The story of the Somnath temple, in the northwestern Saurashtra peninsula, has often been taken as an example of the contentious legacies of the penetration, settlement, and political establishment of Muslims in India. Its history testifies to the complex relationship between history, heritage, and the consolidation of collective memories of past events and processes.

This article focuses on two key moments in the temple's recent history: the retrieval of the Somnath gates by Lord Ellenborough in 1842 and the reconstruction of the temple between 1947 and 1951. At these two moments—one during colonial times and the other at the creation of the independent state—Somnath became the battlefield for questioning how the state should be positioned with regard to religious places, histories, symbols, and practices.

While the temple was apparently dealt with as a tangible place of heritage, both episodes show how the value endowed upon the temple had far more complex meanings. The analysis proposed in this article ends with the reconstruction of the temple. This shows the way in which architects of independent India addressed the country's history, directly or indirectly engaging with the construction of a heritage for the new state. Their efforts aimed to strengthen a shared memory of the past, which could in turn consolidate membership and a sense of belonging to the new nation. Advocates and promoters of the temple's reconstruction, among whom were Vallabhbhai Patel and K. M. Munshi, envisioned that the reconstruction would embody the long-awaited liberation of India from centuries of continuous domination by ‘foreign’ powers. In contrast, secular politicians, with Nehru at the helm, opposed the reconstruction, fearing that Somnath might become the symbol of a sectarian vision of the nation and, in the wake of partition, derail efforts to characterise independent India as an inclusive country. While the reconstruction did eventually take place, the entire episode invites us to question the relationship between the framing of Indian nationalism and the heritagisation of Indian history. Following a critical theoretical approach to Heritage studies, where heritage has less to do with the item that is preserved than with the value with which it is endowed, this article proposes to investigate the meanings that heritage preservation, conservation, and reconstruction acquired as part of the project of nation- and state-building.

位于索拉什特拉半岛西北部的索姆纳特神庙的故事经常被视为穆斯林在印度的渗透、定居和政治建立的有争议的遗产的一个例子。它的历史证明了历史、遗产以及对过去事件和过程的集体记忆的巩固之间的复杂关系。

本文重点介绍寺庙近代历史中的两个关键时刻：艾伦伯勒勋爵 (Lord Ellenborough) 于 1842 年收回索姆纳特大门，以及 1947 年至 1951 年间重建寺庙。在这两个时刻，一个是在殖民时期，另一个是在创建时独立国家的诞生——索姆纳特成为质疑国家在宗教场所、历史、象征和习俗方面应如何定位的战场。

虽然寺庙显然被视为有形的遗产地，但这两集都表明赋予寺庙的价值具有更为复杂的含义。本文提出的分析以寺庙的重建结束。这展示了独立印度的建筑师如何处理该国的历史，直接或间接地参与新国家遗产的建设。他们的努力旨在加强对过去的共同记忆，从而巩固新国家的成员资格和归属感。寺庙重建的倡导者和推动者，其中包括瓦拉巴伊·帕特尔 (Vallabhbhai Patel) 和 KM Munshi，他们设想重建将体现印度期待已久的解放，摆脱几个世纪以来“外国”列强的持续统治。相比之下，以尼赫鲁为首的世俗政治家反对重建，担心索姆纳特可能成为国家宗派愿景的象征，并在分治后破坏将独立印度描绘成包容性国家的努力。虽然重建最终确实进行了，但整个事件让我们质疑印度民族主义的框架与印度历史的传承之间的关系。遵循遗产研究的批判性理论方法，遗产与被保存的物品关系不大，而与其所赋予的价值有关，本文建议研究遗产保护、保护和重建作为遗产保护的一部分所获得的意义。民族和国家建设项目。