People’s religious sentiments must be considered, says archaeologist S P Gupta in response to Jyotindra Jain’s contention that the museum is a secular space
There are only two countries in the world today, India and China, where old traditions are still living, unlike other ancient civilisations like Greece, Rome or Mesopotamia, which have all been wiped out by Christianity or Islam. That is why it was so easy for the Taliban to bomb the Bamiyan Buddhas — they have no sentiments attached to them.
In India, even when idols are removed from temples or their original sites, they remain sanctified because these objects represent gods and goddesses which are still worshipped today. They are not just works of art but still deities in the eyes of the people and people cannot completely cut themselves out of their moorings.
For instance, take India’s most famous art historian,
C Sivaramamurthy, who touched the feet of the majestic Pallava Vishnu (reclining Vishnu) in the foyer of the National Museum, every morning. Was he a fool to not know that the image was no longer a consecrated deity?
Two decades ago, some Sikhs walked into the museum and insisted that the priceless, antiquated manuscript of the Guru Granth Sahib be placed on a yellow cloth in the display box. And every year, on Buddha Purnima day, the casket which carried the ashes of Buddha is brought out to the museum’s hall and worshipped by followers, which includes the Sri Lankan ambassador.
There is no question a museum is a secular space and not a religious place but I do feel that since Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism are living religions and practise living traditions, some kind of religious sentiments will always remain with the people.
On the ownership question of objects in the museum, first, they belong to the government, then the people, and finally, to all humanity. However, there is no absolute ownership of museum objects and government control is limited because they belong to the people, therefore, the director of the museum cannot simply issue orders which can hurt people’s sentiments.
The argument that some Hindu deities are given to consumption of intoxicating drinks and so serving alcohol in museums is fine, is wholly misunderstood. First of all, there is only Shiva, that too, in the form of Bhairon, who is perceived to imbibe intoxicating drinks. Even Bhairon has been falsely represented — the scriptures only say he drank the poison after the churning of the ocean so that the nectar was left for the people. Today, poison is loosely referred to alcohol.
The question of deconsecration of idols also does not arise because the word simply does not exist in Hinduism — all images are either chaal (movable, as in religious processions) or achaal (immovable).
Lastly, the movement by the Hindu
Mahasabha to ban meat in the museum is not politically inspired but based
on their sentiments because the last time such protests were made (in ’81
there was an uproar after wine was served at the museum), it wasn’t a religious
group which protested but museum staffers.