DR.S. SURESH
Tamil Nadu State Convener,
Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH),
Old no. 45, new no.46, IV Street,
Padmanabha Nagar, Adyar,
CHENNAI-600 020. INDIA.
Phone-Landline: 091 44 24918479;Mobile: 8939468776
Email:chorchu@vsnl.net
Paper presented at the 15th International Conference of National Trusts,
September-October, 2013, Uganda
Title of the Paper:
The Role of National Heritage Preservation Trusts in Heritage
Legislation—With Special Reference to the Experiences in
the U.S and India
Type of presentation proposed: Powerpoint presentation.
Conference theme addressed: Safeguarding our heritage.
Abstract of Paper:
Traditionally, the mission of heritage buildings conservation was
considered to be the responsibility of the state. The concept of voluntary
organizations in the form of ‘National Trusts’, for this purpose, dates back to
the late nineteenth century. In many countries, the earliest Heritage
Preservation laws were enacted in the early twentieth century when the
National Trusts were either not established or were in their formative stages
and considered as ‘low-key voluntary efforts’ not worthy of consultation by
the law-makers. But, fortunately, this scenario is rapidly changing in most
countries including developing countries like India where the political will to
preserve heritage is still in its infancy. It is being increasingly realized that as
the National Trusts are engaged in grassroots level heritage preservation,
even in places and forums where the government would not and cannot
normally venture, it is imperative that these Trusts have an effective say in
the framing of national policies. Presently, in both India and the U.S., the
government and the respective National Trusts are engaged in fruitful
interaction and thus, the latter are, albeit to a limited extent, able to influence
the laws of the land. Such ‘interaction’ and ‘influences’ are definitely far
higher and more visible in the U.S. than in India due to multifarious reasons
including the varied historical circumstances that led to the establishment of
the National Trusts in these two countries.
The present study draws from field observations, archival records as
well as personal interviews with representatives from the National Trusts and
the government in India and the U.S.A. A part of the study was done as a
Fulbright Scholar in the U.S.
From early times, in India, the U.S.A. and elsewhere, preservation of
heritage sites and buildings was primarily the duty of the ‘state’ or the
‘government’. The concept of non-government agencies, whether voluntary
or otherwise, including the ‘National Trusts’, for this purpose, dates back to
the late nineteenth century. In many countries, the earliest heritage
conservation laws were enacted in the late nineteenth or early twentieth
century when these National Trusts were either not in existence or at best,
were in their formative stages and were often regarded as ‘low-key voluntary
efforts’ not worthy of consultation by the law-makers. And at times, the Trusts
were even considered not as sincere attempts to supplement the role of the
government but as ‘unnecessary interference’ in the work of the latter. But,
fortunately, in recent years, this scenario is steadily changing in most
countries
including
developing
countries
like
India
where
heritage
consciousness and the political will to protect and promote heritage is still in
its infancy. It is being increasingly realized that as the National Trusts are
engaged in grassroots level heritage promotion and preservation activities
almost throughout the country, even in places and forums where the
government cannot and would not generally venture, it is imperative that
these Trusts have an effectual say in the making of national policies and
laws. Currently in both India and the U.S., the government and the respective
National Trusts are, at different levels, engaged in fruitful interaction and
thus, the latter are, albeit to a limited extent, able to influence the laws and
policies of the land. Such ‘interactions’ and ‘influences’ are certainly far
higher and more visible in the U.S. than in India due to diverse reasons
including the varied historical circumstances that led to the founding of the
National Trusts in these two countries.
Objectives, Sources and Methodology
This Paper is mainly but not exclusively based on the results of a
long-term research project comparing the policies, administrative systems
and allied problems pertaining to the conservation of heritage buildings and
sites in India and the U.S.A. A major part of the research was done in the
offices and libraries of both the Indian and the U.S. National Trusts as well as
in relevant government offices in both these countries. The research in the
U.S. was part of a Fulbright program1.
The present study is, for the most part, a problem-oriented analysis
with an underlying focus on the significance and role of the National Trusts at
different stages of heritage preservation—the framing of the policies and the
laws and their ultimate implementation. The chief objectives of the study are
to explore the status and the work of the National Trusts in heritage
preservation, at the local, regional and national levels and simultaneously, to
probe the problems and hindrances which sometimes discourage or even
disallow these organizations from working closely with the government. The
study also attempts to locate ways and means to solve some of these
problems.
Besides the published sources, the study heavily draws from the
archival records as well as personal interviews with representatives from the
National Trusts and the government sectors. The information gathered from
these sources is supplemented by field studies in select archaeological sites
and historical monuments and other heritage properties in different parts of
India and the U.S. At this juncture, one may note that many of the
observations pertaining to India are true for many of her neighboring
countries such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan that share several
geological and cultural traits with India. Indeed some of these countries
emerged as independent nations only in the twentieth century and were till
then a part of undivided India—Pakistan was created in 1947 and
Bangladesh in 1971.
The present paper commences with a historical survey of the
evolution of the heritage preservation movement and the heritage-related
legislations in both India and the U.S.A. This is followed by an analysis of the
National Trusts in these two countries with a focus on the specific instances
of concrete ‘National Trust-Government interaction’. In this process, the
extent to which the National Trusts play an effective role in the law-making
and law-amending processes is analyzed. The paper concludes with some
practical suggestions for a greater level of interaction between these two
‘sectors’ or ‘authors’ of the complex heritage preservation program,
especially in India which could look to the American example as a model.
Heritage Preservation in India and the U.S.-A Brief Historical
Background
There are wide variations in the very perception of heritage
preservation in the U.S. and India. These variations can be traced to the long
history of the development of archaeological and architectural documentation
and conservation in each of these countries. Serious and systematic
archaeological studies began in India in the early sixteenth century, long
before they commenced in the U.S.2 This was primarily because of the keen
interest evinced in Indian art and archaeology by the European powers—
Portuguese, Dutch, Danes, French and finally, the British—that began to
colonize large parts of India around that time. Some of the earliest writings
pertaining to the art and archaeology of India have been authored by the
Portuguese living in Goa in Western India, the place having been captured
by Portugal from the local king in November, 1510. Soon many other
European travellers began to evince an interest in Indian archaeology. The
Hindu temples of South India and the Buddhist rock-cut caves of Western
India were the favorite subjects of these early European writers. A few of
these temples were located on the coast and thus frequently served as
navigational markers or lighthouses for the foreign sailors traversing along
the east and west coasts of India. By the late eighteenth century, digging
ancient sites emerged as a holiday hobby amongst British army officers in
India. The artifacts obtained from these digs added to the personal
collections of these officers who had a special fondness for Indian art objects
bearing ancient Graeco-Roman influences. Thus archaeology increasingly
began to be associated solely with grandiose ruins of the past, mostly the
remote past and not the immediate past. Several of these ruins were wholly
or partially under the ground. Such relics, besides the Hindu and Buddhist
shrines, included ancient graves, granaries, water reservoirs, palaces,
clocktowers and monasteries. Systematic efforts to preserve these ruins
were first initiated in the latter half of the nineteenth century mainly through
the establishment, in 1861, of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI),
India’s counterpart of America’s National Park Service (NPS) founded in
1916.
Initially, the ASI was headed by a renowned archaeologist named
Alexander Cunningham. He was given adequate funds and the services of
three (initially two) assistants—J.D. Beglar, A.C.L.Carlleyle and H.W. Garrick.
In 1866, the government discontinued the services of the ASI. But, in 1870,
the Survey was revived, again under the direction of Cunningham. He and
his assistants undertook extensive archaeological exploratory surveys in
almost every part of the country. They did the surveys on foot or on
elephants or horses or else, in palanquins. The results of these surveys have
been published in a series of volumes. These writings laid the foundation for
Indian archaeological research on modern scientific principles. Scholars in
India and abroad continue to consult these publications to this day.
Cunningham felt that his juniors were not competent enough to head the ASI
after him. Hence, before he retired in 1885, he recommended the dissolution
of the Survey. Accordingly, the ASI was closed down and its work was
divided between the various provincial governments each of whom employed
their own regional surveyors to carry out the archaeological operations in
their respective regions. Their work was coordinated by James Burgess who
was particularly interested in Indian temple architecture. After the retirement
of Burgess in 1889, no one was appointed to his post. Hence, all
archaeological operations were now carried out by provincial surveyors like
H.T. Cousens without any coordination or leadership at the national level.
Even the post of Curator of Ancient Monuments, created in 1880, for the
conservation of archaeological sites and monuments, was abolished around
1883. Captain Henry Cole held this post during these three years. Later, the
work of archaeological conservation was entrusted to the provincial
governments who utilized the services of their Public Works Departments for
the same.
George Nathanial Curzon, the British viceroy in India from 1899 to
1905, is particularly remembered for initiating steps for the furtherance of
archaeological research and conservation in this country. Curzon accorded
equal importance to all aspects of Archaeology—Exploration, Excavation,
Epigraphy and Conservation. According to him, the duty of an archaeologist
was “to dig and discover, to classify, reproduce and describe, to copy and
decipher and to cherish and conserve”. He wanted more Indians to
participate in Indian archaeological studies. He revived and reorganized the
ASI to be headed by a Director-General. John Hubert Marshall was chosen
as the first Director-General.
While the ASI catered to the British dominions in India, the French and
other European powers had their own archaeology departments for their
respective colonies or territories in India. At the same time, many of the 566
native kingdoms, independent of the European powers, spread all over India,
started their own archaeology conservation departments and museums. After
India became free from British rule in 1947, the archaeology administration
system established by the British was continued by the new government.
Subsequently, when the French and the Portuguese colonies in India
became free from foreign rule, the archaeology agencies in these places
were merged with the administrative system prevalent in other parts of the
country. Similarly, the museums and archaeology offices of the various
native kingdoms became a part of the Indian government when these
kingdoms joined the Union of India. Thus, the complex heritage preservation
movement in India has always been and, to a large extent, still is, focused on
archaeological conservation and precludes the protection of historic houses
and markets, historic districts and natural landscapes. Thus, in India, the
history of the preservation movement is the same as the history of
archaeological conservation!
In the American scenario, on the other hand, the heritage preservation
movement is less complex and better documented 3. It is almost as old as the
country itself, having started, on a small-scale and a low-key manner, in the
closing years of the eighteenth century, with the primary objective of
preserving the relics connected with the birth of the nation in 1776 and the
long struggle that preceded it. The first example or evidence of the
preservation concept in this country can be taken to be a notation dated the
3rd August, 1796, in the Pocket Diary of Benjamin H. Latrobe, expressing his
anguish at the impending destruction of an old house named ‘Green Spring’
in James City County in Virginia4. The local people’s vehement opposition to
the demolition of the “Old Brick” Meetinghouse at Boston around 1808 is,
however, more widely known in academic circles and is often cited to be the
starting point of the country’s history of preservation. And as the
preservationists steadily advanced towards the safeguarding of the
multifarious tangible symbols of America’s past, archaeology slowly emerged
as one of the several components of this massive movement. Thus, while
India’s ASI laid overemphasis on archaeological preservation, America’s
NPS adopted a more holistic and comprehensive program of conservation to
encompass within its ambit a far wider variety of buildings and places
including historical parks, military parks, memorial parks, battlefield sites,
cemeteries, seashores and presidential homes. Interestingly, till the 1960s,
excavations on historic sites in the U.S. were often directed by architects in
support of planned restoration or reconstruction programs. In recent years,
this complex relationship between ‘preservation’ and ‘archaeology’ appears
to have steadily matured so much so that historic preservation has come to
see archaeological relics as an important resource for their consideration. At
the same time, archaeology too is developing a more preservation-oriented
approach. This unique American concept of archaeology being a small but
significant part of the overall preservation program is perhaps best
exemplified in the following observations of Thomas F. King: “Archaeologists
bring with them the basic philosophy of their parent discipline, Anthropology,
contributing to the idea that American preservation should address the
histories, the artifacts and the intangible cultural values of all of the nation’s
diverse ethnic and social groups. Archaeological emphasis on understanding
the past in the context of larger physiographic regions and the natural
environment supports the idea that preservation should take a broad
comprehensive view of its subject matter”5.
Conservation Legislations in India and the U.S—A Comparative
Analysis
The
variations
in
the
perception
and
practice
of
heritage
conservation between India and the U.S. have also led to inevitable
differences in the heritage-related legislations in these two countries. In both
countries, the first preservation laws were framed in the nineteenth century,
mostly the latter half of that century, while the major legislations developed in
the twentieth century6. But the circumstances leading to the legislations in
India are vastly different from that in the U.S. In the U.S., the heritage
preservation movement, of which archaeology was a part, began solely as a
people’s movement that eventually pressured the government to pass
suitable laws to regulate archaeological operations and preserve historical
relics, mainly in public lands. In India, on the contrary, there was no such
movement and the earliest laws were the result of the initiative of the
European, mainly British, powers that ruled large parts of the country till
around the mid-twentieth century. The rulers of some of the native Indian
kingdoms such as Baroda in western India and Mysore and Hyderabad in
south India enacted similar laws and regulations for their respective
territories, often based on the British model. Eventually, when these
kingdoms joined the Republic of India, their laws were replaced by the
general national laws.
Unlike the American experience, the evolution of conservation
legislations in India was a drawn-out and complex process but is mostly
undocumented and consequently, little-known. Piecemeal legislations,
effective in limited areas of the British territories in India, were effected in
1810 and 1817. These laws authorized the government to intervene
whenever public buildings were under threat of misuse. There are hardly any
records pertaining to the effective role of these legislations in archaeological
conservation. In 1858, the administration of the British territories in India
passed on from the English East India Company to the British Crown. The
British government soon realized the necessity for a full-fledged government
department
for
archaeological
operations
including
archaeological
conservation in India and hence, established the ASI in 1861.
In 1904, Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India (1899-1905), rightly
realized the need for a major comprehensive conservation legislation for the
country. Due to his efforts, the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of 1904,
one of the first and most famous conservation laws in this part of the world,
was passed. Interestingly, there are several similarities between this Act and
the Antiquities Act, the first preservation law in the U.S., passed two years
later in 1906. These similarities are so striking that one is tempted to infer
that the framers of both these legislations had either regularly communicated
with each other or else, had, as their model, the legislation of some other
country, most probably Britain that had, by then, a firm archaeology law—the
Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882 The India Act was part of the
British efforts to help preserve India’s rich cultural heritage and appears to
have been definitely inspired by Britain’s law of 1882. On the other hand, the
U.S. Act is believed to be in response to the indiscriminate excavation in the
desert southwest of this country for enriching the museum collections in
Europe7.
According to both these Acts, any attempt to injure, deface or
destroy any old monument, mainly on public lands, was a punishable
offence. For those who indulged in such offences, the India Act imposed a
fine of upto five thousand Indian rupees and imprisonment upto ninety days
while the U.S. Act prescribed a fine of U.S. dollars five hundred and
imprisonment upto ninety days. Both the Acts explicitly stated that the
government can, if it deems necessary, acquire control of historical buildings
or sites under private ownership. For the first time ever, both the Acts
attempted to prevent unauthorized excavation of archaeological sites. The
U.S. Act was, however, more specific and detailed with regard to the precise
procedure and purpose of issuing ‘permits’ to competent archaeologists for
excavating the sites and even for the removal of antiquities or artifacts from
public lands.
In the U.S., the Antiquities Act paved the way for a series of later
legislations that encompassed different types of archaeological sites,
monuments and antiquities. While some of these Acts such as the Historic
Sites Act of 1935 focused primarily on the preservation of “historic sites,
buildings and objects of national significance”, others were specifically
related to the practice of archaeology. The most significant among the latter
laws were enacted after 1960. The earliest and least known among these
Acts was the Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 that basically aimed to provide
for the protection of “historical and archaeological data which might otherwise
be irreparably lost or destroyed as the result of the construction of a dam”.
The Act was amended in 1974 and was renamed the Archaeological and
Historic Preservation Act to extend its provisions beyond dam building to all
federal construction activities and all federally-licensed or assisted activities
that would cause loss of archaeological data. The Act stipulates the recovery
and preservation, including analysis and publication, of such data before the
commencement of the construction activities. But such a preservation
program is not necessary if the construction is undertaken in connection with
emergency situations including natural disasters. In 1966, the Congress
passed the most well-known National Historic Preservation Act. The passage
of this important law appears to have been driven by several federal
programs such as Urban Renewal and the Interstate highway system that
were often making use of archaeological sites and historical relics. This law
laid the basic foundation for the national historic preservation program. The
program encompassed a wide variety of historic and archaeological
properties and conceived the idea of a comprehensive National Register of
Historic Places and a regulatory process for the protection of such properties.
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and its later
amendments have explicitly established the precise procedures for permitting
excavations on federally controlled lands and introduced stringent penalties
for illegal digging and transport of archaeological materials from one state to
another within the U.S. A unique feature of this Act, unknown amongst
archaeological legislations in India and many other countries, is the
stipulation that the government establish programs to increase public
awareness of the significance of archaeological resources and the need to
protect the same. The Act further states that the government shall take steps
to foster communication, cooperation and exchange of information between
government
officials,
art
collectors,
professional
archaeologists
and
associations of professional archaeologists. The Abandoned Shipwreck Act
of 1988 exclusively deals with underwater archaeology by outlining the
regulations for the proper conservation of abandoned shipwrecks and their
use for recreational purposes. The Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act of 1990 details the rights of Native Americans with regard to
the excavation and preservation of “human remains, funerary objects, sacred
objects, and objects of cultural patrimony”.
Besides the above federal laws, nearly all the states in the U.S. now
have laws for promoting archaeological resources protection at the state
level8. Many of these laws have been modeled on the federal laws. Most of
the states have made provisions for the protection of historic and
archaeological properties that may be impacted as a result of state projects
such as construction of roads and bridges. Yet there are significant variations
in the scope, enforcement and penalty provisions of the laws in different
states. Interestingly, some states have also introduced certain new laws
unknown amongst federal laws or the laws in other countries including India.
For example, in some states, there are specific rules with regard to digging
on private lands but there are no such rules in other states. In some states
like Delaware, archaeological investigation on private lands without stateprovided archaeological assistance is discouraged. In Kentucky, a state rich
in archaeological resources, the state enforcement authority, with regard to
archaeological conservation, extends to private land if the state has entered
into a contract with the landowner. In New Mexico, income tax credits are
offered for landowners who preserve historic and prehistoric sites in their
properties. Pennsylvania restricts the drilling of gas and oil wells in or near
archaeological sites. Hawaii has stipulated some of the strictest penalties for
individuals and associations involved in damaging archaeological resources.
The penalties include exclusion from participation in any state-funded or
country-funded projects for ten years. In Hawaii and North Carolina, each
day of violation of the law is considered a separate offence. North Carolina
and a few other states have even stipulated special punishments for those
who do not report to the state the news of the discovery of a burial site. With
a view to strictly enforce the archaeology laws, Tennessee has accorded
police powers to archaeology officers. Montana has prohibited the making of
reproductions or forgeries of artifacts with the intention to sell these objects
as genuine antiquities.
Several states have passed laws to facilitate the
systematic and scientific study of archaeological relics. In Montana, scientists
can study Native American human remains for upto one year before
transferring the same to the affiliated tribe. In Nevada, surface collection of
Indian artifacts is permitted if that area does not fall under the statutory
definition of a prehistoric site. The laws of Indiana provide encouragement to
amateur archaeologists by recommending a specific code of ethics for them.
South Carolina is probably the only state that has an elaborate system of
issuing different types of permits or licenses—hobby, intensive survey, data
recovery and salvage-- to individuals or agencies wanting to conduct
archaeological investigations.
In addition to the federal and state laws, local laws and ordinances
also aid in the preservation of archaeological and historical resources in
several places almost throughout the U.S.9 In many instances, certain
provisions and regulations for archaeological site protection are integrated
into the land use control stipulations. In many places, archaeological and
historical factors are considered in the planning and zoning application permit
processes. In 1989, the city officials of Alexandria (Virginia), in consultation
with the local developers and the citizens, passed an ordinance amending
the city code to provide for the consideration and protection of archaeological
sites.
In sharp contrast to the conditions in the U.S., India did not make
significant progress in the arena of conservation laws after the famous Act of
1904 outlined above. For more than half a century after 1904, there were no
new major heritage-related laws. This was partially because during the
crucial years between the two World Wars, the Colonial government had to
encounter the nationwide struggle for freedom from British rule ultimately
resulting in the partition of the country into two—India and Pakistan—and the
simultaneous political independence of the two countries in 1947. In 1958,
India passed The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and
Remains Act, “to provide for the preservation of ancient and historical
monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance, for
the regulation of archaeological excavations and for the protection of
sculptures, carvings and other like objects”. This Act was mainly an
improvement or rather an extension of the Act of 1904. Both these laws
mainly aimed to protect specific monuments and sites but were silent on the
loss of archaeological resources due to modern constructions and other
development activities. The next important archaeology law in India is The
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment
and Validation) Act of 2010. This Act is, again, mainly confined to the same
specific monuments and sites but aims to regulate construction and other
development activities upto a distance of 300 meters, on all sides, around
each of these properties. This distance of 300 meters could be further
extended in the case of monuments and sites of special importance.
Apart from the above national laws, many states in India, like those
in the U.S., have state-level laws for the protection of archaeological
properties. But unlike the system in the U.S., the state-level laws in India are
again invariably confined to specific ancient or medieval monuments and
sites and do not address the wider issues of preserving archaeological relics
outside these properties as also protecting historic districts, streetscapes and
landscapes. Some of these state-level laws are modeled on the national
laws. None of these laws, at any level or stage, consider the possible
destruction of archaeological relics in the course of modern developmental
activities including government-sponsored constructions. This is a bit tragic
because every part of India abounds in archaeological wealth, both above
and below the ground.
The National Trusts and Their Role in Legislations
Both India and the U.S. have a strong National Trust that plays a
pivotal role in heritage preservation. But there are significant differences in
the manner of establishment, administration, work environment and the
sources of funding between these two Trusts. We will now briefly examine
these differences with a view to understand the varying roles of these two
Trusts in their respective countries.
The founding of the National Trust of the U.S.—the National Trust for
Historic Preservation (NTHP),--in 1949 may be regarded as the culmination
of over a century of voluntary efforts towards heritage conservation in that
country. Long before the NTHP, several voluntary organizations, both big
and small, sprang up in different parts of the country. One of the most wellknown among these organizations was the Society for the Preservation of
New England Antiquities (SPNEA) founded by William Summer Appleton in
1910. Some scholars regard the American Scenic and Historic Preservation
Society, founded in New York towards the closing years of the nineteenth
century,
as the forerunner of
the
NTHP10.
Contrary to
popular
misconception, the NTHP, although a voluntary membership organization,
was not founded by an individual or a group but was chartered by the U.S.
Congress, with President Harry Truman signing the legislation creating the
Trust11. Thus, the Trust was established with the fullest cooperation and
blessings of the U.S. government. The headquarters of the NTHP is housed
in a historic structure in Washington D.C. while there are regional offices in
many parts of the U.S.
All the offices are mostly manned by highly
competent professionals including lawyers, conservation experts, educators
and administrators. Volunteers help for specific projects or occasions,
supplementing the work of the full-time professionals hired by the Trust. In
the last six decades, the NTHP has emerged as a private-sector leader of
the U.S. preservation movement, offering a wide and ever-increasing range
of technical and legal guidance, educational programs and other services to
help preserve the country’s natural and manmade heritage. The NTHP also
owns and administers several heritage properties including historic homes
and museums spread throughout the U.S. The first historic site acquired by
the Trust, in 1951, is the Woodlawn Plantation, located close to the famous
Mt. Vernon Estate, in Virginia. The NTHP has also undertaken
archaeological digs at some of its historic sites including Montpelier, the
property of James Madison, the fourth president of the U.S. and the ‘Father
of the U.S. Constitution’, in Virginia.
The founding of India’s National Trust is a striking contrast to that of
the NTHP. Throughout the period of India’s struggle for freedom from British
rule and for many years even after India became an independent nation in
1947, the very concept of a National Trust for the country was never thought
of by the government or the people. Again, unlike the NTHP, India’s National
Trust hardly had any forerunner or model within India. Interestingly, if India’s
first major conservation legislation-The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act
of 1904—was conceived on the British model, India’s National Trust was also
first conceptualized in Britain. The seed money for setting up the Trust came
from the bequest of Charles Wallace, an enterprising English businessman
who, before his death in 1916, willed a substantial part of his wealth for
India12. In 1982, this money was received by Indira Gandhi, the then primeminister of India, on behalf of the people of India. The Trust was finally
established in January, 1984 and was named the Indian National Trust for
Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH). It was registered as a voluntary
organization under the Societies Registration Act. It is headed by a Chairman
who functions from the Trust’s headquarters in New Delhi. Rajiv Gandhi, a
prominent national leader, was chosen as the first chairman of INTACH. He
later became the prime-minister of the country. Unlike most other National
Trusts including the NTHP, INTACH was conceived as a mammoth people’s
organization to be administered mostly by part-time and/or honorary workers
with a genuine interest in India’s heritage. Thus, INTACH has a cadre of paid
full-time staff only at its Central Office and in the technical research and
conservation laboratories that were later set up in different parts of India. The
various regional offices or chapters of INTACH are administered by
Conveners and Co-Conveners who are invariably honorary workers. Such
chapters exist in every part of India as well as in a few foreign locations such
as London. These overseas chapters cater to the needs of the non-resident
Indians living in those lands. INTACH is, thus, perhaps the only National
Trust to have offices even outside the country of its origin. In the initial years,
the general public and the government officials perceived INTACH to be a
‘small’ voluntary agency aiming to promote heritage awareness among the
masses. In this scenario, the interaction between INTACH and the
government departments dealing with conservation issues was, at best,
minimal. But in recent years, INTACH is being increasingly regarded as a
major professional organization. Its manifold activities include educational
programs mainly aimed at school children, research-level and popular
publications, environmental conservation and ,documentation and restoration
of old buildings and artifacts, But unlike many other National Trusts including
the NTHP, INTACH does not own or administer any heritage property,
historical monument, archaeological site or museum. Again, INTACH has not
attempted archaeological digs in any part of India.
Coming to the role of the NTHP and INTACH in government
activities including heritage legislations, it is clear that the former Trust, partly
due to its being chartered by the country’s Legislature, always enjoyed
greater ‘credibility’ and ‘legitimacy’ in the eyes of the public, thus enabling it
to play a proactive role in conservation issues, even during its formative
years. INTACH, on the other hand, did not have this ‘privileged upbringing’
and hence, had to literally ‘fight’ out for its rightful place in the country’s
conservation program. The belated recognition accorded to INTACH was
also partially because most of the government agencies in India were, and to
a large extent, even now are simply ignorant of the very concept of the
National Trust and of the significant role played by such Trusts in countries
like the U.S.A. and U.K.
In any case, in any country, the National Trust’s opposition to and
influence on government policies is severely curtailed when the Trust is
wholly or even partly financed by the state. Even the NTHP found itself in
such a ‘delicate’ situation more than once. The INTACH experience clearly
reveals that even if a National Trust is, at any point of time, financially selfsupporting, it needs the state support on several non-financial issues. For
example, government approval is needed for a National Trust to undertake
conservation works in a government building. Another crucial issue
determining the National Trust-government relationship pertains to the
litigations involving the Trust and the state agencies. In 1970, the NTHP
attempted, for the first time, to save historic sites through litigations. Since
then, it has been involved in over 130 court cases including the most wellknown Penn. Central Transportation Co. v.City of New York of 1978. This
particular case is widely considered as a landmark judgment in favour of
heritage in the history of the preservation movement in the U.S. In India too,
INTACH’s chapters have, time and again, been involved in litigation to save
historic buildings owned by the government and corporate agencies. The
court judgments, in many of these cases, have been in favour of INTACH. To
cite a significant example, INTACH could, through court intervention, prevent
the demolition of the iconic DGP (Director General of Police) office building
on the Marina beach in Chennai in the 1990s. ’
As regards the specific issue of the position of the National Trusts in
the making of heritage legislations, the NTHP has played a decisive role in
this regard. In particular, the NTHP, in 1966, along with representatives of
the NPS and private citizens, helped frame the National Historic Preservation
Act which expanded the National Register of Historic Places and created the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation13. American conservation experts
hailed this legislation as the most important one among the series of
heritage-related laws in the U.S. This legislation inspired several states in the
U.S. to pass their own laws to preserve their historic properties. The NTHP,
through its headquarters and its regional offices, actively participates in the
heritage decision making processes in different states in the U.S. It is thus
clear that on many occasions, the NTHP has been fairly successful in making
its voice heard among the law-makers, both at the federal and the regional or
the state levels.
If INTACH’s role in government processes is minimal, its role in
heritage legislations is more limited. A chief reason for this is, as indicated
earlier, heritage legislations, whether at the national or regional levels, are
too few in India. India’s latest national-level conservation legislation--The
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendment
and Validation) Act of 2010--, however, specifically stipulates that the byelaws for the regulation of development activities in the vicinity of the historic
monuments and sites should be formulated in consultation with experts from
INTACH. This is the first instance in which the Government of India has
accorded official or legal recognition to INTACH and its role in historic
preservation. But here again, INTACH was not involved or consulted, at any
stage, during the long process of framing this law but INTACH’s
indispensable role is incorporated in the contents of the law. In recent years,
INTACH, in consultation with many other citizens’ groups, has been fighting
for the enactment of ordinances or laws, at the state and local levels, for the
preservation of those heritage properties that are currently not protected by
any of the national or state-level laws. As regards the framing and
implementation of such laws, there are, not surprisingly, wide disparities in
different states and regions. For example, in the state of Tamil Nadu in
southern India, the state government has made an announcement, in 2012,
about such a law to cover heritage sites throughout the state but the law is
yet to come into force.
Despite INTACH hardly having any say in the law-making processes, its
involvement in and interaction with the government agencies have, in the last
few years, been steadily on the rise. But atleast in Tamil Nadu, this
‘involvement’ itself suffered an unexpected setback due to a court ruling
(April, 2012) that specifically disallowed INTACH from being a part of the
Heritage Conservation Committee set up, by the local government, for the
specific purpose of deciding the extent to which structural alterations can be
permitted in heritage buildings in the city of Chennai14. INTACH, in
consultation with legal experts, is now planning to appeal against this ruling
in the court.
INTACH representatives are now increasingly invited to serve on
conservation decision-making committees at the national, regional and local
levels. Despite having its own archaeology and conservation departments,
the government has repeatedly invited INTACH to undertake the restoration
of some of the most complex and prestigious government edifices. In recent
years, the government has also been very liberal in providing funds for
INTACH’s growing research and conservation activities. Government officials
frequently participate in INTACH’s training programs and workshops. Of
course, as the different states of India have varied political policies and
priorities, in some parts of the country, the local administrative authorities are
very favourable to INTACH, while in certain other places, INTACH
sometimes has a tough time making its voice heard in the government
institutions.
Concluding Remarks and Suggestions
The above survey has clearly revealed the glaring differences and
limited similarities in the conservation laws, norms and practices between
India and the U.S.A. and the role of the National Trusts in these two
countries.
Both
countries
have
a
strong
system
of
preservation
administration but their focus and emphasis are vastly different. It is
becoming increasingly clear that although the National Trusts in different
parts of the world share certain common ideologies and objectives, the
precise administrative set-up, financial sources, legal and social status of
the Trusts vastly differs from country to country. These differences may be
attributed to a host of historical factors including the circumstances in which
the Trusts were created in different places.
The American National Trust—the NTHP-- has been, almost from its
birth, actively working with the nation’s government, at various levels. It has
emerged as a ‘voice to be heard’ in the field of conservation. It has been
directly involved in the making of certain preservation laws especially the
famous Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
In its administrative structure and work processes, INTACH is totally
different from all the other National Trusts including the NTHP and the
English National Trust. The major feature that sets INTACH apart from the
other Trusts is that INTACH heavily relies on voluntary or honorary workers
for a major part of its activities. INTACH’s branch offices or chapters are
almost fully manned by voluntary workers. And most of the activities of
INTACH are done by or routed through the various chapters spread
throughout India and in a few foreign countries. Again, there are wide
variations in the day-to-day working, work output and the focus of the
various
chapters.
In
recent
years,
INTACH
has
become
fairly
professionalized and has developed technical expertise of the highest
international standards in certain areas of conservation. Against this
background, it is imperative that INTACH looks to the NTHP as a role
model atleast to the extent of the latter’s close interactions with the
legislative and the executive arms of the government. INTACH’s
participation in government work has been, slowly but steadily, increasing in
recent times and one hopes that in the coming years, this increases further
to extend to the Trust’s direct involvement in the making and amending of
conservation-related laws.
References:
1.The research in India was undertaken between 2004 and 2009. The
research in the U.S. was undertaken in December, 2009-January, 2010 and
again, as a Fulbright Senior Research Fellow, between February and
November, 2011. The Fulbright research was carried out mainly at the
National Trust for Historic Preservation(NTHP), Washington D.C. and at the
School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation of the University of
Maryland. I am most grateful to Dr. David Brown of the NTHP and Dr. Donald
W. Linebaugh of the University of Maryland and all the other scholars and
lawyers in the U.S. and India for all their help, guidance and suggestions.
Unless otherwise stated, all the observations in this Paper are based on field
observations and the personal interviews with these scholars.
2.For a detailed account of the history of archaeological investigations and
studies in India, see S. Suresh, ”Archaeology” in Madras Chennai—A 400Year Record of the First City of Modern India, Volume I—The Land, The
People and Their Governance, ed. S. Muthiah (Chennai: Palaniappa
Brothers, 2008) pp.185-98.
3.For a comprehensive account of the history of historic preservation in the
U.S., see Charles B.Hosmer, Jr., Presence of the Past—A History of the
Preservation Movement in the United States Before Willamsburg (New York:
G.P.Putnam’s Sons, 1965); Charles B. Hosmer, Jr., Preservation Comes of
Age—From Williamsburg to the National Trust, 1926-1949, Volumes I and II
(Charlottesville:The University Press of Virginia, 1981).
4.Charles B.Hosmer, Jr., Presence of the Past—A History of the
Preservation Movement in the United States Before Willamsburg (New York:
G.P.Putnam’s Sons, 1965)p.29.
5.Thomas F. King, “Prehistory and Beyond:The Place of Archaeology” in The
American Mosaic—Preserving a Nation’s Heritage, ed. Robert E. Stipe and
Antoinette J. Lee (Washington D.C.:United States Committee—International
Council on Monuments and Sites, 1987) pp.235-264.
6,For more details about the archaeology laws in India, see
Conservation
of
Brihadisvara
Temple,
Tanjore:
A
S. Suresh,
Historical Study,
Unpublished M.Phil. dissertation, (Madras:University of Madras, 1986).
Details about the archaeology laws in the U.S. are scattered in several
publications. One such work is Federal Historic Preservation Laws—The
Official Compilation of U.S. Cultural Heritage Statutes (Washington D.C.:
U.S. Department of the Interior--National Park Service—Cultural Resources,
2006).
7. Thomas F. King, “Prehistory and Beyond:The Place of Archaeology” in
The American Mosaic—Preserving a Nation’s Heritage, ed. Robert E. Stipe
and Antoinette J. Lee (Washington D.C.:United States Committee—
International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1987) pp.235-264.
8.A good publication, although slightly dated, on the archaeology laws in the
various states in the U.S. is, Carol L. Carnett Preservation Law Reporter—
Special Report, Archaeological Assistance Study—Number 3: A Survey of
State
Statutes
Protecting
Archaeological
Resources
(Washington
D.C.:National Trust for Historic Preservation and U.S. Department of the
Interior—National
Park
Service—Cultural
Resources—Archaeological
Assistance Division, 1995).
9. Shereen Lerner, Archeology and Historic Preservation, (Washington
D.C.:National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1995) p.11.
10.Diane Lea, “American Preservation Ethos: A Tribute to Enduring Ideals” in
A Richer Heritage—Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, ed.
Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003)
pp1-22.
11. The early history of the NTHP is available in David, E. Finley, History of
the National Trust for Historic Preservation 1947-1963, (Washington D.C.:
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1965).
12.A comprehensive history of the Indian National Trust is yet to be written.
Some details of the history of this Trust are available in A.G.Krishna Menon,
Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage 1984-2009, (New Delhi:
The Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage, 2009).
13.Myrick Howard, “Nonprofits in the American Preservation Movement” in
A Richer Heritage—Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, ed.
Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2003)
pp313-351.
14.In March, 2012, the Chennai city chapter of INTACH filed a case in the,
Madras High Court, against the demolition of the buildings behind the P.Orr
&Sons on Anna Salai (Mount Road), Chennai for the use of the land for the
construction of the Metro Rail network. INTACH lost the case and the court
judgment also stated that the Heritage Conservation Committee should not
have representatives from INTACH amongst its members.