Tag archaeology

Dating Indian history all over again – Nanditha Krishna

VOI

Logo of the Asiatic Society of Bengal depicting Sir William Jones (1905).

Today, science gives us advantages that William Jones lacked. But sadly, some accounts of Indian history are still stuck in outdated methods of dating – Dr. Nanditha Krishna

In 1650, Irish theologian James Ussher claimed that the world was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BCE. Ussher based his calculation on a correlation of the Christian holy writ and West Asian and Mediterranean histories.

Tragically, his unscientific dating became a basis for dating Indian history—and, for some, continues even today.

In 1783, William Jones was appointed judge at Fort William in Bengal. He studied Sanskrit, the Vedas and ancient Hindu laws. He was captivated by Indian culture and founded the Asiatic Society in Calcutta. He proposed a relationship between European and Indo-Aryan languages, now known as the Indo-European languages. He suggested that Sanskrit, Greek and Latin had a common root and postulated a proto-Indo-European language uniting Sanskrit, Iranian, Greek, Latin, Germanic and Celtic.

Jones, a follower of Ussher, believed that “the foundation of the Indian empire (sic) was about 3,800 years” before 1790 CE, that is, between Ussher’s date of 4004 BCE and the Great Flood that Jones believed took place in 2350 BCE. He dated the Rig Veda unscientifically to 1500-1000 BCE and proposed an Aryan invasion of India, an idea that lacked any evidence.

For a long time, the West supposed India jumped from the Stone Age to the Buddha, whose date became very important for ancient Indian history. Eastern Buddhist tradition in China, Japan, Vietnam and Korea dated Siddhartha between his birth in 1026 BCE and his death in 949 BCE.

In 1821, John Davy chose the Sinhalese date of Buddha’s Nirvana as 543 BCE, when the Sinhalese system of reckoning time begins. This gave time between Jones’s date for the Vedas (1500 BCE) and the Buddha; hence it was “chosen”. Mahavira was never properly dated and was regarded merely as Buddha’s contemporary.

Alexander’s foray into Punjab in 326 BCE turned up yet another date. Jones decided that Sandrocottus, mentioned by Megasthenes as Seleucus Nicator’s Greek ambassador to Pataliputra, was Chandragupta Maurya. Why not Chandragupta I or II of the Gupta dynasty? They too ruled from Pataliputra. But that did not suit the British dating of the Vedic period, the Buddha and later Ashoka.

Jones decided that Megasthenes had visited Chandragupta Maurya’s empire, founded in 322 BCE. But we know of Chandragupta’s life only from Vishakhadatta’s Mudrarakshasa, where there are no Greeks or Megasthenes, and which was written over a thousand years later.

It is only with Ashoka’s inscriptions that scientific methodology entered Indian archaeology. James Prinsep worked at the Calcutta mint in 1819 and stayed for a while in Benares. He interpreted the three stages of Indian numismatics as punch-marked, die-struck and cast coins. But his greatest contribution was deciphering the Brahmi script.

Edicts from all over India were sent to him. The edicts mentioned a King Devanampiyadasi who filled Indian rocks and pillars with messages of dharma. Prinsep initially assumed him to be Sri Lankan.

The identification of Devanampiyadasi and Ashoka as the same person was established by the Maski and Gujarra inscriptions, which used both the names Devanampiyadasi and Ashokaraja. In his inscriptions, Ashoka also mentions Antiochus, Ptolemy, Antigonus, Magas and Alexanderas as receivers of his message of dharma. But they lived beyond India. The names on this list, though intriguing, were ignored in the dating process.

In the early 20th century, the ruins of Harappa and Mohenjo Daro were discovered by Indian archaeologists Daya Ram Sahni and Rakhal Das Banerji. Overnight, Indian civilisation went back in time from the 6th century to 3300-1300 BCE, and to 2600-1900 BCE in the ‘mature Harappan’ phase. It was spread over an area larger than the contemporary Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilisations.

It extended from Balochistan in the west to western Uttar Pradesh in the east, from Afghanistan in the north to Maharashtra in the south. Later, agriculture was found to have emerged in 7000 BCE in Balochistan. The dating was based on archaeology, and not 4004 BCE.

It was declared as pre-Vedic and Dravidian, but when was Vedic and what was Dravidian? It remains an enigma.

In the 19th century, the river Sarasvati, described in the Rig Veda as a ‘mighty’ one flowing from the hills to the sea, was identified with the Ghaggar-Hakra river system that now ends in the Thar desert. ISRO observed from satellite pictures that most Indus civilisation sites from Haryana and Rajasthan to Gujarat lay along its course. When the monsoons diminished, the river dried up some 4,000 years ago and the Harappan civilisation declined.

Now archaeology was used to delineate Indian history. New discoveries cropped up all over India: Arikamedu and Poompuhar in the south, Dwarka under the sea off the coast of Gujarat and so on. Mahabharata was identified with painted greyware sites dating to 1200 BCE. So the Vedas had to be much older.

Yet, students are still taught dates that are calculated from 4004 BCE. Their textbooks say that the Aryans came to India in 1500 BCE, the date of the Vedas, that the writing of the Mahabharata dates back to 500 BCE, that Chandragupta Maurya met Alexander and so on.

No effort has been made to study the dating system of Indian kings as mentioned in their inscriptions or their chronology lists. This too needs archaeological corroboration. The Buddha died in Kushinagara. His remains could be scientifically tested to find out the exact date of his death.

Today, science gives us advantages that William Jones lacked. But sadly, some accounts of history are still stuck in outdated methods of dating. – The New Indian Express, 29 September 2024

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

Ashoka's Maski inscription with 'Buddha' word in Brahmi script, 3rd century BCE.

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

VOI

Sonkh Temple Artefact (Mathura, 1st century CE).

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.

Heliodorus Pillar (113 BCE)

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.

Yaudheya coinage with temple engraving (ca. 200 BCE).

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. 

Sonkh Temple Foundation

Sonkh Temple Frieze

The K.K. Muhammed Interview – TNIE

VOI

K.K. Muhammed

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.

Hari-Vishnu Inscription

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.

Aurangzeb's firman against the Keshava Rai Temple in Mathura (13 October 1666).

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.

Aurangzeb's firman ording the demolition of the Vishwanath Temple at Kashi (August 1669).

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.

Bateshwar temple ruins in the Chambal Valley. MP.

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

The New Indian Express Team