In November 2024, 6 Muslim men were killed during clashes with the police in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. The violence erupted after a court-ordered survey was conducted at the Shahi Jama Masjid, a Mughal-era mosque, based on claims from Hindutva groups that the mosque was built over a Hindu temple. When local Muslims protested against it, the police siding with Hindutva groups opened fire on the protesters, killing 6 men.
The Sambhal violence reflects the broader issue of rising Islamophobia in India, where Muslims are hounded, and their religious sites are targeted. After the Supreme Court allowed the construction of Ram Temple (based on political pressure by RSS rather than historic evidence), the Whatsapp-historians are inventing temples underneath every mosque, leading to communal violence.
Colonial Legacy of the ASI : Selective Representation of the Past
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), established in 1861, is responsible for preserving and studying India’s vast archaeological and cultural heritage. The origins of ASI were rooted in colonial motives. The British wanted to show India as a grand civilization that had declined under “Oriental despotism” (an idea that portrayed non-European societies as less advanced). This narrative justified British control over India, implying that they were bringing “civilization” back. The ASI inherited its methodologies from its colonial origins, emphasizing monument-based archaeology tied to religious and literary traditions. This approach often ignored the pluralistic nature of Indian history, leading to selective representation of the past. It privileged specific sites, particularly those associated with Hinduism, often at the expense of Buddhist and Islamic history. Post-1947, the ASI’s focus shifted to building a nationalist narrative, often aligning with majoritarian Hindu ideologies. Projects like the excavation of Ramayana and Mahabharata sites were prioritized to prove the historicity of Hindu epics.
Ayodhya as a Case Study : Role of ASI in the rise of Hindutva
The Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi dispute is an example of how archaeological interpretations can become tools for political agendas and have been used to advance Hindutva narratives. The conflict began when the RSS-BJP claimed that the Babri Masjid, a 16th-century mosque, was built on the birthplace of the Hindu deity
Ram, where a temple once stood.
The ASI’s excavation at the
Babri Masjid site,
commissioned to investigate claims of a pre-existing Ram temple, became a focal point for BJP’s propaganda.
B.B. Lal, a right-wing archeologist, former Director-General of the ASI, conducted excavations between 1975 and 1980 in Ayodhya and other sites associated with Hindu epics. In his early reports and writings, Lal said there was no evidence conclusively suggesting the existence of a specific temple. With the rise of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, the Ayodhya excavations gained heightened political significance. In the 1990s, writing for RSS, Lal said that the pillar bases discovered during his excavations indicated the presence of a large temple-like structure beneath the Babri Masjid. He argued that these were the relics of the temple destroyed to build Babri. His claims were extensively cited by proponents of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement to justify their demand for the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The lack of peer-reviewed publications and corroborative findings weakened the credibility of his claims. The BJP capitalized on these reports to portray the Babri Masjid as a symbol of “injustice” perpetrated during the Mughal era. The events that followed, including communal riots and legal
battles, underscored the intersection of archaeology, religion, and politics.
The Ram Janmabhoomi movement bolstered RSS-BJP’s rise to power.
The ASI was asked in 2003 to again conduct an excavation to determine if there was a temple beneath the mosque. The ASI’s findings, based on manipulated evidence, suggested that a temple may have existed there, became a crucial part of the legal case. Many historians, like Irfan Habib, criticized the report, arguing that it was influenced by political pressures from the RSS. The 2019 Supreme Court verdict, which gave the disputed land to RSS to build a Ram temple, partially relied on the ASI’s findings. The use of the ASI as a tool by fascist forces in this project suggests that archaeology is no longer just about studying the past – it is now also about shaping the future of India.
One of the key figures in the Ayodhya case was then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. Critics like Siddharth Varadarajan have pointed out flaws in how the case was handled and criticized Justice Chandrachud for invoking divine intervention in his speeches, suggesting that the court’s decision was guided by the deity Ram, trashing the ‘supposedly’ secular nature of the judiciary. The Ayodhya verdict has given a free pass to Hindutva groups to target mosques. Despite the existence of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prevents changing the religious character of any place of worship from what it was on August 15, 1947, the reopening of cases like the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute sets a dangerous precedent.
Reshaping Historical Narratives: A Bramhinical vision of history
Hindutva, as an ideology, seeks to establish India as fundamentally a Hindu nation, emphasizing the centrality of Hindu culture and religion in shaping Indian history while erasing its plurality. The RSS and its affiliates have been instrumental in promoting this vision by selectively interpreting historical events and archaeological findings.
In the years following the Ayodhya verdict, the ASI is becoming a tool of communalism. This raises serious concerns about how history is being rewritten to serve the ruling class agenda to divide the people. Under the current BJP government, Hindutva ideologies have gained a strong foothold. This version of nationalism has often resulted in the demonization of India’s Muslim population and the rewriting of history to glorify Hindu rulers and culture while downplaying or vilifying Muslim contributions. The ASI’s role in the saffronization of history, the influence of Hindutva in the judiciary, and the rise in violence against Muslim communities are all part of a larger narrative of Islamophobia in India. The manipulation of history to serve a political agenda has dangerous consequences, not just for communal harmony, but India’s pluralistic and diverse history also. To counteract these trends, there is a need for a more scientific, unbiased and inclusive approach to India’s heritage, one that celebrates its diversity rather than deepening divisions. The ASI must move beyond its colonial legacy and align its practices with modern principles of scientific objectivity and cultural inclusivity.
