The Wire: New Delhi: Tuesday, June 12, 2018.
With a
tourist guide from Jaipur highlighting how licensed guides like him were unable
to work because of the “detrimental relationship” between the Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI) and the Ministry of Tourism, as well as rampant
corruption in the departments, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has
sought a response from the institution within a month’s time.
In his
petition, a Jaipur-based guide, Ajay Dudi, had charged that since the ASI which
comes under Ministry of Culture had first delegated its power to grant and
renew guide licenses to the Ministry of Tourism and then, after a few years,
withdrawn it, many tourist guides are facing difficulties in getting their the
licences renewed.
‘Bribes,
child labour, violation of FCRA regulations commonplace’
Accusing both
the ASI and the tourism department of being “incompetent and corrupt”, he had
also submitted before the CIC that the “payment of bribes is criterion for
granting / renewing licenses”.
“I have
produced documentary evidence of malpractices which included child labour and
generation of money in violation of FCRA regulations, but none were considered.
Their favourite agents were favoured and inquiries were closed. Then they
started harassing us for raising these complaints through their agents and
different associations,” he told the CIC.
Upon hearing
him and the two departments, the CIC acknowledged that there is “utter
confusion about the policy framing and total uncertainty about the issue”.
In a recent
order, central information commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu noted that the
“lack of able leadership and total absence of coordination between ASI and
Tourism, are perhaps real causes of this confusion”.
`Due to
ASI and tourism ministry, policy on guides not made final’
Referring to
Dudi’s plea with the Ministry of Tourism on nine points pertaining to the
gazette notification of January 2017, titled ‘The Policy for Archaeological
Survey of India Guides to perform Within Centrally Protected Monuments’,
whereby ASI was made the only authority to issue and renew existing guide
licences, the information commissioner observed that it was due to the ASI and
the Ministry of Tourism that the policy on guides had not gained any finality.
“Similarly
these two departments played football with the RTI request of the appellant,
spent months without giving any authentic information. The matter travelled to
various high courts and apex court, but still the ball is in the courts of
these two departments,” Acharyulu said.
Acharyulu
made his observations after hearing both the sides in May. In his submission
before the CIC, Dudi had narrated the problems he had faced after “passing
competitive examination by the Union Public Service Commission” and getting his
licence in 1996. “For the first three crucial years of my career, I spent a
majority of my time in the courts because the authorities wouldn’t let me do my
job. Their Policy on Guides does not allow us to have hassle free practice our
profession. They create such a situation that the guides have to file three
court cases to continue as guides,” he complained.
Stating that
the Supreme Court had recommended the development of a policy to resolve these
issues so that no more such petitions are raised in the court, Dudi stated that
“even after the new policy formed in 2011, they licensed 220 guides only based
on bribes and not merit”.
The appellant
said while he was seeking information to “prove how baseless was termination of
my job, by non-renewal of license,” he had received criminal threats for
raising the issue. “Some people from Ministry threatened to kill me, my wife,
son and daughter. There are rape charges on many of their men who became guides
because of bribing. Their training of guides is also lopsided, their teaching
in training classes does not commensurate with the curriculum or syllabus.
Guides are advised to please the clients even by immoral means. They encourage
sex and alcoholism. A person like me cannot function without bribing the
officers,” he told the CIC.
In his order,
Acharyulu also brought out what the 2017 notification was all about. The
notification pertained to the “policy for regulating and administering licenses
for guides to perform within centrally protected monuments for monetary
consideration required under Rule 8(d) of the Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959.”
Issued by the
ASI, it provided a “new policy for guides working at its 3,687 centrally
protected monuments, quashing the licences of all the existing guides.” It also
spelled out that “there will be only one category for them – ASI monument guide
rather than regional, state or monument categories” and had made “graduation in
history, besides knowledge of one or more languages” mandatory to be a guide. Earlier,
simple graduation with knowledge of one or more languages was the only
requisite.
Monuments
were to get guides on the basis of footfall, size
The new rule
also stated that the assessment of number of tourist guides for each monument
would be done on the basis of footfall, growth potential, extent and size of
the monument, every five years. It provided that ASI will conduct test and
interview for granting licences valid for five years.
The
notification had also specified the minimum age for applying for the licence at
21 years, while stating that renewal of licence of a guide over 60 years of age
would be subject to medical fitness. “The candidate should not have any
criminal case and preference will be given to local candidates who are well versed
with the monuments of that area,” the policy stated.
Each guide
was to get licence for only up to 15 monuments
The policy,
however, restricted the area of operation of each guide stating that “a guide
can obtain licence for not more than 15 monuments or five groups of monuments.
The process of selection will include a written test followed by an interview.
Interview will be conducted by a committee comprising not less than three
experts, one each from ASI and Union ministry of tourism and another expert as
ASI may deem fit and proper.”
It had also
specified that “ASI will issue the detailed guidelines mentioning the dos and
don’ts for the guides within the premises of the monument and superintending
archaeologist of an ASI circle will have the right to bar the entry of ASI
monument guide on grounds of misconduct with the tourists. The senior official
will also set up a mechanism to collect feedback of guiding activities from the
visitors.”
ASI
notification challenged by tour operators, stayed by Delhi high court
However, the
notification was challenged in the Delhi high court by the Indian Association
of Tour Operators, who contended that this policy is in excess of the powers
conferred on ASI under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains
Rules, 1959. The petition had also stated that the power to regulate the
issuance of the licences was originally specified by the notification dated
January 21, 2003 under which the additional director general (tourism) was
appointed as a statutory authority for framing and issuing guidelines for guide
licenses.
The 2003
notification was had also been challenged in the Rajasthan high court, Jaipur
(single bench), which had stayed it in September 2008. The ASI had then filed a
special appeal writ and had obtained a stay on the order the same month.
Thereafter, the Ministry of Culture had issued a notification dated January 11,
2010 conveyed their intention to give powers to the additional director general
(tourism) in the matter of appointing and renewing the licences of guides and
invited public objections thereto. Since no objections were received, it had in
May 2010 declared the official the “statutory authority” under the Act for
framing and issuing guidelines.
In the Delhi
high court, the petitioners last year pointed out that the withdrawal of this
delegation of power to the ADG (tourism) by the policy notification of January
31, 2017 was therefore “ inappropriate and contrary to the statutory rules”.
HC stayed
ASI notification saying it may negatively impact inbound tourism
The
petitioners had also stated before the high court that the tourism industry is
bringing in revenue to the tune of Rs 1,35,000 crore per annum and that India
was now placed seventh in the world when it came to the volume of tourism.
Finding faults with the ASI policy, they had noted that it would require
engaging multiple guides by tourists visiting a big city like Delhi, which
would impact both the cost and continuity of service, leading to the harassment
of tourists.
Acharyulu
noted that the Delhi high court found substance in this contention that the
policy dated January 31, 2017 may negatively impact inbound tourism to the
country. The high court, he said, felt that “perhaps these issues could have
been resolved and provided for if representatives of tour guides or tour
operators were joined in the policy making. It also appears that this has
happened because the concerned department i.e. the Ministry of Tourism does not
appear to have been joined in the decision making.”
It was also
stated that it was in compliance with the order issued by the Supreme Court on
May 1, 2015 in the matter of Deepak Dan and others that the ASI has framed the
policy which had been challenged by various guide associations. The operation
of the policy was stayed by the Delhi high court on June 15, 2017 and the two
departments were asked to revisit the notification.
In the
absence of any clarity, Dudi had filed the plea under the Right to Information
Act demanding to know if the Ministry of Tourism or any of its department was
still renewing the existing guide licence and if he would get it from them.
To the first
five points of his query on licence making and renewal, the central public
information officer of ministry had stated that “the Tourist Guide policy
issued by Archaeological of India” was “sub judice”. However, he said, the
Ministry of Tourism has issued instruction to all the regional director, India
Tourism Offices, in India for renewal of existing Regional level guide license
till March, 2018. Subsequently, the ADG (travel trade) noted that the existing
regional local guide licences would be renewed till March 2019.
As Dudi had
subsequently moved the CIC, it had heard the matter in May 2018. At the
hearing, Acharyulu said confusion was generated as the CPIO of the ministry
said “the Ministry of Tourism has issued instruction to all Regional Director,
India Tourism offices, in India, for renewal of existing Regional level guide
license till March 2018,” which meant it had the authority to renew guide
licences. However, the CPIO of ASI said “as per the Tourist Guide Policy vide
Gazette Notification dated 31.01.2017 for centrally protected monuments, the
license is to be renewed by the Competent Authority of Archaeological Survey of
India.”
6,000
guides in Rajasthan made to go to Delhi to renew licences, no efforts to train
them
Dudi had also
talked about “how lopsided policies and frequently changing powers to renew
their licenses had adversely affected the life of professional guides like him
and also seriously damaged the tourism industry.”
Alleging that
a director-level official in Jaipur was goading “guides to go to Delhi, pay
bribes and get a re-stamp on license sheets for renewal”, he wondered why the
same was not being done in Jaipur. He also noted that while there were about
6,000 guides in Rajasthan, no effort was being made to train them and use them
like professional force. “The guides have no proper guidance. They have no
expertise or training. When any one can become a guide by bribing, how do they
make tourism an active and income generating industry, questioned the
appellant,” Acharyulu recorded in his order.
He also
directed the Department of Tourism and ASI to provide certified copies of
entire files relating to delegation of power on making policy on guides and
taking it back, along with file notings and related correspondence, to the
appellant; to provide a response on the issue of prevailing corruption within
30 days, and to consider the suggestion to renew the licences in Jaipur itself.
.JPG)
.JPG)
