Has anybody read that article written in 2003? Only few people have read it….. Ok that’s good. Even I had to revise that as it was article of way back in 2003. I had written just an article but not given any talk over it. This article had gone viral, got millions of views, was distributed in some colleges in booklet format. It looks like this topic ‘Idea of nation’ is still relevant. That’s why this is worth a talk. I am not a history scholar. I am just a curious man. I just started with asking questions like if India was not a nation then how East India Company got its name. In this way I started research about India and Britain.
We will look at some terms like nation, sovereign state, country etc. We are planning to release a book based on that article ‘Why India is a nation’. We may crowd source it too. As I said there were several ideas I put in that article but there is always a scope of adding new information in it. There will be more ideas when you listen to it. Earlier the article was on Sulekha. It got nearly 1000 comments. Several comments were about to add new information. If you want to give suggestions, please write to me.
So first we will start from counterpoint. It is from book ‘India’ which published in 1888, finally with name ‘India’s administration’ and published in 1903. The author of the book is sir John Trachey. So, who was sir John Trachey? Take it in that way. He was pillar of British power centre. Worked as minister with 3 viceroys, had influence over administrative procedures, what should people be taught. Especially after 1857 war of independence, he worked in the direction of how to manage whole affair. This has been excerpted from the book published out of his talks given in Cambridge University after his return from India.
So, this is the base, on which people says that India formed in 1947 like Rahul ji said. Our old universities either got closed or burnt. What we are working now is based on British legacy. So, it is the counterpoint which I thought that “is it really true or not?” Before we talk about India let’s take a world tour. It is said that India was never a nation and it is given as fact in favour of it that single king never ruled over entire geographical territory of India or say political unity was absent. Political boundaries were transient. So if Indian political boundaries were transient then was it that world’s other countries’ boundaries remain same for 5000 years? In India we have not done it in reverse way. We have been studied by foreigners a lot, but we have not studied them.
This is a map of Gupta Empire of about 475 AD ruling on vast geographical area of India, if you see India’s definition is still there up to large extent although there are some kingdoms in between. Look at the map of Europe in 475 AD. Look at Western Europe. You will be unable to recognize most of the countries. Even England is not present in 475 AD. Only tribes are residing in different groups. Look in 1 AD. Satvahanas and Kalingas’ kingdoms are being seen. If u look at Europe in 1 AD, this is Roman Empire which does not correlate with any European country of today. It is true that Bharat’s kingdoms were changing time to time but somehow kingdom’s boundary correlate with today. But Roman empire doesn’t correlate with any of today’s European country.
Let’s move forward. In 400 AD some of these kingdoms emerged. Persia can be seen which has different story and this one is Roman Empire. This one is 1000 AD. Here some of regions can be seen which can be correlated to today’s countries but these too are very different like here it is Portugal today but this is something very different kingdom. Greece which is called ancient civilization has no indication here. England is also there but of limited land, several tribes are fighting. Germany is not there. Holy Roman Empire kingdom is there on present Germany. If you look at Spain, some terrain is here while some is above. So it means it’s very different from today’s situation. So, they said that India was not a nation. Then were you a nation? When did u become nation? What is your basis?
So even in 1000 AD you cannot say there was something like today. In 1500 AD something grew, what is the difference now? Ottoman Empire has replaced Roman Empire. So this Eastern Europe and Greece is under ottoman now. This is Muslim empire. Here Egypt can be seen which will be discussed separately. If you look at Germany there are many principalities, warlords, kingdoms, tribes are ruling there. France’s boundary is also different from today, England’s present boundary is differeny too. This is whole story of 1500 AD.
So, you can see only few countries has correlated boundaries as of today and this is just 500 years old story. In 1800 AD little progress happens but here also a large trunk is there. Prussia, Austrian-Hungarian Empire started. Then Great Britain has aroused as a united nation. Later Ireland separated out around 1900. If you see ottoman kingdom is ruling on a large area. Finally in 1900 AD Greece has emerged finally. If we recall ancient civilizations, then Greece, Egypt comes to mind, but if u see condition of Greece, it was first captured by Romans due to which Greece got Christianized and lost its traditions. All Greek gods, Olympic got banned because it was paying games, they used to offer a lot in that games due to which Christian emperor ordered to ban. Temples got destroyed, traditions were lost, finally Greece got Christianized.
So Greek as civilization continuity cannot be said. Why Greece re-emerged? Because Europe reinvented Greek text in 1800s, so that they can get Greek text through Arab. So, they decided to re-establish their Greek civilization, so that they can claim their Greek origin, although they had destroyed Greek civilization. And there is interest work by C K Raju. You should read that in which he says that a lot of knowledge which they got from India and Arabs they attributed it to Greek to correct it theologically and racially, while it did not come from Greek. For example, the name Euclid is popular in geometry. There is no evidence that there was any person named Euclid ever existed. So why did they create Euclid? It was Egyptian theory actually, it was pageant theory.
As they had digested Greek civilization so having Greek stamp could be worth. Mathematics itself gets change. C K Raju has done a great work. Read it for sure in which he said that mathematics becoming pure, which means nothing can be proved empirically in maths. Using plumb line you can’t say that it is right angle and this is principle. Pure because it is coming from transcendent god who is extra-worldly so it needs to be purified. Various debates occurred, then they theoligsed it. Greece re-emerged because Greek nationalist movement started in other parts of Europe. Some students had gone there when they came to know about Greece. They decided to re-establish that Greece which has no continuity with old Greece.
If you look at 2000 AD map, Ireland has separated. No country is on its 1800 AD, 1500 AD, 1000 AD., is country. Leave before 1000 AD because none of them was before 1000 AD. If you will define on the basis of political boundary, then it was case everywhere. Then it means there is no nation is valid. What is its condition? This is 1776, US. This is at US independence. Others continued killing natives. If you see civilizational continuity got discontinued, and their own state was just small as in map. That too they have no roots here.
1800 AD in India British has reached, battle of plassey has been placed. Dutch east India company, British East India company has been formed because everyone wants to go to India. It is USA; territories are only those which are in bold. In 1861s, it’s very important states broke in confederacies. Civil war broke in north and southern confederacies. Finally, in 1912, Arizona and Mexico also added. Which means according to today’s territories America is just100 yrs old. Which I want to say is that who are these people which are teaching us that India was never a nation. These people have no base. Ok.
Let’s see Africa and Middle East a bit. If you see Africa in 1500 AD, there were few empires but now only negligible political boundary match with present boundaries. Only a little Ghana or one or two more countries match. Rest of Africa’s map has changed. How did it change? How many of you has listened about 1885’s Berlin conference? 1, 2 ok. So, scrambling of Africa was going on. What does scramble for Africa means? European countries were involved in colonizing, so they decided to scramble Africa. Except Ethiopia & Liberia and boundary of all African nations were decided b/w 1885 to 1899 in Europe in a conference where no African was present. Entire African map was cutout between European powers. 13 European countries; USA and Ottoman Empire assembled, put map on wall, this picture and decided that you take this, I take this.
Many times using ruler drew straight line like this and divided this side for u, that side for me. No concerns, no awareness for the local traditions. For the local tribals, ethnic groups for all of that. No care for that. These decided that how will the Africa’s shape. Because of that conflicts are going on even now in Africa because these are illogical boundaries and they have cut them from natural roots.
One more thing which is worth seeing is like in Rwanda. What they did was, first of all, colonization used to take place by physical force, second colonization was of mind, in second colonization you were given new identity. Your history used to be written. Like in Rwanda, identity of Hutu and Tutsu were written. They were created as warring factions while in older times their boundaries were malleable. Not much fixed marriages, exchange were all between them, earlier. But as they wrote antagonist history, the result is, there was a huge genocide in Rwanda. In which Hutu and Tutsus fought for blood.
Same work they have done in Aryan Dravidian theory, there is no such thing as Dravidian race. This is racial theory of Europe which they have put in here. Here are some people who are taking that knowledge with pride, but its consequences are very dangerous. Consequences are faced by local people. So don’t take their theories seriously. Like, Dalit identity creation is like that too. These are antagonistic identities. These identities are against something like dravid against Aryan, dalit against Brahmin /upper caste.
So, like this Africa got divided. South & Central America. We will not go in every single country, but it has very interesting story. A document named papal bull is released in 1493 named ‘Inter caetera’. ‘Doctrine of discovery’ promulgated through it. How many of you know about ‘doctrine of discovery’? It is very important. This is the basis of colonization of Americas and really of the world. What papal bull says? Although papal bull is related to local politics, but they talk about theological basis which is “Christian gods own the earth”. And non-Christians are scoter, that is illegal occupants. Either convert them to Christianity or kill them. Only 2 options are there.
When Spaniards reaches there, show papal bull and claim whole land. Natives see them astonishingly that what is this paper? who are you people? but Spaniards ask where is your paper? Natives replied- ‘land will always be there even after we die so how can we own land’. Because theology justifies, genocide can be justified. How can general people be involved in genocide? 100 million people were killed in America over generations? How can you make them genocide? Tell them it is from God. It is from the authority of God and you are doing a good thing. Either they are Satanic, so they have to be killed or they have to be converted. In either case you are doing god’s work. This is the basis.
So they draw a line on the globe literally. Papal bull the Spanish king authorized Spanish to colonise these areas. ‘Doctrine of discovery’ has been cited in US SC for justifying occupation of native lands, as natives can claim their land. So doctrine has been given legal basis. Portugal was also a catholic country. So left of line, was given to Spain, while right, to Portugal. That’s why Spain didn’t reach India while Portugal did. Spain conquered most of Americas except for Brazil. Brazil, because line was resettled slightly leftwards. So Portugal got a part of Brazil. That’s why Brazil speaks Portuguese whereas other South American countries speak Spanish. So this is the basis of colonization.
Just like Africa, although little bit better than Africa, but countries were decided on the basis of what was happening in Europe. In Africa the conflict were between different countries while in South America only Spain was colonizing. So most of South American countries are sort of provinces of older Spanish government. Present countries are just administrative regions of older Spanish gov. Their civilizational continuity.., I have been to there in Machu Picchu, Peru. There is a place Cusco, I went there. It was amazing civilization. What were Incas doing? They were trying to build a society where people could live in harmony. They were doing research into how do you have food because food is a cause of conflict. Their civilization was dedicated to peace. Technically they are very advanced.
In Cusco they made their temples. Spanish destroyed it and build church on top of that just to signify that their God is superior to Incas’ God. Earthquake destroyed the whole church complex but Incas’ temple remained safe because they had better technology. Stones were well finished and fitted into each other. After earthquake they fitted even better. So there was no way that earthquake could demolish it. Spanish technology had very basic technology of mortar, bricks so it got demolished in earthquake. What I mean is, it was very advanced civilisation but did not survive. Aztec was destroyed. One of the questions asked in India is – ‘if we were so advanced than why did we get defeated?’ Right? If a college professor is walking on road and a goon come and beat professor, then does it mean goon is more advanced than professor? Just because you got beaten by somebody doesn’t mean he is much advanced. Barbarians can always conquer a civilization which is more refined. South America is a great example. Incas were very advanced in technology, but focus is on prosperity, peacetime. Their focus is not on weapon of war, not on destruction. That is one aspect. So in that treaty everything was divided. It’s amazing arrogance that countries are decided by drawing a line. Later on other European countries reached there.
Dutch have reached in Indies, British reached. This is sort of the genesis of South American conquest and Central America too. Aztec invited them as a guest. I am forgetting the name. He killed the king with knife and took over. Then they massacred, used babies for target practice. You cannot read the description of the condition of slavery. They used to fill wells with dead bodies. In that way all civilizations got destroyed. In Africa, South America, Europe which we have covered, we cannot say that there is any country which has a very old civilization.
Now question arises. What is nation? Who defines it? This is defined by European history and thinking. What is the idea of sovereign state? In 1648 treaty of peace of Westphalia occurred. How many of you know about Westphalia? This is one of the dogma of the church. In Europe church first attached itself with Roman Empire. It was Roman Catholic then divided into Orthodox Church, Eastern Church, Bishop of Rome. When Roman Empire disintegrated church became power in itself which held power on different kings, but powerful kings rebelled. After that reformation started like protestant reformation of Martin Luther. Then war happened, one 30 yrs war and one 80 yrs war. In Europe wars are going on b/w diff fractions, some are b/w roman and catholic, some are b/w diff political groups. Main basis is when schism occurs in monopolistic religion, what is monopolistic religion? Fundamental tenet of Abrahamic religion is, there is only one way. And everybody else is in error, satanic is bound for hell. According to church, there is no salvation outside the church. Church build heresy. Who knows heresy?
Firstly, church said that bible is the base and then said that interpretation is also that which we do. Root word of heresy is to make choice. So, to choose for oneself was crime, you could be punished to death for choosing how to read text. It’s not just that it is bible and you have to follow it, you cannot interpret it because church’s interpretation is only valid interpretation. Church was basically the political organ in Roman Empire. So a lot of corruptions, crime, murders were routine in church. So Martin Luther challenged on the basis of biblical authority. He says that bible is the main authority. Protestantism is the fundamentalist movement. Fundamentalism means you are going back to fundamental of the Bible. A lot of the evangelist movement today is actually protestant.
So it is not like one is open minded v/s other. Church says that we have got authority because Saint Peter has established church. We have apostolical authority. What pope says is infallible. Protestants are saying we don’t accept pope’s authority. What is written in book is infallible. They both are rigid and fundamentalists but have different views and each thinks that other is wrong and so going to be in hell. It’s not like one Christian sect is saying that other sect is right. So, there was a huge war which continued for decades. Really this is the starting. Point and then they later had to invent secularism. They had no notion of plural society. In any case treaty of Westphalia occurred, in it idea of sovereign state emerged. You remember India’s constitution. We the people of India establish a sovereign, socialist so and so forth. What is this sovereign? Its meaning is also derived from Christian theology. God is the sovereign over the earth because god has ultimate control over the earth. So, on the basis of god’s sovereign, church declared its own sovereignty. So, for countering the idea of sovereign state emerged. That it’s ok that god has sovereignty over earth but king has sovereignty over this piece of land/so king has….. means what king decides people will follow that. Over his own kingdom, he has religious authority. So church’s sovereignty coming through god, is rejected.
All of these are theological ideas. Secondly, they are coming from particular European history. This all nation, sovereignty are all coming from particular European history of war, church but because Europe ended up in conquering the world, we started to take those ideas as universal. These are not universal ideas. These are parochial ideas that belong to certain part of planet which was not particularly enlightened. They were in the state of dealing with this religion which had curbed their ability to think and so on, so forth. Therefore, find a little bit of way out of it.
On this basis treaty of Westphalia is regarded as starting of modern nation’s state. In India too during 20th century debate of nationalism is going on. Savarkar is writing what is nation. They are engaging, entangling or entrapped with older European theories. This is true of the right or left. Two nation theory, what is nation. Nation is defined by religion. Look at it. ‘Kuo’s region eos relgio’ which means king will define religion. All these are European debates.
Finally, treaty of Westphalia said that ‘it’s ok that king will define religion’, but we will not convert or humiliate 3 religions Catholicism, Lutherism, Calvinism. In Catholic state, Protestant could do worship in private, but public rights might be curtailed and vice-versa. This is where the whole tying a religion to nation comes from western history and also religion’s monopoly b/c in a monopolistic religion there is no theological truce, which is possible. That’s why tolerance comes in b/c you can’t accept the other person. They are Satanic, they are false, but we will agree to tolerate them in our kingdom. Even though we think we are going to devil, but we will tolerate their existence. Again, these are completely foreign concepts to India. They make no sense whatsoever b/c this is not how we operate it.
When we think of country, we think that we need a passport, visa for a country. How old is this concept? How old is this passport and visa regime? It is of just 20th century. Earlier then this people could anywhere without passport visa. There was concept of safe passage, king’s document for special envoy. But, in general, people’s movement was not constrained by boundaries. There were no national borders with passport check everywhere that constrained the movement of people. Passport came with the British nationality and status alien’s act in 1914. In 1920, League of Nations authorized it for the world. Why did they do that? Once you have looted a lot of wealth, you need a safe to guard it. Once you have looted a lot of land you need to draw a boundary to say that this is mine. So, passport and visa regime come in and, of course, US was very concerned at that time to restrict emigration. It was a country of emigrants. They made racial quotas for emigration. Even now that concept of H1-visa, green card etc. exists.
It’s all started at that time. What does it mean? When we look at India’s kingdom, we cannot compare them with today’s country. Kingdom means there is a king, he gets certain part of revenue of land under a certain region and people of that region accept him as king. It does not mean if u want to go for a pilgrimage out of avadh kingdom then you need a passport and visa. Means Indian could move around in whole of India. There is no correlation b/w kingdom and today’s country. So Bharat in that sense was a cultural concept. This is some sense digression. I have not started about why India a civilization, yet but this background information was needed even to ask the question.
What is the need to ask the question that, what is Bharatvarsh? We are a civilization? If we will not understand the history of world, from where these words originated, then we will be trapped in older debates of what is nation, nation states and we have a fantasy about western world, we have fantasy that how things operate. We have fantasy that India was not a nation but they were always a nation. Just as fantasy. I am not saying that we have studied them factually, but this fantasy was created in our perceptions. Same thing when a crime happens in a colonial society, a crime happens when culture blame. When a lynching happens, you look to hang the culture. When a rape happens, you look to hang a culture. Even our representatives are saying so outside country, that it is b/c of Indian culture. But if you look at western society, rape in US is easily 10 times that of in India. But US presidential candidate is not going to blame it to US culture because in a colonial society; crime is considered representing culture because colonial society is immoral. Why is it immoral? Because colonizers were Christians and they were moral people and colonized were not moral people. So, they were corrupt. So, they are inherently immoral. Whereas if you look at how crime is looked at in the western society, they will say crime is an aberration on the society. We are moral, but criminal came. If you look at the discourse, how the newspaper discusses it, they will say why is this with us? Why are we like this? So, this is the whole discourse that will take place.
If India was not there then, was u trying to search for a country which did not exist, so desperately? Europe tried to reach India with full strength just to reach at India at any cost. How east India Company started? Even in papal bull, Spaniards and Portuguese are fighting on the issue that papal bull India’s territory to Spanish because India was jewel everybody was after it. Everyone had listened about India as land of riches. How to reach there? In last we are told that India was non-existent. You spent your hundreds of yrs to reach India, which was non-existent? Know that when you reach Bengal you have reached India, when you reach Goa you come to know that you have reached India, which means you knew the boundaries of India. It is so stupid that India was not there. I am saying this on the basis of European history. Indica was written years ago. Al-Beruni wrote kitab-ul-hind. So they had notion of India a long time ago. They had notion of unity of India too because they are seeing Indian society as a whole.
Someone said in argument or twitter, that India was a geographical area like Europe, but was not a nation means Indians had no sense of country named India. It was geography like Africa. This is from that book. What problem is they having now are that, it does not seem like our type of nation. Maybe there is problem in your nation. They did not think that, we created society after subjugating all diversities into one, and made that a norm. This is the way that things are normally. So, they are completely perplexed with the diversity of India. They are saying that it is strange. Here language changes at every 70 miles. Uniform changes then what kind of nation is this? Everyone has different rituals. It can not be a nation. Even in a village, different castes and sub-nationalities exist. We have not seen such mix anywhere. At every level there is a huge diversity which is unimaginable in Europe. Today they are coming to save tribals so that they can convert them. ‘Brahmanical society had done exploitation now, we will save you’. How many tribes you left in Europe? How many are left which follow their tribal’s traditions. Not even a single one. You are coming to save whom? In Australia, aboriginals were declared as flora and fauna which means they have only that much of rights like animals. It was their official state policy, and those people are now coming to us to save our tribals. Even a discourse is forming which propagate that Brahmanical society has exploited a lot. Why are you stopping them? This is very interesting quote. There is no country in the ordinary European sense. Because ordinary European sense is nonsense. It is not how, organic society works. In organic society there are multiplicities. It’s like saying you can got to tropical forest where there is flourishing life and you have this tree plantation after cutting that forest. You have only one kind of tree’s variety, even tree’s length are the same. You cut tree if it’s length increases and then you say that tropical forest is not a jungle in the European sense. This is how, or forest is, this is how our natural habitat is. Because you cannot understand it does not mean that it is not.
So problem with India is we accepted their definitions, terms as true. They used their intelligence at the level they had. Why to blame them? They had only that much of understanding, but we accepted it. We accepted it because we were taught it in school, college, sociology, anthropology, social sciences.
Now we will talk about idea of Bharat. It’s very interesting figure. It’s just a geographical figure. It has no political boundaries, but you can still see India’s boundary. Only few countries in world map can be identified by looking at the geographical figure. It is a deep area of interchange, lot of discourse is happening, research is happening, people are exchanging ideas, they are travelling, one place to other. So, it’s almost like an isolated Petridis in which various researches are going on, various debates are going on. Whoever came here they all said that they are Hindus because everyone beside Sindhu is Hindu. But we are a civilization with enormous quest for knowledge.
There is no religion like a Hindu religion. It is an entire set of stream of knowledge traditions. They are seeking the knowledge of inner and outer world. This is what we were and enormous cultural interchange between these areas. So fundamentally we are knowledge traditions, they are transmitted in many different ways, because knowledge doesn’t have to be transmitted textually. You teach your son how to ride bicycle. Do you give him book? There are different mechanisms, text can also be a mechanism, but text is not the only mechanism. And it is not certainly the dominant mechanism. Even today humans do not fundamentally learn through texts, through observation, repetition, emulation, through trial and error, imitation. This is natural and organic. We said that, that if u don’t have textual tradition then it is not knowledge. Today SC says that if your traditions are not just with scriptural authority, we will not consider them as legal. why? Because our state is being run by a book.
We have made a regional history universal, a process to universal process. That’s why we are obsessed with secularism. Tell me even a single country which have same boundary as today’s, and those people are telling us that India was never a nation. This is what it looks like in 265 BC. Chanakya writes that if a single king rules all over country then he is considered as chakravarty. So even then they had notion of not only of Bharatvarsha, but also of political consolidation, even though political consolidation is not necessary for Bharat, because there was no boundary as such. So how did consolidation happen? Even in Rigveda we are talking about Bharat much before majority of civilization existed. Vishnu Purana I brought from Gita Press to check if it is right or not. It is described as that is in north to ocean and south to Himalaya that is called Bharata and people living here are Bhartiya. So conception of Bharat is very clear and people are not confused about what Bharat is.
If we look at ourselves with European stories, then problem arises. What is that which connects us. Europe says one language, one nation, one leader. We had not such process. we never had concept of single language, worship of single god, but different sects made concept of connecting with India in different ways, talked about what is Bharat, what is its identity. And it comes repeatedly in our stories. If there is no Bharat then how Mahabharat happened? Someone had idea of Bharat, then only Mahabharat could have written or not. If you see it had description of every place from east to west. Gandhari from Gandhar, Draupadi from Panchal. It needs more research, but interesting thing is we do not have this is in our education, we eliminated all our terms.
I was in Egypt, I was wondered as in Egypt they call their country Mishra, although in Hindi we learn it as Mishra. But we call it Egypt in English. We knew them a long time ago before English came, but we lost our connect. Like Thailand is called Siam or Thai Pratet, but we call it Thailand. Their king is named Raja Ram and their capital is Ayodhya. These are different places in Mahabharat. It is described that they went for sacred pilgrimage in east.
Similarly, if you will read Ramayana it connects north to south, every place of route they followed is described. You will get story related to Ram wherever you go. Someone will say, here Sita Ma came, here something happened. Here are 2 problems. First is, we suppose multiplicities of narratives. The point here I am making is the difference. My original essay is not pictorial. I sourced some of the pics. But what is necessary to us is this is the seed to tell our own stories. I am not here to impart knowledge, actually what I am doing is trying to wake up our own stories. I do not have details, those will be discovered by you, next generations will also discover, but we have to do our own discovery, tell our story. This is very much necessary because our history had written by them, our story too being told by them. We will read Ramcharitmanas in house, but in history textbooks there will be no discussion about Ram, there will be no talk about Ram, Krishna, Raja Bhoj. That we have to find out. Similarly, in east we find description of Kamrup etc.
When talk of stories is coming, I have sense of shame and wonder simultaneously together that, when I first listened about Adi Shankaracharya, I was in my 20s, in my whole Indian schooling I was not taught about Adi Shankaracharya and he was the probably greatest person who ever walked on Bharatvarsha in historical time. He is a boy from Kerala who starts from south walk complete Bharatvarsha. He had imagination that he established Mathas and in 4 directions. If no one had imagination of Bharat, then why did he chose those places. He could have established all Mathas in his birthplace. Someone had vision of Bharatvarsha then only he connected Bharatvarsha in that way. You will find it repeatedly that our pilgrimages had been established by each sect in their own way, but every sect has vision of whole Bharat. Shankaracharya established math in Dwarka, Puri, Sringeri, Badrinath and then went to Srinagar. Shankaracharya hill is there. Its named is being change, because if it will remain, then this story will be alive. To kill a story slowly slowly change the name. Say that it never happened, it is all myths, it will become easier to break India in that way. Shankaracharya’s story is amazing, which draw map of whole Bharat.
There are other amazing stories too. If you see Shakti Pithas, story is that Shiva walked with Sati’s mortal body. He was very sad. Then Vishnu cut the corpse with Sudharshan and body parts fell in different places. Temples built in all those 51 places. I am saying from starting that I am not much knowledgeable person, not a historian, not pundit. I am just a curious person. I just drew picture of Shaktipeeth and I saw that it draw a shape of lady, in whole country. Head is in north, foot parts in south, it is diagonal. It can easily be mapped. It would have someone’s conception or not? Why parts fell all over India, why not in single state? People had concept of Bharat as a spiritual, cultural and nation entity. Then only these stories could be formed. You will see that India is not just a country it is an old culture which is unique in world. One or two are there which we will talk.
We have mantras which take names of all rivers, pilgrimages. if you compare with Europe, how many people in Europe worship all rivers of Europe? But India has the idea of Bharat is going on since thousands of years. Tell me a single country like this. We can find similar mantras beside Ganga in Haridwar which were recited 3000 yrs ago too. This type of cultural continuity is not available in even minute scale too. It’s unique.
How did name India come? You would have known to it. It changed from Sindhu to Hindu, and then ‘H’ became silent to become Indus, like in Spanish language ‘h’ is silent. When I was in Barcelona, restaurant was named as ‘lo comida Hindu’. But they call Hindu as indu because ‘h’ is silent. You can get its references even thousands of years ago. Different countries are calling it Inde, Indica, India or similar variations.
Even Al-Beruni has described all of these pilgrimages. These are centered all over India, south to north, east to west. Our ancestors had nice thinking, how Shaktipeethas formed, someone had thinking that Indians remain connected however it may be. There are people of south who have core temple in north and vice-versa. In this way people remained connected so far. It is unique thinking. That’s why Bharat is Mata. If you see Shaktipithas, it is like body, so when it got partitioned it pained like a body is pieced. And the way of cutting is such that these stories are shut down. When we will be cut out of our stories, it will be easier to cut India.
Now you tell to north eastern that mainland people are exploiting you, tell Jammu Kashmir’s people that you were never a part of it, tell southern people that you are dravidistan, if have to cut someone, then it is only way to cut. We have such close relations, that quarrel is possible only when relations are break down. Missionaries also tell tribals that you are being exploited. Person who wrote history of Sikhs told to Sikhs that you do not know what Sikhs have told, I will tell you. Now Britisher will tell what Guru said. Guru was against it you are following all superstitions of Hindus. Till 19th century, Sikhs married in front of fire, they were told that it is superstition, systematically they were break down. Because it becomes easier to break down country. We will have to learn our stories to remain our country intact and why intact we had kingdoms earlier too? Its because today at which pattern world order is running. If it would have been on Indian way, then it was not a problem. But you are in that system which is monopolistic, totalitarian, resource-gathering based. So, if you say to go in old system without changing world regime, then you are simply lowering the guard to be conquered.
So I that sense integrity of Bharat is very very crucial because Bharata is the only way out for the world. This system cannot work. It is system filled with disparities. It will not work for longer. 2 monopolistic are saying that only we will rule. Their conflict is inevitable. Final note – what happened to these great cultures? what happened to Egypt, you all know. First Christian conquest occurred. All of their temples were destroyed. all priests were killed. Then Islamic conquest happened. Now there is no priest who know that how they used to do in pyramids etc, how were they built, even this, they do not know. Egyptian civilization as a civilization gone. We have already talk about Greece it has been destroyed many times. It has very little similar to older Greece. They also do not know their older traditions. Rome has no significance now. If you say Rome to Italy that is different thing. Persian continuity of Zoroastrian cultures of fire has been destroyed after Islamic invasion. China is the country which has civilizational continuity to extent. Although after communism revolution they destroyed their older traditions, but they are reviving them like opening Confucius center. They are thinking that they will have to come forward for their language and their thought if they have to live with dignity, they are hugely investing in their Chinese language. I was seeing a tweet of a Stanford’s professor. Machine learning research is published in evening and next day morning its translation was available in Chinese language. They are so much committed for translation.
In India we say that we have so much difficulty from where will we bring books. What is the problem? If we have to translate 10000 books, if you invests even 5000 on a book work of 500 cr will happen. What is 500 cr for civilization. You do not have thoughts; you do not know who you are. Then how will you move forward on this basis.
A last story of China. Do you know this? Has anyone seen this? it is wild goose pagoda in Sian. I went there. It was highly discussed, I did not know. I had just listened the name. It was told that on 7th story there is some treasure. After 1-2 story it came to know that it was established by Huen Tsang. Treasure was ‘palm-leaf manuscripts which Huen Tsang brought with him, they have been preserved by them even now”. So, this was the position of India in world. Not only the richest country in the world, which is why all the Europeans were crazy to find a way to India, but also the knowledge civilization of the world. Even today Saraswati is worshipped in Japan. Whole of south East Asians were Indies. Dutch built east India Company for Indonesia. So these all are Indic effects. Their language still matches with Indian languages. We all lost it and now think that English built our nation. Although this poet is not liked by us, but poem is still is worth even now.
So thank you very much.