You are on page 1of 20

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.

org Readability

1 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

sankrant.org

Why India Is A Nation


Introduction
One of the oft-repeated urban myths that sometimes pops-up in conversation
even among many educated, well meaning Indians is that India as a nation is a
British creation. The argument goes roughly as follows India is an artificial
entity. There are only a few periods in history when it was unified under the
same political entity. It was only the British that created the idea of India as a
single nation and unified it into a political state. A related assumption, in our
minds, is that the developed Western countries have a comparatively far
greater continuity of nationhood, and legitimacy as states, than India.
This urban myth is not accidental. It was deliberately taught in the British
established system of education. John Strachey, writing in `India: Its
Administration and Progress in 1888, said This is the first and most essential
thing to remember about India that there is not and never was an India,
possessing any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious; no Indian
nation.
To teach this self-serving colonial narrative obviously suited the British policy
of divide and rule. That it still inanely survives means that it is worth setting to
rest.
In this essay, we establish that Stracheys colonial narrative is demonstrably
false. Not only is India a coherent nation but, in fact, there are few countries on
the planet that are more legitimate nation-states than India. That some of us
dont see this clearly only reflects how we have accepted the colonial myths as
well as failed to study the history of the rest of the world.
The Modern States and Their Origins
The concept of nation-states, i.e. that the aspirations of the people that
constitute a nation are best served by a common political entity is considered a
relatively recent idea in Europe from the 18th century. Nationalism led to the
formation of nation-states and modern countries. This development was

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

2 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

followed up with a gradual hardening of state boundaries with the passport


and visa regime that followed it.
Note that the concept of nationhood is based on the idea shared by a set of
people that they constitute a nation. This idea or feeling may be based on
common ties of a people based on their culture, common descent, language,
religion or other such attributes. The state constitutes a group of people
inhabiting a specific territory and living according to a common legal and
political authority.
The modern nation-state, as it exists today, is a new development for the
entire world, and not just for India. Mediaeval Europe, for instance, was
divided politically into many small principalities, the boundaries and
sovereignties of which changed frequently[2]. Many of the countries as we
know them today got established in the 19th and 20th century, and the
boundaries of these changed throughout the 20th century in the two World
Wars, border disputes and the turmoil in Eastern Europe.
The United Kingdom was not really united till the act of Union in 1702 when
England (including Wales) and Scotland came together. Even then they
retained different laws and (even more crucially in European nationhood)
retained separate national Churches. In 1801, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland was formed. In 1922, Ireland broke off as an independent
country resulting in the present political formation the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thus the UK in its present political state,
if that is the criteria to be used, is not even a hundred years old.
Across the Atlantic, the picture is even more stark. In 1700, the British colonies
were spread barely over the area that comprises the few North Eastern States,
less than 10% of the current geographical areas. The diverse Native American
tribes that inhabited the area of the present day United States could not be
said to have comprised a nation, and even if they did, the current United States
neither considers itself as a continuity of the native culture, nor are its people
primarily descendents of the natives. Even in 1776, when America declared
itself a separate state from the British, its area was a small fraction of the area
it has today, mainly constituting the states on the East Coast. Only in 1845 did
Texas and California, among its largest states, become part of it as a result of a
war with Mexico. Washington State gained statehood in 1889, Hawaii in 1900.
Thus the United States in its present political and geographic conception is
barely 100 years old as a state and, at the maximum limit, as a political entity
is about 250 years, with many annexations and a civil war in between. No state

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

3 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

or kingdom existed on its boundaries before that in history.


If you take Mexico, the story is better, but not much. While it has greater
continuity from pre-colonial times than the United States because of the Aztec
Empire that existed for about a hundred years before the Spanish Conquest,
the Aztec never controlled all of present day Mexico. No other conception of
nation-hood, such as shared religious beliefs, united the other areas of Mexico
with the Aztec ones. Furthermore, while present day Mexicans take pride in
their Aztec heritage and use symbols from the Aztec nation on their flag, they
have largely lost any direct cultural continuity of either language or religious
beliefs from pre-colonial times. Spanish has very nearly wiped out the native
languages and 95% of Mexicans are now Christians and described as
`Hispanic. i.e. of the Spanish culture.
Similarly, Africa and South America mostly constitute of state boundaries
carved up by colonial rule. The present boundaries of the African states were
largely carved out by treaties among the European nations between 1884 and
1899 in meetings held in Europe with no African representation into the
process! While there had been some kingdoms like Ghana and Mali in earlier
times that were politically united, the boundaries of current African countries
rarely map to the territories of historical kingdoms.
In short, if we take the legitimacy of current nation-states on the basis of
centuries of common continuous political rule over the same geographical
boundary and inhabited by the same people, then practically no country on the
planet meets this criteria. Simply put, shifting nature of political kingdoms and
their boundaries over the centuries legitimize virtually no country in its present
form.
To understand nationhood then as it is supports the modern nation-state, we
thus must search the roots of nationhood first and foremost in the conception
of nationhood, i.e. did a particular set of people, within a particular geography,
imagine of themselves a common socio-cultural geographical heritage that
comprised them as a nation?
Understanding Indian Nationhood
Geography
The first element of Indian nationhood draws from its unique geography. India
is one of the few countries that can be located on a physical map of the world,
even when no political boundaries are drawn. It is worth taking a deep breath

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

4 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

and looking at the map below, reflecting on the significance of this geography
before we go further.

Fig 1: Indias geographical unity


The Indian peninsula and vast plains are bounded by the ocean on three sides
and the land stretches to the highest peaks of the Himalayas in the north. The
vast sweep of the land ends in the East with the mountainous border with
Burma. In the West, just past the Indus, the mountains come downwards
towards the ocean again forming a natural boundary.
Early civilizations all developed on the banks of great river systems Egypt on
the Nile, Mesopotamia on the Tigris and Euphrates, the Chinese on the
Yangste Kiang. Thus civilization developed on the great river systems of the
Indus and the Gangetic plain one of the richest river-soil-climate systems in
the world; and on the Narmada and Cauvery. And because of the ease of access
in this land throughout the ages, there was an enormous interchange of
thought and ideas, people and customs, and there developed a culture that is
distinctly Indian, and at the same time incredibly diverse.
The cultures distinctive nature evolved precisely because the unique geography
facilitated it. The large mountains and bodies of water separated it from
surrounding cultures to give it its distinctiveness. The low barriers to
movement within this land mass ensured an ease of access to build a coherent
whole. This ensured that the exchanges that took place within this large
separated petri dish were much deeper and longer lasting than those that took
place with those from without. Hence was created a unique and diverse
civilization.

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

5 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

Political Unity
Among the earliest political consolidations, even by the dates of present
colonial scholarship, was under the Mauryas from the 6th century BC to the
3rd century BC, when most of India was under their rule.
After the Mauryas, there was repeated political consolidation of large parts of
India, even when all of it was not under a single rule. The Kanishkas
consolidated the north from the Hindu Kush Mountains to Bihar and south to
Gujarat and Central India. The Satavahana Empire, considered to be founded
by high officials of the Mauryas, consolidated the south and central parts.
The Gupta Empire again politically consolidated the area from Afghanistan to
Assam and south to the Narmada, possibly exerting political control even
further down south. Samudragupta led an expedition all the way down to
Kanchipuram in present Tamil Nadu. While the southern areas were not
formally part of the Empire, they were quite likely de-facto vassal states, paying
tribute to the Emperor. The only other major comparable empires in the world
of this size at the time were the Chinese and the Roman.
Note that it would be a thousand years after the Mauryan Empire was
established and even much after the Gupta Empire that the Anglo-Saxons in
the 5th century AD would first move into the region that would later be called
England. It would be nearly five hundred more years before the territory of
England would be consolidated as an independent political entity. Only much
later would there be attempts at unity of `Great Britain. The `United
Kingdom that includes Scotland, Wales and Ireland, as we mentioned earlier,
is only a recent political artifact.
After the Gupta Empire, the Chalukya-Chola dynasty consolidated most of
India in the south, leading expeditions even up to the north of the Ganges
river.
Later on, much of India would be consolidated again under the Mughals, and
after the Mughal empire disintegrated, by the British.
So while the British were the last power, before the current state of India, to
administratively consolidate its territory (as well as to divide it up as they left),
they were by no means the first ones to do so.
Even when multiple kingdoms existed, these kingdoms were not like the
countries of today with a passport and visa regime needed to cross and all

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

6 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

kinds of regulations on movement of goods and people. A continued exchange


of ideas, people, goods and scholarship took place throughout the
sub-continent, largely unmindful of the boundaries of kingdoms.
Furthermore, the territorial boundaries of India were largely maintained. There
were few, if any, times before the British came when large parts of India were
consolidated into kingdoms that were centered outside it. There were no
significant long-lasting kingdoms, for instance, that ruled from Persia to the
Ganges plain, or from Burma to Bengal, or from China or Tibet to Delhi. There
was a separateness and integrity to this land, unlike European countries or
even Europe as a whole. For centuries, the Romans consolidated north Africa
and southern Europe into one contiguous centrally ruled empire, as did the
Ottomans after them. Central Asia became part of one external empire or
another.
Even in the case of the British, when all of India became part of a larger empire
centered outside it for the first time, it was clear that it was distinct from
Burma, for instance, even though they were contiguous land areas ruled by the
British. And thus the freedom movements in Burma and India were separate.
Burma and India did not become one after their respective independence, nor
was there any call by Indian or Burmese nationalists to do so.
Thus there was an idea of India that made it be regarded as a separate and
whole, even through political change and shifting boundaries of internal
kingdoms.
The Idea of India
This then becomes our second question is the idea of India as a unit a new
idea brought by the British or did it exist long before the British came? Did the
people of this vast land recognize that they were linked together? Did they
share a common story of their civilization, of their Indian-ness,
their Bharatiyata? Remarkably, the idea of India, as Bharatavarsha
orAryavrata, appears to have been alive for thousands of years in our stories,
thousands of years before there was an America or a Great Britain or a Mexico
or France.
From the Manusmriti, we learn of the land of Aryavrata stretching from the
Himalayas and Vindhyas all the way to the eastern and western oceans.
Without the idea of Bharata, there could have been no epic called the
Maha-Bharata that engaged kings throughout this land of Bharata. The story

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

7 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

of Mahabharata shows a remarkable degree of pan-Indian context and interrelationships, from Gandhari, the wife of Drithrashtra who came from
Gandhara, (spelled as Kandahar in present-day Afghanistan), Draupadi from
Panchala (present day Jammu and Kashmir), all the way to Arjun meeting and
marrying the Naga princess Uloopi on a visit to Manipur in the east (from
where he gets the `Mani or Gem). Interestingly, Arjuna is said to have gone on
a pilgrimage to the holy places of the east when this happens, showing the
current North-East was very much linked in this. Finally, Krishna himself is
from Mathura and Vrindavana (in UP) though his kingdom itself is in Dwarka
(Gujarat).
Similarly, the story of Ramayana draws the north-south linkage from Ayodhya
all the way down to Rameshwaram, at the tip of which is finally the land of
Lanka. Note that it is not, for this particular thesis, important that the stories
are historically accurate. What we are interested in rather is whether the idea
of India or Bharatavarsha or Aryavrata as a culturally linked entity existed in
the minds of the story-tellers and ultimately in the minds of the people to
whom these stories were sacred. And these stories were then taken and told
and retold in all the languages of the people of this great civilization, till the
stories themselves established a linkage among us and to the sacred geography
they celebrated. This sacred geography is what makes northerners flock to
Tirupati and southerners to the Kumbha Mela.
And the diffusion of these common ideas was certainly not only from the north
to south. The great Bhakti movement started in the 6th and 7th centuries AD
had its roots in the south in the Tamil and Kannada languages. Even while the
boundaries of kingdoms changed, enormous cultural and religious unity
continued to take place across India. It started off with the Alvars and the
Nayanars (Tamil, 7th to 10th century AD), Kamban (Tamil, 11th century),
Basava (Kannada, 12th century) and moved on to Chaitanya Mahaprabu
(Bengali, 15th century), Ramananda (15th century, born in Allahabad of south
India parentage, guru of Kabir, 15th century), Raskhan (16th century), Surdas
(Braj, 16th century), Mirabia (Rajasthan, 16th century), Tulsidas (Avadhi, 16th
century), Nanak (Punjabi, 16th century) and Tukaram (Marathi, 17th century),
among the many. All these together weaved a garland across the land that
spoke again of our common truths, our common cultural heritage.
The Bhakti movement retold our ancient stories in the language of the
common people, in Marathi and Bengali, in Avadhi (present day UP) and
Bhojpuri (present day Bihar), in Gujarati and Punjabi and in Rajasthani. We

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

8 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

can marvel at the cultural unity in India, where while theBhakti poets initiated
the great movement for devotion to Shiva in the south, the erudite philosophy
of Kashmir Shaivism was being developed coevally in the north. Or that
Kamban in the south was the first poet to take the story of Rama to the major
regional languages, and Tulsidas, much closer to Ayodhya, came centuries
later. Or that the great Krishna bhaktaChaitanya was celebrating his devotion
to the King of Dwarka in Bengal while Tukaram sang praises of Lord Vithal in
the west. An immense body of pan-Indian worship revolved around the triad of
Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti in their various forms whether as Rama, Krishna,
Sri Venkateshwara, Sri Dakshinamurti, Jagdamba, Durga Mata or Kali. These
common stories were told and retold without the mandate of any central
church and seeped through the pores of the land of Bharata, forging a shared
bond, unlike any other seen on the planet.
It was this idea of civilizational unity and sacred geography of India that
inspired Shankaracharya to not only enunciate the mysteries of the Vedanta
but to go around setting upmathas circumscribing the land of India in a large
diamond shape. While sage Agasthya crossed the Vindhya and came down
south, Shankracharya was born in the village of Kalady in Kerala and traveled
in the opposite direction for the establishment of dharma. If this land was not
linked in philosophical and cultural exchanges, and there was no notion of a
unified nation, why then did Shankracharya embark on his
countrywide digvijay yatra? What prompted him to establish centers
spreading light for the four quadrants of this land Dwarka in the west (in
Gujarat), Puri in the east (in Orissa), Shringeri in the south (Karnataka) and
Badrinath (Uttaranchal) in the north? He is then said to have gone to Srinagar
(the abode of `Sri or the Shakti) in Kashmir, which still celebrates this in the
name of Shankaracharya Hill. What better demonstration that the idea of the
cultural unity of the land was alive more than a thousand years ago?
And yet, these stories are not taught to us in our schools in India. We learn
instead, in our colonial schools, that the British created India and gave us a
link language, as if we were not talking to each other for thousands of years,
traveling, telling and retelling stories before the British came. How else did
these ideas travel so rapidly through the landmass of India, and how did
Shankracharya circumscribe India, debating, talking and setting up
institutions all within his short lifespan of 32 years?

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

9 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

Fig 2: Ideas of India: Shankaracharya and Shakti


These ideas of our unity have permeated all our diverse darshanas. We have
talked aboutBhakti and Vedanta and the epics of the Ramayana and the
Mahabharata. But this idea of unity was not limited to particular schools. They
were equally present in the tantric schools that exerted a tremendous influence
on popular worship. Thus we have the legend of Shakti, whose body was
carried by Shiva and cut up by Vishnu, landing in 51 places throughout the
landmass of India that are now the site of the Shakti Peetham temples. The
body of Shakti, or so the story goes, fell all the way from Neelayadakshi Kovil
in Tamil Nadu to Vaishno Devi in Jammu, from Pavagadh in Gujarat to the
Kamakshi temple in Assam and 47 other places.
Why would the story conceive of these pieces of Shakti sanctifying and falling
precisely all over the landmass of India, rather than all of them falling in Tamil
Nadu or Assam or Himachal (or alternately, Yunan (Greece) or China, or some
supposed `Aryan homeland in Central Asia) unless someone had a conception
of the unity of the land and civilization of Bharatavarsha? Whether these
stories are actual or symbolic, represent real events or myths, it is clear from
them that the idea of India existed in the minds of those that told these stories
and those that listened. Together, all these stories wove and bound us together,
along with migration, marriages and exchange of ideas into a culture unique in
the story of mankind. A nation that was uniquely bound together in myriads of
ways, yet not cast into a mono-conceptual homogeneity of language, worship,
belief or practice by the diktat of a centralized church, intolerant of diversity.
And this unity as nation has been with us far before the idea of America

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

10 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

existed. Far before the Franks had moved into northern France and the
Visigoths into Spain, before the Christian Church was established and Islam
was born. They have been there before Great Britain existed, before the Saxons
had moved into Britannia. They have been there while empires have fallen,
from when Rome was a tiny village to when it ruled an empire that rose and
collapsed.
Thus the Arabs and Persians already had a conception of Hind far before the
Mughal Empire was established. If we suggest that their conception of Hind
was derived only from their contact with Sindh in western India, why would
the British, when they landed in Bengal, form the EastIndia Company, unless
the conception of the land of India (a term derived from the original Hind) was
shared by the natives and the British? They used this name much before they
had managed to politically hold sway over much of India, and before they
educated us that no India existed before their arrival. Why would the
Portuguese celebrate the discovery of a sea-route to India when Vasco de Gama
had landed in Calicut in the south, if India was a creation of the British
Empire?
The answer is obvious. Because the conception of India, a civilization based in
the Indian sub-continent, predates the rise and fall of these empires. True, that
large parts of India were under unified political rule only during certain periods
of time (though these several hundreds of years are still enormous by the scale
of existence of most other countries throughout the globe) such as under the
Mauryas or the Mughals. But those facts serve to hide rather than reveal the
truth till we understand the history of the rest of the world and realize the
historic social, political and religious unity of this land. We are not merely a
country; we are a civilizational country, among very few other countries on the
planet.
Some Other Civilizational Countries
While we occupy the rarefied space of countries that have as much legitimacy
and continuity as civilizations, it is worth examining a few others civilizations
that have lasted. The country of Greece is one such country. However, Greece as
a contemporary state was established in the 19th century, coughed up by the
Ottoman Empire as it was breathing its last. Over the centuries, Greece has not
existed as an independent political entity, having been absorbed by the Roman
Empire and assimilated into the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. Ironically,
the rise of contemporary Greek nationalism can be traced to the late 18th
century, when Greek students studying in Europe came to realize that their

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

11 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

civilization was actually highly regarded in western Europe. This resurgent


pride about the ancient Greek civilization formed the basis of the movement to
establish the modern Greek state even though there was no political continuity
between the two entities.
If the continuity of political unification is the criteria that is used to define the
legitimacy of a country, then Greece is far less legitimate than India, and other
countries around the globe are even less so. The boundaries of the
contemporary Greek state do not match with the original Greek Empire.
Furthermore, even ancient Greece constituted of politically independent
city-states, united more by the feeling that they belonged to the same culture,
rather than having political unity. So clearly the measure of political
unification, even when it did hold true for large parts of India over the ages, is
not the relevant criteria, but the idea of a shared culture and civilization.
The only other continuous civilizations that come close to India as legitimate
nations are nation-civilizations like Egypt, Iran and China. But Egypt, though
old, having been assimilated in various empires and conquered first by
Christianity and then by Islam, hardly retains much contact with its ancient
traditions, languages or indigenous religion. Similarly Iran, the inheritor of the
Persian empire which reached its peak in the 6th century BC, was assimilated
into other empires and finally conquered by Islamic Arabs it retains little of
its Zoroastrian roots, though it retains its pre-Islamic language, albeit in Arab
script. China is the other civilizational nation that can claim to have a
legitimacy and continuity similar to India. However, for most of its history,
Chinese civilization developed and concentrated in the Eastern plains.
Consolidated rule, either political, social or religious/ideological over the entire
vast area that present-day China occupies is relatively recent. Indian Buddhism
obviously had a huge influence on China. Interestingly, despite communism
and the Cultural Revolution, Chinese intellectuals have sought to link the roots
of present day communist ideology with the teachings of Confucius.
So there we have it. India is one of the few nations of the world with a
continuity of civilization and an ancient conception of nationhood. In its
religious, civilizational, cultural and linguistic continuity, it truly stands alone.
This continuity was fostered by its unique geography and its resilient religious
traditions. Unlike any other country on the planet, it retained these traditions
despite both Islamic and Christian conquest, when most countries lost theirs
and were completely converted when losing to even one of these crusading
systems. The Persians fell, the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Babylon were

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

12 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

lost, the Celtic religion largely vanished, and the mighty Aztecs were
vanquished, destroyed and completely Christianized. Yet Bharata stands. It
stands in our stories, our languages, our pluralism and our unity. And as long
as we remember these stories, keep our languages and worship the sacred land
of our ancestors, Bharata will stand. It is only if we forget these truths that
Bharata will cease to be. That is precisely why the British tried to hard to make
us forget them.
Purva-paksha: the opposing side
Indian scholarly traditions often presented opposing viewpoints with the
thesis. Here are some objections that may arise.
Objection #1
What you are calling the Indian civilization is actually the Sanskritic
civilization of the Aryans who were invaders.
There are many theories about migrations of people into the Indian
sub-continent. Some contend that a tribe of people called the Aryans migrated
from somewhere in the Middle East or Central Asia. Others contend that no
such migration took place and the Aryans were original inhabitants of the
Sindhu (or Sindhu-Sarswati) region. Still others hold that `Aryan was never
an ethnic term but the word `Arya in Sanskrit basically means a noble person.
In any case, practically all countries that exist today were settled by migrants.
The Saxons, the Franks and the Visigoths were all migrants to western
European countries such as present day England, France and Spain. North
America was recently settled (or more accurately, usurped) by migrants. Even
the Native Americans in North and South America are considered to have
migrated from Asia 30,000 years ago. At some point in history, it may be that
all people came from Africa. Clearly, using this criterion, all nations of today
are illegitimate.
So the validity or lack thereof of a particular Aryan migration theory, even
assuming such a migration ever actually took place, does not concern us.
Suffice to say, that even those that subscribe to the theory of an invasion or
migration place the date no later than 1500 BC. By contrast, the Saxon reached
present-day England in only the 5th or 6th century AD, about 2000 years after
the hypothetical Aryan migration yet England is considered an Anglo-Saxon
country and no one wastes a whole lot of energy arguing otherwise or creating

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

13 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

political factions representing the `pre-Saxon people. That a hypothetical


Aryan invasion 3500 years ago is still relevant to our politics shows the absurd
divisions created in our minds by colonial theories, intended to keep us
fighting amongst ourselves on artificial boundaries.
So, regardless of whether there were such a people as Aryans or whether they
came from the outside, our interest is in the fact that the people who have
inhabited India over the last 3000 or more years formed both a conception of
Indian nationhood and a distinct civilizational continuity.
Our hymns sing glories of the Himalayas, not of the Caucuses. Our stories talk
of the Vindhyachal not a mountain in the Central Asia. We sing of the Ganga
and the Cauvery, not the Amu Darya. Thus for thousands of years the people
who have lived in India have celebrated its sacred geography. Regardless of
their origins in pre-history, our ancestral people made the land of India their
home and wove stories around its features.
Objection #2
Isnt India simply like all of Europe, sharing some common history
and religious ideas but no more?
Parts of Europe came under the rule of the Roman Empire and later the
Byzantine and Ottoman Empires. None of these Empires held sway over all of
what is the territory of Europe today. Rather, their areas of control were largely
around the Mediterranean Sea parts of southern Europe, northern Africa and
the Middle East. There has also been some uniformity of religion in Europe
imposed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
But, there has been no empire of Europe. Eastern, western and Scandinavian
Europe have had substantially different histories and cultural, linguistic and
ethnic origins.
There is a more significant difference. The land of India has been thought of
and considered a sacred whole by the people of India in a way that is simply
not true of Europe.
As the Shankracharya of Kanchi said recently, for thousands of years, Indians
throughout the land have woken up in the morning and sang a hymn
celebrating the holy rivers of Ganga, Yamuna, Narmada, Godavari, Sindu,
Saraswati and Cauvery as part of nitya kriya, or daily worship.
gange ca yamune caiva, godAvari sarasvati

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

14 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

narmade sindho kAveri, jalesminn sannidhiM kuru


Thus our hymns and religious stories not only share common themes, heroes
and deities, they also uniquely link us to this particular land in a way Christian
stories do not link to the land of Europe. There are no hymns that Europeans
sang that spoke of the land from the Urals to Scandinavia or from the Arctic
Ocean to the Mediterranean as one. No one sang devotional songs listing all
the major rivers of Europe, east to west. The idea of Europe is like another
continent, like Africa or Americas with some shared geography and history
but no historic conception of the integrated whole as a unity that was
recognized among all the common people.
Thus there have been no religious stories of Europe linked to its particular
boundaries and capturing the common fealty of the people, unlike the story of
Shakti being dispersed over the land of India in peethams that millions of
people visit, or the sage who set up mathas in the four quadrants of the land,
or who wrote the Mahabharata, or who wrote of the land
of Bharatvarshaand Aryavrata. So there is a unity to India, an Indian
nationhood that is far greater than any shared similarities between Europe.
Objection #3
If the British hadnt been here, wouldnt we be a bunch of fighting
kingdoms?
The British certainly contributed to the political re-unification of the land, just
as the Mughals had done before that. But they re-unified politically an existing
civilization entity. This entity had existed long before they came, had been
politically re-united in the past and will exist long after they have gone.
The British experience is part of who we are today, so they certainly added to
our civilization. But the British also divided and partitioned us, not only
physically but also mentally. They also impoverished us and planted many
seeds of divisive scholarship that cut us from our roots and our sense of
nationhood.
There are many entities today who would see us become a bunch of fighting
states, all the easier for political, religious and economic conquest. But a
division of India is like cutting a human body. We are already bleeding from
the cuts inflicted 50 years ago. Eternal vigilance is the price of our freedom.
Telling our common stories, the core of our nationhood.

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

15 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

Objection #4
You are excluding Islamic contributions and Indian Muslims from
your definition
This essay is about finding the historic roots of the Indian civilization and
defining who we are as people and as a nation. We have had many migrants
and invaders. While Islam has contributed to the Indian civilization, our roots
are much older than when Prophet Mohammad first appeared in Arabia in the
6th century AD, so our civilization cannot be defined by Islam. Alexander the
Greek came to our shores, so did the Kushans and Mongols and Persians and
Turks. All of them added their contributions to our civilization as we did to
theirs. The Mughal Empire helped in our political re-unification. But none of
them define who we are.
We had the great Chinese civilization towards the north and the Persian
civilization towards our west. Each of them influenced us as we influenced
them. But because the Chinese came under Buddhist influence from India does
not mean that they cease to be the Chinese civilization, an entity with a
distinct cultural flavor and history from India.
Similarly, the Persians and the Turks came in many waves and contributed to
Indian culture, even as we did to theirs. This does not mean that our
civilization suddenly became Persian or Turkish. Some of these people settled
in India, some of them brought a new religion called Islam and converted some
of the existing people. All those who ultimately accept India as their homeland
are accepted as Indians, for we have been a welcoming land. It would be a
strange case indeed if conversion to Islam led people to deny the roots of their
civilization. Do the Persians cease to be Persians, now that they are Muslims?
Islam does not define nationhood. If it did, the entire region from Saudi Arabia
to Pakistan would be one country. Iran and Iraq would be one large Islamic
country, rather than separate entities based on Persian and Babylonian
civilizational roots. Indonesia and Malaysia would be one country.
Thus the civilizational roots of India belong to all Indians, Hindus, Muslims
and Christians. Indonesian Muslims dont trace their civilizational roots from
Arabia, but from the Indonesian culture developed over the centuries. As Saeed
Naqvi writes, the Ramayana ballet is performed in Indonesia by 150 namazsaying Muslims under the shadow of Yog Jakartas magnificent temples for the
past 27 years without a break Indonesians can apparently celebrate their

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

16 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

civilizational roots without conflict of their being Muslims. There is no reason


that Muslim Indians feel any differently unless led by the creation of fear or
sustained demagoguery to believe otherwise.
Objection #5
Indian Muslims are Arabs, Persians and Turks, not originally
Indian
Some Indian Muslims are descendents of Persian, Turks and others. Many
more are descendents of people who have been in India for thousands of years.
In the Indian Muslim caste system, the invaders were considered higher castes
than the natives and tracing ones `foreign status often yielded greater
prestige, leading more people to identify themselves thus[3]. As late as the
early 20th century, some Indian Muslims continued to identify themselves as
`Hindu Mussalmans (as they might have been called) to census takers
marking the civilizational, rather than religious (in a separative sense)
meaning of the term Hindu[4].
In either case, it is somewhat irrelevant. Even the Persians and Turks who
settled here in numbers came here far before America, for instance, existed as a
country. The Indian civilization has assimilated many people into its bosom
and there is no reason that the descendents of the Persians or Turks who
migrated to India can be considered any less Indian as result.
Objection #6
You say that Islam is not the basis of nationhood, yet Pakistan is
founded on the very premise. Your geographical conception of India
includes present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. Do you want to
create an Akhand Bharat and re-unite India by force?
Pakistan is an entity with no civilization basis. In an attempt to create one,
Pakistani history textbooks teach that Pakistan was established by Babur as
`Mughlistan[5]. However, Babur was a Turk of Mongol descent and the
majority of people that live in Pakistan today are certainly not descendents of
Turks or Mongols nor is their civilisation Turkic. Pakistans crisis of identity
emerges primarily from the rejection of their ancient civilizational roots in the
name of `religion. Till they can reconcile to their roots, they will remain a
rootless nation, preserved per force by the state apparatus as long as it lasts.
The idea of Bharata certainly goes from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

17 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

Sindh to Manipur. However, the idea of re-uniting Pakistan or Bangladesh to


India is unviable at this point in history. The best one can hope for is that the
people of Pakistan and Bangladesh themselves become aware at some point of
their deep civilization roots that have been taken away from them in the name
of religion.
Objection #7
India is not a `Hindu rashtra, you are trying to make India into a
Hindu rashtra.
The interest of this essay is in establishing what is true, not in any political
flavor of the day. In the multi-century big picture, particular political
movements or systems of government will come and go, but the history of our
civilizational roots still needs to be understood and articulated.
Our reading of history certainly does not support Hindu rashtra as a religious
concept that means it is only for those people who are currently called
`Hindus as a religious term. Classically, Hindu has been a civilizational, not a
religious term, nor is it exclusive. `Hinduism is different from Abrahmic
religion in this regard.
Surprising enough, even the article in Encarta on nationhood recognizes that:
India is a nation in which the Hindu religion served as the cohesive
traditional element in uniting peoples of various races, religions and
languages.
Has Encarta been saffronized? Or is it merely stating the obvious, albeit in a
westernized framework? That there is no India without what has been called
`Hinduism. This by no mean implies that all the people have to `convert to a
religion called Hinduism to be Indians. It also doesnt imply that those who
worship Allah or Christ as a religious idea are inherently lesser citizens or
disloyal. Rather, it is simply recognition of the civilizational heritage that links
us together as a nation.
In contemporary times, the civilizational term Hindu has been replaced by the
term Indians. The roots of the Indian civilization, when the concept of the land
of Bharata or Aryavrata was articulated and absorbed by the people of this
land, are thousands of years old. Even though much of what constitutes these
roots is now classified as `Hinduism, which is unfortunate and limiting, the
wide diversity of our civilizational beliefs and quest for knowledge and

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

18 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

understanding cannot be confined to a religious dogma or belief system it


belongs to all Indians. Furthermore, pluralism is a basic principle of Hindu
thought, which leaves plenty of room for other beliefs in the framework of
mutual respect as long as these beliefs are not directed at destroying the
roots of the very civilization that holds them.
Certainly, those that are called `Jains today have stories that refer to Krishna,
the `Sikh Guru Granth Sahib has hundreds of mentions of `Rama and many
Muslims are quite happy to acknowledge their roots in the Indian civilization.
Hundreds of Indian Muslim poets have celebrated their civilizational roots
Abdul Rahim Khan-e-khan wrote poems in praise of Rama, in Sanskrit; Justice
Ismail of Chennai was the leading authority on Kamban Ramayana; Kazi
Nazrul Islam wrote powerful revolutionary poetry in Bengali replete with
references to Kali. In recent times, the script for the entire Mahabharta epic
was written by Masoom Raza Rahi; and who can ignore the inspiration that
our Gita-reading president Abdul Kalam from Rameswaram is providing to the
nation.
Similarly, Indian Christians can be both Indian and Christian without denying
their cultural roots. Says Fr Michael Rosario, who teaches Indology at St Pius:
As an Indian priest, Indian spirituality is my heritage and culture. Fr Michael
Gonsalves goes a step further: We must substitute the Old Testament of the
Bible with Indian history, scriptures and arts. For us, the Holy Land should be
India; the sacred river the Ganges; the sacred mountain the Himalayas, the
heroes of the past not Moses, or David, but Sri Ram or Krishna.
All these people have had no trouble in reconciling their reverence to Allah or
Jesus without denying the civilizational heritage that binds us together.
The converse of this is also true that the way to break us apart is to
systematically deny and denigrate our civilizational roots. This is exactly the
tactic the British used.
Thus the evangelical Baptists preaching in the North East have over the last
few decades told the Nagas that they dont really belong with the Indian
civilization despite the fact that they have a place in our stories as far back as
the Mahabharata, when Arjun goes on a pilgrimage to the holy places of the
east and marries the Naga princess Uloopi. Similarly do Manipur, Tripura,
Meghalaya, Assam and the other states in the North East.
The situation in Kashmir, spurred on by Pakistan, is a surviving artifact of the

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

19 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

two-nation theory even while Kashmir has always been a significant part of the
Indian story, its religion and philosophy. The Khalistani separatist movement
is also the outcome of decades of colonial scholarship that continues till today
to prove that Sikhs are completely different from the `caste-ridden Hindus and
emphasizes the separateness rather than the common roots. While the Khalsa
panth was clearly established as a separate path, the teachings of Guru Nanak
can be placed very precisely in the Bhakti tradition while keeping to the idea of
a Nirguna Brahma.Guru Granth Sahib is liberally saturated in the
philosophical and religious streams of Indiandharma, yet contemporary
scholars continuing the colonial tradition often fail to educate people about
this. The root of all movements to break India are ultimately found in denying
the religious and cultural unity of the Indian people whether it be found in
movements inspired by colonial scholarship, communism, pan-Islamism or
evangelical Christianity.
Objection #8
I am not religious, but am a patriotic secular Indian. Why is all this
relevant today? I am uncomfortable with the idea of religion
defining our nation we are a secular country.
The idea of being `religious is ultimately a western idea. In the Indian
tradition, there were atheistic and materialistic schools of thought, like
Charvaka, all of which get lumped under `Hinduism. Obviously, if we take the
Abrahmic idea of religion, atheistic religion is absurd you cant really be a
Christian atheist or a `Muslim atheist not so long ago you would be hung
for heresy. Hinduism is a colonial term for the rich banquet of the dharmic
traditions that cannot be combined under the framework of religion. Indian
civilization is a much broader concept than narrow restrictive dogmas that
define religions.
A secular state is a system of government. We have embraced secularism
precisely because of our long civilizational history of accepting plurality of
thought and worship. This is how it must remain. However, secularism does
not define nationhood in any way. There are plenty of secular states. What is
unique about us is that we are Indians with a history of civilization rooted in
our religious and cultural ideas. That is why we are a nation today, not because
of secularism. If false notions of secularism prevent us from understanding the
roots of our nationhood, we will all be the lesser for it.
But to get back to the question, nations are born, but are also made. If we fail

07-12-2012 21:27

Why India Is A Na on sankrant.org Readability

20 of 20

h p://www.readability.com/ar cles/jtyc5pen

to understand our common civilization, we will ultimately fall prey to those


that seek to destroy us by convincing us that we have none, that India is a
British construction and so on. The effect of this will not only be a separation
from the Indian state, but from the Indian tradition. To see the devastating
effects of this, consider that we are still paying the price of our first partition
based on accepting colonial ideas and still struggling with its wounds.
If India gets split up into different countries, we will all lose there will be
more wars, more armies, and all the lines we draw will be artificial and straight
across our hearts.
Every child in America in a public school recites an oath of allegiance every
morning in front of the American flag. They obviously take their nationhood
seriously, even as they are a young nation. While we are old as a civilization,
we are young as a country. Our education is based on colonial scholarship.
Nationhood is ultimately a feeling of being one people. To strengthen this
feeling and being resilient to divisive propaganda, we need to see that every
child in India is educated about why we are a nation, lest we forget why we are
together.
Sankrant Sanu 2002-2010. All rights reserved.

Original URL:
http://sankrant.org/2003/10/why-india-is-a-nation/

07-12-2012 21:27