The Discovery that Changed Indian History

ON MY DESK now are books on MN Deshpande, the late iconic chief of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI); on Emperor Ashoka; on Buddhism in the subcontinent and beyond. All these are works by historian Nayanjot Lahiri, who has over the decades earned a name as an authority on archaeology, heritage, and ancient India. I also have in my lap two books titled Finding Forgotten Cities: How the Indus Civilisation Was Discovered. One of them is from 2005 and the other is newly released, drawing on fresh inputs on the subject and coinciding with 100 years of the announcement of the discovery of the Indus Civilisation on September 20, 1924 by Sir John Marshall, former ASI chief.

Lahiri, Professor of History at Ashoka University, has made extensive intellectual inquiries around the history of Indus re­search before and after writing the book back in 2005. Looking back with the advantage of time and information, the author feels a sense of relief at what she describes as “broad accuracy” in her original telling of how India’s first cities were discovered, from 1831 to 1924. She elaborates for those who have not read the book that its “narrative was written around a range of char­acters—British archaeologists like John Marshall and Alexander Cunningham; Indian archaeologists such as Daya Ram Sahni and Rakhaldas Banerji; and an Italian linguist-turned-archaeologist, Luigi Pio Tessitori.” Lahiri adds with a sense of pride that it was a story with unexpected loops and twirls that had, until she told it, remained untold, consigned to ASI archives.

The question then arises: Why this revisit? “Having got the main story across, I see now that what I also could have transmitted but had not were ideas which had fascinated me—and still do—about the relationship of personality to history.” Lahiri says that while writing up what one discovers in forgotten files is always a pleasure, going back to the book was no different. “I added a large section based on those files which had not figured there. My interest in these facets is a consequence of what the pro­cess of research that resulted in the first edition of the book had introduced to me,” she says.

She feels she had not emphasised enough the qualities specific to the Indus Civilisation, which is what partly warrant­ed this relook, besides the timing. Again, the 2005 edition of the book did not go beyond the excavations that took place after September 20, 1924 at the two Indus city sites, Harappa and Mohenjodaro.

Before disclosing tempting anecdotes about her protago­nists, Lahiri attempts to compare archaeological discoveries and scientific discoveries. She raises the question of whether they are similar and then dives into a stimulating discussion. She finally arrives at an answer: “In reflecting on the discovery of the Indus Civilisation in relation to the trajectory of scien­tific breakthroughs, and exploring whether it was similar or different, the answer would be that it was a little of both. Like some major scientific discoveries, the Indus discovery was long in the making in Marshall’s mind, but the dilatory follow-up was also a consequence of unavoidable material circumstances specific to the discovery.”

Lahiri’s afterword to this centenary edition, which lines up additional information and arguments, notes how the adjective “Indo-Sumerian”, used early on to describe the Indus Civilisation, was later dropped. Sahni and KN Dikshit, the late ASI chief and archaeologist, had questioned Marshall’s use of the term, asking him to establish any possible Sumerian parallels at the ancient Indus ruins. Following a debate of sorts, Marshall agreed with them and then wrote about it. “With the progress of exploration… it has become evident that this connection (between the prehistoric civilisation in Sind and Punjab with the one in Mesopotamia) was not due to actual identity of culture, but to intimate commercial and other intercourse between two countries…” By 1927, Marshall was convinced that certain features of both Mohenjodaro and Harappa were uniquely Indian.

Lahiri gives an exhaustive account of the excavation at Mohenjodaro and the people involved in the process, which included a scholar from Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) besides Indians and Europeans, mostly British. She also delves into the structures, including the large ones, which were excavated. She shines a light on the arguments between archaeologists over several issues, especially human remains, enriching the reading experience. The book also puts the spotlight on quibbles over appointments, counter-arguments, and so on. Marshall had to provide a longish explanation for his decision to appoint EJH Mackay as his chosen successor for the Mohenjodaro excavations. This followed a barrage of queries ranging from whether there was an advertisement for the posi­tion and whether applications were received from Indians, etc. The author has reproduced it in full in the book and it makes logical and refined arguments, bringing to the fore the effort Marshall took to address any disenchantment in his team.

Another exciting story in this book is about Banerji, who was known as “Mohenjodaro Man”, and who had to depart from ASI over a case involving the theft of a stone idol at the Chausat Jogni temple at Bheraghat in the Central Provinces (now in Madhya Pradesh). Lahiri digs deep into ASI files to narrate a suspense-filled story of what had or possibly had happened to the idol and Banerji’s role in its disappearance.

Lahiri writes: “The circumstances of Mohenjodaro Man’s departure were subsequently relegated to the archives. I have reconstructed what had transpired through my discovery of the relevant files. The episode of Banerji’s dismissal reminds us that his enormous talent could be marred by his astonishing proclivity to ignore the possible consequences of impulsive actions.” However, Banerji was rehabilitated soon enough. In 1928, he was made the Manindra Chandra Nandy Professor at Banaras Hindu University.

Lahiri has dedicated both books to ASI where, as we discover from these pages, many untold stories lie buried, waiting to be narrated. She explains: “The discovery of the Indus Civilisation was neither the work nor the result of one individual’s vi­sion. There are many heroes in this story— ranging from an Italian linguist-turned-ar­chaeologist to a brilliant Bengali scholar to a compiler of British gazetteers to the Direc­tor General of the Archaeological Survey himself. Almost all of them were connect­ed in various ways with the Archaeological Survey. That is an important reason why this book is dedicated to the ASI.”

She continues, “The other reason is this: it was in the bundles, letters, and notes that I came upon in the file room for the Archae­ological Survey of India that I unearthed the little-known saga of how the Indus civilisation was discovered. A treasure trove of files lay buried in that file room on Janpath and for two years, I used to spend a lot of time taking out file bundles and piecing together this story. It was because of the late Ajay Shankar, then Director General of the ASI, that I got permission to do so. Mohar Singh in the ASI used to bring out the file bundles and I used to read them in the photo­graphic library, whose staff treated me as one of their own.”

In writing this book, Lahiri offers us a peek into her craft and the logic of this whole exercise. “It is not, as I now see it, simply a matter of adding new data to old ideas. I have found my own views have changed since I first wrote Finding Forgotten Cities. The world of scientific breakthroughs has made me recalibrate my understanding of how major advances unfold; consequent­ly, I have come to place much value on situating archaeolog­ical discoveries within the world of technological leaps and innovations.”

At least some of our historians are on a steep learning curve and truly value their experience.

citiesDaya Ram SahniIndian ancient historyIndus CivilisationNayanjot LahiriRakhaldas Banerji