However the argumentation is carried out, there is a sharp distinction between the India that lies South West of West Bengal and the India that lies in the North East. There is a marked difference between the limits of the ‘diversity of India’ and the ‘diversity of Indianness’. India’s diversity is oceanic in its proportion and all-inclusive in its definition. However, it is just a concept caged in letters. What defines “Indianness” in the context of the real India that lives outside the constitutional definition is totally different. This description of Indianness does not accommodate the culture and spirituality of those societies that did/do not fall within certain geographic areas. Also, the problem with such hermeneutics is the overemphasis on certain aspects of Indian antiquity. A huge chunk of the population who lived within the bounds of contemporary India were more or just as antique, but the ancient Sanskrit writings do not represent their existentiality in any sense. They had their own language and belief systems. In other words, they did not possess any traits of Indianness as prescribed by Sanskrit narratives. Therefore, founding our nationalism on Sanskrit scriptures and sages will not only undermine the parallel existence of non-Sanskrit speaking ancient societies but will also end up changing Indian diversity into uniformity.

Jiwan Rai

To read the further article please get your copy of Eastern Panorama March issue @http://www.magzter.com/IN/Hill-Publications/Eastern-Panorama/News/ or mail to contact @easternpanorama.in

• < Prev
• Next >