The temple of Amba Mata at Jagat near Udaipur has had a fascinating life ever since its

construction in the 10th century from the many inscriptions on the pillars in the mandapa of the
temple, to the theft of a deity in 2000. The temple is dedicated to the goddess
Ambika-Kshemankari, or the benevolent aspect of the goddess. The temple has a garbhagriha ,
a guhamandapa (attathed closed hall) and on the east, there is an asthana-mandapa, which is
an audience hall for the devotees, which is rare for the time period and region. Another rare
element is the presence of snapana-graha — a lustral chamber close to the northern wall and
connected to the main temple with a channel for rituals. It has a multi-spired Shekhari Nagara
superstructure and the architectural style is a transitional one from Maha-Gurjara to the
Maru-Gurjara (Maru meaning Desert, together with Gujarati elements). Built during the reign of
Guhila Allata (no inscription mentioning the Guhilas from the early history of the temple is
found), the sculptural embellishment on the walls is considered of an even higher quality than
the politically important Eklingji Shiva temple.The shikhara of the main temple and the pyramidal
roof of the closed hall are both made in stone which was exceptional for the time period when
brick structures were the norm.

The Epigraphic Record:

The first inscription we have found here dates back to 961 CE where Samvapura, son of
Vallabha is recording his acquiescence to Sri Amba Devi. But the inscription mentions
reconstruction of the step-well, the lake, the garden, etc. No name of a ruler finds a place in the
inscription and in all likelihood, one may expect Samvapura, who is mentioned earlier as the
builder/restorer of the site, to be the one responsible for the (re)construction of the temple.
Importantly, the inscription indicates the presence of an earlier structure that was either restored
or completely reconstructed. Since the architectural style closely corresponds to the late 10th
century, one may assume that complete reconstruction of the temple rather than a mere
renovation was undertaken. The inscription suggests that the temple was built by a
devote-ascetic (Samvapura} to whom the merits of such a deed would accrue. However, this
part of the inscription appears to have been derived from a known ritualistic injunction citing the
merits accruing from the restoration or (re)construction of religious sites. A very similar reading
is available in the Vishnu Smrti, which pre-dates the inscription on this temple. A similar verse is
also quoted in the Aparijataprachha, an important medieval western Indian vastu text ascribed
to the lace twelfth/ early thirteenth century CE, two centuries after the construction of the
temple. The inclusion of the verse in the temple inscription as well as in the treatises indicates
that restoration/reconstruction as a means to gain merit was a continuing practice advocated by
tradition and well known to the builder/patron(s) of the temple.

Some understanding of the nature of the earlier structure is made possible by the
archaeological finds at the site. Two incomplete sets of matrka figures have been reported from
here. One group, in schist stone, has been attributed stylistically to belong to the sixth century
CE and was relocated to the Udaipur Museum. This includes the sculpture of a standing Aindri
(Indrani) carrying a child and with a vajra (thunderbolt) in her left hand; another of a standing
Matrka identified as Brahmani due to the presence of the jatajuta (tied matted hair}, and yet
another Matrka of similar material and stylistic bearing carrying a child but with the head and the
attributes missing. Also found from Jagat and of similar material and style is the lower portion of
a Mahisasuramardini image. The lower portions of the goddess' garment, the buffalo demon
Mahisasura, as well as the trident are clearly visible. These loose sculptures are quite distinct
from the sculptures on the walls of the temple as we see them today. These finds along with the
inscription referring to an earlier construction indicate the very likely possibility that a shrine
dedicated to the worship of the goddess (Matrka worship?) existed prior to re-construction at the
site of the present temple of Ambika at Jagat and it may be assigned to about the mid-sixth
century CE on the basis of the earlier group of sculptures. The temple bears ten inscriptions
spanning an approximate period of eight centuries (from 961 to 1738 CE) and recording the
worship to the goddess in this temple. If we add to this the earlier archaeological evidence found
from the site, and consider the fact chat the temple is in worship at present, we have intermittent
records (from mid-sixth century to the present) of a little over fourteen centuries of worship of
the female principle at this site.

Three other pillar inscriptions from the temple record royal endowments and worship of goddess
Ambika by the Guhilas. Of these, one is dated vs 1228/ 1172 CE and records the king's
(Maharaja Samantasimha's) gift of a golden kalasga to Ambika Devi. Another pillar inscription
records the gift of a village in favour of the temple of goddess Ambika in vs 1277/1221 CE by
Mahasamanta Velhana during the reign of Maharavala Sihadadeva. Yet another pillar inscription
(vs 1306/ 1250 CE) records the erection of a suvarnadanda (golden staff) for the goddess
Ambika by (Vi)jayasimha of the Guhila vamsa. The aforementioned Samantasimha was the
earliest Guhila ruler mentioned here and soon after, the Guhilas of Medhapata (Mewar) lost their
prominence amidst the conflicts with the Paramaras and Chaulukyas (THESE ARE NOT
CHALUKYAS, CHAULUKYA IS THE SANSKRIT NAME FOR SOLANKIS) For a period of
about 400 years, from 1250 to 1668 CE, the temple appears to have received no significant
grants and the history of the temple remains unrevealed. Whether worship was temporarily
discontinued for some of the period in these intervening centuries and for what precise reasons
remains unknown but one may speculate political instability, dwindling resources or damage to
the original cult icon of Kshemankari as possible factors.

The original Deity in the Sanctum:

The principal image of the Devi presently placed in the sanctum, though, is not of the same date
as the temple's construction and consecration but is a more recent image installed on the earlier
pedestal and placed in front of the original parikara. The one in worship now is very recent and
is reported to have been placed in the sanctum as recently as the year 2000, after the reported
theft of an earlier one of medieval workmanship. The stolen image was also not the image
originally consecrated at the time of the construction of the temple but replaced at some point
during the medieval times. The damage/theft and subsequent replacement of the original cult
image twice do not appear to have resulted in any loss of sanctity of the site. The female
principle continues to be worshipped here in her myriad manifestations. Deborah L Stein in her
essay points towards how the ontological presence of a deity existed in the stone and the
location itself and worship continued even after the image was stolen. The flat stone surface on
which the goddess stood was dressed in a skirt and veil, given a trident. For all intents and
purposes, the goddess never left the temple. The persistent ontological presence of the deity
precludes the glorified death of the material (here, the stone sculpture). The form or the image is
then only a shell, a kosha for an ontological deity which nonetheless exists. When the image
was stolen, the deity was no longer there, it became a mere corpse without a soul. In
understanding this, she takes the concept of “base materialism” as propounded by Georges
Bataille. Articles from the early 1960s show the sanctum empty so the stolen image might even
be of mid 20th century provenance. The thieves probably mistook a modern image for an early
medieval sculpture.

Prof Parul Pandya Dhar says that an image of Devi found in a damaged condition in the closed
hall during field survey has been identified by MA Dhaky as the most plausible original cult
image of the Devi (Ambika-Kshemankari) that must have belonged to the sanctum of this
temple. This identification is based on the following considerations: i) the importance accorded
to this aspect of the goddess on other significant parts of the temple, and ii) the relationship of
the damaged image found in the closed hall to the original image-frame and pedestal of the cult
image that is still present in the sanctum. Sarvamangala-Kshemankari is depicted at the most
significant and even tutelary positions in this temple. The original pedestal and image-frame of
the cult image are still located in the sanctum and a more recent image of the goddess has
been placed on the earlier pedestal. The detail of imagery on the image-frame yields some
additional clues for identification. The pedestal of the original cult image in the sanctum has two
lions carved at the two corners of the pedestal. Kshemankari is Durga or Mahisasuramardini in
her benevolent aspect and her iconography includes two lions receding away from each other,
below her image. Moreover the style, proportionate size and material of the damaged icon
correspond well with those of the original image-frame and pedestal in the sanctum. These
findings strongly suggest that the temple was dedicated to Ambika-Kshemankari.

At some time in the medieval period, a stone relief sculpture of Durga in the attitude of striking
Mahisha had replaced the original cult image of the temple. This was placed on the original
pedestal and in front of the original image frame. Agrawala refers to this second cult icon as
being in regular worship and photographs of the same are available in the archival records of
the American Institute of Indian Studies at Gurgaon. There is some lack of clarity, however, with
regard to the presence of this second icon in the sanctum of the temple. The theft of the cult
icon in the year 2000 was reportedly followed by the placement of a marble icon of the Devi
through funds generated by the efforts of the local population. The replaced icon is currently
worshipped by the local population along with other aspects of Devi.

I KNOW THIS IS CONFUSING BECAUSE DEBORAH STEIN IS SAYING WHAT WAS

STOLEN WAS MODERN. AND SHE IS RIGHT. AIIS PICTURE ON SECOND LAST SLIDE
The second last slide here is the second cult icon mentioned by Prof Parul which is also the
same Chamunda we will talk about later. This sculpture is still in the sanctum. So if we listen
to both Parul and Deborah (which Deborah doesnt, hence Parul’s rant on “citations”), in the
medieval times only, the original kshemankari sculpture was replaced by this Chamunda
which was later not seen on the original pitha but cast aside inside the sanctum. In around
1965 another image was installed and it was this image which was stolen. For Deborah, the
Chamunda image seen in the AIIS picture from the above link is the original cult image of the
temple.
The other sculptures:
The walls and interior of the temple reveal Ambika-Mahisasuramardini in various forms, along
with the associated imagery of matrkas (mother goddesses), apsaras and devaganas (celestial
maidens), vyalas (hybrid leonine creatures), dikpalas (directional divinities), gandharvas
(celestial beings), and rishis (ascetics/sages), which find ordered configuration. The exterior
walls (western, northern and southern) of the bhadras (central offsets) of the main temple
shelter images of Mahisasuramardini within embellished nithes. The karnas (corner offsets)
harbour the directional divinities, the pratirathas (intermediate offsets) and the salilantaras
(recesses) between the corner and intermediate offsets showcase celestial maidens, whereas
the recesses between the central and intermediate offsets depict vyalas. The central offsets of
the adjoining walls of the closed hall have lattices. The only prominent male divinities on the
walls of this temple are the customary directional divinities at the corner offsets of the main
temple. At the upper level of the wall are pairs of figures such as teather-student and a couple
engaged in conversation, and so on. There is also a scene of the worship of the linga at this
level on the connecting wall between the sanctum and the closed hall.

While we can talk about the iconography of different Durga-Mahishasuramardini sculptures on

the bhadra nithes, how Deborah Stein looks at them in relation with the Chamunda image (the
second cult image acc to Parul Pandya Dhar) in the sanctum, which to her could be the original
image of the temple. As we circumambulate the temple, we are first encountered by a
zoomorphic buffalo being pierced by the goddess’ trident as her lion sinks his teeth into the
buffalo’s flank. On the back wall, a location where the imagery is supposed to correspond with
the sanctum image. Here, a human is seen spouting from the neck of the buffalo like blood from
a real animal’s sacrifice. In the last depiction, we see her triumph over a fully anthropomorphic
demon and no buffalo is found. These, to Deborah Stein, correspond to the Chamunda icon
which is an emaciated yet ferocious Chamunda unlike the voluptuous nubile sensuality of the
three exterior figures. This Chamunda sculpture is referring to the section of Devi-Mahatmya
where she is defeating the demons. On the third side, the revelation of the asura’s essence in
death would directly precede the viewing of the main icon in circumambulatory order. And so a
flash of death replaces the curves of youth. The emaciated, bony body of Chamunda shocks the
viewer out of his sensual pleasure. This ploy to liken liminal moments of animal sacrifice to the
fleeting illusory pleasure of human desire in a visual language clearly echoes early medieval
tantric texts. The emaciated Chamunda usually does not kill the buffalo demon contrary to the
depiction of her in the inner sanctum. In the Devi Mahatmya, in other texts and also in the
sculptures, this goddess is usually represented as part of a set of mothers or yoginis.

The three central offsets at the level of the basal mouldings of the main temple harbour three
goddesses whose iconographic traits are mixed and thus pose problems of identification. They
have been identified as three matrakas, Vaishnavi to the south, Brahmani to the west, and
Maheshi to the north by R.C. Agrawala. Soundararajan has referred to the three goddesses as
the 'seated representations of the female principles of the trinity’. The goddess in the southern
bhadra nithe at the level of the basal mouldings is of benign countenance, wears a kirita
mukuta, and holds the gadq (mace), cakra (discus), shankha(conch), and akshamala (rosary) in
her four hands. Unexplainably, she is shown seated on a preta (corpse). Even if the akshamala
in place of the padma is taken as a relatively minor departure from the textual injunctions for
Vaishnavi, the corpse is indeed difficult to explain. The seated goddess to the north has a trident
and akshamala in two of her hands. These three goddesses perhaps are representative of
some combined aspects of the Devi and it is likely that some local variant of the Devi's exploits
or a local text may have guided the sculptor in the delineation of the details. The exact identity
of the goddesses remains unanswered and the assimilation of tantric along with puranic
features cannot be ruled out. The lintel of the sanctum door frame is two-tiered, with
Kshemankari at the centre of the upper tier and Ganesa correspondingly placed on
the lower tier. The door-lined bears Virabhadra/Vinadhara Shiva at the centre with the
navagrahas (nine planets) depicted on either side. As per the Aparajitaprachha, Viresa is to be
shown playing the vina and in the dancing mode, and the Saptamatrakas are to be placed
between Ganesa and Bhairava. In the doorframe of the audience hall, we find the image of a
vina-playing deity at the centre of the door lined with Ganesa beneath him. The planetary deities
are depicted on either side of Viresa/Vinadhara Siva, whereas the matrakas are carved on the
pilaster door jamb of the doorframe. There are malevolent forms of the goddess on the antarala
and Simhavahini Ambika, Sarvamangali-Kshemankari and Chamunda, among others are seen
throughout the temple.

The other goddesses

In the subhamandapa, there is a six pointed star, called yantra on the stone ceiling of the
pillared hall. This star, with one triangle being understood as male manifestation whereas the
other as female is an instance of a non-icon goddess present in the temple. That the Chamunda
imagery was important for the temple is shown from another Chamunda sculpture, this time in
schist housed today in a separate small shrine. There is another shrine, this one for Mallar
Mata, the sister of Amba Mata. Her body looks just like Chamunda’s shiny black body but is
more voluptuous which is not the case with Chamunda. The location for another Devi noted by
Deborah Stein is the figural form in an arboreal body: worship of a tree as a Devi. This tree is
the focus of the annual rite of Dasha Mata Puja. This too, like the main worshippers of Mallar
Mata and the sanctum (with or without a deity in sculpture) is mainly the domain of women’s
worship. This also show that the Devi could be worshipped in a number of forms and she is
present ontologically whether there is a sculptural form or not.

As noted above, this site shows the presence of Matraka cult icons from before the temple was
constructed. There is also the Aindri, today in Udaipur Archeological Museum. Could the black
schost icon, so similar in their appearance, of Mallar Mata and Chamunda be a part of an
original set of seven?

The Temple Today

What happened after the theft in Jagat is beyond textual explanation. For those who routinely
worshipped her, Amba Mata manifested herself in the material of the stone. She was not a
representation and the portrait was not her essence, it was rather a material body for a divine
being. When that material body was stolen, no doubt tragic for worshippers, her worship
nonetheless continued because only the body left the temple. The deity never did. During the
years of the absence of her icon, she was still worshipped and the temple never really closed.
The act of getting her a new sculpture again was a political task from the outset. The presence
of the Thakur of Jagat, the men taking centre stage at the rituals prescribed for the consecration
whereas the primary women worshippers, mostly Meena and Bhil women, were present as
mere audience and the presence of Rajasthan’s home minister all allude towards this. Brahmin
priests who consecrated the temple were following Gujarati elements too, the re-consecration of
a temple, where the worshipped never really stopped because the international black market for
arts had stolen a vehicle for the deity is an interesting study in itself. A host of new actors were
suddenly present, never seen before and never to be seen again but they left their imprint,
guided by the more standardised and political religion. The new sculpture, made of marble in
Jaipur as then a new body, no doubt impressive, was of way more importance to these new
actors than the old worshippers at the temple. It was the social, political and financial elite that
needed a marble body the most desperately.

That being said, these people cannot be reduced to mere patrons. The desperation did exist,
but the said desperation was not only an enactment of their eliteness, it was also a desperation
to honour their Amba Mata, no matter their regularity in the temple itself. In that, they confronted
the international black market for arts. The theft of Amba Mata was then a corporeal honour
crime but the presence or absence of her form is never equated to the presence or absence of
the Devi herself.