Archaeology at the Heart of a Political Confrontation The Case of Ayodhya Author(s): Shereen Ratnagar Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 45, No. 2 (April 2004), pp. 239-259 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/381044 Accessed: 13-04-2017 18:45 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, The University of Chicago Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:45:37 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Current Anthropology Volume 45, Number 2, April 2004 ᭧ 2004 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2004/4502-0005$3.00 a mosque. While political parties that claim to speak for CA✩ FORUM ON Hindus are demanding the “return” of this site, others deny the existence of historical or archaeological evi- ANTHROPOLOGY IN PUBLIC dence of the destruction of an earlier temple at the site. Since 1950 there have been civil suits filed by Hindus and Muslims claiming entitlement to the site. In 1987 the Supreme Court of India decided that these suits would be grouped together and heard by a special bench Archaeology at the of the High Court of Allahabad, sitting in Lucknow. On orders from that court, the Archaeological Survey of In- Heart of a Political dia (ASI) has been excavating at the site since the begin- ning of 2003. I shall outline the political background and show how Confrontation archaeologists were drawn into this adversarial situation. Then, taking the position that this is no innocent debate about the details of this or that artefact or stratigraphic The Case of Ayodhya1 sequence, I shall attempt to initiate a discussion of why this happened—touching briefly on some of the concep- tual baggage of the discipline, on the use of archaeology 2 in a somewhat similar situation 50 years ago, and on by Shereen Ratnagar what we can expect it to deliver. The Background Despite its recourse to scientific (laboratory) investiga- It was in the nineteenth century that the dispute over tions, archaeology is a social science, researching the the site began. If we are to believe the records of the cultures of past societies through their material culture colonial administration, there was a tradition that the residues. No social science proceeds in an ideological mosque at Ayodhya stood on the site of a temple com- vacuum, and historians or geographers who claim not to memorating the birth of Rama, the hero of the Rama- be theoretical may simply be unaware of the conceptual yana who came to be deified as an incarnation of the or ideological underpinnings of the paradigms they use. god Vishnu. The British records were based on oral in- Being “apolitical,” in turn, often amounts to an accep- formation, and there is no documentation in medieval tance of the status quo. Thus archaeological methods and sources for any such destruction (although sources from paradigms are bound to be ideologically inscribed in that period do speak of the destruction of dozens of other some way. Moreover, the past is too important for so- temples by Islamic invaders and rulers [Eaton cieties to leave the matter to their academics. The ear- 2000–2001]). The British had annexed the wealthy state liest known “history,” the Sumerian King List (ca. 2000 of Awadh (of which Ayodhya was the capital until 1740) b.c.), for instance, was in all likelihood composed at the in 1856. Long before that, however, they had (in 1819) behest of a ruling dynasty that had usurped power and taken control of the civic and revenue affairs of the town lacked a Sumerian pedigree. In the postcolonial context, of Ayodhya even while Awadh was recognized as a sov- it is often in the process of delineating the past that ereign state. Several matters, including this annexation societies construct their identities. Therefore it is not and the disaffection of Indian soldiers, precipitated an surprising that archaeological interpretation is prone not uprising which spread across northern and central India only to controversy but also to politicization. in 1857 and 1858. During this rebellion, the British were Archaeology has become central to the current conflict besieged for five traumatic months in Lucknow, then the over sacred space in the North Indian town of Ayodhya, capital of Awadh. This siege united Muslims and Hindus, located on a northern tributary of the Ganga River. as did the uprising in general, with all rebels recognizing There, it has been claimed, a general of Babur (the foun- Bahadur Shah as their ruler—with the result that a Brit- der of Mughal rule in India in the sixteenth century) ish official noted that this was one occasion when “we destroyed a temple of the deity Rama in order to build could not play off the Mohammedans against the Hin- dus” (Bipan Chandra, Tripathi, and De 1972:45). Sur- prised by the uprising and thoroughly shaken by the mas- 1. Ajay Dandekar, Rusheed Wadia, Salima Tyabji, and Kannan Sri- nivasan took part in a lively discussion of the first draft. Anirudh sacres, especially because in Awadh “1857” was much Deshpande helped with archival enquiries. My dear friend Gouri more than just a soldiers’ mutiny, British officials turned Lad discussed matters at long distance. I thank H. Dastur and Ro- against the Muslims. After regaining control over shan Dadabhoy for permitting me a peek into the Munshi papers Awadh, they ransacked the palaces of its nawab, spoke at the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai. This article is dedicated to the memory of M. Muraleedharan. of Muslims as ferocious fanatics, and curtailed their re- 2. Empress Court, Churchgate Reclamation, Mumbai 400 020, India cruitment into the administrative services (Metcalf ([email protected]). 1965:298–301). 239 This content downloaded from 143.107.46.104 on Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:45:37 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 240 F current anthropology Volume 45, Number 2, April 2004 Early British histories of India insisted on an inbuilt British officialdom, could have fed the belief that the and universal antagonism between Hindus and Muslims, mosque was built after the destruction of a temple, and a position contested by many historians today. True, re- by 1860 official British reports were recording that Ba- ligion had not been totally separate from politics in pre- bur’s general had destroyed an ancient temple and had colonial times, when the prestige of ruling dynasties used its stone pillars for the mosque. (Having once given could, on occasion, be closely tied to the temples that credence to this and the oral traditions [Van der Veer they endowed or patronized. Yet royal cults were not 1997 (1988):36], Van der Veer later remarked [1994:161] mere contests or confrontations between sects and re- that he and Bakker [1986], the author of the authoritative ligions. There were overlapping interests. For instance, work on the textual material about Ayodhya, had been Van der Veer (1997 [1988]) shows that in Ayodhya (Hindu) naı¨ve to accept the local traditions in British records at Shaivite militant ascetics fought in the armies of the face value.) It is also significant that by 1900 the Nirbani Shiite (Muslim) nawabs and were ousted in the eigh- sect had become the wealthiest of all the Vaishnava sects teenth century by other militant Hindu ascetics, devo- in Ayodhya, having received lands from the British as a tees of Rama, who in their turn came to receive the reward for their loyalty in 1857;by1900 they were doing patronage of the nawabs. well in trade and moneylending (Srivastava 1991b:44). Bipan Chandra (1984:240–49) documents about half a To see how tradition can be more construction than dozen official statements, recorded between 1858 and something preexistent, let us look at another instance. Independence (1947) by secretaries of state in India and Having read in an excavation report about an old and politicians in Britain, concerning the threat that would persistent cult of the goddess of seafarers at and around be presented to British rule if Indians were to unite. To- the Harappan site of Lothal near the Gulf of Khambat, wards the end of the nineteenth century, the secretary in Gujarat in western India (see Rao 1979:134–35), and of state was informing the viceroy, for instance, that if having seen a recently built cement structure on the site the religious communities of India were united in (with the name of the deity inscribed on it) in the 1970s, thought and action it would be “very dangerous politi- I asked local people if I could question some elders about cally” and that civic strife, though “administratively the goddess. Many informants confirmed the existence tiresome,” was “the least risky.” Agreeing with Tagore of the cult but said that the elders would not have any that “Satan cannot enter until he finds a flaw,” Bipan more extensive information to give me. When I persisted Chandra does not generalize that British policy was a in asking how, then, they knew about this deity, all re- cause of religious antagonisms; he notes nevertheless plied that they had learned about it from the officers of that the policy of divide et impera pronounced by El- the ASI (during the years when the excavations were phinstone in 1858 was a subtle one, involving turning a going on).