The Wire:
New Delhi: Wednesday, September 05, 2018.
Referring
to a “major finding” of the director of archaeology and museums, Hyderabad, who
after due verification by a 20-member team found that “no ornament is tallied
with any of the ornaments donated by the great Vijayanagar King, Sri Krishna
Devaraya, to the Lord Venkateshvara as described in the inscriptions engraved
on the walls of the Lord Venkateshvara Temple at Tirumala”, the Central
Information Commission held that the Union ministry of culture and its
department of archaeology have a duty to protect national monuments and
ornaments of the Vijaynagar empire.
It
also held that being a public authority, the trust managing the affairs of the
temples was answerable under the Right to Information Act.
In
its recent order on a plea filed by social activist BKSR Ayyangar, whom the
Commission defined as “a devotee of Sri Venkateswara of Tirumala Hills in
Tirupati city and an activist working for preservation of cultural heritage”,
the CIC while noting that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) was refusing to
be answerable under the Right to Information Act, stated that the Union
Ministry of Culture under the leadership of Prime Minister’s Office is
“expected to take all measures to ensure the protection of the national or
world heritage coupled with the ancient Hindu religious organisations like
TTD”.
In
his petition, Ayyangar, who had filed his RTI application with the PMO asking
for the action taken by the Government of India on his representation for
declaration of TTD temples as historical and national heritage monuments, had
stated that unless Tirumala Tirupathi temples are protected as ancient
monuments, the nation will “lose our ancient structures, historical evidences
with inscriptions, and cultural heritage”.
Not
satisfied with the reply from the PMO, he had filed the first appeal with the
first appellate authority, ministry of culture which had transferred the appeal
to the FAA of Archeological Survey of India (ASI). The FAA, ASI had directed
the CPIO (Monuments), ASI Headquarters to provide all information within 10
days and in the information, Ayyangar was provided a copy of email sent to
Superintending Archeologist ASI, Hyderabad Circle.
Petitioner
said lack of SIC, HC in Andhra, forced him to approach PMO, Ministry of Culture
Ayyangar
had approached the Commission alleging “incomplete information about action in
preserving the heritage structures in Tirumala Tirupati”. He had stated in his
appeal that the larger public interest behind his request cannot be brushed
aside by such routine replies.
“The
PMO, instead of acting on such important matter simply said that papers were
weeded out. ASI shared a letter written to state. TTD stonewalled information
requests refusing to come under RTI Act. I have no remedy in Andhra Pradesh as
TTD took U-turn. Earlier TTD was giving answers to my RTI requests. There is no
State Information Commission in AP and I have no constitutional remedy as no
High Court is established in AP. I have no other option except to approach
Central Government’s Archaeology department, Ministry of Culture and the PMO,
who also dealt with this serious matter in routine and left the world’s
heritage monument to its fate with their inaction.”
CIC
M. Sridhar Acharyulu recorded in his order that Ayyangar reminded that Tirumala
Tirupati Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam in Tirupati was a world famous
temple which stood on Tirumala hills. He also insisted that most of the
structures around the temple were over 1500 years old except for some concrete
facilities created by TTD on the Tirumala hill.
‘New
TTD trust shelved provision to declare temple complex an “ancient monument’
In
2011, the TTD Specified Authority had passed a resolution declaring the temple
and the structures around it as “ancient monument” under the Provisions of
Ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. However, the
petition stated that the moment the governance of the TTD changed hands from
the specified authority to a politically-appointed Trust, the resolution
appeared to have been shelved. Ayyangar had asked “why TTD did not implement
this, and why Centre did not act?”
He
had also alleged that TTD was not protecting the national and ancient monuments
with due care and caution and gave the instance of demolition of the Veyyi
Kalla Mandapam (thousand-pillared mandapam) in front of Mahadwaram (main
entrance of Lord Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala) in support of his argument.
This mandapam, he said, was built in 1464 by the Vizianagara emperor Saluva
Malladevera Maharaj but was demolished by TTD in 2003 without any reason.
ASI
admitted TTD did not inform about demolition of mandapam
Ayyangar
had stated that there were said “invaluable stone inscriptions reflecting the
cultural heritage and history” of the temple at the mandapam. In response to
his RTI applications seeking protection for the monuments, the Deputy
Superintending Archaeologist, ASI wrote in April 2011 that such demolition was
in breach of the archaeological norms and noted that the TTD had not informed
the department either prior to or after demolition.
Ayyangar
had also filed a writ petition in the high court of Andhra Pradesh seeking
declaration of Tirumala Temples as ancient monuments. The high court had
advised that he approach the Centre.
After
answering RTI queries earlier, TTD began stonewalling them
Ayyangar
had also submitted before the Commission that TTD was answering RTI questions
earlier, but then began refusing to respond, though part of Endowment
department of Andhra Pradesh was undoubtedly a public authority. “Now the TTD
is neither transparent nor accountable. Though Hyderabad is joint capital of AP
and Telangana, entire AP government has long back shifted to Amaravati, but not
the high court.” Under these circumstances, the appellant said he was compelled
to approach the PMO and Ministry of Culture, which sent his RTI request to ASI
that pleaded inability and no control over TTD.
‘Valuables
not accounted for or protected’
Acharyulu
recorded in his order that the appellant had also alleged that several
ornaments donated in 15th century by Vijaynagar emperors including Sri Krishna
Devaraya had not been properly accounted for and protected.
Taking
into account the information that came to light during the court proceedings
and which had been submitted as part of the appeal, Acharyulu in his order
noted that the Director of Archaeology and Museums Hyderabad had found after
due verification that no ornament was tallied with any of the ornaments donated
by Sri Krishna Devaraya to Lord Venkateshvara. He had observed that “this is a
serious issue of loss of cultural heritage, which deserves attention of PMO, Ministry
of Culture and Government of Andhra Pradesh.”
“It
is not a wild allegation of the appellant, but a major finding by the Director
of Ministry of Culture, which was not acted upon since 2011,” the CIC had said,
adding that the high court had also “wondered as to why the temple
administration was reluctant to make a comprehensive inventory of the
jewellery”.
The
CIC also held that the culture ministry and its archaeology department has the
onus to provide the information sought by the appellant. He also said that “as
this issue is intertwined with Government of Andhra Pradesh, its endowments
department and its essential part, the TTD, they have obligation to provide
this information.”
‘TTD
answerable under RTI as trust, receiver of donations, manager of ancient
monuments’
“The
TTD, being an intricate part of endowment administration, came into existence
by an exclusive chapter in AP statute, is a public authority. It deals with the
people’s money and totally controlled by the Government of Andhra Pradesh,
through Endowments Department, its members and chairman are appointed by the
Government of AP. It is answerable as trust, as receiver of donations, as
manager of ancient national monuments of world heritage, whether declared or
not under the Central and State Acts, as representative/part of the Government
of Andhra Pradesh under the Act of AP and also under RTI Act, 2005,” Acharyulu
said in his order.
“Based
on facts, law, their acquiescence and judicial precedents the TTD has to be the
public authority covered squarely under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,” the CIC
held.
‘Centre
should have intervened when TTD acted arbitrarily’
Acharyulu
also said in his order that the Centre should have intervened “when the TTD
demolished Veyyi Kalla mandapam”, did not develop “transparent systems to
protect ancient jewellery” as advised by Justice Wadhwa Commission, refused to
come under RTI Act, rejected RTI applications, and fought up to Supreme Court
to drive nails into prakaram of Garbha Griha (sanctum sanctorum) for making
thousands of holes in the name of gold-plating which could damage hundreds of
historic inscriptions that were “the irrevocable proof of antique culture of
India and world heritage”.
But,
he said, the Centre allowed the TTD to exercise absolute power, which it did
not have.
As
such, he said, the PMO needs to understand that it was not a simple question of
weeding out a representation of appellant, but taking up concrete measures for
securing the monuments with a glorious cultural past. Acharyulu also said that
“TTD itself should conduct itself like sincere trustee and not as corporate
managing directors, continue answering RTI requests and strictly adhere to
norms and complying with furnishing 17 categories of information under Section
4(1)(b) of RTI Act on their own.”
(Copy of Order)
(Copy of Order)
.JPG)
.JPG)
