75th IHC Presidential Address by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya

GENERAL PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS: INTERROGATING 'UNITY IN DIVERSITY': VOICES FROM
INDIA'S ANCIENT TEXTS

Author(s): Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 75, Platinum Jubilee (2014), pp.
1-24
Published by: Indian History Congress
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44158356
Accessed: 29-03-2019 17:56 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Proceedings of the Indian History Congress
This content downloaded from 14.139.45.241 on Fri, 29 Mar 2019 17:56:47 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
GENERAL PRESIDENTS ADDRESS
INTERROGATING 'UNITY IN DIVERSITY':

VOICES FROM INDIA'S ANCIENT TEXTS
Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya
Distinguished Guests and my fellow students of the past - Senior, Cont

and Junior - Standing in the presence of this general, representative bo
genuine and dedicated students of a discipline, much debunked and ofte
but nevertheless basic to any kind of pedagogic engagement, I feel too h
articulate in proper terms my gratitude and, at the same time, my utter s
being nominated to preside over the proceedings of this Platinum Jubil
of the Indian History Congress. To one who somewhat reluctantly stra
the profession of teaching History, the honour is as great as it is unexpect
in return, I can only extend my gratitude to all historians, present or abs
together constitute the Congress year after year, and who, I am . confi
unitedly lead the Congress on to its centenary celebrations only a qua
century away from now.
While it is a great privilege to have been given the honour of pre
the first address, as one among others who too will be delivering their
it is by no means an easy task to choose the theme of the address. So
know, there is no given code which can serve as a guide in this respect,
know that there have been certain conventions in existence. There was a time
when tlie General President considered it to be his/her responsibility to present at
the Congress a survey and an assessment of research published during the year
past. Over the years the convention changed to the Chair choosing a theme from
his/her own area of research, and presenting empirically rich and analytically
illuminating results which, nevertheless, may not have been of any major concern
to most present on the occasion. The options practised so far seem to me to
somewhat limit the channels of easy communication. Both the past and current
practices seem to present, at least to me, a dilemma of choice on an occasion
which is for sharing and exchanging ideas - an occasion for reciprocal and not
one-way communication. The dilemma may perhaps be overcome, I have felt, by
posing a problem which is of common interest; the problem may not be of a
purely historical nature but which nevertheless requires to be viewed from a
historical perspective. I am sure there are many issues of common interest in
which historians - as also others - need to participate and receive fruitful
feedbacks. Historians" habitual confidence of finding a final answer to any
problem may be expected to experience severe drubbing when it is thrown into an
open ring, but, even so, in a space inviting open participation, no historian can
afford not to offer his/her special input without which, one can confidently assert,
no problem can be adequately explored.
2 IHC: Proceedings, 75th Session, 2014
The problem which, if I am allowed to call it a 'historian's puzzle* (as it

appears as a contradiction in terms), has come to me in the form of the expression
'Unity in Diversity'; it is an expression with which we all are familiar, and which,
for long, has been taken to be an apt characterization of what India represents.
This is an expression, inherited from our predecessors and embellished by the
elected representatives of our country, with which our introduction to our own
country begiris at an early age, and this is an image of the country that we carry
with us throughout our lives. If I have chosen to revisit this phrase on this august
occasion, it does not necessarily mean that it would be to question the validity of
what is nuanced in the phrase. It seems nevertheless necessary to ask afresh, since
even recent commentaries on such issues fail to do so, (a) what the meaning of
'unity' in the expression is, or what its limits are, implied by its juxtaposition
with 'diversity'. In other words, if diversities are taken to constitute 'unity', at
what state do 'diversities' remain when the reference is to 'unity'? (b) A more
contingent historical question relates to the context in which the idea of unity
emerged and continues to get embellished, for whatever purpose. Since it is often
found that the country's ancient civilization, or at the most pre-colonial Indian
civilization, is invoked to buttress the idea of unity, it becomes necessary to
examine the kind of empirical material from the past the spokesperson of the idea
of unity were drawing upon; (c) if 'diversities' of a country (in whatever sense
the term 'diversity' is used) are seen to have coalesced into a structure of unity,
how do networks of diversities function within what is perceived as 'Unity'?
And, how indeed did they function in the past?1
Many more questions may be raised, but the sense of the apprehension
that I am trying to articulate should be immediately understandable from what I
have raised. If India does indeed represent the historical functioning of 'unity in
diversity' (one is entitled to wonder: in some sense or the other, which country
does not?)2, then it is time that we revisit the history of its hold on our
imagination to the extent that the current slogan of 'One India' - without the
essential caveat of its diversities - sounds almost like a threat.
The idea that India is one territorial/cartographical unit in the sense of an
administratively governable country is colonial.3 I am prepared to make minor
qualifications to the statement, but would still retain it in essence. The idea of the
unity of the country is of course attractive, and could be as appealing to a newly
emerging indigenous nationalist intelligentsia of the nineteenth - early twentieth
century as another invention of the period: the ethno-civilizational category of the
Aryans, an invention which was lapped up - and continues to be lapped up - by
status - starved Indian citizens most of whom may live far beyond Ãryâvarta, as
it was delimited by Manu and others.4 It is understandable why in the early and
more mature phases of the crystallization of our national consciousness, the idea
of unity was unfailingly attractive not only to political thinkers and activists but
to creative writers and artists as well. The opposition to the 'foreigner' as political
master required a spontaneous amnesia of differences5, at least partly, in the
vindication of the imaging of a country and its peoples. The country could be
conceived and represented as a 'motherland'6, a country conceived as a goddess
General President's Address 3
and acquiring an iconography7. Its inhabitants too could be conceiv

as inhabitants of that country (bhāratvāsīf .
One among the early, historical statements of the idea of unit
Mookerji's The Fundamental Unity of India which assembled main
not so early) textual evidence to suggest the presence of the cons
unity as a fundamental essence of Indian civilization.9 The idea of u
than diversity, is projected as a normal Indian condition, unless dev
has taken place in some periods of its past. In hundreds of our scho
written in the past and being written now, 'Unity', rather than div
assumed to be India's self-born quality, defying and dispelling the
enquiry about the past of the achievement of unity. Historiographic
curious, that even recent attempts to deal with a concept such as
Unity of India' end up10, not by subjecting the concept itself to any c
but trying to find ways of rationalizing it in terms of the process
between what is considered a Great Tradition and Little Tradit
evoking the old notion of a perpetual oscillation between the t
centripetalism and centrifugalism. Only, the terms have been
indigenized, centripetalism having been Sanskritized into Kendrbh
centrifugalism into Prntbhimukhī. It seems as though there was
central agency in the past, consciously ordering things about and d
the elements of diversity to be subverted and the measure of uni
centralism to be achieved.
What is indeed curious is that in perpetuating the use of such terms as
centripetal and centrifugal, or of Great Tradition and Little Tradition, we
perpetuate a notion which is not only value-loaded but also unhistorical, despite
the casually interjected caveat that it is 'useful to think of the cultural unity of
India not as a thing out there somewhere, but as a process ' (emphasis in the
original).1 1 What is conceived as Great must have had a history of becoming so,
as 'Greatness', like 'Littleness', is not self-born. As for considering 'centripetal'
as the desired goal and 'centrifugal' as its undesirable aberration, the a priori
assumption of its linkage with the idea of a unified country, perceived by its
inhabitants as their country, is too obvious to be elaborated. The necessity of
underlining the idea of unity, despite the cognitive compulsion behind admitting
that differences were many,12 in a particular historical context may be understood
in terms of an emergent nationalist inspiration, but what appears indeed curious is
the continuing reluctance to examine how Indians of the past (at least some of
them) looked at themselves and articulated their voices about those who they
considered to be others. The nature of the perception of diversities and of
differences in a society is an indicator of how its various constituent elements
would interact with one another. If such diversities and reciprocal perceptions and
interactions are found to constitute a design for unity for the complex reality of
Indian society even in the past, then too it would perhaps necessitate a fresh
thinking regarding the sense in which the idea of Indian unity can be sustained.
Further, even if we proceed with the idea of a pervasive culture, spread like a veil
over the disparateness of diversities, the processes through which such a veil
4 IHC: Proceedings , 75th Session, 2014
came to be woven, require, if not an empirical validation, at the least, some form
of reasonable speculation. It is a requirement of History as a discipline, and to
this requirement, I may turn now, with a great deal of diffidence.
I
Perceptions of Diversity and Difference
Even at the risk of appearing to draw a hasty, unwarranted design, what
seems to characterize the thinking of early text writers is that the social situation
was perceived as consisting of binary opposites, or as a combination of multiples.
The relationship between binary opposites could be simply stated in clear terms
of irreconcilable opposition, whereas among multiples the relationship could be
expressed, in various ways, as of differences which were a part of the social
reality. If the binary opposition was expressed in such terms and Krya and Dasyu ,
as in the R gveda™ the opposition was stated not simply in terms of the
simultaneous existence of two groups, but also of the need of the ryas to
annihilate the Dasyiis because of the vastness of cultural difference between
them. The difference between the A ryas and the Mlecchas , a kind of generic term
which could include diverse ethnic groups such as the Yavana, Śaka, Tuçâra,
Cīna, Hūņa, may have originated in linguistic difference, but the theoretical
impractibility of the two categories merging into one remained throughout. The
text-writer"s preference for whatever was associated with Arya (since the text-
writers at the early stage belonged to this category) made the Arya's image as
nobler in relation to others, leading to differentiation and hierarchization between
cultures on a significant scale. This could be extended to creating other cultural
categories, which could be taken to represent other types of binary opposition
urban - rural, janapada - aranya (forest), mārgī - dešī, and so on.
The notion of value assigned to binary opposites was very much present
in which geographical space, inhabited by groups of peoples, was conceived.
Whether it was the five-fold division, seven-fold division or nine-fold division of
Jambudvīpa or Bhãratavarsa (both terms taken to correspond to India), space,
consisting of a number of separately specified inhabited spaces, carried with it
clearly the sense of difference between Madhyadea or ryãvarta and the other
quarters (di). An indication of this difference is to be found in Baudhãyana
Dharmasūtra .,4
The region to the east of where the Sarasvat disappears, west of Kālaka
forest, south of the Himalayas, and north of Pāriyātrā mountains, is the land of
the Aryas. The practices of that land alone are authoritative.
Madhyadeśa or Aryãvarta, in relation to other quarters, carried the same
sense of difference as between rya and others. Madhyadeśa or Âryãvarta was a
land of purity with an ideal social order; other quarters were qualitatively impure
and inferior. The perceived boundaries of the sacred land may have differed from
one period to the other, but the distinction, in terms of purity, remained. Manu,
around the beginning of the common era, defined the country between the two
divine rivers, the Sarasvat! and the DrsadvatT as the Land of Veda, and 'the
conduct of the (four) classes in that country ...the conduct of good people'.
Similarly, the Middle Country [Madhyadeśa] and Kryavarta , w

the sense that they were 'fit for sacrifices'. "The twice-born
effort to settle in these countries; but a servant may live in any
is starved for a livelihood."15 In fact, Manu's land 'fit for sac
distinguished from the land of the barbarians (Mleccha), impu
the Aryas. If the early Smti writers considered space in term
profanity around the beginning of the common era, we
continuing with the same notion in the tenth century of that era
KāvyamīmāsĶ Madhydeśa was the 'source of good behavi
sadãcãra), and 'the mode of the poets was derived from that
vyavahära przy e a kavnäm).10
The origin of the idea of difference between what was
sacred or pure in contrast to what was profane or impure, i
nmrga defined divine and de- worldly or futile, may have der
Brahmanical order of thinking, but any social reality has to be p
of the empiricality of it, as variable, inconsistent, and prone
and individual agency.17 With regard to space, the binary divis
and not so sacred spaces could further be stretched to appreci
reality of the existence of numerous janapada units which wer
units of a community or a combination of communities. It was
or whatever else the expression was, which defined the spatia
who resided in them18. However, even a specified unit like a
undifferentiated. If one is permitted to '?fc.s Tamilaham of early
space of the magnitude of a macro- nādu, comparable to a mac
the poets' perception of differences which represented i
differences did not relate to topography alone; the poems brin
landscapes of moods and responses corresponding to the phy
the hills and forests ( Kurinji ); the coastline ( neytal); th
(marutam), the pastoral land (mulai); and the dreaded arid, was
It is however not mentioned in the majority of texts, including
the janapadas , mentioned in them, differed from one anoth
location in their respective quarters (east, west and so on). The
were many; with the passage of time, several janapadas could m
mahäjanapada , a rara, or a dea. Only a comprehensive attemp
chronologically designed historical geography of India could re
number and distribution pattern of janapadas, nMus , mahãja
and other habitat/political units across the space which w
Bhāratavarsa in our early texts.
The reason for making reference to the janapadas and nā
possibility of supra-j anapada spatial/political formations
recognized, each consisting of its forest-village- and city land
where human communities lived, by which they identified th
identified by others. If the janapadas were many, so were th
Although the possibility of the emergence of a sovereign - a
chariot-wheels moved on ever-unhindered) was theoretically r
in fact, expected, the sovereign ruler did not rule over the country (or over what
was conceived as the Cakravartī- ksetra). Sovereignty lay in the recognition of
sovereignty by multiple rulers, in their acts of submission to the 'world-
conqueror'21. It is not that actual conquests and territorial annexations did not
take place or that historical empires did not adopt severe measures to bring out
some measure of administrative homogeneity in their territories. Even so, when
historical rulers, in their lengthy praśastis written for them by their panegyrists,
claimed victories over an impressive list of their contemporary rulers and
kingdoms, the conquests boasted of were mostly cases of required rhetoric. Their
claims to sovereignty and to performance of all major sacrificial rituals
(sometimes thousand in member) were in conformity with the requirements of a
cakravartī king22, linked in a close relationship with a multiplicity of subdued and
submissive rulers. The relationship was ever-oscillating because of the presence
of the enemy in the scheme of polity envisioned by political thinkers, and any
analysis of the concept of the circle of kings ( mandala ) has to be premised on the
presence of a host of kings, hostile or friendly, positioned as if in a circle around
a king intent on acquiring a sovereign status through conquests ( vijigisu ). Both
Manu-smrti 23 and Kautilya's Arthasästra 24 enumerate the large number of
elements which went into the making of the various limbs of a kingdom. Kauilya
furnishes also an idea of the structure of the circle of kings in the following
terms.25
Making the kings separated by one (intervening territory) the
felly [ nemi ] and those immediately proximate the spokes [ara],
the leader should stretch himself out as the hub [nābhī] in the
circle of constituents.
For the enemy situated between the two, the leader and the ally,
becomes easy to exterminate or to harass, even if strong.
The imagery of the wheel with a centre notwithstanding, Kauilya or any other
Arthastra thinker certainly did not think of one centre or in terms of political
centripetality or centrifugality. The conqueror"s status was an open one, as is
evident in Kautilya's assurance.26
... One (king) possessed of personal qualities, though ruling over a small
territory, being united with the excellences of the constituent elements [prakrti'
and conversant with (the science of) politics, does conquer the entire earth, never
loses.
Dharma, Rīti, Pravrtti and other differences

Janapadas , it was argued, were many, and they denoted spaces an individual
or a community belonged to, whatever the size or the shape of the janapadas.
Early texts remained largely silent on what distinguished one janapada from the
other, Magadha from Ańga, for example, apart from their approximate arid
sometimes incorrect - geographical location. There is a suggestion of a measure
of difference in references to the existence of a multiplicity of dharmas, not
necessarily varying from janapada to janapada , but nevertheless suggestive of
the currency of different policies, practices and customs.

impression that dharma in one sense related to communities and
suggested by a saying found in the sixteenth century text Yogi
Dharma in Yoginl Pītha [Assam] is of Kirāta origin, Kirāta being
generic term for people of the northern mountains. Dharma , in
incomprehensible, it was the practices followed by the wise2
localities which could be taken to represent dharma. When a kin
fight and conquer other countries, this is one. of the polici
advocates,29 probably because of the enduring strength of local prac
He should make authoritative their own laws, and they ha
been declared, and with jewels he should honour (the n
king), together with important men.
Manu goes on to add:
A (conquering) king increases his power not so much throug
gold and territory as through gaining a firm ally, who, even t
(at present, may become) capable in the future.
Manu is not alone in suggesting the continuity of multiple dhar
Dharmaãstras such as Yãjnavalkya-smrti ,30 go to the extent of sugge
Whatever dharma is of the king in ruling his own country [ ra
the same dharma goes to the king in protecting the ot
countries [para- rāra] brought under submission. Whatever
the acãra , vy avahar a, Kulas thiti (of the country brought un
submission) are to be retained as they are.
The recommendation is further clarified by reference to bh
character) and vrtti (mode of living) which needed to be preserved.
If the normative texts such as Mami-smrti, Yãjavalkya- smrti, or
were talking in terms of disparate dharmas in political space
obviously separate and distinct, then texts which can be conside
such as Nãtyasãstra and Kãvya-mimãmsã also underlined, b
schémas, the differences in the nuances of life styles and in the
women conducted and expressed themselves. In these schém
janapada or a locality or a region related to other has to be seen as
of difference. There are very obvious difficulties in handling te
statements one comes across in texts are not necessarily factual, bu
of perceptions and attitudes embedded in them. If one text mak
comments on a particular cultural feature of a janapada or a comm
may say exactly the opposite. In handling texts of this kind, and i
general, what one needs therefore is to try and trace regular at
elements of culture figuring in them, which are put forward to
difference between one janapada and the other. This is to say th
make a statement of cultural relationship, but rather of relationship
Language and the ways in which it was articulated in both speec
were regular reference points for demonstrating difference, but the
sites where differences were located and pointed out. Differences,
the form of divergent modes of cultural expressions can be traced
Nãtyasãstra of Bharata, whatever be the date assigned to him by scholars.

Bharata, writing on the origin of naya (drama), deals, in the beginning,31 with the
problem of applications (prayoga) and lists Bhāratī, Sātvatī, Ārabhatī and Kaisikī
vřítíš, and it has been suggested that differences between them derived from
different Janas or communities in which the practices originated. Among the
many apsarās or nymphs created by Brahmā for the successful rendering of
Kaisik vrtti , figure such names as Māgadhī and Kerala, further suggesting diverse
origins of what Bharata was trying to synthesize. With reference to pravrttis ,
Bharata further groups them into categories named after regions such as Āvantī,
Dãksinõtya, ?āncā'' and Odra-Māgadhī. "What is pravrttiV Bharata asks.32 "The
answer is: that which tells us, that on this earth there are various countries with
different dresses, different languages, and different customs. True, there are
various countries. But how can you classify them into only four groups? The
answer is: because of features which are common (to countries grouped together).
Though there are those differences, looking to the vrtti (style of production), the
four-fold division has been accepted by the people ( lokãnumata )."
Speaking of varieties of dramatic language, apart from reference to
intonations of Sanskrit and Prākrt in the form of Atibhãsã, Ãryabhãsã, Jātibhāsā
and Jâtyantarî - bhãsã, the regional dialects listed by Bharata are seven:
Māgadhī, Avanti, Prãcyã, Šaurasenī, Ardhamāgadhī, Bāhlkā and Dãksinãtya.33
Those of course are variations of Sanskrit and Prākrt, obviously suitable for use
in plays, but a recognition of the existence of other languages too does exist in
Bharata. For example, 4 for persons of Barbara, Kirāta, Drāvida and Andhra tribes,
instead of their own language, dialects of Sūrasena may be given.' Bharata goes
on to specify the exact dialects to be used for different roles, and in that context
hints at the existence of additional language communities: "For warriors and
(police) chief of the city, the dialect should be Dãksinãtya and for Khasas who
live in the north, Bāhlīkī. For Śabaras and Śakas and tribes of that type, Šākārī
dialect, and Cāņdālī dialect to Pulkas[as] and the like must be assigned."34 The
Śabara-bhasa similarly, along with a measure of Vānaukasī, was applicable in
cases of charcoal-makers ( angãrakãra ), hunters ( vyãdha ), those who live by
collecting wood and leaves ( Kāsthapatropajīvinām); for those who live near the
enclosures for elephants, horses, goats, lambs and camels, Ābhīrī and Sābarī were
applicable. Māgadhī was to be used for diggers of tunnel and of holes (for
purposes of theft) and for damsels in distress.35
The recognitión and accommodation of differences, in production of plays, by
Bharata was not intended simply to list them; they also implied hierarchy and
status. Thus, of the four kinds of language to be used, Atibhäsä was intended for
use only by those enacting divine characters and Ãryabhãsã by kings. Jātibhāsā
was of various kinds, mixed with „foreign" words, common in Bhāratavarsa
(Mlecchdesaprajuklã ca Bharatavarsamāsritā. Jātyantarī-bhāsā (alternative
reading: YonyantarT-bhãsã) 'was for rustics, foresters, and animals, birds, etc.
which are characters in a drama'36
Elaborating on Bharata"s concept of Vrtti and Pravrtti, Rajaśekhara too
talked of Pravrtti , defined by him as Veša-vinyasa-krama ;37 vrtti , defined as
nrtya-gJia-kalãvilãsa-paddhati , and rīti as vacana-vinyäsa-paddhati

difference, it is these features which appeared relevant to both B
Rajaśekhara. . However, viewed even from these specific features t
appeared so enormous that Rajaśekhara posed the inevitable
answered it: „If the countries are so innumerable, how coul
accommodated only within four categories?" To this, Rajaśekh
similar to that of Bharata, was: 'Even if the countries are countless
Cakravarti-ksetra , they are imagined as four-fold. Thereby, it beco
to think of endless number (of countries).'38 This attempt, on the
Bharata and Rajaśekhara to resolve the immensity of varieties avail
only to highlight their anxiety for the necessity of bringing some
situation of chaotic disparateness.
Let me turn to another kind of text, the Sastra of Kama , al
now it should be clear that texts have a tendency to readily constru
the basis of assumed character traits and attributed attitudes. Neve
such un-substantiated assumption of attributes would be based on e
the existence of difference. In the area of Kama (desire as well as p
one of the essential pursuits of human life, theoreticians such as Vâ
author of Kāmasūtra , also define differences in attitudes and mo
behaviour under the category of „Customs of Different Regions" [
yositah upacaret ]; it prescribes39. A man should treat a woman acc
nature of the region she comes from. The text characterizes Madhy
along with women of Bāhlīka and Avantika, as opposed to kissing, s
biting, 'although they are fond of unusual sexual acts'. Similarly,
Mālava and Abhīra have their own preferences, while women „wh
land watered by the Indus and the other five rivers like oral sex".
on to dwell on the sexual habits of the women of Koiikaņa and Lata
Strl-rãjya and Kosala, and those of Andhra, Mahārāstra, Dravi
Pātaliputra in Magadha and of Gauda. A contrary view, incorporate
may assert that, the nature of the individual is more important tha
that „local customs are not relevant to the matter" and „that in co
practices, styles of clothing, and games move from one region to an
so, recognition of differences, which of course could be overc
embedded perception which needed to be invoked whenever any c
schema came to be constructed.
It is also necessary to stress that enumeration and classification of
regions in the texts, even if they were not wholly or empirically verifiable
schémas, were neither value-neutral nor even intended to be objective. In almost
all cases, characterizing differences also implied hierarchization and making
value-judgements in terms of perceived quality. Since such generalizations
covered a really wide range and included character-traits of varņas, of regions,
ethnic groups, sexual proclivities, social customs, speech, affiliations to religious
beliefs and practices, it would be almost impossible to attempt a mapping of the
possible patterns of interaction in society, in this maze of differences, and
differentiated qualities.
10 IHÇ: Proceedings, 75th Session, 2014
Perhaps the best available early examples of perceptions of difference,

either in linguistic or in ethnic terms, are to be found in genres of texts that may
be 17 considered as non-sectarian - even irreverent - in character. The monologue
plays or Bhāņas , generally dated to the middle of first millennium of the common
era,41 are examples of this genre. Set in one major city or the other, such as
UjjayinT, Pātaliputra and so on, the play would be in the form of observations and
observances on the peculiarities of human characters of diverse origin, made by
the sole observer - narrator of the play. The Bhāņa Pādatāditaka ,42 for example,
refers to representatives of different communities and localities such as Saka,
Yavana, Tusāra, Pārasika, Kirāta, Ralinga, Vanga, Magadha, , Ańga, Mahīsaka,
Cola, Pândya, Kerala, and so on. The observer - narrator of the play, the Vita,
harps on the theme of customs of localities (, sva-desaupãyikam ),43 and in that
context, makes fun of how different communities behave. Referring to the
Diņdikas of Lata he remarks.44. '[They] are not much different from the Piśacas.
For all of them bathe naked, always wash their clothes themselves even amidst a
crowd, keep hairs dishevelled, go to bed without washing feet, eats this or that
thing while walking, wears tattered clothes, even after striking one when the latter
is in difficulty, they always boast of their bravery.' With reference to an official
in the play, the Vita observes45; '.. who with a top-knot of hairs and jar-like ear-
pendants, behaves like the Lātas by speaking to the people with y'a-sounds (in
places of ya)..." All the Lātas have their uttarlya put around their two arms,
cloth tied round the waist, they greet men who meet them with śa- sound (in place
of sa) and take steps with slight stooping." The Ditidis come in for more
derogatory remarks from the Vita to whom they are not very different from the
monkeys. Referring to the Daśerakas, in the same city, the reaction of the Vita
finds expression in the following terms:"46 Here is a man with the face of a he-
goat, whose loins are covered with a piece of cloth, and whose shoulders are full
of thick hairs ... he comes biting a radish. If he is not a Daśeraka, then he must be
a devil . . . where shall I wash clean my eyes polluted by seeing this Daśeraka?'
Similarly, 'Men of Surāstra and monkeys are of the same class' with
preference for a Barbari courtesan who is described as „a goddess of darkness
with whiteness in the teeth and eyes only'.47 A Yavana courtesan in the same city,
a female monkey, a man from Mālava, and one addicted to amorous passion, a
donkey, and a singer - are all considered to have a common nature.48 Brahmā, the
text explains is always apt to bring similar things together. Clarifying further, the
Vita goes on to add: "....will listen to the Yavana courtesans' words which are
like the chattering of monkey, full of shrill sounds, and of indistinguishable
consonants, and which are * interspersed with the occasional display of
forefingers."49 The same text, as can be expected, puts a character from Gandhāra
in the category of hasti-mnrkha 50 (an elephantine fool) in the same manner in
which a character from dakšiņa Rãdha (southwest Bengal) was branded as an
incarnation of conceit ( ahamkãra ) in an allegorical play of the eleventh century:
Prabodha-candrodaya .51 As can be expected, he too, in his turn, had branded 4the
entire world as full of idiots' (aho mūrkhavahulam jagat).52
General President's Address H
If all that has been cited so far points in the directio

consciousness of unity, but of mutually distrustful diversities, the
this perspective of mutual perceptions to the field of doctrinal a
differences would reveal the same pattern, despite the stereotype of
marks Indian religious historiography. The tradition of contesta
different yãdas or doctrines is fairly old, and already by the time
the existence of a really large number of doctrines and world view
to be the only true one, possibly in north India alone, is attested b
sources,53 One can of course point to the fact that although differ
it was the recognition of differences and respect for them, as ad
emperor Aśoka in the third century BCE,54 that ensured the
pluralities in society. Asoka's message for mutual understanding an
differences was however unique; looking at it from an opposite p
was also a recognition of the absence of tolerance, necessitat
intervention. The entire history of Indian philosophy starts by ma
distinction: Vãdas or doctrines which were believed to be based on
the authority of the Vedas;55 this of course should not be taken to
doctrines, seeking valorization with reference to the Vedas, c
undifferentiated category. The 'others' of the Vedic, which were
rather un- Vedi c, were represented not only by the Nāstikas or the
Saugatas or the Buddhists and the Nirgranthas or Ksapaņakas or th
each split up, in the course of history, into many fragments, and
enough space left for new doctrines and new sects to emerge. The
of the sectarian scenario in early India, or for that matter in ot
Indian history as well, was that in the absence of a hegemonic fait
(which too could split up into irreconciliable segments), the differ
variously articulated in terms of opposition, antagonism, ridi
violence, and also in terms of amicable dialogues. There can
formula for making intelligible the pattern/patterns of interrelati
different faiths, religious practices and institutions and groups of pr
situation of incomparably complex juxtaposition. Characterizing
expression of religious tolerance or as synthesis and syncretism am
faiths would be negated by historical examples of acrimony, per
violence.56 Evidence of expressions of ideological distances and
abounds in texts but that need not lead us to a jungle of details. A
limit myself to, in order to underline the point about differences, w
a few examples from early texts. The first example is provided by
Jaina text, titled Nīlakesī, 51 assigned by its editor to about the fif
The text is about Nīlakesī , a female Jaina doctrinaire, who is out o
different locations, to prove the falsity of various doctrines or V
Vãdas which are demonstrated to be false, one after another, are
vãda , A rkacandra-vãda, Mokala-vāda, Buddha-vãda, Ājīvaka-v
vāda, Vaišesika-vāda, Veda - vada and Bhüta- vada. The text also narrates the
story of a beautiful Jaina girl who is duped into marriage in a Buddhist house-
hold. Her misery, at having to live with meat-eating Buddhists, gets compounded
12 IHC : Proceedings , 75th Session , 2014
when a Buddhist monk appears as a guest, and she is asked to cook a meat dish
for him. To alleviate her misery she cooks a delicious meat dish by using the
leather footwear temporarily left by the monk. The deception is discovered, and,
as a measure of reprisal, her husband"s household puts her under the stigma of
being the most unchaste wçman in town. The story concludes with divine
intervention which shows her up as really the most chaste among all the women
of the town. Deception, when it is used for the vindication of one's own faith,
becomes a virtuous act and is, by implication, shown to be justified in
establishing the superiority of one's own doctrine, which is, in this case, Jaina. If
a Brahmāņical saying provides the advice58 that even when chased by a mad
elephant, one should not enter a Jaina temple, Jaina narrative stories in their tern
emphasize that those led along the false path by Brāhmaņas and the Baudhas can
find the true one only when they come under the protection of Jaina ãcãtyas*9 A
telling evidence of contestation between different doctrines, resulting in an
allegorical fight between good and evil, is the text of the eleventh century play
Probodhacandrodaya of Krsņa Miśra written during the time of the Candella
rulers.60 In the play, evil is represented by such negative characters as Kāma-Rati
(male and female versions of physical love and desire), Maharaja Mahämoha
(great delusion), Vibhrāmavatī (blunder), Mithyadrsti (false perspective),
Dambha (egoism, Ahamkāra (boastful ness), Krodha (anger), and so on, as also
by Cārvākas, Digambaras, Śaivas, Pâáupãtas and Somasiddhāntins or Kāpālikas.
Virtue is represented by Visņubhakti, Mati (reason), Santi (peace), Karunã
(compassion), Maitrī (friendship), as also by SarasvatT, Upanisad, Yajña-Vidya ,
etc. When, as expected, virtue defeats vice or evil, the forces of evil flee in
different directions: the Saugatas or the Buddhists to Sindhu, Gandhāra, Pārasīka,
Magadha, I lūņa, Vanga, Kalińga - all far off from virtuous Madhyadeśa , as do
Digambaras and Kāpālikas in the direction of Mālava and AbhTra, to hide among
the illiterates. The Śaivas and Paśupatas similarly flee in the direction of Turuska-
deśa where 'people do not receive their venerable guests even with offering a seat
and water to wash their feet.' Good behaviour, in 'proper' texts, continue to
remain a preserve only of Madhyadeśa.
I would like to close this discussion with a brief reference to a well-
known satirical play Mattavilãsa-prahasana ,61 attributed to Mahendrá-Vikrama-
Varman, Paliava king of the seventh century, who is believed to have shifted his
allegiance from Jaina to Śaiva faith. The location of what happens in the play is
Kāncīpuram, and the dramatis personae consist of a Kapalin (a Kāpālika ascetic)
Satyasoma, his female companion Devasomā, a Śakya-bhiksu (Buddhist monk), a
Paśupata ascetic and a madman. The play is about the loss and recovery of the
Kapalin ascetic's skull-bowl {kapala), containing roasted meat. The Kapalin feels
frustrated at having lost the skull - bowl as he considers the bowl to be central to
his vocation: 'Ruined is my tapasl How can I be a Kapālī any more!' [bhrastam
me tapah / kenāhamīdānīm kapalī bhavisyãmi ?] He has also just been dissuaded
by his female companion to desist from giving up drinking, as that would
seriously affect his tapas and amount to vrata-bhafiga. The Kapālī suspects that
either a dog or a Buddhist monk has stolen the skull-bowl with the meat in it
General President 's Address 13
(after all, both the dog and the Buddhist monk are meat-eater
only the Buddhist monk for stealing but also brands Buddha hi
thief than the author of Cora-sãstra (Manual on the Art of St
'when the Brāhmaņas were blinking', Buddha enriched his own
ideas from the Mahābhārata and the Vedāntas. At the same tim
toward the Vedas themselves was no less irreverent; in his sta
inebriation, this is how the Kapalin compares a liquor-vend ( su
of Vedi c Yajña (sacrifice):
"Look! Look, dear! This liquor shop resembles the splendo
a sacrificial hall. The sign-post [dhvaja-stambha] here
sacrificial post; the liquor is the soma; those who drink ar
priests [rtvijah]; the jugs are the soma bowls [camasãh
roasted meat [śulya-mamsa] and other delicacies are the sp
savoured offerings [upa-damśa-havir-viśeśah], the drunk
talk is the Yajur words; their songs are the Sãma hymns
thirst is the fire; and the owner of the shop is the yajam
the sacrifice."
The play Mattavilaãa-prahasana (satire) ends on a surprisingly
amicable note, but the points of difference between the characters were not of the
nature of play-acting, they were real. If reconciliation and resolution of
differences was one side of reality, a complementary reality would be represented
by its opposite: that of tension, conflict, contestation and even violence.62
What has been said above is based only on perceptions articulated and
expressed in words; this ought to have been supplemented by varieties of other
perceptions of individuals and communities whose voices, unfortunately for
historians, have gone unrecorded. One can only wonder their variety, imagining
the cacophony which such contending voices would have created and sounded as
vibrant as a once-a-week village market place.
Return to the Issue of Unity

According to an informed opinion,63 the essence of Tradition has to exist
in the medium of language". One may demand, equally legitimately, that the
essence of unity, to be easily understandable, has to exist in the form of a concept
in a language. A single word, expressing the "idea of unity" in modern times in
the Indo-Aryan languages would be aikya , derived from Eka or one. But the
concept of Eka, encompassing Bahudhã or the diverse, or the many, as found in a
hymn in the Rgveda ,64 actually equates Eka (one) with several other gods, named
differently as Indra, Mitra, Varuņa, Agni, Mātarišvan, etc. and this equation, in
any case, does not have any bearing on the idea of Indian unity. Even the limited
samples of textual evidence that 1 have cited should suggest that those who wrote
our early texts appear not to have been terribly concerned with the idea of unity
as a hallmark of their society and culture. The texts, in fact, seem to provide an
opposite impression. It is therefore somewhat curious that the insistence on the
image of India alone representing unity in diversity has to figure in all varieties of
Indian historiography: Colonial-Orientalist, Nationalist, Marxist, and what one
may perhaps call post-Marxist.65 The presence of the „idea", despite the
mandatory accent also on diversity, in all brands of writings is so pronounced that
one is inevitably led to ask, once again, questions which seem to have so far
remained unasked in clear terms: (i) If India indeed represents diversity, how did
the diverse elements dissolve their own innate characters to come together to
construct or constitute an entity called unity? In other words, what was that magic
formulae which India alone could conceive to transcend all differences to emerge
as a united body? (ii) Is there a historic moment / juncture which represents the
achievement of that unity? For, if there is, then the possibility of any new
elements further contributing to that unity seems to get automatically precluded
as post-facto appendages external to the achievement of that unity. Alternatively,
is it that what we assume as unity is really an ongoing process toward a new
formation, and, has it always been so in the past as well, necessitating that we
reconsider - and reorient - the entire idea of unity in our mindscape, to speculate
new alternatives?
Before I can think of even facing such basic questions, in addition to the
ones I posed in the beginning, let me consider briefly views of two well known
thinkers who both subscribed to the notion of India"s unity in diversity: Tagore
and Kosambi. Two of Tagore's memorable writings project this idea as their
essence: his long song Bhārata-tīrtha66 (i.e. the pilgrimage space that is Bhãrata)
and his short essay: Bhãratavarsher Itihās6 7 ("History of India'). In Bhārata-
tīrtha two major metaphors are employed. One is that of an auspicious pilgrimage
site, on the shore of the ocean of great humanity ( Mahāmānava ) where people,
from diverse locations and diverse origins converge, obviously in their quest for a
final resting place. The other metaphor is of the body: Bhārata is conceived as a
body in which the Aryas and Anäryas (non-Aryans), Dravidas, Cīnās, Śakas,
Hūņas, Pathāns, Mughals all merged. The metaphor of the body is significant
because as a living and vibrant organism, all parts of the body are interconnected
in a functional relationship, in which no organ or tissue could be discarded as
redundant. This is precisely the idea that Tagore projects also in his essay
' Bhãratavarser itihäs ' when he says: 'Bhāratavarsa has not discarded anything.'
Tagore's idea of Indian history being not just a chronicle of genealogies and
battles, but of persistent search to forge unity among diversity, of ways of
reconciling between seemingly irreconcilables, again underlines the almost
inexhaustible range of cultural ingredients which all fused to emerge as
recognizably Indian. Tagore, in talking about unity, did not insist upon unity
being a fait accompli. His use of the term 'search' ( sandhãn ) rather pointed to the
quest for unity as an ongoing process, without the predictability of an inevitable,
final accomplishment. Tagore's accent on the dynamic process of the move to
achieve equilibrium between different cultural elements cannot be taken to mean
triumph of one cultural form or expression over the other; all that it can perhaps
mean is interaction, shorn of cultural value judgement.
To D.D. Kosambi, India's unity in diversity is almost self-evident. The
first sentence of his The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical
Outline starts thus:68 "A dispassionate observer who looks at India with
General President's Address
detachment and penetration would be struck by two mutually contradictory

features : diversity and unity at the same time. The endless variety is striking,
often incongruous. Costume, speech, the physical appearances of the people,
customs, standards of living, food, climate, geographical features all offer the
greatest possible differences." The varieties specified here almost reproduce those
articulated in ancient texts, but it is not varieties as such which are significant; to
Kosambi, "Africa or the single province of Yunnan in China offer as much
diversity".69 What distinguishes India from other countries is "the continuity that
we find in India over the last three thousand years or more. The continuity of
Indian culture in its own country is perhaps its most important feature."
Kosambi"s notion of continuity implies the simultaneous presence of all cultural
forms from the most primitive hunting-gathering to the most technologically
recent: "the survival within different social layers of many forms that allow the
reconstruction of totally diverse stages".70 Continuity, which thus took the form
of survivals and of the process of tribal societies becoming parts of the general [
in other words, of more complex society ] may be taken to correspond to
Tagore"s idea of the all-accommodating nature of Indians unity, both notions
precluding the necessity of seismic tensions toward achieving that unity.
The presence of diverse elements, at different stages of historical change
and in ever-dynamic states of equation, however does not necessarily define
unity; the symbol/ symbols of unity- as also its meaning (although conceived as
an apt characterization of Indian society across historiographical ideologies) have
remained really unspecified What needs therefore to be understood - and this is
precisely why I chose to present this question before you - how diversity of
elements present in Indian society and culture relate to one another and to the
complex structure which may be taken to represent unity. Do these diverse
ingredients exist in a relationship of perfect equilibrium and harmony as a static
structure, or, is the balance fragile, uncertain and in a perpetual state of tension? I
cannot even preálime to provide an answer to this question; I can only offer my
own modest views on the issue of unity in diversity in so far as the concept
relates to the formative stages of Indian society and culture. Before I attempt to
do so, let me once more refer to the early texts. If the space, conceived in the
Purāņas and other texts as Bhāratavarsa, is taken to correspond to India, then
there is Purāņic opinion also on what distinguished this Varsa from other
Varsas.1] The distinction from other Varsas was made by stressing that
Bhāratavarsa was the only Varsa where Karma (action) bore its fruit, and,
causally related to it, where the inhabitants were organised in a four-fold social
division. The ideology of karma , in essence related to the ideologies of dharma,
phala (fruit of action) and rebirth, was, according to the Purāņas, the unique
hallmark of Bhāratavarsa. While some may like to take karma ideology as the
Purāņic version of Indian unity, there is a major difficulty in accepting it as what
transcended the vast range of diversities in the country. Despite the pervasive
reach of the ideology in the Indian mind and the fact that it was one of the
cornerstones of Brahmanical ideology of Varņāšramadharma , it was not
necessarily subscribed to by all communities.72 More importantly, the problem of
¡HC: Proceedings, 75th Session, 2014
understanding interrelationship between disparate culture and social traits across

the space of India at historical and existential levels still remains unanswered.
Although the Purāņas, as also other literature, point to the multiplicity of
janapadas which constituted Bhārata-varsa, which in turn was one of the
components of an elaborate cosmographie structure, the problem of interaction or
interrelationship between them is not a theme with which the texts were really
concerned.
In Defence of Diversity:
What does Indian unity mean, particularly when it is projected back into
India's early past? In empirical and theoretical terms, Bhāratavarsa was not a
politically unified space; the ideal, sovereign ruler's sovereignty hinged upon the
subordination of multiple other rulers.73 The Śastras I have cited point to
diversities of janapada cultures and also to the existence of attitudes of mutual
derision, real or concocted, among them. Imagining the existence in the past of a
'common history, common heroes, a common literature, common art, a common
law'74 may be a satisfying assertion of a colonized 'patriot', it can hardly pass
empirical scrutiny. Do we then abandon the idea of unity altogether? Approached
from a historical perspective, the idea of unity, it seems, may at best be
considered as a process of interaction - as a process of transformative but unequal
dialogue- among varied local, sub-regional and regional elements of culture (in
other words, of janapadas, ņādus , etc.) across time and across spaces.
Transformative dialogue could imply sharing, borrowing, interpénétration,
rejection as also synthesis, and the intensity or otherwise of such active
interaction would depend on the proximity or the distance between the spaces
involved in such interaction. I have argued on another occasion 75 that as a
geographical space India can be viewed as a land of interlocking regions, the
cultural implications of which would be that geographically contiguous and
interlocking regions - would have greater cultural affinity - in terms of linguistic
and similar traits - than would two distant regions. Of course, communication
and pervasive reach of major symbols of trans-regional cultural affinity were not
geographically determined; the agency was human, and historians keen to
decipher the nature of Indian unity may do well to look for both such agencies
and those enduring symbols of cultural affinity which are not exclusive to a
single segment of Indian populace. The most that I shall be prepared to speculate
for the present is that the interactional process developed over time a reference
poinlr to which heterogeneous cultural elements and geographical spaces could
relate. This reference point was the idea of Bhāratavarsa, or any term such as
later-day Hindustan, which could substitute Bhāratavarsa. This idea of a country
could and did accommodate as a single reference point the vast range of diverse,
even contradictory, traits of different localities, sub-regions and regions. Thus,
when a fourteenth century inscription from coastal Andhra - one among many
such inscriptions - refers to the location of Tilinga country within the varsa of
Bhārata, divided into nine parts, and consisting of many languages and customs,
it was both recognizing its affinity with Bhāratavarsa and its other Janapadas 6 as
well as asserting its own separate cultural identity in the fourteen

context. This identity too would have emerged out of, and still con
differences, and the assertion of a particular identity ought to be
expression of a contingency of that particular historical moment.
The point that I think needs to be stressed is that our insiste
of unity generally tends to ignore the implications of the formation o
pre-modern times too the establishment of a particular way of life
accomplished by the subordination or marginalization of other wo
practices
inequality of its constituents". If the meaning of un

without variations, without contradictions, and with
that would be a meaning which, I doubt, anyone wo
either of the present or of the past. In fact, uni
civilization, is in a sense destructive. It brings to
through the decimation or annihilation of a large num
when pre-civilizational, essentially local and commu
process of civilization formation, through in
universalisation, or any other means, the struct
invariably implies select accommodation, margi
subordination. For example, in the process of the em
cults, when the vana (forest) merges into the ksetra 7H
a complex social organization), it is not the vana
remain present. Despite the presence of tribal, va
Jagannāth of Puri, the cult emerged as so thoroughly
with Brahmanical notion of social hierarchy tha
egalitarian socio-religious movement such as Mahima
of attack.79 More recently, although the commu
continue to invoke their goddess Kāli as digamba
garment is the sky or „one who is without a garment
is made to conform to the norms of bhadralok propriet
Thus, those who attempt to invoke concept
'Sanskritic paradigm' to conjure up an image of
unaware of the negative potentialities of unity. Consid
recently made, in relation to a possibly timeless
multi-racial, a multi-religious, a multi-cultural I
integrative framework of a nation governed by
dharma as an integrative framework fails to rec
multiple, and, in any case, in the event of failure of dh
was the rājašāsana (royal) which ultimately preva
prescribed procedures.81 Dharmas could and the
'Sanskritic paradigm'82 symbolising Indian unity bec
as a sacred language and its ideological underpinnings
recall what linguists have told us. Writing, way bac
remarked, by way of explaining the initial reluctan
possibility of Sanskrit borrowings from Dravidian,8
IHC: Proceedings, 75th Session, 2014
with its enthronement of Sanskrit at the expense of other languages, taught

western scholars to think this way about Sanskrit." That the enthronement of
Sanskrit was at the expense of Dravidian and other languages, has been stressed
further by Emeneau,84 "The geographical distribution, and the nature of boundary
in Central India between Dravidian speakers and the speakers of Indo-Aryan
languages that descend from the invader language Sanskrit, are good evidence
that Dravidian has been steadily retreating before Indo-Aryan." More recently, an
overview of the 'linguistic prehistory of South Asia' postulates the following
about the Austroasiatic Munda languages in relation to its distribution in South
Asia.85 "The Munda languages are spoken primarily in north-east India with
outliers encapsulated among Indo-Aryan languages in Central India ... The
geography of Munda does suggest that it was once more wide spread in India and
has been pushed back or encapsulated by both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian. Indeed
the early literature defected Muņdā influences far to the west of the Indo-Aryan
zone even in the Dardic languages of Pakistan, an idea still countenanced in
recent publications". Whatever may have been the changing prehistoric
geography of Austroasiatic or other language groups in India, there is no reason
to doubt that the triumphant expansion of Sanskrit towards representing a
'cosmopolis'86 was secured at the expense and marginalisation not only of what
have been called other language 'phyla' and 'language isolates'87 but also of
other Indo-Aryan languages such as Prakrit and Pali. One also ought not to be
oblivious of the fact that in addition to being the vehicle of exquisite literature
and subtle philosophical thought of wide reach, Sanskrit has for long been the
purveyor of a most pernicious ideology of social inequality through the concepts
of varņa, jātī and varņasamkara, condemning a major chunk of Indian humanity
to degraded segregation and untouchability.88 'Sanskritic paradigm' was
pervasive, but it was a symbol of ideological dominance, not of shared
participation without which the meaning of unity remains hollow.
It is an irony of history that movement of diverse cultural spaces to come
together, to integrate, to function as a united entity, happens invariably by
sacrificing a multitude of such spaces, the nature of their sacrifice depending on
the historical context of their disappearance. In India, many did not disappear, but
went nevertheless through a process of change or of metamorphosis. Many others
survived, giving the country a unique appearance of continuity. History too has
gifted us new cultural forms which have entered into new relationships of
interaction. In my ode to diversity, which I fear may turn into an elegy sooner
than later, I simply plead for the survival of diverse culture spaces in a world
which is fast becoming a victim of dangerous global homogenisation; we háve
started to experience the diverse splendours of our vast universe in our
neighbourhood mega-malls instead of learning to experience it all around us. Ih
our own country, the massive spread of what I call maggi- mania, from Kinnaur to
Kanyakumari,89 simultaneously combined with increasingly persistent threats to
our personal and community culinary preferences,90 is paralleled by the
increasing centralism and autocracy of today's m adhya-deśa and the steadily
growing imperialistic ambition of a single language in a multi-lingual terrain. The
evidence that I cited above from our ancient texts of cultura

tensions, and even of conflicts was evidence of dynamic inte
heterogeneous society. Keeping the heritage of that glorious, if
heterogeneity in mind, let us hope that today we do not deliberate
country-our many Indias- to the blackhole of robotic uniformity
integration and unity.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
' See for example, S. Bhattacharya, Taking Back: The Idea of Civilization in Indian Natio
Discourse (New Delhi, 2011). Being mainly of the nature of historiographical analys
based on the writings of such major thinkers as Tagore, Gandhi and Nehru, Taking Bac
really concerned with early textual perceptions. See also Idem, 'Introduction' which is e
introduction to the collection" of essays titled Cultural Unity of India , (Ram Krishna M
Institute of Culture, Kolkata, 201 3), XI-XL1.
2 See entries in http.//www. wikipedia.org under 'Unity in Diversity'.
For details of early enterprise to map the empire see M.Edney, Mapping and Empi
Geographical Construction of British India, 1765-1843 (University of Chicago Press, C
1997), passim.
Manu - Smrti , II. 17-24. The English translation of the Smrti, titled as The Laws of Man
here is by Wendy Doniger and Brian K. Smith (Penguin Books, New Delhi, 1992).
Bankimchandra perceived many differences (bheda) in Indian society in the form o
ethno- linguistic groups, in the form of different jātis, religious, languages, customs an
He was, in view of such compartmentalizing differences, led to compare Bhārata-bhūm
of India) to a bee-hive full of bees. See J.C.Bagal, ed., Bankim Rachanavali , Vol.2 (Ca
1964). The essay is titled 'Why is India unfree?'. pp. 234-241 .
' Bankimchandra who wrote about differences in India in terms of varieties of regional
was also among the early conceivers of the country as 'Mother'. His 1882 Novel, Ananda
considered to be the earliest patriotic novel in India offers homage to the 'Mother' cons
in the image of Purāņic Durgā, Bankim Rachanavali, Vol. I, Chapter 10. In answer t
layman's doubt that the song refers to the country, not mother the ascetic asserts that the
of brithis indeed the Mother.
7 Abanindranath Tagore's Bhārat-mātā (Mother India), painted in 1905, showed the g
with hands holding, in each, a manuscript, sheaves of paddy plant, a rosary, and a piece o
symbolized her as the provider of šik$ā-anna-dik$ā-vastra to her children, the inhabitant
country. Bharat-mātā's iconography was however, not a fixed one, as can be seem
Sumathi Ramaswamy, The Goddess and the Nation , (New Delhi edition, 201 1), pp. 15
passim.
H
Bhāratavāsī (the residents of India) were all invoked in an extremely popular song believed) to
have been composed to commemorate the hanging, by the British, of the young revolutionary
Khudiram Bose in 1908. The song continues to be immensely popular in Bengal for different
versions of the song and their analysis see Arun Kumar Nag, ' Dwipantari Abhiram ' in Galpa O
Tar Goru, (in Bengali) (Calcutta, 2005), pp. 109-127.
ì Radhakumud Mookherji, The Fundamental Unity of Indai( London, 1914; New Delhi edition,
2003.), passim.
10 S Bhattacharya, Talking Back, passim., also, Idem, ' Introduction '.
1 1 S Bhattacharya, Introduction p.xxi.
12 If Bankim Chandra could perceive difference in the existence of many jātis, and in other
terms, contributing to the absence of the feeling of unity, others could sing of mahān Milan
(noble union), despite the existence of nay languages, many dress habits, many beliefs and
opinions, cf. Atui Chandra Gupta: nānā mat nonā paridhān, vividher majhe aache Milan
mahān. This reference has been supplied to be my Sriman Sabir Ali.
13 Rg Veda, 10.22.8, See also B.D.Chhattopadhyaya, 'Accommodation and Negotiation in a
Culture of Exclusivism: Some early Indian perspectives', in Bipan Chandra and Sucheta
Mahajan, Composite Culture in a Multicultural Society , (National Book Trust, New Delhi,
2007), pp. 145-165.
Baudhãyana Dharmasūtra, 1.2.9-14.
Manu makes a distinction between Madhyadeśa and Ãryavarta, the latter being somewhat
larger than the first, 2.21-22, Doniger and Smith, p. 19.
Kāvyamimārļīsā , 17 adhayãya. The edition used is of Nagendranatha Chakravartu,
Rājašekhara O Kāvyamimāmsā, (Santiniketan, 1960), p. 269. Other citations from the
Kâvyamimâifisâ would also refer to this edition.
See Ananda K.Coomaraswamy, ' The Nature of "Folklore" and "Popular" Art' in Rama P.
Coomaraswamy, ed.? The Essential Ananda Coomaraswamy, (The Bļoomington World
Wisdom, Bloomington, 2009), pp. 215-222. This is how Coomaraswamy distinguished between
what he called 'constituted' (sarņskrta) and provincial (desi) [ or s 'highway' {marga) and a
local or by way (desi)] : "... .looking at from the Brahman's point of view (who are 'gods' on
'earth') whatever is geographically and /or qualitatively removed from the orthodox centre,
from holy land (Ąryavarta) where the heavenly pattern is accurately imitated will be at the same
time geographically and spiritually "provincial"; those are preeminently dešī who are outer
barbarians beyond the pale, and in this sense dešī is the equivalent of "heathen" or pagan. . .
18 For a fuller discussion of this see B.D.Chattopadhyaya, 'Space, History and Cultural Process:
Some Ideas on the Ingredients of Sub-regional Identity', in H.Kulke and G. Berkemer, eds.
Centres Out There? Facts of Sub-regional Identities in Or issa (New Delhi, 201 1), pp. 21-38.
See also B.D. Chattopadhayaya, A Survey of Historical Geography of Ancient India (Calcutta,
1984), passim .; Idem, 'The Concept of Bhâratavarça and its historiographical implications
(unpublished).
K. Sivathamby, 'Early South Indian Society and Economy: The Tinai concept', Social
Scientist , Vol 3, no. 5. (1974) , pp. 29-37; G.D. Sontheimer, Pastoral deities in western India,
translated by Anne Feldhaus (New York-Oxford, 1989), Chapter 2.
B.D. Chattopadhayaya, Aspects of Rural Settlements and Rural Society in Early Medieval
India (Calcutta, 1990), Chapter I.
The performance of Višvajit sacrifice signified the 'conquest of the world' after the successful
completion of a victory march, although the 'world' need not be taken in a geographical sense.
Kālidāsa portrays the victory march of Raghu ' digjigi$u' who set out to conquer the quarters
beginning in the east and also ending in the east, before he performed the Visvajit sacrifice:
Raghuvamšam, in C.R.Devadhas, Works of Kālidāsa, Vol 2( Poetry), (New Delhi, 2002), 4th
Sarga.
22 See D.C. Sircar, " Cakravarti-kçetra " in Studies in Geography of Ancient and Medieval India
(Delhi, 1971), Chapter I.
Manu Smrti, 7.154-158; Doniger and Smith, pp. 143-144.
24 Kaufilîya Arthašāstra, 6.2.39-40. The text of the Arthašāstra used is that of R. G. Basak,
KaufilJyam Arthašāstram in two parts (Calcutta, 1964). The translation is by R.P. Kangle, The
Kauti līva Arthašāstra, part 2 (An English Translation with critical and Explanatory Notes),
University of Bombay, 1963).
Kangle, The Kaufilîya Arthašāstra, p.37 1 .
' Arthašāstra, 6. 1. 18. Kangle, p. 367.
27 Cited in S.K.Chatterji, 'Contributions of Different Languages-Culture groups in H.
Bhattacharya ed. The Cultural Heritage of India, Vol.1 (Calcutta, 1958) p. 90.
Mahābharata, Vanaparva, Āraņeya-parvādhyāya, In answer to Yakça's question to what
Dharma is Yudhiçthira gives and answer which is very telling:' Vedas are different, Smrti are
different; there is no Muni whose opinion is not differeln essence, intrying to answer nt (from
that of others). The concept of Dharma lies in a cave (i.e. remains mysterious);
path (which is) traversed by the wise.' In essence in trying to answer Yakç
what the meaning of Dharma is, Yudhiçthira is referring to the body of cust
community may be seen to adhere to.
24 Manu Smrti, 7. 203 and 7.208; Doniger and Smith, p. 149.
30 Yajñavalkya Smrti, 1.342-343.
31 The text of the Nafyaśastra, used here is edited by Suresh Chandra Band
Chhanda Chakracarti (Kolkata, 4th reprint, 2013), in two parts. Nafyaśastra , 1.
32 Nafyaśastra „ Chapter 14.
3 Nafyaśastra, Chapter 18.
4 Nafyaśastra , Chapter 18.
35 Nafyaśastra , Chapter 18, 52-55.
" ' Nafyaśastra , 1 8.26.
37 N.Ñ. Chakravarti, Rajaśekhara O Kãvyamimãmsâ, third adhyãya.
Ibid: anantān =api hi deśamś=caturdhd = iv =ākalya kalpayanti c akr a
sãmãnyena tad=anantara-viśe$aih punar=anantā èva iti yâvâvariya.
y See Wendy Doniger and Sudhir Kakar : Vatsyayana Mallanadą: Kām
complete English translation of the Sanskrit text) (New York, 2002), 5.12, pp.
40 Doniger and Kakar, p. 50.
41 Manomohan Ghosh, Glimpses of Sexual Life in Nanda- M auty a India (T
Caturbhāņi together with a critical edition of text) (Calcutta, 1975). Ghosh's d
of the Bhāņas in the Nanda- Maurya period is not supported by any convincin
evidence.
42 M.M.Ghosh, Sexual Life , pp. 103-167; 71-1 18 (text).
43 Ibid., p. 1 1 1; a;so p. 76 (text) : Yatha deśa -jāti-kula-tīrtha-samaya-dharma ... . ; p.87 (text).
44 Ibid., p. 126.
Ibid., pp. 13 1-33; p.91 (text).
46 Ibid., p. 135; p. 93 (text).
47 Ibid., p. 155; p. 108 (text).
4X Ibid., pp. 156-57; p. 110 (text).
9 Ibid., pp.157; p. 110 (text) : vānarī-ni$kuj itopamāni cīt-kāra-bhūyi?fhām apratyabh ijñeya-
vyañjanani kmcit-karnenāntarāni pradešinī-lālana-mātra sūci tani...
5 Ibid., p. 1 65; p. 1 1 6 (text): Gāndhārakeņa Hastimurkheņa..
S.K.Nambiar, Prabodhacandrodaya of Krsņa Miśra (Sanskrit text with English translation, a
critical Introduction and Index) (Delhi, second edition, 1998), p. 26: dakšiņa- Raęiha-pradeśad-
āgato... .
5 Ibid., p.26. Ahamkāra is demonstrably proud oOf his vast learning, and referring to 'animal-
natured heretics, Śaivas and Paśupatas ', expresses his own opinion that even by conversation
with them, people go to hell. They should be avoided even from a distance from coming into
one's line of vision.', p. 29.
" The term vāda having derived from vad (to speak), would imply debate, originally verbal, as
the centrepoint of a doctrine.
Having stated, in his major rock edict 12, that he honoured all sects (all pâçâçlas) in his
kingdom with gifts and other offerings, Aśoka enjoined all sects to practice restraint of speech
and desist from promoting one's own sect, by denouncing those of others. In his opinion, this
practice did not benefit one's own sect either, For the text and its Sanskrit version see
D.C. Sircar, Select Inscriptions bearing on Indian History and Civilization , Vol. I (second
edition, Calcutta University, Calcutta, 1965), pp. 32-34.
3 S.N.Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol I (Cambridge University Press, 1963),
pp.67-68.
In negating the communal version of Indian history, initiated by colonial history and taken
over by a substantial number of South Asian historians, we sometimes tend to go to the other
extreme of projecting an idyllic image of religious peace in pre-colonial India. Tension and
ciolence, which however were one dimension and not the only motif of social life, existed in
different periods of Indian history. For some examples, see B.D. Chattopadhyaya, Representing
the Other? Sanskrit and the Muslims : Eighth to Fourteenth Century , (New Delhi, 1998),
passim., Idem, 'Other or the Others? Varieties of Difference in Indian Society at the Turn of the
First Millennium and Their Historiographical Implications', in Studying Early India,
Archaeology, Texts and Historical /wwejfüelhi, 2003), pp. 191-214.
57 A. Chakravarti, editor and publisher, Neelakesi , (second edition, Jaipur, 1994), passim.
Cited in Nagendranath Chakravarti, Rajaśekhara O Kāvyamimarņsā, p. 60 (section on Bengali
translation and commentary). The sectarian undertone of the following statement is also self-
evident in Rajaśekhara who cites a verse invoking kārna with the assurance that he need not
fear revealing his own form because the company consists of Vaiçnavas alone, and Śańkara
would not be around (rūparņ darśaya nãtra śankara-bhyam sarve byam Vai$ņavāh) ibid.,
chapter 16, p. 134.
39 Phyllis Granhoff has commented on the 'Sheer abundance and variety of medieval Jain story
literature', The Forest of Thieves and the Magic Garden (An Anthology of Medieval Jain
Stories) (Penguin Books, New Delhi, 1998), p.5. The stories, despite their diverse plots, were in
the end didactic in nature. In addition to the anthology The Forest of Thieves and the Magic
Garden, see also The Clever Adulteress and other stories (A Treasury of Jaina Literature),
edited by Phyllis Granoff (1st Indian edition, 1993) , passim.
S.K.Nambiar, Prabodha Candrodaya, passim
Matta-vilāsa: A Farce by Mahendravikrama-varman' translated by L.D. Barnett, Bulletin of
the School of Oriental Studies, Vol 5, 1930, pp. 697-710. For an insightful discussion on this
prahasana see G. Subbiah, Matta-vilāsaprahasana: CCountering a Counter Culture' in
Pathways to Literature, Art and Archaeology (Pandit G. N. Bahura Felicitation Volume (Jaipur
n.d.), pp.50-58.
For a recent study of such tensions and conflicts see D.N.Jha, ed. Contesting Symbols and
Stereotypes, Essays on Indian History and Culture (Delhi, 2013). See in particular Chapters 2
and 3.
63 Hans Georg Gadamer, cited in M.G.Phillips, 'What is Tradition when it is not "invented?" A
Historiographical Introduction,' in M.G. Phillips and G. Schochet, Questions of Tradition
(Toronto, 2004), pp. 3-32.
64 R.T.H. Griffith, The Hymns of the Rg-Veda (second edition, 18%); 1.164.46: 'They call him
Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni and he is heavenly noble-winged Garulman. To what is one, sages
give many a title [;] They call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.'
The presence of the same idea in the same vocabulary, in the writings of V.A. Smith (1919),
Rabindranath Tagore (1902) and D.D. Kosambi (1965) should be considered significant. For
bibliographical references seeS. Bhattacharya, Talking Back, op.cit.
Rabindranath Thakur [Tagore], 'Bharat-tirtha' (1910) in Gītānjali, Rabindra Rachanavali,
Birth Centenary Edition (West Bengal Government, Calcutta, 1961), pp. 280-282. In this
edition, the song is however numbered, not named.
67 Rabindranath Thakur [Tagore]: Itihās (in Bengali), compiled by Prabodh Chandra Sen and
Pulin Behari Sen (Calcutta, 1957), pp. 1-11. It must be admitted that 'great humanity' is not a
satisfactory literary translation of mahāmānava.
The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline (Delhi Reprint, 1975), p.l.
69 Ibid., p.9
Ibid., pi 3.
71 Visņu-Purāņam, 2.3.2,5: 'Karma-bhümir-iyam also, na khalv-anyatra martyänärri karma
bhūmau vidhJyate. See also note 76.
See the discussion in A.K. Ramanujan, 'Is there an Indian way of Thinking? An Informal
Essay' in Contributions to Indian Sociology, 23.41 (1989), pp. 41058. This paper is included in
Vinay Dharwarkar, General Editor, The Collected Essays of A.K. Ramanujan

University press, New Delhi, 1999), pp.34-61.
73 The concept of dig~vijaya ^conquest if quarters; often also called 'world conqu
numerous early texts, including the Mahābhārata an dRaghuvamšam o/Kālidāsa, und
necessity of such subjugation for attainment of the status of universal monarc
example, Sabhāparva (25-32) of the Mahābhārata , translated by Paul Wilmot (Cla
Library, New York University Press, 2006).
74 V.Ď. Savarkar, cited by Michael Gottlob, 'India's Unity in Diversity as a Q
Historical Perspective', Economic and /Political Weekly, Vol. 42, No. 09 (2007), pp. 7
B.D.Chattopadhyaya, 'Space History and Cultural ProcessL Some Ideas on the Ing
Sub regional "Identity", in Herman Kulke and Georg Berkemer, ed. Centres out The
Sub-regional Identities in Or issa, pp. 2 1 -38.
76 N. Venkataramanayya and M.Somasekhara Sharma, Vilasa grant of Pralo
Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 32, (1959), pp. 239-263; in particular, p. 260. The reco
following expression in relation to Bhāratavarsa: Phalamti Karmāņi yatra/ Bhāsā
bhidā vinhinnair-dešair-anekair-vibhakte (i.e. "where deeds done bear fruits and wh
by many languages and customs, was divided into many countries').
7 Michael Gottlob, 'India's Unity in Diversity', op. cit., p. 780.
8 For the use of these two contrasting terms see G.D> Sontheimer, 'The Vana and t
the tribal background of some famous cults' in G.C. Tripathi and Herman Kulke, ed
and Society in Eastern India: Anncharlott Eschmann Memorial Lectures, Vo
86)(Bhuvaneshwar, 1987), pp. 117-164.
79 For a detailed study of the movement see Ishita Banerjee-Dube, Religion, Law
Tales of Time in Eastern India 1860-2000 (London -New York-Delhi, 2012), pa
Chapters I and II.
80 Indranath Chaudhuri, 'Fundamental Unity of the Indian Polity' in Bullet
Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Vol. 65, no. 6, (June, 2014), pp. 264-270.
R.S. Sharma, 'Rājašāsana: Meaning, Scope and Application' in Porceedings of
History Congress, 37th Session, (Calicut, 1976), pp. 76-77.
8 For the explication of the expression see S. Bhattacharya, Editorial 'Introduction'
Unity of India, op.cit., pp. xxii-xxiii.
M.B. Emeneau, ' Linguistic Prehistory of India in Anwar S. Dil, ed., Language and
Area : Essays by M.B. Emeneau ^Stanford University Press, 1980), p. 90.
Ibid., See also the following remark' The historical relationship between the three
[Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Munda] are largely a matter of reconstruction. It is clea
geographical nature of boundaries between the three families in Central India that t
boundary of Dravidian is and has been for a long time retreating south before the e
Indo-Aryan, and that the small islands of Dravidian speech north of the main bo
isolated patches that have not yet become extinct. Similarly with the Munda languag
all islands of greater or less extent surrounded by and pressed upon (emphasis
Dravidian or by Indo- Aryan. This should mean a much greater spread both for Mu
Dravidian at an earlier period," M.B. Emeneau, 'Indain as a Linguistic Area' in A
op.cit., p. 100.
8 Roger Blench, "Re-evaluating the Linguistic prehistory of South Asia", in Toshiki
Akinori Uesugi, eds. Occassional Paper 3: Linguistics, Archaeology and the H
(Kyoto, 2008), pp. 159-178.
The expression has been used by Sheldon Pollock in 'The Sanskrit Cosmopolis,
Transculturation, Vemacularization, and the Question of Ideology' in J.E.M. Honb
and Status of Sanskrit: Contributions to the History of Sanskrit Language (Leid
Chapter 8. Also, Sheldon Pollock, The Language of the Gods in the World of Men
Culture and Power in Premodern India (University of California Press: Berkley, L
London, 2006), part I.
87 For the use of these terms, to signify respectively the 'grouping of languages' (such as Indo-
European, Dravidian, etc.) and 'individual languages' see Roger Blench, Re-evaluating the
linguistic prehistory'. Op.cit. The hegemonic hold of Sanskrit on elite and bureaucratic mind
comes out clearly in the following statement: "
with a feeling which is next only to that of patriotism towards Mo

Sanskrit Commission 1956-57, cited in Sumathi Ramaswamy, Sanskr
Asian Studies, 33.2 (1999), pp. 339-381.
Sometimes varņa was sacrosanct and varna-satpkara was evil is a
Manu (Chapter 10); Manu's Cannala , the 'Fierce' untouchable, con
'worst' of men, has been called by F.Nietzsche as the 'hotpotch hum
and Smith, p.xx and p. 236.
In the poem ' Bhārata-tīrtha' cited above, Tagore invoked Brahmi
groups, to join together in the celebration of Mother (land)'s consecr
Brahmin, purify your mind and hold the hands of all'. The suggestio
his mind is a complete reversal of the position that had put him at the
89 This is based on personal experience of a visit to the remote v
valley in Kinnaur in Himachal Pradesh in June, 2014.
90 For those who persist in the belief that non vegetarianism is anti
and is a tāmas i ka abhorrent practice instigated by the West, histo
such works as in Om Prakash, Food and Drinks in Ancient India (Ne
Appendix VII), in addition to abundant archaeological material, m
however suggest to such pious minds that they read the Rāmāyaņa o
sarga 85.21-77) for an account of the ways the army of Bharata, on
exile, was entertained by sage Bharadvāja at his āšrama.

75th IHC Presidential Address by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

75th IHC Presidential Address by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

75th IHC Presidential Address by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GENERAL PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS: INTERROGATING 'UNITY IN DIVERSITY': VOICES FROM

INDIA'S ANCIENT TEXTS

INTERROGATING 'UNITY IN DIVERSITY':

Distinguished Guests and my fellow students of the past - Senior, Cont

The problem which, if I am allowed to call it a 'historian's puzzle* (as it

and acquiring an iconography7. Its inhabitants too could be conceiv

Similarly, the Middle Country [Madhyadeśa] and Kryavarta , w

Dharma, Rīti, Pravrtti and other differences

the currency of different policies, practices and customs.

Nãtyasãstra of Bharata, whatever be the date assigned to him by scholars.

nrtya-gJia-kalãvilãsa-paddhati , and rīti as vacana-vinyäsa-paddhati

Perhaps the best available early examples of perceptions of difference,

If all that has been cited so far points in the directio

Return to the Issue of Unity

detachment and penetration would be struck by two mutually contradictory

understanding interrelationship between disparate culture and social traits across

well as asserting its own separate cultural identity in the fourteen

inequality of its constituents". If the meaning of un

with its enthronement of Sanskrit at the expense of other languages, taught

evidence that I cited above from our ancient texts of cultura

NOTES AND REFERENCES

Vinay Dharwarkar, General Editor, The Collected Essays of A.K. Ramanujan

with a feeling which is next only to that of patriotism towards Mo

You might also like