It’s wonderful to know that some of the submerged ruins of Dwarka, in Saurashtra, have been dated to 1520 BC, and having visited the town I can vouch for the beauty of its towering Jagatmandir, but I would certainly not count either the city or its chief temple among the top 100 wonders of India. The dictionary meaning (and my understanding) of the noun ‘wonder’ is something that arouses ‘awe, astonishment, surprise, or admiration’, all of which the Jagatmandir does, but no more than the new Akshardham Temple in Delhi. And that’s my chief complaint with 100 Wonders of India: The finest treasures of civilisation and nature — it does not try hard enough to reveal the ‘finest’ 100.

 

To be fair, the book is of immense value to the casual traveller. It treads the safe path, picking up oft-visited places (ignore the claim about ‘not so well known’ places on the jacket) and providing useful background information about them along with pleasant pictures. It’s reasonably priced, and might be a decent addition to the coffee table. But that’s where the good news ends.


Serious travellers would be appalled to find the Lodi Gardens on the book’s list. Also the Lotus Temple and the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies. Is Jaipur’s Amber Fort more wonderful or significant than the  Jantar Mantar? I thought the Jaivana cannon housed in Jaigarh, above Amber, had a much stronger case for inclusion. Perhaps, before they order a reprint, the publishers would consider moving the Kullu Dussehra and Puducherry to the book’s ‘Man Made’ section. And the Amarnath Cave to the ‘Natural’ section, the last two seasons’ controversy about the ice lingam’s provenance notwithstanding.    

Leave a Reply