What lies beneath Naubat Pahad dig?
Hyderabad: One of the yardsticks by which a society must be judged is how much care it gives to protecting its heritage. So all attempts by the central and state government to discover, preserve and protect historical monuments and artefacts must be supported.
The media has a special role to play in highlighting the discovery and protection of valuable artefacts.
At the same time, efforts to unearth new treasures must scrupulously follow accepted archaeological practices and all government rules and regulations so that the surrounding natural and human environments are not disturbed.
The media's responsibility in this regard must be to act as a watchdog; it should avoid creating an environment in which excessive expectations and irrational desires are aroused.
In this context, we need to explore a few issues in detail regarding the excavation work going on in Naubat Pahad, Hyderabad which have not been addressed during the past week.
Unconfirmed reports speak now of the discovery of an underground structure (size/ kind/type unknown, or whether if it is natural or manmade). This is far from being confirmed.
If it is indeed confirmed, there is a need to be careful in exploration on the hillside since the Department of Archaeology may wish to continue work in the area for a period of time.
Issues Relating to Archaeological Excavation
1.The Department of Archaeology is now focusing on exploring the existence of a network of tunnels, one branch of which, hypothetically speaking, may be in Naubat Pahad. There is no more talk of a treasure.
However, in the initial information selectively given to the media mention was made not of a tunnel but of a vast amount of treasure. Unfortunately, this was not questioned in any form.
2.The Department of Archaeology while being very free in its claims of discovery has not been open about the details of the affidavit on the basis of which it claims to be acting.
No details are known other than a mention of some 'eminent citizens' and frequent references to a Coal India official who has apparently been on leave and away from duty from Coal India for one year and whose antecedents are not known.
Can we not find out more about the antecedents of the informants and the details of the affidavit rather than see them as mere sources of vague information?
3.The affidavit is apparently based on the eyewitness account of a construction worker/maistry 3-4 years ago who while working on a site close by 'saw' in the school premises an underground structure, apparently with gates/doors.
Some questions:
(1) School authorities, parents, drivers who have been in the school for 20-30 years have never reported any such structure. How did only one construction worker see it?
(2) Children play hide and seek always and they are the most interested in such 'secret' rooms. How come no student has ever seen it or spoken about it?
(3) A couple of elderly people who were residents of the building in the 1930s and 1940s have been reported in the media as saying that they had never seen any structure on the hill or at the foot of it.
The Department of Archaeology's informants say the structure cannot be seen now because it has been covered up by debris.
Is it really possible that something that hundreds and thousands of children, parents and teachers have not seen over the decades was seen only by one construction worker a few years ago?
Can we not ask some old students, parents and teachers if they ever saw anything any time 5-10, 15 or 20 years ago?
4.Why is it that the Department of Archaeology first selectively spoke of a treasure trove and then switched to saying it was looking for a tunnel/chamber?
Is it because it wanted to create an atmosphere of anticipation that would give it the legitimacy to continue on a fishing expedition without any credible evidence?
5.Historians say much of central Hyderabad has underground chambers/bunkers/ vaults which were used for many things like storing grain, sometimes valuables and even for 'hiding'.
The ASCI building has such a bunker, so too the Home Science College.
So even if a bunker is found in Naubat Pahad, does it justify feeding speculation of a treasure of Rs 20,000 crore?
The Approach of the Dept of Archaeology
1. Under Section 24 of the Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958 and also the State legislation of 1960/2010, any digging of any archaeological value anywhere in the country has to be cleared by the Archaeological Survey of India.
Is the AP Department of Archaeology overstepping its jurisdiction and engaging in abuse of power?
2. In one instance the Department of Archaeology, responding to a newspaper reporter's query, said that permission was not necessary because this was only 'exploration'.
Is digging a 10'ft pit that is now 30 ft wide and excavating the hillside only 'exploration'? This question needs to be asked of the department.
3. Archaeological excavations are always delicate operations done carefully with fine instruments - shallow shovels, delicate pickaxes and brushes.
Is it not strange that a JCB excavator was called in to dig a 10 ft pit and nothing was found? What does this say of the competence, commitment and skills of the Department of Archaeology?
Issues Relating to Children's Education
1. The Government of India and the Government of Andhra Pradesh place a lot of importance on children's education.
It appears that the Department of Archaeology did not engage in a discussion with the school authorities to discuss a plan of action which would not disturb the functioning of the school, the ICSE exams or destroy part of the playground.
Why is that so? Does one arm of the Government of Andhra Pradesh not care about another?
2. In the course of excavations, the school has become an open space'all manner of people not just government officials are reportedly walking in and out of the school.
Even members of the so-called 'eminent group' of informants are present all the time.
They do not hold any office in the Department of Archaeology.
Why is it that such people are coming and going from the school? Since only a construction worker/ maistry claimed to have seen the so-called structure, why are members of the 'eminent group' who have no first hand information going to the school?
Is it safe to let people who have no standing be in a school where there are little children?
3.If the Department of Archaeology plans an extended operation will the interests of the children be protected?
News Posted: 26 February, 2012
|
