[Reader-list] "Return Hindu shrines to Dalits, Buddhists"

[Swadhin Sen]

Dear Shuddha and Javed



I would like to refer to another book: 'The Rise and Fall of Buddhism in South
Asia: a study in History, M. Abdul Mumin Chowdhury (London Institute of South
Asia, 2008)' to have an alternative view on the decline and fall of Buddhism and
their relation to Brahmanical revival and violence. Though the method of
argument in the book may seem very reductionist and simplifying, often, there
are innumerable data on this particular issue.



At the same time, as I teach a course in Masters in Jahangirnagar University
entitling 'Socio-politics of the Past'. In our syllebus, Babri Masjid
Archaeology has a very central place. Our classroom interaction and polemics,
and affects and consequence of the Babri Masjid demolition in Bangladesh have
made us take to trouble of (re)thinking from outside the boundary of the modern
and secular nation-state of India. In one of my book in Bangla, and in a few of
my research papers I have asked for going beyond the dominating narratives and
discourses, which are seemingly conflicting and opposite to each other. I am
also preparing to write a short note addressing the aftermath of Ayodhya
Verdict. We have already started classroom discussions on this issue.

 

The trouble of (re)thinking in a predominantly 'secular' and
'progressive' public sphere is that any questions about categories and notions
of 'the religious' and 'the secular' are termed as reactionary. Taking the task
of problematizing 'the secular' and secularism in a modern nation-state,
specially after the 9/11 event, could be very dangerous. Like the utterance of
George Bush, we, the thinking-minority, are often categorized and labeled as
the propagator and promoter of 'the fundamentalists'.

 

The centrality of archaeology and history in the historicity
of Babri Masjid debate cannot be ignored. The problem is: how we are going to
address the questions and themes of history and archaeology, dominant in the
debates between the secularists and the Hindu Nationalists. 

 

I would refer to the works of Talal Asad, very much ignored
in the critical examination of secularism in India, considering the works of
the prolific figures like Asish Nandy, Lata Mani, to some extent Partha
Chatterjee, and many others. His works must be seriously considered in Indian
context, if we want to engage ourselves with the entire issue critically. 

 

When SSRC blog, like Immanent Frame: secularism, religion
and public sphere (  http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/),
engage with and dig deep into various intricate, detail and popular questions
and themes, there is negligible participation from Indian Intellectuals (even those vast
majority of whom have respectable position in western academia). This absence
is quite interesting and matter to be addressed also. At the same time, the
discussions and debates in Indian blogs are largely devoid of any serious
attention to the problematic of secular, secularism and secularization in the context
of Indian nation-state. 

 

 

There have been serious debates on the nature of
archaeological evidence since last three decades: which have been categorized
as Processual, Post-processual/Interpretive/contextual, phenomenological and Symmetrical.
As an archaeologist, I am simply depressed by the unwillingness of majority of
the Indian Archaeologists in engaging with these debates. Engagement doesn't
necessarily entail  appropriation (or
rejection). My colleagues and friends in India, except a few, are not really
interested in participating in the arguments on the nature and interpretation
(epistemology and ontology) of archaeological evidence, the relation of
archaeological evidence to present discursive and non-discursive formations, the
intermingling of past(s) with present(s). As I have already stated, any attempt
of serious engagement, if it does not fit into the accepted norms and practice
of archaeological tradition is identified and refuted as jargon without any
critical conviction. Besides, these narratives and the narrators are stereotyped
as reactionary, they are marginalized and excluded. It is important to point,
as Asad has shown, the exclusion, pain & suffering and torture in the
dominantly secular public and academic space is not less tolerable than what we
are always fear as 'religious'.

 

To conclude, I must say that we need to clinically tease out
the intermingling of the nation-state and its perceived secular juridical
apparatus and legal system, the secular, secularism, and the notion of
objectivity of archaeological and historical evidence and its retrieval and interpretive
methodology in the context of India and South Asia. 

 

The Ayodhya Verdict and its extremely dangerous consequences
could only be negotiated, at least intellectually, if certain themes and
issues, certain methods and concepts, and certain form of Indocentrism are
rethought systematically and programmatically.

 

Hope, this time I wont be labeled as a post-modern begot or
I wont be slapped with derogatory remarks as I was when I posted some
interesting comments to reader-list last time. 

Down with intellectual fascism, in any form and content. At this very moment, I can only pray for that.


 

 

Best,

 

Swadhin   



Swadhin Sen Archaeologist - Assistant Professor   Dept.of Archaeology            Tel:       +88 02 779 10 45-51 Ext. 1326 Jahangirnagar University      Mobile:  +88 0172 019 61 76   Savar,Dhaka. Bangladesh    Fax:      +88 02 779 10 52    swadhin_sen at yahoo.com; swadhinsen at hotmail.com www.juniv.edu