India that is Bharat: Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution

by J. Sai Deepak

The common adversary is, of course, the indigenous worldview, which must be annihilated at any cost by any means necessary and by colluding with any ally available. This explains the cosy relationship of both forms of coloniality with Marxism in Bharat, which I will come to shortly.

On the contrary, European coloniality’s use of institutional mechanisms to co-opt the indigenous society and project Europeanism as the aspirational goal, lulled the indigenous consciousness into a false sense of comfort that coexistence was possible.

This may not be surprising given Marx’s own Eurocentrism and avowed belief that British colonialism was good for Bharat.

These were his views despite his own knowledge of the selfish nature of British colonisation of Bharat, best captured by his statement that ‘whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution’, that is, in laying the foundations for ‘the material basis of the new world’.

In the process, both the postcolonial and Marxist schools have arrogated to themselves the status of self-appointed guardians of ‘India Studies’, now ‘South Asia Studies’, which gives them monopoly over Bharat’s subjectivity, history and therefore, its future. This is one of the reasons for my conscious decision to place Bharat-specific literature on colonial consciousness alongside global literature on decoloniality to demonstrate that while the latter is celebrated in the context of the Americas, the former is relentlessly maligned despite seeking to achieve a similar goal as decoloniality—to stand up for Indic indigenous consciousness which is surrounded by an ocean of proselytising and expansionist colonialities.

After all, such choices are significantly contingent on the ‘practicality’ and ‘pragmatism’ of replacement of colonial consciousness with indigenous consciousness.

In this regard, I place limited reliance on Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s views wherein he suggested a continuum of thought between the Islamic OET-inspired invasions of Bharat in the eighth century and the ultimate demand for the creation of Pakistan by the leading lights of the Pakistan movement, citing the Two Nation Theory.

I specifically quote Dr. Ambedkar and place limited reliance on his views on this subject in the context of Middle Eastern colonialism is to make the point that Dr. Ambedkar, the chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, was of the view that the Two Nation Theory was a reality that the indigenous society of Bharat must accept instead of squeamishly denying.

After his conquest of Northern India, Muhammad of Ghazni detached it from India and ruled it from Ghazni. When Mahommed Ghori came in the field as a conqueror, he again attached it to India and ruled it from Lahore and then from Delhi. Hakim, the brother of Akbar, detached Kabul and Kandahar from Northern India. Akbar again attached it to Northern India. They were again detached by Nadirshah in 1738 and the whole of Northern India would have been severed from India had it not been for the check provided by the rise of the Sikhs.

Even the Sikh axe could not fell this oak. Sikhs, no doubt, became the political masters of Northern India, but they did not gain back Northern India to that spiritual and cultural unity by which it was bound to the rest of India before Hsuan Tsang.

I am alive to Dr. Ambedkar’s views on Indic OETs, in particular on the caste system; however, given the undeniable existence of European coloniality during his life and times and his own colonial education, it is imperative to revisit his views on caste applying the filter of decoloniality without denying his experience or those of others. What is important for the present discussion is that notwithstanding Dr. Ambedkar’s views on native OETs, he did not lose sight of the fact that Middle Eastern colonialism had its origins in OETs that lay outside the pale of the Indic civilisational fabric.

After all, the creation of Pakistan is not too far back in time and the event has not put an end to Middle Eastern colonialism; instead, it has only provided a firm launch pad for the systematic advancement of Middle Eastern colonialism through the instrumentality of a State that was expressly created for the attainment of the said goal. Venkat Dhulipala’s work in this regard on the founding and organising principles of Pakistan is an example of stellar scholarship that only bolsters this position.

Therefore, a concrete Islamic theological justification was offered for the creation of Pakistan as an Islamic State. It is clear that the creation of Pakistan was envisaged as an end as well as the means to the end, namely the return of Islam to the Asian subcontinent.

Rather, it has an existential disincentive to not protect itself from either. This cannot be branded as fear-mongering given the irrefutable history of both colonialities in this part of the world. After all, facts cannot be replaced with wishful secularised thinking.

Also, I recognise that decoloniality may not be the silver bullet to all of Bharat’s civilisational challenges, that it may not have all the answers to the questions that stare at Bharat’s indigenous consciousness; but it certainly has the potential to serve as a lens for Bharat to be better equipped to square up to its past and make sense of its own journey by applying its own frameworks instead of using frameworks that subtly or overtly exert an imperial colonialising influence.

This can offer clarity on what makes a society a civilisation and why Bharat must be treated as one, so as to better understand (a) the true impact of the European coloniser’s nation-state project on Bharat and (b) whether Bharat’s journey towards constitutionalism reflects its self-understanding as a civilisation.

These labels were expectedly hurled at such scholars by the postcolonial and Marxist schools, which have normalised such labels in mainstream discourse, largely due to the monopoly enjoyed by them in the realms of education, journalism, culture and policymaking. Instead of engaging with Indic scholars on the merits of their position, the approach of the postcolonial and Marxist schools has been to impute anti-minority and hyper-nationalist motives to the views of such scholars in order to pre-empt them from reaching a wider audience.

Through their scholarship, these stalwarts successfully refuted the self-serving claim of the White European Christian coloniser that it was his civilising benevolence that led to disparate and unrelated communities being stitched into one political unit.

Among the earliest Indic scholars was Har Bilas Sarda, whose book Hindu Superiority, which was published in 1906, apart from being relevant to his times, was way ahead of its time when seen through a decolonial lens.

(a) that the native identity of Bharat being the Indic/Hindu identity never appeared to be a matter of contestation in Sarda’s discussion, and (b) that a harmonious relationship with nature defines the Hindu/Indic consciousness, from which emanate its worldview and institutions.

This cannot be said of the ‘Indic civilisation’ since ‘religion’, as understood in the Abrahamic sense, does not apply to Indic OET, as a consequence of which it may not be possible to distil visible commonalities with the same ease as in Christianity or Islam. In fact, that temptation must be avoided since even the attempt to define a fundamental concept, such as unity in the Abrahamic sense, is proof of unconscious Abrahamic coloniality at work, which defeats the very object of undertaking a decolonial approach to defining an Indic civilisational identity.

‘Jambudvipa’ and ‘Bharatavarsha’, to identify this vast geography both by its people and outsiders. He clarifies that while Jambudvipa is a geographical reference, Bharatavarsha is a political reference, both of which demonstrate a unified geographical and political consciousness much before the idea of a British identity was even born. The underlying premise behind Mookerji’s argument is that if a landmass with immense variety, natural and human, is given a common name, it is proof of unity in diversity with clear historical and political significance.

According to Mookerji, such efforts resulted in establishing cultural unity within a ‘federation’ of ‘different creeds, cults and cultures with liberty to each to preserve its own special features and genius and contribute its own quota to enrich the central culture’.14 In that sense, Bharat’s civilisation may be understood as a federal civilisation with multiple sub-identities that are free to retain their identities but have remained culturally and politically bound for millennia.

Thus, the Indian treats the beauty of place in a peculiar way, foreign to the West: his method of appreciating and celebrating it is quite different. A spot of beauty is no place for social enjoyment or self-indulgence; it is the place for self-restraint, for solitary meditation which leads the mind from nature up to Nature’s God.

It allowed no parochial, provincial sense to grow up which might interfere with the growth of the idea of the geographical unity of the mighty motherland; allowed no sense of physical comforts to stand in the way of the sacred duty of intimately knowing one’s mother country; and softened the severities of old-world travelling by breaking the pilgrim’s route by a holy halting place at short intervals. It is difficult indeed to count up the innumerable sacred spots which an overflowing religious feeling has planted throughout India.

From its mountains to its rivers, almost every geographical feature of Bharat is treated as a place of pilgrimage, which brings out the triple matrix of nature, faith and patriotism that was used to forge cultural unity while keeping the diversity alive. In fact, according to Mookerji, the institution of pilgrimage not only sanctified the parts but also mandated reverence of the whole. For instance, worship of the seven rivers, the seven mountains, the seven cities, the four abodes of pilgrimage and the like created and strengthened the idea of Bharat as a sacred geography.

Consequently, the deities and the devout belong to all of Bharat and all of Bharat belongs to the deities and the devout. This firm territorial connection between Indic OET systems and Bharat is what makes the Indic OET native to this land and, as a corollary, also explains why the OETs that inspire and drive Middle Eastern and European colonialities are not native to it. This is not a matter of subjective opinion or expression of xenophobia of any kind but is a statement of fact.

Hindu nationalism, their use of ‘nationalism’ was meant to signify Bharat acting as a single political unit without taking away the civilisational character of Bharat. In that sense, Mookerji’s reference is to ‘civilisational nationalism’, that is, a living federal civilisation that acts as one insofar as the rest of the world is concerned.

presence of ‘India that is Bharat’ in Article 1 of the Constitution is the consequence of civilisationally conscious suggestions that were put forth by several members of the Constituent Assembly, which were ultimately accepted.

this ancient land attains its rightful and honoured place in the world and make its full and willing contribution to the promotion of world peace and the welfare of mankind [emphasis

There are various suggestions put forward as to the proper name which should be given to this new baby of the Indian Republic. The prominent suggestions have been Bharat, Hindustan, Hind and Bharatbhumi or Bharatvarsh and names of that kind.

Seth Govind Das preferred Bharat to India and relied on the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Vishnu Purana, the Brahma Purana and the works of the Chinese monk and traveller Hiuen Tsang to make his case for Bharat. Kallur Subba Rao supported Das citing the Rig Veda and the Vayu Purana, with the geographical metes and bounds of Bharat being identified as follows:

When we pronounce this word, we are reminded of those brave words of the Upanishads which urged humanity to awake, to arise, and to achieve its goal. When we pronounce this word, we are reminded of those words of Lord Krishna through which he taught a practical philosophy to the people of this country—the philosophy which can enable humanity even to lay to achieve its goal of peace and bless.

When we pronounce this word, we are reminded of the wheel of Lord Krishna which destroyed the terrible, Imperialism of Kshatriyas from India and relieved this land of its burden.

By adopting a name that harkens back to a civilisational identity that antedates the arrival of both Middle Eastern and European colonialities, the framers of the Constitution cemented the position that independent Bharat is indeed the successor State to the Indic civilisation.

Specifically, for the Indian State to be treated as an Indic civilisation-state, we would need to examine whether the State has been built on the fundamental building blocks of this civilisation, and whether its political and social infrastructure viewed through the prism of its Constitution is designed to replace the colonial consciousness with Indic consciousness.

The civilisational treatment of Bharat is again implicit in the latter approach for it treats Bharat as the microcosm of the world, not because of some divine mandate but because its sheer diversity and existence as a single civilisational unit for millennia are treated as exemplars for the rest of the world.

Such composite systems are built up necessarily on the basis of an extended unit of society. Here the social and political composition is based on the group, and not the individual, as the unit: e.g. the family, the village community, the caste, and various other similar corporations, of which a special study is made in another work of mine entitled Local Government in Ancient India

Law, under these conditions, is not an artifice, but a natural growth of consensus and communal life.

It is not the State that, by its sanction or charter, creates its own constituent bodies or corporations, but, on the other hand, the groups establish, and are established by, the State. The genius of the Hindus has adhered firmly to this fundamental principle of political organisation amidst the most trying and adverse conditions in the course of their history.

And thus, the Hindu State came naturally to be associated, and indeed very largely identified, with a multitude of institutions and corporations of diverse types, structures, and functions, in and through which the many-sided genius of the race expressed itself.

Similarly, the expansion or extension of the Indian State will not be a process of absorption by assimilation or extermination of external States, neighbourly or rival, but will be governed by those principles, already referred to, which regulate the internal constitution of the State itself in relation to its constituent groups.

It is hoped that the Indian experiment in Nationality which seeks, and is called upon, to unify different ethnic stocks and cultures, different systems of law and cult, different groups and corporations, in an all-embracing and all-comprehensive polity, will be found to be a much-needed guide in our progress towards that ‘far-off divine event to which the whole creation moves,’ peace on earth and goodwill among men.

It is this cultural veneration and a sense of relational custodianship, to put it in the language of decoloniality, as opposed to a sense of territorial ownership, that has made it possible for Bharat to be a melting pot of diverse sects that have coexisted within the Dharmic fold.

Indian State has the civilisational duty to ensure that this space remains as such, and the accommodation of any other consciousness is contingent on (a) respect for the undeniable and inseparable relationship between Bharat and the Indic consciousness and (b) giving up those tenets that dehumanise the Indic consciousness or call for its extermination, whether scripturally sanctioned or not.

This would translate to the principle that no part of this sacred geography must be tested solely on the anvils of its utility as a natural resource. To this culturally rooted perspective, it does not make a difference whether ‘even a blade of grass’ grows or not, or whether a particular part of this geography is ‘useless uninhabitable land’. That such words were used by the first prime minister of Bharat, Jawaharlal Nehru, in 1962 to describe a part of this sacred geography, and that too in the backdrop of Chinese aggression, is a reflection of how far removed Bharat was even in 1962 from its cultural spirit of veneration and deification of all parts of its geography to instead employ a cold, downright utilitarian and territorial approach.

The civilisational logic behind treatment of ecologically fragile or sensitive areas as sacred pilgrimage spots appears to have been completely lost on the ‘modern’ Indian State. This is because the State seems obsessed with ‘religious tourism’ and ‘ecotourism’, with diminishing respect for the fundamental matrix of nature, faith and patriotism that informs and makes this civilisation.

Mookerji makes it abundantly clear that one of the direct consequences of existing as a federal civilisation is the recognition that law must be significantly informed by the practices and experiences of the community that is the subject of a legislative measure. The realisation that custom and practice have more wisdom and utility in a society that is civilisationally diverse is the reason laws in ancient Bharat were not top-down impositions by the ruler, but were, more often than not, codifications of the collective experience of a society as long as relevant.

The decentralisation and federalisation of the process of lawmaking by turning it into a more organic process that has its pulse on the society is one of the biggest takeaways from Mookerji’s thoughts.

The irony is that, as opposed to appreciating the value of such systems which were independent of the State, every such system (including civilisational nerve centres, such as places of worship) has been brought under the looming shadow of the State in ‘modern’ India.