Secularising the Secular

8/13/2019 Secularising the Secular

1/8

REVISITING SECULARISATION

Economic & Political Weekly EPW december 14, 2013 vol xlviII no 50 71

Secularising the SecularMonumentalisation of the Taj Mahal in Postcolonial India

Hilal Ahmed

This article has emerged from my short introductory article, Afterlife of a Monument: Taj Mahal , which is being published online by Sahapedia andthe Archaeological Survey of India . I am thankful to Sahapedia forinviting me to the lecture series on Indian heritage. A special thanks to

Yashaswini Chandna, Rajesh Ranjan and Venugopal Maddipati for theirhelp, comments and criticism. The comments of an anonymous reviewerare also gratefully acknowledged.

Hilal Ahmed ( [email protected] ) is a fellow at the Centre forthe Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi.

The Taj Mahal can also be seen as a religious place ofworship, as the local Muslim community is allowed tooffer prayers at the mosque situated inside the Tajcomplex. The monument is also privy to two kinds ofpublics a congregation that offers prayers at themosque, paying no attention to the central building, anda public, which stays at the central building and seemsto follow the given official meanings of the Taj as a worldheritage site. Is it possible to look at the Taj merely as asecular historical monument? If yes, how can werespond to the religious meanings embedded in thevery architectural composition of the buildings? AreMuslims, as a religious minority, entitled to use spacessuch as the mosque in the Taj Mahal to offercongregational prayers? This article explores thesequestions to understand the practice and politics ofsecularism in postcolonial India.

Mosque/Tomb/Monument: The Taj and Its Publics

R aghu Rais famous picture of the Taj, which showsbajamatnamaz (Muslim congregational prayer) at the mosque situated inside the Taj Mahal complex, seemsto capture the multilayered meanings of a monument in asignicant way. 1 The picture reminds us that the Taj Mahal often recognised as a symbol of eternal love, a monument ofnational importance, or even a world heritage site could also be

seen as a religious place of worship. Rais pictures clearly bringout the architectural synchronisation, as well as functionaldistinctiveness of the two main buildings of the Taj complex the central tomb building erected over the graves of MumtazMahal and the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan, and the mosque,to the right of the tombs facing the Kaba. 2 The picture, in addi-tion, encapsulates two kinds of publics a congregation thatoffers prayers at the mosque, paying no attention to the centralbuilding (at least at that very moment), and a public, whichstays at the central building and seems to follow the givenofcial meanings of the Taj as a world heritage site.

How do we make sense of these ostensibly incompatibleelements two different sites inside a known monument; two

kinds of publics; and, above all, two modes of commemoration?We might say that the mosque and the tomb building areinseparable parts of the Taj monument complex, and present-ing them separately does not solve any purpose. In this sense,offering prayer at the mosque is a minor, or rather unimpor-tant act, which can easily be ignored. 3 One may also suggestthat activities such as religious worship are not consistent withthe recognised architectural/archaeological/historical valuesof the Taj. These activities might encourage religious funda-mentalism, and must therefore be stopped. If we look at RaghuRais picture from this perspective, we get a very straight-forward interpretation: the worshippers appear as unintendedpublic encroaching upon the secular space of the Taj; therational public, on the other hand, which commemorates thesite in an acceptable manner, seems to look at the congrega-tion in a puzzled way, as if the worshippers were intentionallydefying the ofcial meanings!

Although one cannot ignore the positive intentions embed-ded in these overtly secular readings of buildings like the TajMahal, at least two important questions pose a serious chal-lenge to given meanings of secularism in the postcolonialIndian context:

Is it possible to look at the Taj merely as a secular historicalmonument? If yes, how could we respond to the religious


2/8


december 14, 2013 vol xlviII no 50 EPW Economic & Political Weekly72

meanings embedded in the very architectural composition ofthe buildings, which have been built intentionally as amaqbara (mausoleum)? 4

Secondly, religious communities, especially religious minor-ities, have a set of constitutional rights that legally protecttheir right to worship. Are Muslims, as a religious minority,entitled to use spaces such as the mosque in the Taj Mahal tooffer congregational prayers?

I investigate these questions to look at the ways in whichthe Taj Mahal, a maqbara built by Shah Jahan in the 17thcentury, transforms into a modern historical monument.This exploration, I hope, can help us move beyond thesecular/communal binary and appreciate the manner in whichsecularism has emerged as a political idiom, especially inthe past two decades.

I would like to make four clarications. First, the articlediscusses the 2005 controversy between the Uttar PradeshSunni Wakf Board ( UPSWB ) and the Archaeological Survey ofIndia ( ASI ) over the ownership of the Taj Mahal as a point of

reference. I am not interested in evaluating the veracity of theconicting claims made by these two institutions. Instead, Ifocus on the reception of various competing forms of secular-ism in these discussions to trace the evolution of the emerginglanguage of politics.

Second, I try to make a crucial distinction between wakfas a practice and the institutional architecture of wakfboards in India. This distinction is important to clarify theconceptual difference between religious acts such as per-forming namaz, etc, inside the space of a mosque, and owner-ship claims of the modern kind. We have to remember thatorganised Muslim politics, state-managed Muslim institu-tions such as the wakf boards, and Muslim worshippers must

be analytically differentiated. The claims made by Muslimpolitical elites do not represent the views, ideas and expres-sions of various Indian Muslim communities; this is also trueabout the wakf boards, which are mainly run by the govern-ment through favourable nominated Muslims.

This leads us to the third clarication, which is about theconnotation of the term secularisation. We know that secular-ism, and for that matter secularisation, are highly contestedterms in the postcolonial Indian context. The article does notmake any grand generalisation in this regard. The question ofsecularisation in this particular case is explored not as a de-cline of religious belief or shrinking of the domain of reli-gion (for an elaborated discussion on this point, see Casanova1994), but is understood as a practice which inuences, shapesand nurtures the everyday acts of the state and modied reli-giosities of communities. In other words, a difference existsbetween the secular claims of the ASI and UPSWB , and the ac-tual practice of secularism inside the Taj.

Finally, I would like to clarify my use of historical sources inthis article. I evoke the past of the process of monumentali-sation of the Taj Mahal to ask a few second order politicalquestions (Kaviraj 2010: 39). The legal-archaeological frame-

work and the modes of writing about the Taj Mahal areexplored to trace the complex formation of recent political

debates. My questions obviously stem from this crucial point ofdeparture; however, I do not ignore the contextual specicitiesof certain historical writings, and the functioning of institu-tional mechanisms related to historic architecture.

What Is Monumentalisation?

It is quite common to use terms like historic architecture andmonument interchangeably to describe old buildings or his-toric sites. There is, however, an important conceptual differ-ence between these two terms. Historic architecture is a broadcategory and can be used to describe a number of old build-ings, ruins and protected monuments. On the other hand, thebasic function of a monument is to commemorate an idea,event or person. In this sense, a monument could have twointerrelated aspects: (a) the object/structure that is intention-ally erected to symbolise a person or an event; and (b) the as-sociated idea/story that has to be remembered/commemorated.In India, a monument is also a legal entity. The artistic andhistorical values of a particular historic building determine its

status as an ofcially declared historical monument that com-memorates signicant historical events related to the nationspast. Thus, any historical building could be converted into anofcial national monument, or alternately, any ofcially declarednational monument could simply cease to be a nationalmonument at any point in time.

This substantial difference between historic architectureand monument is very crucial in understanding the processby which a particular building or group of buildings is con-

verted into a protected historical monument or monumentalcomplex in India. This process deals with a number of issues: aparticular building is differentiated from other buildings; itsphysical characteristics are identied as symbols; its architec-

tural properties are measured; certain historic and artist ic val-ues of the building are determined; its history is traced; andnally, it is preserved as a heritage of a nation, community, orpeople. In a broader sense, we may call this the process ofmonumentalisation. 5 The transformation of the Taj Mahalinto a monument of national importance, and subsequentlyinto a world heritage site, is the outcome of this process.

Neutrality and Colonial Archaeology

The Taj Mahal, as is well known, was a popular monument forcolonial ofcials, artists and tourists, who admired its archi-tectural composition and described it as one of the most fasci-nating historical attractions. 6 Despite the fact that organisedefforts in the eld of archaeology (such as the formation of the

ASI ) began quite late, the colonial administration remainedsympathetic to the preservation of outstanding historic sitesand monuments in India (for a detailed discussion on thedebate on colonial archeological initiatives in the 19th century,see Kavuri-Bauer 2011). The Taj Mahal was one of the mostimportant buildings in this regard. Governor General LordMinto constituted a Taj committee in 1808 and allocatedRs 1,00,000 for repairs and upkeep (Allchin 1978). This kind ofofcial protection for the Taj Mahal and other buildings in

Agra continued for a long time. 7


3/8



This does not, however, mean that the protection of Indiashistoric architecture was a settled issue. There was a stronglyheld view that money should not be spent on the protection ofIndias buildings. In fact, criticism of this kind encouragedpeople like Lord Curzon to not only develop reasonablearguments in favour of the protection of historic architecture,but also institutionalise the process of monumentalisationin India. 8

Lord Curzon took a special interest in the renovation of theTaj Mahal. 9 In fact, he initiated a massive restoration project,completed in 1908, to protect the buildings of the Taj complexand revive its gardens. Curzon ofcially reported:

It is no longer approached through dusty wastes and a squalid ba-zaar. A beautiful park takes their place; and the group of mosques andtombs, the arcaded streets and grassy courts that precede the mainbuilding are once more as nearly as possible what they were whencompleted by the masons of Shah Jehan. Every building in the gardenenclosure of the Taj has been scrupulously repaired, and the discoveryof old plans has enabled us to res tore the water-channels and ower-beds of the garden more exactly to their original state (Archaeologicalexplorations in India, 1909-10: 127-28).

This restoration project also remained quite sensitive to thereligious and popular meanings associated with the variousbuildings inside the Taj complex. Local residents were allowedto use the Taj Mahal mosque for offering namaz, etc, and per-mission was also given to perform certain religious rituals atthe graves of Mumtaz and Shah Jahan. 10 One may ask an obvi-ous question: Was the colonial state highly sympathetic to-

wards the cultural-religious meanings of the Taj? Or was thismerely an act of appeasement to pacify the local community?

After all, the conservation of Indias built heritage had alwaysbeen dened in strictly secular terms.

To understand this poser, it is important to look at the ways

in which religious practices were understood in relation to thelegal principles laid down by the state for administrative pur-poses. The colonial state separated itself from the religiousaffairs of Indian communities. As a result, a legal principle ofstrict neutrality was evoked to dene the relationship betweenthe domains of the state and religion. Protection of religiousplaces of worship functional and non-functional was givenpriority in this framework, simply to uphold the practicalitiesof the principles of strict neutrality.

Let us take the example of the Ancient Monuments Preser- vation Act 1904 to elaborate this point. Not only did this lawdene the term monument in a legal-administrative sense,but it also legalised the process of monumentalisation inIndia. Most importantly, the historical relevance of a religiousplace of worship was also identied in this law. Section 13(1)of the Act, for instance, clearly noted that any place of wor-ship or shrine maintained by the Government shall not beused for any purpose inconsistence [sic] with its character. Infact, the collector was given special powers to protect thereligious character of such monuments under this law (Sec-tion 13[2b]). Thus, the conservation of a historic building as amonument in colonial India was always seen in relation toits recognised architectural/religious character. The Taj Mahal,or at least the mosque inside it, was in this sense considered

a functional or living site by colonial authorities. This was why the local community was allowed to use the mosquesituated inside the Taj complex for religious purposes. How-ever, the use of this building for offering namaz, etc, wascontingent upon the larger agenda that of the conservationof the entire monument complex. The colonial state followedthe norms given in the Indian Archaeological Policy (1915).Clause 19 says:

[I]n this country it is impractical to lay down one law which will beapplicable to every case. Thus a distinction is drawn between the old-er Buddhist, Hindu and Jain edices on the one hand, and the moremodern erections of the Muhammadans on the other; and in the caseof the latter the view is taken a policy of limited restoration not only de-

sirable but ju stied on the ground tha t the art o f the orig inal builder is still a living art. It is held al so that in the case of monument s which still serv ing the purpose for which they were built, whether they be Hindutemples or Muhammadan mosque or tomb or palaces where ceremonial

funct ion are still performed, there are frequently valid reasons for re - storing to more extensive measures of repair than would be desirable , ifthe buildings in question were maintained merely as antiquar ian relic(18-19; emphasis added).

A more powerful expression of this policy in relation to thereligious character of a historic building can be found in theConservation Manual of 1923. Section 27 of the Manual, whichlays great stress on the principle of neutrality in relation toreligious affairs, notes:

it is the policy of the Government to abstain as far as possible fromany interference with the management or repair of religious build-ings. But if such buildings were of exceptional archaeological inter-est, and if the endowment attached to them were insufcient for theirupkeep, the offer of expert advice and guidance or even of nancialassistance might be made by the Government to the owner or trustee,on condition that the repairs were carried out on lines approved by the

Archaeological Department (10-11).

Therefore, the restoration of the Taj Mahal in the early 20thcentury, considered the states prerogative, was not connedto the Tajs archaeological/artistic value; religious acts, ritualsand popular meanings of the Taj were also given some kind ofpolicy consideration. In a broader sense, concessions given tothe local community to perform certain religious rituals at theTaj Mahal were not an act of appeasement, but a clear manifes-tation of a secularism of strict neutrality. 11

Taj Mahal as a Monument of National Importance

The Partition of India on religious grounds also affected theheritage map of south Asia. Interestingly, Mohenjo-Daro,Harappa and Taxila, all extremely important ancient Indiansites, came under the control of Pakistani authorities, whilemost signicant Indo-Islamic buildings, including the TajMahal, remained in India. 12 This division of architecturalheritage worked, on the one hand, as an advantage for theNehru-led government in their attempt to consolidate thealready worked-out theory of composite nationalism; onthe other hand, protection of Indo-Islamic buildings becamea serious issue in the early 1950 s. Hindu rightists were quickto capitalise on the political outcomes of Partition violence.For them, Indo-Islamic buildings were symbols of Muslimdominance. 13


4/8



Nevertheless, for Nehru, Indo-Islamic sites, particularly theTaj Mahal, were symbols of Indias composite culture. In

Discovery of India, Nehru wrote:

Beautiful buildings combined the old Indian ideals in architecture with a new simplicity and a nobility of line grew up in Agra and Delhi.This Indo-Mughal art was in marked contrast with decadent, over-elaborate and heavily ornamented temples and other buildings ofnorth and south. Inspired architects and builders put up with lovinghands the Taj Mahal at Agra (263).

These words, I suggest, should not be understood as thepolitical rhetoric of secularism. Nehru had worked hardto translate this interpretation of Indias past into a seriouspolicy discourse. For example, in a later speech, delivered at theCentenary Celebrations of the ASI on 14 December 1961, at theInternational Conference of Asian Archaeology, Nehru said:

In this highly utilita rian age, how does one justify archaeology? I haveno clear answer to that except that I am quite sure it is very important. There was a direct conict between the claims of today in the senseof practical utility and the claims of the past. We were troubled bythe conict. But it was inevitable that we should decide ultimately infavour of the present. And that turned out to be the best way of pre-serving the past also (Nehru 1964: 180).

In any case, the policy on archaeology had to deal withtwo very different compulsions. First, it had to nationaliseIndian historic sites in purely legal-administrative terms.This move was not only essential for restructuring archaeo-logical management in the country, but was also crucial topublicising the ofcial interpretation of the history andculture of India, from the point of view of the newly emergedIndian state. Since the idea of an ofcial history of India

was evolving at the time, it was fairly obvious for the state toidentify historical monuments as the most representative

symbols of the ofcial postcolonial version of national cultureand heritage. 14

Second, the state had to deal with the question of religion.This was again a very complicated issue. Unlike the colonialstate, which had followed the principle of strict neutrality inrelation to religious affairs, the Indian Constitution had al-ready granted a few constitutionally protected fundamentalrights to religious communities, particularly religious minori-ties. In addition, the state had also set out long-term social andreligious reform agendas. In this sense, the Indian state hadbeen following a kind of secularism, which was to a greatextent involved in the religious life of Indian communities.However, the Nehruvian state did not apply such a secularismto redene the religious status of historical monuments, prima-rily because of the political context of the time. As a result, itbecame a compulsion for the state to stick to the colonialconservation policy of strict neutrality. In this sense, Nehrudeveloped a different interpretation of secularism a partici-patory secularism that recognises the colourful cultural-religious life of Indian communities, while adhering to thelogic of a principled distance from religions and religiosities(Bhargava 2006). 15 Following this context-specic elucidationof secularism, the Nehruvian state laid down two principlesof neutrality in relation to monuments. First, a few historic

sites were declared monuments of national importance un-der the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Re-mains Act (1958). These monuments were to be conserved in amanner that enabled the objective national history of India tobe displayed. Second, it was decided that non-functional mon-uments would be protected as dead entities, while at thesame time, the state would follow the principle of strict neu-trality in relation to those functional religious places of wor-ship which would be protected as monuments.

Who Owns the Taj?

The ownership of the Taj, and for that matter its nature as amonument, have always been contentious issues in postcolo-nial India. Although the local Muslim community has been al-lowed to use the Taj mosque to offer prayers, the Tajs repre-sentation as a Hindu/Muslim/secular monument has contin-ued to affect public discourse in a signicant way (Oak 1966).The legal-ofcial status of the Taj mosque becomes crucial inthis regard. It is important to note that the question of reli-

gious worship in a protected monument is always dealt withon a case-to-case basis. Any religious activity in a protectedmonument, therefore, needs to be seen in relation to the prin-ciples set out by the ASI in this regard. As per the establishedprinciples, if a building is being used by the local communityfor religious activities at the time of formal notication (thedate when the building is taken over by the ASI as a protectedmonument), particular religious activity would be recognisedas an important marker to determine the monuments reli-gious character. The ASI , following Section 16 of the AncientMonuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (1958),ensures that the conservation of the building respects therecognised religious character of the monument.

The Taj mosque, technically speaking, is part of the Tajmonument complex. The local community, particularlyMuslims, have been using the tomb area as well as the mosquefor religious purposes since the time that colonial authoritiesdecided to take care of the Taj as a protected monument.Interestingly, the scope of religious activities has increasedover the years. For instance, apart from regular prayers,Friday prayers, and Eid congregational prayers, the Tajmosque was also opened for Muslims to offer the specialnamaz of Taraveeh in the month of Ramzan from 7.30 pm to10 pm. In fact, the Superintending Archaeologist, Agra, issuedan ofcial order in this regard on 16 October 2003. Similarly,on 9 September 2004, the ASI gave permission for the three-day annual urs of Shah Jahan to be held inside the Taj Mahal.Devotees were exempted from the entry fee during thosethree days (Venkatesan 2005).

The most interesting debate on the ownership of the TajMahal took place in June 2005, when the UPSWB declared theTaj a wakf property, and demanded that it be given back forprotection, conservation and management. The controversybegan in 1998 when a resident of Firozabad, Mohammed IrfanBedar, led an application before the UPSWB , seeking theregistration of the Taj Mahal as wakf property. However, theUPSWB did not respond to this application. Questioning this


5/8



delay, Bedar led a writ petition before the Allahabad HighCourt, arguing that the court should direct the UPSWB to expe-dite a decision. On 8 November 2004, the Allahabad HighCourt dismissed the writ petition and directed the UPSWB totake a decision within three months on this issue. In responseto this directive, the UPSWB gave its ofcial reply, declaringthe Taj Mahal wakf property. 16

The UPSWB made two points to justify its position:(a) Being a maqbara (mausoleum), the Taj Mahal is a wakfproperty as per Sections 2 and 40 of the Government of IndiasWakf Act, 1995. 17 (b) The Taj Mahal as a wakf has historical le-gitimacy. The UPSWB refers to the Padshahnama by Abdul Ha-mid Lahori, published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal, andthe Shahjahan Nama , Vol II (290-94), published by Majlise-Taraqqi Adab , Lahore, to substantiate its claim that the Taj Ma-hal and its mosque, and a structure called the Jamaat khana,had been established with prayers and charities in accordance

with Muslim Sunni laws and traditions by the Mughal Emper-or Shah Jahan (Venkatesan 2005).

A close reading of these claims reveals that the UPSWB triedto articulate a secular position. Its adherence to a law passedby Parliament simply brings in the much talked about issueof minority rights. After all, the formation of wakf boards inIndia is inextricably linked to the commitment expressed in

Articles 26-30 of the Indian Constitution. As an institutionalisedform of Muslim charitable endowments, the UPSWB has alegitimate secular existence. The second claim furthersubstantiates the Boards secular position. The Board reliesupon a recognised historical document as evidence to legitimiseits legal privilege over the Taj (for a detailed discussion on the

wakf status of the Taj Mahal, see Begley and Desai 1989). Thisis a very important aspect, and can help us in making a crucial

difference between the claims of the UPSWB and Muslimpolitics of the past in postcolonial India.

It is important to note that dominant Muslim politicalgroups do not directly enter the realm of history to articulatepolitical demands (Ahmed 2013). On the contrary, the voca-bulary of rights embedded in the secular discourse of law isextracted to generate a language of minority politics. In thisframework, a romanticised past is always evoked as politicalmemory, which is justied by ofcial history at the lastinstance (Ahmed 2009). The position of various Muslimgroups on the history of the Babri Masjid is a revealingexample. Muslim groups dened the Babri Masjid as a ques-tion of secular law; however, instead of producing any historyof this mosque, they relied heavily on the report of secularhistorians. 18 In the case of the Taj Mahal, however, the UPSWB goes directly into the discourse of ofcial history. In fact,it does not highlight the act of worship by Muslims in theTaj mosque as primary evidence of some kind. This showsthat the claims made by the Board deviated from organisedMuslim politics primarily because, being a governmentinstitution, it was in a position to adopt a slightly differentsecular language.

This point needs further elaboration because the claims ofthe UPSWB were also described as reecting a certain kind of

communal politics. It is important to remember that theWakf Boards are not directly governed by the Muslim com-munity in India. As per wakf laws, the principle of nominationis applied while appointing members of wakf boards instates. As a result, a few politically preferable elite Muslims members of Parliament, members of Legislative Assembly,educationists, and social workers are nominated by the gov-ernment. A Chief Executive Ofcer is also appointed by thegovernment to administer the usual ofcial activ ities (Wakf

Act 1995: Sec 23 [1]). In this sense, wakf institutions cannotbe treated as community institutions in the actual senseof the term. This is precisely why the relationship between

wakf institutions and organised Muslim politics has alwaysbeen problematic. 19

In response to the UPSWB s claims, the ASI submitted its reply,arguing that Shah Jahan had not dedicated the Taj Mahal tocharitable purposes. In support of its claims, the ASI submitteda copy of a notication issued by the British government on18 November 1920, under Section 3(1) of the Ancient Monu-

ment Preservation Act, 1904, which clearly established thatthe ownership of the Taj was vested in the government(Venkatesan 2005). In addition, it was also claimed that the

ASI has a legal constitutional right to protect, conserve, andmanage monuments of national importance. Therefore, theWakf Board has no power to interfere in the matter.

If we take a close look at this reply, two points become clear:(a) The Taj Mahal, being a monument, is a dead entity,

which has no relation with living communities. (b) The TajMahal is a monument of national importance; therefore,it needs to be protected on the basis of the principle ofstrict neutrality.

Historian Irfan Habib, who followed this controversy close-

ly in 2005, underlines the limits of these two seemingly con-icting positions. In an interview, Habib argued that theclaims of the UPSWB were not justiable on historica l grounds.He said:

The Chairman of the Wakf Board relies on Lahoris Padshahnama butmisrepresents it. In his judgment he devotes only four or ve lines tothe Padshahnama evidence. He does not have access to the Persiantext of the Calcutta edition, but relies on some publication from La-hore. Whatever it is, he misrepresents the relevant passage in Lahori.Lahori does not say that Shahjahan made himself the custodian ( mu-tawalli ) of the Taj. In fact, Shahjahan made the sovere ign of the time(khalifa-i waqt ) the custodian of the Taj. Secondly, the Wakf Boardorder misrepresents the functions of the monuments within the Tajcomplex. There is certainly a mosque in the complex, but the Wakf

Board erroneously refers to the building on the opposite side of themosque as the jamaat khana , a building used for religious teachings.Lahori calls it the mehman khana (guest house) and it was used forentertaining guests. There was no religious signicance attached toit . Nowhere do revenue documents style the Taj as wakf proper ty.They call the property of the Taj either nazul (government property)or roza (tomb) (Habib 2005).

Habib also points out the limitations of the ASI s position:

The ASI s arguments are not complete. The ASI relies on anofcial notication issued by the Lieutenant Governor of the UnitedProvinces, Agra and Oudh in 1920, which declared the Taj a protectedmonument under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904. In


6/8



fact, the Taj was denoted as government property, and managed by thegovernment from much earlier. A. Fuhrer, in his book The Monumental

Antiquit ies and Inscript ions in the North-Western Province s and Oudh ,published in 1891, describes the buildings of importance in Agra,and gives the Taj pride of place. He classies the Taj Mahal as amonument coming under Category 1A, which refers to proper ties of thegovernment that were totally maintained by the government. If it hadbeen a monument under private ownership, he would have classed it

under category IB , which refers to monuments of equal importance asunder 1A, but which are privately owned yet must stil l be maintainedby the government. The ASI should have used Lahoris Padshahnama,

which is the origina l document on the Tajs ownership, and Fuhrersbook, to give substance to its case (ibid).

Evoking the legal constitutional discourse of secularism,Habib suggests that wakf laws and laws related to the conser-

vation of monuments of national importance need to be syn-chronised. He says,

There is need for fresh parliamentary legislation to reconcile the An-cient Monument Acts with the Central Wakf Acts to exclude protectedmonuments from the purview of the Wakf Act in any case, centrallegislation should carefully clarify the matter, and keep our historicalbuildings under proper national management (ibid).

This controversy, as expected, died out within a year, andlike many other unresolved political and legal issues, theownership of the Taj Mahal was turned into a matter pendingbefore the honourable court. The complex legal details arisingout of various ongoing cases are irrelevant to our discussion.However, the controversy takes us back to the two basic ques-tions I raised in the beginning of this paper.

Contested Secularism(s): The Taj as a Social Text

What is the relevance of this controversy, especially in thecontext of secularism? Irfan Habibs reasonable argumentsare logical, rational, and above all, secular. However, I nd

Habibs secularism problematic, not because of his critiqueof the UPSWB or his suggestions regarding the centrality ofconservation laws, but because of his adherence to a kind ofsecularism that stems from a clear and rigid dividing linebetween religious practices and conservation. In Habibsframework, Muslims as worshippers in the Taj Mahal are miss-ing completely . As a result, he could not recognise the crucialdifference between wakf as a practice and the Wakf Board as acaretaking institution. The Muslim worshippers, who use theTaj mosque to offer prayers, actually symbolise the notion of

wakf in practice; however, this practice does not necessarily justify the claims of modern institutions, including the UPSWB . As a result, the answer Habib proposes turns out to be quitesimple and straightforward. According to him, the Taj Mahalneeds to be protected as a secular monument through a set ofbuilding-centric conservation laws partly because suchlaws, in his opinion, are desirable for maintaining the secularcredential of Indias heritage, and partly because he feels thatthere is an ambiguity with regard to the legal status of a fewIslamic religious places of worship, which are protected asmonuments (such as the Taj Mahal).

However, the legal ambiguity, which Habib rightly pointsout, introduces us to the complex ways in which secularism asa concept was employed during this controversy. The UPSWB

and the ASI drew heavily on two different sets of laws the1995 Wakf Act, and the 1958 Act, respectively. These laws stemfrom two different conceptions of secularism. The Wakf Actunderlines the states commitment to religious minorities,

while the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites andRemains Act 1958 denes the protection of national heritageas a secular act. In this sense, one kind of secularism is pittedagainst another, equally legitimate, form of secularism. Onemay say that these two versions of Indian secularism are inconict, and the best way to rid ourselves of this paradox is toidentify the real secularism so that the other, less secular,form can be legally adjusted accordingly. This is what IrfanHabib seems to suggest.

There is another constructive way to view these two versionsof secularism. The recommendation of the Prime MinistersHigh Level Committee Report (also known as the SacharCommittee) 2006 can be taken as an important example inthis regard. The report points out:

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act

1958 has often been at cross purposes with the Wakf Act. Very oftenthe former has an overriding effect. There are innumerable cases where the wakf properties despite being a place of worship and re-ligious reverence, cannot be touched by the Wakf Board because itis declared as protected monument. Given the present state of largenumber of wakf properties under the control of ASI , it would be properif their list[s] are annually reviewed and their condition is assessed ina joint meeting of senior ofcers of the ASI with representatives of theCentral Wakf Council ( PMHLC 2006: 232).

Does this recommendation defend the claims made by theUPSWB on the Taj? Does it reject Habibs reasoned argumentsin favour of secularism?

The crucial distinction between the act of worship by com-mon Muslims and the claims made by the UPSWB on the Taj

Mahal is signicant. The Sachar Committee Report is con-cerned about the act of worship, and therefore argues for anofcial discussion on such matters, again on a case-to-case ba-sis. From this point of v iew, the polemical claims made by theUPSWB on the Taj can be rejected because the Taj has alwaysbeen protected by the ASI . However, since it has a mosque, theMuslim community is allowed to offer prayers inside. Thispermission does not contradict the principles of conservationoutlined in the 1958 Act. Second, and perhaps most importantly,the Sachar Committee Report underlines the concept ofprincipled distance quite implicitly. Unlike Habibs claimthat there should be a clear dividing line between religiousactivities and conservation, the committee recognises institu-tions like the Wakf Boards as stakeholders, so that a meaning-ful, context-specic, and above all, principled dialogue canbe initiated. 20 These possible negotiations would not onlyhelp in nding amicable solutions to such contentious issues,but would also discourage organisations like the UPSWB from making polemical claims. In the specic case of theTaj Mahal, for instance, the UPSWB might be given the partialtask of managing the religious affairs associated with theTaj mosque.

Raghu Rais picture of the Taj Mahal becomes relevant inthis regard. Capturing these trajectories of monumentalisation


7/8



of the Taj, this picture shows that the very architectural com-position of this monument is often recongured by variouspublics who commemorate it in different ways. So the Muslims

who offer prayers at the Taj should not be understood asanti-secular; rather, the very act of worship inside a protectedmonument of national importance, I suggest, signies anIndia-specic notion of a secular monument a secularisationof a particular kind.

To understand the uniqueness of this secularisation, wehave to move away from the conventional meanings of secu-larism as a rigid, anti-religious doctrine. At the same time, wealso have to give up the belief that secularisation is a transi-tional process, which might lead a society to partial, com-plete, and/or incomplete secular forms. Instead, we mustappreciate a complex conguration in which the seculartravels with the religious, and produce an evolving andacceptable form of secularisation (for an elaborated discussionon the multiplicity of the secular and secularisation, seeTaylor 2009).

In this case, the secular monumentalisation does not encroachupon the historically evolved, religious meanings of the Taj

Mahal, and recognises the relevant place of religion within the wider agenda of conservation. Similarly, the Muslim worship pers(who actually become a community in an identiable senseat the very moment they perform the congregational prayer)seem to recognise the authority of the state, and adjust thespace (the Taj mosque) and time of worship (as a limited numberof prayers are allowed) as per the rules laid down by the ASI .Thus, the secular and religious in this form of secularisationare reconstructed to realise a practical harmony.

This reinterpretation should also be seen in relation to thepolemical claims made by Hindu and Muslim rightists, rigidsecularists, and institutions like the ASI or the UPSWB , who wantus to believe that religion and the secular are essentiallyxed and conceptually antagonistic terms, and therefore onlyone meaning of great social texts like the Taj Mahal can bepossible. Rais picture, I argue, responds to these claims in aradically different manner, not only by depicting the multi-layered monumentality of the Taj, but also by pointing towardsa reconstituted Muslim religiosity, which turns out to be a

relevant signier of a much larger, context-specic seculari-sation in postcolonial India.

Notes

1 This is quite a well-known picture of the TajMahal. The picture has also been publishedin the collection of Rais pictures of WorldHeritage sites (Rai 2008).

2 Although there is also a third structure in theTaj complex, situated to the left of the tombbuilding, called the Tasbih Khana / jamaat khana/ mehman khana (guest house) in various de-scriptions, the mosque and the tomb arecentral to the debate on the secular meaningsof a monument and the acceptable modeof commemoration in postcolonial India. Pre-cisely for this reason, I do not wish to com-ment on the larger architectural symmetry ofthe Taj, at least in this article. For a relevantdiscussion on the architectural compositionand urban signicance of the Taj Mahal,see Koch (2005).

3 This kind of evasive response is not unusual.The vast literature on the architectural speci-cities and conservation of the Taj somehowtend to ignore the functional relationship be-tween the building and the site. As a result, onends virtua lly nothing on the placing of the Tajin the social and urban imaginat ion of the localcommunity (see, for example, Koch 2011).

4 Alois Riegl makes a distinction between inten-tional and unintentional monuments. Anintentional monument is a human creation,erected for the specic purpose of keepingsingle human deeds or event (or a combinationthereof) alive in the minds of future genera-tions. For him, this type of monument is con-cerned with commemoration. They recall aspecic moment or complex of moments fromthe past, and make a claim to immortality in aneternal present and an unceasing state of be-coming. The idea of commemoration remainsthe prime objective behind the construction ofthese types of monuments. Riegl believes thatall the antiquities of the middle ages can becalled intentional monuments. An unintentionalmonument is a remain [sic] whose meaning isdetermined not by their makers but by our ownmodern perceptions of these monuments. Allhistorical buildings can be clubbed in this cate-gory. Riegl also informs us that an intentionalmonument can become unintentional when it

survives much longer and nds new meanings ina completely new social set-up (Riegl 1982: 21).

5 I look at the historical formation of the processof monumentalisation in colonial and postcolo-nial India in Ahmed (forthcoming). For anelaborated discussion on this aspect of my largerargument, see Ahmed (2013).

6 However, it would be incorrect to say that this was the only response to the Taj. The Taj wasalso compared, criticised, and even rejected asa work of art by a few critics such as AldousHuxley (see Jairazbhoy 1956; Lancaster 1956).From our point of view, another, and equallypuzzling, story is also relevant. It is said, par-ticularly by Orientalists such as E B Havell, t hatthe Company government once seriously con-sidered demolishing the Taj and selling themarble with which it was constructed. It is alsoreported that a Hindu trader was keen to pur-chase this marble because he wanted to build aHindu temple on the site of the Taj! PercivalSpear offers a systematic analysis of this storyand refutes these claims (Spear 1949). What isinteresting in this account is the communallycontested image of the Taj Mahal, whichemerged as a political discourse in the latecolonial period.

7 Percival Spear provides some interesting g-ures to substantiate this point. He notes:

[O]n 15th February 1831, the cost of the estab-lishments at the Taj Mahal, Ram Bagh, AkbarsTomb, and the Bootad Mahal [sic.; MotiMasjid?], together with the gures for 1823-24

were called for. On 26th April, 1831, there is areport about repairs to the buildings at Agra .In the General Let ter to the Court of 19th Au-gust, 1831, the cost of the establishments atthe Taj Mahal, Ram Bagh, Akbars Tomb, andthe Moti Masjid is given as Rs 485 odd permonth compared with Rs 401 in 1823-24.

A reduction of Rs 73 per month had beeneffected, leaving the monthly expense atRs 412. Thereafter the records are silent.These entries coincide with the period ofBentincks visit and can clearly be connected

with his well-known drive for economy. Atthe same time they show that, contrary tothe general belief, not only the Taj butother important buildings as well, received

some sort of attention from Government(Spear 1949: 183-84).

8 In one of his speeches, Curzon says:I cannot conceive of any obligation morestrictly appertaining to a Supreme Governmentthan the Conservation of the most beautifuland perfect collection of monuments in the

world . Thus it has come about that owingto the absence of any central and duly quali-ed advising authority, not merely are beauti-ful and famous buildings crumbling to decay;but there is neither principle nor unity in con-servation and repair (cf Roy 1961).

9 Catharine Ashers ar ticle, Fantasi zing the Mughals and the Popular Perception of the Taj Mahal (2010), provides a synoptic view of thepopular reception of the Taj Mahal in colonialIndia. It is better to read Ashers discussion onthe various forms in which the Taj is under-stood, along with the debates on conservationduring the late colonial period.

10 The observation of the annual urs (death anni- versary) of Mumtaz Maha l has been reportedby many observers. For instance, the secondurs of Mumtaz Mahal was held on 26 May 1633,reported in detail by an English traveller,Peter Mundy, in his description of MughalIndia (Begley 1979b). This tradition continuedduring the time of Curzon as well. Lord Curzons

various correspondence and speeches seem tosuggest that he wanted some kind of harmonybetween local, historical, and his own viewsin relation to the Taj Mahal. The permissiongiven to the local community to use themosque and tomb space for religious/cere-monial purposes; his insistence on the particu-lar type of Mughal dress for attendants; hisfamous decorated lamp, which he ordered tobe put inside the main chamber of the TajMahal tomb; and his speech in the LegislativeCouncil on 5 September 1905 on the eve of theDelhi Durbar, in which he emphasised thesignicance of native political culture, allunderline the fact that local or native sensi-bilities had been accommodated in the projectof renovation of the Taj Mahal. For these discus-sions, see Curzon papers, Mss. Eur. F 111/621,Mss. Eur. F 111/620 and Mss. Eur. F 111/216;


8/8



also see Metca lf (2005) Chs 6, 7; Raleigh 1906:Ch 1).

11 For an interesting discussion on the idea ofstrict neutrality, as practised by the colonialstate, see Dhawan (2001); however, for an ana-lytical treatment of this aspect of secularism,especially the complex relationship betweenthe postcolonial version of secularism and itscolonial past, see Bhargava (2006); Devji (2006).

12 It is interesting to note that the Pakistani esta-blishment attempted to produce a new, ofcialimagination of the Pakistani past in the 1950s.The discovery of the Bhanbhore mosquenear Karachi and its presentation as the rstSouth Asian mosque underlines this signicantaspect of Pakistani archaeological policy (see

Ashfaque 1969).13 The Hindu rightists looked to ancient India to

trace unadulterated and authentic historicalsources. Conceptualising Muslim rule as a kindof imperialism, these authors dened medievalIndia as a dark age. K M Munshi, for example,identies four phases of Indian culture: therst phase symbolises the age of settlement,

which began when t he A ryan civilisation set-tled in northern India. The second phase wasthe age of resistance, when Indians passive-ly resisted foreign invaders. The third age was

the period of modern resistance, which beganin the 17th century when Shivaji waged a waragainst Muslim rule. Finally, the fourth periodstarted in 1947, when India became independ-ent (Munshi 1956: 113).

14 In a letter to Rajendra Prasad, Nehru says: An authoritative and comprehensive historyof the freedom movement of India should becompiled and written. The question is how todo it. Everything depends on the individualor individuals who will be put in charge ofthis work. I am afraid that there are very fewcompetent men or women who might be ableto do it. This requires two qualities at least.One is an emotional and intellectual appre-ciation of what has taken place and the otheris high literary ability it seems to me thatthe rst step is to collect material (SWJN,

Vol 3: 504).15 Theoretically, the state maintains equal dis-

tance from all religions. Yet, some specialrights are given to rel igious and/or cultural mi-norities, so that their cultures and languagescan be preserved and the right to profess, prac-tice and propagate religion can be protected.

Articles 26 and 29 of the Constitution providefreedom to religious minorities to managetheir own religious affairs, including their reli-gious places of worship. A possible reading ofthese constitutional provisions would suggestthat Muslims, as a religious minority, have aright to preserve their own heritage in accord-ance with the law. In other words, Muslimshave a constitutional right to heritage.

16 For more factual detai ls, see http://www.ex-pressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=50576, accessed 19 November 2012.

17 Section 40 (1) of the 1995 Act says:The Board may itself collect informationregarding any property which it has reasonto believe to be wakf property and if anyquestion arises whether a particular propertyis wakf property or not or whether a wakf isa Sunni wakf or a Shia wakf it may, aftermaking such inquiry as it may deem t,decide the question (The Wakf Act 1995).

18 The Declaration of Delhi, adopted by the AllIndia Babri Masjid Conference on 22 December1986, clearly shows that the dominant Muslimposition dened the Babri Masjid as a part ofIndias national heritage. This declaration says:

The Conference regards the Babri Masjidas a national heritage and as a historical

monument but, above all, as a place ofIslamic worship whose sanctity must be uni-

versally respected by a ll right minded per-sons, whatever their religion and whose vio-lation should be regarded as an offence tothe religious sentiments of the Muslims butalso to the secular order because it contra-

venes Article 25 of the Constitution (Decla-ration of Delh i 1987).

19 Wakf institutions are often regarded as Sarkari(government-owned). The former Imam ofJama Masjid, Delhi, Abdullah Bukhari, became anational gure in 1975 when he openly refutedthe authority of the Delhi Wakf Board to estab-lish his control over the mosque (Ahmed 2009).

20 It is important to note here that the SacharCommission report also makes a case for wakfreform, so that wakf institutions can represent

various sections of the Muslim community.Thus, the absolute representativeness of theWakf Boards, including dalit Muslims is alsoquestioned while making such constructivesuggestions.

References

Ahmed, Hila l (forthcoming): Monuments, Memor yand Contestation: Muslim Political Discourse in

Postcolonial India (New Delh i: Routledge). (2013): Mosque as Monuments: Afterlives ofJama Masjid and the Political Memories of aRoyal Muslim Past, South Asian Studies , 29(1).

(2009): Reception of Nehruvian Secula rismand the Political Architecture of Jama Masjid ,Third Frame , 2(3).

Allchin, F R (1978): Monument Conservation Policyin India, Journal of the Royal Society of Ar ts ,126 (5268).

Asher, Catherine B (2010): Fantasizing the Mughalsand Popular Perceptions of the Taj Mahal.

Available at http://tasveerghar.net/cmsdesk/essay/114/index.html, accessed 2 May 2013.

Ashfaque, S M (1969): The Grand Mosque ofBanbhore, Pakistan Archaeolog y , 6.

Begley, W E and Z A Desai (1989): Taj Mahal, the Illumined Tomb: An Anthology of Seventeenth-Century Mughal and European DocumentarySources (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The AgaKhan Program for Islamic Architecture, HarvardUniversity, and Seattle: University of WashingtonPress).

(1979b): Amanat Khan and the Calligraphy onthe Taj Mahal, Kunst des Orients , 12.

Bhargava, Rajeev (2006): The Distinctiveness ofIndian Seculari sm in T N Srinivasan (ed.), The

Future of Secularism (New Delhi: Oxford Uni- versity Press).

Casanova, Jos (1994): Public Religions in the ModernWorld (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Devji, Faisal (2006): Comments on Rajeev BhargavasThe Distinctiveness of Indian Secularism inT N Srin ivasan (ed.), The Future of Secularism (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), 54-60.

Dhawan, Rajeev (2001): The Road to Xanadu: In-dias Quest for Secularism in Gerald Larson

(ed.), Religion and Personal Law in Secular India (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).Habib, Irfan (2005): The Taj Is Not Wakf Property,

interview with S R Raghunathan, Frontline ,22(16).

Jairazbhoy, R A (1956): The Taj and Its Critic, Eastand West , 6(4): 349-52.

Kaviraj, Sudipta (2010): Imaginary Institu tion of India: Polit ics and Ideas (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press).

Kavuri-Bauer, Santhi (2011): Monumental Mat ters:The Power, Subjectivity, and Space of Indias

Mughal Architecture (Durham: Duke UniversityPress).

Koch, Ebba (2011): Taj Mahal: Survey, Documen-tation and Analysis (1995-2005): Its Bearing for

Conservation in Gabriela Krist and BayerovaTatjana (ed.), Heritage Conservation and Researchin India: 60 Years of Indo-Austrian Collaboration (New Delhi: Austrian Cultural Forum).

(2005): The Taj Mahal: Architecture, Symbolism,and Urban Signicance, Muqarnas , 22: 128-49.

Lancaster, Clay (1956): A Critique on the TajMahal, Journal of the Society of Architectural

Historians , 15(4).

Metcalf, Thomas R (2005): Forging the Raj: Essayson British India in the Heyday of Empire (NewDelhi: Oxford University Press).

Munshi, K M (1956): Epoch of Indian Culture inK M Munshi (ed.), Indian Inheritance: Art, Historyand Culture , Vol II (Bombay: Bhartya VidhyaBhawan).

Nehru, J L (2002 [1946]): The Discovery of India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press).

(1964): Speeches, Vol IV, 1957-63 (New Delhi:Publications Division, Government of Ind ia).

Oak, P N (1966): Some Blunders of Indian Historical Research (Delhi: Institute of Rewriting IndianHistory).

Rai, Raghu (2008): Inherited Spaces Inhabited Plac-es: World Heritage Sites in India (New Delhi:External Publicity Division, Ministry of Exter-nal Affairs, Government of India).

Raleigh, Thomas (1906): Lord Curzon in India:1898-1905 (London: Macmillan).

Riegl, Alois (1982 [1903]): The Modern Cult ofMonuments: Its Character and Its Origin (KurtW Forster and Diane Ghirardo [trans]), Opposi-tions , 25.

Roy, S N (1961): The Story of Indian Archaeology (New Delhi: ASI).

Spear, Percival (1949): Bentinck and the Taj, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland , 2.

Taylor, Charles (2009): The Polysemy of the Secu-lar, Social Research , 76(4): 1143-66.

Venkatesan, V (2005): A Claim to Taj, Frontline ,22(16).

Other Publications

Curzon papers, Mss Eur F 111/621, Mss Eur F111/620, and Mss Eur F 111/216.

Archaeological Explorations in India, 1909-10, Journal of the Royal Asiati c Society , London.

The Declaration of Delhi: Adopted by the All IndiaBabri Masjid Conference, New Delhi, 22 De-cember 1986, issued by the BMMCCC on 23January 1987, Muslim India , 50, February 1987.

The Conservation Manual (1923): A Hand Book forthe Use of Archaeological Ofcers and otherentrusted with the care of Ancient Monumentsby John Marshall (Calcutta: SuperintendentGovernment Printing).

The Constitution of India. Available at http://hc-mimphal.nic.in/Documents/constitutionon-diaacts.pdf

The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sitesand Remains Act (1958).

The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904.The Wakf Act 1995.Sachar Commission Report (Prime Ministers High

Power Committee), Government of India, 2006.

available at

Khan News AgencyResidency Road

Opp Shakti SweetsSrinagar 190 001, Jammu and Kashmir

Ph: 9906787325

Secularising the Secular

Documents

Transcript of Secularising the Secular