It&rsquos 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 &lsquowonder&rsquo is something that arouses &lsquoawe, astonishment, surprise, or admiration&rsquo, all of which the Jagatmandir does, but no more than the new Akshardham Temple in Delhi. And that&rsquos my chief complaint with 100 Wonders of India The finest treasures of civilisation and nature &mdash it does not try hard enough to reveal the &lsquofinest&rsquo 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 &lsquonot so well known&rsquo places on the jacket) and providing useful background information about them along with pleasant pictures. It&rsquos reasonably priced, and might be a decent addition to the coffee table. But that&rsquos where the good news ends.
Serious travellers would be appalled to find the Lodi Gardens on the book&rsquos list. Also the Lotus Temple and the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies. Is Jaipur&rsquos 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&rsquos &lsquoMan Made&rsquo section. And the Amarnath Cave to the &lsquoNatural&rsquo section, the last two seasons&rsquo controversy about the ice lingam&rsquos provenance notwithstanding.
