Among the manifold achievements of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), the discovery of the Indus civilisation is justifiably the crowning glory. It could declare in 1924 that like Egypt and Mesopotamia, India, too, had one of the earliest civilisations of the world. Moreover, unlike Egypt and Mesopotamia, where the credit of discovery goes entirely to foreign expeditions and where the responsibility of interpreting it rested wholly with foreign scholars, the Indian story is essentially Indian. This was presided over by John Marshall, the director-general of the ASI between 1902-31, whose Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilisation (1931) still remains the most authoritative exposition of the framework of this civilisation.
The fact that its roots lay deep in the subcontinental soil or that it foreshadowed many later elements of the Indian civilisation, including its art, religion and many material forms, was very clearly emphasised in this volume. What emerges strongly in Nayanjot Lahiri's recent archivally researched Finding Forgotten Cities, on the discovery of the Indus civilisation, is the element of strong teamwork of the archaeologists of the ASI behind this momentous discovery and their intellect and professional commitment that put them on par with the more well-known names in the global history of archaeological discoveries.
The ASI carried the story forward with equal degree of professional commitment after Independence. With Mohenjodaro and Harappa both going to Pakistan, it was imperative that the evidence of the fountainhead of Indian civilisation should be found within the confines of modern India. The officers of the ASI rose equal to the task, swiftly mapping out not merely the extensive distribution of this civilisation in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and western UP but also throwing important light on the history of its development in these areas.
On the whole, two facts stand out. First, there is not a shadow of doubt that the Indus civilisation is as pristine and autochthonous as any other civilisation of the Old World. And second, it is by no means synonymous with the Indus valley and thus cannot be called the 'Indus Valley Civilisation'. In retrospect, it is educative that Marshall called it the 'Indus civilisation' without relating it exclusively to the Indus valley.
{{/usCountry}}On the whole, two facts stand out. First, there is not a shadow of doubt that the Indus civilisation is as pristine and autochthonous as any other civilisation of the Old World. And second, it is by no means synonymous with the Indus valley and thus cannot be called the 'Indus Valley Civilisation'. In retrospect, it is educative that Marshall called it the 'Indus civilisation' without relating it exclusively to the Indus valley.
{{/usCountry}}It is important at this point to draw attention to a well-researched theme of modern archaeology, i.e., the issue of the 'socio-politics' of the past. The basic point is that our approach to the past is controlled by various characteristics of the society to which we ourselves belong. The Ayodhya and Bamiyan incidents in the recent past are clear enough proofs of this point.
In the socio-politics of the Indus studies, the current international scholarship has a sub-text that is academically unacceptable to Indian archaeologists. The sub-text is that the Indus civilisation is related essentially to 'Middle Asia' in inspiration and not to South Asia as such. The archaeological evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary but that has not deterred Euro-American archaeologists from pressing this point in various forms and guises.
This does not really affect Pakistan because the area from the Oxus valley to the Indus valley is one interaction zone, and to this extent Pakistan may be visualised as a part of 'Middle Asia'. The term 'Indus Valley Civilisation' puts the civilisation firmly in the context of Pakistan alone. However attractive the term is to our Pakistani colleagues, we Indians cannot accept it, first because the civilisation extends far beyond the Indus valley, and second because there is as yet no acceptable evidence that the civilisation belongs in any sense to the middle or central Asian orbit.
It is also important that we refer to an unpleasant but inescapable phenomenon of global archaeological research, i.e., the element of tension between First World and Third World archaeologies. With some honourable but regrettably rare exceptions, the archaeological research by First World archaeologists in the Third World is currently characterised by plain insolence — a complete contempt for whatever has been done in the field of archaeology in that part of the world by indigenous archaeologists. The fact that a number of indigenous archaeologists are invariably manipulated by such First World archaeologists by throwing different types of 'carrots' to them makes the situation rather sordid from the Third World point of view.
As far as India is concerned, the post-Independence archaeological leadership of the country was astute enough to understand these implications of allowing unrestricted access to international archaeologists to Indian sites. It is because of this that the opinion of Indian scholars still matters in the domain of Indian archaeology. However amazing it may sound, this simply is not true of an overwhelmingly large part of the Third World, where First World archaeologists call the shots.
What is worrying is that the country's archaeological leadership is now in doldrums. The ASI has been without a professional leadership for more than a decade, and the less we look at the details of its current working the better. However, it is precisely in such moments that long-term national interests in the field get forgotten and things are made easy for the unscrupulous.
The recent announcement of the establishment of an 'Indus Centre' in Gujarat under the auspices of the M.S. University, Baroda, and Global Heritage Fund, a California-based funding organisation, seems to be a textbook illustration of such scenarios. The detailed analysis of the backgrounds of the archaeologists (both Indian and American) concerned is not hope-inspiring, but more specifically, I am alarmed by the implicit arrogance of their letter of announcement of the Centre.
First, it declares that this 'Centre' aims to conserve “Indus valley's most important archaeological sites”, all of which are incidentally in Pakistan, because that is where, with the exception of the Ladakh part of the valley, the Indus valley lies. It is most unlikely that the Pakistan government will hand over the responsibility of conserving “Indus valley's most important archaeological sites” to this Centre in Gujarat! Apparently, this 'aim' is nothing but a ruse to impress the gullible.
Second, the arrogance behind the announcement that the 'Centre' intends to set up “India's first world- class museum and research institute for education, tourism and scholarship on the Indus valley civilisation” is amazing. It clearly implies that whatever has been done in the field of Indus civilisation, studies in India so far are below the level which the organisers of this 'Centre' consider to be world-class.
Third, the letter consistently uses the term 'Indus Valley Civilisation', a term which, as we have earlier pointed out, is both academically incorrect and politically unacceptable.
Fourth, this 'Centre' is the first foreign-funded archaeological institute in India, ostensibly to take care of one of the most crucial dimensions of our heritage. It has serious long-term implications, and before the authorities gave it the green signal, the matter ought to have been openly discussed in the country's professional bodies of archaeology. As things stand, we do not even know who took the decision and under whose pressure.
India's Indus heritage has a long and assured history of research and work. Why is it that we are today turning a Nelson's eye to this and behaving as if we can't survive without foreign saviours? Why are we so demoralised that we must outsource a crucial part of our heritage in this way.
The writer is Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge University