RECOMMENDATIONS

’ ASI should come up with substantive criteria and a detailed procedure for declaring monuments to be of national importance. AMASR Act, 1958 may be amended to define parameters like national importance and elucidate what constitutes architectural, historical and cultural significance. However, it may be simpler to do it through an executive order.

’ ASI should publish a book of notifications with detailed information about the provenance of monuments of national importance.

’ Monuments with local importance should be handed over to the respective states for their protection and upkeep. All the states should be encouraged to have their own 5 specialised institutions for the protection of monuments, archaeology research and excavations. This will help facilitate the transfer of monuments with local importance to states.

’ Standalone antiquities should be removed from the list of monuments of national importance. Wherever possible, they may be shifted to museums for better upkeep.

’ Untraceable and minor monuments should be denotified at the earliest.

’ An effort should be made to restore geographical balance in the list of MNI and new monuments should be added to this list based on well-defined criteria and procedures.

’ Allocation of funds for the protection of monuments of national importance should be increased. At the same time, revenue streams such as tickets, events, fees and other sources should be leveraged more proactively and the proceeds should be retained by ASI.

’ Separation of responsibilities between ASI (maintenance of monuments) and NMA (development of surrounding area) seems to not have worked. It is advisable to merge these responsibilities and give them to NMA. The main ASI should focus only on archaeology research, excavation, restorations and maintenance of museums. NMA can function as an autonomous body under ASI.

’ Most of the above recommendations can be implemented through executive orders and do not need changes in the AMASR Act, 1958. v