SHRI JAGMOHAN’S STATEMENT ON HIS
TAJ VISIT
Some of the press
reports regarding my visit to Taj yesterday (June 22, 2003) do
not give the correct impression about what sites I visited and
what I said. The position needs to be clarified. Hence this statement.
Site Visit of
the "Project"
I saw the "project"
site from high points, both from Taj Mahal and Agra Fort. All
the contours of what has been done under the ‘project’ are clearly
visible from these points. It is, therefore, not quite correct
to say that I skipped the site in question. The statutory violations
and other wrong things done could be clearly seen. The construction
work almost touches the wall of Agra Fort and violates the statutory
limit of 300 metres.
Agra Fort
The issues in
question relate not only to Taj Mahal but also to Agra Fort which
is a World Heritage Site. Moreover, a certain ambience has to
be kept with regard to all World Heritage Sites.
The Ministry of Culture
and Tourism, though concerned with the World Heritage Sites and
also with the implementation of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological
Sites and Remains Act, 1958, was not consulted either by the State
Government or by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The
local Archaeological Survey of India official, however, participated
in a meeting held on April 24-25, 2003. He made it clear that
"the consultants have not conducted any study on the possible
impact on the foundation of Taj Mahal due to changes in the regime
of the river caused by land filling. The foundation details of
Taj Mahal need to be studied if the water regime is to be altered.
Therefore, the proposal provided by the consultant is not based
on sound study & places the world heritage monument
under undue risk". The local Archaeological Survey of India
official also subsequently lodged a report with the Police as
required under the law about the statutory violations.
The Ministry
of Culture and Tourism came to know of the ‘development’ from
a report published in a section of the press on June 15, 2003.
A letter was immediately sent to the State Government on the subject.
Again, when a report appeared on June 20, 2003 in another daily,
stating that the work was still going on at the site, a letter
was sent to the State Government on the same day inviting their
attention, inter alia, to the following points:
- Clearance of the Central Government
(Ministry of Environment and Forests) under section 3 of the
Environment Protection Act, 1986 had not been obtained.
- No approval was accorded by Agra
Development Authority or Agra City Municipal Corporation or
Central Pollution Control Board or Central Water Commission.
- The Expert committee had, in its
meeting of April 24-25, 2003, pressed for "stoppage and
suspension of all action till a detailed study was conducted
and development justified and safety of Taj and other monuments
ensured". In this meeting of April 24-25, 2003, as recorded
in the minutes, which I saw when I called a meeting of all concerned
on June 20, 2003, following points were made:
- "The report of the Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee, was also examined by the
Committee and it was brought to the notice that the width
on the bend should be between 1.5 to 5.5 times Lacey’s width.
Already the width of the river is less than this requirement
on which Taj Mahal is located. Any further reduction may be
dangerous. Therefore, the proposal is not based on safety
consideration of this World Heritage Monument.
- The reclamation proposed is
not dealing with flood protection, but is reclaiming the bed
of the river and, therefore, it is bound to interfere with
the regime of the river. The impact apart from flow of river
has not been studied by the Consultant.
- Any conscientious Consultant
would have conducted an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
on his own to assure themselves about the validity of the
project as well as convince other people that the project
will actually bring no adverse effect & would be beneficial.
- The Detailed Technical Project
Report (DTPR) appears to be a product of great hurry and prepared
without any adequate study and consideration."
I did not accuse
anyone of "lying", as reported in a daily, I simply
said that correct facts which have many financial, legal and environmental
aspects could be brought to light as a result of inquiry which
the State Government has already ordered.
