Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T12:22:52.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ayodhya's sacred landscape: ritual memory, politics and archaeological ‘fact’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Julia Shaw
Julia Shaw*
Affiliation:
Darwin College, Cambridge CB3 9EU, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Great astonishment has been expressed at the recent vitality of the Hindu religion at Ajudhia [sic], and it was to test the extent of this chiefly that … this statement has been prepared. As the information it contains may be permanently useful, I have considered it well to give it a place here. This information is as correct as it can now be made and that is all that I can say CARNEGY(1870: appendix A)

After the destruction of Ayodhya's Babri mosque in 1992 by supporters of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the statement above seems laden with premonition of the events to come (Rao 1994). More importantly, Carnegy’s comments highlight that the mosque’s destruction was not simply the result of 20th-century politics. The events surrounding and following the outbreak of violence in 1992 have resulted in more ‘spilt ink’ than Carnegy could ever have imagined. This literature can be divided into two main categories; firstly, the initial documentation submitted to the government by a group of VHP aligned historians, which presented the ‘archaeological proof’ that the Babri mosque had occupied the site of a Hindu temple dating to the 10th and 11th century AD (VHP1990; New Delhi Historical Forum 1992). This was believed to have marked the birthplace of the Hindu god Rama (hence the name Rama Janmabhumi — literally ‘birthplace of Rama’), and been demolished at the orders of the Mughal emperor Babur during the 16th century. As a response, a second group of ‘progressive’ Indian historians began a counter-argument, based on the same ‘archaeological proof’ that no such temple had ever existed (Gopal et al. 1992; Mandal 1993). The second category is a growing body of literature which has filled many pages of international publications (Rao 1994; Navlakha 1994). Especially following the World Archaeology Congress (WAC) in Delhi (1994), and subsequently in Brač, Croatia (1998), this has been preoccupied with finding an acceptable route through the battlefield which arises as a result of the problematic, but recurrent, marriage between archaeology, folklore and politics (Kitchen 1998; Hassan 1995).

Keywords

IndiaidentityAyodhyaBabri mosqueHindu fundamentalismritual landscape
Type
Special section
Information
Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 285 , September 2000 , pp. 693 - 700
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allchin, F.R. 1995. Mauryan architecture and art, in Allchin, F.R. (ed.), The archaeology of Early Historic south Asia: 222–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ayodhyamahatmya. Ram, Narayan (transl.). 1875. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 44: 130–78.Google Scholar
Bakker, H.T. 1982. The rise of Ayodhya as a place of pilgrimage, Indo Iranian Journal 24: 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, H.T. 1986. Ayodhya: The history of Ayodhya from the 17th century BC to the middle of the 18th century. Groningen: Egbert Forsten.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjea, J.N. 1974. The development of Hindu iconography. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.Google Scholar
Bender, B. 1992. Theorising landscapes, and the prehistoric landscapes of Stonehenge, Man 27: 735–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, M. 1977. The past and the present in the present, Man (n.s.) 12: 278–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 1987. Time regained: the creation of continuity, Journal of the British Archaeology Association 140: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnegy, P. 1870. A historical sketch of Tahsil Fyzabad, Zillah Fyzahad. Lucknow: Oudh Government Press.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, D.K., Tewari, R. & Singh, R.N.. 1999. Archaeology of Jaunpur, Sultanpur, Faizabad, Pratapgarh and Allahabad with reference to early historic routes, South Asian Studies 15: 159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, S. & Elsner, J.. 1999. Archaeology and Christian sacred space at Walsingham, in Insoll, (ed.): 128–38.Google Scholar
Cunningham, A. 1871. Archaeological survey of India. Four reports made during the years 1862–65, volume 1. Simla.Google Scholar
Epigraphica Indica. 1892–1969. Calcutta/Bombay.Google Scholar
Gopal, S., Thapar, R. Pannikkar, K.N. & Bhattacharya, N.. 1989 (updated 1992). The political abuse of history: Bahri Masjid—Ram Janmahhumi dispute. New Delhi: Centre for Historical Sudies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.Google Scholar
Hassan, F. 1995. The world archaeological congress in India: politicizing the past, Antiquity 69: 874–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. 1992. Theory and practice in archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Insoll, T. (ed.). 1999. Case studies in archaeology and world religion. Oxford: Archaeopress. BAR International series S755.Google Scholar
Kitchen, W. 1998. From Croatia to Cape Town: the future of the World Archaeological Congress, Antiquity 72: 747–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, N. 1999. Bodh Gaya: an ancient Buddhist shrine and its modern history (1891–1904), in Insoll, (ed.): 33–43.Google Scholar
Mahabharata. Belvalkar, S.K. (ed.). 1943. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.Google Scholar
Mandal, D. 1993. Ayodhya: Archaeology after demolition. New Delhi: Orient Longman. Tracts for the Times 5.Google Scholar
Martin, M. 1838. The history, antiquities,topography and statistics of eastern India. London.Google Scholar
Misra, R.N. 1981. Yaksha cult and iconography. New Delhi: Munishram Manoharalal.Google Scholar
Nandy, A. 1995. Creating a nationality: The Ramjanmabhumi movement and fear of the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Navlakha, G. 1994. Archaeology: recovering, uncovering or forfeiting the past? Economic and Political Weekly 29 (19 November): 2961–3.Google Scholar
New Delhi Historical Forum. 1992. Ramajanmabhumi: Ayodhya: New archeological discoveries. New Delhi.Google Scholar
Ramayana of Valmiki. Goldman, R.P. (ed.). 1994. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rao, N. 1994. Interpreting silences: symbol and history in the case of Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid, in Bond, G. & Gilliam, A., Social construction of the past: representation as power: 154–64.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M. 1993. The role of memory in the transmission of culture, World Archaeology 25: 141–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sircar, D.C. 1969. Ancient Malwa and the Vikramaditya tradition. Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Google Scholar
Stopford, J. 1994. Some approaches to the archaeology of Christian pilgrimage, World Archaeology 2B: 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thakurta, T.G. 1997. Archaeology as evidence: Looking back from the Ayodhya debate. Calcutta: Centre for Studies in Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.J. 1996. Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, and imperialist, in Hodder, I. & Preucel, R.W. (ed.), Contemporary archaeology in theory: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
VHP. 1990. Evidence for the Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir. Presented by VHP to the Indian Government on December 23.Google Scholar
Voss, J.A. 1987. Antiquity imagined: cultural values in archaeological folklore, Folklore 98: 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar