The controversy surrounding the Subramaniya Swamy temple at Thirupparankundram in Madurai has taken a new turn, with a Supreme Court plea praying for the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to “take over and inspect” the temple. But about 25 years ago, ASI’s well-intentioned initiative to “take over and control” the Chola-era Arunachaleswara temple in 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 the protected monument as prohibited (within 100 meters) or regulated (within 200 meters) for mining and construction purposes.
Devotees at Arunachaleswara Temple in Tiruvannamalai | Photo credit: C. Venkatachalapathy
Perhaps without this basic understanding, the tussle was fueled by vested interests – political and commercial – over the ASI’s move to declare the Arunachaleswara temple as a “monument of national importance”. Subsequently, those who protested the Central Agency’s decision succeeded in preventing the Tiruvannamalai temple from being developed on the lines of the Vaishno Devi temple in Jammu and Kashmir.
Arunachaleshwara Temple, situated at the foot of a hill 2,668 feet high, is spread over a campus of 24.35 acres and is a fine illustration of Dravidian (South Indian) architecture and sculpture. According to inscriptions there, the temple was built during the early Chola period (9th century CE) and expanded during the periods of the later Chola, Hoysala and Nayak kings. The temple has about 300 shrines that cover the Amman Shrine; nine towers with four rajagopurams in four directions; many mandapams, including one with 1,000 pillars; and two huge tanks, Sivaganga Punniya Theertham and Brahma Theertham. The temple, managed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the state government, had its last kumbabishekam in February 2017.
Uncontrollable interventions
It all started in April 2002, when the then Tourism and Culture Minister Jagmohan visited the temple town. Although he was impressed by the beauty of several elements of the temple – architecture, sculpture, civil engineering and art – he was disturbed by the sight of countless shops and encroachments around the temple.
Union Minister Jagmohan Photo Credit: V. Sudershan
In fact, the problem of intrusions has only increased over the years, even though the authorities have been removing them at regular intervals. Around two months ago, during the Karthigai Deepam festival in December, encroachments were demolished – mostly roadside shops and the extension of existing shops on all four Mada streets around the temple to provide more space for pilgrims. The problem became acute; a portion of the hill and the 14 km long Girivalam trail near the temple has witnessed illegal settlements to the extent that it has become vulnerable to landslides. On 1 December 2024, seven people died after heavy rain triggered a landslide in the hills. The authorities are now taking steps to notify certain places near the temple as reserve forest to prevent the occurrence of landslides. Structurally, the temple was also damaged because there was no conservation plan as the skin of the granite stones at the base of the gopuram on the north side peeled away due to sandblasting, according to the Monument Conservation and Restoration Manual by R. Kannan, a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer in 19781 known for his passion for heritage conservation in 1970.2
A controversial plan
Regardless of the encroachment problem, Jagmohan advised his officials to draw up a plan for the development of the temple. “Normally, the proposal is sent from either the local unit of the ASI or its director general’s office. However, in Tiruvannamalai, it was the minister who initiated the proposal, (local traders) said,” reported The Hindu on November 9, 2002. Traders and real estate lobbies griped that restrictions would hit their businesses if the wrong protection plan was put in place.
CP Singh, Partner Dr. Kannana in the IAS and who was the state tourism commissioner and managing director of the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation in 2002-2003, recalls being present during a discussion Jagmohan had with the then tourism secretary at the Rathi Vinay Jha Center in Chennai. Mrs. Jha impressed upon the minister the need for development of Tiruvannamalai town and the temple which were suffering from lack of facilities for the devotees coming there in large numbers. It was then that the decision was taken to have the development plan executed through ASI, Mr. Singh adds.
That the ASI had issued a preliminary notice under Section 4(1) of the Act in September came to light only when traders and political parties at the local level launched a protest in the first week of November. The notification expressed the central agency’s intention to declare the Arunachaleswara temple as a “monument of national importance”. It has been plastered in temple precincts and other public places in Tiruvannamalai to allow persons and organizations objecting to the proposal to send their views within six weeks, before November 20. The Act stipulates that the Director General of ASI will consider all objections and if the final notification is made, an area up to 300 meters radius from the temple would be declared ‘off limits’.
KT Narasimhan
On 5 November 2002, the then Chief Archaeologist of the ASI Circle for Chennai, KT Narasimhan, held a meeting with representatives of the Arunachaleswara Temple Preservation Committee in Tiruvannamalai and explained the rationale behind the ASI plan. However, the representatives left the meeting. The next day, the city observed a bandh as a mark of protest against the proposed “takeover”. Perhaps seeing this episode as an opportunity to corner the Union government, which had representatives from its party’s arch-rival, the DMK, then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, who headed the AIADMK, decided to challenge the ASI notice in the Madras High Court. On November 7, 2002, this newspaper reported four reasons as attributed by the state government. Among them were the “constant and strenuous efforts” made by the government in allowing the growth of the temple and the “unilateral move” by the ASI without consulting the state government.
Jagmohan himself clarified the position to the media in New Delhi that the idea behind the ASI’s effort to declare any place as a monument of national importance was to restore such a place to its original glory. Following the minister’s statement, Mr. Narasimhan told reporters in Chennai that “our primary duty is to preserve the grandeur of the temple for posterity,” the daily said on November 8, 2002. “We will not interfere with the religious administration or collect any temple maintenance fees from the devotees,” he explained. His organization has “preserved” as many as 410 ancient structures and sites in Tamil Nadu, including the Brahadeeswarar Temple in Thanjavur and the St. Mary’s Church in Secretariat, but the state government has in the past raised no objection to any of them coming under “our purview”, Mr Narasimhan added. Hinduism, in its editorial titled “Heritage Preservation” published on 11 November 2002, supported the ASI initiative, arguing that “it would be against long-term interests to block it with organized ‘public protests’ on spurious grounds or to blow it up as a ‘Centre versus State’ issue or to resort to legal disputes.”
Jayalalithaa | Photo credit: M. Prabhu
Political series
Meanwhile, critics of the move have mobilized the support of almost the entire political class comprising the AIADMK, DMK, Congress and the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK). A former ASI official recounts that even the state unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which headed the coalition ministry at the time, opposed the proposed conservation project. Kanchi Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswathi also jumped on the protest train.
On November 13, the Madras High Court stayed the notification. The next day, the Center approached the Supreme Court with a petition giving its justification, according to a report in this daily on 15 November 2002. Despite being one of the most revered places in the country, Tiruvannmalai has been desecrated by “tumultuous and illegal” constructions at its base, between the hill path and the hill itself. In August 1997, two natural caves, Skandashramam and Virupakshi ashram, and the passage leading to Skandashramam from Ramanashramam were declared monuments of national importance, as submitted by the Center to the Supreme Court. However, the state government claimed that the level of encroachment on the area was “minimal” and did not require central intervention as it could be handled by the district administration and the local body, according to a May 1, 2004 report by The Hindu.
After the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (of which the DMK was a major component) took over the government at the Centre, the Union government informed the Court on 12 July that year that it had withdrawn the September 2002 notification and shelved the Tiruvannamalai temple conservation project.
