ECENTLY officials of the Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI) have made certain announcements with disturbing overtones that have
led immediately to giving a communal colour to the whole matter.
Excavations have been recently undertaken by the ASI at two distinct spots. At one
point, outside the main mosque and Akbar's palace-complex, digging has been done to
unearth a ruined structure identified as a temple, near which are stated to have been
found parts of Jaina images of the 9th century inside a pit. Certain old Muslim graves are
said to have been dug up in order to carry out these excavations. Since no mosque or any
other Mughal-period structure was built over the temple, there is no proof at all that the
temple or images were destroyed or damaged by Akbar, while building Fatehpur Sikri, or by
Aurangzeb. And yet statements to this effect are being made in the press.
It is unfortunate that Mr. B.R. Grover, who occupies the office of Chairman, Indian
Council of Historical Research, should make use of the occasion to rush to the press to
assert that Aurangzeb was the author of the destruction. It may be remembered that at
least six or seven hundred years separated the Mughal rulers from the period that the
Jaina images are assigned to. Moreover, it is being forgotten that inter-communal disputes
have by no means been confined to Hindus and Muslims alone. A large, newly built Jaina
temple at Ujjain was forcibly occupied by Saivites and the Jaina images thrown out during
the reign of Daulat Rao Sindhia.
The discovery of the Jaina images is being confused with the so-called
"discovery" of a structure below Anup Talao in the palace-complex. That Akbar
had built a structure below the tank was widely known from a passage in the contemporary
historian Badauni's Muntakhabu-t Tawarikh. Bib. Ind.ed., II, pp.273 (translation in
Michael Brand and Glenn D. Lowry, Fatehpur-Sikri -- A Source Book, Cambridge, Mass, USA,
1985). The ASI did not need to dig up any part of the Anup Talao to confirm an already
established fact. We endorse the statement of Mr. M.C. Joshi, former Director General,
ASI, that an "established antiquity" like Akbar's Anup Talao should not have
been disturbed in this manner. We are dealing here with one of the great monuments of this
country, recognised by the UNESCO as part of World Heritage, and such a monument should be
preserved, as far as possible, as its builder Akbar had left it.
It needs also to be clarified that what the ASI found below Anup Talao is a structure
clearly built by Akbar and in line with the style of the palace complex. Such
clarification is necessary because of the apparent confusion in some circles that Jain
images were recovered from this excavation.
We hope that the ASI will now adopt a more professional and ethnical approach, and not
give the impression that it is being guided by a particular bias in selecting the sites of
excavations and in interpreting them.