The claim of DMK politician D. Raja that we were never a nation is a reaffirmation of the colonial thinking of our intellectuals and politicians. The nation (groups of people) and state (homeland or geographical land) are now a combined idea of “nation-state.” The political theory of the evolution of modern nations is a recent construct and relates historically to the religious wars of Europe and the Westphalian Treaty. Sovereignty and independent nation states were on the background of religious homogenization of a group of people depending on their denominations (mainly Catholic or Protestant) during a certain period of Europe’s history.
Later, some cultural or linguistic homogenization became the basis of modern nation-states. Tagore, Sri Aurobindo, and Swami Vivekananda, stressing the spiritual and cultural unity of India, recognised the recentness of and the possible evils modern ideas of nationalism could generate. Sovereign independent states became the norm, but the consequences were aggressive nationalism, colonialism, and world wars leading to global plunder and the extermination of local populations.
This modern understanding cannot imagine a nation like India as a civilizational continuity based on traditions, rituals, and a different cultural paradigm. It was not through deliberate homogenization or systematization. It functions and forms through a sense of belonging to the land disseminated through symbols. The swastika, the lotus, the Devatas of temples, the pilgrimages, the epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata), and the Sanskrit language are some examples that collectively assimilate Indians into the same matrix of meanings. Our nationhood was never homogenization but a decentralised polity bound by a common culture. This cultural heritage acts as an overall cement that accommodates Vedic, Jain, Buddhist, Tantric, Puranic, Sikh, folk, religions from outside, and tribal practices. Our diversity and acceptance of diversity hold the key to defining a civilizational India transcending historically the idea of political unity based on a common religion, language, or some narrow cultural conceptions.
For Bharat, the extension of nations, or nationalism, unlike the West, was about absorption and not invasion. Unfortunately, the forcible application of Western theories to the Indian context led to the division of our country. Religion divided the nation first, and later, language became the reason for the division of the states. An artificiality in cultural identities leading to stress is now the result of such policies. Our ancient kingdoms had multiple languages without disputes amongst the native speakers.
Our best definition as a nation would be where diversity was the norm and the essence of nationalism was protecting the diversity of the country. The colonials had a clear mission in showing the political disunity of India, but why do we need to repeat this story? Bharat is a cultural unit with a federation of sub-identities, preserving their individuality and equally contributing to the evolution of a common culture. Western ideas to mould political unity do not simply apply to India. Can our politicians really start uniting Bharat instead of balkanizing it for non-existent reasons? Bharat is one.
RANDOM MUSINGS 