The concept of India a Hindustan continues...


In fact, whoever has lived in India, has had forefathers who were Hindus. Even the Parsis and Jews have intermarried with Hindus. The term ‘Hindustan’ is thus appropriate to describe India because as K.M. Panikkar once noted: “In essence, therefore, the history of Indian effort towards the building up and maintenance of a specially Indian civilization has to be the history of the Hindu mind and its achievements”. Panikkar argues that the Islamic contribution is not specially traced to India but is a part of a world culture to which Indian Muslims belong. To the extent it is Indian, as in the case of Moghul painting or Indo-Saracenic architecture, the differentiating characteristic is largely Hindu that worked out in the interaction. Just as the Ganga river is known as Ganga despite so many rivers merging into it along its journey to the sea, India’s historical mainstream is Hindu despite the contribution to it by Islam and Christianity.

In other words, we reject the notion of India as a multinational state as advocated by the communists. Instead India, that is Hindustan, has an organic cultural core which is Hindu in character. But in the reigns of Hindu Kings this Hindustan has been secular in the enlightened sense discussed in the next Chapter.

The Hindu foundation of modern India is also why India has been, (and is even today), referred to in India and abroad as Hindustan. Hindustan, as stated above is defined as a nation of Hindus and those who accept that their ancestors are Hindus. The concept also includes refugee minorities who accept the core values of the Hindu culture and are therefore recognized as a part of the Hindustan nation. Thus, when the Dwarka Mutt Shankaracharya gave the Parsi refugees landing in Sanjaan [on the Gujarat coast] a five point requirement for settling in the country, they readily accepted and have not deviated from it even today.

to be continued...

( This account is maintained by Har Anand Publication)