Digging a Hindu State: Eroding autonomy of the Archaeological Survey of India

IN India, archaeological practices and conservation are regulated by a network of bureaucratic mechanisms, legal authority, and disciplinary conventions. The primary institution at the helm of these practices is the Archaeological Survey of India. 

Founded in 1861 by Alexander Cunningham, the ASI's bureaucratic framework was firmly structured into a rigid hierarchical system by Mortimer Wheeler, who became its eighth Director-General in 1944. Wheeler consolidated an  an organisational structure, and meticulously oversaw the processing and classification of artefacts and the aesthetic display of excavated sites. Although post-colonial India retained ASI’s bureaucratic structure, the nature and composition of such hierarchy gradually changed over time. 

Despite operating within a rigid bureaucratic framework, what sets ASI apart is the nature of its work, which is envisioned as a scientific endeavour focused on discovering, classifying, and characterizing archaeological sites within India’s historical narrative. Essentially, ASI was established as an epistemic institution dedicated to generating knowledge through scientific methodologies.

Changing imagination of the ASI

Ashish Avikunthak, in his robust ethnographic work, noted that in post-colonial India, the bureaucratic structure of the ASI exacerbated the institutional oppression that was endemic to it. His work identifies a narrative of systemic oppression in the form of arbitrary transfers, delayed promotions, exasperating work conditions, and inadequate infrastructure to produce quality work within the hierarchical structure of the ASI. 

Avikunthak also alluded to the political contingencies both at the institutional and national levels that have affected the work of the ASI. The Ayodhya excavation project in 2003 solidified ASI’s role in shaping the national imagination, actively constructing and preserving a specific form of archaeological knowledge and heritage for the nation. 

This epistemic goal was reinforced by the historic Ayodhya verdict, in which the Supreme Court heavily relied on a 2003 ASI report stating that the Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land but atop an underlying structure of similar size. Although ASI’s authority over sites has been contested in court cases since colonial times, the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute was the first instance where archaeological knowledge was explicitly used to legitimize a political agenda. This monopolisation of knowledge was further reinforced by the judiciary, the political executive, and a majoritarian vision shaped by the idea of a Hindu State.

Since it assumed power at the centre in 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took on the task of reclaiming the cultural heritage of Hindu civilization, asserting its suffering at the hands of ‘Islamic invaders’. Under the BJP’s watch, ASI has become a crucial component of this decolonising project. Although accusations of underfunding and ASI’s centralized, autocratic structure have intensified under the BJP government, the Ayodhya verdict and ASI’s subsequent involvement in the BJP’s temple politics are reshaping its perception in the popular narrative.