The idea of India
‘Mera bharat mahan’
That phrase is something that has been ingrained in the minds of many people, in my case, since I was in kindergarten. For as long as I can remember, I would chant the phrase at the end of every morning assembly. I never questioned it at the time, of course, but over the years I’ve begun poking holes in that statement. IS my bharat mahan? Do I even know if I constitute the people who can call bharat theirs? I realized I wasn’t alone when thinking of these questions when I came across the article transcribing The Idea of India : Romila Thapar and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in Conversation.
I found the main purpose of this article in the title itself– unearthing the idea of India. What makes India, India? What makes a person, Indian? Through an eye-opening conversation, Romila Thapar and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak attempt to pinpoint the meaning of an Indian identity and how one can be classified as such. Taking into consideration the educational, cultural, economic and historical factors on what has shaped people’s perspectives of what it means to be Indian, they manage to answer a few questions surrounding why the “Indian identity” is so ambiguous, whilst also forcing us to consider how existing definitions of it aren’t universal.
The question Ms. Spivak opens with is a simple one, directed at celebrated Indian historian and novelist Romila Thapar– how does one teach the idea of India? Although the question is simple, the answer is anything but. Considering how the independent nation we know today emerged very recently in contemporary history, Dr. Thapar begins with the very first ideas of individual identities that Indians had. They were Indians, simply because they weren’t the colonisers– the British. Being Indian, first and foremost, meant being a native, different from the Europeans, and now it meant being free.
For the Indian diaspora scattered across England and it’s colonies, this was all they had to claim as an identity. However, the migration of the middle class to European and American states allowed them to create their own version of an Indian identity, vastly different to many of those residing within its borders and thus creating an ‘Indian identity’ that exists more or less completely unaware of the happenings in the country. And as for those residing within it’s geographical borders, their sense of ‘Indian identity’ exists purely as a product of one’s own lived experience.
The emphasis on ‘development’ of India in the early days of independence was crucial in the eyes of the government in order to establish an Indian identity, as economic growth was considered the foundation of a concrete society. In doing so, culture, language, religion, and caste-based issues were ignored until they resurfaced, worse than imagined. Smaller Indian identities, those that didn’t fall in line with the larger narrative, risk being considered ‘non-Indian’, if not erased completely. Dr Thapar repeatedly emphasises on how the identity of a place changes with time and the influence of history on the idea of a country cannot be overlooked, which I believe to be the most important part of the article.
Ms. Spivak’s insistence on language as an area of concern unearths the lack of appropriate means to equip Indians– save for the upper middle class– with the ability to question the opinion and perspective of the majority, plunging them into a sense of ‘non-belonging’ as they too accepted the majority opinion. Education being funded and effectively controlled by the state means a strict control over what information gets taught, even if it disregards Nehru’s idea of Social Inclusion, ultimately leading to a hierarchical society based on wealth and caste.
In conclusion, attention is drawn to the interlinkages in society, transcending caste, language and religion, to which answers are needed to establish a holistic idea of what it means to be Indian. As Dr Thapar put it, “… Instead of looking at just the one strand, whether it be economic growth, whether it be caste, whether it be religion, one has to look at the totalities and the intermeshing of that totality which we have ceased to do now. “










