The condition of the centuries-old Shiva temple at Baijnath, one of Himachal Pradesh’s most revered and historically significant shrines, is steadily deteriorating as due to a prolonged deadlock between the temple trust and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), even basic repair and maintenance works have not been undertaken.
Ironically, the Shiva Temple Trust is understood to have crores of rupees at its disposal but is unable to undertake essential repairs, and as a result several parts of the temple complex are in a poor and deteriorating condition.
The temple, believed to be around 800 years old, is a protected heritage monument under the ASI. While the protection is intended to safeguard its architectural and historical character, local stakeholders say that the restrictions have become a major hurdle in carrying out even routine maintenance.
Baijnath SDM Sankalp Gautam, who is the Assistant Commissioner of the Temple Trust, says that it has on several occasions initiated the repair of the staircase, renovation of the main entrance and the improvement of washrooms but were stopped due to intervention by the ASI on the grounds that alterations or the repair of a protected monument cannot be undertaken without the requisite approval.
Locals allege that it has led to a peculiar situation where the temple trust is unable to spend the available funds on urgent maintenance work. Over the past decade, the condition of the temple complex has deteriorated. Worn-out portions, deteriorating public facilities and inadequate maintenance have become a matter of concern for devotees as well as local residents.
The issue assumes greater significance given the large number of devotees and tourists visiting Baijnath throughout the year. The temple is not merely a place of worship but also an important heritage and tourism landmark of Kangra district.
Local residents and devotees ask why the ASI, the temple trust and the state administration have failed to evolve a mechanism to carry out essential repairs without compromising the monument’s heritage character.
They argue that the heritage protection should not mean allowing a historic monument and its surrounding public facilities to deteriorate. Instead, the ASI and the temple trust should jointly prepare a comprehensive conservation and maintenance plan, clearly identifying works that can be undertaken by the trust and those requiring specialised ASI intervention.
The devotees want the authorities concerned to resolve the jurisdictional and procedural hurdles and ensure that the funds available with the temple trust are utilised for the preservation of the historic shrine and the improvement of facilities for visitors.
For a monument that has survived for eight centuries, locals say another decade of administrative inaction can prove far more damaging.
