Critically examine the institutional challenges in preserving India's built heritage, with reference to the transition from Public Works Departments to specialist archaeological bodies.

Q. Critically examine the institutional challenges in preserving India's built heritage, with reference to the transition from Public Works Departments to specialist archaeological bodies. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Heritage conservation in India rests on the AMASR Act, 1958 and a federal split — the ASI protects monuments of national importance, while State archaeology departments protect State-notified sites [1]. The shift of monuments from generalist Public Works Departments to specialist archaeological bodies corrected a real mismatch, but has not resolved the deeper institutional deficits.

The case for specialisation - The Thanjavur Palace, a Nayak-Maratha complex, was maintained by the Tamil Nadu PWD until 1972, when the PWD itself reported the structure to be in a very weak condition and repairs to the 90-foot Bell Tower as hazardous; custody passed to the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology [3]. - PWD's mandate is engineering maintenance, not conservation — it favours replacement over minimal, reversible intervention on historic fabric. - Specialist departments bring phased conservation, documentation and control over associated collections such as the palace's Saraswathi Mahal Library and Maratha portrait-paintings [3].

Challenges that persisted after the transition - Capacity deficit: the CAG found serious shortages of funds and manpower for conservation, with less than 1% of ASI's budget on excavation [2]. - Weak record-keeping: 92 of 1,655 monuments inspected were untraceable, and no comprehensive data existed on roughly five lakh unprotected monuments [2]. - Fragmented jurisdiction: heritage is a shared subject, and monuments outside both ASI and State lists — most urban built heritage — fall through the gap. - Access versus conservation: visitor pressure damaged the palace's inner-wall paintings, a tension specialisation alone cannot settle [3].

Transferring custody is therefore a necessary but insufficient reform: expertise without budgets, staff and inventories only relocates neglect. The way forward lies in a complete national heritage register, statutory conservation cadres in State departments, municipal heritage bye-laws, and resource-pooling through Adopt a Heritage 2.0, which channels CSR funds into monument amenities [4]. Article 49's directive to protect monuments of national importance is realised not by naming a custodian, but by equipping one.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 — India Code — statutory framework and ASI/State division of protection 2. CAG Report No. 18 of 2013, Performance Audit on Preservation and Conservation of Monuments and Antiquities — fund/manpower shortages, untraceable monuments, unprotected-monument data gap 3. Thanjavur Palace — Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology — PWD-to-Archaeology transfer, Bell Tower, Saraswathi Mahal Library, visitor damage 4. PIB: ASI's "Adopt a Heritage 2.0" programme, Indian Heritage app and e-Permission portal — CSR-based resource pooling for monument upkeep