[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: India: A Myth
>Date: Thu, 26 Jan 95 22:47:04 mst
>From: "Rajan P. Parrikar" <parrikar@mimicad.Colorado.EDU>
>From: seshadri@cup.hp.com (Raghu Seshadri)
>Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
>Subject: Re: India: A Myth
Mr T.H.Sanyal writes:
-Does RgVeda define the concept of nation as we understand it today?
Did Dalton define the atom as we understand it today ? No.
But is Dalton's a valid precursor of today's concept of the
atom ? Yes. I hope you get the idea.
The question is - was there ever a notion
of India as one, connected entity, or is it an artificially
put together conglomerate like the Ottoman or the
Spanish Empire ? We have seen that, from 3000 B.C atleast,
the Indians have considered themselves one cultural group -
a Nation, not a State. That there were several political
divisions, constantly appearing and disappearing, like
patterns in a kaleidoscope, is something I have already
mentioned.
The Rig Veda does not stop with a mere geographic
definition. It goes on to say that the entire land is
venerable, and fit for adoration - it says that it was
the favored land of the gods and that all the
people who have taken birth there partake of its
greatness and should be celebrating that. Behind the
poetical flourishes, this very clearly and dramatically
enunciates the oneness of the land and the people.
-A geographical definition of India does not automatically imply
-a single nation. Iberia is a geographical entity, Spain and Portugal
-are two countries (states). It is even questionable whether Spain
-includes just one nation.
Right, I agree. But India's oneness has a lot more
going for it than mere geographical definition. The
fact is that at no time in history have the Indians ever
considered fellow-inhabitants of the subcontinent
as foreigners - only the people beyond the Himalaya
were given that status. More on this down below.
>beyond the Himalaya as foreigners, which means that all the
>people of the subcontinent were considered "our people". True,
-Judging by some of the other things Manu said, I am disinclined
-to accept his authority.
This is very strange. If Euclid held pro-slavery
opinions, will you therefore reject his theorems ? :-)
Jefferson owned slaves; should we therefore not accept
the unity of the U.S now which he helped form ?
The fact that a man who lived 3000 years ago, and
an author of one of our earliest texts,
whose words were authoritative to millions
for several centuries, had a conception of India as
One Nation, ( which was also accepted by those millions )
CANNOT be ignored because we do not like his dicta on
other sundry points.
The emperor Ch'in united all China; he also buried
30,000 men alive. Because we dislike that, can
we question his status as the unifier of China, or
the fact that China IS one nation ? I think not.
India was considered one nation by our earliest writers.
You don't like their opinions on other matters, fine,
but HOW is that RELEVANT ?
Can you ignore the fact that Plato considered his
people to be Greeks, rather than Athenians or Ionians,
just because he supported slavery ?
Remember, we are focussing on history here - not ethics.
To give you another example, are you going to
disbelieve that people WERE divided into castes in
those days, just because you disapprove of castes ? :-)
You cannot disbelieve it, no matter what your personal
opinions on the ethics of the matter !
>there were numerous kingdoms, but no one gave them any sense
>of permanence. The borders were fluid and porous - the concept
>of citizenship of these mini-states didn't exist. People
>freely entered and left these kingdoms and settled elsewhere.
-True, but which of the above is/was not applicable to 19th c.
-Europe? You don't have a problem with the thesis that there are
-many nations in Europe, do you?
NONE of them were applicable to 19th c Europe ! There were
citizenship papers; there were policed borders;
there were passports and visas. An Englishman in
Russia was an object of suspicion; travel definitely
was not unimpeded. Frenchmen could not decide
to move to Germany, let alone settle down there,
all by themselves, they needed all kinds of permits, which
were mostly denied. All this proves that the European countries
considered themselves totally separate nations.
None of this was true of Indian kingdoms. Not just travel,
but even immigration and emigration was unimpeded; there were
no passports; large communities moved constantly all over the
subcontinent. ( Read the well-documented book, " Migrant
communities of ancient India" to see how free and easy travel
was between the kingdoms.) The borders had no permanence.
There cannot be a greater contrast than between 19th c Europe
and ancient India.
-As recently as 1905, leaders of Bengal postulated a Bengali
-nation.
But these were British-influenced men, who had
absorbed the European idea of one nation-state
for one mini-culture ! This actually proves my point.
India has NEVER had a language-based kingdom or country
EVER, in her 5000 yr old history. So, how come these
gents didn't have to show precedence for their proposal,
but only the Indian nationalists do ? What is sauce
for the goose ..
No native Indian, uninfluenced by 19th c Europe
would have made such a petty un-Indian postulate. India's
native culture has always considered all India as
one nation. The ancients would have jeered at the petty
minds which lack the pan-Indian vision.
Why do you think that our list of pilgrimage contains
sites in all the 4 corners of the country, our list
of holy rivers spans the whole land, our epics are set
all over the subcontinent ? It is to encourage our people
to feel a kinship with all of India, and get out of the
frog-in-the-well mentality which narrows the mind, the
vision and the spirit.
>and travel was unimpeded. This cultural unity was more
>significant than the political divisions, which changed with
>every battle anyway.
-Apart from certain pilgrimage sites (for Hindus) what are the
-elements of this unifying culture?
-People from different parts of
-India eat different food, dress differently, worship (Hindus)
-different gods, listen to different music,...
-So where is this unifying culture? In Bombay movies?
You seem to ignore the simple fact that human
culture is VASTLY more than merely physical attributes
and artifacts - what about all the things that go into
creating their mental world, the world-creating texts,
the philosophies, the beliefs, the literary tradition,
the mythology, the conventions, the ethical framework, the
political assumptions and on and on ? These were
the same all across the subcontinent - and a million
times more impactful and pertinent than the fact
that not all of them tied their dhoti alike, or
were not equally fond of bananas !
The pertinent point is that all of them subscribed to
the assumptions of the Artha Shastra, not that some of
them ate fried fish while others didn't !
This idea of a "culture", where everyone who wears
Pajama-kurta belongs to one "culture", and is different
from another "culture" which wears dhotis, is a laughable,
ridiculous, modern notion. These things are not
significant at all. This silly, juvenile notion
of culture has spread like a poisonous weed.
Where did you get the idea that everyone in a country
should wear the same thing and eat the same thing ? WHY ?
Humans are primarily characterized by their inner
world, their mental perspectives, and their
common cultural assumptions. A common attitude
towards family and marriage and child-rearing, for
example, or a common perspective on regard for nature,
is FAR MORE important as a common bond than superficial
things like taste in food.
Why is it that nothing in Tagore's writings is alien
to any Indian, while they are exotic to non-Indians ?
( Btw do you wear the Tagorean cloak to feel at one
with his culture ? )
To give you some minor examples, Sankara travelled
from Kerala to Benaras, to dispute with the venerable
72 yr old Guru of orthodox Mimamsa, Mandana Mishra,
passing scores of kingdoms along the way. After Mishra
accepted defeat, Sankara's Advaita became the dominant
interpretation of the Veda all over India. How
could this be possible if all India did not
consider itself bound by the activities in Benaras,
irrespective of the origin of the philosopher ?
He spent his brief life establishing centres all
over the country - no one told him that "foreigners"
couldn't do that ! He, and all others, would have
found the whole notion ridiculous !
How was it that Sri Chaitanya's pilgrimage to Srirangam
in the Tamil province led to an explosion of
Krishna Bhakti in the South ? Obviously the Tamil people
did not consider Sri Chaitanya a "foreigner", but one of
their own, a sage in their own tradition and culture.
Why was Jayadeva's classic Gita-Govindam accepted
as part of the daily chant in the Rameswaram temple
in the deep south, a mere 6 months after its
publication ? This shows the existence of a
literary-devotional nexus all over India, which
made itself aware of texts produced all over India,
could review them, accept them and give them a stamp
of approval. This inspite of formidable logistic problems
involved in transport over our huge country. They certainly
don't seem to have had a notion of India as a bunch of
walled-up, water-tight states. They considered the whole
nation as one, and there was no concept of a foreigner there.
The fact is that throughout history, only castes
have been deeply ingrained in an Indian's self-identity,
while his kingdom has sat only lightly on his consciousness.
A Brahmin from Andhra would have felt far closer
to a Brahmin in Bengal, than to a jeweller in Andhra.
Similar remarks can be made for the other castes
as well. Thus geographic divisions have ALWAYS
meant very little for an Indian, until the advent of
the "political" ideas from 19th c Europe.
-All Muslims are supposed to do pilgrimage at Mecca, does that make
-them a single nation?
Many Muslims do consider themselves one nation.
( Find out what they mean by "ummah". )
That apart, the Islamic countries are too far apart
geographically ( consider Libya and Indonesia ) to
make this viable. This alone should put an end
to this argument. Whereas all Indian regions are
contiguous. If I was positing a Greater India
with Philippine islands in it, your argument would
be pertinent. As it is, it is not.
>Because its current incarnation as a Nation-State owes its
>emergence to Mahatma Gandhi. India as a modern democratic
-We would be much better off if we could accept the truth: India
-(Republic of India) is a multinational state.
Definitely we should accept it IF it is the truth.
But India's commonalities are more significant and profound
than the superficialities that divide her - to educate
oneself in the richness of our unifying culture can be a
thrilling, mind-expanding experience. Try it some time.
-T.H.Sanyal.
RS
ps: Mr Sanyal,
This reply has gotten too long. If you have a response,
we can take it to email. Thanks.
