Visuals of Notre Dame, one of France’s most famous and cherished historical sites, going up in flames elicited responses of shock and grief from across the world. While the European country grapples with the task of rebuilding and restoring the cathedral, closer home, the question arises – Is India, home to a number of similar historical and heritage monuments and sites, ready for such contingency situations? TNM spoke to some experts to find out and the responses do not paint a promising picture.
‘Stone structures won’t catch fire’
A popular perception is that because most structures of historical importance are made of stone in India, they are not susceptible to accidents like fire. And while that may be true to an extent, many structures can have wooden scaffolding or may contain some other combustible material. So, the risk is not entirely mitigated, experts say.
A Tamil Nadu-based archaeologist, who wished to remain unnamed, tells TNM that most structures built after 7th century AD are made of stone, with some exceptions, such as in Kerala, where monuments have a lot of wooden architecture.
“We have a lot of temples in India, which are hundreds of years old. They may have some woodwork inside. And we know that there is plenty of exposure to fire within temples due to poojas and other rituals,” she says.
Little preparedness against natural disasters
RS Nair, the Trustee and Executive Director of Aranmula Heritage Trust in Kerala, was involved with recovering and restoring historical artefacts damaged in the Kerala floods of August 2018. He tells TNM that not just for accidents, the preparedness for natural disasters is also dismal when it comes to historical and heritage sites in India.
“There are no comprehensive concrete steps being taken towards preparedness or prevention of damage for monuments in India. Kerala is no exception,” he says. “Foremost, of course, is human life – which is fine – but monuments figure very low on the priority list of administration when it comes to disaster management, if at all,” Nair rues.
Giving the example of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram, he says that security was provided for the structure only after the monetary value of the treasure unearthed at the temple in 2011 became public knowledge. “But the 1100-year-old granite structure itself is full of exquisite and intricate carvings of 220 identical women holding hands. The ceiling also has beautiful hand carvings. But security was added to the temple after the treasure was valued at Rs 1 lakh crore,” Nair says.
That monuments are not a priority for authorities was something all experts TNM spoke to echoed.
Disaster preparedness guidelines not being followed
Bina Thomas, Kerala-based archaeologist and heritage consultant, says though the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has guidelines for preparedness at cultural heritage sites and precincts, they are often not properly followed or implemented.
For instance, fire suppression systems are a must for cultural heritage sites and precincts, depending on the typology of the site. “It should be considered that in the case of many cultural heritage sites and precincts, standardised systems of fire suppression may not be compatible with the historic fabric and their installation and/or use may impact the heritage values of the site. Therefore, it is important to understand the material, construction and aesthetic value of the site as well as assess possible ignition sources before setting up a fire suppression system,” the guidelines state.
There are also guidelines for regular risk assessment, security systems, public address systems and provision for wireless communications, drawing up evacuation plans for cultural heritage sites including those that are in difficult terrains or in dense settlements, among other things.
“But how much of this is implemented is questionable,” Bina says. “Let alone natural disasters, preparedness for man-made mishaps and disasters is also pitiable. Things like fires are avoidable with precautions. But even places that have fire extinguishers and other such materials often have old and rusting equipment. When questioned, authorities list arrangements like having installed sprinklers and such. But these are stop-gap arrangements.”
ASI lacks support, teeth
A senior official from the Archaeological Survey of India tells TNM on the condition of anonymity that as of now, the approach remains to cater to monuments on a need basis. “ASI only looks after the maintenance of the monuments. When it comes to fire safety or disaster safety, it is the responsibility of the state and district administration. Even when it comes to issues of encroachment, we can only point them out. The enforcement is with the state government through the district administration. So, in this sense, ASI is very handicapped to enforce safety regulations,” he says.
He also reiterates, that like the NDMA guidelines, different monuments need different contingency plans. For instance, in the Ajanta and Ellora caves, it does not make sense to put fire extinguishers in the walls because the structures are made of stone and to preserve their visual appeal.
“But there are still risks of short circuits so the wiring for the lighting and all needs to be in proper insulating material,” the official says. “We can definitely think about fire safety in cathedrals like the ones in Goa, but again, it’s a huge task. And resources are scarce.”
He agrees that the priority given to monuments is very low. He says that on one hand, state and district administrations are non-compliant, and ministry intervention in ASI has been increasing from 1993, which has been obstacle into implementing recommendations by academicians in the body.
“Government has to really think what it wants to do with its culture. They keep saying they are concerned about it – what does that translate into? Culture has to be given priority, it has to be taken care of by people with expertise in the field, who have risen in the department,” the ASI official asserts.
It must be noted that not all monuments and heritage sites in India are under ASI. According to the official, only 3,691 Indian monuments are under the body.
Vandalism, theft and improper restoration
Apart from the risk to monuments and heritage sites from disasters and accidents, experts say that a major and consistent threat is that from vandalism and theft. Another problem is when authorities undertake restoration which is not in line with the materials and/or the nature of the monuments. Read TNM’s earlier report on how desecration and improper restoration harms monuments here.