Corporal Iconoclasm. Nationalist Narratives of Heritage and the Case of Gyanvapi in Varanasi (ENG)

In January 2024, a report published by the Archaeological Survey of India on the subject of the 17^th century Gyanvapi Mosque located in the north-Indian temple town of Varanasi swiftly became the focus of national debate. The report stated that “there existed a large Hindu temple prior to the construction of the existing structure”, based on an analysis of excavated sculptures, defaced idols and architectural ruins.

Religious nationalist discourse in contemporary India – which presently dominates the political landscape – describes the Gyanvapi Mosque as a symbol of identitarian exclusion. Ideologues compare the act of iconoclasm to literal corporal violence. Such anthropomorphism may be rooted in the foundational practices of ancient Indic animistic religions, according to which temple-land is seen as sacred corporeal space, and the idols housed therein as ‘living deities’ often given the legal status of a person. Therefore, ‘iconoclasm’ takes on new meanings: the shrines allegedly destroyed in the construction of the Gyanvapi Mosque, for instance, are no more portrayed as material artefacts, but instead as ‘sacred bodies’, upon which violence had been inflicted, as ‘living spaces’ that ought to be protected from potential damage by visitors, and as ‘beings’ that need to be ‘revived’ and ‘reinstated’ for pilgrimage.

This research project will employ a theoretical approach to analyse how such complex definitions present a new challenge for the very meaning and value of what qualifies as ‘heritage’ in India, by specifically delving into the case of the Gyanvapi Mosque in light of the recent archaeological survey within the post-Ram Temple context. It is hypothesized that religious monuments in India are no longer seen as brick-and-mortar structures, but instead treated as culturally mutable ‘living sites’, which has set the template for a new articulation of nationalist heritage. Furthermore, such a narrative appears to be in theoretical contrast to the global heritage discourse that instead treats archaeological sites as ‘static’ or ‘defunct’.