Shahid Alam, 15, a class 10 student, is worried. He must pay ₹50 for a tennis ball to his group of street-cricket players. “This is the second time the ball has disappeared into the jungle. We cannot go inside, as it is locked,” says Alam, who regularly plays cricket on the uneven ground outside the Imambara Shah Najaf in Lucknow. The jungle he is referring to is wild undergrowth around Qadam Rasool, an adjoining monument built by Nasir-Ud-Din Haider, the second King of Oudh. It was built in the 19th century, on the banks of the Gomti river, and is now almost collapsing.
Vineet Kumar, a Lucknavi who is taking a tour of the Imambara Shah Najaf, says, “There should be a beautiful garden here. This is the tragedy with Lucknow: we are unable to save monuments. Now children are calling this historic place a jungle.” The Imambara was built by the first king of Awadh, Ghazi-ud-Din Haider, who built the Imambara as a token of his devotion to Hazrat Ali, who was the son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad. A replica of Hazrat Ali’s shrine in Iraq.
Also read: U.P. recorded largest number of Centrally Protected Monuments encroached upon till 2022
A March 2026 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India documented Uttar Pradesh’s centrally protected monuments (CPMs), those sites under the jurisdiction of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The report, for 2024, said that of 487 CPMs in the State, 31 are untraceable, only 31 monuments (6.4%) had “proper ownership documentation”, and 96 monuments were encroached upon. There were also CMPs that were neglected, many needing structural alterations, and some bearing the results of “inappropriate conservation work”.
Removal of debris and ground levelling in progress at Bada Imambara in Lucknow.
| Photo Credit:
Sandeep Saxena
Allahabad High Court lawyer Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, who is also a heritage enthusiast, says many who work in conservation are deeply concerned. “The CAG Report is a formal indictment of institutional failure. Up to 31 monuments have simply disappeared in U.P., and yet the ASI continues to carry them on its official list. This means the government agency entrusted with our heritage cannot even locate what it claims to protect,” Rizvi says. He adds that not having ownership documents is akin to a custodian who holds no deed to the property he guards.
Heritage groups are considering a mass awareness campaign in addition to intensifying judicial interventions. Rizvi has filed Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the Allahabad High Court over encroachment on heritage sites, demanding their removal.
Sanobar Haider, an associate professor of history under the Department of Higher Education in U.P., says Awadhi architecture developed in the areas under the Nawabs, who came from Persia in the 18th century: roughly areas of Lucknow, Ayodhya, Kanpur, and Barabanki. Now, Awadhi culture is easiest seen in architecture, where the Persian influence is visible, such as in structures like the Bara Imambara, Chota Imambara, Rumi Darwaza, and the Residency. “They reflect Persian architectural vocabulary: arcaded iwans, elaborate stucco work, geometric tile patterns, and calligraphic inscriptions. The Chota Imambara, known also as the Palace of Lights, fuses Persian mausoleum design with Lucknavi ornamentation of glassworkthat is illuminated on Moharram. The Rumi Darwaza, modelled on the Sublime Porte in Istanbul, reflects the broader Persianate and Ottoman connections of the Awadhi court,” says the historian.
The worry is not just about the buildings. Conservationists feel that without a dedicated initiative by the government to protect and restore sites, it may not just be the monuments that are lost but, in time, a whole Awadhi culture. The culture is a combined heritage of tehzeeb (refined manners), pahle aap (after you), and the fine arts of food, kathak, chikankaari, and Urdu poetry, with the collective inheritance of the built form.
Shah Najaf Imambara monument in Lucknow.
| Photo Credit:
Sandeep Saxena
The heritage crisis in U.P.
The ASI is a central government agency that is responsible for protecting and maintaining monuments and archaeological sites that have been declared of national importance. Its activities include carrying out surveys of antiquarian remains, exploration and excavation of archaeological sites, archaeological research, maintenance, conservation and preservation of protected monuments in the country.
Umakant Mishra, an Unnao resident, is writing letters to authorities for removal of trespassers at monument sites in Lucknow and Agra. He says the fear among heritage preservationists is “the quiet, insidious practice of delisting monuments” on grounds of “ceasing to be of national importance”. “This has been used as a tool to paper over failures of protection when negligence goes too far,” he says.
The monuments that have been removed from the protected list after 2024 include the Qadam Rasul, Begum Kothi, Imambada Ghulam Husain Khan, and Chota Chhatar Manzil of Lucknow, considered markers of Awadhi civilisation.
There are instances of government structures like hospitals, police stations, municipal offices, schools, and other departments establishing offices within CPMs, allegedly without legal sanction or ASI authorisation in multiple U.P. districts.
“The old Rohilla Fort in Saharanpur is under the possession of the district jail. The Hussainabad Baradari in Lucknow has been encroached upon by everyone from the electricity department to the Jal Nigam because it has no boundary wall,” says Mishra.
Similarly, at the protected monument at Bhanakaur Kund that has Sanskrit inscriptions, in Mathura, a small temple has been constructed. Nagar Panchayat Barasana had constructed structures and toilet blocks in prohibited and regulated areas and construction material was stored adjoining the pillar by the Nagar Panchayat contractor, says Mishra.
Illegal shops, eateries and stalls are encroaching on Chota Imambara in Lucknow.
| Photo Credit:
Sandeep Saxena
The CAG team noticed, during physical verification, that the Rani Mahal, in Jhansi, that ASI itself was not complying with the provisions. “The Circle office of the ASI Jhansi was located in the Centrally Protected Monument. They carried out changes to the structure of the monument viz. fitting air conditioners, electrical fittings, water pipes, etc. Toilets were laid with ceramic tiles in the monuments. These changes were not consistent with the original character of these monuments,” noted the CAG report.
Protecting the unprotected
The Nawabs of Awadh were from Naishapur in Iran and were Shias by belief. After the disintegration of the Mughal empire in the late 18th century, Awadh, especially its new capital Lucknow, developed a distinct identity under Nawab Asaf ud Daula. He was the builder Nawab who contributed heavily towards the architecture of the city, fashioning the city into a cultural hub.
Heritage activists say in Lucknow, the Tomb of Mohammad Ali Shah (Chota Imambara), declared a protected monument by a Gazette Notification as far back as 1920, has had its gates encroached upon by shop owners.
“The shops were allocated by the over-200-year-old Hussainabad and Allied Trust to locals in Chota Imambara, but they have sublet it to different people in contravention of the allotment conditions. Those people have encroached upon common areas too,” says Rizvi. The Trust is the custodian of Awadhi culture.
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, prohibits any individual from engaging in activities that may damage a protected heritage structure. Nor can any construction be undertaken to construct any buildings within the protected area. This would be considered encroachment.
Hussainabad Gate near Chota Imambara in Lucknow is in need of urgent restoration.
| Photo Credit:
Sandeep Saxena
Wahid Ahmed runs an eatery within the Chota Imambara complex. He says his family has been running the place for three generations. He is unaware that documentation is needed to run his shop there. “There are dozens like me in this place,” he says.
The ASI, in its guidelines issued in January 2005 regarding the use of specific areas within protected monuments, stated that permission for organising cultural programmes in these areas may be granted only if the local ASI circle is completely assured that the event will not result in any harm to the monument.
To protect the Diwan-e-Aam at Agra Fort, the superintending archaeologist of the Agra Circle requested the Director General of ASI in February 2023 to initiate a structural analysis by a qualified agency. They had suggested that access to this interior space in the fort be restricted to visitors under Rule 4 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules of 1959. There was also a request to disallow large-scale events within the monument’s grounds.
The CAG audit noted that permission was still granted to hold a programme commemorating the birth anniversary of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj on 19 February 2023, set against the backdrop of Diwan-e-Aam, Agra Fort.
Two days after this event, the superintending archaeologist once again recommended that the Diwan-e-Aam be removed from the list of CPMs where cultural events could be authorised. Nevertheless, the monument continues to be included in the list. “This indicated that events were held without paying attention to the safety concerns and leaving monuments more vulnerable to deterioration,” points out the CAG report.
Demand for better laws and implementation
“The existing central framework is inadequate, under-enforced, and plagued by definitional gaps,” says Rizvi. “We need a State heritage law with clear boundary demarcations, mandatory digitisation timelines, anti-encroachment provisions with teeth, and citizen grievance mechanisms,” he adds.
The National Policy for Conservation of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains, 2014, outlines professional standards and establishes an evidence-based framework for contemporary conservation. The entire conservation process must be documented before, during, and after the conservation efforts through maps, drawings, photographs, digital records, and field notes to ensure the creation of continuous records of interventions.
Plans should be developed and implemented for short-term (up to two years), mid-term (two to five years), and long-term (five years and beyond) to avert any further deterioration of the structures that could necessitate extensive conservation work in the future.
Additionally, Site Management Plans (SMPs) must be formulated for monuments, to be created by a multidisciplinary team of professionals in consultation with the archaeological officers of ASI.
The findings from the CAG report revealed that planning and documentation were inadequate, resulting in fragmented and incomplete conservation efforts. It observed that the ASI circles in U.P. had not prepared any mid-term or long-term plans for the conservation and preservation of monuments. No SMPs were prepared by the circles for conservation of monuments.
“It’s almost like we are waiting to see monuments disappear in front of us,” says Mishra.
The Lucknow Circle of the ASI did not respond to The Hindu’s list of emailed questions.
