{"title":"镜子戏中的Somnath Mandir:遗产、历史和对新国家身份的探索(1842-1951)","authors":"Tommaso Bobbio","doi":"10.1017/s1356186323000287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The story of the Somnath temple, in the northwestern Saurashtra peninsula, has often been taken as an example of the contentious legacies of the penetration, settlement, and political establishment of Muslims in India. Its history testifies to the complex relationship between history, heritage, and the consolidation of collective memories of past events and processes. This article focuses on two key moments in the temple's recent history: the retrieval of the Somnath gates by Lord Ellenborough in 1842 and the reconstruction of the temple between 1947 and 1951. At these two moments—one during colonial times and the other at the creation of the independent state—Somnath became the battlefield for questioning how the state should be positioned with regard to religious places, histories, symbols, and practices. While the temple was apparently dealt with as a tangible place of heritage, both episodes show how the value endowed upon the temple had far more complex meanings. The analysis proposed in this article ends with the reconstruction of the temple. This shows the way in which architects of independent India addressed the country's history, directly or indirectly engaging with the construction of a heritage for the new state. Their efforts aimed to strengthen a shared memory of the past, which could in turn consolidate membership and a sense of belonging to the new nation. Advocates and promoters of the temple's reconstruction, among whom were Vallabhbhai Patel and K. M. Munshi, envisioned that the reconstruction would embody the long-awaited liberation of India from centuries of continuous domination by ‘foreign’ powers. In contrast, secular politicians, with Nehru at the helm, opposed the reconstruction, fearing that Somnath might become the symbol of a sectarian vision of the nation and, in the wake of partition, derail efforts to characterise independent India as an inclusive country. While the reconstruction did eventually take place, the entire episode invites us to question the relationship between the framing of Indian nationalism and the heritagisation of Indian history. Following a critical theoretical approach to Heritage studies, where heritage has less to do with the item that is preserved than with the value with which it is endowed, this article proposes to investigate the meanings that heritage preservation, conservation, and reconstruction acquired as part of the project of nation- and state-building.","PeriodicalId":17566,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Somnath Mandir in a play of mirrors: heritage, history, and the search for identity of the new nation (1842–1951)\",\"authors\":\"Tommaso Bobbio\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1356186323000287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The story of the Somnath temple, in the northwestern Saurashtra peninsula, has often been taken as an example of the contentious legacies of the penetration, settlement, and political establishment of Muslims in India. Its history testifies to the complex relationship between history, heritage, and the consolidation of collective memories of past events and processes. This article focuses on two key moments in the temple's recent history: the retrieval of the Somnath gates by Lord Ellenborough in 1842 and the reconstruction of the temple between 1947 and 1951. At these two moments—one during colonial times and the other at the creation of the independent state—Somnath became the battlefield for questioning how the state should be positioned with regard to religious places, histories, symbols, and practices. While the temple was apparently dealt with as a tangible place of heritage, both episodes show how the value endowed upon the temple had far more complex meanings. The analysis proposed in this article ends with the reconstruction of the temple. This shows the way in which architects of independent India addressed the country's history, directly or indirectly engaging with the construction of a heritage for the new state. Their efforts aimed to strengthen a shared memory of the past, which could in turn consolidate membership and a sense of belonging to the new nation. Advocates and promoters of the temple's reconstruction, among whom were Vallabhbhai Patel and K. M. Munshi, envisioned that the reconstruction would embody the long-awaited liberation of India from centuries of continuous domination by ‘foreign’ powers. In contrast, secular politicians, with Nehru at the helm, opposed the reconstruction, fearing that Somnath might become the symbol of a sectarian vision of the nation and, in the wake of partition, derail efforts to characterise independent India as an inclusive country. While the reconstruction did eventually take place, the entire episode invites us to question the relationship between the framing of Indian nationalism and the heritagisation of Indian history. Following a critical theoretical approach to Heritage studies, where heritage has less to do with the item that is preserved than with the value with which it is endowed, this article proposes to investigate the meanings that heritage preservation, conservation, and reconstruction acquired as part of the project of nation- and state-building.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17566,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1356186323000287\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1356186323000287","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
位于印度索拉什特拉半岛西北部的索姆纳特神庙的故事,经常被视为穆斯林在印度渗透、定居和政治建立的有争议的遗产的一个例子。它的历史证明了历史、遗产和对过去事件和过程的集体记忆的巩固之间的复杂关系。本文主要关注寺庙近史上的两个关键时刻:1842年艾伦伯勒勋爵(Lord Ellenborough)夺回索姆纳特门(Somnath gates),以及1947年至1951年对寺庙的重建。在这两个时刻——一个是殖民时期,另一个是独立国家的建立——索姆纳特成为了质疑国家应该如何定位的战场,关于宗教场所、历史、象征和实践。虽然这座寺庙显然是作为一个有形的遗产来处理的,但这两个事件都表明,赋予这座寺庙的价值有着复杂得多的含义。本文的分析以寺庙的重建作为结束。这展示了独立后的印度建筑师处理国家历史的方式,他们直接或间接地参与了新国家遗产的建设。他们的努力旨在加强对过去的共同记忆,这反过来又可以巩固成员资格和对新国家的归属感。寺庙重建的倡导者和推动者,其中包括Vallabhbhai Patel和K. M. Munshi,他们设想重建将体现人们期待已久的印度从“外国”势力的持续统治中解放出来。相比之下,以尼赫鲁为首的世俗政治家反对重建,担心索姆纳特可能成为国家宗派愿景的象征,并在分裂之后破坏将独立的印度定性为包容性国家的努力。虽然重建最终确实发生了,但整个事件让我们质疑印度民族主义的框架与印度历史遗产之间的关系。遵循遗产研究的批判性理论方法,遗产与被保存的项目关系不大,而与被赋予的价值有关,本文建议调查遗产保护,保护和重建作为民族和国家建设项目的一部分所获得的意义。
Somnath Mandir in a play of mirrors: heritage, history, and the search for identity of the new nation (1842–1951)
Abstract The story of the Somnath temple, in the northwestern Saurashtra peninsula, has often been taken as an example of the contentious legacies of the penetration, settlement, and political establishment of Muslims in India. Its history testifies to the complex relationship between history, heritage, and the consolidation of collective memories of past events and processes. This article focuses on two key moments in the temple's recent history: the retrieval of the Somnath gates by Lord Ellenborough in 1842 and the reconstruction of the temple between 1947 and 1951. At these two moments—one during colonial times and the other at the creation of the independent state—Somnath became the battlefield for questioning how the state should be positioned with regard to religious places, histories, symbols, and practices. While the temple was apparently dealt with as a tangible place of heritage, both episodes show how the value endowed upon the temple had far more complex meanings. The analysis proposed in this article ends with the reconstruction of the temple. This shows the way in which architects of independent India addressed the country's history, directly or indirectly engaging with the construction of a heritage for the new state. Their efforts aimed to strengthen a shared memory of the past, which could in turn consolidate membership and a sense of belonging to the new nation. Advocates and promoters of the temple's reconstruction, among whom were Vallabhbhai Patel and K. M. Munshi, envisioned that the reconstruction would embody the long-awaited liberation of India from centuries of continuous domination by ‘foreign’ powers. In contrast, secular politicians, with Nehru at the helm, opposed the reconstruction, fearing that Somnath might become the symbol of a sectarian vision of the nation and, in the wake of partition, derail efforts to characterise independent India as an inclusive country. While the reconstruction did eventually take place, the entire episode invites us to question the relationship between the framing of Indian nationalism and the heritagisation of Indian history. Following a critical theoretical approach to Heritage studies, where heritage has less to do with the item that is preserved than with the value with which it is endowed, this article proposes to investigate the meanings that heritage preservation, conservation, and reconstruction acquired as part of the project of nation- and state-building.