https://thedailyguardian.

com/bharat-an-indic-civilisation-state/

Bharat: An Indic Civilisation State

Radhakumud Mookerji said the boundaries of Aryan territory were defined by its
civilisational spread, reach and presence. Civilisation needs a fixed geography as
a prerequisite for its birth, sustenance and for it to flourish.

Published 3:15 am IST on June 5, 2020By J. Sai Deepak

In the last piece, this author had presented a broad summary of historian
Radhakumud Mookerji’s book The Fundamental Unity of India to understand how
indigenous scholarly voices, which existed well before 1947, saw Bharat. In reading
and interpreting works of history, it is critical to understand that history has
always been a fertile battleground because it could either make or break a people’s
relationship with their past, which, in turn, affects their sense of self.
Therefore, decoloniality demands that the political utility of history should never
be underestimated, which makes it imperative to pay attention to the ebb and flow
of politics and power structures surrounding a work of history. How is this
relevant to the discussion at hand?

The fact that Mookerji and other such Indic voices operated in an extremely hostile
colonial atmosphere, wherein Western-centrism was even more normative than now, is
well-documented. Sample this 21-page paper titled “The Origins of Indian
Nationalism According to Native Writers” authored by an American Professor of
History, Bruce T. McCully in 1935, which was published in The Journal of Modern
History. The stated object of the study was “to determine the origins of Indian
nationalism as indicated in the works of native writers”. However, McCully’s
coloniality, which reveals itself through his language of sheer condescension and
contempt for the works of Mookerji and other “native” voices such as K.M.Panikkar,
V.V.S.Aiyar, B.S.Rao, Har Bilas Sarda, Sukumar Dutt and K.S.Ramaswami Sastri who
largely shared Mookerji’s position, is best captured in his own words:

“The attempt to interpret the unity of ancient India in terms of religion and
culture, aside from the improbability of this theory in the light of historical
research, appears to be more in the nature of a rationalization to support the
contention that India has always possessed certain of the component elements of
nationality than an explanation of the origins of nationalism….

…With their somewhat romantic attachment to the past glories of India in contrast
to the despised present, these writers seem to invite criticism by their cavalier
disregard for the evidences of history….Far more weighty in number, diversity, and
value are the writings which attribute the origins of Indian nationalism to the
influences, on the whole beneficent, flowing into India as a consequence of British
rule.

…The evidence indicates that an overwhelming majority of the writings examined

prefer the latter thesis, thereby inclining to admit that Indian nationalism is not
of indigenous origin but exotic, implanted not by native but by foreign hands, and
germinating only under conditions and influences supplied by a foreign nation and
people. It is equally apparent that a majority of the writers believe that the
British supplied not only environmental and other factors necessary to evoke a
national consciousness in India, but also the germ in the form of the nation-idea
which they acknowledge to have been originally entirely foreign to the Indian mind.

The evidence further demonstrates that at least a few of the writers have perceived
the profound significance upon the origins of the movement of socializing agencies
carried into the land by the British; it seems to suggest that in the course of
time Indian writers and commentators will tend increasingly to emphasize the
influence of the British-born institutions which have tended to bear upon every
part of the social fabric, rather than those institutions having a strictly
political character.”

Sadly, McCully’s prognosis of the future was prophetic. Having said that,
notwithstanding the colonialised attitude of Indian elites towards this land’s
history which resonates with that of McCully’s, it is equally important to
appreciate that history lends itself to multiple and constantly changing
interpretations. This is often because of the emergence of new sources, frameworks,
political thoughts and processes to understand history, apart from the role that
advancement in technology plays to help historians sift through the sands of time
better. Why is this caveat relevant?

Throughout his book The Fundamental Unity of India, Mookerji credits “the Aryans”
and the spread of “the Aryan Civilization” with the evolutionary consciousness of
what constitutes “Bharatavarsha/Bharat” territorially and civilizationally. He has
clearly articulated that there exists an unavoidable and irrefutable nexus between
the “Aryan Civilization” and the “Indian/Indic Civilization”. Stated otherwise,
according to Mookerji, the boundaries of Aryan territory were defined by its
civilizational spread, reach and presence. This school of thought commands
significant contemporary purchase among authentic Indic scholars and presents a
fascinating relationship between civilization and geography. As discussed in
earlier pieces, civilization needs a fixed geography as a prerequisite for its
birth, sustenance and for it to flourish. And then, perhaps, both civilization and
geography enter into a symbiotic relationship and contribute to each other’s
growth.

Coming back to the relevance of the caveat, given the political and racial
undertones the word “Aryan” has acquired and the continuing debate on the validity
of the “Aryan Invasion Theory” and its counterview, namely the “Out of India
Theory”, it appears more sensible to not hold forth with certitude on the subject
when even scholars are tentative in their conclusions. This note of caution applies
all the more to those who are not trained in the subject but are keen on pushing
their respective ideological positions.

Be that as it may, what emerges from the works of a host of reputed scholarly Indic
voices is that, regardless of the origins of Aryans, the birth of the Aryan
civilization must be traced to the area traversed by the rivers mentioned in the
famous river-hymn of the Rig Veda, namely Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati, Sutudri
(Sutlej), Parusni (Ravi), Asikni (Chenab), Vitasta (Jhelum), Arjikiya
(Vipasha/Beas) and Susoma (Indus). Such works also note how other rivers such as
Narmada, Godavari and Cauvery were added to the later Pauranic adaptations of the
hymn as the civilization’s geography expanded. To put it in the language of
decoloniality, these are indigenous sources of Indic identity as well as the
repository of indigenous epistemology which cannot and must not be ignored or
dismissed. In a nutshell, notwithstanding the ultimate result of the ongoing tussle
between scholars on the “racial origins of Aryans”, the fact remains that the Indic
civilization’s religious traditions venerate the land itself. Further, it is this
sub-continent, this landmass, that has been associated by indigenous history and
tradition with the civilization of the Aryans, which gave it the name Bharat.
Importantly, no turn of history, no matter how devastating, has had the effect of
erasing this uninterrupted civilizational identity notwithstanding the changing
sovereigns or their faiths. After all, an exception proves the norm instead of
denying its existence This continuity in Indic consciousness and the proof of the
Indic civilization’s “living” status lies in the fact that Clause 8 of the
Objectives Resolution of the Constituent Assembly, which was adopted on January 22,
1947, recognized that India (i.e. Bharat) is an “ancient land”. When coupled with
Article 1 of the Constitution, which acknowledges that India is Bharat, it leads to
the undeniable conclusion that constitutionally speaking, Bharat is an Indic
civilization State.
By adopting a name, which harkens back to a civilizational identity that antedates
the arrival of non-native cultures and faiths into India, the Constitution
precludes the application of the paradigm of a “nation state” or any other form of
“non-nation state” such as a “multinational state”. That said, far from othering
and marginalising those identities whose origins and situs of devotion lie outside
Bharat’s civilizational fabric, the Constitution promises fair and equal treatment
to all those who (a) wish to be a peaceful part of its diverse canvas and (b)
respect its civilizational identity, both being conjunctive and mandatory
requirements. This is consistent with the values that the Constitution has
inherited from the Indic civilization. Every provision of the Constitution and
every constitutional value must necessarily be interpreted and given effect to in
light of this grundnorm.

This author will build on this position in the next piece. J. Sai Deepak is a
practising advocate before the Supreme Court of Indian and Delhi High Court.