The apathy of the Indian babus knows no bounds. You give them an architectural marvel that has stood the test of time for over seven centuries, and they would, more likely than not, see it gather dust, moss, decay and finally crumble in about as many decades.

Check out the Konark sun temple in Odisha, a Unesco world heritage site and one of Odisha’s major tourist attractions, for confirmation. As chunks of masonry and carved stones from the black pagoda keep falling, the 13th century temple’s exquisitely carved exterior is gradually wearing away due to the onslaughts of salinity and sand blast from the Bay of Bengal.

In charge of conservation of the monument, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) is ostensibly content in letting time take its own course without any significant attempt to restore the structure to its former glory.

According to AB Tripathy, convener of the Odisha chapter of Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (Intach), condition of the sun temple is deteriorating every day with both the central and state governments closing their eyes to the damage.

A high-powered committee set up by the Naveen Patnaik government in 2011, with the mandate to look into conservation of the temple and devise mechanisms to counter adverse conditions, lies defunct. The committee has representation of the ASI, state culture department and Puri administration. Four working groups were constituted to look into various issues of conservation of the sun temple and submit their reports within a year but they are yet to meet. 

According to experts, one primary issue relating to conservation of the temple is finding out the strength of its foundation. The temple was constructed with sand from the beach as its base and as a result there are concerns on how steady the foundation is despite its ‘age’.

Built by King Narasimhadeva I of Ganga dynasty in the 13th century, the Konark temple was carved as a colossal chariot for Surya, the sun god, with seven horses and 24 gigantic wheels. While the main temple, believed to have towered at a height of 227 feet, has crumbled, the natya mandap (or dance hall) and jagamohan (entrance hall) are still standing – though only just about. Of the 24 exquisitely carved wheels, only one remains intact.

But the rot is not restricted to the walls – the interiors of jagamohan have remained sealed off since 1901, when conservation work on the monument was seriously taken up for the first time. The walls were shored up from the inside and it was filled inside with sand to prevent imminent collapse – such was its tenuous state.

Controversy has dogged attempts to restore the jagamohan. At a meeting of experts convened by the ASI and attended, among others, by Unesco representatives, Konark was declared a ‘project monument’ and 23 recommendations were made for its conservation. Foreign experts were of the view that a hole should be drilled on top of the jagamohan so that someone could be lowered into it with equipment to videograph the state of its interiors.

They also said the sand filling should be scooped out immediately.

There is, however, no consensus on how to proceed. Though the committee finally decided that video cameras and temperature recording devices would be put in through vents in the walls to study the interior, more than a year has passed without any action. The ASI claims it cannot go ahead with ‘dubious’ repair techniques on the fast-decaying temple unless a Unesco report is submitted.

The problem areas: in temple and at ASI

One reason why no major steps are being taken by ASI officials is the fear that it might lead to total collapse of the crumbling edifice. The Central Building Research Institute (CBRI), Roorkee, and Geological Survey of India (GSI) recently conducted soil testing and load-bearing capacity of the stone and while CBRI was commissioned to conduct a ground penetrating radar (GPR) study in June 2012 and was supposed to submit a report within three months, the work is not yet done even 14 months on.

ASI says it is waiting for the report to be submitted before it can progress further.

Another area of concern is the ASI’s move to replace original stones, or blocks, of the temple with plain ones. While the organisation says it is being done in accordance with Unesco guidelines, Intach experts point out that ASI departed from this norm in its recent restoration work at Humayun’s Tomb and Red Fort in New Delhi – both World Heritage sites.

Archaeologists contend that the replaced blocks should be ornamental, resembling the original, in an effort to maintain the heritage structure’s authenticity. Otherwise, as more stones come off and are replaced, the monument would turn into a plain and bland structure in coming years.

Intach is also concerned about proper documentation and preservation of stones and sculptures that have fallen off the main structure or are lying around the temple precincts.

“There is no knowledge of how many such priceless pieces have been pilfered and how many are actually preserved,” says Anil Dhir, secretary, Konark Surakhya Samity (committee to conserve Konark temple).

Dhir who has conducted extensive study of the temple, as well as its surroundings, says he is convinced that further excavation around the temple would reveal many more artifacts but the ASI has no plans in this direction in near future, according to Bhuban Vikrama, superintendant of ASI’s conservation wing at Bhubaneswar.

Emphasising that ASI had to be pressured by public opinion to take steps to prevent flooding of the monument’s premises, Dhir says waterlogging used to be a regular feature at the temple during monsoon, forcing visitors to wade in ankle-deep water. ASI and the state government finally built a channel around the complex to drain excess water after the media highlighted the issue.

Among ASI’s main tasks at present are providing support to the temple structure and access to the rising tiers of the roof and its spires with scaffolding, coating the surface with waterproofing chemical, and maintaining the grounds.

But it’s nearly a decade since the last such chemical coating was applied on the temple. While ASI’s Bhuban Vikrama admits that the process is due for a repeat, the absence of an official to head the chemical wing of ASI at Bhubaneswar means the task would have to wait.

Take another instance of the officialdom’s indifference: casuarina and poonang trees were planted in large numbers in 1906 to check movement of sand-laden winds and minimise abrasive sand-blasting on the monument. These tall trees acted as a filter for the sand-bearing breeze coming in from the sea.

But with all these trees destroyed by the 1999 super-cyclone, the authorities planted cashew nut trees. The problem: these do not grow high, and offer little protection from sandy breeze. This, experts say, has accelerated erosion in the temple.

While all conservation efforts of ASI over the years have been a study in procrastination and delay, very little of the recommendations made by more than 10 committees appointed at various times beginning 1901 has been adopted.

Little coordination

A huge roadblock in the path of carrying out restoration properly is the lack of coordination between the ASI, the state archaeology department and central agencies, with accusations and counter-accusations of non-cooperation and high-handed behaviour flying thick and fast. The situation has not looked up over the years: ASI continues to suffer from acute shortage of staff and experts and faces apathy and sloth at policy levels.

Sushil Das, director of Odisha’s culture department, says the state government holds regular meetings with ASI for the temple’s conservation. According to him, several workshops have been held for long- and short-term development of the temple, adding that the state government has requested ASI for a laser study. It has also regularly put pressure on the ASI to do the work.

“We have many sculptors who can make the exact thing (designs, patterns etc) done on the stones of Konark temple,” Das says, adding that ASI, however, calls it against norms of the organisation and that they cannot replace it with carved stones. “The state government has urged Veerappa Moily and (culture minister) Chandresh Kumari Katoch to look into the matter – they (the ministers) had even visited the site. The state government is ready to provide funds for conservation and restoration (but) ASI is delaying and moving very slow.”

As the union petroleum minister, Moily heads the Indian Oil Foundation, a non-profit trust created by Indian Oil Corporation to “protect, preserve and promote national heritage in collaboration with ASI and national culture fund of the union culture ministry. Besides Konark sun temple, it has identified Vaishali in Bihar, Kanheri Caves (Maharashtra), Khajuraho (Madhya Pradesh) and Warangal fort (Andhra Pradesh) to develop tourist-friendly facilities.

As part of the project, culture minister Katoch recently inaugurated a Rs 20-crore initiative to develop the temple’s peripheral area. But, Intach’s Tripathy asks, “what’s the use is peripheral development when the temple itself is crumbling?”

Tripathy says Intach now plans to begin a fresh campaign to pull ASI out of its inertia. “We aim to meet the culture minister to discuss various issues related to conservation of Konark. Chief minister Naveen Patnaik will also be urged to take up the issue with the centre,” he asserts.

Parrying all queries, ASI’s Bhuban Vikrama says, “All decisions (of ASI) are taken in Delhi.”

Amid all this a marvelous metaphor of time and space keeps decaying, lying victim to advancing stone erosion and weathering that have already blunted the carved figurines and taken a toll on the soft stone. Salt action, wind, humidity, algae and fungal growth have all contributed to the damage. Fissures have appeared in the walls, stone slabs are breaking off and stone figures, as they erode, have lost much of their pristine beauty.

With every stone falling apart, with every piece of evidence hitting the dust, the secret mystical world of Konark is fast disappearing.

***

THE 5-MINUTE CAPSULE

Conserving Konark: File report, forget report

While ASI insists that Konark sun temple has one of the longest conservation histories in India and is among the best looked after monuments in the world, facts look otherwise. Over more than a century, there has been at least 11 reports prepared by different authorities at different times to conserve the architectural marvel. While most are gathering dust, action taken on the last six reports has been zilch. Here’s a low-down:

1901-04: First report  prepared by engineer Bishan Swarup, who worked at the site during that phase. He first realised that the edifice faced imminent collapse and had it filled up with sand. The initial masonry work done under his supervision saved the temple from being completely destroyed. Swarup had given detailed suggestions for further upkeep but these were never applied.

1950: Next committee  was formed. The meeting held  at Bhubaneswar’s Circuit House was chaired by Bishwanath Dash and had on its panel CM Master, an eminent architect from Bombay.  None of the panel’s recommendations were put in place.

***

THE FIVE MINUTE CAPSULE

Conserving Konark: File report, forget report

While ASI insists that Konark sun temple has one of the longest conservation histories in India and is among the best looked after monuments in the world, facts look otherwise. Over more than a century, there has been at least 11 reports prepared by different authorities at different times to conserve the architectural marvel. While most are gathering dust, action taken on the last six reports has been zilch. Here’s a low-down:

1901-04: First report  prepared by engineer Bishan Swarup, who worked at the site during that phase. He first realised that the edifice faced imminent collapse and had it filled up with sand. The initial masonry work done under his supervision saved the temple from being completely destroyed. Swarup had given detailed suggestions for further upkeep but these were never applied.

1950: Next committee  was formed. The meeting held  at Bhubaneswar’s Circuit House was chaired by Bishwanath Dash and had on its panel CM Master, an eminent architect from Bombay.  None of the panel’s recommendations were put in place.

1953: Third committee formed – again with Biswanath Das chairing it. Recommendation to put up scaffolding was implemented. 

1978: ASI constituted a ‘Konark expert committee’, which held its first meeting on Nov 7 that year. For the first time, a serious view of the problem was taken by the committee, chaired by then ASI director-general MN Deshpande. The panel mooted idea for horticultural development of the precincts – also a first.

1985-90: Structural conservation undertaken after collapse of  five stone blocks from main temple. Scaffolding to some vulnerable sections was done. Another report of ASI’s science branch recommended chemical preservation but nothing was done.

1979: Unesco experts’ recommendation on conservation of Konark was given to the union government.

1987: After declaring it a World Heritage Site, Unesco again  appointed a committee headed by two experts of international repute, Sir BM Fielden and P Beckman. Calling the state of the temple “alarming”, the duo advised immediate preventive measures. After the initial hue and cry, nothing was done with this report as well.

1997: Italian expert Prof Ing. Giorgio Croci made a structural analysis of the temple jagamohan.

2010: ASI called global experts and put up temporary scaffolding to let them inspect the temple top. The committee made several recommendations, including removing the sand. One of the suggestions was to drill a hole and send endoscopic videographic cameras to assess the state of the temple’s interior. Nothing done as yet on that.

Third committee formed – again with Biswanath Das chairing it. Recommendation to put up scaffolding was implemented. 

1978: ASI constituted a ‘Konark expert committee’, which held its first meeting on Nov 7 that year. For the first time, a serious view of the problem was taken by the committee, chaired by then ASI director-general MN Deshpande. The panel mooted idea for horticultural development of the precincts – also a first.

1985-90: Structural conservation undertaken after collapse of  five stone blocks from main temple. Scaffolding to some vulnerable sections was done. Another report of ASI’s science branch recommended chemical preservation but nothing was done.

1979: Unesco experts’ recommendation on conservation of Konark was given to the union government.

1987: After declaring it a World Heritage Site, Unesco again  appointed a committee headed by two experts of international repute, Sir BM Fielden and P Beckman. Calling the state of the temple “alarming”, the duo advised immediate preventive measures. After the initial hue and cry, nothing was done with this report as well.

1997: Italian expert Prof Ing. Giorgio Croci made a structural analysis of the temple jagamohan.

2010: ASI called global experts and put up temporary scaffolding to let them inspect the temple top. The committee made several recommendations, including removing the sand. One of the suggestions was to drill a hole and send endoscopic videographic cameras to assess the state of the temple’s interior. Nothing done as yet on that.

(This story appeared in the November 16-30, 2013 issue of the print magazine)