quarters. According to the Indian Archaeology-A Review, the restoration work on mosque involved the construction ‘dwarf wall on the east and south of the mosque’. What remains unsaid but becomes apparent from two photographs appended to the report (pls. 181-182) is that a trabeate entrance raised on stone pillars (visible in the photograph) is now transformed into a typical radiating arch – an architectural feature entirely missing in the original structure.

The Original Structure: Mark the travesty doors

After Conservation: Arch replaces trabeate entrance!

This is the mosque about which Smith is very explicit when he writes:

This masjid is about the oldest building in the capital, and was probably erected before Fatehpur Sikri had attracted the notice of Akbar….

Similar was the treatment meted out to the Karkhāna structure (‘Mint’) situated between the Daulatkhāna-i ām and the Naqqārkhāna: thanks to the overzealousness of Mr. Muhammad. It is now provided with red sand stone jālis and lime plaster.

Thus what the ASI did was ‘create’ a new architecture where it did not exist. But then is the radiating arch not “Muslim” and thus appropriate in the eyes of the ASI officialdom?

Copyright Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

Extracts from

• Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi

In December 1861, in response to a memorandum of Alexander Cunningham pointing out the necessity of ‘preserving’ monuments in different parts of India ‘by accurate and faithful descriptions of archaeologists’, Lord Canning, the Viceroy of India, established a body with Cunningham as Surveyor to carry out archaeological surveys and explorations of ancient remains.

The Archaeological Survey of India, as a proper organization, however, came into existence only in 1870 when the then Viceroy, Lord Mayo, acceded to the proposal of the Secretary of State, Duke of Argyll, for establishing such an organization.

In 1871 General Cunningham formally joined this organization as its Director-General. Known for his reliance on written records, especially the Buddhist travellers’ accounts, like those of the Chinese Fa-Hien (also spelt Fa-hsien, Fa Xian, AD 337 – c. 422) and Yuan Tsang (also written as Hsuan Tsang, Xuanxang, AD c. 602-664), Cunningham by the end of his tenure (he demitted office in 1885) firmly laid down the tradition of ‘Historical Archaeology’ in India. The modern day trend of a preference for archaeology of the pre-historic period was to come much later.

Till the late 1870’s the work of conservation of the monuments was the responsibility of the provincial governments. However, the first systematic step towards repairs of the monuments was undertaken in 1873 when the Government of India, through a circular (Circular no. 9 Public Works, dated 15th February 1873) assigned the local governments the duty of preserving the buildings and monuments of historical and archaeological importance which were in their jurisdiction. In 1875 Sir John Strachey, the Lt, Governor of the United Provinces, proposed to create a special Archaeological Public Works division with its headquarters at Agra and an annual budget of Rs. 70, 000 /-. The division was assigned the duty to not only list the monuments but also prepare notes on conservation to be carried out on them.

The first systematic conservation of monuments was done under its aegis. The brief given by Sir Strachey was not to try to restore the buildings in accordance with their original design:

It is clear there should be no attempt to restore buildings to what we chose to suppose may have been their original appearance. Our duty is simply one of preservation against further injury.

Further progress was made during the 1880’s. The Viceroy, Lord Lytton, being of the firm opinion that ‘the preservation of national antiquities and works of art’ was an imperial duty, created in 1881 the post of Curator of Ancient Monuments, and appointed Major H. H. Cole who as a result went on to publish 10 folio-volumes of selected major monuments, including those of Agra, along with detailed illustrations.

A new era opened when John Marshall was appointed Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India by the Viceroy Lord Curzon (1898-1905) in 1902 at the young age of 26. Marshall remained in his post until 1928, and continued to work for the ASI until 1934. Between 1902 and 1928, he oversaw seminal excavations at 49 sites across the subcontinent, from Taxila in today’s Pakistan to Sanchi and Sarnath in India, and Pagan in Mandalay division of Burma. It was at his instance and persuasion that legislative and administrative measures were taken for the protection of the Indian monuments. Under Lord Curzon the centrepiece of such measures, the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1904, was passed.

A new preservation policy was initiated through a government resolution introduced and passed on 7th July 1903, which was later incorporated by Marshall in his pamphlet Conservation of Ancient Monuments (1907), and in his Conservation Manual (1922). The latter was to become the Bible for the archaeologists and conservationists of ancient monuments in India.

Conservation Manual of Sir John Marshall

One of the clauses [no. 25] of this Conservation Manual lays down the basic principles of preservation:

“Archaeological, Public Works, or other officers charged with the execution of conservation work should never forget that the reparation of any remnant of ancient architecture, however humble, is a work to be entered upon with totally different feelings from a new work or from the repairs of a modern building. Although there are many ancient buildings whose state of disrepair suggests at first sight a renewal, it should never be forgotten that their historical value is gone when their authenticity is destroyed, and that our first duty is not to renew them but to preserve them. When, therefore, repairs are carried out, no effort should be spared to save as many parts of the original as possible, since it is to the authenticity of the old parts that practically all the interest attaching to the new will owe itself. Broken or half decayed original work is of infinitely more value than the smartest and most perfect new look.”

In yet another clause, while elaborating the duties of the Conservation Assistants, the Manual laid down that they

‘should endeavour as far as possible to foresee mistakes and take action to prevent then before they occur’,

and that it would be the duty of the Conservation Assistant that, if such mistake occurs,

‘to bring to notice, as soon as he sees it, any departure from the requirements of the Archaeological department’,

to the subordinates at work, and failing rectification,

‘report in writing to the Archaeological Superintendent’.

The Manual then went on to the details of repair work to be done, viz., the materials to be used and the methods of repair for each type of work at hand.

For example, it laid down the rule that no modern bricks whatsoever were to be used on any old building. While in case of repairing brickwork, bricks of the same size and fabric were to be used and that they should be laid in the ‘same bond and the mortar joints should be of the same thickness and toned to the same colour as in the old work’.

Similarly, if the task at hand concerned fresco or tempera-paintings or the work involved removal of whitewash, such tasks ‘should only be performed under the supervision of an expert’.

The manual thus contains minute, as well as technical details, including the type of trees to be planted in the garden around a particular monument. An advice given in this regard was to observe a ‘happy mean between antiquarian accuracy, on the one hand, and aesthetic beauty, on the other’.

In the light of the above, one would expect an impeccable record of the official body which is expected to conserve and preserve the monuments, specially those which are identified and named as World Heritage Sites.

*

Unfortunately each and every of this rule was violated by the Agha Khan Trust when they were handed over the iconic Humayun’s Tomb, the Arab ki Sarai, the Sundar Nursery structures by the UPA government. Subsequently the tombs at Bijapur and Golcunda too met the same fate!

Humayun’s Tomb was initially handed over to the Trust surreptitiously in 2007 and the given brief was merely maintenance of “gardens”!

All these Monuments were denuded of their original plasters and painting, which were mercilessly scrapped off in totality and replaced by modern plasters and designs! So much so that Humayun’s Tomb no more is the work of Mirak Ghiyas Beg, the original Central Asian architect who came along with Babur to India, but of the architects of Agha Khan Trust!

The Agha Khan Trust claims that it imported and planted 3000 varieties of flowers and shrubs to recreate the Mughal garden around the monument. What they forgot was that Mughals knew of no such lawns: grass was alien to them and a European import! Mughal gardens were more like orchards with shade giving, fruit bearing and fragrant trees!

Further, pray from where did they get the names of the 3000 “Mughal” plants and shrubs? Which source mentions them?

They also claimed that they imported and applied the Central Asian techniques and employed master craftsmen from Central Asia and also ‘reproduced’ the Mughal mortar!

What they again forgot was that all the Mughal Monuments in India, may have been planned by Central Asians, but were actually built by the sons of the soil, the indigenous masons and craftsmen!

And which source provide the information on the making of a typical plaster? If they actually made a chemical analysis to reach the answer, then which lab? For in reply to an RTI they denied any prior chemical analysis!

The Agha Khan Trust completed its work at Humayun’s Tomb in 2013, crores of rupees from the hard earned public funds got spent, yet the new plasters started peeling off and falling by 2017! Syed Jamal Hasan, former Director (Archaeology) with Archaeological Survey of India, showed us the slides of the weak plaster which is getting unstuck within a few years of being applied.

Let us get together and save our Monuments from further damage and say no to vested interests and private players, whether Agha Khan Trust, or now, the Dalmias who want to do the same with the Red Fort!

Today Red Fort is being handed over, apparently to “maintain” gardens and toilets! The Modi government which had launched Swachhta Abhiyan can build thousands of toilets all over the country but is incapable to build and maintain a few at our heritage sites? The real intentions are different: the clue lies in “interpretation centres” which will be maintained by these private entities and which would prepare “pamphlets” and “publicity material”! The endeavour is to replace history with myths!

Report on the Seminar by Zainab Naqvi and Lubna Irfan:

On June 5th, 2018 a Symposium on “Our Heritage at Risk : The Problem of Managing our National Monuments” was organised by the Centre of Advanced Study, Department of History, AMU. The symposium was conducted to raise concern regarding the harm being done to national Heritage with increasing privatization and handing over of India’s heritage to Private groups and trusts, the primary focus of the symposium was the passing of Red Fort to the Dalmia Group and the Case of handing over of Humayun’s Tomb to the Agha Khan Trust. These groups in the name of restoring the structures seem to trample upon the essence of a heritage building by ‘reconstructing’ them.

The seminar saw some prominent names in the field of archaeology and Monumental restoration as speakers. Dr Jamal Hasan, Former Director (Archaeology), ASI ( New Delhi) and Dr. Shama Mitra Chenoy (DU) were the guest speakers. Dr Rana Safvi, a well known historian and heritage walk organiser and expert on Delhi monuments also came to attend the function.

Professor Emeritus, Irfan Habib introduced the seminar theme by elaborating on, ‘What Constitutes a Monument and their Protection’. Professor Habib said the Latin word ‘monumentum’ means to ‘remind’ and our efforts at preserving heritage must necessarily not compromise the authenticity of the Historical structures. He voiced that the injustice to the Monumental heritage is either done on:

a) Communal grounds or

b) For Big business,

He stated that the policy of ‘De- Protection’ as in the case of Water works at Fatehpur Sikri or the misrepresentation of Monuments done by monopolising information / propaganda /ticketing are major challenges. He highlighted the importance of preserving the heritage but not ‘renewing’ it.

Professor Shireen Moosvi (AMU) who has till recently been a member of CABA, a consultative Advisory Boar of Archaeology of ASI, dissected the effect of Private interests on Monument Management as in the case of Humayun’s Tomb at the hands of the Agha Khan Trust and its tampering with the originality of the tomb without any consultation with the Advisory Board of ASI. She insisted that preservation must not collide with the authenticity of any structure, which unfortunately has been the case of Humayun’s Tomb.

Dr. Jamal Hasan on the question of Preservation being a Private enterprise, gave a presentation on how the repair works of Private bodies mock the essence of History and dignity for a tomb or mouseoleum, he cited a number of examples where reconstruction was guised as preservation as in the case of Humayun’s Tomb and the Sunder Nursery area at the hands of Agha Khan Trust. Furthermore he also urged the need for more academicians joining the ASI to better collaborate with preservation works.

Dr. Shama Mitra Chenoy of DU gave a talk on Heritage preservation and Delhi Monuments. She pointed at the unfortunate disappearance of many important structures from Delhi. She also pointed to private ownerships of structures like within the Golf Club, like Lal Bangla or Tomb of Syed Abid and the violation of the 300- meters rule with many constructional works springing up near these monuments. She insisted at the need for setting a certain standard for the Policy of Preservation and one such could be Public Partnerships, because people in themselves are central in owning the heritage of a certain place as in the Case of preservation of Shahjahanabad.

Lastly, Professor Ali Nadeem Rezavi, Chairman, Department of History (AMU) made a presention on The Canons of Preservation of Medieval Monuments as in the case of Fatehpur Sikri. He elaborated on the harm done to these buildings at the hands of certain functionaries of the ASI itself by doctoring reconstruction into them. He also elaborated on the eradication of many important historical relics such as the paintings on the walls or mason’s marks in the name of preserving a Monument. Earlier while introducing the theme, Professor Rezavi wondered that how come the present government can launch a thousand toilets via Swachhta Abhiyan but needs a private entity like Dalmias to build toilets at Nation Heritage sites. He pointed out that in fact these were attempts at tampering with history and creating myths in place of historical facts! An inkling is got from the fact that an “Interpretation Centre” was also being created which would help in dessiminating the distortions!

The Symposium aimed to give a call for agitation and raising awareness for people’s own Heritage and History before it is completely lost. It was a first step towards making the general public aware of the plight of our past heritage and recent attempts to tamper then.

A large number of staff members, research scholars and students attended the daylong symposium.

Who was Razmi Rizwan in whose name an Annual Award at the CAS in History is instituted?

During the course of the Sultania Historical Society function of the Centre of Advanced Study Department of History, AMU, an Award is given, year after year, to a student (for aquiring the highest marks in Medieval India in MA I year) in the name of Razmi Rizwan Husain. But unfortunately the students are not informed who this person was.

Razmi Rizwan Husain died in a road accident in Delhi on 1January 1982. He had by then completed his MPhil under the supervision of Professor Bipin Chandra at JNU and had been appointed as a lecturer in History at Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi.

Having started his primary education from Our Lady of Fatima Hr. Sec. School, Aligarh, Razmi went on to join the Centre of Advanced Study in History, Aligarh Muslim University in 1975 as a student of BA (Hons). He completed his postgraduation from the same department before migrating to JNU.

At Aligarh he was not only known as an excellent student but was also quite popular amongst his contemporaries for his independent views. He was a great debator and was known for his elocution as well as essays on various topics. We still remember his oratorial debate with Irfan Habib at a function held after Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s execution in Pakistan. He firmly but politely differed from what Habib had to say.

Though he himself could never qualify the Civil Service interviews, he qualified for the mains thrice. Many who did make it to IAS, are on record that they qualified through his endeavours and academic help.

Just a week before his death, as he was preparing to come home for his scheduled marriage, Razmi took a pillion ride on the bike of a fellow Alig who was at JNU in the chilling and morning fog of a freezing Delhi. A minor accident occurred which caused harm only to the rider: Razmi fell and his head hit the pavement. He was ultimately, after some unforgivable delay to AIMS, where he remained till 1st of January, a date when the doctors declared him dead. He was ultimately brought back to Aligarh where he was buried in the University graveyard.

While in JNU, he not only devoted his time to his academic pursuits but was also instrumental in leaving his mark on the JNU student’s politics. He could not remain bound by the traditional politics of SFI or AISF, but charted his own path by floating a new student’s political organization.

Soon after his death, the well known poet, and a family friend, Akhlaq Muhammad Khan Shaheryar composed and dedicated the following ghazal in his memory:

عہد گل کا کوئ قصہ نہ سنا ئیں گے تمہیں

تم بہت جاگ چکے اب نہ جگا ئیں گے تمہیں

تھی کشش وسعت افلاک میں ہم سے بھی سوا

ورنہ سوچا تھا کہ اس دل میں بسائیں گے تمہیں

وقت رخصت تمہیں اک بار نہ دیکھا مڑ کے

گرچہ معلوم تھا ہم بھول نہ پائیں گے تمہیں

تم پہ کیا گزرے گی یہ سوچ کے جی ڈرتا ہے

ہم کہ جب بھیڑ میں تنہا نظر آئیں گے تمہیں

سر بر ہنہ ہیں سبھی پیڑ ہوا چپ چپ ہے

اور سبب کیا ہے ابھی یہ نہ بتائیں گے تمہیں۔

The famous painter from Pakistan who was on a visit to Aligarh soon after the death of Razmi composed the script to be put up on the cenotaph stone of the grave.

Soon after his death, on the initiative of another bohemian scholar, Late Dr. Iqbal Ghani Khan (simply IG to his friends), the Board of Studies, CAS in History, AMU instituted a “Razmi Memorial Award” to be given to the student who secured the highest percentage of marks in Medieval India in the first year. The Award was to be given during the Annual Function of the Sultania Historical Society of the CAS in History. The student who tops in MA gets the Sultania Gold Medal.

The first Razmi Memorial Award was given in 1983. It went to, if I remember correctly to Ms. Fatima Ahmad Imam, currently teaching at University of Toronto in Canada. The second recipient was Farhat Hasan, now Professor at Delhi University.

For a number of initial years the undersigned, along with IG had to literally fight for the continuance of this Award.

In the past it was only in 2020 that no award could be given as due to Covid-19 no function could be held that year. It was resumed from 2021 onwards.

The Razmi Memorial Award for 2023 has been given to Ms. Najia Aiman Rizvi who secured the highest marks in MĀ first year amongst the students who offered to major in Medieval Indian History.

---

Razmi Rizwan Memorial Fellowship, JMI

Later in 2008, the Executive Councl of the Jamia Milia Islamia in its meeting (EC-I/2008) held on Tuesday, the 11th March, 2008 under the Vice Chancellorship of Professor Mushirul Hasan, intituted a Scholarship in the name of Razmi. Noting in its minutes, clause 4.2 , it approved the following modalities for regulating the scholarship namely “Razmi Rizwan Hussain Memorial Scholarship” to be awarded to the best student of M.A. History from the Academic Session 2007-2008:

1. The name of the scholarship shall be ‘Razmi Rizwan Hussain Memorial Scholarship’.

2. The scholarship shall be awarded for academic achievements, keeping in view of the financial need of the best student in M A History.

3. Students shall apply to the Head, Department of History and Culture after the declaration of their result of M A previous year, following the notice to be issued by the Department.

4. The student shall attach an attested copy of his/her marks sheet of the M.A. (previous examination) along with the proof of income for the related academic year.

5. Selection of the candidate shall be made on the basis of the candidate’s academic achievements, financial position, and performance in the interview to be conducted by a committee consisting of (a) Dean, Students’ Welfare-Chairman (b) Head, Department of History and Culture– Member; (c) Dean, Faculty of Humanities and Languages– Member

6. No award shall be made unless there is a candidate of sufficient merit available.

---

Razmi Rizwan Husain Foundation (RRHF), JNU

Ultimately, some former students of JNU got together in 2012 and formed the Razmi Rizwan Husain Foundation (RRHF), which was registered as a society in Delhi with certain social and literary-cultural objectives and to perpetuate Razmi’s memory. To begin with, they have started organising Memorial Talks, to be taken further for more constructive outcomes in near future.

Two such Memorial Talks have been organized so far, the first in 2012 itself, and the second in 2013. The 1st Razmi Memorial Talk was held at India International Centre, New Delhi on March 30, 2012. Mr. Raja Mohan, noted scholar and social scientist spoke then on Indo-Afghan strategic relationship. Noted historian, Prof. Harbans Mukhia presided over the function and Sh. D. P. Tripathi, MP was the Guest of Honour. More than 60 friends from JNU participated in that function. The second lecture, organized on 8 September 2013, organized at IIC, New Delhi, was delivered by Professor Emeritus Irfan Habib.

The memory of Razmi is thus being perpetuated by three well known institutions of India: AMU, his original alma mater, Jamia Milia Islamia, where he briefly served, and JNU which was his ideological home.

Razmi was the son of an English Professor, Prof. Rizwan Husain, and my eldest sister Najma Rizwan Husain. One of his brother, Bazmi Husain, is Managing Director, ABB, while the other, Fehmi Husain is Assistant Vice President ( East) at HT Media Limited.

The Tomb of Humayun built during the reign of Akbar and the Red Fort of Delhi are amongst the two jewel built heritage sites in the country and both are being tampered with: the first by handing it over to a private firm: The Agha Khan Trust, which “rebuilt” it; while the second is in the process of being handed over to another private group, the Dalmias.

Humayun’s Tomb and Agha Khan Trust

Agha Khan Trust before starting their work should have read the small book on Conservation by Sir John Marshall, considered the Bible for conservationists. The work of conservation does not translate to rebuilding, remaking or beautifying: it simply means to arrest the rot and arrest the decay. Completing the whole is not a work to be attempted by conservationists.

No doubt HT has been sparklingly “renewed” with replastering of interior surfaces, dome and finials. They may have also “authenticated” designs and patterns and tried to use (as closely as possible methods of making plasters- though full details in this regard are not fully known or described in Mughal sources; they may be known for the Ottomon empire); but none of this qualifies as per the rigour prescribed by John Marshall.

What they have virtually done is that they have completely scrapped the original and after replastering they have repainted. Howsoever “authentic” it is not Humayun’s – but a modern endeavour of a modern-day architect!

Mirza Ghiyas has now a partner with whom he shares the credits!

Nizamuddin Basti and Sundar Nursery

The whole of Nizamuddin Basti is going to suffer the same fate, as has the Tomb of Humayun, the Monuments in the so-called Sundar Nursery and the Adil Shahi Tombs and other structures in Bijapur and Golcunda. The Tomb of Khan-i Khanan is similarly being “renewed” (and vandalised) by Agha Khan Trust.

In spite the breast-thumping by Ratish Nanda of Aga Khan Trust, the professional body of Indian historians, the Indian History Congress has opposed the recently carried out preservation at historical monuments, as Humayun’s Tomb. “Preservation” does not translate as “modernization” or “rebuilding”. In spite of claims, many changes have been introduced in the design at the site which we condemn.

The Agha Khan Foundation has in fact played a lot with the original design and decoration in the interior of the monument. The Indian History Congress too has passed a strong resolution condemning it! I adviced R Nanda to have a dialogue with historians and those who are in the knowledge of Mughal design! Increase of footfalls in the monument is no proof of authenticity to original design. Nor is “beauty” which he claims to have bestowed on the said monument!

The IHC Resolution on Humayun’s Tomb ‘Conservation’ by Agha Khan Trust

The 75th IHC adopted a resolution on preservation of monuments and opposed the involvement of private agencies in restoring monuments. “We have opposed the involvement of private agencies like Aga Khan Trust and INTACH. No private agency has given any research on what scheme they are adopting or how they will preserve monuments.”

The resolution passed at the Annual Session of the 75th Session of the Indian History Congress held at JNU on 30 December 2013 is as follows:

Resolution 2

Preservation and Conservation of Monuments

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has adopted a document containing rules for conservation of monuments and archaeological sites and remains (“The National Conservation Policy”). There are, in addition, international practices governing preservation and conser-vation of ancient structures as well as detailed norms adopted by the Archaeological Survey of India itself. Many of these basic rules, however, appear to have been violated in the case of such conservation projects assigned by the ASI to private agencies. One notable example is Humayun’s Tomb. Here two principles, namely, strict use only of materials that were originally employed in construction and repair, and clear demarcation of the current additions in the name of restoration, have been clearly violated. Even colour-schemes appear to have been changed. Moreover, facilities are being provided to tourists in a manner that threatens to damage the environment of the monument.

The Indian History Congress is disturbed at what has happened at this World Heritage Site, and hopes that a full report on the so-called restorations and a fresh colour-scheme that have been devised by the private agency concerned, and how the lapses made can now be rectified. At the same time, until the matter is settled, no preservation and restoration work on other monuments by private agencies should be permitted.

Handing over of Fort of Shahjahanabad to Dalmia Group and IHC Resolution

As recently as May 2018, expressing serious concern over the maintenance of the historic Red Fort here being auctioned out to the Dalmia Bharat Group, the Indian History Congress (IHC) has called for an “impartial review” of the arrangement by “the Central Advisory Board of Archaeology or any other recognised body of experts”.

“The Indian History Congress is greatly perturbed at the announcement that Dalmia Bharat, a cement company with no known experience of maintenance of monuments, is being made the custodian of the Red Fort of Delhi, a major national monument. It has also been announced that other monuments, including the Taj Mahal, are also in line for being handed over to similar private parties,” said a statement issued by the IHC.

“The terms on which the Red Fort is to be handed over to Dalmia Bharat are disturbingly broad. The company can ‘construct’ as well as ‘landscape’, and it will run an ‘interpretation centre’ as well,” the statement added, picking holes in the MoU.

The IHC recalled that it had also “expressed dismay” over the permission offered to the Aga Khan Trust “to interfere with the basic structures, decorations and ornamentation of Mughal monuments in the Humayun’s Tomb complex and surrounding areas”.

“The way the Red Fort is being entrusted to Dalmia Bharat is still more troubling for the company has no claim to any experience in maintenance, conservation, preservation and interpretation of monuments,” it said.

“There is ample room for the fear that in order to attract tourist traffic it may propagate false or unproven interpretations of particular structures in the complex. Once such claims are set afloat, especially when they are of a sectarian character, it is found extremely difficult to get rid of them,” it added.

Appeal to All

We the Aligarh Historians, the members of the Centre of Advanced Study Department of History, as well as the Aligarh Historians Group condemn the attempts to play with our Monuments. A large number of other historians from Delhi to Hyderabad have joined hands to raise our voice against such blatant vandalism. Join us on 5th June and be a part of the Movement!