RAASHTRAM – SPIRITUAL-ETHICAL CONCEPT OF NATIONHOOD
Paper Presented at
2nd ASSE
International Conference on
Nation, Nationality,
Nationhood: What is in the Name?
On 2–3 May 2013 at Tirana,
Albania
ABSTRACT
Nation, nationalism and
nationhood are relatively new concepts as far as the West is concerned. It was
in the 18th and 19th centuries that the discourse on what
constitutes nation had really gained currency and momentum. However, even at
the turn of 21st century no single definition for nation and
nationality could be agreed upon.
Joseph Stalin in
hiswork ‘Marxism and the National Problem’ described nationa as a historically
constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common
language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a
common culture. Many Marxist historians like Eric Hobsawm argued that
nationalism defies any definition. Benedict Anderson viewed nations as imagined
communities.
Paul Gilbert, in
his work The Philosophy of Nationalism, describes seven categories of nations –
Nominalist, Naturalist, Voluntarist, Territorial, Linguistic, Axiological,
Destinarian. Cultural dimension to nation discourse was added recently by
scholars like Samuel Huntington, Lawrence E. Harrison etc.
In India, the
concept of nation existed for millennia in the form of a pan-Indian
spiritual-emotional identity. In Rig Veda, the most ancient work of Hindu
seers, the word ‘Raashtram’ was used
to describe the national identity of the people of the land called
Bharatavarsha. ‘Raashtram’ is a uniquely Indian concept for nationhood founded
essentially on the spiritual foundations. Thus ‘Raashtram’ as an idea is a unifying and development-oriented (Abhyudayam)
concept as against today’s concept of nation which has been a major source of
political conflict and violence throughout last three centuries.
This paper
explores the epistemology of the word ‘Raashtram’
and determines how it has acted as a catalyst for the gradual evolution of the
Indian national identity over millennia. This spiritual-emotional identity of ‘Raashtram’ is the principal unifying
factor of Indian nation through the centuries. It is this identity that was
invoked by the Indian freedom fighters of all hues – from the revolutionaries
to the Gandians alike – in their efforts to rouse the Indian nation against the
foreign yoke of the British in 19th and 20th centuries.
A profound
understanding of this concept helps in evolving new theories and concepts of
nationhood that are based on universal ethical and spiritual principles. Such
understanding of the concept of nation in the light of the idea of ‘Raashtram’ will help forge a world free
of sectarian nationalist conflict and misery.
* * *
FULL
PAPER:
Nation, Nationalism and
Nationality are essentially European ideas which evolved in the 18th & 19th
centuries. Emergence of Nation States in Europe and their expansion into
America was the first catalyst for the discourse on the concept of Nationhood
in the West. This discourse is still on, and no one definition or explanation
can fully and comprehensively explain this concept.
Nation-states:
A History of Just Two Centuries
One of the main reasons for
this lack of clarity is the relatively recent exposure of the world to this
concept. Nation States came into existence hardly two centuries ago in Europe.
"The concept of nation-states, i.e. that the aspirations of the people
that constitute a nation are best served by a common political entity is
considered a relatively recent idea in Europe from the 18th century.
Nationalism led to the formation of nation-states and modern countries. This
development was followed up with a gradual hardening of state boundaries with
the passport and visa regime that followed it", says Sankrant Sanu in an
enlightening article "Why India Is a Nation".
Many European nations that we
see today didn't exist 200 years ago or 300 years ago. We heard of monarchs and
royals earlier, but the Nation States that we see today came into being much
later. Their boundaries too kept changing in the last two centuries. Two World
Wars witnessed great changes in the geography of many of these Nation States
and the disputes about their boundaries and their very existence are contested
by many groups to this day. Take the case of the Scots in the UK or the Flemish
in Belgium or the Kurds in Turkey... they all challenge the Nation State they
live in and say they are a different Nation.
History of the United Kingdom
in last two hundred years itself is a testimony to the upheavals that the
concept of Nation State has endured. England, Scotland and Wales got together
in 1702 to form what is called the Great Britain. Even then they retained
different laws and held on to separate National Churches. Scotland had a
Presbyterian Church for a very long time to which many of its citizens adhere
to. It is in a way the national Church of Scotland and is known as Kirk in that
country. It is essentially a Protestant Church. The British continue to have
the Anglican Christianity as their State Religion. Although an Anglican Church,
the Church of Wales has its own Arch Bishop who is independent of the Anglican
Establishment of England.
Using political, military and
religious power Great Britain abolished the Irish Parliament and annexed
Ireland in 1801. Thus what we today call as the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland emerged. However the Catholic majority never accepted this
arrangement and a long, often bloody, struggle followed, which culminated in
the collapse of the arrangement of the United Kingdom. Catholic majority areas
of South Ireland seceded from the UK to emerge again as the Republic of
Ireland, although the Anglican Church ensured that its followers, who have by
then become a dominant group in Northern Ireland, continue their allegiance to
the United Kingdom. Thus the Nation State of UK that we see today can boast not
even a century's history.
Even American history also
tells the same story. The Anglo Saxon aggressors, who sailed to the shores of
the east Coast of America and anchored near Boston were hardly in control of
less than 10% of geographical entity of what is today called the United States
of America at the advent of the 18th Century.
At the time of the great
American Revolution in 1776 when the 13 British Colonies came under one
umbrella led by Thomas Jefferson and declared independence from the British
Parliament's control, their geographical area was limited to the area covering
the States on today's East Coast of the USA. Texas and California joined in
1845 after the Mexican War and Hawaii became a State in 1900. Seen from this
historical background the United States of America as a Nation State is not
more than two centuries old.
Also important to note here is
the discourse as to whether the Nation State called the USA has really become a
nation or not. The Second Continental Congress had declared independence in
July 1776 and adopted the United States Declaration of Independence drafted by
Thomas Jefferson. The American Revolution was the result of a series of social,
political, and intellectual transformations in American society, government and
ways of thinking. Americans rejected the aristocracies that dominated Europe at
the time, championing instead the development of republicanism based on the
Enlightenment understanding of liberalism. In 1788 the new American
Constitution was adopted. The Bill of Rights, the most important part of the US
Constitution was adopted in 1891. It is this Bill of Rights that keeps the
diverse American peoples as one. However skeptics like Samuel Huntington
questioned this very feeble foundation of American identity. In his important
work 'Who Are We' Huntington raises the crucial question as to whether the
United States of America had really become one nation. His answer was in the
negative although his thesis was about creating one national identity for
entire America which he described as 'Protestant Ethic without Organised
Church'.
The Nation States in Africa
were a creation of the Colonists. During 1884 - 1885, European nations met at
the Berlin West Africa Conference to discuss the partitioning of Africa. It was
agreed that European claims to parts of Africa would only be recognised if
Europeans provided effective occupation. In a series of treaties in 1890–1891,
colonial boundaries were completely drawn. All of sub saharan Africa was
claimed by European powers, except for Ethiopia (Abyssinia) and Liberia.
Germans too were major players in this game at that time. But what is most
important to note here is the fact that not a single representative of the
African people was involved when the Colonial masters were redrawing the
boundaries and creating the Nation States in Africa.
There are a few countries that
can claim much longer history. For example countries in South America like
Mexico and countries in Eurasia like Egypt, Turkey etc. But here again the
Nation States of all these countries are of very recent origin and had nothing
to do with their ancient past. The Aztec culture that was prevalent in Mexico
before the Spanish Conquest has remained only as a museum item and mark of
pride while the present day has become Hispanic in language, religion and
culture. Same is the case with countries like Egypt and Turkey etc. The ancient
kingdoms of Mesopotamia, Egypt etc had lost all their traces in the modern
Nation States of Egypt, Italy, Turkey etc.
All this points to the fact
that the global understanding of the concept of Nation, Nationhood etc is based
on models that are short-lived and shifting their bases constantly. Yet, based
on the experience of last two centuries various scholars have tried to develop
theories for Nation and Nationalism. Ethnicity, language, kinship, culture,
territory and several other factors have been enumerated as the basis for
Nationalism. All this has ended in definitional confusion with regard to Nation
and Nationality.
What is
the European concept of Nation and Nationhood?
Despite these definitional
worries, there was a fair amount of agreement among the modern western scholars
about what is historically the most typical, paradigmatic form of nationalism.
It is the one which features the supremacy of the nation's claims over other
claims to individual allegiance, and which features full sovereignty as the
persistent aim of its political program. Territorial sovereignty has
traditionally been seen as a defining element of state power, and essential for
nationhood. It was extolled in classic modern works by Hobbes, Locke, and
Rousseau.
The territorial state as
political unit is seen by nationalists as centrally ‘belonging’ to one
ethnic-cultural group, and actively charged with protecting and promulgating
its traditions. This form is exemplified by the classical, “revivalist”
nationalism, that was most prominent in the 19th century in Europe and Latin
America.
In other words, a nation is any
group of people aspiring to a common political state-like organization.
Some scholars have added
cultural dimension to the definition. Michel Seymour in his proposal of a
“socio-cultural definition” states that nation is a cultural group, possibly
but not necessarily united by a common descent, endowed with civic ties
(Seymour 2000). By this definition, nation became a somewhat mixed category,
both ethno-cultural and civic, but still closer to the purely ethno-cultural
than to the purely civic extreme.
Definitional variations abound.
The early German elaborations talk about “the spirit of a people”, while
somewhat later ones, mainly of French extraction, talk about “collective
mentality”. Isaiah Berlin, writing as late as the early seventies, proposed as
a part of his definition of nationalism that it consists of the conviction that
people belong to a particular human group, and that “…the characters of the
individuals who compose the group are shaped by, and cannot be understood apart
from, those of the group …”.
Classical nationalism of the
western origin is the political program that sees the creation and maintenance
of a fully sovereign state owned by a given ethno-national group (“people” or
“nation”) as a primary duty of each member of the group.
There are some scholars who
believed that the concept of Nation itself is artificial and imagined. Ernst
Gellner observes that nationalism is an ‘invention’ or fabrication,
“Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness, it invents
nation where they do not exist”. Benedict Anderson claims that nations are
imagined communities.
Some modern day critics like
Prof. Balagangadhara have argued that the European concept of Nation State has
its origins in Christianity itself. They cite the story in Genesis of the Old
Testament. According to the Old Testament there is a narrative of the City of
Babel in Genesis 11:1-9. Everyone on earth spoke the same language. As people
migrated from the east, they settled in the land of Shinar. People there sought
to make bricks and build a city and a tower with its top in the sky, to make a
name for themselves, so that they not be scattered over the world. God came
down to look at the city and tower, and remarked that as one people with one
language, nothing that they sought would be out of their reach. God went down
and confounded their speech, so that they could not understand each other, and
scattered them over the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city.
Thus the city was called Babel.
Ethno-Political or
Ethno-Cultural form of Nationalism has led to the creation of a large number of
Nation States in the 18th and 19th Centuries. It might have benefitted some,
like the Israelis, the Belgians etc and continues to be seen as beneficial by
groups like the Scots in UK, the Flemish in Belgium, the Kurds in Turkey and
Iran and the Tamils in Sri Lanka. But it essentially is based on divisive and
superiority sentiments.
Nation-states
Alien to Indian Thought
Influenced by the Euro-centric
discourse on Nation and Nationalism some Indian and British scholars have tried
to apply the same Nation State concept to India as well. The British, who ruled
over India for more than two centuries, were in the forefront arguing that
India was never a Nation in th European sense of the term. Sir John Strachey, a
Member in the Council of Secretary of State of the British Government wrote in
1888 : “This is the first and the most essential thing to learn about India
that there is not and never was an India or even any country of India
possessing, according to European ideas, any sort of unity, physical,
political, social or religious. No Indian nation, no people of India’ of which
we hear so much.” As late as 1930, the Simon Commission referred to India as a
“conglomeration of races and religions.”
This Anglicised discourse on
India's nationhood was taken forward by some Indian scholars also besides the
European ones. Surendranath Benarjee authored a book titled "A Nation in
the Making" describing India as a Nation that is slowly being built on the
lines of the European Nation State model.
However, the European concept
of Nation is alien to Indian thought. "The concept of nation itself is, in
fact, alien to the Hindu temperament and genius. It is essentially Semitic in
character, even if it arose in Western Europe in the eighteenth century when it
had successfully shaken off the Church's stranglehold. For, like Christianity
and Islam, it too emphasizes the exclusion of those who do not belong to the
charmed circle (territorial, or linguistic, or ethnic) as much as it emphasizes
the inclusion of those who fall within the circle. Indeed, the former, like the
heretics and pagans in Christianity and Islam, are cast into outer
darkness", writes eminent Indian author Girilal Jain.
Robindranatath Tagore too was
critical of the West contrasting it with the Indian thought: "The
civilisation of Ancient Greece was nurtured in the city walls. In fact, all the
modern civilisations have their cradles of brick and mortar. The walls leave
their mark deep in the minds of men. Thus in Indiait was in the forests that
our civilisation had its birth, and it took a distinct character from this origin
and environment. It was surrounded by the vast life of nature and had the
closest and most constant intercourse with her varying aspects. Her aim was not
to acquire but to realise, to enlarge her consciousness by growing into her
surroundings. The West seems to take pride in thinking that it is subduing
nature as if we are living in a hostile world where we have to wrest everything
we want from an unwilling and alien arrangement of things. This sentiment is
the product of the city wall habit and training of mind. But in India the point
of view was different; it included the world with the man as one great
truth.India put all her emphasis on the harmony that exists between the
individual and the universal. The fundamental unity of creation was not simply a
philosophical speculation for India; it was her life object to realise this
great harmony in feeling and action".
In fact a land of such extreme
diversity in language, religions, rituals and customs is a nightmare for and
scholar to explain in terms of the modern Nation State concept. That leads us
to the question of what is the identity of India if not a Nation in the
European sense?
Rishi Aurobindo, one of the
greatest saint-philosophers of 20th Century described Indian approach to
Nationalism is the following words: "In Positivism Europe has attempted to
arrive at a higher synthesis, the synthesis of humanity; and Socialism and
philosophical Anarchism, the Anarchism of Tolstoy and Spencer, have even
envisaged the application of the higher intellectual synthesis to life. In
India we do not recognise the nation as the highest synthesis to which we can
rise. There is a higher synthesis, humanity; beyond that there is a still
higher synthesis, this living, suffering, aspiring world of creatures, the synthesis
of Buddhism; there is a highest of all, the synthesis of God, and that is the
Hindu synthesis, the synthesis of Vedanta. With us today Nationalism is our
immediate practical faith and gospel not because it is the highest possible
synthesis, but because it must be realised in life if we are to have the chance
of realising the others. We must live as a nation before we can live in
humanity."
Sri Aurobindo rejected the
theory that the essential conditions of nationality are unity of language,
unity of religion and life, and unity of race. He pointed out that the English
nation itself was built out of various races, that Switzerland has distinct
racial strains speaking three different languages and professing different
religions, that in America the candidates for White House addressed at that
time the nation in fourteen languages, that Austria is a congeries of races and
languages and that the divisions in Russia are hardly less acute. He argued
that the idea that unity in race, religion or language is essential to
nationality is an idea which will not bear examination. He referred to the
example of the Roman Empire, which created a common language, a common religion
and life, and tried its best to crush out racial diversities under the weight
of its uniform system, but it failed to make one great nation. In an
illuminating passage, Sri Aurobindo defined the essential elements of
nationality. He wrote:
“We answer that there are
certain essential conditions, geographical unity, a common past, a powerful
common interest impelling towards unity and certain favourable ‘political
conditions which enable the impulse to realize itself in an organized
government expressing the nationality and perpetuating its single and united
existence. This may be provided by a part of the nation, a race or community,
uniting the others under its leadership or domination, or by a united
resistance to a common pressure from outside or within. A common enthusiasm
coalescing with a common interest is the most powerful fosterer of nationality."
Rashtram: The Enlightened Path
"Common enthusiasm
coalescing with a common interest" as basis of nationhood has been
realised in India for Millennia. This is described aptly from the Vedic period
as "Rashtram" or "Rashtra".
Rastram
is etymologically explained as a firm, enlightened path for welfare of a
community. The word is derived as a combination of two roots: ras'mi
'the sun' and sTha 'firm, placed in'. This leads to an extraordinary
evocation in the Vedas: rastram me datta (Give me that lighted path).
In India, the concept of nation
existed for millennia in the form of a pan-Indian spiritual-emotional identity.
In Rig Veda, the most ancient work of Hindu seers, the word ‘Rashtram’
was used to describe the national identity of the people of the land called Bharatavarsha.
‘Rashtram’ is a uniquely Indian concept for nationhood founded
essentially on the spiritual foundations. Thus ‘Rashtram’ as an idea is
a unifying and development-oriented (Abhyudayam) concept as against
today’s concept of nation, in which the basic urge to live together is not
developed, and which has been a major source of political conflict and violence
throughout last three centuries.
Rashtram – The Divine Mother
Rashtram
has been invested with divinity and motherhood in the Vedas. Vak, one of
the innumerable women composers of the hymns in Vedas says in the
Pratham Mandala of Rig Veda:
Aham Rashtri Sangamani Vasunam
Chikitushi Prathama Yagyiyanam – Rig Veda
I am the beholder of this Rashtra;
benefactor of the gods; and first among the worshipped.
Thus an effort was made to
infuse the sense of divinity, sacredness and motherhood in Rashtram from
the times of Rig Veda. Most important aspect to note is that from time
immemorial women were held in very high esteem in India and this hymn is the in
a sense the originator of the concept of Bharat Mata – the Motherland
Bharat. Rishi Aurobindo described her as Jagajjanani – the mother of all
mothers – the Universal Mother.
In the foreword to R.K.
Mookerjee’s The Fundamental Unity of India, late Sir J. Ramsay MacDonald,
ex-Prime Minister of Britain writes: “The Hindu regards India not only as a
political unit naturally the subject of one sovereignty – whoever holds that
sovereignty, whether British, Mohamedan, or Hindu – but as the outward
embodiment, as the temple – nay, even as the goddess mother – of his spiritual
culture… He made India the symbol of his culture; he filled it with this soul.
In his consciousness, it was his greater self.”
Evolution
of Rashtra
In Bharat there was evolution
of Rashtra. The underlying concept was different. It is not similar to
the theory of Nation in the West. There is a beautiful shloka in Atharva
Veda which says:
Bhadram icchhantah rishiyah
swar vidayah, tapo
dikshaamupanshed agre.
tato raashtram, bala, ojasya
jaatam
tadasmai devaupasannmantu
It means that a bhadra
icchha - a benign wish originated in the minds of ancient seers during the
course of their penance. This benign wish was for Abhyudayam - the
welfare and glory of all. This is not divisive and is not guided by the desire
that I should get all pleasures. These rishis – sages were supremely learned
and it was their benevolent wish.
Abhyudayam
is material and spiritual wellbeing of the mankind. The above shloka
mentions that the sages, through their penance and meditation, have realised
this benign wish of the universal wellbeing and that wish has invigorated the
consciousness of the Rashtram. The sages says that even gods bow before
such consciousness of Rashtra. Now what is Rashtra here? This is
not political but it is spiritual. This is for the welfare of all.
But the most important question
is how to explain bhadra icchha (benign wish)? The entire philosophy of Rashtra
emanates from this bhadra icchha (benign wish). A doctrine of Dharma
was developed on the basis of this bhadra icchha.
Sage Kaṇāda in Vaiśeṣika
Sūtra notes a definition of Dharma by its beneficial impact,
focusing on discharge of one’s responsibility:
Yatobhyudaya nisreyasa siddhihi
ca dharmah
"That which leads to the
attainment of Abhyudaya (prosperity in this world) and Nihśreyasa
(total cessation of pain and attainment of eternal bliss hereafter) is
Dharma". The Bhadra Icchha – Benign Wish of the sages was to secure
this two-fold objective.
It is this Dharma which
is the soul of the Rashtra. Swami Vivekananda described India as 'Dharma
Praana Bhaarata' - 'Bharat with Dharma as soul'. This concept of National
Soul is unique to India and that soul is 'Rashtra' - the quintessential
national identity of India. Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya called it 'Chiti'.
The first Prime Minister of India, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, despite his Western
upbringing and Socialist convictions, had to appeal to this concept of the
National Soul in his famous Tryst with Destiny address to the Indian Parliament
on the midnight of 14/15 August 1947 when India became independent. He said:
"Long years ago we made a
tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not
wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the
midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A
moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old
to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds
utterance.
It is fitting that at this
solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her
people and to the still larger cause of humanity.
At the dawn of history India
started on her unending quest, and trackless centuries are filled with her
striving and the grandeur of her success and her failures. Through good and ill
fortune alike she has never lost sight of that quest or forgotten the ideals
which gave her strength. We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers
herself again."
The ideals that Nehru referred
to as those that had given her strength were the ideals of Dharma. Dharma
can be understood a set of values that define the ethical, spiritual life of
India as a Rashtra. They include its outlook to life, creation,
universe, god, state, wealth and everything else. It is these ideals on which
the Indian nationhood - Rashtriyata - was founded and thrived. It is
these ideals India 'never lost sight of' in her long journey through victories
and vicissitudes.
Some of the fundamentals of Dharma
can be enumerated briefly in order to underscore the difference between the
concept of 'Rashtram' and 'Nation'.
On the question of Creation it
believes:
* Isavasyam idam sarvam
(Chapter 4: The Isavasya Upanishad).
The entire universe, animate
and inanimate alike, is pervaded by Isvara - the divine consciousness.
On the question of ethnic,
racial, linguistic and other difference in the world it proposes:
* Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam
The entire world is one family.
On the economic question it
talks about 'sustained consumption':
* tena tyaktena bhunjitah
One should acquire only that
much which was left for him by Isvara
On the welfare question, it
states:
* sarve bhavantu sukinah -
sarve santu niramayah
Let ALL be happy and free from
diseases
On the environment related
questions, its proposition is:
* Mata bhumi putro'ham
prithvyah (Atharva Veda 12|1|12)
This earth is my mother and I
am her son.
On the question of religious
diversity in the world, it proposes:
Indram mitram
varunnamagnimaahutathoe divyah sa suparnoe garutmaan |
Ekam Sadvipraa bahudhaa Vadanti
maatarisvaanamaahuh - Rig Veda
Truth is one; wise men
interpret in different ways.
It has attained ultimate levels
of tolerance, accommodation and celebration of pluralism on the earth.
nana vibrati bahudha vivacasam
nana dharmanam prithivi
yathaukasam
sahasra dhara dravitasya ye
duham
dhruvena dhamurenk pasphuranti
‘The earth is full of variety;
it contains people speaking different dialects and speech, of diverse religious
customs, each living according to what they think is right. The earth contains
innumerable valuable things. It bears trees and plants of great diversity. We
should pay homage to that Earth’.
Entire
World is One Rashtram
However, one important
dimension needs to be understood here. 'Rashtra' is not a political
concept in the sense that it doesn't define any geographical boundaries. It is
more an ethical, spiritual concept - a view and way of life. The sages of India
concluded that this whole earth surrounded by oceans is one Rashtra
prithivyah samudra
parayantaayah eak raat iti
Therefore the idea and concept
of Rashtra is a philosophy here. It is a way of life and principles to
live life which define relationship and expected behavior between people and
other beings.
State
under Rashtram
What is State under 'Rashtram'?.
We need to look at this crucial question in order to understand the concept of
'Rashtram' fully. Contrary to Nation State concept Rashtram views
State as one of the many institutions that help society pursue the path of Dharma.
State, described as Rajya, is thus not coterminous with Rashtra.
The Aitereya Brahmana,
one of the ancient scriptures of India describes 10 kinds of Rajyas
under one Rashtra:
sAmrajyam. bhaujyam. svArajyam.
vairajyam.
pArameShThyam. rajyam.
MahArajyam Adhipatyamayam.
samantaparyAyI syAt.
sArvabhauma sArvAyuSha AntAdAparArdhAt.
pR^ithivai
Chanakya, the great Indian
political philosopher, states that Rajah - the King - is a servant of Dharma.
Unlike in Nation States the Rajah enjoys no special privileges
whatsoever. He is mandated to live like a commoner. The happiness of the Rajah
lies in the happiness of his subjects. Even his powers as ruler are subject to
the scrutiny of the Dharma. When a Rajah is coronated he would
declare thrice - Adandyosmi - Nobody can punish me. A revered sage is
then made to pronounce thrice - Dharmadandyosi - The Dharma will
punish you.
Millinnia-old
Experience of India as Rashtram
In India, this kind of Rashtra
existed for Millennia as an ethical and spiritual idea pervading the entire
national life of Hindus. There existed innumerable political units in the form
of kings, vassals, principalities, self-governed republics and occasionally the
monarchs. But they never interfered in the national life of the people. Their
duties were limited to safety, order and development. In fact while the kings
waged wars the society carried on with its daily life unhindered.
As a Rashtram it had the
enormous catholicity to welcome and absorb any number of outside elements,
whether they came as aggressors like the Huns, the Kushans, the Greeks etc or
whether as refugees like the Parsis, the Zorastrians and the the Jews. When its
boundaries were threatened the Rajah of entire Rashtram rose against
the enemy. In fact the Rajah were mandated to secure the borders not only of
their kingdoms, but also of the Rashtram.
In order to sustain this spirit
of ethical and spiritual ideals various institutions were devised in India.
Innumerable sacred places were strewn across the length and breadth of the
country. Pilgrimages, festivals etc became important institutions in the life
of the Rashtra instead of politics and Statecraft. A unique band of
renounced individuals became the vehicles of this ethical, spiritual ideal
across the country from place to place, time to time and generation to
generation. They authored number of Dharma Shastras to guide the society
in upholding the spirit of Rashtram in contemporary age. Great epics
like Ramayana and Mahabharata to their innumerable forms in later ages became
powerful instruments of carrying the message of the Rashtram through
generations. That is the secret of India's uninterrupted life as a Rashtra
for Millennia irrespective of the fact that it was never in history a united
political entity.
To conclude, Rashtra is
spiritual, all inclusive and is for the welfare of all. The foundation and the
meaning behind it is not political or divisive. This Rashtra does not
exist on the basis of rulers or army. This Rashtra has originated from
the bhadra ichchha (benign wish) of the sages - rishis. This bhadra
ichchha (benign wish) sees element of supreme soul in all, it propounds the
idea of Ekam Sadvipraa bahudha vadanti and has a vision of sarve
bhavantu sukhinah before it.
It is this bhadra ichchha,
which has given rise to the Bharatiya Rashtram - Indian nation and
sustains it through Dharma, that should be the basis for a new discourse
on Nation and Nationality.
* * *
Interestingly,
the battle is historic in the sense that it is all about historic
legacy. “What is history after all; it is a fable mutually agreed upon,”
Napoleon Bonaparte famously quipped once. His prophetic words are coming out to be true in India now.
