Taken from Chapter 2 of M.

Phil dissertation titled Khandagiri

Udayagiri: The Many Histories of a site (Carried o t ndr the g idan!e of Prof. Tapati " ha Thak rta#.

Chapter 2: Inhabitations, Contestations and Touristic Performance

In this chapter, the main concern is with the production of space at the site by the discursive practices of administration, archaeology and tourism. The first section focuses on archaeology and on a series of contestations over rights of inhabitation of the site between archaeological authorities and different religious sects who staked their parallel, competing claims over spaces and structures within and outside the boundaries of archaeological jurisdiction at the site. The second section looks at the evolving practices of tourism, on its construction of spaces and on the kinds of performances of sightseeing, touring, pilgrimage or worship that are enacted at Khandagiri-Udayagiri.

$rri%al of $r!haeology
rchaeology and archaeologists arrive in !rissa, following a period of political instability" which lasted from from the #$th century to the beginning of the #%th century during which the of !rissa passed from the &anga dynasty to the fghans, ne't to the (ughals and then to the (arathas who were ousted from power finally with the rise to power of the )ritish within the region in #*+,. &iven its geographical location and dense forests, !rissa had till this time, for the most part remained wild and scarcely e'plored. Khandagiri and Udayagiri were first brought to notice in the writings of . -terling in #*./, which constitute the first non-

missionary colonial writing on !rissa1. 0e mentions that )agh &umpha was occupied by a 1aishnava ascetic and the 2ain temple was consecrated to 3arsavanath. (ention is also of several small, finely carved 2aina sculptures scattered in the 4eva -abha on Khandagiri. fter -terling5s e'ploration, it was 2ames 6ergusson who visited the site in #*,$ and, writing about it, he mentions that several 7fakirs5 were living in the caves and would not let him e'amine the caves they had occupied, and that they were ruining the caves by living and cooking inside them2. The rchaeological -urvey of India reached the site only during around #*89-8$ : following which the site is briefly described by 2.4. )eglar in the #,th volume of the .-.I5s reports3. ;ong before that the site had assumed its importance on the grounds of its ancient inscription in the 0athi &umpha, which had been first copied by the e'plorer, ;t. (arkham Kittoe in #*,8-,* and translated by 2ames 3rincep : and it is this inscription, its sheer anti<uity and volume, which more than anything else ensured that the site, in times to come, would never be devoid of attention from archaeologists, historians or epigraphists. 3rincep was followed by )abu =ajendralala (itra, who along with 0.0. ;ocke, 3rincipal, &overnment -chool of rt, >alcutta and a team of art school students, conducted a thorough scholarly survey and painstaking visual documentation ?though drawings, plaster casts and photographs@ of the twin mountain site, alongside the temples of )hubaneshwar, in an encyclopaedic two-volume work, titled The Antiquities of Orissa, that was produced for a government commission. Ariting in about the 8th decade of the #%th century (itra says that the 2ain temple at Khandagitri was a recent construction, made about *+ years prior to his 1
Andrew Sterling, Orissa: Its Geography, Statistics, History, Religion and Antiquities ( John Snow, London, 1846)

2
James Fergusson, Cave temples o India, (Allen, London, 1880)

3
J ! "eglar, Archaeological Survey o India Reports, !olume "III #$%&'(&), $%&)( &*+, (Ar#haeologi#al Sur$e% o& 'ndia, (al#utta, 18)6)

date of writing. This temple, he says, was in the charge of a )rahman from )hubaneshwar, who5s main task was to keep the temple clean, and had to perform only minimal priestly functions4. 0e mentions the e'istence of a small thatched government bungalow at the base of Khandagiri and a )airagi (ath as well. 0e also claims that the caves were often visited by bears and tigers, showing that the caves were in the jungle away from human habitation. s is obvious, by this period, the site had come to the attention of government and was being brought within the custodial authority and possession of the newly establishes rchaeological -urvey of India ? .-.I@ s early as in (arch #*/$, the -ecretary to &overment of )engal wrote in a letter to >ommissioner of !rissa, re<uesting him to take steps to protect the caves in the Udayagiri hill*. =eceiving instructions from -I chief -amuells, B'ecutive Bngineer ;t. 4i'on cleared up the sculptured frieCes and statues of Udayagiri 0ill and repaired as far as possible the steps and paths of communication between the caves. 6rom a letter from &.6 >ockburn to &overnment of )engal, dated *th march #*%/, we see that the mendicants were prohibited by the (agistrate of 3uri from sleeping and cooking at the place, and that, at the (agistrate5s order, they were evacuated and dispatched to 3uri6. 6rom the annual report of the rchaeological -urvey of India, )engal >ircle, for the year #%+#-#%+., prepared by Theodor )loch, the -urveyor for the )engal circle, we find that in that particular year the carvings in the =ani, &anesh, nant and Dava(uni &umphas were cleaned, and that the elephants outside &anesh &umpha were put upright. shade was installed over the 0athi

&umpha inscription in a bid to protect it, which according to )loch had Esuffered badly from the effects of sun and rainF. -ignificantly, during the same phases of archaeological activities 4 *
+ / -aha0atra, -dayagiri and .handagiri Caves, (! 1 /u2li#ations, !elhi 1381)

+a,endralala -itra, Antiquities o Orissa, !ol(,, ( .%man and (o , 18)*)

6
'2id

at the site, a modern temple close to Dava (uni &umpha was pulled down as it had become unsafe. )loch remarks that E the building was of no interest, and its destruction is absolutely no lossF). -raman (ukherjee, in his 3h.4 thesis, entitled, Unearthing the Pasts of Bengal Bihar and Orissa: Archaeology, Museums and History Writing in the Making of Ancient astern !ndia, "#$%&"'($ ?4epartment of 0istory, >alcutta University, .++%@ , talks about how both the emerging disciplines of Indian rchitecture and Indian rchaeology used !rissa as a

launching pad, because the sculpture and architecture there were considered purely 0indu, relatively uncontaminated by Islamic influence. =egarding the emergence of these disciplines he says G EThe three points of tension : the uneasy lingering of the 7pictures<ue5 lineage, the obstacles that the Aestern scholar had to face in studying the practising shrines from close <uarters and the 7repulsion5 of the erotic sculptures : defined the very ways in which the !rissan temples would be representedF8. s almost all of the temples in !rissa that were of

any historical value were 7living5 monuments , in the sense of their being in regular use and worship, hence access to them was denied to the )ritish scholar. The three factors enlisted by -raman (ukherjee determined accessibility and distance of what would and could be studied. Ahile temples such as 2agannath and ;ingaraj could not be entered, the Buropean had to resort to abandoned temples such as the sun temple at Konarak" where the profuse erotic sculpture would assail the scholar5s delicate >hristian sensibilities and 1ictorian moralities, leading them to either abhor their presence on a religious structure or to study and depict them from a safe distance. The thesis also argues - EThe de-peopling, and specifically the de)
4 "lo#h, Annual +e0ort Ar#haeologi#al Sur$e% o& 'ndia, "engal #ir#le, &or the %ear 130151302

8
Sraman -u6her,ee, -nearthing the /asts o 0engal 0ihar and Orissa: Archaeology, 1useums and History 2riting in the 1a3ing o Ancient 4astern India, $%*,( $56*, ( 7n0u2lished /h! thesis, 7ni$ersit% o& (al#utta 2010) /g 12)

ritualisation of ancient temples were seen as desirable preconditions for the Aestern scholars to subject them to their modern regimes of knowledge productionsF 3. It is in this light that I will look at the eviction from the site of the ascetics in #*%/. Khandagiri : Udayagiri, It may be argued, became important for colonial archaeology not merely because of its historical value or because of the presence of the 0athi &umpha inscription, but also because of the absence of any erotic imagery and the absence of popular devotion at the site. Ahile it was populated by 7fakirs5 and 7bairagis5 the site was devoid of any 0indu worshipped image, and the holy men clearly, did not have as much of a following as the wooden idol of 2agannatha or the stone ;inga of ;ingaraja. They could be evicted with ease, as they did not have any organiCation or trust board representing them nor did they, presumably, have any documents of ownership of the site. Ahile there was one temple on the site : the 2ain temple - that was a site of continuing, active worship, it did not pose much of a obstacle to archaeological authorities. Khandagiri was itself away from the main city located in the jungle, and the 2ain temple was not one that was very active, e'cept of course at the time of the annual festival. (ost importantly, there was not any significant number of 2ains there, and more importantly no 2ains who were living on site in the caves. The 0indu )airagis had a temple on Khandagiri to stake a claim on - a temple that was there was declared decrepit and demolished by the -urveyor, T. )loch in #%+. . This state of affairs on site is corroborated by -raman (ukherjee5s observation that in the E)ist of Ancient Monuments in Bengal, published by the 3. A. 4. of the )engal &overnment in #*%$, the monuments of the )engal 3residency were classified under three main headsG EI. : Those monuments which, from their present condition and historical or archaeological value, ought to be maintained in permanent good repair.

3
'2id /g 121

II. : Those monuments which it is now only possible or desirable to save from further decay by such minor measures as eradication of vegetation, the e'clusion of water from the walls, and the like. III. : Those monuments which, from their advanced stage of decay or comparative unimportance, it is impossible to preserveHF The monuments falling in the first two categories, which were only deemed worthy of preservation were further subdivided into two classesG EI ?a@ and II ?a@. : (onuments in possession or charge of &overnment or in respect of which &overnment must undertake the cost of all measures of conservation. I ?b@ and II ?b@. : (onuments in possession or charge of private bodies or individuals. Among the ma*or monuments of costal British Orissa only a fe+& the ca,es of -handagiri and Udayagiri & stood eligi.le to .e classified under sections /! 0a12 or /!! 0a12 F10 ?emphasis added@. -ignificantly the 2ain temple at the top of Khandagiri was e'empted because it was under private ownership and under worship" also because, being a very recent construction, it was of no archaeological or historical interest. It was during the 1iceroyalty of ;ord >urCon that the ncient (onument 3reservation ct was passed in #%+9 allowing the government to appropriate the site and as much adjoining land as was re<uired for access, fencing, covering, preservation and inspection of EH any building or structure of a permanent nature which the ;ocal &overnment thinks it is desirable to 3reser,e for historical or artistic reasons2114 6or the purpose of protection of ay archaeological monument and site, the &overnment was to be entitled to take up the land for Epublic purposeF under the ;and c<uisition ct of #*%9. B'empted from this were any buildings that were still in religious use and worship and any building under private

10
'2id /g 30*5306

11
'2id /g 303

ownership which could be protected by means of a joint agreement between the owners and government. Thus, at Khandagiri, the 2ain temple was left alone, considering its low historic value and its ownership by a private body. This was also determined by the injunction to leave alone structures that were under worship - an injunction that later go a long way in deciding the nature of occupation and contestations over inhabitation at Khandagiri Udayagiri.

&e!ent history and !ontro%ersy

fter #%+. the archives are silent for some time, and it is not until 4ebala (itra5s e'cavation in #%$+ that there appeared to have been any major new archaeological activity at the site. )y that time, the landscape of the site in particular and the city of )hubaneshwar in general had begun to change at an increasing pace. Aith the shift of the capital from >uttack to )hubaneshver in #%9*, there begins a newer period of archaeological activities in the sate of !rissa.. 0owever this is also a period of a controversy which is particularly interesting for in it resurfaces the long and unresolved tension in the relationship of archaeology as a disciplinary and a governmental practice with the historic-monumental site that was steeped in multiple religious and sectarian affiliations. The controversy had to do mainly with the rights of occupation and worship regarding two caves on Khandagiri hill, the )arabhuji and (ahavir &umphas. Ahile the (ahavir &umpha has relief images of 2ain Tirthankaras and two small chlorite images, the )arabhuji &umpha has relief images of the Tirthankaras as well as the -asana 4evis, including two large reliefs of twelve armed goddesses on either side of the entrance. t present these two caves are under 0indu occupation and the twelve armed goddesses are being worshipped as 4urga and Kali. The matter was taken to court where some years ago judgement was passed in favour of the 2ain community, following which, predictably the judgement was appealed in a higher court. The .-.I., instead of pursuing the matter on secular grounds of preservation and custody over these caves, chose to throw in its

lot with the 2ain claimants. Thus, in this tale there are three main playersG the rchaeological -urvey of India, the 2ain community ? Khandagiri and Udaygiri 4igambar 2ain committee@ and the 0indus in the form of a collective of #.-#/ committees of neighbouring villages, 2agmara and 4umduma to name two. Bach group has a different version of the ancient history of the site, which serve as legitimising narratives on which their claims over the site are based. )ased on ethnographic interviews and pamphlets and tourist booklets, I attempt in this section to reproduce here a conflict which has been /+ odd years or so in the making. I shall one by one put forward the narratives of each group. $r!haeologial ' r%ey of (ndia I begin with the .-.I.5s version of the site5s history. s mentioned in the previous presentation, the archaeological identification of Khandagiri : Udayagiri as a 2ain site depended solely on epigraphic evidence obtained by translating Kharavela5s inscription, where it begins with the salutation EDamo rihantanam, Damo -iddhanamF , which is the opening line of the 2ain Damokar-mantra. 0owever, =ajendralal (irta had <uestioned this identification, saying that both these terms had currency and operation within )uddhism as well12. It must also be noted that the Damokar is more of a general salutation to spiritual masters and contains no sectarian reference whatsoever, as is evinced by the last line of the Damokar which is E5amo )oe 6a,,a 6ah7nam2 ? translatable as E I pay my respect to all the -adhus.F emphasis added@ . Ahile currently the term Damokar has a definite sectarian association, this translation of the salutation shows that the term had a freer circulation sometime in the past. Ahile the .-.I. declared Khandagiri-Udayagiri to be under it5s control from #%#/ onwards, however it is only with 4ebala (itra5s e'cavation ?#%/*-$#@ that .-.I begins its full-fledged 12
+a,endralala -itra, Antiquities o Orissa, !ol(,, ( .%man and (o , 18)*)

activities on the site that have resulted in its current state. It is in this e'cavation that a ramp leading to 0athi &umpha and the remains of an apsidal structure made from blocks of laterite stone on top of Udayagiri were uncovered. 4ebala (itra, while saying that the medieval period was the time when structural temples were made on Khandagiri, going by remains and rubble found and attested by inscriptions, unproblematically dated the ramp and the apsidal structure of Udayagiri to the ancient period. The psidal shrine was linked to the 7many pillared hall5 that is mentioned in Kharavela5s inscription. 4ebala (itra5s .-.I.guidebook has come to serve ever since as the official version of the site5s ancient and medieval history13. The standard official, archaeologically authorised, history of the site can be briefly summarised thus. In it, Kharavela is seen as the third and most famous king of the (ahameghvahana dynasty, who earns glory by waging wars all over India, earns the respect of his people by constructing civil amenities, and who despite being an eclectic who honoured all sects and repaired the temples of all gods. E KharavelaF, 4ebala (itra5s guide book underlines, Ewas undoubtedly a 2ain and espoused with great Ceal the cause of his faith, which appeared to have been the state religion of KalingaF14. Kharavela5s major contributions are said to be the retrieval of Kalinga 2ina, the bringing of the Kalpa-taru sapling and the patronising of 2ain ascetics by making caves for their use and inhabitation at Khandagiri. -he however does acknowledge that, from a lack of iconic imagery belonging to the early period, it seems likely that image worship was not prevalent in the early period, making the identification of the so called Kalinga 2ina with a Tirthankara unlikely1*. 13
!e2ala -itra, -dayagiri and .handagiri (/u2lished 2% the !ire#tor 8eneral Ar#haeologi#al Sur$e% o& 'ndia, 9ew !elhi, 4hird :dition 1332)

14
'2id

1*
'2id

fter the decline of the (ahameghvahana dynasty, according to 4ebala (itra, the religion continued to be strong in the region despite not enjoying royal patronage. 4uring the period when ;akulisha- 3ashupatas were displacing )uddhism from the region, this site was Ehardly affectedF. Under the -omavansi kings, the second phase of activity was carried out which can be seen today in the form of the iconic relief imagery on the Khandagiri caves. This continues till the time of the &ajapati rulers in the #/th century when, 4ebala (itra claims, the images in cave % or the (ahavir &umpha were carved16. The date is assigned on stylistic and not epigraphic basis, on the grounds of the crude style and e'ecution of the reliefs. Unlike other medieval inscriptions found in renovated caves on Khandagiri, here there is no inscription, no mention of donor, student or spiritual master" hence no proof that ascetics were living here in the #/th century. 6rom here, 4ebala (itra jumps directly to #*./, to -terling5s mention of the 2ain temple. -imilarly, an .-.I. leaflet meant to provide general information about the site to tourists saysG EThese hills are honeycombed with e'cavated rock-cut caves, essentially meant for the dwelling retreats of 2ain recluses...!n the basis of inscriptional evidences, these caves were first e'cavated ?during the first century ).>.@ by king Kharavela of the >hedi dynasty and his successors who were also devout 2ains. The 2aina occupation continued here with occasional breaks down to the present day. The 2aina temple on top of the Khandagiri hill, constructed in the late #%th century is under worship even at present, preserving the continuity and tradition of the glorious past of the hillF1). This shows that the .-.I. is deeply invested in maintaining the fiction ? a word that must be used as long as sufficient evidence to the contrary remains unavailable@ that the site is an 16
'2id

1)
-dayagiri and .handagiri caves 0hu7anesh8ar, (Ar#haeologi#al Sur$e% o& 'ndia, "hu2aneshwar (ir#le)

e'clusively 2ain site and that the 2ain tradition here has been continuous and unbroken. It suggests that the 2ainism, as it is practised on the site now, is the same as it was when Uddyokta Kesari installed those images or when Kharavela first made the caves. Thereby it de-historicises 2ainism.

=egarding the management of the site and the occupation of caves, I had the opportunity to interview 4r. 0. . Daik, the 4eputy -uperintendent rchaeologist, and 4r. -ushant Kumarkar, the ssistant rchaeologist of the )hubaneshvar circle. They said that the job of the .-.I. at the site and the changes it made were fairly minimal. It had to look after concerns of preservation and undertake activities like re-making broken or collapsed pillars in places where the structural integrity of the cave was threatened, and water tightening of caves to arrest seepage of rain water. There were also activities resultant of opening up the site to tourists such as regular cleaning and maintenance. The horticulture department took care of landscaping and making the site more visually appealing. The pathways were made and broadened to facilitate the smooth movement of the traffic of tourists, and informative signs and a translation of the all-important 0athi &umpha inscription were installed. In #%%$ the .-.I. introduced tickets for Udayagiri hill and by .++. fences were installed around both the hills. The Khandagiri hill, in striking contrast, was not a ticketed site, and its main entry gate was left unlocked at all times because, as the two archaeologists e'plained, it was a matter of national policy that on any monument where religious activity was going on, that is, on a Eliving monumentF, the .-.I. did not ticket entry. The .-.I officials said that while both the )arabhuji 4evi temple and the ;altendukesari shram were recent developments, coming around or after #%$+, it was not within their power to evict the 0indu encroachers as the .-.I. could only serve notices which had to be implemented by the district authorities. -ince

the 0indu village committees enjoyed considerable political clout locally, it had proved impossible to evict them. 4espite several attempts on the part of the .-.I. to serve notices and to initiate action, the local authorities refused to take the re<uired measures18. s the matter was sub-judicial, they refused to comment on the matter anymore. 0owever they were very adamant in insisting that the caves were made for, and belong to, only 2ain ascetics and devotees" that anyone else such as rakhita 4asa or 0ari 4asa living in the caves was only accidental, and that they did not belong to the actual history of the site. They also said that they did occasionally evict -adhus who would occupy the caves, the last one being a 0indu ascetic called Daga )aba who was evicted in .++/. This last piece of information seemed doubtful to me, because I had first met Daga )aba on Khandagiri in .++/ and for the second time in .++8, and at both these times he was living in the shram at the bottom of Khandagiri ?and not in a cave as the archaeologists claim@. 0owever, in this particular visit in .+##, there was no sign of Daga )aba and there seemed to be nobody living in that shram. s for Udayagiri, the .-.I officials claimed that the site was always un-inhabited and that the .-.I. did not have to evict any -adhus in order to take control of the caves and the hill. =egarding the legal battle over )arabhuji &umpha. the .-.I. did not independently attempt to legally reclaim the cave. =ather, it backed the 2ain claim to the cave and appeared in court supporting the 2ains. part from this, the .-.I. on site, in several subtle but straightforward gestures, have re-inscribed the monument as a particularly 2ain site. In front of the 0athi &umpha, on a small stone platform, it presents a translation of Kharavela5s inscription. It is =.4. )anerjee and K.3. 2ayaswal5s translation ?published in 3igra3hica !ndica@ which is, as is argued in the previous chapter, strongly influenced by 2ain mythology and ethical values, and presents Kharavela as a 2ain monk-king. )ehind the installed translation is a large 18
As 2oth the Jain and ;indu inter$iewees as well as the A S ' o&&i#ial attested, lo#al 0oliti#ians would 2lo#6 an% attem0t to remo$e the ;indus &rom the #a$e 4he lo#al 0oli#emen too, 2eing mostl% ;indu largel% 2a#6ed the ;indu worshi0 at "ara2hu,i #a$e

swastika, the 2ain symbol par-e'cellence made by trimming a hedge ? Image %@. The .-.I. making large reproductions of sectarian symbols using horticultural technology is unprecedented at least within the limits of my personal e'perience of .-.I. controlled monuments. large visible signification such as that clearly stresses the 2ain history of the

site. 0owever, it is on the notice-board at the entrance, that the .-.I most clearly articulates and drives dome its 2ain identification of the site. It reads G EThe twin hills contain e'cavated rock cut caves called lena in the inscription and are essentially dwelling retreats of the 2aina ascetics....The depiction of the .9 Thirthankaras and their -asanadevis in the )arabhuji cave, &ajala'mi, -urya ?I@, -wastika and Dandipada symbol in nant &umpha in relief are noteworthy achievement in early Indian artF. part from the glaring error whereby all medieval images were called achievements of early Indian art, what this notice does are two things - firstly, it states that the images are 2ain and not 0indu" secondly, it claims the images not as products of Indian religion but as products of Indian rt" thereby relocating them in a modern secular discursive field. To summarise, the .-.I.5s stance is a dual positioning, !ne stance is vis-a-vis the 0indus, where it claims the site to be e'clusively 2ain, supported by a particularly befuddling claim of a 7continuous tradition with occasional breaks513" the other positioning is against the 2ain claim over the site where it re-locates the anti<uities ?architectural or sculptural@ from a religious to an art historic discourse. s Deil sher -ilberman says in his book, Promised )ands and 8hosen Peo3les: the Politics and Poetics of Archaeological 5arrati,e, EH in either case, the battle over archaeological public interpretation must be seen for what it isG a struggle for 3o+er .et+een ri,al grou3s in the fluid conditions of an emerging nation state. rchaeological remains when preserved and

13
( -itra, 1360)

presented to the public, are almost always monuments either to generalised notions of progress or someone9s inalienable historical and political rightsF20. ?emphasis added@ The )ainsG The 2ain narrative of the history of the site performs several slippages from history into myth and back into history. The starting point is obviously historic whereby the caves are credited to Kharavela and dated to .#++ years ago through epigraphic analysis. n informative notice painted at the door of the 2ain temple at Khandagiri claims that king Kharavela spread the boundaries of his kingdom to -ri ;anka in the south, &ujrat in the west and Takshashila ? fganistan@ in the Dorth-Bast. 0e re-established the image of =ishabha 4eva, the Kalinga 2ina on Khandagiri. booklet titled -handagiri&Udayagiri 8a,es, published by ;adadevi

&ranthamala, Kolkata" made available at the 2ain dharmashala, presents a 4igambar 2ain history of Khandagiri and Udayagiri. =oughly translated it says 7Khandagiri and Udayagiri is an ancient and important 4igambar 2ain site. The patron of 4igambar 2ain 4harma, the glorious king Kharavela made these caves for 4igambar 2ain ascetics about .,++ years ago521. The booklet presents a brief narrative of the ancient history of !rissa, crudely derived from the 0athi &umpha inscriptionG (agadha and Kalinga were two opposing powers. Bven before shoka5s con<uest of Kalinga, the state religion was 2ain. Kalinga opposed (agadha5s increasing e'pansionist policies as a result the Danda kings con<uered Kalinga, one of the Danda kings took back the Kalinga 2ina image to 3ataliputra. -lowly Kalinga became so rich and glorious that shoka was forced to con<uer it even at e'cessive costs. Kharavela in turn 20
9eil Asher Sil2erman, 9he politics and poetics o Archaeological narrative, :ationalism, /olitics and the /ractice o Archaeology , 1ohl and Faw#ett ((am2ridge 7ni$ersit% /ress, (am2ridge, 8reat "ritain, 133*), /g5 2*8

21
4 9 +ama#handran, "a2u (hotelal Jain, .handagiri(-dayagiri Caves, (Ladade$i 8ranthamala, 1ol6ata, 2003), 2a#6 #o$er

successfully waged war against (agadha as a result of which the Kalinga 2ina and 2ain religion was re-established in Kalinga. Interestingly this narrative locates a certain moral necessity in Kharavela5s actions, projects him as an avenging hero who rights historic wrongs. The preface of the booklet, stresses the historic and academic importance of the site and how the inscriptions reveal much historically useful information about unknown aspects of India5s history. It also stresses that the inscription should be translated into various languages and the epigraphic and the stylistic aspects of the site should be looked at from the perspective of various disciplinesG linguistic, cultural, sociological, geographical, philosophical and historical22. It laments that under the care of the .-.I. the site5s upkeep is being ignored whereas the 2ain institution is powerless to take steps for its preservation. Ahile the site has all re<uirements for being an International 0eritage site, it is because of the .-.I.5s inaction that the site, in its opinion, is currently in such a bad shape. This writing also claims that the reliefs on the larger caves depict incidents from 2ain mythology, without specifying the e'act stories which are represented23. particular relief in

(anchpuri where worshipping is depicted is interpreted as the re-installation of the Kalinga 2ina after it was retrieved by Kharavela. Ironically, while speaking the scientific language of stylistic analysis, it cannot help but constantly refer back to )uddhist sites such as -anchi and )harhut to talk about Khandagiri5s sculptural reliefs. The te't talks about it5s immediate conte't and this is particularly revealing. EIn recent development, the Kalinga 2ina image mentioned in king Kharavela5s inscription was with due pomp and ritual installed on a new seat on Khandagiri hill, this marks a new dawn in the golden chapter of the history of 2ain 22
'2id

23
+ / -aha0atra in 1384 #are&ull% anal%<es the imager%, e$en though his narrati$e was 0ro5Jain he admitted that though the stor% had some resem2lan#es with the 2iogra0h% o& +isha2hanatha, the di&&eren#es were too star6 &or it to 2e the same narrati$e

sculpture and also now proves that king Kharavela installed the image of the Kalinga 2ina on Khandagiri by constructing a magnificent temple. ? however that magnificent structure till now hasn5t been found, and the image that has been found still awaits analysis and confirmation by archaeological e'perts@F24. -uch an e'ample of near perfect appeal to, and rejection of, scientific history in the same breath is rare indeed. Ahile the apsidal structure later uncovered by 4ebala (itra was unproblematically proclaimed as Kharavela5s 2inalaya, the image installed as the Kalinga 2ina in the temple can not, by even the most imaginative of archaeologists, be termed as anything else but (edieval. The identification of the Kalinga 2ina as =ishabha 4eva is something that cannot be arrived at by scientific historic methods. The other grossly incorrect fact was that of Kharavela being a patron of 4igambar 2ainsim. In fact the 4igambar- -hweatambar split in the 2ain religion does not happen till after Kharavela2*. )annerjee and 2ayaswal also translate him as having donated white cloth to monks. Thus these te'ts, while claiming affiliation to scientific history, take ade<uate liberties with it, with the e'press aim to impose their own cultic identity over the larger history of the site. 0owever the heaviest argument employed by the 2ains is that the site has been claimed as a -iddha -thana. The 2ains claim that during his travels through !rissa, (ahavira passed through Khandagiri and here he made 9%% disciples, who stayed at the site ? in e'press disobedience of (ahavira5s injunction to constantly travelJJJ@ and when (ahavira left his body and his soul left for the void these 9%% disciples also from Khandagiri left their bodies and accompanied (ahavira. -ince 9%% 2ain monks achieved Dirvana from this site therefore

24 2*

'2id, /g 3

;istorians o& Jainism are un#lear as to when e=a#tl% the s0lit ta6es 0la#e, there seems to 2e no de#isi$e moment, rather the &irst #lue was an 4irthan6ara image wearing #lothes whi#h #ould 2e roughl% dated to the *th #entur% o& the (hristian era

the site has special status as a -iddha-sthana or sacred ground for the 2ains. Bach of these 9%% monks is symbolically represented as a pair of feet inside a lotus and worshipped in the temple. 0owever, while there is mention of (ahavira visiting Kalinga, in 2ain te'ts, there seems to be no mention of Khandagiri-Udayagiri or KumarK Kumari parvat in particular and definitely no mention of the 9%% monks achieving liberation. Bven a writer such as =.3. (ahapatra who was sensitive to 2ain te'tual sources does not mention it, 4ebala (itra clearly denies any mention of Khandagiri-Udayagiri in 2ain te'tual tradition. !ne can say that in all probability the story is a latter day fabrication made to serve certain instrumental purposes. s such, there are no 2ains living in )hubaneshvar, with 2ains staying mostly in >houdhary )aCCar and nearby areas in >uttack. part from this temple on Khandagiri, there are no other major 2ain pilgrimage spots in !rissa. (ost pilgrims visit from -outhern India or (adhya 3radesh and visit Khandagiri on their return from 3arsavanath, -amya -ikhar in )ihar. There is also a fair number of pilgrims who come from &ujarat or =ajasthan. The main temple was built about .++ years ago, and the smaller temples to its side were built after #%9+. -imilarly the 4harmashala was built sometime 8+ or *+ years ago. The charitable homeopathic dispensary was started in #%/*. 4uring the (agh -aptami mela, the 2ains inaugurate the mela by carrying the so called 7Kalinga 2ina5 image in a 1imana ? cart@ to the 0athi &umpha under Kharavela5s inscription. Ahen asked if the 2ains had been worshipping the )arabhuji images before the 0indus had appropriated them, -hree -antosh Kumar 2ain , the manager of >uttack5s >howdhary )aCar 2ain ;al (andir, said that because the images are reliefs and not icons, and are not given the status of deity. relief image5s 73rana3rathishtha5

? its animation or bringing to life@ cannot be performed. Therefore they were never sacred images to begin with. The Hind s

-ince there was no printed material regarding the 0indu claims to the site, I had to gather information through interviews, and the opinions did vary from institution to institution. *alatend kesari $ashramG The ;alatendukesari ashram is a temporary structure built in front of the ;alatendukesari &umpha, housing a 7perpetual fire5 : a dhuni26. The dhuni was attended by an ascetic who introduced himself as )irinchi )aba, he claimed that the dhuni had been burning here since 7ancient times5. 0e narrated a mythic account of Khandagiri5s history, which, unlike the 2ain narrative, did not use historic facts as stepping stones, but rather used mythology to refer to or even sometimes e'plain historicity. 0e started with saying that )hubaneshvar is another name of lord -hiva, the city is named after him but in truth the city is actually Demisharanya, ;ord -hiva5s residence which e'tends to a radius of .. kos with the ;ingaraja temple as the centre point. Khandagiri at the outer reaches of the Demisharanya is the Bkambrakanan, the 7meditation retreat5 of lord -hiva. The Bkambrakanan is mentioned in the 6kanda Purana and 6i,a Purana. Kartikaya was born on the hill, which is why the hill was called -kandhagiri which got collo<uialised into Khandagiri. This, incidentally, also e'plains the medieval name of the site G Kumar 3arvat, Kumar and -kanda both being Kartikeya5s names. 0e went on to claim that Kharavela was not a 2ain but a -haivite : also that 2ainism was not a separate religion but was a part of the -anatan 4harma. similar opinion had been voiced by

-mt. )imladevi 2ain, the manager of the 2ain dharamshala when she identified =ishabhnatha with -hiva, whereas here )irinchi )aba was identifying him with 1ishnu. ccording to him, it was because of the increasing corruption and greed among the )rahmins that lord 1ishnu had to incarnate himself as )uddha and 2ain. Ahen asked, he said that the famous bhakti poet 2agannatha 4asa had written that =ishabhnatha was an avatar of 1ishnu. 6urther he said that 26
.hi#h the editor o& the Jain 2oo6let > 1handagiri57da%agiri #a$es #alls a sour#e o& 0ollution

the ;alatendukesari shram was mentioned by chyutananda 4asa as being a nodal place where the #. armed goddess protects all. 6inally he claimed that ;alatendukesari himself did penance here for #. years and that he would hold conferences with various other saints. +ara,h -i " mphaG In the )arabhuji &umphaKtemple, I spoke to )aamdeb 4as, a priest. 0e claimed that 0indus had been worshipping the devi at )arabhuji since ancient times. gain, he also claimed that 0induism and 2ainism were not different religions, the 2ains, he said, called the devis >hakreshwari and -hankheshwari which was proof enough of them being 0indu goddesses since the chakra and shankha were associated with 1ishnu ?Image $@. In the name of the temple several structural changes had been made to the cave, walls had been collapsed and pillar re-constructed. The floor had been opened up and re-laid with marble about .+ -,+ years ago, whereas the terrace in front of the temple, making a large courtyard is an older construction, possibly around the time of the 2ain temple5s construction. The images of the -asanadevis and Tirthankaras in the )arabhuji &umpha had been painted black, obviously to reduce their visibility. defacement of the images. 0is claim was that the 2ain temple was consecrated in #%,9 and prior to that it was a 0indu temple, housing a 1ishnu image called nanta Kesari, which still visits the site every year during the mela from a temple in 2agmara where it stays as a guest. =egarding the small empty temple above (ahavir &umpha, he said to the best of his knowledge it had always been empty and no one knew about it. Ahen asked if a 3rana3rathistha was performed for the images before they were worshipped by the 0indus, since the 2ains consider that relief images cannot be consecrated, the priest said that since the images were very old they probably had been consecrated sometime in the past, but no such ritual had been done within recent memory ?the 2ains at least, if not the 0indus, believe that if an image has not been worshipped for a considerable period of time then it should be re-consecrated before is it stay order from court now prevents further

worshipped again@. 4uring my documentation of the site, I witnessed a 2ain householderpriest offering rice grains and obeisance to all relief images. I also witnessed an argument between the 2ain and the 0indu priest regarding the covering of the images. The 0indu claimed it was improper to worship a naked image while the 2ain claimed that, in case of the Tirthankars, it was their nakedness which signified their holiness?Image 8@. The 0indu priest5s account was more or less reproduced by -ri 4ebendra -ubudhi the secretary of the village committee of 4umduma village, one of the #/ surrounding villages that consider )arabhuji to be their Ishta-devi. 0e too said that 0indus had been worshipping )arabhuji since ancient time, but the controversy over the cave was ,+ or 9+ years old2). 6urther, to the south he said was 4adhibawan 4eb in yaginiya village, to the west was &opal 2ew in -yanpur village, to the north Darsinghnath in Tapovan shram and in the east was =aghunath in 2agmara village" in the centre of all of this was nanta Kesari who was established at Khandagiri. ccording to -ri -ubudhi, the 2ains took over the 1ishnu temple and dedicated it to =ishabhnatha, whereby nanta Kesari had to stay in =aghunath5s temple in 2agmara as a 7guest5. Pad ka $ashramG The 3aduka shram belongs to followers of the sage rakhit 4as and are <uite unconnected to the )arabhuji controversy. Unlike the others who always seem to start with .+++ years ago, the vadhoot sadhus are <uite aware of their own historicity and acknowledge that their sect came into being only after rakhita 4asa, who was a fairly recent figure. The shram itself was built sometime in the #%8+s during the stewardship of the previous (ahant, late -adhu Uddhav 4as. Ahile the shram had a fair amount of land holdings scattered across )hubaneshvar, it was in this period that members of the trust board betrayed the trust and fraudently sold much of the land for personal benefit, including a piece 2)
A##ording to the editor o& the Jain 2oo6let, 1handagiri57da%agiri (a$es, the o##u0ation o& the #a$es o##urred 40 %ears ago

of land right ne't to the current shram which was sold to the 2ain 4haramshala. The (ahant promptly filed a case against the 2ain committee as the land contained funerary memorials of previous (ahants. s of now, the samadhis have been demolished and structures have come up on them, however the 4haramshala is not able to raise its boundary wall because of the court case. The current (ahant, -adhu 4ambru 4as who has been associated with the site for over 9+ years says, that earlier the ashram was a mud structure that functioned like a base camp where -adhus would report and where rakhit 4as5s wooden slippers and manuscripts would lie on a wooden charpoy, whereas most of the sadhus would live in the Udayagiri caves, that too, a numerically significant amount of them. )ut that began to change ,+-,/ years ago, when the .-.I. began to evict the sadhus from the caves, and it is appro'imately at the same time the ashram was remade with brick and cement. fter which slowly one by one various idols and shrines were added to it. !nly one shrine is credited to a (ahant previous to Uddhav 4as, the Kali shrine is credited to -adhu )halu 4as but it is unclear if he built the cement shrine or if he just installed the image there. )y the *+5s urbanisation had come to )hubaneshvar and by the mid-%+5s the city had spread as far as upto Khandagiri. 6rom all of this we can gather two thingsG first, that there was a 1ishnu temple on Khandagiri but it was not the 2ain temple" and second, that Udayagiri was not a secular site devoid of religious activity, waiting for the archaeologist and art-historian to e'cavate, conserve and recover its ancient glory. 6or the first, we know from -terling, 6ergusson and =ajendralal (itra5s accounts that even in the #%th century the temple on top of Khandagiri was a 2ain temple, the consecration that the 0indus refer to as having happened in #%,9 was probably the installation of the so- called 7Kalinga 2ina5. nanta Kesari then was probably housed in the smaller structure above (ahavir &umpha, which would go some way to e'plain the stone terrace in front of (ahavir and )arabhuji gumphas. nanta Kesari is again probably the same image that 3halahari &osain worshipped and carried out in cart festivals .This structure is

again, possibly the same structure which was demolished by T. )loch, however, it can be conjectured that it was not actually demolished but rather de-sanctified and the image sent to 2agmara. -ometime later the temple was renovated but its garbagriha was plastered over, and a stone bench was installed inside in the shape of a ;. -econdly, the rchaeological -urvey officials5 claim that Udayagiri did not have a living religious tradition, is largely false. It was, asI have shown, very much a living site, e'cept that the .-.I.5s parameters for 7religious activity5 were configured only to )rahmanical idol worship. -adhus living inside caves never appeared in the .-.I.5s registers as religious activity, it only appeared as EtrespassingF, whereas the 0indu worship of an unsanctified wall relief in Khandagiri was recognised as religious activity which could not be disturbed. Udayagiri was thus, then cleansed and secularised. =eligion in Khandagiri-Udayagiri was pushed back and by definition forced to reside between the priest- idol ne'us. This narrative also raises many <uestions as to the role of rchaeological -urvey with regard to permissions and restrictions, inclusions and e'clusions, concerning buildings and habitations on the site. Ahat becomes evident is the -urvey is not neutral with regards to various sectarian occupations on the site, with some clearly more permissible than others. 0owever we can also see a wide spectrum of inhabitation at Khandagiri and Udayagiri, from institutions backed by the rchaeological -urvey, such as the 2ain (andir and 4haramshala, to those backed by local power interests such as the )arabhuji (andir and to some e'tent the 3aduka ashram. Then, there are more liminal of occupations, mostly at an individual level, their e'istence made possible only because of the rifts created by the conflicts between the larger religious and administrative institutions controlling the site. part from this, there are a whole range of touristic performance and appropriation that goes on at the site. The construction of space, the politics of inclusion and e'clusion and the performance of tourism are discussed in the last section of the chapter.