Aryan invasion theory and Dravidian distortions – Santishree D. Pandit

July 20, 2024January 20, 2025VOI

We were civilised when Europe and the West were still picking stones. We were an outward-looking civilisation, we civilised them and not the reverse. Science and other evidence are disproving all these divisive conjectures constructed for the colonial-church-conversion project. Why are we still parroting the same? – Dr. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit

Regardless of the domains, a theory is never considered the final word; it remains subject to criticism and debunking as they are just conjectures. The Aryan Invasion Theory is one such conjecture in history that stands out as one of the most flawed and divisive interpretations of Bharatiya civilisation and its rich history. For such reasons, the theory is increasingly treated with scepticism and disdain due to its lack of academic rigour and the ideological agenda it entailed. Moreover, other critical factors that caused the theory to lose credibility include the availability of archaeological evidence that has debunked the theory; and an increasing public interest in discovering the truth about India’s past, which has long been written by outsiders with vested interests. Unfortunately, the theory still lingers in small yet vocal circles of Left-leaning academics and intellectuals who view it as a potent tool for dividing the people based on the concept of race, caste and religion which is based on faulty assumed and prejudiced conjectures.

This theory has given rise to the faulty construct of a divide between Aryans and Dravidians by Bishop Robert Caldwell, whose purpose to convert was primary in his colonial-church agenda. What is surprising is, this false conjecture was constructed on Aryan invasions that never took place. This is the mainstay of the “distorians” of the Dravidian parties. Rationalism and atheism are anti all religions, but the hypocrisy of these parties is that many of them are faithful in Abrahamic faiths and attack only Hinduism. Hence, should one conclude that the Dravidian parties are the followers of Caldwell’s colonial-church-conversion construct and are creating Hinduphobia? Recent archaeological excavations at Rakhigarhi, Dwarka and many other places have proved by carbon dating that we are 8,000-10,000 years old. The geological theories prove the lost lands at the end of the Ice Age due to massive flooding especially in the Indian peninsula. So we were civilised when Europe and the West were still picking stones. We were an outward-looking civilisation, we civilised them and not the reverse. Science and evidence are disproving all these divisive conjectures constructed for the colonial-church-conversion project. Why are we still parroting the same?

A fallacious theory

The Aryan Invasion Theory (also referred to as the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory), often championed by Leftist historians, constitutes a part of a broader theoretical framework aimed at diminishing the historical significance of the ancient Bharatiya civilisation by attributing its establishment to an external race depicted as invaders. This theoretical perspective seeks to leverage linguistic connections among various contemporary and ancient languages, interpretations derived from philology, and findings from archaeological and anthropological research. This colonial endeavour reduced the millennia-old developments in the subcontinent to imagined notions of race that colonial powers believed in and employed during their imperial conquests. Also worth mentioning here is the pernicious Aryan-Dravidian divide that AIT encouraged and that was propagated by figures like Caldwell with his A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages and Bishop Campbell, in the mid-19th century. This divisive narrative aimed to segregate Indian society along racial and caste lines, thus sowing seeds of divisions.

Erroneous to the core

The Aryan Invasion Theory has indeed been criticised endlessly for its flawed assumptions and ideologically driven agenda that transposed colonial ideas and racial divides onto the Indian subcontinent. Basically, the theory has been used to legitimise British colonialism in India by proposing a fallacious disposition that suggests Aryans colonised India. This narrative could arguably be seen as an effort to justify or normalise the British presence and actions in India by drawing parallels with an alleged ancient Aryan colonisation. Moreover, the theory seems to deflect colonial blame and shame from British shoulders. By suggesting that Aryans were historical colonisers, the theory sought to argue that Britain was not doing anything different from what India had seen in the past. In other words, the theory served as an attempt to diffuse the criticism of British colonialism by asserting that even Indians were guilty of colonisation and, therefore, Indians under British rule should accept British suzerainty without complaint.

In addition to the evident harm caused by such a pernicious theory, it is crucial to highlight the implicit strategies employed by the British to normalise it as the ultimate and unquestionable truth. As part of their so-called educational reforms aimed at undermining and demotivating the young populace of India, the British actively promoted the theory in schools and colleges. The relentless dissemination of the theory, without presenting credible evidence, critical viewpoints or alternative perspectives, led individuals of that time to accept it at face value. While the British, guided by their colonial interests, bear responsibility for these actions, perhaps more significant blame has to be assigned to Left intellectuals and historians who played an essential role in perpetuating this divisive narrative post-Independence.

Leftist embrace of AIT

A distorted mentality has influenced the propagation and spread of the AIT, mainly after Leftist ideologies gained prominence in India in the early 20th century and solidified under the Nehruvian government post-Independence. During this period, the AIT and the Aryan-Dravidian schism were embraced with enthusiasm by the Left, providing them with a tool to foster division, turning communities against one another and ushering in self-inflicted hate towards their own ancestors and history. As a result, a complex Indian consciousness emerged in the mid-20th century when numerous Indians began to harbour disdain for their history and origins. Essentially, these Leftist historians, wielding authoritative control over narratives, inherited and continued the interpretative legacy left by the British. Their influence further exacerbated existing divides by propagating views to keep the country divided. The authoritarian control over historical narratives allowed these scholars to shape and disseminate perspectives that reinforced divisive notions, contributing to the fragmentation of the Indian identity.

What remains most encouraging in discussions on the AIT and the Aryan-Dravidian divide is the transformed academic environment that today’s India provides, where such fallacious theories and misrepresentations are countered and debunked through facts, evidence, and logic. Recent archaeological excavations at Rakhigarhi, Dwarka and Keeladi have systematically dismantled myths surrounding these erroneous theories. In the spirit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech at the Ram Mandir Pran Pratishta (2024), where he united Indians under the roof of development and progress and urged citizens to “lay the foundation for the next thousand years of Bharat,” this foundation must be built on high intellectual traditions free of ideology, sycophancy, and falsehoods. Uprooting and debunking theories like AIT is a crucial part of this effort, and the youth must take the lead in challenging colonial-led assumptions and narratives that have beleaguered India for so long. A genuine history of the Bharatiya civilisation, rooted in truth and evidence, is the precursor for realising the vision of Viksit Bharat, which is a saga of continuity with change, realm with region, diversity and unity, tradition with modernity, balance with chaos, spiritual with the material, a holistic vision for all from the unique to the universal and the cosmos. – The Sunday Guardian, 10 March 2024

› Dr. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice-Chancellor of JNU.

Hinduism and its 33 million deities – Nanditha Krishna

April 19, 2024VOI

Sri Ram's Padukas

It is said that there are 33 million deities in India. Yet every deity is a singular manifestation of the Supreme and the most important deity of the region. – Dr. Nanditha Krishna

The Rigveda enumerates 33 devas or ‘shining ones’, representing primarily the forces of nature. Of these, three were important: Agni or fire, Indra or rain, and Soma, a plant. The popular deities today are two Vedic gods—Vishnu combined with a non-Vedic Narayana, and Rudra combined with a non-Vedic Shiva—and the many forms of Shakti, the supreme goddess. Agni, Indra and Soma, along with 28 others, became ‘minor deities’. Later, more minor deities were added to the Hindu pantheon: ashtadikpalas (the eight guardians of directions), navagrahas (nine planets), vasus (eight attendant deities), adityas (12 forms of the sun), rudras (11 forms of Shiva), avataras (10 incarnations of Vishnu), along with river goddesses, lesser-known forms of the main deities, village gods and goddesses and demi-gods of Buddhism and Jainism.

The original major deities of the Vedas became minor over time, while the minor deities are today among the most important deities all over India. Of the avatars, only Rama and Krishna attained cult status, while Shiva is worshipped in different forms. This is how Indian religions were made inclusive and expanded their pantheons to absorb everyone’s religious beliefs. Adi Shankara recognised six cults in his time: Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, Ganapatya, Saura (Sun) and Kaumara (Kartikeya). While the six deities remain, Surya, once the ruling deity of temples in Khajuraho, Modhera, Martand and Gwalior, has been demoted to a mere navagraha.

Recently, the C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar Institute of Indological Research in Chennai organised a seminar on minor deities in Indian art. Scholars from various parts of India gathered to share the plurality and syncretism of Indian religious and social traditions, as represented in visual language. Religious syncretism is the blending of different belief systems, incorporating other beliefs into an existing tradition. This occurs when such traditions exist in proximity to each other and are catholic enough to accept each other’s belief systems. Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism have made many adaptations over millenniums, assimilating elements of several religious traditions both in India and Southeast Asia.

Today’s Hinduism is a combination of different forms of beliefs and practices. It is no longer exclusively Vedic—it is the common people’s religion. Every village in India has a village deity, usually associated with fertility, rains, disease and so on. Shitala, a medicinal deity who cooled the body, became a dreaded goddess of disease in North India. Jvara, the deity of fever, who is propitiated as Jvarahareshwara in South India, is feared as the demon Jvarasura in Bengal. Mari originally meant rain and the pearl-like raindrops were called muthu-mari. Unfortunately, their resemblance to smallpox boils made Mariamman of Tamil Nadu into a dreaded goddess of disease. Thus, popular deities could change their character as social problems arose.

Village deities are generally made of terracotta, stucco or wood, and painted in brilliant colours. They may be situated in a wooden temple as in Kerala and Karnataka, or inside a simple brick-and-mortar shrine. Later, they were incorporated into exquisite stone sculpture. Each has a unique iconography. For example, Shitala in Rajasthan and Gujarat carries a broom and winnowing basket, and rides an ass. In Tamil Nadu, most village goddesses carry Durga’s weapons. But Ponni, the rice goddess, is depicted as a mere head: the earth on which the head is placed forms her body.

Folk deities may be grouped as gods of fertility, protector deities, fetishes (like stones and trees) and hero stones. The famous Ayyanaar is a protector, while goddesses protect children, combat disease and assure fertility. The popular Ayyappa of Kerala was originally a forest deity. Indian deities are associated with nature and natural resources like sacred groves and water bodies, the rain, a good harvest, disease and safety. By invoking the sanctity of rivers and lakes, animals and health, people protected the environment, controlled disease and ensured sustainable lifestyles for themselves and other creation.

What is amazing is the similarity among rural and tribal traditions across the country at a time when there was no easy communication. For example, votive offerings of terracotta horses to the deities of the sacred groves include the horses of Ayyanaar in Tamil Nadu and Bankura in Bengal. Every state shares this tradition, yet in no two states are the horses alike: that is the greatness of the Indian potter.

The minor deities were as important as the Vedic gods. A villager would never call his local goddess minor. She is all-important for him. Sometimes, the deity gets upgraded, such as Kamakshi of Kanchipuram, whose cult expanded when Rajasimha Pallava built a new temple and a new icon. Meenakshi, originally a goddess of fisherfolk, became the reigning deity of the new Pandya capital, Madurai. New mythologies were created, but old attributes were retained. They became aspects of Shakti or Vishnu or Shiva. This is how village deities were integrated into an all-Indian pantheon. The speakers at the seminar gave us a view of the many deities of their respective states, of dance forms like theyyam in Kerala and bhuta kola in Karnataka that are used to invoke gods.

No wonder it is said that there are ‘33 million deities’ in India. Yet every deity is a singular manifestation of the Supreme and the most important deity of the region. They are a reminder of a time when gods were invoked to protect people and the environment, and when religion was catholic enough to absorb other gods within an all-embracing belief system. That was syncretism, when the world was too small for more than one supreme deity, and all the gods and goddesses were merely different forms of the same Supreme Being and religious tradition. – The New Indian Express, 7 April 2024

› Dr. Nanditha Krishna is an author, historian, and environmentalist based in Chennai.

A reasonable date for Adi Shankara – Venu Gopal Narayanan

March 7, 2024March 15, 2024VOI

We see that there is nothing in Shankara’s works which contradict his dating to the 6th century BCE, nor historical evidence to either support or disprove a belief that Bimbisara, the Buddha, and Mahavira were his contemporaries. – Venu Gopal Narayanan

Historians have spent a century trying to determine when Adi Shankaracharya lived. Thus far, a total lack of archaeological evidence has frustrated their efforts. Instead, many have employed linguistic tools to assume that he lived sometime in the 8th to 9th centuries of the common era (CE).

While these arguments may appear convincing to the lay reader, they are all no more than inconclusive guesstimates; the simple truth is that we do not yet know when this remarkable mind bound our sacred land together using the logic of Advaita.

On the other hand, the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham at Kanchipuram, in Tamil Nadu, maintains a list of head seers which says that it was founded by Shankara in 509 BCE. That is about 1500 years earlier than modern guesstimates. The lineage list of the Govardhana Matha in Puri, Odisha, starts in 484 BCE. Similarly, the Dwaraka Matha in Saurashtra, Gujarat, maintains that it was established in 475 BCE.

The natural response for a Left Liberal thinker would be to declare a date of 6th century BCE as preposterous, and instantly dismiss it out of hand as some hoary tradition with no scientific basis. But the dharmic approach would be to test this thesis: what would be the impact on our history as we know it, if Shankara had indeed lived in the time of King Bimbisara of Magadha, Gautama the Buddha, and Mahavira the Tirthankara?

The most important test is whether such a date clashes with the dates of those texts referred to by Shankara in his works. Let us take the main ones:

One, the Brahma Sutra of Rishi Badarayana, which encapsulates the essence of the Upanishads—the concept of Brahman, and Vedanta—into dense aphorisms. Its opening line is, athato brahma jignyasa (then, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman). The basis of Shankara’s Advaita is his commentary on this work, called the Brahma Sutra Bhashya.

In the absence of any evidence, historians have dated this text with “great accuracy” to either the 5th or 2nd centuries BCE, or the 5th century CE.

Two, the Purva Mimamsa Sutra of Rishi Jaimini, who was an older contemporary of Rishi Badarayana. It aphoristically condenses the essence of the Brahmanas, Vedic texts detailing rituals and the concept of Dharma. Its opening line is, athato dharma jignyasa (then, therefore, the enquiry into Dharma). According to some legends, Shankara bested Mandana Mishra, the greatest proponent of Mimamsa, in a debate once, to establish the validity of Advaita with the ritualists.

Dating this text with any degree of assurance is an absolute non-starter because of nil epigraphical evidence till the medieval period. All we know is that it was composed in the same time period as the Brahma Sutra, since one cross-references the other.

Three, the Bhagavad Gita, and by extension, the two Epics. Shankara interpreted this celestial song using the logic of Advaita to demonstrate that it is the epitome of Vedic thought.

Once again, certain schools of historiography have gone to great pains to try and peg the Gita to a time after the Buddha, all without evidence of course. Assumptions chase conjectures through hoops of linguistics and philology to emerge as fact on the stages of academia.

There is a central reason why so much futile effort is expended: the date of the Vedas has to be held to 1500 BCE. Only then can horse-riding Aryans move from the steppes of Central Asia to the subcontinent. Only then can a yawning gap be created between the Vedic age and the supposedly earlier, supposedly different-in-every-way, Harappan/ Sindhu-Saraswati era.

Only then can Videgha Madhava of the Satapatha Brahmana carry Agni eastwards from the Saraswati River, around 1000 BCE, clear the forests along the Gandak, and settle his steppe folk in the Gangetic Plains. Now, in a tearing rush, the civilization can take root, compose the Upanishads, give birth to kingdoms, dynasties, legends, and initiate a lengthy intellectual journey which leads some millennia later to Shankara and Advaita.

However, if Shankara can be dated to the 6th century BCE, this elaborately fabricated historiography goes for a toss. Instead, and to the horror of our Marxist brethren, the date of Agni’s eastward journey gets pushed back by a thousand years at least, to well before the date they set for the Rig Veda, and bang in the middle of the Harappan era.

What Aryan invasion or migration theory then? This is what happens when our history is written for us by others, and what will persist if we allow that nefarious process to continue blithely forth without rigorous, scholarly contestation.

But mindsets are rapidly changing. The old assumptions are being hotly questioned, on merit. New data and new research show that Sanskrit is older than the Indus Valley Civilization, and, that Pali had evolved as a separate language by 4000 years ago. The discovery of the Sinauli chariot is both a new chapter of our ancient history waiting to be written, and the rewriting of conventional historiography; and one which points towards a far older date for Vidhega Madhava’s eastward passage.

Thus, we see that there is nothing in Shankara’s works which contradict his dating to the 6th century BCE, nor historical evidence to either support or disprove a belief that Bimbisara, the Buddha, and Mahavira were his contemporaries. But if this is so, then it turns some preconceived notions on their heads.

Rather than someone who contested the metaphysical intricacies of Buddhism only when it was deep into terminal decline in the subcontinent, which is how Shankara is popularly portrayed in modern scholarship, it means that he could have been there at the start, when the proliferation of heterodox sects began.

A date of 6th century BCE actually makes a lot more sense than one of 8th to 9th CE, because the motivations become a lot clearer, for bringing Brahman and Dharma—in essence, knowledge and action—together under one philosophical roof, for reinforcing the supremacy of the Vedas, and, for logically establishing with clear deductions, the umbilical Vedantic linkages between the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita. It is all the philosophical protection Sanathana Dharma has ever needed to fend off the vagaries of history, and to preserve our way of life in our sacred land.

We may probably never know for sure which era Shankara lived in, but it feels good to imagine that a Malayalee sannyasi from Kaladi may have met and conversed with some great Biharis, in Sanskrit, in Uttar Pradesh, at a time of tremendous intellectual churn. – Swarajya, 25 February 2024

› Venu Gopal Narayanan is an independent upstream petroleum consultant who focuses on energy, geopolitics, current affairs and electoral arithmetic.

Hindu temples existed before the 5th century CE – Monidipa Bose Dey

February 27, 2024March 7, 2024VOI

A narrative that keeps appearing in the media is the claim that there were no Hindu temples before the 5th century CE. This claim is false, a myth, and the propaganda is aimed at postulating that most pre-Gupta temple structural ruins were Buddhist in nature – Monidipa Bose Dey

A favourite narrative of the Left scholars that keeps appearing regularly in media is the claim that “there were no Hindu temples before the 5th century CE.” This claim is nothing but a myth, and the propaganda is primarily aimed at postulating that most pre-Gupta temple structural ruins were Buddhist in nature, and Hinduism, Hindu gods/murtis, and Hindu temples are a later development, with the concept of Hinduism and Hindu gods starting from around the Kushana period (1st century). This fake narrative has been force-fed to Indians through constant repetitions of the claim in academia, school and college textbooks, and the publishing of articles on this topic in various journals and media platforms written by so-called scholars.

Unfortunately, many gullible Indians growing up with this constant brainwashing believe this fake claim, thinking Hindus did not have any temples as such before the Gupta period. Recently, in an article, a slightly modified claim was made that large Hindu temples did not exist before the 5th century CE. From “no Hindu temples before 5th century CE” to “no large Hindu temples before 5th century CE,” the shift in narrative is noteworthy.

The standards of civilisation are often measured, among other things, by the then available scientific planning, longevity of structures built, aesthetic appeal, and successful completion of buildings that range from religious to military to residential structures. Seeing the antiquity and the advanced nature of Indian civilisation, it is not surprising to find Indian writers from ancient times quite taken up with the subject of architecture, and this obsession is evident in all forms of literature ranging from the Vedas to the Epics, Puranas, Buddhist texts, Jain texts, Agamic literature, and various historical and even political treatises. With such a vast spectrum of knowledge compiled in books, and India being a country that has always been deeply religious, it is completely illogical to think ancient Indian civilisation would have no Hindu temples.

This article will take a look at the various evidences that clearly show Hindu temples existed in ancient times and did not start from the 5th century CE, as Marxist scholars have always claimed.

Evidence from texts

Texts from ancient India help us to understand the nature of the worship of gods in India and the temples built for them. In the Astadhyayi (around the 4th century BCE), Panini gives names of Vedic deities, such as Agni, Indra, Varuna, Bhava, Sarva, Rudra, Mrda, Aryama, Tvasta, Súrya, Sóma, Indrani, Varunani, Agnayi, Usha, Prthivi, who were worshipped. Bhakti or theistic form of devotion was present in Panini’s time, which is clear by his reference to devotion to Vasudeva and Arjuna, while names like Varunadatta and Aryamadatta indicate sons were named after gods like Varuna and Aryama, to show devotion.

Panini also mentioned the use of images for worship (arcas), which indicate the existence of shrines where these arcas were worshipped.

Patanjali’s Mahabhasya (2nd century BCE), which is a detailed commentary on Panini’s work, mentions the worship of Vasudeva-Krishna as a deity; and specifically mentions temples of Dhanapati (Kubera), Rama (Balarama), and Kesava (Vasudeva), where worship would occur with various elaborate rituals, accompanied by music and dance. From around the same time, there have been found murtis of Kupiro yakho (Kubera yaksa) from Bharhut, and of Balarama from Mathura. A murti with the inscription of four-armed Vasudeva-Visnu carrying gada and chakra in his upper hand and holding a sankha (broken) in the lower hand, from Malhar (Bilaspur in Madhya Pradesh), is dated to the 2nd century BCE. These murtis would all be worshipped in temples of their own.

Kautilya’s Arthasastra refers to various temples within a fortified city that enshrined Shiva, Vaisravana, Asvinikumãras, Sri (Laksmi), and Madeira (a fertility goddess associated with the Mother Goddess sect). The Arthasastra mentions images of Aparajita (Durga), Apratihata (Visnu), and Jayanta (Kumara), which were worshipped by King Bhagabhadra (131 BCE, the fifth Sunga ruler); and Vaishnava shrines erected by Gautamiputra Bhagavata, the ninth Sunga ruler, in his 12th year.

Evidence from inscriptions

Three inscriptions from Nagar (Chittorgarh, Rajasthan), refer to the construction of a stone wall that enclosed a place for worship of Sankarsana and Väsudeva by King Sarvatata of the Kanva dynasty (250-300 BCE). The Nanaghat (Pune) inscription of Naganika of the 1st century BCE refers to Vedic sacrifices by the Satavahana royal family and starts with homages to divinities such as Dharma, Indra, Sankarsana-Vasudeva, Chandra-Surya, and the Lokapalas (Yama, Varuna, Kubera, and Vasava). An inscription from Mora (Mathura) during the reign of Mahaksatrapa Sodasa (10-25 CE) records the installation of murtis of the five Vrsni heroes in a stone temple. Another Mathura inscription of the same time, found engraved on a door-jamb, records the construction of a temple with torana and vedika for Vasudeva.

An inscription from Nandsa (Udaipur, Rajasthan, 226 CE), records the performance of Vedic sacrifices after the construction of temples dedicated to Brahma, Indra, Prajapati, and Visnu.

Structural evidence from Mauryan periods

From the time of Ashoka Maurya (272-232 BCE) to the early Kusana period, various pieces of evidence from rock-cut shrines and from surviving foundations of temples suggest that in those times, temples were built in circular (vitta), elliptical (vettäyata), and apsidal (capakara) forms. The Ajivika caves at Barabar (Gaya, Bihar) of Mauryan times, preserve both circular and elliptical shrines in hut forms with domed or vaulted roofs.

Belonging to the Mauryan period is a circular brick-and-timber shrine (plinth) of the 3rd century BCE, located at Bairat (Jaipur). Temple No. 40 at Sanci was originally an apsidal stone temple of the Mauryan period, raised on a high rectangular plinth, the superstructure likely built of wood that no longer exists.

Structural forms prevalent during the Mauryan period continued into later periods, as found recorded in many bas-reliefs from Sanchi, Mathura, Amaravati, etc. The apsidal plan for temples was more popular than the circular or elliptical plan during this period. Three stone apsidal shrines from the 1st century CE are known from Taxila (Takshasila), while Temple No. 18 at Sanchi was also an apsidal shrine, datable to the 2nd century BCE.

Remains of temples from pre-Shunga and Shunga era

The apsidal temple at Sonkh (Mathura, dated 1st century BCE) was one of such early temples. The Ghosundi inscription (1st century BCE, near Chittorgarh) talks of a temple complex named Narayana-vatika dedicated to Samkarshana-Vāsudeva; foundations of an elliptical structure, dated 2nd century BCE, found at the site of Besnagar in Vidisha is that of a Vaishnava temple; an identical structure discovered at Nagar (Chittorgarh) by Bhandarkar is dated to 350-300 BCE; while the Mora well inscription (1st century CE) refers to a temple in Mathura.

Hindu temple architecture from the post-Mauryan era is known from the remains of the temple foundations, pertaining to their ground plans, found during various archaeological excavations. Unfortunately, the superstructures of these ancient temples were not preserved, because they would often be built of wood or bricks.

One such example of a temple from ancient India is the Vasudeva shrine from the 3rd century BCE (approximately dated 200 BCE), found close to the Heliodorus pillar in Besnagar, near Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. From a study of the archaeological report of the excavation of this site by D.R. Bhandarkar (ASI Annual Report 1913-14), it is very clear the temple which belonged to the Sunga period was by no means a small one. In fact, the word prasadottoma was found in an inscription on a pillar stump from the site, meaning the temple was the best among the ones in Vidisha, clearly indicating the Heliodorus Garuda pillar was built in front of the most celebrated temple of Vasudeva of that time. Thus, we find archaeological evidence of a large Hindu temple from the 3rd-2nd century BCE.

Another example of a Hindu temple from ancient India is the Vasudeva-Sankarshana temple found in Nagari, Rajasthan. Here, a stone enclosure for a Vasudeva-Sankarshana shrine is mentioned in an inscription which belonged to 300-250 BCE. The site preserves a massive stone enclosure and the plinth of an elliptical brick temple. Below the surface level of this stone enclosure, archaeologists found the remains of an earlier building that dated to 350-300 BCE. The Vasudeva-Sankarsana shrine structure was elliptical in shape with a puja-sila-prakara built around it, and only the lower moulding of the superstructure had survived which was 2 feet high, showing the temple was a large one. The shrine remained an active place for Vaishnava worship until the 7th century CE.

A series of apsidal temples from ancient India were excavated at Sonkh, dating to the 1st century BCE. The apsidal Temple No. 2 at Sonkh had a large stone railing surrounding the shrine that had engravings on both sides. On the southern side of the railing, carved ruins of a stone entrance were found that had two pillars supporting a superstructure of three architraves with voluted ends. An architectural piece from the bottom lintel of the doorway showed carvings depicting a naga and a nagin sitting on thrones, surrounded by attendants and devotees, thus denoting the temple as a Naga shrine.

Numismatic evidence of Hindu temples in 200 BCE

Numismatically speaking, ancient Hindu temple architecture was found depicted on coins and coin moulds marked by the Yaudheyas. The Yaudheyas were a martial republican clan, who were at the peak of their power between 200 BCE to 400 CE, in areas of what is now Haryana, Punjab, and Rajasthan. Being a martial clan, most of the Yaudheya coins depicted the war-god Karttikeya (Brahmanyadeva). Among the many temples seen on Yaudheya coins, one structure with a dome-shaped roof and square plan stands out. It stood on an elevated adhishthana, consisting of four mouldings. The object of worship would have stood in the centre. Double domes were a popular design at that time, as evident from the many coins depicting them, while there are examples of even triple-domed temples. The third image clearly shows a Shiva temple with the Shiva linga at the centre of the sanctum. The existence of Shaiva shrines is confirmed by a four-pillared double-domed structure surmounted by a trident, which is the established emblem of Shiva. The trident on top of a four-pillared double-domed structure also confirms the Shaivite affiliation of such shrines.

Sometimes temples on Yaudheya coins show a dome marked by vertical divisions, which indicate wooden beams on the sanctum roof. A double or triple-domed structure having a square plan shows that the domes would have been covered by slanting slabs giving the sikhara a triangular look. One Yaudheya coin also depicts a structure topped with a vajra-like motif, clearly indicating a shrine dedicated to Indra Deva.

Thus, from the above-presented evidence (texts, archaeological, and numismatics), it is quite clear that Hindu temples were indeed present much before the 5th century CE, and they were often large shrines dedicated to various gods. – News18, 18 February 2024

› Monidipa Bose Dey is a well-known travel and heritage writer.

James Prinsep: The Englishman who mapped the Adi Vishwanath Temple in Kashi – Yudhajit Shankar Das

February 8, 2024February 27, 2024VOI

James Prinsep first served in Calcutta and then in Benaras for ten years. Prinsep’s stay in Varanasi—from 1820 to 1830—is what is of interest and importance against the backdrop of what is unfolding today. – Yudhajit Shankar Das

At a walking distance from Kolkata’s Eden Gardens is the Prinsep Ghat on the banks of the River Hooghly. One gets a close view of the Vidyasagar Setu and can take a boat ride on the Hooghly from Prinsep Ghat.

The ghat is named after James Prinsep, a British numismatist and archaeologist, who made significant contributions to India’s historiography. He came to India when he was 28 and was the youngest fellow of the British Asiatic Society.

It was Prinsep who deciphered the Brahmi and Kharosthi scripts and helped the world know about Emperor Ashoka’s reign. It was he who established that King Devanampriya Piyadasi, who is mentioned in several inscriptions from Sri Lanka to Afghanistan, was none other than Emperor Ashoka.

The ghat in Kolkata was named after Prinsep as a way to recognise his contributions after he passed away in London in 1840 at the young age of 41.

James Prinsep and his ‘Benares Illustrated’

James Prinsep first served in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and then in Benaras (now Varanasi) for ten years. Prinsep’s stay in Varanasi (from 1820 to 1830) is what is of interest and importance against the backdrop of what is unfolding now.

Prinsep built Varanasi’s underground sewage system, which is still operational, restored the Alamgir Mosque, built by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb in 1669, and drew the city’s maps. He also brought out a book, Benares Illustrated, A Series of Drawings, in 1831.

That book and the map will be used as part of evidence by the Hindu side in the legal battle for the Gyanvapi complex, IndiaToday has been told.

In Benares Illustrated, James Prinsep used lithography to engrave every scene on paper and present information with evidence. Chapters and illustrations include Munikurnika Ghat, Bruhma Ghat, Procession of the Tazeeas and Hindoo Nach Girls.

Most importantly, James Prinsep, in Benares Illustrated, discussed the architecture of the old Vishweshwar Temple, and how the original place of worship was converted to the present Gyanvapi Mosque. Vishweshwar or Lord of the Universe is another name for Lord Shiva.

Prinsep on Auranzeb’s bigotry

In Benares Illustrated, Prinsep details how Aurangzeb’s men used the material from the destroyed Kashi Vishweshwar Temple to build the Gyanvapi Mosque.

“The bigotry of Aurungzeb did not allow many vestiges of this more ancient style to remain. In 1660, for some trifling resistance to the imposition of a capitation tax, he took occasion to demolish the principal Shiwalas, and constructed Musjids or mosques with the same materials and upon the same foundations, leaving portions of the ancient walls exposed here and there, as evidence of the indignity to which the Hindoo religion had been subjected,” Princep writes.

The Kashi Vishweshwar Temple is of immense significance in Hinduism as it is one of the 12 Jyotirlingas or temples where Lord Shiva is said to have appeared as a column of light. Lord Shiva is said to have created a water-producing spot there hence the name Gyanvapi (well of knowledge).

The Adi Vishveshwara Temple was destroyed by Qutb ud-Din Aibak, the general of Muhammad Ghori, in 1194 but was rebuilt. It was Aurangzeb who razed the Kashi Vishweshwar Temple again in 1669 and built the Gyanvapi Mosque using the same foundations and materials.

It is very similar to the use of materials from the destroyed 12th-century temple that was used to build the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The Babri Masjid was constructed in 1528 by Babur’s commander, Mir Baqi.

Babur was the first Mughal ruler in India, while Aurangzeb was the last of that family to hold sway.

Prinsep’s 200-year-old map of Gyanvapi Temple

Prinsep then went on to reveal the old plan of the Vishweshwar Temple by drawing a map and marking on it how the Aurangzeb-built mosque stood on it.

But how could Prinsep, who came to Varanasi in the 19th century, come up with the map of the old Kashi Vishweshwar Temple, which was destroyed by Aurangzeb in the 17th Century, after a gap of about 160 years?

Prinsep explains in Benares Illustrated how he exactly managed to draw the map of the old Vishweshwar temple.

“Antiquarians will be well pleased that the Moosulmans, in their zeal for the triumph of their own religion, discovered a method of converting the original structure into a capacious Musjid, without destroying above one-half of its walls; so that not only the ground plan but the entire architectural elevation, may still be traced out,” he writes.

Shiva linga found in a well in Gyanvapi Mosque. According Muslims it is a wazukhana fountain (though there is no water connection and the top nozzle is added recently).

Women doing abhishek to lingam in the Adi Vishwanath Temple (Peter Mindy 1632).

The word ‘spolia’ hides too many humiliations – Reshmi Dasgupta

February 2, 2024February 5, 2024VOI

For medieval European builders who used temple rubble in their churches, the older Pagan faith was totally snuffed out in the former Roman Empire, so no one was left to protest against the deliberate insult to the ancient Gods. But in India there are many left to seethe about temple ‘spolia’ in mosques. – Reshmi Dasgupta

‘Spolia’ is an interesting word. Taken from Latin, it means “spoils” (of war) but archaeologists and academics use it to describe stones and architectural elements retrieved from older structures and re-used in new constructions, as masonry or decoration, either in the same place or elsewhere. Many of those who use the word prefer it because ‘spolia‘ sounds passive, because most people do not know the real meaning, with its vivid allusions to violence and destruction.

Debris and rubble are the better known words that imply destruction and hence are less used as they give rise to uncomfortable questions. More so when certain sections of them are reused intact, so that their original purpose juxtaposed with their new ‘repurposed’ existence remains clear to those looking at it. Hindu and Jain temple ‘spolia’—pillars—used in the cloisters of the 12th century Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque in New Delhi’s Mehrauli is one such example in India.

Of course, an entire wall of an older structure retained intact in a subsequent construction—one example of which is currently in the news here—cannot be called ‘spolia’ in the classical sense as technically, it is not in bits and pieces. But its impact on those who see it is far sharper than, say, statues of Pagan or forbidden gods embedded in walls or on stairs, of which there are many examples in the areas of the erstwhile Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires.

In this connection, it may be remembered that remains of old statues and columns which were used in later constructions in the Acropolis in Athens have been widely interpreted as a deliberate device to forever remind Athenians about the destruction wrought by Persian emperor Xerxes I in 480 BCE after the battle of Thermopylae. Only certain spolia were used, so as to ensure Athenians resolve to never let it happen again. This is called ‘purposeful memorialisation’.

The ‘spoliate colonnades’ of Rome, however, are even more apt in the context of Mehrauli as intact pre-Christian Roman pillars were deliberately re-used in churches. In Spolia Churches of Rome: Recycling Antiquity in the Middle Ages, Maria Fabricius Hansen writes how from the 4th century CE to the 13th century CE, Christians “re-used” columns, pediments and other spolia of ancient (Pagan) Rome prominently in churches. It even became an architectural style.

The assertion of Christianity over the earlier faith prevalent there was implicit in this exercise since the new churches not only used old material but were also eventually built on the very sites of Roman temples. Fortunately for those medieval church builders, the older faith was totally snuffed out in the former Roman Empire, so no one was left to protest against the deliberate insult to their ancient gods. But in India there are many left to seethe about ‘spolia’.

The term ‘purposeful memorialisation’ can be used to describe the use of ‘spolia’ in India too, but the intention was rather different. Although contemporary left-leaning historians have tried hard to find a continuity in terms of violence and destruction in India before and after the advent of Islamic rulers, there is little proof of wilful debasing. There is no evidence of Buddhist ‘spolia’, for example, being deliberately used in Hindu temples to humiliate and disparage.

On the contrary, the great Buddhist university or mahavihara at Nalanda (then in Magadha and now Bihar) was built by the Hindu emperor Kumaragupta in the 5th century and flourished under successive Hindu rulers and non-royal Hindu donors. It was destroyed in the 12th century by ‘Turks’ (almost certainly Bakhtiyar Khilji’s army) corroborated by contemporary accounts of monks. The site of another mahavihara Odantapur that Khilji razed became Bihar Sharif.

Many reused ‘older’ building materials in India without any idea of what the original structures were, of course. Bricks and pillars of the 2ndcentury BCE Amaravati mahachaitya buried for more than a millennia were reused by a local zamindar Raja Vesireddy Nayudu to build his new capital in the late 18th century. Bricks from the then-undiscovered Harappa were also used by the British as track ballast for the Lahore-Multan railway in the late 19th century.

The Indus-Saraswati civilisation was still unknown when the railway was being built and Amaravati was just a grassy mound of bricks. They both could just as well have belonged to abandoned settlements of relatively recent provenance, that too not of known importance. So, whether knowing the origin of the bricks and ‘spolia’ would have really made a difference in these two cases remains moot. But all use of ‘spolia’ in India has not been that unwitting.

Which explains why there has been a concerted effort to project that destruction of places of worship and use of ‘spolia’ in India predated the Islamic period. One example cited is of the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I’s Brahmin general Paranjothi who took away a Ganesha idol from the Chalukyan capital Vatapi (now Badami in Karnataka) after the defeat of Pulakeshin II in 642 AD and installed it in his village Tiruchenkattankudi in Tiruvarur district of Tamil Nadu. But those who cite it omit the fact that the razing of Vatapi exempted temples.

Not only did Paranjothi install the Ganesha idol with great devotion and respect in his village but there is an inscription by Narasimhavarman I in the Mallikarjuna Temple at Vatapi, proving that destruction of Chalukyan temples—much less raising another structure on the site to rub it in—was not on the agenda. Carrying away idols did not indicate contempt as they were not melted down, unlike those taken from southern temples by Alauddin Khilji’s general Malik Kafur.

Another example given is of Rajadhiraja Chola who defeated the Chalukyas and plundered their capital Kalyani, taking away a large black stone dwarapala. But the inscription on that dwarapala, now installed at the Darasuram Temple in Kumbakonam, attributing its presence there to Rajadhiraja, proves it was not demeaned or destroyed but respectfully given place in another temple. If this could be called ‘spolia’ at all, it had been given a dignified new home.

The actions of warring southern Hindu rulers were a marked contrast to the attitude of the invading Islamic armies from the north, especially the expeditions of Alauddin Khilji’s favourite general Malik Kafur. The many stories of idols hidden to prevent destruction and mutilated stone carvings of figures in the great temples of south India bear witness to the fury and intentions of these invaders, going beyond just plundering their gold, gems, horses and elephants.

This is conveyed in almost fawning detail by the admired 14th century bard Amir Khusrau (who was witness to many of those pillaging wars) in Tarikh-i-Alai. One description goes: “The holy places of the Hindus, which the Malik Kafur dug up from its foundations with the greatest care. … The stone idols called ling, which had existed for a long time and until now, the kick of the horse of Islam hadn’t attempted to break … the Mussalmans destroyed all the idols”.

In most cases though, the ‘spolia’ used by idol-breaking armies are not as evident as, say, at the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque and certainly Gyanvapi. But the question is when (if at all) will India’s historians and intelligentsia take a cue from their counterparts (who have noted the same phenomenon around the Mediterranean) face up to the truth? They need to not only call a spade a spade but also disseminate the real meaning and purpose of ‘spolia’ in history. – FirstPost, 14 August 2023

› Reshmi Dasgupta is an editor at the Times of India, New Delhi.

The K.K. Muhammed Interview – TNIE

January 16, 2024December 4, 2025VOI

Archaeologist Dr. K.K. Muhammed, 71, was part of the Archaeological Survey of India team that excavated the Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya in 1976 where the Ram Temple now stands. While stating the demolition of Babri Masjid did shock him as an archaeologist, Dr. Muhammed is of the view Muslims must willingly hand over Gyanvapi and Mathura mosques to Hindus. He thinks that will heal many wounds. While stressing the Congress Party should have decided to participate in the inauguration of the Ram Temple on January 22, Dr. Muhammed terms the BJP rule under Narendra Modi a dark age for the ASI. Excerpts from his conversation with the New Indian Express Interrogation Team

Q : You were part of the ASI team that excavated Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi in 1976. What were your findings?

A : It was a team led by Professor B.B. Lal that carried out the excavation and I was part of it. We came across pillars of a Hindu temple, with poornakalasa engraved on them. Forms of defaced gods and goddesses were also discovered. Terracotta statues traditionally associated with temples, too, were unearthed. We will never find statues of humans in mosques, as these are haram for Muslims. That’s how we concluded that a temple had stood there before the mosque was constructed.

Q : But some, like Professor Syed Ali Rizvi of AMU, allege you were not part of the excavation team?

A : I was a postgraduate diploma student then at ASI’s School of Archaeology. Ten of us went as a team, including senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh’s wife Jaisree Ramanathan. I was engaged in the excavation of Trench B.

Q : Have the findings of these studies been published in any academic journal?

A : Yes. It’s there in the Indian Archaeological Review. But ASI, especially Professor Lal, never wanted to make it an issue. It was more of an academic nature.

Q : ASI excavations found structures to prove that there was a temple. … But was there any proof of it being a Ram Temple?

A : Yes. They got an inscription—Vishnuharisila Phalakam—after the masjid was demolished in 1992. It clearly states that this temple is dedicated to the Mahavishnu who killed Bali.

Q : So the crucial evidence was discovered during demolition, not during excavation?

A : Yes. They got this evidence after the Masjid demolition, not during excavation. The critics first said it was an 18th-century inscription. Later they backed out. In reality, it’s a 12th-century inscription. There was also an allegation that such evidence was planted there. So, we checked with the Lucknow Museum. They confirmed that the inscription they possess remains with them.

Q : The popular narrative is that Babar demolished a temple and constructed a masjid. But do we have evidence to prove that Babar had demolished the temple?

A : Babar’s military commander Mir Baqi (Baqi Tashqandi) had led the demolition of the temple. There was an inscription in Persian which said Mir Baqi had demolished the temple. It could also have been a dilapidated structure.

Q : But there is a huge difference between demolishing a temple to build a masjid and constructing a masjid on the ruins of a dilapidated temple….

A : Many temples were demolished in medieval India. If you visit Delhi you can see Quwwat-ul-Islam Mosque near Qutub Minar (the mosque was built over the site of a temple). Some pages of Babar Nama have gone missing. Pages describing the activities of three months are missing. But there was an inscription that Mir Baqi had constructed the masjid. The demolition was part of a war and the Muslims of the current generation are in no way responsible for the act. But at the same time, Muslims should not defend the demolition of temples by some invaders. Christians do not justify what the Portuguese did in Goa.

Q : What were the findings of the 2003 excavations?

A : In 2003, a team led by B.R. Mani carried out an excavation using the Ground Penetrating Radar and found out there was a structure underneath. During the excavation, 12 pillars and more than 50 brick bases were discovered. The excavation team had experts from JNU/AMU in addition to the Waqf committee’s lawyers, VHP people and members of the judiciary. It was fully recorded. About one-fourth of the workers were Muslims.

Q : Going by what you say, there was a 12th-century temple, and later a masjid was built on top of it in the 16th century. As an archaeologist do you agree with the demolition of a structure to unearth another one?

A : No archaeologist would agree to the demolition of any historical structure. In this case, it had already been demolished. We now need to think about what’s the way forward.

Q : As an archaeologist, what did you feel when Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992?

A : We were all shaken. Senior IAS officer I. Mahadevan had stated that we should not do wrong to correct a historical mistake that happened centuries ago. We were all against the demolition. It shouldn’t have happened.

Q : And as an Indian Muslim?

A : An archaeologist can never be a Muslim or a Hindu. We look at such matters objectively. I have faced stiff opposition from the Muslim community and Hindu groups on various occasions.

Q : Similar demands are now being made about Gyanvapi and Mathura?

A : The Muslim community should be ready to willingly hand over its rights (to the structures at) Varanasi and Mathura, too, to the Hindus. Tension is bound to be there. But from a historic perspective, there cannot be a lasting solution to the whole issue without handing these two over. I always remind the Muslims that India, even after Partition, remains a secular country because of its Hindu majority.

Q : But won’t it lead to more tension?

A : Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura are three places as important to Hindus as Mecca and Medina are to Muslims. Hence, Muslims should be ready to willingly hand over these places.

Q : Is there sufficient evidence in Gyanvapi to support claims of a temple there?

A : Yes. There may be Islamic inscriptions, but in totality, it is a Hindu structure. Also, there are many literatures which support this. This issue has created a major divide between the Hindus and the Muslims. So, handing it over to Hindus is the only lasting solution.

Q : Gyanvapi is an 18th century structure. As an archaeologist, do you support demolishing such an old structure?

A : The same issue had come up about Babri Masjid too. We can transplant these structures as such, without demolishing them. So far only four such transplants have been carried out in India. Of these, two were led by me—the Kurudi Mahadeva Temple and the Chaubis Avatar Temple in Madhya Pradesh.

Q : Whether Babri Masjid or Gyanvapi Mosque, these structures came into being as part of some historical moments. If we start correcting such historical errors, where would it lead us to?

A : That’s right. It’ll go on without any beginning or end. In Kerala itself, there are many such Buddhist temples and Jain temples that have later become Hindu temples. But if we take these three places as an exception—Ram Janmabhoomi, Krishna’s birthplace and Siva temple—that could prove to be the only and lasting solution to this issue. I think, if these two are handed over, all religious groups together can resolve this issue once and for all.

Q : Isn’t that just wishful thinking? The RSS-VHP reportedly has a list of close to 2,000 temples that were demolished to construct mosques….

A : There won’t be any end if we go on like this. But unlike Semitic religions, the Hindu mind will not approve of such aggressiveness. You have to remember that many Hindus have stood with the Muslims in the fight against the Ram Mandir movement. Can you remember one instance where the Muslims stood for the cause of the Hindus?

Q : Isn’t Ayodhya more of a political issue than an archaeological or historical issue?

A : Yes, correct. It’s a political issue. It’s a fact that the BJP and the RSS try to use it with a motive to make political gains. At the same time, we need to understand the pain of lakhs of ordinary Hindu devotees. It would have been better if the Muslims could understand the pain of the Hindus.

Q : But aren’t these emotions created by politicians?

A : I accept there were attempts to whip up emotions. But even during my visit to Ayodhya in 1976-77, I could understand the heart-wrenching agony of the poor Hindus. Had it been Mecca or Medina, how many bombs would have exploded by now? Hindus allowed that structure to remain there for 500 years. We have to understand this magnanimity of Indian culture and Hinduism.

Q : A 16th century structure has been demolished and a huge structure built using modern technology. Do you think justice has been served?

A : The issue is not whether the act is justified or not. The structure has been demolished. If it was not demolished, ASI would not have allowed the construction of another structure within 300 metres from the structure. The disputed structure has gone and the new building has been constructed considering the requirements of the current time. It is an issue of faith and we have to make some compromises.

Q : Do you think the Ram Temple issue had been a pan-India issue at any point of time?

A : It was not a pan-India issue. But now it is growing to such levels. I accept that it is a political project.

Q : You say the Hindus were magnanimous. Where can we see such large-hearted Hindus now?

A : Compared to (followers of) other religions, Hindus are far better even now. They may react recklessly, playing with emotions, but they will think and correct themselves later. The Semitic religions will never be ready to compromise on their faith.

Q : Do you think there is an attempt to Semiticise the Hindu religion?

A : Yes. The Semitic religions have started influencing Hinduism. But it is a temporary phenomenon and will not be sustained. I am more concerned about the false scientific claims of Pushpaka Vimana, surgery, and stem cells mooted by even educated people who are inspired by the Hindu revival. The king of Saudi Arabia will not present the claims of Arab mythology in a science congress. But PM Modi had presented the claims of Indian sages who pioneered surgery. This has created concerns that Hinduism is losing its values.

Q : The lock of Babri Masjid was opened, allowing pooja, during the term of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. How significant was that move?

A : Opening the lock of the Masjid, in 1986, was the first important decision. Later, in 1989, he allowed pooja at the disputed structure. There was an unwritten agreement between renowned Islamic scholar Abdul Hassan Ali Nadwi and Rajiv Gandhi to solve the issue. The agreement was that if the Muslims allowed the opening of Babri Masjid, the government would bring a bill to overcome the Shah Bano case verdict.

Q : What happened then?

A : The Waqf committee, including Syed Shahabuddin, had favoured the agreement. But once the Shah Bano bill was passed, all except Abdul Hassan Ali Nadwi changed their stance. After Rajiv Gandhi’s death, the agreement was forgotten.

Q : It is rumoured that historian Irfan Habib played a role in scuttling the agreement. Is it true?

A : I don’t know about his role. I will not be objective while speaking about Irfan Habib, because I have personal enmity with him. He is my teacher but I have no respect for him.

Q : Do you think the stand of Kerala CPM in the Babri Masjid issue is inspired by arguments of the Marxist historians?

A : Irfan Habib plays a prominent role in influencing the stand of the Communists. Besides, the CPM took it as a political stand to win the support of Muslims. I found the stand of the Muslim League more acceptable.

Q : How do you see Congress’ decision not to attend the consecration ceremony?

A : Congress should have come forward in these things because Rajiv Gandhi took the initiative to open the lock of Babri Masjid. Congress should have understood the feelings of Hindus, but those who control Congress do not think along those lines.

Q : Do you mean to say the Congress failed to understand the north Indian Hindu psyche?

A : That’s what I feel. And they are also scared of the consequences. If Congress becomes irrelevant, who else is remaining? BJP has become a group that can stoop to any level. We feel sad in seeing the misuse of the agencies like the ED.

Q : But many consider you a BJP person?

A : That’s what people think. I didn’t attend their (BJP’s) meeting though they invited me. I can be considered a Congressman because I share their liberal ideology.

Q : Your book Njanenna Bharatheeyan has created a controversy because you stated that the ASI is in a dead state during the BJP rule?

A : Yes. The ASI has become a dead organisation and 10 years of BJP rule is a dark age of the organisation. I had undertaken the renovation of 80 temples that were destroyed in the earthquake in the Chambal area. We expected they (BJP) would be in the forefront of the renovation efforts. But not a single temple has been renovated in the last nine years.

Q : According to you, Modi has not shown any interest in renovating other temples, but was keen on Ayodhya temple. So, Modi’s interest in Ayodhya is not religious, but political?

A : They (BJP) themselves admit that it was a political project (laughs out). It is a mix of both (smiles).

Q : You are a person familiar with different archaeological structures. In your opinion, which are the most amazing structures in India?

A : Hampi and Halebidu in Karnataka. If they were renovated properly, they would be more beautiful than Rome.

Q : Have heard you saying that the collection of books that Hiuen Tsang took from India was the basis for China’s development?

A : (Hiuen Tsang) carried 751 books on the back of 20 horses to China. I-tsing carried with him 400 manuscripts. They translated these works and used them for their future growth. But our knowledge collections were destroyed by invaders.

Q : But isn’t it a usual practice for kings and emperors to destroy temples or mosques as part of the conquests? Do you think there is a religious undertone to it?

A : Damage is indeed a part of subjugation, but there is a religious undertone too in the case of Semitic religions. But in the case of Indian conquests of other countries, like Indonesia or Malaysia, you will not see this kind of destruction.

Q : But Marathas also ransacked many temples during their raids. … Similarly, Pandya king is said to have torched the Kanthaloor Sala in Thiruvananthapuram….

A : Yes … they ransacked temples, but they did not destroy them like Semitic invaders. Semitic religions think only they are correct.

Q : Is there any archaeological proof for the happenings in Ramayana and Mahabharata?

A : Yes. Events in Mahabharata must have happened after iron ore was discovered. As per our estimate, it happened between 1200 BC and 1300 BC. Ramayana happened in 1500 BC. There are archaeological findings in the regions between Kurukshetra and Mathura where events in Mahabharata may have unfolded.

Q : So, Ramayana and Mahabharata are not mythology but history?

A : Communists will say these are mythologies while right-wingers say it happened two lakh years before. Archaeologists will not accept any of these. Truth is actually in between. Mahabharata war must have been a tribal warfare, and not a world war as it has been made out (smiles).

Q : What are the changes that you have observed in Indian society since the day you joined ASI in 1976?

A : People in general have become more religious. This change is more evident in the case of Hindus. I would say Hindus are in a way being forced to be more organised like the Semitic religions.

Q : Upanishads are your favourite books?

A : Yes. I am a follower of Vivekananda (smiles).

Q : Heard you received many threats after the Ayodhya verdict?

A : Yes, there were threats. I had police security for three years. Even now I don’t go out frequently.

Q : Have you received an invitation for the consecration of the Ram Temple?

A : Yes. I have received an invitation. But I may not go due to health reasons. – The New Indian Express, 14 January 2024

Vedic Saraswati Civilisation, not Harappan Civilisation – David Frawley

January 6, 2024VOI

The term ‘Harappa’ does not suggest any continuity in India’s history since the ancient period or give the Vedas any place in it. Those who proposed the name were proponents of the Aryan Invasion Theory like Mortimer Wheeler, and such a non-Vedic term was useful in perpetuating that theory. – Dr. David Frawley

It is time to remove the term ‘Harappan’ from designating the ancient civilisation of India, as it is inaccurate and ignores the nature and continuity of India’s civilisation as a whole. Harappan is an artificial and incidental term deriving from the archaeological site of Harappa in Pakistan along with Mohenjo-Daro, which were the major ancient urban sites in greater India discovered in the early twentieth century (1921-22) before the partition of the country. Western archaeologists arbitrarily chose it to designate an entire urban civilisation going back to 3500 BCE, which they viewed more as a lost civilisation than connected to the later history of India.

The term Harappa does not suggest any continuity in India’s history since the ancient period or give the Vedas any place in it. Those who proposed the name were proponents of the Aryan Invasion Theory like Mortimer Wheeler, and such a non-Vedic term was useful in perpetuating that theory. Wheeler also promoted the false theory of the massacre at Mohenjo-Daro by invading Aryans which has been archaeologically disproved.

Importance of Rakhigarhi

Today the site of Rakhigarhi in Haryana, located in the Saraswati River region of Kurukshetra, and traditionally regarded as the home of the Vedas, has been proven to be larger and older than Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro which were on the Indus. As Rakhigarhi is the largest Harappan site, it would be more accurate to associate this ancient Indian civilisation with Rakhigarhi rather than Harappa. It better reveals the geographical connections of these sites to later India and its prime historical regions.

The Harappan civilisation has also been called the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) as the Indus River (Sindhu in Indian languages) was the main location of the initial sites discovered. However, further excavations have revealed the majority of the so-called Harappan or Indus sites were located by the Saraswati River, famous in Vedic texts, which dried up around 4000 years ago, showing its antiquity.

An Ancient Maritime Civilisation

In addition, Harappan sites have been found in Gujarat by the ocean in what was then the delta region of the Saraswati River, indicating it was a maritime culture from the Saraswati to the sea. Vedic civilisation was also maritime, with 150 references to the ocean in the oldest Rig Veda alone, including noting the Saraswati River as flowing from the mountains to the sea.

Using nondescript terms like ‘Harappan’ fits in with the terminology of the Aryan Invasion Theory that separates the Vedas from the origins of India’s civilisation, which colonial scholars also maintained. Harappans are often called pre-Vedic or non-Vedic which the Rakhigarhi finds also disprove.

The rivers of Northwest India on which so-called Harappan sites have been found have ancient Vedic names including Sindhu, Saraswati, Vitasta, Parushni (Ravi), Vipas (Beas), Shutudri (Sutlej), Yamuna and Ganga. Vedic texts show a similar culture, artefacts and geography to what has been called Harappan, extending from fire altars to Shiva lingas. We see a continuity of civilisation in India from sites as old as 8000 years ago like Rakhigarhi or Bhirrana, another such ancient site in the Kurukshetra region in Haryana.

Saraswati-Sindhu Vedic Civilisation

In place of ‘Harappan’, the civilisation should be better called ‘Vedic Saraswati Civilisation’, or ‘Saraswati-Sindhu Civilisation’. Using the term ‘Harappan’ is misleading for the study of India’s history as it does not suggest the actual centre of the civilisation on the Saraswati River, along with its Vedic and Bharatiya connections.

Ramifications for India’s Textbook Accounts of History

Indian Marxist scholars like Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib who opposed the idea of the Saraswati civilisation were also, not surprisingly, the main academic opponents of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya. They denied that there ever was any Hindu temple at the Babri Masjid site, even after Prof. B.B Lal, Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), showed the evidence. Lal also wrote extensively on the Harappan as a Saraswati and Vedic culture and was involved in the excavation of Harappan sites.

Unfortunately, these same Marxist scholars were given charge over India’s history textbooks by the Congress government, not only relative to the ancient period but medieval and modern periods as well, including India’s independence movement. The youth of India were given their distorted views of India’s history as authoritative, devised to get them to reject their own culture and dharmic civilisation, portraying India as a country of invaders and no such religion as Hinduism but only a series of local cults.

Congress did this trying to gain politically and made the Marxists their intellectual wing in a lack of any thinkers of their own. You can be certain that if the Congress ever came back to power, they would try to restore these academics and their views. Fortunately, Sri Ram has proved too strong for them and the Vedas can no longer be denied their core role in the history of Bharat. – Firstpost, 31 December 2023

› Dr. David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva Shastri) is the director of the American Institute of Vedic Studies and the author of more than 30 books on yoga and Vedic traditions.

Tracing the roots of hostility among Jews, Christians and Muslims – Arvind Sharma

December 9, 2023December 21, 2023VOI

The Arabs trace their origin to Ishmael, and the Jews trace their origin to Isaac. The struggle between them, therefore, dates back to the question: Who was the rightful heir to Abraham? – Prof. Arvind Sharma

The current tensions in the Middle East compel one to probe the roots of the hostility of the Christians and the Muslims towards the Jews, especially the hostility between the Jews and the Muslims. To trace the roots, one needs to go back to around 1800 BCE. That is the age in which Abraham, who is venerated by all three traditions, lived.

It is not all conflict, however. According to the standard narrative, both the brothers buried Abraham together when he passed away.

The Jews, descendants of Isaac, finally found their kingdom in the promised land. They prospered, especially around 1000 BCE, giving us the legendary figures of David and Solomon. Thereafter, however, the Jewish kingdom fell prey to the various empires which arose in the Middle East, such as the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Persian, and the Roman.

We fast forward now to the beginning of the Christian era when the Romans were ruling over the Jews. The prolonged period of political servitude had instilled in the Jews the hope that a great saviour, a messiah, would arise in due course to restore their sovereignty. It was in such an atmosphere of messianic expectation that Jesus was born. His charismatic personality and the miracles he performed raised the expectation in some quarters that he might be the messiah. But others wondered whether that could be the case, because of the aura of non-violence around him. Those who continued to believe that he was the messiah, even after his crucifixion, became the founders of Christianity. In other words, the key issue between the Jews and the Christians is whether Jesus was the messiah. The Christians accept him as such, and the Jews reject him as such.*

Just as the difference between the Jews and the Muslims goes back to the legacy of Abraham; the difference between the Jews and the Christians goes back to the legacy of Jesus Christ.

The difference between the Jews and the Christians is aggravated by the fact that, in the Christian scriptures, the Jews are depicted as responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, although the crucifixion was formally carried out by the Romans. In Christian theology, Jesus is sometimes identified with God and, therefore, the Christians held the Jews responsible not just for the killing of Jesus Christ, but for killing God, or what is known as deicide.

Some historians argue that this was the result of the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The Romans could not be held responsible for killing Jesus, because they were proving receptive to the message of Christianity, and therefore the blame for the death of Jesus Christ had to be shifted to the Jews. Christian theology not only aggravates but also complicates the relationship between the Jews and the Christians. Because Jews and Christians worship the same God, the Christians felt that God’s word to the Jews had also to be redeemed in some form. That is why Jews survived as a sect in the Roman Empire even though Christianity eliminated all other rival sects within the empire once it became the official religion.

Thus the hostility of both the Muslims and the Christians towards the Jews has deep historical roots. In recent times, however, the hostility between the Christians and the Jews has diminished because of the Holocaust, in which almost six million Jews were eliminated during the Nazi regime. Many Christians now feel guilty about this, and therefore tend to favour Israel.

The hostility between the Jews and the Muslims also went through a period when it was not as acute as it is now. During the sixteenth century, when the Jews were expelled from Christian Spain, they found shelter in the Muslim Ottoman Empire. Therefore, although the hostility between the Jews and the Muslims and the Jews and the Christians has deep historical roots, one should not fall prey to historical determinism and imagine it must always be so. It is possible that a modus vivendi may yet emerge. – News18, 23 November 2023

* Jews also reject the prophethood of Muhammad. – Editor

› Prof. Arvind Sharma is the Birks Professor of Comparative Religion at McGill University in Montreal Canada, where he has taught for over thirty years. He has also taught in Australia and the United States and at Nalanda University in India. He has published extensively in the fields of Indian religions and world religions.

Warriors & Chariots: ASI finds proof Aryans were not invaders of India – Krishan Murari

December 1, 2023December 1, 2023VOI

“Western scholars proposed that chariots and weapons came to India with the Aryan invasion. … The Sinauli excavation denies the entire agenda, as we have evidence of burials of warriors, weapons and chariots which is indigenous in nature.” – Dr. Sanjay Kumar Manjul

One of the knottiest and most hotly debated theories of ancient Indian history is that of the Aryan invasion around 2000-1500 BCE. The BJP and RSS have always claimed that India was the cradle of the Aryans—the tribe that introduced the chariot and horse to India and went on to compose the Vedas. Some biological evidence even points to this possibility.

Recent excavations from the nearly 4,000-year-old archaeological site in Sinauli, where a warrior tribe once lived around 1900 BCE, further bolsters this argument, at least according to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

“Western scholars proposed that chariots and weapons came to India with the Aryan invasion, which changed society. The Sinauli excavation denies the entire agenda, as we have evidence of burials of warriors, weapons and chariots which is indigenous in nature,” said ASI’s joint director-general Sanjay Kumar Manjul at the National Museum in Delhi. The event was a lecture titled The Excavation of Sinauli: Revealing the Graves of Great Indian Warriors.

The excavations now form the earliest record of a warrior tribe in the subcontinent. It shows that these people were no ‘migrants’—but indigenous warriors with a culture distinct from that of the Harappan civilisation, though they existed around the same time as late Harappans. Their practices are echoed in ancient Hindu texts such as the Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Vedas.

Proving Mahabharata is no myth

Excavation of the Ganga-Yamuna doab in Sinauli, which is 70 km from Delhi, had begun in 2005 but was stalled for 13 years.

When the project was resumed in 2018, Manjul unearthed three chariots—and the possibility of re-examining widely accepted history. Now, carbon dating shows that the region was home to one of the earliest warrior tribes in the Indian subcontinent. And archaeologists are still unpacking its secrets.

The chariots, along with the 10 other items Manjul’s team excavated, could be the missing link between ancient Indian history and Vedic culture, according to the ASI.

“The evidence at Sinauli is comparable with literature like the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and Vedas,” said Manjul. “There are references to great warriors like Ram, but there was no scientific proof for it.” For historians and archaeologists like Manjul, Sinauli is important for the cultural understanding of India’s literature.

“Sinauli opens a new chapter in the history of archaeology,” said director-general of National Museum B.R. Mani in his introduction to the lecture.

Chariots of war

In 2005, archaeologist D.V. Sharma was leading the project and discovered 116 burials; in 2018, Manjul and his team unearthed coffins, copper shields, and chariots dating back to the second millennium BCE—all pointing to the warrior nature of the Sinauli tribe. They found weapons with hilts and even a copper helmet. Slowly, they pieced together the culture of this tribe of the upper Ganga-Yamuna doab.

That this community was distinct from the Harappan civilisation can be proved due to the presence of ochre-coloured pottery (OCP), copper hoards, and burial sites in Sinauli, according to the ASI.

“The Yamuna belt has a different kind of culture, and 90 per cent of the things in Sinauli are indigenous,” said Manjul. Harappan imprint on Sinauli culture is only about a meagre 10 per cent.

The discovery of the three chariots changed everything for Manjul and his team—it was ‘myth’ getting materialised. The ‘vehicles’ were found buried with the dead warriors. “We only heard about chariots in our literature, but there was no physical evidence [for them],” said Manjul, who, through his 50-minute lecture, circled back many times to link the findings with Vedic literature while dismissing the Aryan invasion theory. He pointed out that the kind of wood used to make these chariots were similar to those described in the Vedas.

“The findings shocked the archaeological world and brought a new perspective about our history,” said Manjul.

All three chariots are two-wheeled and lightweight with a D-shaped chassis and copper decorations. They were built to be ridden by one person. While more research is needed, Manjul is inclined to believe that the chariot was invented in India.

The findings are in keeping with the RSS’s view. In an episode of the organisation’s Knowledge Series on YouTube titled The Myth of Aryan Invasions, RSS ideologue Krishna Gopal calls the invasion “a hypothesis of the British”.

“Arya means superior. The British questioned how the people of what they saw as a slave country could be superior. Hence, they gave a hypothesis that Aryans had come from outside,” he said.

The 2018 paper by 92 scientists that was published in the peer-reviewed journal Science concluded that the Aryans were Central Asian Steppe pastoralists who migrated to the Indian subcontinent roughly between 2000 BCE and 1500 BCE.

The rites of the dead

According to ASI, the antennae swords and their hilts attached with ornaments also played a ceremonial role. The Rig Veda mentions that warriors were buried in full attire with all their weapons. Many of the burials even have peculiar characteristics. “Some are wooden coffin burials, some are with copper sheathing and decorations with steatite inlays,” said Manjul, pointing to pictures on a slide show.

Manjul’s team also found the secret chamber where the priests performed the final rituals before the actual burial. The team postulates that the ritual could have been a day-long exercise.

The Sinauli findings are consistent with ancient Indian literature on another count—the ASI team discovered female remains at Sinauli. “In our literature [Mahabharata and Ramayana], we learned about the female warrior. Possibly the earlier clan [in Sinauli] had female warriors [too],” said Manjul.

A cat’s remains got everyone furrowing their eyebrows. “In previous excavations, archaeologists found burials of dogs. This is the first time a cat burial was found; possibly a domesticated cat,” said Manjul.

While most of the audience was hooked, some sat unconvinced that the Aryans were indigenous.

“They [ASI] just want to prove the Aryans are from this land, not the outsiders,” said Debadatta Ray, a retired engineer who was attending the event. – The Print, 17 November 2023

› Krishan Murari is an author and senior subeditor at ThePrint.

VOICE OF INDIA

History Politics Science Religion

Author VOI

Aryan invasion theory and Dravidian distortions – Santishree D. Pandit

Hinduism and its 33 million deities – Nanditha Krishna

A reasonable date for Adi Shankara – Venu Gopal Narayanan

Hindu temples existed before the 5th century CE – Monidipa Bose Dey

James Prinsep: The Englishman who mapped the Adi Vishwanath Temple in Kashi – Yudhajit Shankar Das

The word ‘spolia’ hides too many humiliations – Reshmi Dasgupta

The K.K. Muhammed Interview – TNIE

Vedic Saraswati Civilisation, not Harappan Civilisation – David Frawley

Tracing the roots of hostility among Jews, Christians and Muslims – Arvind Sharma

Warriors & Chariots: ASI finds proof Aryans were not invaders of India – Krishan Murari

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: