Built pillars to prevent mishap: Museum boss

KOLKATA: A day after TOI reported on the construction of five brick pillars at the oldest building on the Indian Museum premises without KMC’s Herirage Committee permission, the authorities on Monday claimed the “bricks laid vertically” were absolute necessary to support and protect the beam holding up the dilapidated cornice. Indian Museum director Rajesh Purohit claimed it to be a temporary structure meant to safeguard the building and protect the lives of passersby.

Experts, however, pointed out that such brick-and-mortar structures were not an option and the conventional method was to install steel scaffolding. “We conserved the sanctum sanctorum of the Puri Jagannath temple, using steel scaffolding to support the beams and the roof. Even for temporary support, we can never think of brick-and-mortar structures,” said P K Mishra, former regional director (east) of Archaeological Survey of India. He wrote to Purohit, asking him to ensure such an act was not repeated. The structure in question is an 18th-century two-storey house older than the museum building that used to be Sadr Diwani Adalat.

According to Purohit, an external dilapidated part of the cornice of the house held an iron beam that was about to fall and posed a threat to pasersby. Purohit claimed after the edifice was restored, the brick structures would be simply brought down as they did not have any grouting or foundation. Besides, he said, the pillars were independent, merely protecting the iron beam. But, a senior official of NBCC, entrusted with the conservation of both Indian Museum and Victoria Memorial Hall, said such brick structures without foundation was an even worse risk to passersby. Moreover, he said, the removal of the pillars after restoration might cause damage to the heritage structure.

Experts said the museum director should have formed an expert committee to assess the threat to the structural stability of the heritage structure. Based on it, he should have obtained a “condemnation certificate” for emergency repairs. “Unless you have that, any alteration can be considered tampering with a heritage building, which is illegal,” an expert said. “If the director felt the building was unsafe, the vulnerable area should have been barricaded and covered in tarpaulin so that debris didn’t injure anyone,”an official said.

Experts also questioned the expertise of the labourers.