PAST IMPERFECT, BUT LET’S OWN IT UP

Heritage is that which has been inherited. This is implicit in the term ‘parampara’, also called tradition, which goes into the making of our culture and civilization. This heritage should not be thought of as static since each generation changes the content, sometimes substantially. This civilization heritage called ‘sanskriti’ or ‘shristhi’ when juxtaposed with ‘prakriti’ or natural heritage becomes cultural heritage. Societies that boast of multiple cultures like India need to be inclusive, not competitive. With every invasion however, the invaders tried to establish their own culture not by simply adding it to our tapestry but by destroying our temples, our universities and our heritage.

 

History is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and past, a dynamic, dialectical process, which cannot be limited by mere empiricism or love of facts alone. In our case the invasion of the Muslim and Christian rulers were presented to us either by British historians or left liberal historians who unfortunately had vested interest in glorifying invaders and diminishing the prior achievements of native Indians. Macaulay’s concept of education for Indians was that we were barbarians before the English came and civilized us. Their ignorance about our heritage in the field of mathematics, astronomy, medicine, surgery, architecture, literature, music and dance was purposeful and unfortunately as the vanquished never gets the opportunity to write the history so our proud heritage was conveniently eclipsed and overlooked.

 

Efforts to date our civilization began with the Harappan culture in 2500 BC, the migration of Aryans to India in 1500 BC, the rise of Budhisim and Jainism around 486 and 468 BC, the invasion of Alexander the Great in 326 BC and the rise of the Great empires in North and South India thereafter, such as the Mauryas, the Guptas, as well as the Pallavas and the Chalukyas. Of particular significance were the visits by foreign chroniclers including Fa-Hsein in 405 AD and Hsuan Tsang in 630 AD. Their chronicles are important inputs in calculating eras, as they provide means of cross evidence in dating our ancient history. They were not the only visitors. After the raids of Mahmud of Ghazni in 997 AD, we were visited by Alberuni in 1030 AD and later the visit of Ibn Batutah around 1325 AD and others. This part of our history is referred to commonly as the Ancient and Medieval Indian periods and is hardly taught in schools.

 

Our ancient Indian culture continued intact despite the invasions from 10th century onwards, which impacted on the evolution of a heterogeneous Indian culture. The invasion by the Turks, Persians and the Afghans brought in trade, a new style of culture and a new language, apart from a new religion. With the end of Turkish rule and rise of the Mughals who came from Samarkand, there evolved a distinct Indo-Islamic style of art and culture, of which the Taj Mahal remains the most splendid example. We could have presented our history truthfully and without any bitterness or malice towards any religion or race because they added substantially to our culture, but unfortunately they did not only do that, they destroyed our institutions, threatened our religion and forced religious conversions, but our historians refuse to document them. As if, by brushing the unpleasant bits under the carpet, our history can be sanitized!

 

The global contribution of our cultural and civilizational heritage is increasingly recognized and respected internationally.  What a contrast to the situation today where the international attention and interest in our heritage and our response demonstrates the continuing wisdom of the old Sanskrit saying "Na ratnanan vishyati mrigyatehi tat” meaning "the diamond does not seek: it is sought after.” We have a responsibility to understand, nurture, strengthen and conserve this heritage for our future generations. This is the least that we owe to India.

 

Modern History

Smt. Indira Gandhi is remembered for two events in our recent history, the decisive victory of the 1971 war which liberated Bangladesh and the 1975 Emergency that stole our own liberty. During this time she sneaked in the two words 'secular' and 'socialist' in our constitution without the consent of Parliament because the latter simply didn't exist during Emergency. The parties opposing the Congress in India have always held these two words as 'afterthoughts' and not a part of our constitution, as the founders of the constitution had envisaged. 

 

The opposition is right, but only partially. The diverse Constitution Committee, comprising of an atheist Nehru, devout Hindus like Sri. Rajendra Prasad, Sri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Sri. C. Rajagopalachari  and a Dalit, Babasahab Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar  also had Christians, Parsees, Sikhs and Muslims represented by individuals like Frank Anthony, Minoo Masani, G Gurmukh Singh, and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. They all were of the opinion that though they had defeated the imperial British government and snatched independence, they are not going to discard what is good in the western world, just because they originated in the west. Thus our constitution found an easy marriage of Indian traditions and western thoughts. Our ancient wisdom was augmented with western ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. What Smt. Gandhi did not realize was that these three values together go well beyond her concept of socialism and secularism and her backroom drafting was an exercise in futility.

  

All that was ancient is not good.

Whether by Christian, Muslim or Hindu, all that was practiced during ancient times cannot be justified today. Islamic conquest saw subjugation and conversion by the sword and in Muslim dominated countries it still continues. Non Muslims are called 'kafirs' and they don't have a right to exist. Christian churches executed millions of heretics and supposed witches. Hindus too abided by the Manu Smriti and discriminated against lower caste, tribals, non-Hindus and women. Ancient Dharma Shastra had punishments for violating caste norms. Non-Hindus were called 'mlecha' or barbarians, not to be socialized with. Poverty and birth in lower caste were justified as 'karma', appropriate punishment for sins of earlier life. Could all this have been adopted in our Constitution? Could the new Indian constitution have justified Dronacharya asking a tribal boy, Eklavya to cut off the thumb of his dominant hand to ensure Khatriya superiority over tribals?

 

The constitution of India with an ancient heritage needed modern thinking so that the country could reap the benefits of both the worlds and emerge as a proud nation. The UN Declaration on Human Rights that enshrines universalism and non-discrimination finds a perfect reflection in our consultation. True, the world is changing, and as the constitution has a living soul it too has to change with time but it will never go back to the ancient days. We will proudly March forward towards what Rabindanath Thakur says:

'Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls

Where clear stream of reason has not lost its way in the deary desert sand of dead habits'

The poet envisions a nation where intellectual freedom, unity, and the pursuit of knowledge are valued. It emphasizes the importance of breaking down barriers and embracing diversity, fostering a society where individuals can strive for perfection without hindrance. Our constitution stands by this noble idea.

 

Gandhi ji famously said 'I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any of them'. That is the challenge which India faces today. Adhering to the old and archaic values irrespective of their relevance and utility is as harmful as forgetting one's glorious past. The liberals over did their 'blowing in of new ideas' when they tailored our history and tried to give a secular face and tolerant image to cruel foreign invaders in order to appease a section of the society. The saffrons have now come back with a vengeance and rewriting history and renaming places. The discussion with the public was missing then and, thanks to social media, is cacophonic now. 

 

I honestly think Nehru missed the tryst with destiny when he failed to establish a cultural union of India and ended up with a political union of states. The latter happened in the map of India but never in the hearts of Indians. So, it is very easy to divide India along caste and religious fault lines even today after seven decades of independence, but it is virtually impossible to do so culturally as we are proud of every culture. This cultural amalgam is what is true Hindutwa, a common identity for the descendants of Bharat who revere Bharat as their punyabhoomi and matrabhoomi. This has nothing to do with spiritual or religious beliefs but it is an union of ethnic and cultural commonalities.  What effortlessly unites us, our ethnicity and our culture, should have been used as the magic glue. Then we would have been far stronger and prosperous. That is why it took an awfully long time to come up with 'Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas, Sabka Prayas'.