Nation and Nationalism (South Asian Perspective)
© Anup Mukherjee i3pep.org
Part 1 Part 2 (this page)
Indian History from sixth century BC (Post Vedic period) to early modern period should be seen as a continuous tussel between the central authority and the local forces. Interestingly, one would find that at local levels, there was generally a remarkable continuity of the petty local rulers (rana/ranak etc). So we find whether it’s the northern region or the southern region, a dynasty would rule for two-three hundred years or less, only to be supplanted by either another person of the royal family (who would start a new dynasty in his name) or perhaps a coup d’tat by the army commander, who would give a new name to his dynasty, while ruling the same region. Examples from medieval times can be the Vijayanagar empire in South, or even later the Mysore kingdom. In the case of Mysore, the ruling dynasty was supplanted by its commander Hyder Ali, the father of Tipu. Later on, after the defeat of Tipu by the British, the scion from the previous dynasty was restored by the British.
It was the Mauryan Ashoka (3rd cen BC) who took on the practice of appointing officials, transfering them after three year tenure, and paying them salary. But whatever information is available of his times, it is equally clear that the vaster regions of his empire were not directly ruled by him, but was ruled ‘in his name’ by the local rulers. Interestingly his empire took under its shield the region from the present Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India (leaving the north east India and the extreme south). The Mauryan dynasty lasted from 323 BC to 232 BC. Its hard to imagine that such vast areas could be directly controlled by the central rule- particularly when it could take anywhere from 6 to 8 months to reach from one place to another in such a vast empire. Ashoka, interestingly also had diplomatic relations with the rulers of Egypt, Macedonia, Syria, Ceylone etc.
The Guptas that emerged around third century AD was not as vast, but it was a feudalized empire. Local rulers would pay tribute and owe allegiance to the emperor. The other big empire that emerged was the Mughals. Even in case of Mughals we find that the ‘crown lands’ were limited to the northern Indian region. (crown land meaning from where the emperor would derive direct revenue through officials appointed by him). The other regions would be ruled by local rulers (as in the Rajputana). Interestingly enough Akbar would not really ‘annex’ the conquered territory - he would let the local ruler rule by paying of tribute. Though, the territory would be considered the emperors domain; and the ruler was assigned a mansabdari rank- to put him as if he belonged to the Mughal bureaucracy. Only in very rare cases eg. Gondwana, was the territory actually annexed.
Even in case of British, one can see the usage of feudatories - nearly one third of India was not under direct control- but ruled by the princely rulers. Many of these- like Baroda, Mysore (ie. the bigger ones) would even follow their own independent progressive policies in areas of education, social reforms etc that was quite distinct from the British governed territory. Rajputana as a whole was under various princely rulers.
The point is- if we wish to see continuities, there is a remarkable continuity at the local level. The empires in India’s case can even be seen as one forced from the top in an overarching way. The duration in which the central ruler would be able to enforce his authority (subjugating weaker rulers, defeating rebellious local-rulers), the empire would remain. The moment the central rule would not be able to do it, the empire would just go- the local rulers would assert its authority over his lands.
However this should not be taken to mean that the local ruler would see his existence as something dichotomous from the concept of Bharatvarsha (ie. the traditional unity of India). Take for example - even during the 9th cen AD the Cholas of Tamilaham (Tamilnadu) would wage war with the rulers of the north, and even bring back water from the Ganges river and create a new capital for themselves by consecrating the capital with the water from the holy Ganges, and name the capital - Gangaikondacholapuram (city of one who has conqered the Ganges). The society, and certainly its powerful members like the merchants and bigger peasants had clear notions of an overarching traditional Hindu unity.
The political ties were definitely forged together strongly with economic factors and requirements. The economic ties between the north and the south India was quite old. - the Vedic allegory of the sage crossing the Vindhyas to the south of India suggests that the north south economic ties had already begun sometimes in the Vedic period itself. But later on during medieval times, forts and roads were constructed along such trading routes, as these formed important aspects of government from the strategic and supplies point of view. There were corporations of merchants (eg. Manigraman etc) that had ware-houses and trading centres that spanned the smallest towns south of Godavari. Hundis (bills of exchange) could be transferred through various Shroffs (money changers) living in different parts of the country, who would apply different brokerage charges depending on the region from where such hundis had been issued. The north south trade route was brisk, and some of the kingdoms (eg. Chalukyas, and later on the rulers of Khandesh and Malwa) that came up in that region exercised its power because of its control over the north-south trade.In the east-west trade, the GT road of the north, that has its origin dating back to Mauryan times and spanning from Tamralipti in Bengal to Taxila in Pakistan, connecting thereby to the silk-route would bear enough testimony to the existence of brisk trade links in the east-west direction as well.
India is today a nation-state, yet due to various practical points even today is like a federation. Empires in the past were equally like this- however, they were limited by things like existence of a ’structures’ and ‘technology’. The ‘constitution’ they might have had were derivative of religious codes- and not secular. The armies were limited by the technology. (Horses were costly and the most important commodity of import). If today the centre were limited by technology (and the overspanned central bureaucracy exercising its presence through various offices and production units), and also the legitimacy derived by centre from the Constitution, then it would have been a federation, some sort of modern form of empire. This is demonstrated by the various local resistance movements like insurgencies that have taken place on issues of local autonomy in various parts of India.
In medieval times for example, the area of Doab (particularly the Kara-Manikpur province) and Bengal province was notorious for its revolts to the central authority. The former because of the presence of great amount of wealth from abundant agriculture, the latter due to its distance from Delhi. In case of Kara-Manikpur, Alauddin Khilji was actually able to do a coup d’tat, but other revolts from this place were generally suppressed by the emperors. While the revolts from Bengal were generally successful, because it was difficult to reach given the presence of rivers in the route. The commanders ruling Bengal were generally able to have their independent control free from central rule - some were even able to set up their dynasties.
However today India as a “nation-state” is able to exist due to various reasons, most important of that alongwith the ideological and constitutional is the availability of technology, communication and military power. Perhaps military power forms an important dimension of the nation-state unlike that of an empire. This is also important because India is not a small territory or limited to any single ethnic criteria. In some ways it is akin to USA. However USA does not have the pitfalls of a long history nor it is limited by the varied varieties of ethnic conflicts that is a part of India. Todays nation-state needs cultural legitimacy, binding history (demise of Soviet Union was perhaps because of lack of a shared History), structure of bureaucracy, presence of advanced technology (eg. Babur’s use of canons/fire-arms, despite of small army was sufficient to defeat the huge army of Ibrahim Lodi in the first battle of Panipat, 1526), economic conditions, political allegiances and various local factors mediating the issue.
Whatever country it be whether it be India or European countries or China or the countries of the Islamic World the modern nation-state state transcends the traditional kingdom. Eventhough small states might continue like Nepal, Bhutan or Brunei or Sultanates of Middle East, even-these cannot remain merely a semblance of past in form of a kingdom or sheikhdom. Even such countries need the modern meta-transition at conceptual level from the old form to the new form. But newer forms come with all its attendant trappings where the ruler is no more the only legitimising force and no longer in a globalised world can such rulers act as closed-dictators for their subjects. When a nation opens up to the forces of global trade, multilateral agencies and development funds, not only isolation is removed but the forces of democracy, of peoples power becomes too difficult a force to resist. The monarchs of Europe today are mostly ceremonial, yet many of such rulers in Asia continue to be real power.
In India this transformation occured with independence itself. Perhaps this was quite natural given the manner and shape in which the mainstream national movement was guided by Gandhi and his subordinates who had unshakable faith in the virtues of democracy. (though democracy for India was not a new concept imported from West, the western educated elites brought it at a ‘meta’ national level). However we still find that countries like Pakistan continue to be firmly under military. Even countries like Bangladesh have a fledling democracy and remain under constant threat of Islamic variety of fundamentalism. Nepal and Bhutan continue to be kingdoms, though the former does have working democracy for over a decade now. In such situation it is indeed a good feeling that a vast country like India with its population of over a billion and vast and varied ethnicities and languages is a nation united and firmly dedicated to the culture of modern democracy and freedom.
Part 1 Part 2 (this page)