Champaner-Pavagadh – Managing conflicts – A

Structural Analysis of Historic Construction – D’Ayala & Fodde (eds)
© 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-46872-5
Champaner-Pavagadh – Managing conflicts – A conservation challenge
Sonal Mithal Modi
Conservation Architect, People for Heritage Concern, Surat
ABSTRACT: The present paper focuses on the experiences gained, methods used and attitudes assumed while
formulating a management system for the Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park. It brings out the conflicts
which occur when there are several stake holders managing the site; who have good intention but narrow rather
limited purview of action and vision; and ponders whether solutions to these conflicts can be prioritised with
mutual consent as a strategy for effective conservation management of the site.
1
BACKGROUND
Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park is a highly
complex heritage site with a 16th century medieval
Sultanate capital city buried beneath a thick forest
cover and landscape characterised by plateaus, mounds
and streams. (Refer Figure 1). Although stripped off its
glorious past and since forgotten; it is widely visited
by pilgrims from all over the western region of India
as it is one of the Shakti Peeths and also an important
Jain pilgrimage centre. (Refer Figure 2).
Today, with obscure Rajput and Sultanate structures (Refer Figure 3), buried city, temples, myths
and legends passed down since generations by word
of mouth; Champaner-Pavagadh is really a most illustrious example of a heritage site with diverse heritage
components viz., natural, built, traditional knowledge
systems and intangible heritage. It spreads over an area
of approximately 14 sq. km Core Zone and 30 sq. km
Buffer Zone. (Refer Figure 4).
The earliest settlements occurred on the hill during the Rajput regime around 9th century and since
Figure 1. Pavagadh hill.
then several consecutive settlements have come about
on its various plateaus. Each settlement had its own
self sufficient water system making it a unique waterintelligent city.
Figure 2. Kalikamata temple on the summit.
Figure 3. Sultanate Remnants – Khajuri Masjid.
175
Figure 4. Quickbird satellite image of the site.
2
PRESENT STATUS OF SITE
MANAGEMENT
Champaner-Pavagadh was declared a World Heritage
Site by UNESCO in 2004. This is the only example in
India to have been recognised as a site and not as a city
or a group of monuments; and is the only one to have
met four out of the six criteria. What is unique about
this site is its authentic pre-Mughal Sultanate evidence
lying absolutely untouched courtesy the overgrown
forest. This authenticity makes it a very significant
knowledge resource.
Today, the site is being managed by several stake
holders who are either owners of some heritage component or are instrumental in the management of it. They
vary in their aims towards the site and although wellintentioned they are frequently tied down by limited
purview of action and vision. Hence any step towards
an integrated conservation of the site leads to more
often than not a status-quo.
3
Figure 5. Forest destroying the vulnerable heritage.
Figure 6. Gaben Shah Vav.
CONFLICTING AIMS OF STAKE HOLDERS
Forest Department has under its purview a large area
of the site, mainly the Pavagadh Hill and the buried
Sultanate city. The forest act is very powerful and
has successfully controlled development in the forest land thereby protecting the authenticity of the site.
But, at the same time, its obligation of planting fresh
saplings every year has proved to be a big threat to
the archaeological heritage. The roots of the plantations are slowly harming the vulnerable heritage buried
below the earth. (Refer Figure 5). The overgrown forest also makes accessibility to most structures very
difficult leading to their subsequent deterioration.
ASI protects, out of the identified 114 structures,
only a mere 55 and that too in isolation. It has created islands of protected territories within the entire
Archaeological Park. Paradoxically enough, it was the
ASI which nominated this place as a site to WH committee; but when it comes to protection it can not see
beyond its 100/300 m absurd irrational law.
To add to that the State Department of Archaeology has just one monument under its jurisdiction i.e.,
the Gaben Shah Vav. (Refer Figure 6). It protects only
those buildings that are more than a 100 years of age
and only the ones in stone! Its law does not allow for
protection of significant buildings like Iteri Masjid,
Rani no Mahal, etc.; simply because they are brick
structures, in spite of their being important knowledge
resource!
The District Collector and the DDO once spent
enormous money and energy constructing the water
facility at a heritage site. But it happened to fall within
the 300 meter boundary of ASI and had to suffer
demolition even before it started functioning. These
uncalled-for conflicts and a constant struggle for assertion of one authority over the other are is not helping
the site, rather they are wasting resources. A system
is needed which enables co-ordination among various
government departments.
Gram Panchayat promotes programmes for people’s development like repairing of pilgrims’ path,
creation of tourism oriented business opportunity, etc.
Recently, Gram Panchayat has constructed a school in
176
Figure 7. Rampant growth of Kalikamata temple Precinct.
the Gaben Shah precinct! Now they are at logger heads
with the State Department of Archaeology. Where to
develop and how to develop is not known to them!
These people don’t know where to seek answers from
and also whether they are really responsible for their
provision in the most rightful sense.
The local Panchayat is taking emergency measures
to reinstate the traditional water system. The will
to conserve and awareness is there among the local
leaders, but they lack a professional insight. Such initiatives are a big asset for the site. The need is to create
situations for methodical interventions enabling convenience to whoever is concerned and empowered to
take actions.
Temple trust like that of Shahji Sawai nu Deru
has a precinct within the Royal Enclosure. It has
already developed it as a neat RCC structure having
dharamshalas and a new structure over the original
mazar. As it is a private property, the trust has the
freedom to develop the site as it wishes. In such situation it becomes questionable whether a uniformity
and sympathetic growth is valid at all or not. If it is so,
there is a lack of system that can ensure a sensitiveresponsibility and an effective monitoring mechanism
without one body being assertive over the other.
The living temples, which are of archaeological
value, are being modified beyond recognition in the
name of loving care and maintenance. Take for example, Jai Mataji Temple Trust has created fortifications
and loud RCC platforms for the ‘convenience of the
pilgrims’. (Refer Figure 7). Even the pilgrims are
happy about it. But the cultural value of the precinct
is gone for a six. But again, conservation professionals have no right to ‘preserve’ the sanctity of this
place as they understand simply because they are convinced about its value for their profession’s sake alone.
What is actually needed is a system which discourages
haphazard interventions, and encourages pertinent
development strategies resonant of the cultural values
of the place?
PWD has proposed widening of the State highway
that passes thru the site and it also seeks to widen the
road going up to Machi! Now, if the priority is effective
transportation of the people, road widening cannot be
Figure 8. State highway cutting through the Fort Wall.
the only solution. (Refer Figure 8). They are oblivious
to or are ignorant about proposals of battery operated
vehicles vying between the visitor centre and Machi
so as relieve parking pressures on the Machi plateau.
The state highway has been proposed to be re-routed
to avoid thorough traffic in the site. But the proposals
at times fail to reach the right target, hurdling effective
implementation.
Champaner-Pavagadh is a water-intelligent city,
envisaged so in the Rajput times and refined during
the Sultanate era. At one point of time, it catered to
a populace of 50,000 today it is unable to quench a
mere 5,000 owing to sheer lack of knowledge about the
traditional water system. In spite of recent researches
and local campaigns Irrigation Department wishes to
remain oblivious to such knowledge and is proposing a huge subsidiary canal from Narmada canal to
be brought in to Wada Talao destroying the heritage
underneath. When there are ways of avoiding destruction authorities responsible should take sympathetic
attitudes, rising above individual agendas. Perhaps
in the light of a missing management system, such
conflicts are bound to occur.
Field owners have been carrying out agricultural
activities for over 200 years now, which have already
resulted in the loss of important archaeological evidence. They need to irrigate their fields and so creation
of canals, digging, etc. is widespread. Their interest is
their right. Then the academic conservation becomes
weak for management of such a heritage site. Amity
has to be ensured between these conflicting situations.
NGOs like Heritage Trust have no ownership, but
they have in their kitty ‘concerned and sensitive professionals’ and so were entrusted the task of repairing
Malik Sandal ni Vav at Mandvi village. The conservation intervention may have been done correctly; it may
have had flaws too? Who monitors such actions? The
funding agency is merely concerned about the immediate product-oriented targets set and is blithe about the
177
Figure 11. Champaner village.
Figure 9. Malik Sandal Vav before repair work.
Figure 12. Tourists/pilgrims are a big stake holder.
Figure 10. Malik Sandal Vav during repair work.
relevance of individual interventions vis-à-vis the over
all site. (Refer Figures 9, 10). Because such projects
can only be granted to individual professionals, there
is a need for a system that safeguards a consistency
among all such individual conservation interventions
in such a complex site.
Residents of the Champaner village who unfortunately stay within the Royal Enclosure cannot even
get a toilet constructed in their house, because it falls
within the ASI protection. (Refer Figure 11). These
residents have been staying here long before the enactment of ASI law, yet they have to suffer. It is difficult
to ensure hygiene and good life-style to local residents
if ASI laws remain as stringent without any scope for
flexibility.
Tourism Department is happy having their agendas relegated to mere provision of public conveniences
when today the site needs educative, interactive, participatory modes of tourism especially, in the wake of
this being an intense pilgrimage site and a potential
knowledge resource. (Refer Figures 12, 13).
Figure 13. Wayside deities enroute to Kalikamata temple.
Western railways have an abandoned railway track
cutting through the forest on the site. This can innovatively be clubbed with the tourism experience, it being
a fantastic resource. A system has to look at potentials
and constraints of such resources lying strewn across
the site.
A vast number of pilgrims and tourists visiting the
site make it very susceptible. They are a major source
granting stable economy to the local residents so key
178
efforts go into pleasing them often overlooking the
vulnerability of the site.
4
REASONS FOR OCCURRENCE OF
CONFLICTS
Main conflicts arise:
1. Due to non availability of complete information
regarding various issues to each stake holder.
2. Due to vast amount of cultural resources lying unpossessed and hence unattended by any agenda of
any stake holder.
3. Due to pilgrim/tourist oriented opportunities which
make the site economically self-sustained but also
highly vulnerable.
4. Due to the presence of a living village whose aspiration of a better life-style can never be overlooked
on any grounds whatsoever.
5
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Hence a four point agenda has been formulated
which enables management of Information, Cultural Resource, Visitor/Pilgrim, Site or the Physical
Resource.
The Management plan proposed is an attempt at
prioritising actions and at reducing conflicts if not
doing away with them altogether. Govt of Gujarat, with
the constant persuasive efforts of Heritage Trust, has
recently instituted a legal authority with such intentions. But it is still a long way before various stake
holders open up their constricted vision and co-operate
towards a peaceful co-existence. Convenient misinterpretations of the authority by lazy officials are leading
to several bottlenecks in the development procedures,
yet all efforts are being made to ensure a continued
collaborative effort between Panchayat, government
bodies and professionals.
6
CONCLUDING REMARK
It is indispensable that Conservation is integral to an Urban Planning Process enabling a
Progress-Oriented-Approach because… Heritage is
living… ageing… and… it wants to let fade away… to
give way to a people’s right to human living
conditions.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfieri, Bianca M. 2000. Islamic Architecture of the Indian
Subcontinent, Ahmedabad: Mapin Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Bayley, Sir Edward C. 1970. The local Mohammadan Dynasties, Gujarat, New Delhi: S. Chand and Co. Ltd.
Brown, P. 1996. Indian Architecture – Islamic Period, Bombay: D B Taraporewala Sons & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Burgess, J. & Cousen, H. 1975. Architectural Antiquities of
Northern Gujarat, Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Burgess, J. 1994. Muhammadan Architecture of Bharuch,
Cambay, Dholka, Champanir, and Mahmudabad in
Gujarat, New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Department of Landscape. 2001. Champaner-Pavagadh
Archaeological Park Plan, Urbana Champaign: University
of Illinois.
Chavan, A. R. 1966. The Flora of Pavagadh, Baroda: Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, M. S. University.
People for Heritage Concern. 2001. Cultural Resource
Information System – Inventory of Built Heritage of
Champaner-Pavagadh, Baroda: Heritage Trust.
Faridi, Fazlullah L. 1990. Mirat-i-Sikandari – A Study of
Medieval History of Gujarat, Gurgaon: Vintage Books.
Modi, Sonal M. 2002. Water Intelligent City, Landscapes of Water, History, Innovation and Sustainable
Design, Politechnico di Bari – Facolta di Architettura, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Ingehneria Civile e
dell’Architettura (ICAR), Bari, Regione Puglia, Italy.
Goetz, H. 1949. Journal of the Gujarat Research Society,
Volume XI, Issue No. 2.
Joshi, G. 1999. Pavagadh Darshan, Ahmedabad: Chiragh
Printers.
Mehta, R. N. 1979. Champaner – An Experiment in Medieval
Archaeology, Baroda: Ajanta Publications.
Mehta, R. N. 1979. Champaner – Ek Adhyayan, Baroda:
Maharaja Sayajirao University.
Mendonca, Francis A. 1981. Chronica do Reyno de Gusarate,
Ed., Misra S. C. & Mathew K. S., Department of History,
Faculty of Arts, Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda.
Modi, S. 2004. Impressions of a Forgotten City – Architectural Documentation of Champaner-Pavagadh, New
Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India & Heritage Trust
Baroda.
Misra, S. C.1985. Tarikh-i-Mahmus Shahi, Baroda: Department of History, Faculty of Arts, The Maharaja Sayaji Rao
University of Baroda.
Patel, G. D. 1972. Gazetteer of India – Panchmahals District,
Gujarat Ahmedabad: Government Publications Depot.
Sandesara, B. J. 1973. Translation of Gangadhar Pranitam, Gangdas Pratapvilasa Natkam, A Historical Sanskrit
Play, Composed 1449, Baroda: Oriental Institute.
Thakur, N. 1987. Champaner- draft Action Plan for Integrated
Conservation, Baroda: Heritage Trust.
Thakur, N. 2000. Note on the legal Status of Champaner,
Unpublished.
Thakur, N. 2000. Participatory Conservation Collaborative:
A Regeneration Programme for Champaner-Pavagadh,
Unpublished.
Thakur, N. 2000. Archaeological Park as a tool for Integrated Protecting Heritage Management with Planning
Process: The case of the deserted 15th century capital site,
Champaner-Pavagadh, Gujarat, Goa.
Tripathi, K. 1971. Pravasdham Pavagadh; Baroda: Diamond
Publication.
Watson, J. W.1877. The Indian Antiquary, A Journal of
Oriental Research, Vol. VI.
179