Much has been written in these columns about recent discoveries (December, 1999) at Fatehpur Sikri (UNESCO's World Heritage site). The role of the Archacological Survey of India (ASI) has particularly come under scrutiny, and for justifiable reasons. Its reticence at the time of the karsevak-type archaeology at Ayodhya and also during and after the demolition of the 450-year old Babari Masjid is too recent to forget.

... He is right, but only partially. This saffronisation does not begin at Fatehpur Sikri and not even perhaps from the Ayodhya imbroglio of the 1990s. Its roots are decp - perhaps going as far back as India's Independence .... The famous monograph 5,000 Years of Pakistan traces the identity of our neighbour from the days of the Harappan culture!

Indian archaeologists have, in the last 50 years, assiduously worked along a single track. The loss of the fabulous and gigantic sites such as Mohenjodaro and Harappa to Pakistan had to be compensated and the antiquity of Indian culture pushed back surely, it must be shown to be older than 5,000 years of Pakistan. All resources of the ASI :.. therefore, focused on: (a) prehistoric ,and proto-historic sites, and (b) locating texts comprising 'Aryan literature' such as the Rigveda, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata archaeologically.

We are being repeatedly told that the Rigveda and the two epics are the creation of the 'Aryans' who were natives of India, that the Harappan culture was their creation, and their genesis goes back to the beginning of the fifth millennium BC, which also marks the beginning of Hinduism. The matrix of this culture was the great Saraswati river whose praise has been sung in the hymns of the Rigveda and the entire culture should be redesignated as the 'Saraswati Civilisation'.

Such reconstructions are being projected through the electronic media and such political theatrics as the Sindhu Darshan ... Every now and then we read about the discovery of 'Vedic' fire altars and obliteration of identities other than 'Aryan' ...

It is ironical that theocratic Pakistan's archaeologists dealing with the cultural phase of comparable antiquity are refraining from establishing any religious identity but their counterparts in secular India are consciously working in that direction ...

A complementary component of this discourse is the deliberate neglect of archaeology of the 'medieval' period. The most revered archaeologists too have shown scant attention to the medieval strata. Thus, B.B. Lal, the famous excavator of Ayodhya in the 1970s, emphasised: "Site was again occupied around the 11th century AD ... but the entire late period was devoid of any special interest" (emphases added). His zealous plea for text-aided archaeology going back to the 1950s has remained confined to seek archaeological corroboration of 'Aryan literature' and has never been extended to any 'medieval' text ... Writings of historians in the last 35 years have underlined that it could be used for centuries ranging from the fourth to the 14th, or perhaps even later in some regions of the subcontinent, Most Indian archaeologists are unaware of this rethinking and have persisted with communal periodisation fostered by British imperialist historians, viz. Mahmud Ghazni and penetration of Islam marks the beginning of the medieval period.

Coming back to Fatehpur Sikri excavations, D.V. Sharma presented his findings in Delhi in early April. At the same meeting, S.P. Gupta (who is known to have been the mastermind behind the karsevak-type archaeology at Ayodhya) also circulated a paper on these excavations which concludes: "There is ample proof of (a) the destruction of the Jain temple, (b) #There is no evidence of Hindu vandalism at the site. What is the other language of this destruction if not 'demolishing temples' by the Muslims?"

It would be incisive to compare this motivated reconstruction (of Fatehpur Sikri) with that of excavations at Khajuraho (also a World Heritage site), which took place just a few months before Sikri's diggings. Writing in the renowned journal Marg (March, 2000) about 'new discoveries' at the Bijamandal Temple in Khajuraho which were exposed in March 1999, the excavator, Phani Kant Mishra of the ASI, prefers to ponder over rather than be judgmental on the vexed question of inter-sect relations.

He says: "Among the conspicuous sculptures found amidst the debris are figures of Saraswati, Vishnu, ... Jain tirthankaras ... the gigantic endeavour dragged on for many decades, albeit unsuccessfully ... perhaps due to dwindling resources, the work began to flag and was finally abandoned ... The site has raised questions of whether assimilative tendencies led to the carving of Jain tirthankaras in a Shaivite temple, or whether subsequent to abandonment by the Jain community, the sanctity of the place was maintained as a Shaivite shrine."

Claims for Saraswati and Jain images have also been made for Fatehpur Sikri and both (have been) ascribed tosimilar dates (early 11th century) .... The question arises: why does Fatehpur Sikri hog the limelight when the Khajuraho diggings go unnoticed? Is it because the latter do not speak the language of destruction understood by the ASI?

... The ASI has a longstanding reputation of not publishing reports of excavations for decades. The Ayodhya excavations of the 1970s, undertaken at enormous expenditure ... still await an authentic reporting.

Such examples can be multiplied. Will (ASI) tell us how many decades shall we have to wait to find out if (Fatehpur Sikri was) the repetition of a Khajuraho-type- development? Till then, his instant archaeology is bound to be suspect and disturbing. (Source: The Hindustan Times, 4 July, 2000)