09-13-2007, 11:37 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Faith, fact and fiction
Ashok Malik
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=1
Ram is make-believe, Dwarka did not exist, the Saraswati is a myth. But how much have the Archaeological Survey of India and its political collaborators done to honestly excavate India's antiquity?
For an entity contemplating an early election, the UPA Government's propensity to create controversies is remarkable. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has insisted that there is no "historical record" to validate the Ramayan and, as such, Ram is a fictional character.
The case commenced after a petition filed by Mr Subramanian Swamy, the Janata Party president, seeking curbs on the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. It argued that the project would cut and destroy the 'Ram Setu', saying it was an ancient monument revered by Hindus as the bridge Ram built to journey to Lanka.
It is important to note the Government's affidavit represented a shift in the debate. The ASI could have stopped at saying that the Ram Setu was a naturally occurring formation, not man-made. Yet, it crossed its brief and labelled Ram himself as fictional. This upset even those who were not necessarily adherents of the Ram Setu.
There are three issues that flow from the affidavit. First, the familiar bunch of Jawaharlal Nehru University alumni and Delhi editorial writers has defended the ASI's affidavit as a citation of "science". Actually, this unifocal attack on the faith-based aspect of the anti-Sethusamudram protests suits the establishment just fine.
The Government has never quite explained the environmental imbalance that can be caused by smashing an ancient (natural) structure. Christian fishermen off the coast of Tamil Nadu -- who have no reason to venerate Ram's bridge -- already fear for their livelihood.
That aside, projections have been made about the economic non-viability of Sethusamudram. It is possible that all of these are wrong, but the Government has not bothered to politically sell the issue. Instead, the overriding reasons for pushing ahead seem to be granting lucrative dredging contracts to flunkies of the DMK and its Ministers.
Second, while the Prince of Ayodhya did not live 1.7 million years ago -- as some have claimed -- is the Ram story all myth? Granted, an oral story-telling tradition has ample scope for exaggeration; Ram probably did not fly back from Lanka on an airplane called the Pushpak Viman. Yet, is there no kernel of truth or historicity to his legend?
Consider a Greek analogy. For centuries, the Illiad and the saga of the Trojan War were dismissed as Homer's imagination. The Greeks, under foreign rule, were told the cherished epics they raised their children on were nonsense; to borrow from the ASI's affidavit, they "cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events depicted therein".
It took Heinrich Schliemann, a classical history buff and amateur archaeologist, 20 years of excavation in the 1870s and 1880s to establish that Achilles and Hector did actually fight to the death outside the gates of Troy. Where are India's Schliemanns? Not in the ASI.
Professional integrity demands archaeologists and historians attempt to authenticate popular legends. From the life of Jesus to the times of David and Moses, the Bible has lent itself to such endeavour in the Christian and Judaic worlds. In Britain, identifying the real King Arthur and mapping his kingdom has been an honest intellectual pursuit. What is the ASI's record?
A serious, rigorous archaeological expedition that attempts to cross-verify the story as told in the Ramayan will take years, perhaps decades. The ASI has not even begun the task. Nevertheless it is happy to announce Ram is a fabrication. The case of India's other great folk hero, Krishna, is illuminating. Even after evidence is available of a city submerged off the coast of Gujarat -- roughly corresponding to scriptural accounts of the destruction of Dwarka by a tsunami-like wave -- attempts are made to undermine the findings. There is cussed insistence that the "underwater city" is not, in fact, Krishna's capital. It may not be; but how do the Culture Ministry's bureaucrats know?
Third, is it correct to see the past only as a backward extension of present prejudices? Over the centuries, rivers have changed course and deserts have shifted sands. In the process, they have rendered cities derelict, effaced whole civilisations. From north Africa to western China, the exploration of these 'lost histories' is a subject of intense national pride.
In contrast, what has India done with the quest for the Saraswati civilisation? In December 2004, the UPA Government told Parliament it was abandoning the Saraswati River Heritage Project. The project was meant to carry out excavations and trace the route the Saraswati took before it dried up. Its budget was a mere Rs 4.98 crore. Yet, the Culture Minister announced it was being shut down; the search for the Saraswati was not worth it.
In the Rajya Sabha, a CPI(M) MP, Mr Nilotpal Basu, demanded to know who had formulated the Saraswati Heritage Project. Obviously, he was seeking to target individuals in the previous NDA Government.
Many Hindus remember the Saraswati in their daily prayers. Even so, the search for the river is as much a secular imperative as a faith-based one. The Saraswati and the societies and cultures that grew and fell by its side are a part of our legacy; a forensic examination of these, if possible, would tell us how our ancestors lived and worked, ate and entertained. This should be a national enterprise, with ample resources and time dedicated to it; it should not be a political football.
In the end, whether it is the historicity of Ram, of Dwarka or of the Saraswati age, it is not so much a matter of what we know -- but of what we care to find out. Is this religious mumbo jumbo or is it racial memory? That compelling question determines any view of the ASI's affidavit.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ashok Malik
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=1
Ram is make-believe, Dwarka did not exist, the Saraswati is a myth. But how much have the Archaeological Survey of India and its political collaborators done to honestly excavate India's antiquity?
For an entity contemplating an early election, the UPA Government's propensity to create controversies is remarkable. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has insisted that there is no "historical record" to validate the Ramayan and, as such, Ram is a fictional character.
The case commenced after a petition filed by Mr Subramanian Swamy, the Janata Party president, seeking curbs on the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. It argued that the project would cut and destroy the 'Ram Setu', saying it was an ancient monument revered by Hindus as the bridge Ram built to journey to Lanka.
It is important to note the Government's affidavit represented a shift in the debate. The ASI could have stopped at saying that the Ram Setu was a naturally occurring formation, not man-made. Yet, it crossed its brief and labelled Ram himself as fictional. This upset even those who were not necessarily adherents of the Ram Setu.
There are three issues that flow from the affidavit. First, the familiar bunch of Jawaharlal Nehru University alumni and Delhi editorial writers has defended the ASI's affidavit as a citation of "science". Actually, this unifocal attack on the faith-based aspect of the anti-Sethusamudram protests suits the establishment just fine.
The Government has never quite explained the environmental imbalance that can be caused by smashing an ancient (natural) structure. Christian fishermen off the coast of Tamil Nadu -- who have no reason to venerate Ram's bridge -- already fear for their livelihood.
That aside, projections have been made about the economic non-viability of Sethusamudram. It is possible that all of these are wrong, but the Government has not bothered to politically sell the issue. Instead, the overriding reasons for pushing ahead seem to be granting lucrative dredging contracts to flunkies of the DMK and its Ministers.
Second, while the Prince of Ayodhya did not live 1.7 million years ago -- as some have claimed -- is the Ram story all myth? Granted, an oral story-telling tradition has ample scope for exaggeration; Ram probably did not fly back from Lanka on an airplane called the Pushpak Viman. Yet, is there no kernel of truth or historicity to his legend?
Consider a Greek analogy. For centuries, the Illiad and the saga of the Trojan War were dismissed as Homer's imagination. The Greeks, under foreign rule, were told the cherished epics they raised their children on were nonsense; to borrow from the ASI's affidavit, they "cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events depicted therein".
It took Heinrich Schliemann, a classical history buff and amateur archaeologist, 20 years of excavation in the 1870s and 1880s to establish that Achilles and Hector did actually fight to the death outside the gates of Troy. Where are India's Schliemanns? Not in the ASI.
Professional integrity demands archaeologists and historians attempt to authenticate popular legends. From the life of Jesus to the times of David and Moses, the Bible has lent itself to such endeavour in the Christian and Judaic worlds. In Britain, identifying the real King Arthur and mapping his kingdom has been an honest intellectual pursuit. What is the ASI's record?
A serious, rigorous archaeological expedition that attempts to cross-verify the story as told in the Ramayan will take years, perhaps decades. The ASI has not even begun the task. Nevertheless it is happy to announce Ram is a fabrication. The case of India's other great folk hero, Krishna, is illuminating. Even after evidence is available of a city submerged off the coast of Gujarat -- roughly corresponding to scriptural accounts of the destruction of Dwarka by a tsunami-like wave -- attempts are made to undermine the findings. There is cussed insistence that the "underwater city" is not, in fact, Krishna's capital. It may not be; but how do the Culture Ministry's bureaucrats know?
Third, is it correct to see the past only as a backward extension of present prejudices? Over the centuries, rivers have changed course and deserts have shifted sands. In the process, they have rendered cities derelict, effaced whole civilisations. From north Africa to western China, the exploration of these 'lost histories' is a subject of intense national pride.
In contrast, what has India done with the quest for the Saraswati civilisation? In December 2004, the UPA Government told Parliament it was abandoning the Saraswati River Heritage Project. The project was meant to carry out excavations and trace the route the Saraswati took before it dried up. Its budget was a mere Rs 4.98 crore. Yet, the Culture Minister announced it was being shut down; the search for the Saraswati was not worth it.
In the Rajya Sabha, a CPI(M) MP, Mr Nilotpal Basu, demanded to know who had formulated the Saraswati Heritage Project. Obviously, he was seeking to target individuals in the previous NDA Government.
Many Hindus remember the Saraswati in their daily prayers. Even so, the search for the river is as much a secular imperative as a faith-based one. The Saraswati and the societies and cultures that grew and fell by its side are a part of our legacy; a forensic examination of these, if possible, would tell us how our ancestors lived and worked, ate and entertained. This should be a national enterprise, with ample resources and time dedicated to it; it should not be a political football.
In the end, whether it is the historicity of Ram, of Dwarka or of the Saraswati age, it is not so much a matter of what we know -- but of what we care to find out. Is this religious mumbo jumbo or is it racial memory? That compelling question determines any view of the ASI's affidavit.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->