RAASHTRAM – SPIRITUAL-EMOTIONAL
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
by: Sri Ram Madhav Varanasi, MA (Pol.
Science), Director, India Foundation, New Delhi, India
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 his work ‘Marxism and the National Problem’ described
nation 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.
0 Comments