Kartikey Sehgal

(On the notion that India was never really a nation because of it’s pluralism.
The author writes that:
Pluralism is a human quality that transcends itself into the society. Our nation is criticized for being disunited against foreign aggression; ‘hence the concept of nationhood was weak’. Does this mean that aggression and cruelty are the hallmarks of a nation?) 

Physical reality and spiritual reality are inseparable. The mind and the decisions that probe the physical reality are worthy of worship. The scientist questions the worthiness of God without realising that he has surpassed his self in his work because he has never been so involved in questioning God. He has been sinless in his work; he has been God himself. God says that I am sinless, I am supreme, and then disappears, dies. Krishna died, Rama died. The Ramayana is seen as a tragedy. Rama is a God and yet not infallible. The epics are not dictums but lessons in righteousness, conduct and thought. Hence Rama is infallible. We (Indians who know their country) worship and question his traits till we realise that we are him. We claim superiority in actions and deeds, but know that nothing stays permanent forever, perhaps the universe, the Brahmand, but who knows?

The world did not come to being with any manual, though as humans, we are inclined to discover it and to read into its myriad forms. The mountain is a deity for a country but it is just a natural structure for another country. Sure, it finds its way across literature, in poems and plays and dreams. But one country worships the mountain and its trees and cows and another country eats cows and cuts trees and forcefully makes it way across to capture the other country. The will to explore is a constant in either case. The tyrant country wants to know about the people in the other country; what do they eat and how do they live and why are they different from us. The captured country too wants to know more about the earth and the world, but its interest has been a quest to question existence and understand the origin of the world and the genesis of language; it considered the ambitions of conquest as trivial when compared to the mysteries of nature and soul.
And within this quest lay many voices of dissent.

Cows were eaten and people differed in their interpretations of rightful conduct and living. The point being that the captured nation agreed to disagree. Debates were crucial and mistakes were important for growth. Criticisms may be levelled at the internal problems of the nation, but it never attacked or converted its neighbours to its philosophical beliefs. It was interested in the knowledge of ‘I’ and if the world is real; it thought that the sun is closer to the earth, and it researched to verify, disprove and reprove.

Why is it then that a pluralistic nation–that argued and fought over metaphysical interpretations—is considered a lesser nation than an aggressive nation. Is the propensity to argue not essentially a human quality? Don’t we teach children to think and argue and formulate? Or do we ask them to prepare for aggression, to take over something that doesn’t belong to them?

Pluralism is a human quality that transcends itself into the society. Our nation is criticized for being disunited against foreign aggression; ‘hence the concept of nationhood was weak’. Does this mean that aggression and cruelty are the hallmarks of a nation? Would that mean that India was the most progressive and modern nation, a world leader, since it could subside the property of aggression? Consider this. Which nation is not plural? Unless you suppress pluralism, the world is essentially a plural. In all probability, there are other earth like planets in the universe. It is the plural nation that would accept and embrace the differences between our earth and other earths because its philosophy is a quest to know the universe. We may interpret the scriptures differently in different regions. However, this should not be seen as drawback but as a complement to the human mind. And despite the differences, we would be the first to embrace the different earth like planets in the universe without bothering if they think of our Gods as the best and supreme. We would like to know what they think of the creation of the world. Do they have any signs, perhaps a sound (OM or AUM) that represents the consciousness of the universe.

The quest to know and think are human traits. Children of orthodox Vaishnavas study modern science; they read that the moon is closer to earth than the sun. The parents have read in the scriptures that the sun is closer to the earth. That doesn’t make the scriptures redundant because the scriptures were a quest to know; truth is not solely the information but the will to know. And when the child knows more, learns more, thinks more, then he is paying respect to the scriptures. The birthday of Krishna was celebrated in August this year. Some parts in South India celebrated his birthday on September 11. Different calculations, difference in calendars. But the same God. And the God himself is plural. He is one, but many.

I say pluralism is a human trait and we have an innate urge to be many. To spread. To think different. The differences in India are thus natural. And human. We know now that cultures (and people) who criticized India’s differences are struggling in differences. The religions have broken down; there are religious sects and though the sects worship the same God, they have had a very, very bloody history. India has not yet reached those bloodiness levels. Don’t confuse this with the partition riots, I am referring to violence within the religion. Misrepresentation of the caste system caused much problem to the lower castes in India. The people who point out the atrocities (still prevalent in some parts in India) do so with the purpose to break the nation and not to correct the problems. But the cruelty of the caste problem is not contemporary to the cruelty inflicted in other lands outside India. And there is another major difference, Indian philosophy is a self-correcting mission. Ram is a perfect God but he is not infallible and he teaches us many lessons. His wife Sita teaches us the power of dignity (a). Together they tell us about human nature and in this they are supreme. They are not supreme because they decided to be supreme and forced it upon the people; they had doubts and they felt pain.

The orthodox Vaishnava does not tell his son at night that “ no matter what you learn at school, remember that the sun is closer to earth than the moon”. If he does so, then another Vaishnava may refuse to share tea with him if he “indulges in fallacies”. People who refuse to see beyond Brahmin-Vaishya divide do not know about Indian philosophy; why would they? Do you read about the Upanishads in schools and colleges?

“It is not the language but the speaker that we want to understand.”

To such a nation, that abounds in pluralism, that is capable of self-correction and acceptance of multiple thoughts, to such a nation, you want to attribute the quality of weakness? As the world struggles with multiculturalism, they may like to see how navratri is celebrated in various styles across India.

a) Her jumping into fire is her return to her Laxmi avatar.