Top archaeologists flay Madras HC order to relocate 300-year-old tomb

The Madras High Courts recent direction to the Union Ministry of Culture to remove an over 300yearold legally protected tomb from the court complex has invited sharp criticism from a section of top archaeologists of the countryThe ASI is now preparing to file an appeal against the order in the division bench of the HC The monument in question is a tomb built by Elihu Yale the Governor of Madras from 1687 to 1692 in the memory of his son David Yale and his friend Joseph HynmerAfter his return to Britain Elihu Yale contributed a substantial amount of his fortune which he had amassed in India to a Collegiate School which was later renamed Yale College and then to Yale University as it is currently known and is reckoned among the worlds top educational institutionsThe Archaeological Survey of India ASI declared the tomb a protected monument for the first time in 1921 under the then Ancient monuments Preservation Act 1904 After Independence it was carried over as a protected monument under the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Declaration of National Importance Act 1951The relocation of the tomb located in the Madras Law College compound has been proposed to pave the way for a multilevel parking to cater to the surge in number of vehicles occasioned by the increase in number of advocates staff litigants government officials etc The tomb comes in the way of development activities because according to the law no construction activities can be carried out within the 100 metres of a protected monumentThe Madras HC which passed the relocation order on a petition of an individual named B Manoharan is of the view that the tomb has neither archaeological value or historical importance nor an artistic masterpiece that warrants its maintenance as a protected monumentThe court thus held that the developmental activities necessitated in the current day scenario cannot be brushed aside for merely housing the cemetery of individuals who have no historical significance except for being the resting ground of the son of the then Governor of the East India CompanyDuring the hearing of the case the ASI opposed the relocation on the ground that it is against Article 49 of the constitution which assigns a responsibility to states to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interestSome renowned archaeologists have spoken against the order arguing the court doesnt have expertise to decide the artistic or the archaeological importance of a monumentDr M Nambirajan Joint Director General Retd ASI says the tomb is historically important as it was constructed by Ehilu Yale who founded the world famous Yale University and embodies in it the remnants of burial architecture of the British era of the late 17th centuryTombs of these times are usually simple and limited in ornamentationdecoration and are invariably inscribed These tombs cannot be compared with elaborate architecture of places of worship forts Mughal tombs etc in deciding its historical architectural or aesthetic importance features Dr Nambirajan said adding the matter should better be left to the Archaeological Officers who are experts on these mattersDr GS Khwaja another renowned archaeologist said It is a very unfortunate order The monument is protected under the act of parliament and the HC is not above the law There is a laid down procedure under the act to remove the given protection to a monument and only a committee of experts with deep understanding of archaeology can take a call on itArchaeologists also say that one cannot pick and choose a monument for relocation as per its own need and convenience Rather it should be done in a comprehensive manner with the consultation of expertsA framework should be drawn and within a given time frame all the monuments provided protection in the preindependence era should be reviewed in the best interest of the infrastructural development that needs to be taken up in the fast developing economy of the country former ASI director for monuments and world heritage N Taher saidThe experts also say that the Madras High Court should not have passed such a judgement in case where the High Court itself is a beneficiaryIt is very sad that the Madras High Court in order to create a car park for itself has ordered the removal of a historical monument The issue should have been referred to the Heritage Experts for their considered opinions rather another wellknown archaeologist not wanting to be quoted saidThe Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Mankoti vs Secretary to the President has passed a detailed judgment about the need to preserve protect and maintain heritage for future generations which the High Court at Madras appears to have overlooked completely he addedDr Nambirajan also feels that there are some offending observations made on the attitude of the authorities by the HC and the order if not challenged may lead to complex situations in future in similar cases all over the country Therefore I believe and hope that the authorities take a considered decision to challenge this order before a Bench of the Honble High Court he addedThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever