Mohenjo-Daro faced a lower threat to its existence at the time of its excavation in 1922, as the water table was at the time around five metres below the ground level. This water table began to rise after the construction of the Sukkur Barrage and its tributaries in the 1930s. Instead of finding a lasting solution to waterlogging, the federal government conveniently decided to ban further excavation on the site. Finally, in 1973, a ‘master plan’ was devised with the help of Unesco to combat waterlogging and salinity. Yet, little progress was made on the ground.

The government showed some action after Mohenjo-Daro was declared a Unesco World Heritage Site in 1980, and under a multistage rehabilitation plan, several tube wells and piezometers were installed in the periphery of Mohenjo-Daro to reduce and measure the groundwater. However, this project also failed to produce the desired results. Consequently, the 1973 Unesco master plan was again revised in 2006, but the exercise, too, proved a damp squib. Mohenjo-Daro is today literally ‘sinking’ as the groundwater swells up, reaching just 1.5 m below the surface in summer. The department does not seem too perturbed: on a recent visit, a Unesco team found that only one out of 39 piezometers was functional.

To be fair, preserving Mohenjo-Daro and other antiquities was the responsibility of the federal government until 2010 when the antiquities were devolved to the provinces as a result of the 18th Amendment. The government failed to protect the ancient heritage, probably because it was pursuing a state policy that aimed at promoting an ‘Islamic identity’ rather than recognising the multi-ethno-cultural composition of the state1.

This misguided policy had carried on even after it led in some ways to the dismemberment of the country in 1971, albeit in a more nuanced manner. Thus, Article 28 of the 1973 Constitution merely concedes the fundamental right of a section of citizens having a distinct language, script or culture “to preserve and promote the same”, but it does not saddle the state with a ‘duty’ to protect the culture and its constituents. On the contrary, Article 49 of the Indian constitution categorically places the state under a compelling “duty” to “protect every monument, or place, or object of artistic or historical interest”.

....

• 1. The Sindh government’s culture department recently invited bids to engage ‘experienced’ event managers to help it organise a weeklong centenary celebration of Mohenjo-Daro next month in London and Paris. One worries about the financial implications of such an extravaganza in these difficult times. If the intended events are meant to ‘project’ this Unesco-listed world heritage site and to attract international cooperation and financial assistance for its preservation, then it is imperative that the provincial and federal governments also convince the international community of their resolve to protect Mohenjo-Daro; not just with hollow words, but with concrete and concerted efforts.