Digging a Hindu State: Eroding autonomy of the Archaeological Survey of India
Once an autonomous institution producing credible scientific, and independent research on India’s diverse, complicated history, the ASI today stands as a key instrument for the State’s revisionist agenda. If the place of worship disputes are any indication, the judiciary has been complicit in this revisionist project, relying blindly on the ASI’s compromised studies to betray its own polyvocal commitments
Swarati Sabhapandit
Published on: 11 March 2025, 02:28 pm
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.
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.
