12-02-2006, 12:01 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-k.ram+Nov 30 2006, 07:54 AM-->QUOTE(k.ram @ Nov 30 2006, 07:54 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The fundamental, and perhaps a truer basis of unity (identity) than any modern definitions such as a national, political, linguistic, race/ethnicity based sentiment was always there In India. It is to be found in a common intellectual heritage, having ebbs and flows, yet persisting through an unbroken tradition thats moulds even when modified, permeating India's whole social life to the minutest detail. It is the sanatana dharma which lies at the root of all the various forms of expressions of Indians and it is all inclusive.
For thousands of years India has been one, not merely in a geographical sense, but in religion, civilization, and customs. India has always felt herself to be an integral whole from the Himalayas to Lanka. The sentiment of unity, consciouness and identity has found expression in ancient songs and traditions - vedas to unpanishads to darsanas to panchatantra to aagamas to bhajans to what not and you get the drift. That has always been the national consciousness, and identity, if one can call that.
As for the modern awakening out of slumber and intellectual & social corruption, and when at the verge of perishing, and I quote Ashok's message
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called "Hindu Renaissance of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The modern defintions of nation-state and forms of nationalism, ramana and acharya have spoken quite eloquently to those. As far the interpretation and study of Indian history, HH's posting warns of the dangers in it. Hence the framework for such interpretive studies. Otherwise the comparative studies will slide into something else. For ancient democratic traditions of India, I will defer you to read shantiparva of mahabharatha (for example, and off the top of my head about duties of rajan, ganatantra, etc). All in Bhisma's teaching to Yudhishtara. Someone I know may write an article on just that.
[right][snapback]61551[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There were so many posts each with different strands of the discussion topic, that it took me some time to decide how to go forward.
kram, at present I'll not be commenting on the cultural unity and a national sense throughout the ages for it will be an altogether important discussion on its own. Also I have to better understand and think on the above.
Lets look at political unity, for that is clearly one thing we have had as a "modern" nation that maybe we have had only at certain times our history. It has only been sporadic. So maybe one part of discussing how or when India became modern is to study this political unity aspect.
As I see this political unity thing or a political center etc. has been cited in postings of different authors as a part of this disccusion. So what is political unity, or more clearly when can we say that we are politically united and what is its link to present day modern India. In other words to what extent has political unity gone to shape the form and fortunes of modern India.
I think at this point of time we need to get a consensus on our terminology.
Regards terminology, let me put an idea of modern, which can be a starting point and will agree to all of us. For as Hauma Hamidha has righlty said that can be a source of confusion and miscommunication. Let us not add any connotations to modern presently.
At present let modern mean just that it is a different India we see today and live in today than what was there during the medieval times. I think that is a safe starting point. All regions of the world have changed enormously in the past one or two centuries. Even a country like China, which also has an old culture and an ancient sense of national consiousness has changed. So this very basic definition for present I think will be agreeable to all of us. In this sense modern is just a term, we can even replace it with A or 1 or (i). It has simply no connotations to it. In fact this also leaves it open to discussion whether any major change happened at all or not. So you need not necessarily agree with the change theory.
Now the questions such as what is different in today's India, whether its progress or regress i.e. change for the better or worse, more importantly what are the factors can help us determine what makes modern all of these are subjects of discussion.
Coming back to political unity aspect, I think what definitely marks a difference is the extent of political unity that we see in present day India. But again let us be clear what political unity means. I believe instead of looking at "political unity" in black and white (i.e to say that either it is there or not there), let us consider a continuum of the condition of political unity in a state. At one end of this continuum a state is totally disunited for e.g. with disparate states, no centralization whatsoever etc. at the other end it is highly politically united. The reason I make this input is so that we can differentiate between the political unity during Mauryan or Guptan times or during the Mughal time with the political unity of present day India. I believe that modern day India is far highly politically united compared to any of these previous instances. Now in this case, we have to deliberate on the following points:
1. What exactly politcal unity means. What are its effects. What are the parameters to decide and judge the extent of political unity. This will help us determine the two ends of the political unity continuum
2. What factors cause or encourage political unity or disunity or in other words the centirfugal or centripetal forces
I think we have come back a full circle to the beginning of the discussion, maybe this all will end up with a question "Is India really modern" <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For thousands of years India has been one, not merely in a geographical sense, but in religion, civilization, and customs. India has always felt herself to be an integral whole from the Himalayas to Lanka. The sentiment of unity, consciouness and identity has found expression in ancient songs and traditions - vedas to unpanishads to darsanas to panchatantra to aagamas to bhajans to what not and you get the drift. That has always been the national consciousness, and identity, if one can call that.
As for the modern awakening out of slumber and intellectual & social corruption, and when at the verge of perishing, and I quote Ashok's message
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Modernity" in the truest sense of the word, in India's affairs, starts when hindus awoke after a centuries long slumber. This should properly be identified with the so called "Hindu Renaissance of the late 19th century and early 20th century. All other definitions of modernity are non-Indian definitions and to their view of what they consider modern.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The modern defintions of nation-state and forms of nationalism, ramana and acharya have spoken quite eloquently to those. As far the interpretation and study of Indian history, HH's posting warns of the dangers in it. Hence the framework for such interpretive studies. Otherwise the comparative studies will slide into something else. For ancient democratic traditions of India, I will defer you to read shantiparva of mahabharatha (for example, and off the top of my head about duties of rajan, ganatantra, etc). All in Bhisma's teaching to Yudhishtara. Someone I know may write an article on just that.
[right][snapback]61551[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There were so many posts each with different strands of the discussion topic, that it took me some time to decide how to go forward.
kram, at present I'll not be commenting on the cultural unity and a national sense throughout the ages for it will be an altogether important discussion on its own. Also I have to better understand and think on the above.
Lets look at political unity, for that is clearly one thing we have had as a "modern" nation that maybe we have had only at certain times our history. It has only been sporadic. So maybe one part of discussing how or when India became modern is to study this political unity aspect.
As I see this political unity thing or a political center etc. has been cited in postings of different authors as a part of this disccusion. So what is political unity, or more clearly when can we say that we are politically united and what is its link to present day modern India. In other words to what extent has political unity gone to shape the form and fortunes of modern India.
I think at this point of time we need to get a consensus on our terminology.
Regards terminology, let me put an idea of modern, which can be a starting point and will agree to all of us. For as Hauma Hamidha has righlty said that can be a source of confusion and miscommunication. Let us not add any connotations to modern presently.
At present let modern mean just that it is a different India we see today and live in today than what was there during the medieval times. I think that is a safe starting point. All regions of the world have changed enormously in the past one or two centuries. Even a country like China, which also has an old culture and an ancient sense of national consiousness has changed. So this very basic definition for present I think will be agreeable to all of us. In this sense modern is just a term, we can even replace it with A or 1 or (i). It has simply no connotations to it. In fact this also leaves it open to discussion whether any major change happened at all or not. So you need not necessarily agree with the change theory.
Now the questions such as what is different in today's India, whether its progress or regress i.e. change for the better or worse, more importantly what are the factors can help us determine what makes modern all of these are subjects of discussion.
Coming back to political unity aspect, I think what definitely marks a difference is the extent of political unity that we see in present day India. But again let us be clear what political unity means. I believe instead of looking at "political unity" in black and white (i.e to say that either it is there or not there), let us consider a continuum of the condition of political unity in a state. At one end of this continuum a state is totally disunited for e.g. with disparate states, no centralization whatsoever etc. at the other end it is highly politically united. The reason I make this input is so that we can differentiate between the political unity during Mauryan or Guptan times or during the Mughal time with the political unity of present day India. I believe that modern day India is far highly politically united compared to any of these previous instances. Now in this case, we have to deliberate on the following points:
1. What exactly politcal unity means. What are its effects. What are the parameters to decide and judge the extent of political unity. This will help us determine the two ends of the political unity continuum
2. What factors cause or encourage political unity or disunity or in other words the centirfugal or centripetal forces
I think we have come back a full circle to the beginning of the discussion, maybe this all will end up with a question "Is India really modern" <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->