Bhubaneswar: True to the saying, ‘Politics is just a crucial part of archaeology’, Odisha has seemingly erupted over the ‘draft’ heritage bye-laws issued by the National Monument Authority (NMA).
Significantly, the NMA had not notified the draft bye-laws only for the protected national monuments in Odisha, the apex authorities have framed such draft bye-laws for three temples in West Bengal on the same date (January 18).
While not a murmur is heard over the NMA bye-laws in the neighbouring West Bengal, politics took the centre-stage in Odisha as the Naveen Patnaik-led State government has announced two projects – Shree Jagannath Heritage Corridor (Puri) and Ekamra Kshetra Development Projects (Bhubaneswar) – on lines of the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor Project.
BYE-LAWS – A MURPHY’S LAW?
Taking a cue from the SJTA letter, the Khurda Collector’s missive to the NMA urging the withdrawal of the draft laws notified for Anant Vasudev and Brameshwar Temple harps on the impact of the bye-laws on the servitors (sevayats) of the temple of Lord Lingaraj. (Read the excerpts of the Letter below)
Incidentally, the day Collector, Khurda dashed off a letter to the NMA, the servitors of the Lord Lingaraj Temple held a press conference where they dubbed the move by NMA as ‘political’.
“The bye-laws will bring hardship for the servitors residing in the regulated and prohibited zones. If we are to be displaced, then it will affect the rituals. For repair or any other construction, we have to run to NMA. This is a political move to stall the work of BJD government,” charged BN Pati, Secretary Brahmin Nijog.
BYE-LAWS: A REALITY CHECK
“The heritage bye-laws will not lead to the displacement of any household from the prescribed zones. Any house built prior to the year 1992 is considered valid in the bye-laws. Even, constructions after the cut-off date will be considered valid, provided they have due permissions from the competent urban development authorities. The laws only put a cap on new constructions,” explained Archaeology Survey India (ASI), Bhubaneswar Zone Head, Arun Malik.
He, however, added that the bye-laws are nothing new, except the element of restrictions on the height and facades of the structures in harmony with the protected national monument.
“No individual will apply for NOC to NMA, Delhi. The competent authority in Odisha is the Director of Culture, Odisha government. When the State’s competent authority gives the clearance, NOC will be issued by NMA,” Malik outlined.
IS ODISHA GOVT IN SAME BOAT WITH NMA?
While the State Government has suddenly taken a strident position on the proposed bye-laws by NMA now, rewind to 1982 revealed how the State government had then spoken the language of NMA, though on paper.
It had clearly outlined that an ‘Art Committee’ headed by State Urban Development Secretary will be formed, which will be the competent authority to decide on the type of construction work that is to be taken out in the heritage zones. (See the image below)
Even, the Odisha Development Authority rules 2020 very clearly outlined the State government’s resolve to build a heritage zone comprising protected and archaeologically significant monuments.
It unambiguously says, “The buildings and structures in the heritage zone will be guided by the norms outlined in the ‘Handbook of Conservation of Heritage Buildings’ formulated by the Central public Works Department (CPWD).” (See the image below)
The big watch out fact here is the ‘Handbook’ talked about restrictions on construction works in the Heritage zones, exactly what the NMA has notified now. (See the image below)
WHY THE WITHDRAW CHORUS THEN?
Since the Naveen Patnaik-led BJD government seems to be trying to milk its ambitious temple development projects the most, the powers that be, it appears, consider the NMA bye-laws as bumps for its discretionary overdrive.
“Before finalising the temple development projects, the State government should have evaluated the archaeological significance in the heritage projects as mandated by Odisha government’s own statutes. Rather, the projects were cleared by bureaucrats without the involvement of heritage experts,” opined Anil Dhir, heritage expert, INTACH.