Ayodhya: the contested place of memory, history, identity, violence

Guests of honor: John F Cherry, Joukowsky Family Professor in Archaeology, Professor of Classics and the students of Who Owns the Classical Past.

Chorus discussants: Maya Porath, Cassie Rogg, Aleksandra Mackiewicz

Please post discussion points and queries below before midnight on Wednesday

Posted at Apr 15/2009 08:31PM:
Cassie Rogg: I'd like to bring up a few different topics that I've been thinking about after Tuesday's class and from the readings. The destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya in '92 was obviously an act of performative violence, as it was an intensely symbolic, public display of anger originating from an historic dispute. As we've discussed, the history of the site is far more complex/less black and white than the Hindu extremist group wanted to believe at the time to justify its act of violence and destruction. Perhaps performative violence is always somewhat like a double-edged sword? While sometimes it is better to bring a conflict out into the open to prevent the resentment and anger from simmering more dangerously out of sight, Ayodhya, however, is a prime example of how easily these staged violent acts can get out of hand. I'm also intrigued by the discussions in several of the articles about what can be considered the principle catalyst of the event. It was obviously more than a conflict over long-time religious differences, but as Ratnagar suggested, the result of intense social change and identity crisis. So many religions and cultures have existed peacefully in India for centuries and in general the Hindu tradition encourages acceptance of other religions and interpretations of god. Why then did Ayodhya become a site of such religious fanaticism? I agree with Ratnagar and others that the conflict was obviously about more than religion, but particularly politics and an increasing sense of entitlement to the sacred site, owing to an exaggerated and 'hyped' up view of its history.

I think it should be archaeology's task to keep perceptions of history grounded and objective and fight the urge to take sides as in the case of Ayodhya. It is however often such a fine line between objectivity/subjectivity and fact/myth. For instance, the Ramayana and Mahabharta clearly provide elements of historical truth or at least hint at truth, but they can easily be taken too literally. As in archaeology, there is often no right and wrong, but simply a series of clues, a framework provided for making those factual decisions. I wonder what the best approach is for deciding whether or not to rebuild, or what to rebuild, at the site of the mosque, even 17 years later? Would it only be possible to consider it if the two groups settled their differences? If archaeology remained outside the politics, what should the government or media be expected to do to improve the current situation?

Hannah Sheldon-Dean: Cassie brings up some intriguing points, and I want to build on them a bit and talk about something that Ratnagar mentions only briefly, early on in her article. On page 240, she says that even within Ayodhya there are some indications of two other ancient Rama temples that would lie under the ruins of mosques much like the Babri mosque, but that no one is particularly interested in rehabilitating those sites. It seems that the only major difference between those sites and that of the Babri mosque is that the Babri mosque did not fall into ruin as the other two did, and so what I'm wondering is why that factor ended up making such a huge difference. If the point of Hindutva fervor was to honor the birthplace of Rama, then why hasn't that zeal been applied to the other sites? Why should the fact of the Babri mosque's material survival make that site so much more contended than the others? What is the real difference, in collective memory, between natural ruination and the sort of sudden destruction that destroyed the Babri mosque? This seems to come down to ownership somehow, like natural ruins imply that time, or history, has some rightful ownership of a place, whereas construction or destruction at human hands is more contentious. I'm interested to see what everyone thinks about these other possible birthplaces of Rama.

Maya Porath: Ayodhya proves to be a very interesting case of problematic archeology, both in terms of the practice itself, as well as the implications of the findings. A few points I thought were particularly interesting had to do with the archeological approach to the life of the building, and to the future of the site. Guha-Thakurta writes about the importance of the “moment of conception” – the conflict surrounding Ayodhya is all about “who was there first.” The first moment of the building, the time when it was constructed has more weight than the process the building experienced, or its history. (249) The building’s weathering is thrown aside, almost as insignificant, in comparison to its creation, elevating it to myth, thus transcending time and ignoring history. Archeology should balance the tension between these two polarities, between a short beginning and a long life. This also ties into Pollock and Bernbeck’s discussion of the erroneous belief in a “stable” identity. (141) Buildings, like identities change over time in relation to their surroundings. Its meaning and interaction with the people who used it changed over time, the landscape probably changed as well, evolving and developing with the people. However, it is only that first intention that matters, as though the building’s essence has been conserved since the moment it was created, as though it has served the same purpose throughout time. How does the archeologist fit into this idea of history?

Both Shaw and Guha-Thakurta discuss the relationship between history and myth, and the way archeology is expected to settle the differences between them. What is the difference between memory and myth? Is myth a form of collective memory? Or is it a story that the collective acknowledge they no longer remember? In that case how can history negotiate with it? And do people expect myth to be affirmed as history?

I found the fact that the mosque is being rebuilt off-site especially interesting! Guha-Thakurta writes that the pieces and sculptures are being made across the country, and will be constructed in Ayodhya in the future. (252) Creating the building and the religious artifacts elsewhere detaches all historical significance from the future building. A new and “pure” building will be placed instead of the controversial ruins, creating a split between the building itself and the site. Prefabricated buildings are devoid of contact with the location in which they are erected, as if they lack a relationship with their surroundings. A pre-fabricated mosque is an attempt to wipe the slate clean, indicating that the building itself is of no importance, only the site is. It will be interesting to witness the interaction of the construction with the site; will the intricate history of the location dominate the new building, or the other way around? And how does this change the way Pollock and Bernbeck position the conflict as part of a cultural identity definition? (140)

Aleksandra Mackiewicz:

Maya, it is the Hindu temple they plan to build on the supposed site of Rama's birth. I find it interesting how in attempting to rebuild the temple without acknowledging the mosque's destruction the Hindus are overlooking that there is now more than one event associated with this event-place. Not only is it the supposed birth site of Rama and the destruction of the temple dedicated to him but also an emotionally charged site of destruction and violence upon the Muslims. Perhaps the best way to treat the space would be to acknowledge both events rather than simply choosing the "superior" one. As for parts of the temple being prefabricated, this isn't because the Hindu's value the site more necessarily. Traditionally special artisans are assigned parts of the temple and the creation of each piece is treated like a religious rite. So it seems that the temple is being constructed like most, not mass "prefabricated" like we imagine many homes in suburbia today, but created through careful craftsmanship and ritual.

I do however find it interesting to think about whether they would use the rubble left after the mosque's destruction if they were rebuilding it. Automatically infusing the building with meaning, but would one want to construct a mosque, a place of worship, with rubble that is evidence of a destructive act?

Additionally, in terms of building site, could the temple and mosque be both rebuilt on adjacent sites leaving the site of destruction open to commemoration for both hindus and muslims? I find the idea of site transfer interesting, particularly thinking back to mark's project on the anthenauem, which was relocated twice yet the current building is still associated with stories that took place in the original building.

Posted at Apr 16/2009 04:12PM:
Cassie Rogg: I think it will definitely be interesting to see how the issues of ownership and access brought up today will play into the future of this site. If a Hindu temple is constructed there, will it become known to future generations only as a Hindu sacred site? Will there be a museum which explains the site's Mughal history as well? If unrestricted access is granted and the conflict eventually subsides, will it also become a tourist destination? If so, I could see it becoming like what Tim was describing of other religious sites in India where a foreigner could only experience it through a tour given by someone who "owns" it or claims some part of its history.

Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology