Save the Badrinath Temple from ‘Beautification’

It was with a feeling of déjà vu that I read media reports about the Badrinath beautification plan of some Rs 424 crore being presented to the PMO. Déjà vu because a version of what is being visualised by the Uttarakhand government – demolishing and re-building the temple and various parts of the town – was visualised in the early 1970s there. Why and how that project was shelved is worth remembering in the hope that it may help in pressing a pause button on its new avatara, so that the character of the sacred Badrinath shrine and its ambience continues to be preserved.

The 1970s project was funded by the Birlas, through its charity, the Jayshree Trust, which had got the design of the new construction prepared.  The plan involved breaking up existing shrine – demolishing the existing sabha-mandapa as also the ‘simha dvara’ there and, simultaneously, creating a large ‘garbha-girha’ by constructing an envelope in a massive wall of cement and steel, with a new ‘shikhara’. How this was approved and why it was pushed by the government and the temple board are worth thinking about, but how it got stopped is recorded in government reports and newspapers.

Chandi Prasad Bhatt, the founder of the Chipko Andolan, who was based in Gopeshwar was the person responsible for starting a movement which successfully saved Badrinath’s traditional character from being destroyed. The forgotten story which I will briefly recount is about how this celebrated environmentalist and the top government archaeologist – M.N. Deshpande who was then the Director General of the ASI – became its saviours. The story unfolded in the winter of 1973 when Bhatt first heard about the Birla makeover of Badrinath. Some months after the snows had melted, he launched an agitation which was joined by local people from many of the hill districts, by devotees from other parts of India, and by journalists. It is fascinating to read newspaper reports from that time and get a flavour of the reactions the news evoked. The Uttarakhand Observer of 17th June compared the Birla trust to the East India Company since in the guise of renovation it was attempting to control this holy shrine, a move opposed by local people. There was also a poignant description of how stones removed from the temple in the course of renovation now lay by roadsides – stones that had seen pujas were now being used to make cooking hearths for workers and travellers. Janyuga reported on 4th July that red sandstone from Agra, typical of Birla structures, had reached Badrinath and that from the height of the structure to the stone being used, all seemed to underline that Badrinath, with its historic ‘pahadi shaili’ or Pahadi (hill) style, was on the brink of becoming like Delhi’s Birla Mandir.

Notwithstanding the agitation, the building of a concrete envelope, though, continued to clip along even as the sabha-mandapa was demolished. So, Bhatt took his fight to the government. This is where M.N. Deshpande came in and, from this point onwards, played a crucial role in saving Badrinath. Even though it was not a monument under the protection of the ASI, Deshpande felt that something ought to be urgently done and told Bhatt if he got the work stopped, he would find a way to get the Archaeological Survey to intervene. Bhatt promised he would try to do something within ten days. Which he did. By successfully petitioning U.P. legislators who across party lines, demanded a halt to the renovation work in the legislative assembly. The then Congress government in Uttar Pradesh set up a committee which ensured that the temple work was stopped. Deshpande was made a member of this committee and he would play a proactive role in ensuring that the shrine’s traditional architectural form was preserved and the new concrete walls demolished.

So, what was it that Deshpande pointed out – to which Bhatt had drawn his attention and around which he had led a successful agitation – in his reports and interventions in the Committee? First, that the new design adopted for renovation had nothing in common with the Uttarakhand tradition of construction as exemplified in the temples of Gopeshwar, Baijnath and Jageshwar: ‘I have come to the conclusion,’ he reiterated, ‘that unless the plans are suitably modified, in regard to building material and architectural features, the new construction would not harmonise with the historical and architectural traditions of Uttarakhand.’  Second, the heavy construction that was envisaged as part of the renovation would put undue weight on the base on which the temple stood which was, in any case, being cut by the Alaknanda river current. He argued for strengthening the foundations along the river bank rather than burdening them with new constructions. The close attention that was paid to natural hazards in deciding on the nature or renovations was based on what the committee members had learnt about the damage caused at Badrinath by earthquakes and avalanches in January 1975. While there was damage caused to shops, houses and the power house, the temple was sheltered and was outside the normal path of avalanches. It was therefore suggested by the director of Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh, that in view of this, the temple height should not be further raised. Eventually, the suggestions were accepted, and the cast concrete envelope was demolished ensuring that the charming character of the shrine and the surrounding area remained intact.

For Chandi Prasad Bhatt, safeguarding the Badrinath temple’s traditional form mattered as much as saving trees. It was a vision that M.N. Deshpande shared. Will the present political dispensation learn a lesson from those events? Will it, for reasons of heritage and ecology, not tinker with the landscape and temple area? I do hope the government realises that senselessly spending hundreds of crores to trump a historical temple shrine and its surroundings is ‘adharmic’ and against all that Badrinath stands for.

About The Author

Nayanjot Lahiri