Max Mueller distorted the Vedas to pave way for India’s Christian conversion – Priya Arora

October 1, 2024October 2, 2024VOI

The disdain for Vedic philosophy with which German philologist Friedrich Max Müller embarked on his translation of the Vedas is apparent: “The ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?” – Priya Arora

In 1847, the British East India Company hired a philologist, Max Mueller, to translate the Vedas specifically to make the Hindu intelligentsia dismiss them as barbaric, backward and fanciful. The hope was that the changed attitude of some influential groups will soon spread throughout Indian society, liberating it from its perceived paganism.

Mueller was not a missionary but seemed to have a religious zeal. We realise this intent in his letters. He wrote to his wife: “I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3,000 years.” (Oxford, December 9, 1867)

Along the same lines, Mueller wrote to the theologian, Chevalier Bunsen: “India is much riper for Christianity than Rome or Greece were at the time of St. Paul. The rotten tree has for some time had artificial supports. … For the good of this struggle, I should like to lay down my life, or at least to lend my hand to bring about this struggle. … I do not at all like to go to India as a missionary; that makes one dependent on the parsons. … I should like to live for ten years quite quietly and learn the language, try to make friends, and see whether I was fit to take part in a work, by means of which the old mischief of Indian priestcraft could be overthrown and the way opened for the entrance of simple Christian teaching.” (August 25, 1856)

The disdain for Vedic philosophy with which Mueller embarked on his translation of the Vedas is apparent: “The ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?” (Written to the Secretary of State for India, the Duke of Argyll, December 16, 1868)

“The worship of Shiva or Vishnu and the other popular deities, is of the same, nay, in many cases of a more degraded and savage character than the worship, of Jupiter, Apollo and Minerva; it belongs to a stratum of thought which is long buried beneath our feet, it may live on like the lion and the tiger but the mere air of free thought and civilised life will extinguish it.” (Westminster Lectures on Missions, December 1873)

Excerpts from Mueller’s letters express his opinion that the culture of the Aryans brought by earlier European conquest sorely needed replacement. In a communication to the Duke of Argyll, he wrote: “India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second conquest should be a conquest by education. Much has been done for education of late, but if the funds were tripled and quadrupled, that would hardly be enough… A new national literature may spring up, impregnated with Western ideas, yet retaining its native spirit and character. … A new national literature will bring with it a new national life, and new moral vigour. As to religion, that will take care of itself. The missionaries have done far more than they themselves seem to be aware of.”

With this mindset, Mueller propounded the famous Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) in the mid-19th century, based on two main factors: racial eminence and comparative linguistics. Alleging the Vedic people’s European origin, he claimed that a band of tall, fair-skinned nomadic pastoralists from the Russian steppes, called the Aryans, crossed the Himalayas on horse-driven chariots in 1500 BC. Being a superior race, they subjugated the unsophisticated dark-skinned aboriginals, whom they pushed south of the Vindhyas to become the Dravidians.

The colonising Aryan invaders then settled in the north and civilised the land, completely eradicating the local culture. They imposed Sanskrit and the Vedic lifestyle on the natives and were responsible for all ancient Sanskrit literature.

According to Mueller, the conquering Aryan race began composing the Vedas soon after their arrival, starting with the Rig Veda, which he dated at 1200 BC. They also formed the Vedic caste system, declaring themselves the upper-caste Brahmins and the natives the lower-caste Shudras.

This hypothesis implied that Brahmins and Shudras were of different racial ancestry, and since genetic study was unknown at the time, the supposition was accepted as fact. Then, in the 1920s, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, dating back to 3000 BC, were excavated.

Although the discovery of these highly advanced urban civilisations demonstrated that the indigenous people were far from unsophisticated aboriginals as previously believed, surprisingly, it did little to cast doubt on the Aryan Invasion Theory.

Instead, the narrative was neatly amended to fit the new information suggesting that the Indus Valley inhabitants, although evolved, were the peaceful dark-skinned pre-Vedic natives. They fled south when the Aryans, who had a technological edge in the form of horse-driven chariots unknown to the locals, attacked and defeated them. As a result, the prevailing culture was entirely replaced by an imported Vedic one indicating the invaders’ superiority.

The concept of Aryan supremacy fuelled white nationalism in Europe. Hitler notably adopted the false narrative of a master race, along with a distortion of the word Arya and the holiest of Vedic symbols, the swastika. Finally, in the latter part of the 20th century, when archaeological evidence proved conclusively that no invasion had occurred, the theory was modified to a peaceful migration and then further amended to a “trickling in”.

Despite the many iterations of how the Vedic culture came to India, whether by violent invasion, peaceful migration or people trickling in, the core assertion has remained that in 1500 BC, foreigners replaced the pre-Vedic local culture and language of North India with their own. The claim that the Vedic culture was imported rather than indigenous is still touted, though it is refuted by literature, archaeology and science.

Motivating factors for AIT at inception

The thought that the language of a subjugated people was the source of most European languages, including English, was abhorrent to imperialists. In his 1650 work, The Annals of the Old Testament, Archbishop James Ussher propounded that the first day of creation was October 23, 4004 BC. Most Christian scholars firmly held this belief during the colonisation of India, and the Vedic civilisation did not fit into this.

According to the biblical timeline, a highly evolved people could not have lived thousands of years before the Earth was supposed to have come into existence. Furthermore, the ecclesiastic chronology insisted that God destroyed the whole world by a flood around 2348 BC, so the Vedic civilisation posed a considerable problem.

To tie in with biblical events, Mueller fixed the anomaly by ascribing 1500 BC for the Aryan invasion when Sanskrit and the Vedic culture ostensibly came to India. The Aryan Invasion Theory was politically convenient.

It served to divide and rule, effectively controlling the natives by justifying British colonisation with an ancient precedent. The concept of invading Aryans was fed to the Indian population through the westernisation of education, beginning with Thomas Babington Macaulay’s Indian Education Act of 1835.

While the theory had apparent advantages for the ruling power, many Indians also embraced it, as it put them on the same racial footing as their rulers. The idea that foreigners displaced native Indians had far-reaching effects.

It effectively divided the nation, with north and south Indians believing they were racially, linguistically and culturally distinct from each other. The ancient varna system’s meritocracy was also replaced with birth-based caste and Brahmin eminence based on their perceived superior Caucasian ancestry. – News18, 27 September 2024

› Excerpts from Priya Arora’s book, Rama: A Man of Dharma.

Democracy in ancient India – Rakesh Goyal

August 15, 2024August 15, 2024VOI

The Greek writer Diodorus Siculus mentions that at the time of Alexander’s invasion (326 BCE), he mostly came across cities which practiced a democratic form of government, though some were ruled by kings. – Rakesh Goyal

The Vedic Origin

Evidence of a democratic system of government in India is originally found in the Vedas. There is distinctive evidence from Rig Veda, which mentions a thriving republican form of government in India. We may quote a few beautiful slokas from Rig Veda which were to be sung in unison at the beginning of the republican assembly:

“We pray for a spirit of unity; may we discuss and resolve all issues amicably, may we reflect on all matters (of state) without rancor, may we distribute all resources (of the state) to all stakeholders equitably, may we accept our share with humility.” – Rig Veda 10:191:2

However, in the absence of any corroborating material evidence because of a pre-historic nature of this source, most Western historians tend to dismiss this foundation and instead inclined to concentrate on the Buddhist period of Indian history, which they believe has more reliable sources of corroboration. Moreover, the Buddhist period was contemporary to the Greek city states and their republics, which make it easier for them to accept. A Vedic origin indicates a time period which preceded the Greek city states by a very wide margin, telling on the Western pride in Greek civilization as the fountainhead of all modern learning.

Buddhist Records

As per Buddhist texts in Pali, politics was vigorous during the Buddhist period, 600 BCE – 200 CE. During this period, India witnessed widespread urbanization, which was almost synonymous with a republican form of government. The Buddhist scriptures in Pali provide a vivid depiction of the city state of Vaishali during 5th century BCE.

As per these sources, various warrior kings often sought to exploit this amorphous structure of the society, sometimes with a measure of success. As per Buddhist literature in Pali and Brahminical literature in Sanskrit, republican system of government was almost universal.

These ancient classics offer a complex scenario to describe the different groups that managed their own affairs. Some of these groups were probably warrior formations; others were groups with avowed economic aims; some were religious fraternities. These organizations, of whatever type, were usually designated as a gana or a sangha; while less important political structures were known by such terms as shreni (guilds).

The terms gana and sangha initially meant multitude, but gradually with the passage of time, these words come to mean a self-governing multitude by 6th century BCE. In this system, all decisions were taken by the sangha members themselves, and the governing style was stabilized by convention for such groups. The strongest of these groups functioned as sovereign governments, who were generally known as “republics.”

Various sources indicate an almost universal presence of sovereign republics in India during that time. Commenting on the authenticity of these sources, the Western historians find the Greek sources as the more credible, as the texts of those writers are more familiar to the modern Western historian.

The Greek references

While describing Alexander’s campaigns in great detail, the Anabasis of contemporary Greek Historian Arrian refers to “eyewitness accounts of Alexander’s companions and describes him coming across free and independent Indian communities at every turn.” The historian further mentions that many Indian republican states controlled much larger territories and enjoyed a broader mandate at that time, as compared to the contemporary Greek city states. Some other Greek writers writing about the exploits of Alexander refer to a people who practiced a democratic form of government but were not monarchial, though their sway encompassed a large area. They maintained a large army comprising of 60,000 infantry, 500 chariots and 6,000 cavalry. This indicates that Indian republics of late 4th century BCE were much larger than the Greek city states of that time. It seems that republicanism was at that time the standard practice in the northwestern part of India. Alexander’s historians refer to a handful of kings, but they are lavish in their praise of a large number of republics; some of them are named, while some are not.

The Greek writer Diodorus Siculus mentions that at the time of Alexander’s invasion, he mostly came across cities which practiced a democratic form of government, though some were ruled by kings. This statement assumes importance as it apparently refers to a first-person account of India by the noted Greek traveler Megasthenes. It is important to note that Greek king Seleucus Nicator deputed Megasthenes as his ambassador to the court of Indian emperor Chandragupta Maurya at around 300 BCE, i.e. hardly 20 years after the invasion of Alexander. In the course of his duties, he travelled through northern India to the Mauryan capital Patliputra, where he stayed for some time. Thus, if this statement is drawn from Megasthenes, this indicates that entire northwestern India was dominated by republics at that time, signifying almost half of Indian subcontinent.

The Testimony of the Grammarian Panini

The Indian sources scrupulously support these observations. The most important indigenous sources describing north India during that time are three: The Buddhist scriptures in Pali, which describe the state of Gangetic plains during the 6th and 5th centuries BCE; Panini’s Sanskrit classic Ashtadhyayi, which discusses entire north India, focusing on the northwest during the 5th century; and Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which got shape during the 4th century BCE, i.e., almost contemporary to Megasthenes. These three indigenous sources enable us to independently identify various ganas and sanghas, some minor, while some large and powerful.

Dwelling at length on these republican polities, Panini informs us that “the states and regions (janapadas) in north India were established in his time by the conquest of a particular area by a specified invader group, which continued to hold sway on the polity of that area.” Some of these communities (in Panini’s terms janapadins) were ruled by a king, who was of one of their own kinsmen and who was dependent on their support. However, in case of many other communities, the janapadins were organized as republics. In both these kind of states, the governance was dominated by Kshatriyas, or say, the warrior caste.

The Nature of Republics

Interestingly, the term raja is used in both the instances, which obviously denotes a king in case of the monarchy, but in a republican state, it could be someone deputed to assume sovereignty.

In republican states, it might mean that political power was confined to the heads of a handful of “royal families” (rajakulas) among the ruling elite. The leaders of these family groups were sanctified as kings. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that in some polities, the empowered group was wider. Kautilya’s Arthashastra provides such an indication. According to this treatise, there were two kinds of janapadas, one predominantly martial, i.e. those constituted by soldiers, and the other constituted by craftsmen’s guilds, or by traders guilds and agriculturalists. The first were predominantly political entities where military might was the sole criteria to define those worthy of power; on the other hand, the second group appears to be such communities where wealth earned from trade and commerce provided the impetus to the political process.

The Republican Process

The gathering of the members of a sovereign gana or sangha worked together with each other as present day members of a legislature. Both the Brahminical and Buddhist literature provide details about the working of these ancient legislatures. Panini (5th century BCE) mentions explicit terminology as regards the process of decision-making in these polities. Panini provides various terms for voting, decision making through voting, and the requirement for a quorum. Another group of terms hints that the assemblies were divided on the basis of political parties. Panini also mentions that sometimes a smaller group of selected people within a sangha were given special functions, e.g. acting as the chief functionary or probably as a select committee for some specific purpose.

Panini also indicates that these republics functioned on an egalitarian basis during the 5th century BCE, and he mentions that “there was no consideration of high and low.” Kautilya’s Arthashastra specifies that ganas were an important factor in the polity of his time.

The Decline of Republics

It is remarkable to note that for several centuries, the avarice of monarchs, even of the greatest, impacted the sovereign republics only to a limited extent, with not much effect on the internal management of guilds, or religious sanghas, or the social life in the villages. As a matter of fact, the conquerors were hardly interested in restructuring the society, or to carve out kingdoms as we visualize them today. The kings were often satisfied with the acquiescence of their neighborhood states, whether they were republics or other kings. The defeated adversaries were often let off to look after their own realm, but were asked to pay a tribute or to provide troops in support of the conquerors’ war efforts.

It is therefore interesting to note that the existence of an aggressive warlord in the neighborhood did not pose much of a problem for the republican politics. We have to look elsewhere to search for the reasons for the gradual breakdown of sanghas. Apparently, a major stimulus came from within, as the republicans themselves gradually forsake the republican ethics by the 3rd and 4th centuries CE. In some instances, some well established republics gradually transformed and subjected themselves to hereditary chieftains. In due course, these republics transformed as monarchies.

The Disintegration

If we try to explore further into the underlying causes of the disintegration of these republics, we come across instances where members of ganas themselves sought this transformation due to various reasons. Quite frequently, the impetus to transform grew out of the ongoing frustration caused by inter-gana equations among the equal and often competing polities. It can be visualized that ganas claiming certain territory as their own were obstructed by other corporate groups. In the event of any territorial disputes, which were many, there was no arbitrating force which could sort out the tangle and reconcile the differences.

In a vast country like India and the number of equal and often competing republics many, there was apparently an inchoate wish in these circumstances to seek to identify some centralized coordinating authority, which could arbitrate in case of any inter-state conflict, even by preparing to relinquish a part of their sovereignty. Such an authority could take up the challenge of safeguarding their legitimate interests and protecting the weaker ones, by arrogating to itself imperialistic pretensions.

This was perhaps the political environment of the sub-continent, which supported the emergence of the first pan-India empire in India, in the shape and form of the redoubtable Mauryan Empire (322 BCE – 185 BCE). The stage had in any case been set by Alexander’s invasion (327-326 BCE) into the north-western flank of the country. Although Alexander decided to turn back instead of facing the mighty Magadha Empire ruled at that time by the powerful Nanda Dynasty, the writing on the wall was evident for the indigenous republicans.

The Republics Transformed

Thus, we see the republics withering away gradually. The political discourse was henceforth dominated by powerful empires. Though the ganas and sanghas continued to exist in theory, but now their sovereignty was compromised, giving way to a new social order, based on hierarchy at the cost of the former egalitarian structure of the country.

However, this spirit of republicanism continued to thrive at the grassroots at village level, which were left undisturbed to their own devices in the new political order. Likewise, the economic guilds organised on a republican pattern continued to function and to thrive even during the powerful Mauryan Empire. – Pragyata, 3 January 2017

› Rakesh Goyal is a former state civil servant who has extensive experience of writing on subjects such as Spirituality, Hinduism, Lifestyle, Handicrafts, Travel, Yoga, Ayurveda and Vedic Astrology.

John Woodroffe: Sanskritist, yoga practitioner and author of books on tantra – Namit Saxena

August 2, 2024February 4, 2025VOI

Sir John Woodroffe chose the name Arthur Avalon as a pseudonym for his translations of Sanskrit texts and books on tantra. – Namit Saxena

A lot of us seek spiritual transformation, but few take on a journey towards that transformation. Depending upon the journey and the individual, the shastras have given different techniques to march forward on the chosen path. One of the most effective paths for the journey is that of tantra sadhana.

To perfect the techniques of attaining a certain level of spirituality in tantra sadhana, it takes a sadhaka years of practice.

Seldom do we find a foreign national, more so a British sitting judge of a high court, taking on such a journey in India. Sir John George Woodroffe, a former judge of the Calcutta High Court, is one such distinguished sadhaka.

The judge not only learnt Sanskrit, but also practised tantra sadhana, translated Sanskrit texts to English and wrote authoritative voluminous commentaries on various theoretical and practical aspects of kundalini yoga and tantra sadhana.

Born on December 15, 1865, John Woodroffe was educated at Woburn Park School and University College, Oxford, where he graduated in jurisprudence and cleared the Bachelor of Civil Law examinations. In 1890, he moved to India and enrolled as an advocate before the Calcutta High Court. He was soon made a Fellow of the Calcutta University and also appointed a Professor of Law there. He was later appointed Standing Counsel to the Government of India in 1902 and two years later, he was elevated to the High Court Bench at Calcutta.

It is during his stint as a judge of the Calcutta High Court that Woodroffe became interested in tantra sadhana and later delved into translations and writings of multiple texts on the same. How he got initiated into the tantra sadhana is also very interesting. The anecdotal story narrates that one day, Woodroffe was in his court and had to dictate a judgement in a matter which was supposed to be easy to decide with his magisterial calibre. However, when he tried to dictate the judgement, he felt that his mind was very clouded and he was unable to dictate the judgement properly. On enquiry, he found that one of the parties to the litigation had engaged a tantric practitioner who was outside his court, and with his siddhi he had clouded the mind of Woodroffe, making him unable to decide the case. Such a practice falls under the category of abhichaar in the tantra sadhana and is known as stambhan. Woodroffe got the practitioner chased off by his staff, but to no avail. This made Woodroffe curious about abilities of tantra practitioners.

On his engagement with a lot of people into yoga sadhana, Woodroffe got a glimpse of the depth of tantra—more particularly shakta tantra—and kundalini yoga. As he found that most of the texts were written in Sanskrit, he went to great lengths to learn the language so that he himself could read the texts.

Woodroffe chose the name Arthur Avalon as a pseudonym to write books and translations. The book titled Introduction to Tantra Shastra, is to date one of the leading books for beginners on understanding the basics and foundational principles of tantric practice. He further wrote The Serpent Power, The Garland of Letters, Principles of Tantra, Sakti & Sakta, The World as Power and The Great Liberation: Mahanirvana Tantra, amongst other books.

Woodroffe simultaneously also got initiated into tantric practice and became a notable sadhaka under the aegis of various gurus, including the well known Lahiri Mahashay, who initiated him into the practice of Kriya Yoga.

Tantra sadhana has no discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, caste or creed etc. It rather tells one that male and female is only a matter of percentages, and that anyone can practice tantra sadhana and become a guru. This enabled Woodroffe to enter into the spiritual realm of tantric practise while conducting his duties as a judge of the Calcutta High Court.

Woodroffe’s writings on kundalini yoga and tantra sadhana not only present a simplified version of complex principles, but also introduce an enthusiast to insights on the path she should choose. Till date, the books by Woodroffe under the name Arthur Avalon are the most relied upon texts written in English for tantra sadhana enthusiasts. He remains perhaps the only English judge of a high court to become a leading name in the realm of tantra texts! – Bar and Bench, 6 December 2023

› Namit Saxena is an Advocate-on-Record practising at the Supreme Court of India.

See also

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

VOICE OF INDIA

History Politics Science Religion

Category india

Max Mueller distorted the Vedas to pave way for India’s Christian conversion – Priya Arora

Democracy in ancient India – Rakesh Goyal

John Woodroffe: Sanskritist, yoga practitioner and author of books on tantra – Namit Saxena

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

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: