Prof. Jeeb Raj Pokharel

The happiness of Kathmanduites knew no bounds after the Nepali authority resurrected the famous Ranipokhari pond and Balgopaleshwar Temple located at the centre of the pond. The resurrection is like a phoenix rising out of the ashes given several twists and turns that took place in the run-up to the reconstruction of the famous Kathmandu pond and the temple.
The earthquake of 2015 had badly damaged the historic monument. This was, however, not the first time that the pond, and particularly the temple, found themselves at the receiving end from deadly tremors that struck the Kathmandu Valley in the past.
It had suffered with similar mishaps in the devastating earthquakes in 1834 and 1934. Consequently, the temple received a new lease of life in the year 1851 when Jung Bahadur reconstructed it. In 1936, Juddha Shamsher restored it. On both occasions, the temple at the centre of the pond was restored in an 'alien' domed form.

Developers, Conservationists At Loggerheads
King Pratap Malla had constructed the Ranipokhari pond and the Balgopaleshwore Temple in 1670 to console his queen Anantapriya after the demise of her son Chakravartindra Malla.
The temple's reconstruction following the damage in 2015 had become a talk of not only the capital city but also of the whole of the country after the developers and conservators tussled over its shape and ways to construct it. The former insisted on its construction using modern technology consisting of steel and concrete. The latter stressed on the use of traditional technology like bricks, lime plaster, and black cotton soil. Finally, the conservators had the last laugh after the authority decided to reconstruct the temple following the traditional method.
This debate however was not to end here. It further spilled into the reconstruction of the temple but this time within the conservationists themselves. Some conservationists were seeking to restore it applying the dome form, as it existed before the earthquake, which was built by Juddha Shamsher in the year 1936.
Others contended for its reconstruction in the form that Pratap Malla had probably constructed in Granthakut style because all others had followed this style during the period of its construction in the year 1670. The construction of this type of temples in the Swayambhu quadrangle in 1654 and a similar kind of temple with the vehicle deity Garuda image erected in 1676 gravitated towards the construction of the temple in 1670 in this style.
Italian traveler Desideri during his visit in the year 1721 had described the temple as appearing like a tall columnar structure giving the distant echo of the Granthakut style. This was further corroborated by the sketch of this temple prepared by one artist accompanying prince Waldemar of Prussia in the year 1845.
Granthakut Style
Granthakut Style temple was named as the five-pinnacled temple by Kunu Sharma, a 17th-century court poet of Lalitpur, in his epic Kirtipataka, during the time of Sri Nivas Malla. Of the five pinnacles of such temples, one is at the center at the top and the other four in the second floor level in four directions.
Sharma had described the Nara Singha Temple as existing even now though it was constructed back in 1589. In the inscription dedicated to the temple, the name Ganthakuta appears for the first time in Nepali inscriptions. Many attribute the origin of this style to the Mahabodhi Temple at Bodh Gaya and the Sun Temple in Konarak in India.
Several temples of this type are found in the Kathmandu Valley with variations in their facade. Some of them display porticos resting on two columns in all the four directions like Narasingha Temple in Patan. Others showcase it only in the front like the 15th-century temple of Maru Tole. Yet others have no porticos but a direct entry like the Jyotirlinga temple in Nasaman Square in Bhaktapur.
Some of them have a circumambulatory passage like the temple of Ikhalakhu. The first one of this type appears to be the Mahadev temple in Maru Tole said to be constructed in the fifteenth century. The temples of this type with unknown date of construction are the Gorakhnath Temple in Thapathali, Durga and Bhagwati temple in Bhaktapur Durbar Square, the Gorakhnath Temple on the way to Pashupati from Guheshori up the hill, Garud Narayan temple of Bode, the Radhakrishna temple in Teku, and Uma Maheswore Temple in Nuga, Patan.

Change in Temple Form
Monuments undergo a change in their form over time, especially after disasters. The conservation norms provide that the monuments should be restored to their original form if there are authentic documents to back it up. Otherwise, they should be retained in their previous form during their reconstruction.
The glaring example of this is the reconstruction of the Mandap Pati in Bhaktapur by the Bhaktapur Development Project under Germany's assistance. It was a single-tiered temple but the photograph taken by Percy Brown in 1912 showed that it was the double-tiered one. It was thus restored to a double-tiered form.
The restoration of this temple in its original form has been welcomed but strong pieces of evidence must back the form of the temple. The painting of the German artist has been taken as a testimony in this case in the same way that the photograph by Percy Brown was used in the Mandap Pati temple restoration.
The photographs were shown to the senior citizens who could have seen the original form of the temple. After getting a nod from the seniors, it was reconstructed. But it has been labelled as conjectural restoration, something that should not be done in the conservation of monuments.
The reconstruction of this temple is said to have its departure in the existing plinth of the temple constructed in 1670. Its proportioning was determined based on several existing temples according to the consultants. But it is not likely to be the exact copy of what was constructed in 1670.
This is the reason behind the disagreement of the representative of the Department of Archaeology, the custodian of monument conservation in Nepal. He wrote a note of dissent in the minute of the meeting that decided to use the Granthakut form.
In the absence of hard proofs, the practice is to recreate the previous form, or the reconstruction of the form used by Juddha Shamsher was followed. This was done by this author in the reconstruction of Maya Devi Temple in Lumbini by recreating the design of Kaisher Shamsher.
The community did not find the existing domed temple appealing in its appearance. It is hard to understand because the dome is more attractive than the Sikhara form of the Granthakut temple because of the good contour of the former. It has become a topic of debate for the conservationists for a long time to come which generally are the conservation Projects almost invariably.
Heartening to see is the fact that the Nepali people have the opportunity to revel in the retrieval of not only the pond in the form of the ice cake but also the five pinnacled Shikhara-style temple in the form of cherries at the top. Credits should go to Professor Sudarshan Raj Tiwari, the mentor, and the budding young architect activists like Apil K.C., Susan Vaidya and few others as well as the consultant for their tireless efforts to make this miracle to happen.

(Prof. Pokharel is former vice-chancellor of NAST)