EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The crisis situation in Hampi is a warning about a few among the many possible problems that might arise if the situation continues. Unfortunately, it has started with a problem that can bring the worst possible damages to the site. The fact that the construction of the bridges could damage the site had been known sufficiently earlier, but the irony was that there was neither an individual, group of persons nor an authority to stop it. Even the many valuable ideas that had emerged from time to time through various experts in connection with the future of the site have not been implemented due to the same reason. From the beginning, ICOMOS and UNESCO had insisted that a management plan be prepared and submitted. A mechanism to implement the proposals in the form of an appropriate authority is an essential feature of such a plan. Therefore, it can be concluded that the non-fulfillment of the initial obligation to ICOMOS-UNESCO had led to this unfortunate situation. We cannot accept the construction of the two bridges in question under any circumstances. We would again urge to take immediate action to constitute an appropriate authority to care for Hampi and start formulating a Conservation, Development and a Management Plan. For such a plan, what lacks are not the ideas or suggestions, but an effort to bring together the available expertise in the country into a round table. UNESCO and ICOMOS should extend their professional services. In order to achieve all those, a very strong political will is a pre-requisite. In fact, the Government has undertaken the task of protecting and maintaining the site at the time of official nomination to UNESCO. GROUPS OF MONUMENTS AT HAMPI (INDIA) 1.0 THE MISSION This mission was carried out from 21-25 of February on behalf of ICOMOS. Ms Junko Taniguchi, Programme Specialist form the World Heritage Centre accompanied during the entire mission. This gave us an opportunity to inspect the site, participate in discussions and share our thoughts together and to formulate a common set of recommendations. Due to the urgency of the situation these were formulated before leaving India and transmitted to ICOMOS and UNESCO for immediate action. The mission was supported by a large number of documentation and meetings with a number of groups concerned with the site. We missed Mr. Ajay Shankar, Director-General of Archaeology, due to his sudden death just weeks before the mission. The Director (monuments) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Superintending Archaeologist covering the circle, Director of the State Archaeology, independent researcher George Michael who is conducting a documentation programme over the last 20 years, Local government officers, Deputy Secretary who is the chief administrative officer of the area, the Chief Secretary of the State Government, were among with whom discussions were held. Discussions were also held with the task force appointed by the Chief Minister to look in to the question of the bridges, chaired by Ms Achala Moulik, former Director-General of Archaeology. The former Director- General of ASI, Dr. Nagaraj Rao volunteered to visit us in Bangalore and share his views and sentiments on the site. There was considerable media coverage for the visit and on the question of the bridges. Quite independent to our visit, the Frontline, a leading magazine in India had carried out a major article on the issue. 2 2.0 TERMS OF REFERENCE Our mission was be carried out soon after the site was inscribed in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The main reason for such listing was the construction of two cable suspended modern bridges in the archaeological area of the site. The bureau had noted the negative impacts by the bridges and related issues in the following manner: a) The large scale two way bridge for vehicular traffic and the second footbridge within the protected area dominate the extraordinary natural environment and rural setting, threatening the integrity of the World Heritage Site. b) The dislocation and reconstruction of an important historical monument within the protected area signifies serious problems in the implementation of existing cultural heritage legislation and policies, pointing to the need for corrective measures to ensure the authenticity of the site. c) Increased road development and vehicular traffic through the World Heritage Site will hamper, if not render impossible, archaeological research excavation in significant areas within the World Heritage Site, as well as cause negative impact on the historical monuments, local inhabitants, tourists and visitors to the site. d) Implementation of the current tourism development plan may irreversibly damage the archaeological remains for future scientific research or documentation of the site on Virapapura Goda Island. Both, the Bureau and the Committee had been fully convinced that there are ascertained and potential dangers threatening the integrity and authenticity of the site and has requested `the national authorities concerned to urgently elaborate a comprehensive conservation, management and development plan, with the assistance of ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre’. The committee had been informed that the construction of bridges in question had already been suspended and the observer from India had said that `the problem 3 of preservation of the archaeological remains was a classic example of the conflict between heritage conservation and development, and that innovative solutions would have to be found in solving this problem’. Thus the goals of our mission could be formulated as follows: 1. Re-assess the current situation and suggest possible corrective measures to return the situation back to normal. 2. Examine any other threats to the state of conservation of the site. 3. To provide possible guidelines for the effort of the government to elaborate a comprehensive conservation, management and development plan. 3.0 OBSERVATIONS Main threats: the two bridges, increased vehicular traffic, relocation of a historic mandapa, tourism plan for Virapapura island. Small Bridge Site The Virupaksha temple is a popular living religious monument where pilgrims increase yearly.. The spot (on the mainland side) identified to build the small foot bridge (partly built) forms an integral part of this living temple complex and a few yards away from one of the boundary walls. The site could well be the place used for spiritual bathing or any other rituals related to water. This is clearly evident from a number of ancient (contemporary to the temple) mandapas built along the river exactly on the spot where they have constructed the bridge. In fact, the bridge goes over one of the mandapas on top of which one can still notice the sculpture of Nandi. From the words of the Director of the State Archaeology, `the south bank of the river was a bathing ghat during the Vijayanagara period’. Even if the use of this place have ceased 4 to exist in the recent past, it forms an integral part of the temple complex and its importance in relation to the history and archaeology of the place is immense. It is also possible that this was the place where a link between the mainland to Virapapura island had been maintained in the past. The island has been an important part of the ancient city as evident from massive the aqueduct found in the island. Even from this point of view, the spot selected for the bridge has a significance to the integrity of the overall site. Need for transport facilities for the inhabitants and the visitors of the island is undisputed. The present transport system available using a big basket is extremely dangerous. It is successful only when the water level is very low. But the provision of a safer transportation system should not be at the cost of this particular spot they have selected. It is observed that under no circumstances, this should have been a place to build a bridge by disrespecting such an important location of the complex. From a practical point of view, there are so many other places should they decide to build a well designed bridge to facilitate the visitors and the inhabitants of the island. Large Bridge Site. The proposed site for the main bridge located between Anegondi and the main city. It is said that Anegondi located on the opposite side of the river from the main city was the original site of the Vijayanagara empire. Many archaeological remains on both sides of the river, clearly indicate that this was the spot where the main link between Anegondi and city had been maintained in the past. My visual judgements are confirmed by the Director of the State Archaeology when he writes, ` The area where the bridge is coming up is 5 strewn with fort wall, gateway, temples, mandapas, sculptures and inscriptions on the north bank towards Anegondi and mandapas, temples, sculptures and inscriptions on the southern bank. There are sculptures on the rocks in the river also. This ferry point is in the existence right from the Vijayanagara period. Inscriptions in this area refer to boatmen and ferry system of the Vijayanagara period’. It is unbelievable, how even a layman could not understand the significance of the site because the archaeological remains are so numerous and exceptionally visible. It is here that they have already shifted a mandapa. With the bridge, the significance of the other archaeological remains are totally destroyed. I doubt whether sufficient archaeological studies have been conducted at the spot, but such investigations at this point will reveal, many information with regard to the relationship that was maintained by the two sides, mode of transportation, the type of links existed, any other defence systems that had been operated and so on. Archaeological significance of the two faces of the river and aesthetics of the place will be totally destroyed by the bridge.