For twenty-one of my twenty-three years, I lived in Hyderabad( a city in the state of
Andhra Pradesh).I was brought up, never in doubt of my identity as an Indian. But I never ever asked the question of what makes an Indian. This question, I posed to myself after many an important personal experience.
Over the last two years, I stayed in Bombay, working at an institute which attracts people from India and beyond. Many an experience here made me ask that question. A Taiwanese student who had come for a conference after meeting half a dozen people from all over India- remarked that they all looked so different. We are also different, yet what makes us a nation?
Nations all over the world have been mostly constituted on that basis of the ethnic nature of their populace. In a few countries such as the United States, different ethnic groups are mashed into one. I argue that India stands apart, a society of not one or two different ethnic groups ( as seen in many countries), but a collection of disparate and diverse groups. I feel proud that India, essentially a freak, a unique example in history stands strong as a nation- nearly sixty years after its birth.Again, what makes an Indian?
Is it a common
pre-modern history that contributes to this? We do share a common
pre-modern history.The Mogul empire,the
gupta empire etc. did bring unify large parts of India.But i argue that many European nations were once part of the Roman empire, the French empire etc, but they all don't claim to be a part of a common country. Fifty years of attempts have brought them only to a community. No, our common
pre-modern history is not what welds us together.
I have heard from many a people that its a religion that unites us. This is a supremely fallacious argument. We have the second largest Muslim population in the world. According to the introduction to the law of the land that Indira Gandhi got added,we are a secular nation. I agree that the secularism is maintained in place not only by government policy but by the actions of one religion discriminating against another. Anyway, further, an overwhelmingly large majority of south
America is Catholic Christian, but they never failed to unite. We could have had multiple republics within India which were of a Hindu.No, religion is not an argument.
......to be contd.
Continued at long last....
I must confess, after writing the first part, I realised that I had no real clue as to what India is and what defines us as a nation state. My inspiration to finish this, ironically comes from a recent BBC documentary called 'the story of India'. In it, is described the march of India and its population from prehistory to the modern era. It then stuck me that there were two common features or threads that run through the whole of the subcontinent, two important features that make India. Also,some of my current arguments may be at odds with what I have previously written. Its part of an evolving argument I am having about what really makes India and who is an Indian.
Our ancient history:Of the known history of the subcontinent, modern geopolitical India has been united for only for a small fraction of time. However, culturally, the subcontinent has been united for most of this history. I will make no claim to Indian culture being a North Indian or Aryan synthesis. However,all I will say is that the geographical limitations placed by the mountain ranges in the north and east and strong native cultures in the west created a real mixing pot. The cultural influences of the north would spread south and and southern cultural influences would spread north. As the centuries passed by, though they were some differences, the Indian subcontinent as a whole could be considered by certain metrics to have similar cultural features.
Important among these are the spread of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religions. There is ample evidence that while these spread to the south of India from the north, there was a great schools of
Hinduism and Buddhism in the south. From the south spread a multitude of dance forms to the north. This cultural synthesis is one of the most important features of India.
One important event that cannot be brushed over is the role played by
Sanskrit as a progenitor of multiple primary languages in north and central India. However, I agree that Sanskrit probably had lesser influence of Tamil or that it has been purged over the ages.( My understanding of the linguistic relationships of Indian languages requires more reading and I will make no judgements.)Sanskrit would have provided a conduit for ideas, a factor important in the homogenization of Indian culture.
Now, the important question is - How does this part of Indian history really affect modern India? It might be argued that several Indian political and cultural practises. Hammurabi's laws have often been held up as the progenitor of law in many regions of the world and has probably affected us also. However, some of the greatest influence on our laws, both those in the constitution and those that are social are Ashoka's edicts. Why else would we use his symbols as our national emblems? The concept of peaceful coexistence has also been an important feature of Indian foreign policy. Arguably, therefore, these concepts have also deeply influenced us through the generations. As the 'story of India' made me realise, we are the projections of three or more millenia of history.
Medieval and Modern Indian History:As Northern India came under the infuence of various Islamic Dynasties, North Indian cultures diverged from the more insular Southern India. Language, architecture and religion were heavily influenced by Muslim invaders coming from the west and central asia. This is a defining point in Indian history creating a point of divergence between southern and northern india, a divergence that would need to be bridged. The divergence and some could claim- animosity between the south and the north is so huge that they might have really been two independent nations. So, why are they one nation? Why do people on both sides of the Vindhyas consider themseleves Indians? I think here in lies the importance of a few good men who brought India together at Independence.
There are many who claim that it was really the British who united India. But they forget, that at independence- Kashmir, Hyderabad, Goa and Pondicherry werent really a part of India. Also, they forget that most of the princely states were given the choice to secede and form independent kingdoms. So how did the Indian national identity crystallize? There exists a reasonable case that this identity arose due to the actions of a few men.
Indians are prone to hero worship. Indian religions and culture, more than any other mainstream culture, has portrayed god in human form- or shall I say forms. In an extension of this habit, we have considered a few men- the likes of Gandhi and Nehru to be demigods. One provided the culture of ancient India moderated by the modern world while the other provided the modern world tempered by ancient India.Modern India rallied to them. As far as I see it, the British provided a medium through which these men reached out to modern India. Its probably the love of these men that fashioned modern India- bridging the gaps that arose between the vastness of the Indian subcontinent.
Post independence, we were all conditioned to believe that diversity was the normal state of existence. Regional heros became national heros. Thats what I think India really is, a melting pot. Thats where I think we are heading- towards a synthesis of north and south, old cultures that never die but are only refashioned by modern gods.
I hope I have done a modicum of justice to this topic. I am not sure I have touched all the important points and more importantly, my ideas on this topic are still evolving.
