I am grateful to Sh Krishen Kak for allowing me to publish this essay by him (in full), first published as THE IDEA OF INDIA by India First Foundation, Nov 2008:127-138. I would encourage everyone to please read it in full. It is superbly thought-provoking, richly referenced and well researched. Without further ado (CAUTION: Long Post),
*** THE IDEA OF INDIA ***
KRISHEN KAK
The idea of India is a conception often credited by our English-speaking “secular” elite to Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru or Sunil Khilnani, not necessarily in that order.
Our British colonizers too gave themselves credit for it, with an echo by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 8, 2005 at Oxford University. It is they, he said, who gave us our notions of the rule of law, of a Constitutional government, of a free press, of a professional civil service, of modern universities and research laboratories, our judiciary, our legal system, our bureaucracy, the English language, and cricket.[1] Mr Singh on that occasion did make the token nod to “India’s ancient civilization”, but it is clear he believes we did not have these notions before the British blessed us with them. Regrettably, he omitted mentioning the railways that are supposed to have knitted us together and, for universal school education, he omitted making the conventional ascription to British missionaries[2].
In point of fact, however, the historical conception of the one-ness of what in English is called “India” goes back at least 6000 years to the Rig Veda[3]. It is important to understand this history because the name we give ourselves or that others give us provides us with a social and political identity and meaning, so that “India” says something about how we see ourselves and how others see us.
The citizens of India are called Indians, as distinguished from the followers of a “religion” called Hinduism[4]. At the same time, the indigenous peoples in many parts of the world are called “Indians”. “Indian” was frequently a Western imperial and pejorative label for dark-coloured indigenes and, at least till the end of the 14th century (a Vijaynagar inscription c.1393 referring to the emperor as “Hindurayasuratrana”), that is, just about 600 years ago in the history of our civilization going back at least 9,000 years, we had no such thing as “Hinduism”. So let us see how we got our name, and the meanings often connected with it.
The word “India” is the pronunciation in English of the Greek pronunciation of the Iranian pronunciation of the Sanskrit word “sindhu”, which was our own name in our own language for the mighty river called Indus which has always been a major landmark for travellers to our country from lands to our northwest.
The ancient Iranians - or Persians, as they used to be called - found difficulty in pronouncing the initial “s” of “sindhu”, so they called it “hindu” – the word occurs for the first time in the Avesta of the ancient Iranians, and they used it to describe generally this land and all the people in it. From Iran the word passed to Greece where it became Indus, with variations among the ancient Arabs, Turks, Mongolians, and Chinese (the last saying “shin-tu”) who came into contact with us to study, trade or conquer.
This word “Hindu” is not found in any of our ancient texts. It is nowhere in the Vedas; it is nowhere in our epics, nor in the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, nor in any of the treatises of Yoga. It does not appear in any of our indigenous languages, not till the 7th century when it was brought in by the Islamic invaders. The Chinese pilgrim Hiuen Tsang who visited our country between 630 and 645 AD reports that while “shin-tu” or its variants could be heard outside our borders, it was unknown within our country. Even after Islamic rule was established in our country, the word did not gain popular currency and was not used, at least till the 14th century, except by the Islamic rulers to refer to the non-Muslim population as a whole of this land.
So, it is quite clear that, to begin with, “Hindu” was a foreign word. It was not a “religious” description. It was a purely geographical label, initially describing the land and people in the vicinity of the Sindhu river but gradually spreading to cover all parts of this country and its people. It can be said that the word “Hindu” acquired a pan-Indian connotation from ancient Iranian times - but this was only in the speech of foreigners, and even with them it did not indicate any distinction of class, caste or creed. To emphasize, it was merely a foreign geographical description, and “Hindustan” was the land of the “Hindus”. How from being a geocultural description this was made into a “religious” label is another story.
Thus, the word we have adopted to describe our country and ourselves evolved as a word foreign to us. Over the millennia, this word has acquired a number of meanings that foreigners associated with us, and many of which we have internalized. Most of these meanings are not complimentary. In fact, most frequently, in the post-colonial international eye, India stands for overpopulation, poverty, dirt and corruption, and the majority of our people are believed to be lazy other-worldly Hindus. Remember that it was an Indian who made an international joke of what he cunningly called “the Hindu rate of growth”[5] – conveniently forgetting, of course, that in pre-colonial times it was this same rate of growth that resulted in making us what the historian KM Ashraf described as “the wealthiest colossus of the world”. How British colonial rule reduced us from being one of the richest lands to becoming one of the poorest is also another story.[6]
Keep Reading…
November 16th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, British Rule in India, Conversions, Missionaries in India, Current Affairs, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Hindu Dharma, Hindu Social System, History, Identity, Indian Culture, Arts and Music, Politics and Governance in India, Sanatana Dharma, Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization, Spirituality & Philosophy, Women in Hinduism & India |
2 comments
Some links for weekend reading:
1. From the Telegraph, an excellent article by Ambassador K Sibal on why borders are (still) relevant.
2. A revealing interview with Govindacharya: Jaitley is BJP’s best, Rajnath saboteur
3. Why Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam may not mean what you think it does and finally,
4. Why India..while enjoying all the characteristics of great power, is unlikely to become one (a 2005 article but still relevant, in my view).
Excerpts from all the three articles are below. Enjoy the weekend.
Keep Reading…
September 5th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, Ancient Indian History, Current Affairs, Elections Analysis, Geo-Strategic Issues (incl. Nuclear, Oil, Energy), India & Its Neighbours, Jammu & Kashmir related, Politics and Governance in India |
no comments
Great piece of reporting from The Hindu on an extraordinary archeological find from Tamil Nadu about politics and governance in ancient India.
*** Excerpts ***
It may be hard to believe that nearly 1,100 years ago, a village had a perfect electoral system and a written Constitution prescribing the mode of elections. It was inscribed on the walls of the village assembly (grama sabha mandapa)…This inscription, dated around 920 A.D. in the reign of Parantaka Chola, is an outstanding document in the history of India, says Dr. R. Nagaswamy, former Director, Tamil Nadu Department of Archaeology, referring to Uthiramerur in Chingleput district.
Dr. Nagaswamy says in his book, Uthiramerur, the Historic Village in Tamil Nadu”:
It [the inscription] gives astonishing details about the constitution of wards, the qualification of candidates standing for elections, the disqualification norms, the mode of election, the constitution of committees with elected members, the functions of [those] committees, the power to remove the wrong-doer, etc
The villagers even had the right to recall the elected representatives if they failed in their duty!*
Uthiramerur has a 1,250-year history. It is situated in Kanchipuram district, about 90 km from Chennai. The Pallava king Nandivarman II established it around 750 A.D.
R. Vasanthakalyani, Chief Epigraphist-cum-Instructor (Tamil Nadu Department of Archaeology) said:
About 1,100 years ago, during the period of Paranataka Chola, Uthiramerur had an elected village panchayat system, which was a step ahead of the modern day democratic system…
The Tamil inscriptions elaborate on the election procedure followed several centuries ago.
There were committees for the maintenance of irrigation tanks, roads, to provide relief during drought, testing of gold and so on.
Dr. Nagaswamy says: The village assembly of Uttaramerur drafted the Constitution for the elections. The salient features were as follows: the village was divided into 30 wards, one representative elected for each. Specific qualifications were prescribed for those who wanted to contest. The essential criteria were age limit, possession of immovable property and minimum educational qualification. Those who wanted to be elected should be above 35 years of age and below 70
Read the full story here. As Capt. Pullat remarked on the FTIdiscussion board: “Beats Magna Carta, isn’t it?”!
Related Posts:
Corruption - as mentioned in the Vedas
Democracy in AncientIndia
* Un-electing our leaders - Chhattisgarh shows the way
P.S. Have other readers (also) detected a subtle change in stance in The Hindu’s style of reporting? ORam I reading too much into LK Advani’s interview and recent Op-Eds? I should check outwhat the folks over at The Chindu think!
July 12th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, Ancient Indian History, Hindu Dharma, Medieval Indian History, Politics and Governance in India |
no comments
I have never been anavidreader of Panchjanya but started admiring Shri Tarun Vijayafter reading some of his articles in the last few months (e.g. see here).
As some of you may know, he has recently resigned as editor of the weekly to head up BJP’s think tank…Here are excerpts on how he felt making the transition…It makes some important points about dialogue, ideology and the need to separate personalities from “issues” (Anirban: Thanks for alerting me to this)
Excerpts from “The blessed path” by Tarun Vijay
…Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not only my first editor, but first reader too. Many of our issues were warmly appreciated and severely criticized by him. He would call even when he became Prime Minister to say what we have published is good or simply intolerable. He didn’t like criticising opponents personally and would always advise: “Oppose as vehemently you can, but on policies and programmes. Refrain from personal attacks.”
Keep Reading…
March 18th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
A Hindu Identity, An Indian Identity, Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Indian Media |
7 comments
I came across this in an email fromPrem Sabhlok. It is illuminating.
It mentions some specifichymns/riks from the RigVeda on the causes of corruption and how to eliminate them. Here are some excerpts:
***
Sama Veda 179 and 913 describes “corruption” as hydra headed, having nine heads (nine kinds) and it enters the human body through ninety nine sources i.e. nine kind of corruption enters through five senses, five sense organs and outward looking mind (9X11==99).
Later Ramayana described this evil through nine corrupt heads of Ravana. We burn his nine corrupt heads every year on Dussehra day. Similarly later Mahabharata described 99 sources of entry of corruption through 99 corrupt sons of blind Kaurva king Dhritrashtra. 99 vritras (powers of evil) are mentioned in Rig Veda 1-84-13. It further says in 1-104-3 taking bribe for money belonging to the state is misappropriation of public funds. All bribe takers are thieves of God and they get rebirth in the foulest of the womb (confirmed even in Bhagavad-Gita).
Keep Reading…
January 17th, 2008
Posted by
B Shantanu |
Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, Ancient Indian History, Hindu Dharma, Politics and Governance in India, Spirituality & Philosophy |
no comments
In the middle of some idle web-surfing a few days ago, I hit upon the source of “Satyameva Jayate”
From Nila-Kantha-Chandra’s blog:�
“…as I was rapidly scanning the Sanskrit verses of the Mundaka, I came upon �satyameva jayate�� (3.1.6). Extraordinary! This was a great chance discovery!
…as I now discovered…the national credo was from the Mundaka Upanishad. A concluding verse of this Upanishad declares that its aim is to make man attain Self-Knowledge. �Munda� means head; hence the name indicates that this Upanishad is the Head of all Upanishads…”
सत्यमेव जयते नानृतं
सत्येन पन्था विततो देवयानः
येनाऽऽक्रमन्त्यृषयो ह्याप्तकामा
यत्र तत् सत्यस्य परमं निधानम्
satyameva jayate naanritam
satyena pantha vitato devayanah
yena aakramanti rshayo hi aaptkaamaa�
yatra tat satyasya paramam nidhaanam
Meaning:
Only truth prevails, not untruth; by the path of truth is laid out, the Divine way, on which the sages of yore, fulfilled in their desires, attain the supreme treasure of Truth.
.
Wonderful…Thank you Nila-Kantha!
P.S. I think the third line should read: “yenaa kramantyarishayo hyaptakaamaa” but I am not sure. Can anyone please help?
Thanks to Dr Ranjit Singh (please see comment below), this has now been corrected.
December 1st, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, Miscellaneous, Politics and Governance in India, Sanatana Dharma, Spirituality & Philosophy |
18 comments
I recently came across a post titled “The Real Problem is not Islam” on this blog to which I added the comment posted below.
The reason for posting my comment here is to highlight the need to counter some basic mis-conceptions about Hinduism such as [a] it is no different from any other religion in promoting violence [b] the very nature of religion makes it intolerant of non-believers (certainly not true of Hinduism) [c] A Hindu state or the Christian state would treat its minorities the same way as the Islamic states do, [d] a Hindu state can never be secular etc…
It is important that we make every attempt at rectifying these mis-conceptions and beliefs….whenever and wherever we come across them.
If any of you come across such topics/posts, please do alert me.
Dhanyawaad,
Shantanu
P.S. See also: “Continued Ignorance about Hinduism” and this whole category of posts.
*** Comment to “The Real Problem is Not Islam”" post***
All,
I am coming late into this debate but I must say that I disagree with at least some of the points you have made.
The debate about Islam being a peaceful religion (or not) is not irrelevant as it does impact terrorism and events around us (including the war in Iraq)
You say that
Enough evidence can be cited from almost any religious text to show how every religion promoted violence and discrimination at one point of time or another
and you have included the wikipedia link to Hinduism in the quote.
Two things, violence and discrimination are NOT the same things.
Secondly, the discrimination that you refer to in Hinduism (I can only presume you mean the caste system) is such a complex subject that it is easy to be intellectually lazy about it (See e.g. this Varna and Jatis: the need for clarity )
You also say that
The very nature of religion as a group which can only expand its power by enlisting additional hands is enough to ensure that it can never behave fairly to those who choose a different path
Well, I guess that you are primarily thinking of Abrahamic (and monotheistic religions here)Hinduism of course has never attempted to proselytise and is certainly not monotheistic. See e.g. Hinduism NOT monotheism in disguise
You further say that
A Hindu state or the Christian state would treat its minorities the same way as the Islamic states do
- This again is a statement that is very hard to defend intellectually.
Historically, the liberal strain within Hinduism has ensured that minorities are not persecuted even though their beliefs may, at times run counter to the prevailing orthodoxy of the time (Buddhism e.g.).
Secondly what makes you think that a Hindu state will not be secular? Is there anything within the philosophy or the belief system that prevents a Hindu state from treating its minorities fairly? In fact, scholars have argued that India (and Hinduism) can be a role model for peace in the 21st century.
Look forward to your thoughts.
B Shantanu.
March 4th, 2007
Posted by
B Shantanu |
Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Hindu Dharma, Hindu Social System, Spirituality & Philosophy |
no comments
Just came across S Gurumurthy’s brilliant critique on the recent BusinessWeek article on Karma Capitalism
As he says, “If the Indian management gurus did something similar in India it would attract the abuse of the seculars that they are toxifying even business and economics with saffron concepts! It (secular India) may even charge that the corporate America is becoming addicted to toxic saffron. That is the measure of its hate for thoughts and things Indian.”
Some excerpts:
“Just a century ago, Max Weber, declared that the Hindus and Buddhists remain backward because they believed in their ancient, faulty faiths!
Weber was a celebrated socio-economic thinker of the West. He counselled that belief in Karma - in which, he believed, fatalism hid - led people to accept their lot as their fate. He thus saw the Hindu-Buddhist faith in Karma as fatal to development itself. He diagnosed that Karma-centric faiths, which denied hopes to individuals, rendered their adherents unfit for modern development process.
Indian intellectualism, particularly in free India, carbon-copied Webers thesis and almost accepted that the traditional Indian beliefs are the nemesis of India. This turned the Indian establishment thinking apologetic about not just ancient Indian faiths but about ancient India itself!
…free Indias secular intellectualism…saw ancient Indian thoughts as its principal adversary, declare everything about ancient India - whether it was Patanjalis Yoga or Krishnas Gita as saffron toxic and anti-secular.
Now…a full century (later)…the very idea of Karma, which Weber had diagnosed as the nemesis of India, seems to be emerging as the life vest of the West!
For secular India Bhagwat Gita and Karma Yoga are toxic substances to be kept out of the Indian discourse. The Indian management gurus and spiritual leaders are doing what Swami Vivekananda did over a century ago - namely proclaim that greatness of the Indian thought in the US and import it from the US to India. They are actually validating in the US what has been driven underground in secular India.
If the Indian management gurus did something similar in India it would attract the abuse of the seculars that they are toxifying even business and economics with saffron concepts! It may even charge that the corporate America is becoming addicted to toxic saffron. That is the measure of its hate for thoughts and things Indian. Yes the secular India dismisses as toxin what secular America realises as nectar.”
So true and so saddening…
October 31st, 2006
Posted by
B Shantanu |
A Hindu Identity, Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, British Rule in India, Current Affairs, Distortions, Misrepresentation about Hinduism, Distortions, Misrepresentations about India, Post Independence History, Spirituality & Philosophy |
no comments
Utterly fascinating and extensively researched…
*********************************
Democracy in Ancient India
by Steve Muhlberger
Associate Professor of History, Nipissing University.
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/HISTDEM/INDIADEM.HTM
Note on this article. I must state right out front that I read no Indian languages, which may lead some readers to dismiss entirely my work in this difficult field. For the more tolerant, let me explain that an earlier version of this article has been read and commented on by several academic readers, whose comments and corrections have been taken into account. The editors of the Journal of World History liked it well enough to ask me to write a broader treatment of democracy’s prehistory. This resulted in Phil Paine and I writing “Democracy’s Place in World History,” which appeared in that journal in 1993. This article, however, never found a home of its own — in part because I myself could think of few journals that would be interested in an article that concentrates on specialized material yet draws broad conclusions from it.
Returning to it now, in 1998, I find I still believe in my interpretation of the ancient evidence for Indian democracy, and in its relevance to how we understand the world history of democracy. Rather than let it languish further, I am releasing it electronically, for both general and specialist readers. I will be glad to hear your comments. For the reader who wants to look into the question independently, I have posted a bibliography, and of course there are always the footnotes.
I should make clear that though this article bears my name alone, I was pointed in the right direction by an unpublished essay on democracy by Phil Paine. I also wish to note that I was aided in my research by the collection of Asian literature at Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario. My philosopher-colleague at Nipissing University, Dr. Wayne Borody, made some suggestions, but neither he nor anyone else is responsibile for any errors or misinterpretations.
Historians who are interested in democracy often insist it must be understood in context of a unique western tradition of political development beginning with the Greeks. The spread of democratic ideals and practice to other cultures, or their failure to spread, have many times been explained on the assumption that democracy or personal liberty are ideals foreign to the non-Western world — an assumption at least as old as Herodotus.
1 But events since the late 1980s have shown that people both in “Western” and “non-Western” countries have a lively interest in democracy as something relevant to their own situation. The old assumption deserves to be re-examined.In fact, the supposed differences between “Western” and “non-Western” cultures are in this case, as in so many others, more a matter of ideological faith than of cool, impartial judgment. If we are talking about the history of humanity as a whole, democracy is equally new or equally old everywhere. Fair and effective elections, under adult suffrage and in conditions that allow the free discussion of ideas, are a phenomenon of this century. The history of democracy, properly so called, is just beginning.
The “prehistory” of democracy, however, is scarcely restricted to Europe and Europeanized America and Australasia. A search of world history finds much worth studying. There are no perfect democracies waiting to be discovered, but there is something else: a long history of “government by discussion,” in which groups of people having common interests make decisions that affect their lives through debate, consultation, and voting. The vast majority of such groups, it may be objected, are more properly called oligarchies than democracies. But every democracy has been created by widening what was originally a very narrow franchise. The history of government by discussion, which may be called republicanism for brevity’s sake, has a claim to the interest of anyone who takes democracy seriously. 2
This article will examine one important case of government by discussion — the republics of Ancient India. Although they are familiar to Indologists, these republics are hardly known to other historians. They deserve, however, a substantial place in world historiography. The experience of Ancient India with republicanism, if better known, would by itself make democracy seem less of a freakish development, and help dispel the common idea that the very concept of democracy is specifically “Western.”
The present article has two goals. First, it will summarize the history of the ancient Indian republics as it is currently known. This survey is restricted to North India and the period before about 400 A.D., when sovereign republics seem to have become extinct.
Second, the article will examine the historiographical evaluations of the Indian republican experience, and suggest that most of them have placed it in too narrow a context. Ancient Indian democratic experiments, it will be argued, are more important than they are usually granted to be. It is well known that the sources of ancient Indian history present considerable difficulties. All the indigenous ancient literature from the subcontinent has been preserved as part of a religious tradition, Brahmanical, Buddhist or Jaina. When the subject is political theory and its implementation, the preselected nature of sources is a distinct handicap to the researcher. The largest and most influential Indian literary tradition, the Brahmanical, is distinctly hostile to anything resembling democracy.
Brahmanical literature gives kingship a central place in political life, and seldom hints that anything else is possible. For moral philosophers and legislators such as Manu (reputed author of the Manu-Smrti between 200 B.C.-A.D. 200), the king was a key figure in a social order based on caste (varna ). Caste divided society into functional classes: the Brahmans had magical powers and priestly duties, the ksatriyas were the rulers and warriors, the vaisyas cultivators, and the sudras the lowest part of society, subservient to the other three. Moral law or dharma depended on the observance of these divisions, and the king was the guarantor of dharma , and in particular the privileges of the Brahmans.3 Another tradition is best exemplified by the Arthasastra of Kautilya (c. 300 B.C.), which alloted the king a more independent role but likewise emphasized his responsibility for peace, justice and stability. 4
Both Kautilya’s work and the Manu-Smrti are considered classic expressions of ancient Indian political and social theory. A reader of these or other Brahmanical treatises finds it very easy to visualize ancient Indian society as one where “monarchy was the normal form of the state.” 5
Until the end of the last century, the only indication that this might not always have been the case came from Greek and Roman accounts of India, mostly histories of India during and just after Alexander the Great’s invasion of India in 327-324 B.C. These works spoke of numerous cities and even larger areas being governed as oligarchies and democracies, but they were not always believed by scholars. 6 Yet research into the Buddhist Pali Canon during the nineteenth century confirmed this picture of widespread republicanism. The Pali Canon is the earliest version of the Buddhist scriptures, and reached its final form between 400-300 B.C.7 It contains the story of Buddha’s life and teaching and his rules for monastic communities. The rules and teachings are presented in the form of anecdotes, explaining the circumstances that called forth the Buddha’s authoritative pronouncement. Thus the Pali Canon provides us with many details of life in ancient India, and specifically of the sixth century (the Buddha’s lifetime) in the northeast. In 1903, T.W. Rhys Davids, the leading Pali scholar, pointed out in his book Buddhist India8 that the Canon (and the Jatakas, a series of Buddhist legends set in the same period but composed much later) depicted a country in which there were many clans, dominating extensive and populous territories, who made their public decisions in assemblies, moots, or parliaments.
Keep Reading…
April 4th, 2006
Posted by
B Shantanu |
Ancient Hindu Political Philosophy, Ancient Indian History, Hindu Dharma |
no comments
