▼
Simply put, Yes.
Simply put, Yes.
To provide strength to my statement I would like to present the prevailing counter argument “Why India was not always a nation” and then will be delving in colonial era in order to corroborate relevant facts to nullify the counter argument.
Then, I will focus on relevant facts that supports my argument that India was always a nation by going on an excursion to past .
British came to India in around 17th century and around mid 18th century they got transformed into a political power from an economic one. By doing so they claim an ostentatious achievement of creating a nation India---hitherto non-existent notion to natives. According to British perception this uncivilised piece of land had now one political identity ie.The British India.
Now lets look at the meaning of a Nation:
a) According to Oxford- a British Dictionary “Nation can be defined as a country with same language, culture and history”
now we know India has/had never used same language, let alone culture.
So, can we say according to this british dictionary India was and is not a nation. Answer is pretty straight forward NO.
Lets look into the current situation of the very self declared epitome of civilisation, The Greati Britain; Other then English there are other languages like Irish and scottish which are very popular in eastern and norther Britain. Recently there was a refrendum in Scottland to carve out a separate scottish identity as nation. So if we accepts British defination of nation then Britain is not a nation. Lets see another defination of nation which is widely accepted by scholars.
b) “Nation is a state whose inhabitants identify themselve with the state.” To understand it in a better way lets take an example of America—the neo Great Britain. America has 50 states(political unit) each having a separate constitution and separate flag. About 40% of Americans speak Spanish . But inspite of so much Political, social, economic and ethnic differences the inhabitants of all 50 states together does identify them selves as American. hence America is a nation.
To put the final nail on the coffin of “British/Colonial argument of nation” I will like to Quote Winston Churchill “India is a geographical term, it is no more a united nation then a Equator” . These words of The colonial Master during the later half of the 20th century, when we were to get independence, are self-evident that till the time they rouled india, they never considered her as a nation.
Now since we know what a nation
really is, our work get reduced to search only those evidences that show that
sense of belongingness or a common identity existed in pre colonial era.
Lets go on an excursion of common economic identity of this misterious nation. In15th century during the reign of Sher Sah Suri, Grand Trunk Road was built. It was further improved during the reign of Timurids(British called them Mughals). In colonial Era, a british pshycophant called Rudyard Kipling described this road as “A river of life as never exists in the world”. Hence even in the eyes of colonial empire India was highly and efficiently integrated; At present this Grand Trunk road exists as NH2.
lets look it from a different perspective; whether Indians themselve accepted this economic integration as their common identity or they treated it just as an ordinary trade between two nation without any common identity.
North Indian empires be it Moryan or Gupta, when traded with the empires of south like Pallavas or Cholas they used the words like “Dakshipatha” but when Empires of present Central Asian like Arabs traded with any of the kingdoms of India they used “Meluha during Harrapaa 2500BCE” , “Bharata in around 500 BCE” or “Hind during Meideval era”. So when delt with foreign trade, all the then Indian kingdoms were seen as one.
Now lets analyse political identity and cultural identity. During Maryan empire India was almost one political unit so was it during Guptas and Mughal rule. Even when it got politically disintigrated it remained culturally integrated. At this point I will like to highlight my approach to history “Historical events should never be judged from present but from the environmental setup of past” .
So the question arises if cultural unity was more relevant then political unity? To vindicate this Lets look into another piece of evidence “Gandatindu Jatka” (A buddhist text), It contains several story depicting life of common people. It provides us an opportunity to peep into past. One can easily realise that common people has nothing to do with the kings ruling over them. For them entire Indian landmass was their home. When they were tortured by some king they often flee to neighnouring one contraty to popular belief of stagging a revolution. The fact that these people were accepted without any degradation of their status shows a family touch among common people. In other parts of world these people who were fleeing can be captured as a slave or their social status might be degraded ; in worse situtaion they might not be accepted by people of other kingdom.
Talking about culture, irresepective of languages or architecture, one can found Themes of Ramayna and Mahabharata in both North and South temples. Infact academic analysis of both Ramayna and Mahabharata shows depiction of entire indian geography. Ramayna = a tale in which protagonist travels from north to south, depiction of route remarkably matches with actural one.
while Mahabharata=a tale in which main protagonist takes the journey from east to west.
now lets look into another major culture caled islam. Contray to the popular belief, Islam in India came as friendly traders way before Mughals or Afghans invasion. One major proof to this is Mappila muslims in kerla, although in general muslims are rigidly patriarch in structure but Mappila muslim has Matrilineal society that is “husband after marriage lives in wifes huse” . this happened because they came to india during muhamad’s era that is before cultural ossification of Islam.
About 8th cent AD Sufi sant of Islam played a major role in blunting the cultural rigidity of hinduism like castiesm and complicated rituals. It got so engraved in indian society that even now Sikh an off soute of hindu has many Quranic verse in Guru Granth Sahib . Mughal prince Dara Shikoh translated Gita into Urdu.
but If Islam identified themselves with India then why did partition occour?
Anwer to this question is very plain and simple “Divide and Rule policy” of British Raj. In Pre colonial India there was a community called “Hussaini Brahman”; Sanjay Dutt (Film Actor) is also a Hussaini Brahman, they celebrates Diwali and id both. Infact innumerable document shows that without hindus presence ID or Moharram was not celebrated by muslims and without Muslims participation Dussahrah wasn’t celebrated by hindus. Even now in many places of kolkata , its muslim community who stiches clothes for hindu saffron flag as tradition. But everything changed when British Literally divided the community in 1905 to dilute the spectre of united revolts of hindus and muslims in revolt of 1857.
Lets return to the topic of Nation, if partition is the only evidence that India was never a nation since some muslim leaders led the believers in wrong direction , Then how can one explain the formation of Bangladesh. 1947, Pakistan was formed as a nation and was accepted by even United Nation; but in 1972 same nation saw a bloody partition and formation of Bangladesh as a new nation. So can we say that formation of Bangladesh is an evidence that Pakistan was not a nation in 1947 ? No because even Bangladeshi people had faught and many even died for the formation of Pakistan in 1947, that’s an evidence of common identity.
Discrepancies between Liberty and Equality fires the engine of Cultural evolution. And this evolution sometimes create a seperated identity which affects future and not the past.
Hence if America and Britain are nation and if UN’s decision to reocognise Pakistan as a nation was correct then India is and was always a nation since The Great Indus Valley Civilisation
Lets go on an excursion of common economic identity of this misterious nation. In15th century during the reign of Sher Sah Suri, Grand Trunk Road was built. It was further improved during the reign of Timurids(British called them Mughals). In colonial Era, a british pshycophant called Rudyard Kipling described this road as “A river of life as never exists in the world”. Hence even in the eyes of colonial empire India was highly and efficiently integrated; At present this Grand Trunk road exists as NH2.
lets look it from a different perspective; whether Indians themselve accepted this economic integration as their common identity or they treated it just as an ordinary trade between two nation without any common identity.
North Indian empires be it Moryan or Gupta, when traded with the empires of south like Pallavas or Cholas they used the words like “Dakshipatha” but when Empires of present Central Asian like Arabs traded with any of the kingdoms of India they used “Meluha during Harrapaa 2500BCE” , “Bharata in around 500 BCE” or “Hind during Meideval era”. So when delt with foreign trade, all the then Indian kingdoms were seen as one.
Now lets analyse political identity and cultural identity. During Maryan empire India was almost one political unit so was it during Guptas and Mughal rule. Even when it got politically disintigrated it remained culturally integrated. At this point I will like to highlight my approach to history “Historical events should never be judged from present but from the environmental setup of past” .
So the question arises if cultural unity was more relevant then political unity? To vindicate this Lets look into another piece of evidence “Gandatindu Jatka” (A buddhist text), It contains several story depicting life of common people. It provides us an opportunity to peep into past. One can easily realise that common people has nothing to do with the kings ruling over them. For them entire Indian landmass was their home. When they were tortured by some king they often flee to neighnouring one contraty to popular belief of stagging a revolution. The fact that these people were accepted without any degradation of their status shows a family touch among common people. In other parts of world these people who were fleeing can be captured as a slave or their social status might be degraded ; in worse situtaion they might not be accepted by people of other kingdom.
Talking about culture, irresepective of languages or architecture, one can found Themes of Ramayna and Mahabharata in both North and South temples. Infact academic analysis of both Ramayna and Mahabharata shows depiction of entire indian geography. Ramayna = a tale in which protagonist travels from north to south, depiction of route remarkably matches with actural one.
while Mahabharata=a tale in which main protagonist takes the journey from east to west.
now lets look into another major culture caled islam. Contray to the popular belief, Islam in India came as friendly traders way before Mughals or Afghans invasion. One major proof to this is Mappila muslims in kerla, although in general muslims are rigidly patriarch in structure but Mappila muslim has Matrilineal society that is “husband after marriage lives in wifes huse” . this happened because they came to india during muhamad’s era that is before cultural ossification of Islam.
About 8th cent AD Sufi sant of Islam played a major role in blunting the cultural rigidity of hinduism like castiesm and complicated rituals. It got so engraved in indian society that even now Sikh an off soute of hindu has many Quranic verse in Guru Granth Sahib . Mughal prince Dara Shikoh translated Gita into Urdu.
but If Islam identified themselves with India then why did partition occour?
Anwer to this question is very plain and simple “Divide and Rule policy” of British Raj. In Pre colonial India there was a community called “Hussaini Brahman”; Sanjay Dutt (Film Actor) is also a Hussaini Brahman, they celebrates Diwali and id both. Infact innumerable document shows that without hindus presence ID or Moharram was not celebrated by muslims and without Muslims participation Dussahrah wasn’t celebrated by hindus. Even now in many places of kolkata , its muslim community who stiches clothes for hindu saffron flag as tradition. But everything changed when British Literally divided the community in 1905 to dilute the spectre of united revolts of hindus and muslims in revolt of 1857.
Lets return to the topic of Nation, if partition is the only evidence that India was never a nation since some muslim leaders led the believers in wrong direction , Then how can one explain the formation of Bangladesh. 1947, Pakistan was formed as a nation and was accepted by even United Nation; but in 1972 same nation saw a bloody partition and formation of Bangladesh as a new nation. So can we say that formation of Bangladesh is an evidence that Pakistan was not a nation in 1947 ? No because even Bangladeshi people had faught and many even died for the formation of Pakistan in 1947, that’s an evidence of common identity.
Discrepancies between Liberty and Equality fires the engine of Cultural evolution. And this evolution sometimes create a seperated identity which affects future and not the past.
Hence if America and Britain are nation and if UN’s decision to reocognise Pakistan as a nation was correct then India is and was always a nation since The Great Indus Valley Civilisation
Comments
Post a Comment
Please provided your valuable comment on:
Aryan133aryan@gmail.com