Suraj Bhan (archaeologist)

Suraj Bhan

Suraj Bhan
Born March 1931
Montgomery, British India[1]
Died 14 July 2010(2010-07-14)
Rohtak, Haryana[2]
Nationality Indian
Alma mater Delhi University
Occupation Archaeologist

Suraj Bhan (1931–2010) was an Indian archaeologist and professor of archaeology. He was part of a panel of academics which contested the Vishva Hindu Parishad's claim that the Babri Masjid was built on top of a Râm temple.[3]

Life and career

Suraj Bhan was born in March 1931 in Montgomery (now in Pakistan) to a peasant family of Haryana.[3]

He studied Economics and Sanskrit for a B.A. and M.A. at the Delhi University. Subsequently, he joined the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in 1956 as a technical assistant. He studied Archaeology and Culture for a second M.A. degree in 1960 and, in 1972 also received a Ph.D. degree from the M. S. University, Baroda. He went on to a teaching career first at the Punjab University and then in c. 1967 at Kurukshetra University, carrying out archaeology of prehistoric sites in Haryana. He rose to become the Dean of the Faculty of Indic Studies before retiring in 1991.[4][3][5][6][7]

Archaeological work

Bhan's early research was on the archaeology of prehistoric sites along the old river channels of Sarsuti–Ghaggar and Chautang rivers in Haryana. In 1968, he excavated the Indus culture site of Mitathal. His thesis on the "Historic Archaeology of Saraswati and Drishadavati Valleys" earned him a PhD in 1972. In 1975, Bhan published his major report, Excavations at Mitathal and Other Explorations in the Sutlej-Yamuna Divide, which became a fundamental reference for the study of Indus and post-Indus cultures.[3][8][7]

In 1987, Bhan was invited to give the presidential address to the Archaeology section of the Indian History Congress, where he came out strongly against the tendency among some archaeologists to identify the Indus Valley Civilisation with the Vedic cultures.[3] His paper in The Making of History volume (2002) countered arguments made by archaeologists, B. B. Lal, S. P. Gupta et al. for an Aryan link to the Indus Valley Civilization.[1]

In 1996, he was awarded a senior fellowship by the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) and a year later, he was appointed as a member of the ICHR council. Irfan Habib, in his obituary of Bhan, believed him to be a man of "impeccable personal ethics, which matched well with his professional probity."[3]

His academic work was said to bear a deep imprint of Marxism. He was also involved with the work of Communist Party of India (Marxist) in Haryana and took particular interest in the People's Science movement.[1]

Ayodhya dispute

Suraj Bhan played a significant role during the Ayodhya dispute, supporting the case for the Babri Masjid. He along with historians, Ram Sharan Sharma, Dwijendra Narayan Jha and M. Athar Ali, were a group of four academics who submitted a document titled Babari Mosque or Rama's Birth Place? Historians Report to the Nation to the Minister of Home Affairs in May 1991. Bhan contributed towards the archaeological component of the report. The authors claimed to have scrutinised the evidence provided by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) and rejected outright the idea of the mosque being the site of Rama's birth or of the possibility of it having been built atop a pre-existing temple. The authors dismissed the claim by B. B. Lal, a former director of the ASI, that he had discovered pillar bases next to the Babri Masjid during his excavation in the 1970s. However, they did so while noting that they were not given access to Lal's excavation notes.[9][10][11] Bhan would later testify in the Allahabad High Court that the report had been hurriedly compiled "under pressure" from BMAC.[12]

In October 1992, the four historians wrote in the CPI(M)'s weekly newspaper, People's Democracy, reacting to the booklet Ram Janmabhumi Ayodhya: New Archaeological Discoveries[13][14] stating that the VHP protagonists had indulged in "indiscriminate PWD-like excavation."[15][16] Bhan had earlier also contested statements by S. P. Gupta that the black basalt pillars in the Babri Masjid were once part of a Hindu temple. He also maintained that the carvings on the pillars were similar to those in the Buddhist architecture.[17][18][19]

The Babri Masjid was demolished on 6 December 1992.

Suraj Bhan deposed as an expert witness in the Allahabad High Court on behalf of the pro-mosque parties in 2000, 2002, and again in 2006.[20] He was the only one of the four authors of the Historians Report to the Nation to do so. On 5 March 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the site of the Babri Masjid in order to determine whether a temple-like structure had been demolished before the construction of the mosque. Suraj Bhan joined Irfan Habib and others in issuing a press statement denouncing the move.[21][22] The ASI proceeded with its excavations and submitted its findings to the court in September 2003. Its report revealed the presence of a circular shrine, dateable to 7–10th century and a "massive structure", 50 metres by 30 metres, built in three structural phases during the 11–12th century.[23][24]

Bhan who had visited the digs in June 2003 criticised the ASI for conducting extensive horizontal diggings which destroyed all the Mughal period remains at the site when limited vertical trenching was all that was required. Questioning the methodologies employed to date the underground structure, he accused the ASI report of being an attempt to push back the antiquity of Ayodhya and thereby the Ramayana to c. 1000 BCE. He proclaimed with certainty, that the "massive structure" found by the ASI was not a temple and that it was likely a Sultanate period mosque.[25][26][23][27]

Bhan appeared in the Allahabad High Court to state his professional opinion that the conclusion of the ASI report regarding the existence of any temple beneath the Babri mosque was baseless. While he was present at the excavation for only three days, he claimed that the ASI did not properly record the glazed ware, glazed tiles and bones found at the site. He made other observations such as on the use of lime mortar which he believed dated the underground structure to the Sultanate period. He also claimed that the shortcomings of the report could not be made good and alleged that the ASI lacked objectivity, professional integrity, and scientific rigour.[28][29] Under examination, Bhan admitted having an inadequate knowledge of the Vedas and Puranas and that he was not a historian of the medieval period. He also agreed that he was not a specialist in architecture and admitted to never having studied the construction of mosques built on top of temples. He admitted to having formed his opinion prior to the submission of the ASI report and that it was his opinion that there was no requirement of excavation to resolve the dispute.[30][31]

In its 2010 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, the Allahabad High Court criticised the professionalism of the expert witnesses who had appeared on behalf of the pro-mosque parties. On Suraj Bhan, the court felt that he had made vague statements and had failed to provide a proper reason to challenge the conclusions of the ASI. It dismissed as baseless his technical observations on matters such as the use of lime mortar which had been established to have been in use in India from at least 600 BCE, well before the Sultanate period. The court noted that Bhan had a predetermined attitude against the ASI and believed that rather than being condemned, the Survey deserved commendation and appreciation.[32][33]

Works

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 Habib, Irfan. "Mourning Professor Suraj Bhan". People's Democracy. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
  2. ↑ Singh, Ranbir (23 October 2010). "Dr Suraj Bhan". Mainstream Weekly. Retrieved 24 April 2015.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Habib, Irfan (14 August 2010). "People's historian". Frontline. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
  4. ↑ "Professor Suraj Bhan". People's Democracy. 8 August 2010. Retrieved 27 April 2015.
  5. ↑ Jain 2013, pp. 248-251
  6. ↑ Lal 2003, pp. 174-175.
  7. 1 2 Allahabad High Court 2010, para 3613 (vol. 15).
  8. ↑ Jain 2013, p. 249.
  9. ↑ Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid: A Historians' Report to the Nation by R. S. Sharma, M. Athar Ali, D. N. Jha, Suraj Bhan (Noorani 2014, pp. 33-46)
  10. ↑ Jain 2013, pp. 176-178.
  11. ↑ Allahabad High Court 2010, paras 3608-3611 (vol. 15).
  12. ↑ Allahabad High Court 2010, para 3615 (vol. 15).
  13. ↑ Sharma, Y. D.; Srivastava, K. M.; Gupta, S. P.; Nautiyal, K. P.; Grover, B. R.; Agrawal, D. S.; Mukherji, S.; Malayya, S. (1993). Ramajanma Bhumi: Ayodhya - New Archaeological Discoveries. New Delhi: Historian's Forum.
  14. ↑ S. P. Gupta, Fresh Archaeological Discoveries at Ramjanmabhumi (Noorani 2014, pp. 109–116, from BJP Today, 1-15 February 1993)
  15. ↑ Noorani 2014:
    • Historians Challenge the VHP's `New Evidence' (pp. 98-103, from People's Democracy, 25 October 1992)
    • Nothing Correlates with Existence of a Pre-Sixteenth Century Temple:Historians (pp. 103-107, from People's Democracy, 8 November 1992)
    • Historians Decry VHP Refusal to See Reason (pp 107-108, from People's Democracy, 15 November 1992)
    • Archaeologist Refutes VHP Claim (p. 108, from People's Democracy, 25 October 1992)
  16. ↑ Jain 2013, p. 186.
  17. ↑ Suraj Bhan's Dissection of S. P. Gupta's Conclusions (Noorani 2014, pp. 93-96, from People's Democracy, 3 March 1991)
  18. ↑ Archaeological Evidence - Comment by Suraj Bhan (Gopal 1990, pp. 225-228
  19. ↑ Jain 2013, p. 172.
  20. ↑ Allahabad High Court 2010, para 3609 (vol. 15).
  21. ↑ Historians' Statement on Allahabad High Court Order for Excavation at the Babri Masjid Site (Noorani 2014, pp. 139-142, 10 March 2003)
  22. ↑ Jain 2013, p. 201.
  23. 1 2 Poornima, Joshi (8 September 2003). "Phantom Of The Fossils". Outlook. Retrieved 24 April 2015.
  24. ↑ Jain 2013, pp. 204-206.
  25. ↑ "`It was not a temple': Interview with Suraj Bhan". Frontline (Volume 20 - Issue 19). 13 September 2003. Retrieved 24 April 2015.
  26. ↑ `It was not a temple': Interview with Suraj Bhan (Noorani 2014, pp. 163-169, from Frontline, 26 September 2003)
  27. ↑ Jain 2013, p. 210.
  28. ↑ Jain 2013, pp. 210-211.
  29. ↑ Allahabad High Court 2010, paras 3826-3829 (vol. 16).
  30. ↑ Jain 2013, pp. 248-251.
  31. ↑ Allahabad High Court 2010, para 3614, para 3615, para 3826 (vol. 15).
  32. ↑ Allahabad High Court 2010, para 3826 (vol. 15).
  33. ↑ Allahabad High Court 2010, para 3889, para 3991, point VIII (vol. 18).
Sources


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/1/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.