Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:29:59.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Devotion, Antiquity, and Colonial Custody of the Hindu Temple in British India*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2012

DEBORAH SUTTON
DEBORAH SUTTON*
Affiliation:
Department of History, Lancaster University Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1904, the British Indian government passed the Ancient Monuments Protection Act and, in doing so, radically enlarged the state's bureaucratic claim to structures defined, for the purposes of the Act, as monuments. The project of conserving the Hindu temple was beset by disagreements. The claims of the colonial state and local Hindu devotees were separated by different precepts about religiosity and alternate orders of aesthetics, time, and history. However, it is clear that there were also confluences: legislative authority could masquerade as custody of the antiquarian and, in practice, the secular veneration of material antiquity blurred with Hindu divinity. This paper combines an exploration of the principles of archaeological conservation, as they were formed in the European bourgeois imagination, and then traces their transfer, though imperial administration, to case-studies of specific temples. Of particular interest is the deployment of the Act by local administrations and the counter-challenges, appropriations, and manipulations of the same legislation. How were the aesthetic codes of conservation—and the legislation that sought to order and enforce their introduction—compromised by religious claims and practices?

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 135 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Research for this paper was supported by the British Academy, the Leverhulme Trust, and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Lancaster University. Versions of this paper were presented at the European Association of South Asian Studies Conference, 2008; the British Association of South Asian Studies Conference, 2010; and at the American Historical Association Conference, January 2011. I would like to acknowledge the great assistance given by David Smith of the Department of Religious Studies, Lancaster University, in the development of this work.

References

1 The historical literature concerning these anxieties and the legislation that was passed is extensive and covers a vast range of subjects: the practice of widow immolation; family law, including inheritance and adoption; pilgrimage; the oversight of religious institutions; and endowments. Key texts concerning the legislation of Hindu practice and institutions include: Appadurai, Arjun. (2008). Worship and Conflict under Colonial Rule: A South Indian Case. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Mani, Lata. (1998). Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India. Berkeley; Los Angeles, University of California Press; Breckenridge, Carol. (1977). ‘From Protector to Litigant: Changing Relations between Hindu Temples and the Raja of Ramnad’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 14:1, pp. 75–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Marshall, John. (1923). Conservation Manual: A handbook for the use of archaeological officers and other entrusted with the care of ancient monuments. Superintendent Government Printing, India, CalcuttaGoogle Scholar. This manual was designed to replace the existing guide, The Military Works Handbook.

3 Guha-Thakurta, Tapati. (2004). Monuments, Objects, Histories: Institutions of art in colonial and postcolonial India. University of Columbia Press, New York, p. 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 John Marshall, ‘Note on Archaeology’, Proceedings of the Government of Bombay, General Department, Archaeology, 1915, pp. 71–86. OIOC.

5 Boulting, Nikolaus. (1976). ‘The Law's Delays: Conservationist legislation in the British Isles’, in Fawcett, Jane. ed. The Future of the Past: Attitudes to conservation 1174–1974. Thames and Hudson, LondonGoogle Scholar.

6 Nikolaus Pevsner dates the first debates over the revival and survival of medieval Gothic style to the aftermath of the English Civil War (1642–1651) and traces its intensification at the end of the eighteenth century. Pevsner, Nikolaus. (1976). ‘Scrape and Anti-scrape’, in Fawcett, The Future of the Past.

7 Anon. (1842). ‘On Competition among Architects’, Ecclesiologist, 1:5, p. 66.

8 Pevsner, ‘Scrape and Anti-scrape’, p.43; Miele, Christopher. (1996). ‘The First Conservationist Militants: William Morris and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings’, in Hunter, Michael. Preserving the Past: The rise of heritage in modern Britain. Alan Sutton, Stroud, pp. 17–37Google Scholar.

9 Criticisms of restoration had been voiced by others from the late-eighteenth century, but with little success. Pevsner, ‘Scrape and Anti-scrape’, pp. 42–43; Committee SPAB. (1903). Notes on the Repair of Ancient Buildings, Issued by the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. The Committee: Sold by B. T. Batsford, LondonGoogle Scholar. Miele, Christopher. (1995). ‘“A Small Knot of Cultivated People”: William Morris and ideologies of protection’, Art Journal, 54:2, pp. 73–79Google Scholar; Miele, ‘The First Conservationist Militants’.

10 Trevithick, Alan. (1999). ‘British Archaeologists, Hindu Abbots, and Burmese Buddhists: The Mahabodhi temple at Bodh Gaya, 1811–1877’, Modern Asian Studies, 33:3, p. 647CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Trevithick, ‘British Archaeologists, Hindu Abbots’, p. 648. The move from exploration to collection is described in Guha-Thakurta, Monuments, Objects, Histories, p. 55.

12 Cole, H. H. (1881). Preservation of National Monuments, Bombay Presidency. Ahmedabad. Poona. Karli. Ambarnath. Elephanta. 5 July 1881, Preliminary Report. Government Central Branch Press, SimlaGoogle Scholar.

13 The remit and organization of the Archaeological Department are laid out in the Resolution of the Government of India, Home Department (Archaeology and Epigraphy), no. 134–146, 28 April 1906. OIOC.

14 Curzon, 1899, in a speech to the Asiatic Society, quoted in Vogel, J. Ph. (1921). ‘The Preservation of Ancient Monuments in India’, Journal of the East Indian Association, p. 88.

15 ‘Note by Director General of Archaeology regarding archaeological programme for Delhi Province’, Proceedings of the Department of Education, Archaeology and Epigraphy, March 1914, pp. 53–61. OIOC.

16 John Marshall, ‘Note on Archaeology’, Proceedings of the Government of Bombay, General Department, Archaeology, 1915, pp. 71–86. OIOC.

17 ‘Note by the Director General of Archaeology on the work of the Archaeological Survey Department in India’, Government of Bombay, General Department Proceedings for June 1905. OIOC.

18 Fergusson, James. (1910). History of Indian and Eastern Architecture. John Murray, London, Vol. II, p. 95Google Scholar.

19 Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, p. 92.

20 Fergusson, History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, p. 99.

21 Draft letter to the Chief Secretary of Government and to the Director General of Archaeology, 1918. Kolkata Archaeological Survey of India (hereafter referred to in the footnotes as ASI), Temples of Bhubaneswar, Orissa, no. 26. ERC.

22 The relative prosperity of the Lingaraj temple was sufficient to merit the creation of a Temple Committee under the terms of the Religious Endowments Act of 1863.

23 Babu Pryanath Chatterji, Member, Bhubaneswar Temple Committee, to Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Eastern Section, Bengal, 29 January 1911. Government of Bengal and Orissa, Education Department, Archaeology branch, File VIIIE/5, 1913. SAO.

24 A. H. Longhurst, ‘Conservation Notes on the Puri District’, Temples of Bhubaneswar, Orissa, 1911, File No. 26. ERC.

25 Longhurst, ‘Conservation Notes on the Puri District’.

26 D. B. Spooner to Secretary of State of Bengal, General Department, 30 January 1911. Government of Bengal and Orissa, Education Department, Archaeology branch, no. 3, 1913. SAO.

27 D. B. Spooner to Secretary to Government, Bengal, General Department, 30 January 1911. Temples of Bhubaneswar, Orissa, 1911, File no. 26. ERC.

28 These were: i. Bhaskareswar; ii. Mukteswar; iii. Brahmeswar; iv. Parasurameswar; v. Maitreswar; vi. Sari Deul; vii. Chitrakarani; viii. Rajarani; ix. Sahasaraling Tank; x. Anant Vasudev; xi. Jambeswar; xii. Raitul; xiii. Mukteswar; xiv. Sidheswar.

29 Sevaks or sebaks were devotees who claimed to be invested with some appointed task or position within established routines of puja.

30 Report by B. S. Mardraj, Tahsildar, 8 September 1911. Government of Bengal and Orissa, Education Department, Archaeology branch, no. 3, 1913. SAO.

31 B. A. Collins, Under-Secretary to the Government of Bihar and Orissa, Education Department, to Commissioner of Orissa Division, 24 August 1912. Education Department, Archaeology branch, Government of Bengal and Orissa, File VIIIE/5, 1913. SAO.

32 B. A. Collins, Under-Secretary to the Government of Bihar and Orissa, Education Department, to Commissioner of Orissa Division, 24 August 1912. Education Department, Archaeology branch, Government of Bihar and Orissa, File VIIIE/5, 1913. SAO.

33 A reference to Curzon's speech in the Legislative Council. Rama Ballabh Misra, District Officer, Puri, to Cuttack, Commissioner of the Orissa Division, 16–17 September 1913. Education Department, Archaeology branch, Government of Bihar and Orissa, File VIIIE/5, 1913. SAO.

34 ‘The Regulation does not bind down the Government to preserve the temples but defines the policy of the Paramount Power to see to the repair of public edifices erected by the former or present Government or individuals’, G. C. Paharaj, Government Pleader, Puri, to Collector of Puri, 13 September 1913. Education Department, Archaeology branch, Government of Bihar and Orissa, File VIIIE/5, 1913. SAO.

35 See Black, Henry Campbell. (1891 first edition; 1990 sixth edition). Black's Law Dictionary. West Publishing Company, St Paul, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar. This interpretation elaborated the existing interception of Hindu practices of gifting and the management of the gods by the colonial judiciary. See Duff, P. W. (1929). ‘The Personality of an Idol’, The Cambridge Law Journal, 3, pp. 42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sontheimer, Günther-Dietz. (1964). ‘Religious Endowments in India: The juristic personality of Hindu deities’, Zeitschrift für vergl. Rechtswissenschaft, 67, pp. 45–100Google Scholar; Birla, Ritu. (2009). Stages of Capital: Law, culture and market governance in late colonial India. Duke University Press, Durham, Chapter 2Google Scholar.

36 See footnote 28.

37 E. H. Johnston, Under Secretary to the Government of Bengal and Orissa, to Commissioner of Orissa Division, 26 August 1915. Kolkata ASI, Temples of Bhubaneswar, Orissa, no. 26. ERC.

38 Blakiston, J. F. (1927) Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1924–1925. Calcutta, Government of India Central Publication BranchGoogle Scholar.

39 Draft letter to Chief Secretary of Government and to Director General of Archaeology, 1918. Kolkata ASI, Temples of Bhubaneswar, Orissa, no. 26. ERC.

40 John Marshall, Director General of Archaeology, to D. B. Spooner, 25 June 1918. Kolkata ASI, Temples of Bhubaneswar, Orissa, no. 26. ERC.

41 J. H. Marshall, ‘Archaeological Remains in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa’, 28 February 1905, para 89, DGA. Conservation Notes (Bengal and Orissa), File LOT-31, ASI, Kolkata. ERC.

42 Burgess, James, in a footnote to Fergusson, James. (1910). History of Indian and Eastern Architecture. John Murray, London, Vol. II, p. 104Google Scholar; Bloch, T. Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1902–1903, pp. 45–46.

43 J. H. Marshall, Director General of Archaeology, to D. B. Spooner, 22 June 1918. Kolkata ASI, Temples of Bhubaneswar, Orissa, no. 26. ERC.

44 Marshall to Spooner, 22 June 1918.

45 ‘The mistakes made at Bhubaneswar in copying sculptures and other motifs calling for artistic sincerity certainly must not be repeated’: note by D. B. Spooner, 20 October 1911. File C.154, ASI, Central Provinces and Berar. ERC.

46 Conservation Note on the Lingaraja Temple at Bhuvanesvar by K. N. Dikshit, Offg. Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Eastern Circle, 14 July 1919. GoBO, Education Department, Archaeology branch, B Proc., December 1921, nos. 7–49. SOA.

47 Proceedings of the Department of Education, Archaeology and Epigraphy, February 1919; Proceedings of the Department of Education, Archaeology and Epigraphy, December 1919. OIOC.

48 Note on file, 1 April 1919, signed M. M. and Sharp, with a newspaper cutting sent by the Political Department: Repairs to the Lingaraj Temple at Bhubaneswar and its further maintenance. Government of Bengal and Orissa, Education Department, Archaeology branch, December 1921, nos. 7–49, file XIE/39. SAO.

49 In 1922, the imperial government sanctioned Rs2,410 for the repairs to be carried out, a fraction of the original estimate of Rs71,000. Spooner, D. B. (Officiating Director General of Archaeology in India). (1922). Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1922–1923. Government of India, Simla, p. 41Google Scholar.

50 For the purposes of administering archaeological research and conservation work, British India was divided into ‘circles’ from the beginning of the twentieth century, though these circles were frequently readjusted or merged.

51 Spooner, Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1922–1923, p. 2.

52 Spooner, Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1922–1923, pp. 2–3.

53 Henry Cousens, superintendent of the Western Circle, complained that it ‘crowded out all original exploration’. Henry Cousens, Superintendent, Western Circle, to Secretary to Government, General Department, 4 April 1907. Proceedings of Government of Bombay, General Department, Archaeology, January 1908. OIOC.

54 Resolution, Government of India, Department of Education, Archaeology, 22 October 1915. Proceedings of the Government of Bombay, General Department, Archaeology, 1915, pp. 71–86. Vogel, J. P. (1912). ‘Notes by Dr Vogel on the Rearrangement of Circles and Redistribution of Work and Possibilities of Economy Arising There From’, The Conference of Orientalists Including Museums and Archaeology Conference Held at Simla, July 1911, Government Central Branch Press, Simla, p. 131Google Scholar.

55 Charges Against the Officers of the Public Works Department in the Central Provinces in Connection with the Conservation of Ancient Monuments, October 1912. Proceedings no. 1–2, pp. 357–60. Proceedings of the Department of Education, Archaeology and Epigraphy, 1912. OIOC.

56 Henry Cousens pointed out that when the Act specified the requirement of ‘cleansing’ for the purposes of preservation, this would be universally understood in India to require whitewashing. H. Cousens, Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Bombay and Berar, to Secretary to Government, General Department, 8 December 1903. Government of Bombay, General Department Proceedings for the Year 1904 (Archaeology). OIOC. Various files, ASI Central Provinces and Berar, ASI Kolkata. ERC.

57 Marshall, Conservation Manual, p. 25.

58 Marshall, Conservation Manual, p. 25.

59 J. F. Blakiston, Assistant Superintendent, Eastern Circle, Conservation Note on the Ancient Monuments in and near Vishnupur, Bankura District, Bengal, 11 July 1915. General Miscellany Department, File 9A-20, October 1915, nos. 30–105, ‘Archaeological remains in the Burdwan Division’. SAB.

60 D. B. Spooner to Director General of Archaeology, dateless draft, 1911. Temples of Bhubaneswar, Orissa, 1911. File no. 26, ASI, Kolkata, 1904–1978. ERC. T. Bloch to Superintending Engineer, Orissa, 5 August 1909, ‘Archaeological Department, Central Circle, Bhubaneswar’. File no. 9, 1900–1910. ERC.

61 ‘Attempts are made to enforce the removal of whitewash at the Shiva temple in Deobaloda in Durg District’, File C61, ASI, Central Provinces and Berar. ERC.

62 Proceedings of the Department of Education, Archaeology and Epigraphy, October 1919, 257–258.

63 This is noted by Orr, Leslie. (2008). ‘What is a Temple and Who Does it Belong to? Answers for colonial Madras’, Unpublished paper, Annual Conference on South Asia, Madison, October.

64 Conservation Notes by A. H. Longhurst, ‘Shiva Temple at Deobaloda in Durg District’. File C. 61, ASI, Central Provinces and Berar. ERC.

65 Letter from an engineer who served in the reconstruction to G. C. Chandra, Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Central Circle, 11 June 1937. File C78, ASI, Central Provinces and Berar. ERC.

66 Letter from an engineer who served in the reconstruction to G. C. Chandra, Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Central Circle, 11 June 1937. File C78, ASI, Central Provinces and Berar. ERC.

67 The episodic renewal of a working temple, generally financed by donations made specifically for that purpose, is known as jeernodharanam in Sanskrit and tirupani in Tamil.

68 Marshall, Conservation Manual, p. 11.

69 Director General of Archaeology to all Superintendents of Archaeology, 11 January 1922, Education Department. Miscellaneous, File 9A-28, July 1922, nos. B51–53, ‘Insertion of a new clause in agreements for the preservation of religious buildings’. SAB.

70 This latter term is derived from Bengal case-law concerning more general questions of the custody of divine images. It was used extensively in the literature to describe sevaks who claimed a right to care for and obtain a living from the custody of temple and/or images of gods. See Wilson, H. H. (1855). A glossary of judicial and revenue terms and of useful words occurring in official documents relating to the administration of the government of British India, from the Arabic, Persian, Hindustani, Sanskrit, Hindi, Bengali, Uriya, Marathi, Guzarathi, Telugu, Karnata, Tamil, Malayalam and other languages. W. H. Allen, LondonGoogle Scholar.

71 One extreme example was that of two Siva temples nominated for protection by Babu Baney Madhub Banerjee of Calcutta. On inspection, the two temples were found to be ‘utterly worthless structures’. D. B. Spooner, Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Eastern Circle, to Secretary to Government of Bengal, General Department, 22 March 1911. General Miscellany Department, File 9A-3, April 1911, no. 148–153. SAB.

72 Board of Revenue (Land Revenue) to C. J. Weir, Commissioner of Land Revenue, 3 January 1908. File 1B-102, ASI Kolkata, Ganjam District. ERC.

73 On the dispute over the conservation of Bodh Gaya, see Lahiri, N. (1999). ‘Bodh Gaya: An ancient Buddhist shrine and its modern history (1891–1904)’. In Insoll, Timothy (ed.), Case Studies in Archaeology and World Religion. BAR International Series 755, Oxford, pp. 33–43Google Scholar.

74 Governor of Bengal, General Department, to Archaeological Surveyor, Bengal Circle, 25 August 1903. General Department Proceedings, August 1903, no. 273–276, ‘Conservation and Preservation of Archaeological Remains. Re-occupation and misuse of mosques’.

75 The lintel was decorated with the nine planetary deities. The plan to move the stone in 1867 rested on borrowing one of the cars used at the Jugganath Festival in Puri. Lieutenant G. Nolan, Executive Engineer, Poree Division, to A. G. Crommelin, Superintending Engineer, Cuttack Circle, 4 May 1866. Government of Bengal, General Department, General Proceedings, nos. 18–20, August 1867, pp. 10–11. SAB.

76 Secretary to Government of Bengal, General Department, to Archaeological Surveyor, Bengal Circle, 25 August 1903. General Department, Miscellaneous, August 1903, no. 273–276. SAB.

77 R. E. Russell, Officiating Collector of Puri, to the Commissioner of Orissa, 8 February 1921. Government of Bihar and Orissa, Education Department, Archaeology branch, B procs., December 1921, nos. 50–71. SAO.

78 R. E. Russell, Officiating Collector of Puri, to the Commissioner of Orissa, 8 February 1921. Government of Bihar and Orissa, Education Department, Archaeology branch, B procs., December 1921, nos. 50–71. SAO.

79 R. E. Russell, Officiating Collector of Puri, to the Commissioner of Orissa Division, 8 February 1921. Government of Bihar and Orissa, Education Department, Archaeology branch, December 1921, nos. 50–71. SAO.

80 Magistrate, Puri, to Commissioner, Orissa Division, 4 March 1915. GoBO, Education Department, Archaeology branch, September 1915, nos. 1–61. SAO. A note by J. C. B. Drake comments that Deb's opinion ‘probably represents the facts but his views on matters of this kind have, perhaps, to be treated with caution’.

81 Sebaks of Navagraha Thakurs, Kanarak, to Chief Secretary to Government, Bengal and Orissa, 3 February 1915. GoBO, Education Department, Archaeology branch, September 1915, nos. 1–61. SAO.

82 For example, the Sita Devi temple, Deorbija, in Durg District, Conservation Note, Deobhija Temple, 13 November 1951. File C63, Central Circle, Patna, 1937. ERC.

83 Annual Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, 1922–1923, p. 111.

84 K. N. Dikshit, Conservation Note on the Temple at Garui, District Burdwan, 6 June 1928. File no. 99, 1931–1948, ASI, Kolkata.

85 Dibakar Mikherjea, for villagers of Garui, to Collector of Burdwan, 8 March 1932. File no. 99, 1931–1948, ASI, Kolkata.

86 The bargir were mercenaries employed by Raghuji Bhosale in his attacks on eastern India in the mid-eighteenth century. The raiders are a recurrent feature in memories concerned with place and migration in eastern India. See, for example, Chakrabarty, Dipesh. (1995). ‘Remembered Villages: Representations of Hindu-Bengali memories in the aftermath of the partition’, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 18:1, pp. 109–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Collector of Burdwan to Superintendent, ASI, Eastern Circle, 8 July 1932. File no. 99, 1931–1948, ASI, Kolkata.

88 Superintendent, Archaeological Survey, Eastern Circle, to District Magistrate, Burdwan, 13 January 1936. File no. 99, 1931–1948, ASI, Kolkata.

89 Now in the state of Chhattisgarh.

90 Archaeological Surveyor, Central Circle, to Secretary of Government, Central Provinces, Public Works Department, 13 July 1933. File 20/1915, ASI, Central Provinces and Berar. ERC.

91 K. P. Sarathy, Home and Judicial Member, to Sub-Divisional Officer, Danterwara, 17 September 1943. File C63, Central Circle, Patna, 1937. ERC.

92 ‘Descriptive Report of the Conservation work to Mama Bhanja temple at Barsur. . ., by N. K. Karandikar, Poona Archaeological Department, April and May, 1941’. For the repair of Mama Bhaja temple at Barsur along with its correspondence, papers, etc. and conservation and protection to temples of Bastar, see File no. 14/1941, ASI, Central Province and Berar. ERC.

93 N. K. Karandikar, Report of the Special Repairs carried out at the Narainpal temple at Narainpal during 14 January to 12 March 1942, File no. 14/1941, ASI, Central Province and Berar. ERC.

94 N. K. Karandikar to the State Engineer, Bastar State, Kagdalpur, 27 January 1942. File no. 14/1941, ASI, Central Province and Berar. ERC.

95 Miele, ‘The First Conservationist Militants’, p. 20.

96 This term describes recollections that are ‘premised on the idea that for them to subsist something else must go’. See Appadurai, A. (2001). ‘The Globalization of Archaeology and Heritage: A discussion with Arjun Appadurai’, Journal of Social Archaeology, 1:1, p. 44Google Scholar.

97 Tripathi, Alok. (2007). The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (with Rules, Amendments, Notifications and Orders). Sundeep Prakashan, DelhiGoogle Scholar.

98 B. D. Jatti, Lieutenant Governor of Pondicherry, to B. B. Lal, Director General of Archaeology, 17 June 1970. ‘Rajarani Temple at Bhubaneswar, District Puri, Orissa’, File M-2G/14, January 1967 to April 1976, ASI, Bhubaneswar. ERC.

99 The Lingaraj Temple Committee made a similar request, though they specified the reinstallation of Uma-Mahesvara. Executive Officer, Lord Lingaraj Temple Endowment, to Secretary, Government of Orissa, Cultural Affairs Department, 14 November 1970. ‘Rajarani Temple at Bhubaneswar, District Puri, Orissa’, File M-2G/14, January 1967 to April 1976, ASI, Bhubaneswar. ERC.

100 S. K. Mukherjaa, Superintendent Archaeologist, Eastern Circle, to M. N. Deshpande, Director General of Archaeology, 5 July 1973. ‘Rajarani Temple at Bhubaneswar, District Puri, Orissa’, File M-2G/14, January 1967 to April 1976, ASI, Bhubaneswar. ERC.

101 S. M. Das, Conservation Assistant to Superintendent Archaeologist, Eastern Circle, 23 July 1973. ‘Rajarani Temple at Bhubaneswar, District Puri, Orissa’, File M-2G/14, January 1967 to April 1976, ASI, Bhubaneswar. ERC.

102 Fourth Meeting of the Expert Committee of Sri Jagannath Temple, 29 February 1978, Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri. File no. M-2G/32/1978, ASI, Bhubaneswar Circle. ERC.

103 Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri. File no. M-2G/32/1978, ASI, Bhubaneswar Circle. ERC.

104 Most recently in September 2007, when the Ministry of Culture withdrew an affidavit submitted by ASI Director of Monuments C. Dorjee to the Supreme Court. The affidavit stated that there was no ‘tangible evidence’ linking the text of the Ramayana to the sub-marine limestone formation between Rameswaram and Sri Land, known as Ram Sethu or Ram's bridge. The court case concerned the Sethusamundram Canal project which would necessitate the destruction of the ‘bridge’.

105 Ex-Officer, Lingaraj Temple, to Director General, 13 March 1970. ‘Lingaraj Temple at Bhubaneswar’, File M-2G/2, ASI, Bhubaneswar. ERC.