If we have increasingly to live with the wrapping of political nuances around the discipline of history, it is also important to recognise that this is by no chance either a very recent phenomenon or confined to the Indian landscape.
All history writing or, for that matter, all forms of knowledge has been a discourse, an intervention in shaping society, the state, or the world, according to one given vision or another. History has thus forever been viewed as a clash of civilisations, of religions, of nations, of classes...
History as 'science', as the unfolding of an objective truth through incremental scientific knowledge itself is one such discourse, growing out of strong Positivist roots, which in turn firmly places it in European context in the 19th and 20th centuries. Implicated in this discourse is European dominance of intellectual creativity around the world inasmuch as this vision spread out from Europe to the rest of the world during the two centuries in the wake of trade, arms and conquest.
The tradition of looking at history in India in terms of conflict of religions and sects goes back to hoary days: within the fold of the Hindu religion, between the Vaishnavites and the Saivites; between the Hindus and the Jainas and the Buddhists; between Brahminical Hinduism and ethnic groups, derisively referred to as the dasyus, and so forth.
In India's medieval centuries, one important construction of history was in terms of conflict between Islam and kufr. The innumerable instances of the demolition of Buddhist viharas by Hindu rulers, in some cases of Hindu temples by Hindu rulers themselves even within their own territory, of temples by Muslim rulers, of mosques by some local level Hindu rulers all these, on one hand, reflect the assertion of state power by the rulers in the form of their religious identity, and on the other, their search for legitimisation in a vision of history.
As a people with history, therefore, we should not be taken by surprise at instances of this nature in any part of our remote past, for this was its language. The problem, however, arises from our assumption that this was the past's only language, that the state did nothing else except demolish temples and subjugate people of other faiths to its own, that historians never viewed history except as interminable religious clashes organised by the state. It is thus that just about any testimony, textual or archaeological, bearing upon history is immediately constructed as a proof of the state's religious intolerance.
Some two months ago, I got a call from a young reporter from The Indian Express, seeking my opinion on the excavations underway at Sikri and whether these attested to the demolition of Jaina temples by the Mughal emperor Akbar, who was building his palace fortress at Fatehpur Sikri. When I expressed my ignorance of the excavations and my inability to comment on the suggestion of demolition of temples unless I had seen the evidence for myself, she told me very excitedly of the unearthing of several Jaina statues and an exquisite Saraswati, all excavated from a small walled site which looked like having been a temple.
The news of the excavations excited many of us enough to organise a trip of three busloads of students and faculty, including teachers from colleges who were doing a refresher course at JNU, to the site some two weeks ago. With generous help from the Archaeological Survey of India, we spent several hours at the site of excavation and the ASI guesthouse at Fatehpur Sikri, where the excavated statues have been stored.
We discussed with the two excavators, a young lady and a young gentleman, all aspects of the work going on. Both repeatedly emphasised, in a tone of caution that did credit to them and their profession, that the excavations had as yet yielded no definitive data and pointed to no certain conclusions.
The parts of walls still intact do not suggest any particular structure: either a temple or a house or any other. In fact, when they were asked whether it could just have been a dumping ground, they did not rule it out either. They were unwilling to commit themselves to any conclusion, even a suggestive one, until they had dug deeper. Quite fair, one would say.
The mound that is under excavation is known in the village around as Bir Chhabili's mound. Clearly it has no religious association. Bir Chhabili also does not seem to be a proper name, but more like a pet name, or one which expresses the lady's attributes and points to a young woman who was perhaps both romantic and audacious. Little else is known about the site in popular lore. Yet, it does seem to suggest a promising area for exploration. The region around this place is not a Jaina stronghold; there has therefore to be some extraordinary reason for establishing a Jaina temple there, and the present state of evidence does not shed any light on it.
At the excavated site, the legs of Mahavira in a meditative lotus position are still embedded in a part of the wall and there is no clear purpose of its location. Some other similar pieces have been stored in the guesthouse. There are also several torsos of Mahavira, clearly identifiable because of the flower motif on his chest, and some heads.
The most exquisite of the sculptures there is the Jaina Saraswati, in a seductive posture, with the face strongly resembling that of Mahavira. The sculpture is almost intact, with one hand broken off, but lying by its side. This gem of a sculpture was found lying face down at the mound about two meters from the surface. It had been as if placed there with reverence. This is the only piece virtually undamaged, except for the broken hand; all others bear several marks of deliberate or indeliberate vandalism.
Therefore, a suspicion: Is it feasible to consider the possibility of Brahminical intolerance, which spared the one goddess with clear Brahminical association, but not others which were, as it were, on the other side of the fence, that is, Jainism?
Remember, the possibility of the mound being a dumping ground had not been dismissed by the excavators: you dump the other sculptures haphazardly, dump the Saraswati there too for its Jaina associations, but show it due respect.
Of course, all this is pure speculation at this stage, as good or as bad as any other, and each as legitimate as the others, until evidence that is more conclusive comes forth.
That is not the problem. The problem is that any other speculation is disallowed, because the newspapers have decided that no other story, except one of Muslim demolition of non-Muslim temples will sell, and a former professor of physics and a former journalist have let it be known from their ministerial platforms that this is the only correct version of Indian history.
The digging under Fatehpur Sikri's Anup Talao, has just about begun (it had not, when we were around, two week ago), and already pronouncements have been made that it too hides a temple underneath!
