controversy regarding Subramaniam Swamy Temple at Thirupparankundram in Madurai A new turn has come due to the petition in the Supreme Court To “take over and control” the temple By Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). But, about 25 years ago, a well-intentioned initiative by the ASI to “take over and control” the Chola-era Arunachaleshwar temple at Tiruvannamalai, about 200 km west of Chennai, ended in failure.
The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act and Rules do not allow the ASI to take over or control any temple. At most, the agency can declare a temple a “monument of national importance” and designate areas near a protected monument as prohibited (up to 100 m) or regulated (up to 200 m) for the purposes of mining operations and construction.
Devotees at Arunachaleshwar Temple in Tiruvannamalai. Photo Courtesy: C. Venkatachalapathi
Perhaps without this basic understanding, the ASI’s move to declare the Arunachaleshwar Temple as a “monument of national importance” was fueled by controversy by vested interests – both political and commercial. Subsequently, those opposing the decision of the central agency were successful in preventing the Tiruvannamalai temple from being developed on the lines of the Vaishno Devi temple in Jammu and Kashmir.
Situated at the foot of a 2,668-foot-high hill, the Arunachaleshwar Temple, spread over a complex of 24.35 acres, is a fine example of Dravidian (South Indian) architecture and sculpture. According to the inscriptions found there, the temple was constructed during the Early Chola period (9th century AD) and expanded during the periods of the Later Chola, Hoysala and Nayak kings. There are about 300 shrines that cover the Amman temple; Nine towers with four rajagopurams in four directions; multiple mandapas including 1,000-pillared; and two huge tanks, Sivaganga Punniya Theertham and Brahma Theertham. The temple, built by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the state government, had its last Kumbhabhishek in February 2017.
massive encroachment
It all started in April 2002 when Jagmohan, the then Union Minister of Tourism and Culture, visited the temple town. Although he was impressed by the beauty of the temple’s many features – architecture, sculpture, structural engineering and art – he was troubled by the countless shops and encroachments surrounding the temple.
Union Minister Jagmohan Photo Courtesy: V. Sudarshan
In fact, the problem of encroachments has become bigger over the years, so much so that the authorities have been removing them, at regular intervals. About two months ago, encroachments – mostly roadside shops and extensions of existing shops on all the four mada roads around the temple – were demolished to provide more space for pilgrims during the Karthigai Deepam festival in December. The problem has become acute; A portion of the hill and the 14-km-long Girivalam road near the temple have developed illegal settlements to such an extent that they have become vulnerable to landslides. Seven people died in landslides in the hills triggered by heavy rains on December 1, 2024. The authorities are now taking steps to notify some places near the temple as reserved forests to prevent incidents of landslides. Structurally too, the temple suffered damage due to lack of conservation planning, as the skin of the granite stones at the base of the gopuram on the northern side was peeled off due to sand blast, as per Manual on Conservation and Restoration of Monuments It was created in 2007 by R., a former 1981 batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. It was written by Kannan, who is known for his passion for heritage conservation.
controversial plan
Despite the problem of encroachment, Jagamohan advised his officers to prepare a plan for the development of the temple. “Normally, a proposal is sent either from the local unit of the ASI or from the office of its director general. However, in Tiruvannamalai, it was the minister who initiated the proposal, they (local traders) claim,” said a report in The Hindu On November 9, 2002. Traders and real estate lobby had expressed apprehension that the restrictions imposed by ASI in the event of implementation of the conservation plan would severely affect their business.
CP Singh, Dr Kannan’s batchmate in the IAS and who was State Commissioner of Tourism and Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation in 2002-2003, recalls being present during Jagmohan’s discussion with the then Tourism Secretary at the Centre, Rathi Vinay Jha, in Chennai. Ms Jha had told the Minister about the need to develop Tiruvannamalai town and the temple, which was suffering from lack of facilities to cater to the large number of devotees visiting there. Mr Singh says that it was then that the decision was taken to implement the development plan through ASI.
The fact that the ASI had issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in September came to light only when traders and political parties at the local level started their protest in the first week of November. The notification expressed the central agency’s intention to declare the Arunachaleshwar Temple as a “monument of national importance”. It was pasted on the temple premises and other public places in Tiruvannamalai to enable individuals and organizations objecting to the proposal to send their views within six weeks before November 20. The law states that the Director General, ASI, consider all the objections, and if the final notification comes, the area up to 300 meters radius from the temple will be declared “prohibited and regulated”.
KT Narasimhan
On November 5, 2002, KT Narasimhan, the then superintending archaeologist of the ASI for the Chennai circle, held a meeting with representatives of the Arunachaleshwar Temple Conservation Committee in Tiruvannamalai and explained to them the logic behind the ASI’s plan. But, the representatives walked out of the meeting. The following day, the city observed a shutdown in protest against the proposed “acquisition”. Possibly seeing the episode as an opportunity to corner the Central government, which had representatives from her party’s arch rival, the DMK, then Chief Minister Jayalalitha, who was also the AIADMK chief, had decided to challenge the ASI notification in the Madras High Court. This newspaper reported the four reasons given by the state government on 7 November 2002. These included “sustained and vigorous efforts” made by the government to raise the stature of the temple and “unilateral steps” taken by the ASI without consulting the state government.
In New Delhi, Jagmohan himself had clarified the position to the media that the idea behind ASI’s efforts to declare any site as a monument of national importance was to restore such a site to its original glory. Reiterating the minister’s stance, Mr. Narasimhan told reporters in Chennai that “Our primary duty is to preserve the grandeur of the temple for future generations,” the daily said on November 8, 2002. “We will not interfere in religious administration or impose any fees on devotees for the maintenance of the temple,” he explained. Mr Narasimhan said his organization had “conserved” 410 ancient structures and sites in Tamil Nadu, including the Brahadeshwara Temple in Thanjavur and St Mary’s Church in Secretariat, but the State government had in the past raised no objection to bringing any of these under “our ambit”. The HinduIn its editorial titled “Preserving a Heritage”, published on November 11, 2002, supported the ASI initiative and argued that “blocking it by organized ‘public protests’ on specific grounds or framing it as a ‘Centre versus State’ issue or resorting to legal disputes would be against long-term interests.”
Jayalalitha Photo Courtesy: M. Prabhu
political controversy
Meanwhile, critics of the move had garnered support from almost the entire political class, including the AIADMK, DMK, Congress and Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK). A former ASI official points out that even the state unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which was leading the coalition ministry at the time, was opposed to the proposed conservation project. Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati also jumped into the protest.
On 13 November, the Madras High Court stayed the notification. According to a news item in this daily on November 15, 2002, the next day, the Center approached the Supreme Court with a petition explaining its rationale. Despite being one of the country’s iconic locations, Tiruvannamalai was desecrated by “large-scale and illegal” construction at its base, on the way to the hill, and between the hills. In August 1997, two natural caves, Skandashramam and Virupakshi Ashram, and the passage leading from Ramashramam to Skandashramam were declared monuments of national importance, the Center submitted before the Supreme Court. However, the state government argued that the amount of encroachment in the area was “minimal” and did not require central intervention as it could be dealt with by the district administration and the local body, according to a report. The Hindu On 1 May 2004.
With the subsequent Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government (of which the DMK was a major component) taking charge at the Centre, the Central Government informed the Court on 12 July that year that it had withdrawn the September 2002 notification, putting the Tiruvannamalai Temple Conservation Project on hold.
