Myths?

The article Modern India's Myths by columnist Tavleen Singh in the January 4^th edition of the Indian Express makes for an interesting read. In that article, Tavleen Singh attacks what she calls "Myths about India" by which she is referring to several arguments that are purportedly made by "Self-Loathing Writers, Historians, Hacks and Politicians who became such a noisy chorus in the international media after the attack on Mumbai". These arguments include the notion that India as a unified entity did not exist before 1947, there was no such thing as a "Hindu India" in the past and India herself should be blamed for terror attacks upon its soil. I would like to make some points that I feel are germane to the content in the article.

Firstly, let me consider the argument over whether India as a unified territory existed before 1947. There is a ring of truth in the refutations made by Singh. For instance, she asserts that long before the creation of the Indian state, there was a country called Bharat, whose boundaries were perfectly understood by ordinary Indians across India. To prove her point, she notes that people from various communities and regions across the subcontinent have been attending the Kumbh Mela centuries before the Indian State was created. This is a fair point, but only to a certain extent. The idea of India is significantly different from that of the country, Bharat, which existed before it. No doubt, there are fundamental similarities between the two since one was born out of another, but they are as different as mother and daughter. This difference is brought about by two political factors – democracy and secularism. Bharat or Hindustan or Old India or whatever one wishes to call it was neither democratic nor secular. Modern India is both (at least in principle). Thus, though I agree with Tavleen Singh about the sociological congruence between Bharat and India, I must point out that, politically, there is a vast difference between the two.

Secondly, Singh makes a very good point about the idea of a 'Hindu' India before the advent of Islamic rulers from the Central Asia. Hindu India, as far my knowledge of history goes, did exist. The Gupta Empire that spanned the subcontinent was ruled by a number of Hindu kings and many historians have dubbed this era as the 'Golden Age' of Ancient India. Besides, for several hundred years, large parts of India were Hindu kingdoms and these kingdoms continued to exist right up to even British times. However, Tavleen Singh does not specify which part of ancient Indian history she was referring to when she mentioned 'Hindu' India. It would be fallacious to assume that India was Hindu-dominated for the whole of the ancient period. In fact, after Ashoka became the emperor of the Mauryan dynasty, Buddhism began to flourish as a major religion in the country and continued to do so until the rise of the Guptas. I like to believe that the idea of a unified subcontinent began with the Mauryas. In other words, as far as I am concerned, neither the Aryan nations nor the Indus Valley Civilization can be considered as true Bharat. But this is just a personal opinion and I do not wish to push this view upon others.

The third so-called myth that Tavleen Singh attacks is the most contentious of the three. She feels that it is ridiculous to blame actions of the Indian state for jihadist attacks upon its soil. I don't fully agree. While I concur that some liberals have taken this point to foolish levels by linking every terror act to an atrocity committed by Indians, I must affirm that Indians have committed crimes in the past that have a direct link to the Islamic terrorism being practiced against the country at present. The riots in Gujarat, though maybe not as horrific as the Rwanda genocide or the Somalian atrocities, were heinous nevertheless and probably fostered a sense of persecution in many Muslims. Fundamentalists based abroad most probably capitalized on this sense of horror to create support bases for themselves in India. In fact, the rise of organizations such as the Indian Mujahedeen may have been the direct result of such persecution mania. Therefore, while we Indians should not feel squeamish while dealing with terrorists, we must take care to avoid collateral damage. This does not mean we should forsake a strong fist for a weak finger but rather ensure that the fist punches only those who deserve it.

I would like to conclude by saying that Tavleen Singh makes some very good points but she ignores some ramifications of the issues she criticizes. These issues are not myths as much as they are misunderstandings and generalizations. I myself don't have much sympathy for liberals who advocate giving up Kashmir or blindly support a particular group of people calling them victims of 'Indian imperialism'. However, I accede that sometimes, what they say needs to be heard.