One of the most delightful, and at times passionate, debates you can have with regard to the history of Lahore is to take on an original dweller of Ichhra. Within minutes you will be at loggerheads discussing which is older – Lahore or Ichhra?

This is a very positive sign, and needs to be encouraged, let alone put in perspective. Mind you Ichhra is a very ancient dwelling. Probably what bugs original Ichhra inhabitants is that Lahore has engulfed them and is considered as ‘just another’ portion of the city. To be honest that is not true. The people of this amazing place are unique, and very different from an original Lahori. In past columns I have dwelled on the age of Ichhra and its history, and more than once I have mentioned the urgent need for archaeological digs there. This is critical for all future scholarships on the subject.

The age of Lahore, using the scarce archaeological data available, as well as mythology as embedded in the ancient Hindu scriptures, not to speak of beliefs verbally passed down through the ages, has been pegged at well over 4,500 years, if not more. In my view there is a possibility that Ichhra is almost of the same age. But then some proof is needed.

My own current research seeks to explore the road from Harappa through Lahore to several sites in Haryana, where the most impressive site so far is Rakhigarh in the Ghakkar-Hakra river plain, which carbon-dating tells us is over 3,750 years old. I mention this because it is directly connected to our debate. As we reach the River Ravi near Begum Kot we move in one of four possible directions. To the East across the river is Lahore going on to Rakhigarh, which is 150 miles west of Delhi. To the south across the river is Ichhra and then on to Ferozepur. To the north is ancient Sialkot and to the West it is towards the entire Swat and Peshawar area which is full of ancient archaeological site.

If anything, the discoveries at Rakhigarh seem to point to the probable archaeological age of Lahore. The sheer antiquity of our land is staggering. As the road splits towards Lahore and Ichhra we have the mounds to research on. After all both Lahore and Ichhra are built on mounds, safe from the monsoon flooding.

A few years ago a bright young Lahore journalist exploring this very issue sought my opinion. My response was that the oldest reference to the word Ichhra is in the Bhagavata-Purana, the ancient Hindu scripture, which refers to the Iccharama or the ‘Pradipa’. “There is a need to understand the word in its context. The word ‘Icha Ra’ in Sanskrit means ‘The Edge of Evil’”.

Amazingly in Jewish traditions the god ‘Ra’ has been described by the prophet Moses as evil. A professor at the Faculty of Divinity in Cambridge thinks that the word ‘Icha Ra’ means ‘the edge of the Almighty’s blessings.’ Because the Jews think of ‘Ra’ as an idol - hence ‘evil’- therefore ancient scriptures refer to Ichhra as ‘the edge of evil’. As my view could be construed as partisan, we must leave aside the aspersion of Ichhra being ‘evil’ just because it houses very old temples dedicated to the Hindu deity Shiva.

My dear friend Salman Rashid, a renowned travel writer, in one of his many delightful books has pointed out that Mai Ichhran was the mother of Puran Bhagat, hence a possible connection. But why would Ichhra be named after her? One possibility is that when Poran was sent away by his father from his home in Sialkot, he spent his time ‘a week’s walking time’ away from home. Could this be ‘that’ Ichhra? I have my doubts, but then it is a remote, if not colourful, possibility.

This brings us to a very interesting academic discussion, and that being that if the idol ‘Ra’ stands for evil, could it in any way be an extension of the ‘evil’ that the Hindu deity Shiva’s reincarnations represent. Mind you ‘good’ cannot exist without there being ‘evil’, just as “white and black have an artistic relationship”. I say this certainly with no disrespect to the Hindu faith, but because in Ichhra there is a ring of very old Shiva temples just behind the Shama Cinema on Ferozepur Road. Let me add that they need serious conservation.

Mind you, the negative side of Shiva consists of evil deeds that can be achieved by reciting Vedic tantra, or so the logic goes. This place was famous for that. Even Maharajah Ranjit Singh came here for help. It is almost like our local ‘kala ilm’ chaps alleged use of contorted verses to perform black magic. Whether this is humbug or not is not for me to pontificate on.

Now, whether Ichhra is older than Lahore people is the point in question. Each side defends their own turf. But what we must follow is scientific data, and whatever we can find in our ancient history, which surely must include ancient texts, irrespective of whether they are myths or not.

There is no doubt that the old walled city of Lahore as we know it today was a relatively small city on the higher mounds by the River Ravi. In terms of comparative size, say 300 years ago, it was a large city. But then we must add that even Ichhra was a relatively large settlement, almost a third the size of old Lahore. Much later as trade by river declined new routes came up. For this reason, Lahore was destined to grow in trade terms as well as in military importance.

But then Ichhra was on the route to Ferozepur, which in its days was a very important city. By the time Akbar came, Lahore’s old walled (mud walls) city was much smaller, probably smaller, or equal to Ichhra in size. Imagine a wall from Mori Gate straight towards Chowk Tibbi moving towards Chuna Mandi and down to the left of Shahalami Gate (even today to the left of the main bazaar are ‘ghattis,’) which I am certain where the original mud walls of the older walled city stood. If this area is taken in mind, then definitely the old Ichhra was equal, or just slightly larger than older Lahore.

There are two arguments that people think points in favour of Ichhra being older. Let me explain. The argument is that the oldest gateway of Lahore of the walled city is Lohari Gate. People think that Ichhra was the original Lahore, and hence the gateway’s name. History tells us that as this portion of the city had a major population of iron-mongers and furnaces, its name Lohari – or blacksmiths gateway – came about.

Then there is an Akbar-era ‘hundi’ document from Surat by an indigo trader to a supplier, which lies in the Lahore Museum, in which the address written is: “Lahor near Ichhra”. Hence a comparative importance factor emerges. But given that Akbar lived in Lahore means the city was always more important, and that Ichhra also had its own indigo market just like the one inside Lohari Gate still known as ‘Nilli Gali.’

So the debate goes on and on, and a most delightful one it is. Even though ultimately Lahore engulfed Ichhra, it is still a settlement with a character all its own as opposed to the traits of one from the walled city. In such diversity thrives our ancient and great city. What we now need to further the debate is a lot of scientific archaeological work. That, sadly, does not seem to be forthcoming.

Published in Dawn, May 20th, 2018