GkooeKyWcAAsiCJ.jpg

On February 25, the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) organized a Vimarsh on the book ‘Archaeologists of Independent India- Major Personalities and Their Work’ by Dr. Dilip K. Chakrabarti, a distinguished historian and archaeologist, recognized as one of India’s leading scholars in the field. Dr. Chakrabarti has been associated with the VIF since its inception and has made significant contributions to the study of ancient India. His editorial leadership has helped VIF to compile a series on the History of Ancient India, a monumental 11-volume work.

Dr. Chakrabarti’s research spans archaeological surveys across the Kangra Valley, Chota Nagpur Plateau, the Ganga-Yamuna plains, Haryana and Punjab. He has held academic positions in prominent universities in India and abroad. Currently, he serves as Professor Emeritus at Cambridge University. In recognition of his contributions, he was honoured with the Padma Shri Award in 2019.

Dr. Arvind Gupta, Director, VIF, delivered the opening remarks in which he briefly talked about the book, which provides a description of the work of 250 leading archaeologists of India. The book also serves a larger purpose as it presents a survey of the archaeological work done in independent India by the central government institutions, state government institutions, universities and several other institutions connected with archaeology.

Dr. Gupta said that the book is a frank and candid appraisal of the state of archaeology in India. The author in the book has argued that archaeology in India has performed below expectations and remains, in his words, “a mere minor underling of Western archaeology.” The funds allocated to archaeology should serve to strengthen national pride, identity, and unity. But due to the presence of certain adverse factors, the importance of archaeology is getting undermined.

Dr. Dilip K. Chakrabarti, in his opening remarks, talked about the book ‘Archaeologists of Independent India- Major Personalities and Their Work,’ in which he had highlighted a Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report assessing the functioning of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), titled ‘A Performance Audit of the ASI.’ The present book is based on the premise that the ASI is not merely a central government organization but also represents the academic core of archaeology in India. With this perspective, the book examines the academic contributions of Indian archaeology since independence, without attempting to document personal biographies or provide an exhaustive list of publications.

The book begins with a factual survey of the key archaeological work carried out by ASI officers and some of its senior members. It does not focus on individual life stories but rather highlights their major contributions and publications in the field. Additionally, the book examines the theoretical perspectives of ASI Director Generals and other officials, revealing that many ASI officers limited themselves to basic reporting, with significant variations in quality.

Dr. Chakrabarti, in his book, asserted that while much emphasis has been placed on new archaeological discoveries in India by the ASI, there are numerous archaeological remains that lay are scattered throughout India. Given the increased allocation of funds in the post-independence era, new discoveries became commonplace. However, the real challenge lies in how these excavations were interpreted and integrated into the broader historical framework of India and its regions. Unfortunately, most archaeologists did not move beyond excavation trenches, and even when they did, their interpretations remained constrained by the ideas of colonial and archaic scholars like Mortimer Wheeler.

A long-standing notion in Indian archaeology is that cultural developments in the Indian subcontinent must have later dates and that all major influences originated from West Asia, which was regarded as the ‘Mecca’ of Indian archaeology. For decades, these assumptions shaped research, and surprisingly, they were readily accepted by Indian archaeologists, including those from the post-1947 generation. Even after India established its first Radiocarbon Laboratory around 1960, the dates produced continued to be late, reinforcing existing Western biases.

Dr. Chakrabarti stated that a major section of the book discusses state-level archaeological organizations, offering insights into how archaeological research evolved in different regional and provincial contexts. No Indian region has been overlooked in this analysis, making it a valuable resource for understanding the country’s archaeological development. It mentions key researchers in each area, but their theoretical perspectives largely align with those of ASI officers.

Another chapter focuses on archaeologists from universities, museums, and other related institutions, revealing some critical observations. First, the subject of archaeology is poorly developed at the university level, resulting in significant disparities in resources and academic output. Second, university-based archaeologists are far more influenced by Western archaeological thought, often disregarding its impact on India’s national understanding of its past. The book argues that Indian university archaeologists have been largely indifferent to the sociopolitical dimensions of their work, prioritizing personal career advancements by maintaining favourable ties with Western academic circles. This dynamic is reminiscent of the subservience displayed by post-independence ASI officers toward Mortimer Wheeler’s colonial views.

Academic progress relies on debates and differences of opinion, yet this aspect is largely absent in Indian archaeology. In recent years, Indian archaeologists have become junior members of foreign archaeological teams, often serving more as facilitators than as academic contributors. The book documents numerous instances of such collaborations, emphasizing that foreign interest in Indian archaeology is not always purely academic.

Many of these foreign researchers lack formal training in Indian archaeology or history and do not necessarily respect Indian scholars. Dr. Chakrabarti notes that academic disciplines, especially in the humanities, are shaped by competing power groups. With Western scholars maintaining a strong hold over Indian university archaeologists, the book predicts that within the next decade, Indian university archaeology will be fully dominated by Western academia, with Indians serving only as intermediaries.

The final chapter of Dr. Chakrabarti’s book examines the role of archaeological science, revealing both strengths and concerning trends. While India has a solid but limited tradition of applying scientific techniques to archaeology, contributions such as Muhammad Sanaullah’s work on Indus Valley artifacts under John Marshall remain respected. Until the 1990s, scholars in this field were recognized scientists in their own right. However, the book warns that this tradition is now being undermined by individuals with questionable academic credentials, leading to misinterpretations and distortions of India’s ancient past.

The growing dependence of Indian archaeologists on Western academia, coupled with their reluctance to challenge dominant narratives, raises concerns about the future of Indian archaeology. Unless Indian scholars assert their perspectives, it is unlikely that a truly independent and diverse understanding of India’s past will emerge in the near future. The objective of the book is to investigate different aspects of Indian archaeology from the point of view of the nation and its security.

Professor Kishor Kumar Basa, chairman of the National Monument Authority of India and the Indian National Confederation and Academy of Anthropology, compared the present book by Dr. Chakrabarti with his previous books, namely, 'History of Indian Archaeology' and 'Colonial Indology.’ Prof. Basa said that the 'History of Indian Archaeology' is the first comprehensive book on Indian archaeology. He complimented Dr. Chakrabarti for giving a new direction to archaeological study by focusing on the history of archaeology of a nation. Later, in the book 'Colonial Indology,' Dr. Chakrabarti had taken on the mighty Western discourse head-on. But unfortunately, that book was not given the right kind of response in India, and as expected, 'Colonial Indology' got a very outrageous adverse review from Harvard.

Prof. Basa pointed out that in ‘Archaeologists of independent India—Major personalities and their work,' Dr. Chakrabarti has recorded the contribution of about 250 archaeologists coming from different parts of the country. Dr. Chakrabarti in the book has also covered archaeological work done in very remote areas. The book also looks into research done in regional languages. Therefore, the book is a celebration of the unsung heroes of Indian archaeology. Prof. Basa said that the book is a very important work in the historiography of Indian archaeology. Prof. Basa pointed out that in India, we have not given adequate emphasis on the work written in India's regional languages. We have emphasized papers that are published in English. Therefore, it is high time that we emphasize work done in regional languages.

Prof. Basa and Dr. Chakrabarti both challenged the diffusion theory, which dominated Indian archaeology until the 1960s and 70s. This theory suggested that cultural and technological advancements in India originated from external influences, primarily from Iran and West Asia. Mortimer Wheeler introduced a modified diffusionism, arguing that ideas, rather than physical artifacts, could have spread and influenced Indian culture. However, Dr. Chakrabarti, since the 1980s, strongly opposed this framework, advocating for an indigenous evolution of Indian civilization. His approach emphasized that India's cultural and technological developments were homegrown rather than borrowed. Dr. Chakrabarti’s nationalist perspective, emerging in the 1990s, aligns with his belief in indigenous evolution.

Dr. B. R. Mani considers Dr. Chakrabarti's book a significant contribution to the historiography of Indian archaeology, covering the work of archaeologists in independent India over the last 75 years. The book meticulously documents around 250 archaeologists, including ASI officers and scholars from universities and other institutions, highlighting their contributions.

Dr. Mani emphasizes two key concerns raised by Dr. Chakrabarti. First, he discusses national security risks posed by foreign archaeological missions in India. While some foreign scholars have extensive experience in India, others, with limited knowledge, influence university scholars and serve vested interests. Dr. Chakrabarti warns that this trend may worsen over the next decade. Second, Dr. Mani highlights the shifting perspectives in Indian archaeology. He notes that earlier, some scholars, influenced by British narratives, believed India was always a colony and lacked indigenous innovation. However, in the last 30-40 years, there has been a paradigm shift, with Indian archaeology moving away from colonial perspectives towards a more independent understanding of its history.

Dr. B. R. Mani supported Dr. Chakrabarti’s book, highlighting its alignment with nationalist perspectives in Indian archaeology. He references Professor B. B. Lal’s research on the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra, which challenges the conventional West-to-East migration theory. Instead, it suggests that migration occurred from East to West, with Indian colonies or cultural influences settling in regions like Sumeria and Babylonia as early as the third millennium BCE.

Dr. Mani emphasized that while cultural exchanges happened in both directions, the dominant flow of migration and influence was from India to the West. He sees Dr. Chakrabarti’s work as reinforcing this perspective, countering colonial-era narratives that downplayed India’s historical agency. According to Dr. Mani, such scholarship strengthens nationalist sentiments and helps move away from anti-national ideas that persisted before and shortly after independence.

Dr. Arvind Gupta highlighted a recent visit to Thailand for the Global Hindu-Buddhist Samvad, where he encountered an exhibition showcasing an excavation in Thailand. He read excerpts from the exhibition catalogue, which described the discovery of over 100 fragments of stone caskets in the Southern Thai Peninsula and the southern tip of Myanmar at the Kra Isthmus. Among these, three fragments found bore a striking resemblance in stone type and style to the reliquary discovered at Piprahwa, which carried a Late Mauryan Brahmi inscription stating that it contained the corporeal remains of the Buddha.

The catalogue further noted that between 1971 and 1975, excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India at Piprahwa Stupa uncovered two additional similar reliquaries. This evidence highlights the historical links between India and Thailand, reinforcing India's cultural and religious influence in Southeast Asia. Dr. Gupta pointed out that while much discussion centres around the influence of West Asia on India, these findings demonstrate India's significant impact on Southeast Asia and the rest of the world.

Dr. Chakrabarti observed that China is actively promoting the idea that Buddhism is more Chinese than Indian. To counter this narrative, he suggests that India should establish a dedicated university for Buddhist studies. This institution could admit students, particularly Buddhist monks from Southeast Asia, reinforcing India's historical and cultural role as the birthplace of Buddhism. He views this initiative as a strategic diplomatic move that could benefit India in the long run. He further emphasizes that archaeology is inherently political, and such efforts can shape historical narratives in India's favour.

Prof. Basa emphasized the need for India to adopt a proactive cultural diplomacy strategy, learning from China’s approach. He argued that China is not only using Buddhism as a tool of soft diplomacy but is also expanding its influence in museum studies, heritage management, and even in regions like Southwest Asia and Africa. He stressed that if India aspires to be a global leader, it must extend its leadership beyond politics to the realm of culture.

To achieve this, Prof. Basa suggested concrete steps such as joint excavations– conducting archaeological excavations in regions that highlight India’s historical trade and cultural connections with Southeast Asia. In such excavations, Indian archaeologists should work alongside Southeast Asian scholars to foster deeper academic and cultural ties and exchange programmes– encouraging Indian scholars to participate in excavations abroad while inviting foreign scholars to India, promoting intellectual collaboration. He said that India possesses the necessary expertise but has not yet fully tapped into the potential of cultural soft diplomacy. This engaging discussion was followed by a question-and-answer session, and the discussion concluded with the closing remarks by Dr. Arvind Gupta.