Does India exist? – an epestemic question put forth by Wallerstein. To begin with, the query is absurd.

If it is taken as ontologically analogous to the theological question `Does God Exist?, then it does not sound that absurd. The questions; how do we know it exists?/ who created India? When? Prior to 1750, the Moghuls called it Hindustan and the colonized south was named by the French `Dravidia’. Was madras a part of historical India? It comes through old sources that Dravidia were distinct, cultures, civilizations or whatever. The question posed historically would ask what happened btw1750-1850 did affect what historically happened between 6th c. B C and 1750. [too overgeneralized a hypothesis], that is presently the conventional dates for pre-modern India. These questions could equally be true of England, Pakistan, Brazil or China. There is no specifying /particularizing India to its past; it is generic about all currently existing nation states. First, India is a product of the modern world-system,…..the structure of this creation began in and from Europe around 1497-1648.. the creation of sovereign states, members of interstate systems. This framework has been strengthening over the past 500 years. This can only be said via the optics of modern world-systems. The actual history, however, is far too complex. < let it remain a counterfactual devise> The second proposition is that India’s pre-modern history is an invention of pre-modern India. < this is seminal qs>. Historians too invent history like the artists, which give them a large leeway, though not total. A narrative that reflects some bizarre psychopathology of the individual author will simply not be read [ but that is not so, as in aggressive hindutva/ communal historiography] or taught, not used. [????] My third proposition is that while India currently exist, nobody knows if it will, 200 years from now. Perhaps the whole of interstate system would disappear. India may become transitory, unimportant. Or it may be deeply re-enforced by `civilization’.

After having said this, let it be told emphatically that There are too many specifics in the Indian case.Its a concrete entity, its different in multitudinous and distinct from other states and civilizations. Specificity offers 2 choices : 1. Either we surrender intellectually that makes the world full of `buzzing confusion’, sans any specificity and also sans India. But I am, here to deny in any way the historical specificity of India. To give a historical interpretation, Whatever is specific is involved in a fluid phenomenon. The historical ground in India are as stable as anywhere in earth.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful