Resources for all concerned with culture of authoritarianism in society, banalisation of communalism, (also chauvinism, parochialism and identity politics) rise of the far right in India (and with occasional information on other countries of South Asia and beyond)
If Pakistan shuns the term ‘Ancient India’ in its history books, is it entirely to blame?
Modern India’s exclusive use of the name ‘India’ has helped
spread the perception that it is the only rightful inheritor of the
subcontinent’s ancient legacy.
A few months ago, I visited a newly-opened museum
in Lahore that, along with sections on Partition and the contemporary
history of Pakistan, also included an exhibit on its ancient and
pre-colonial history. It was titled “Ancient Pakistan” and included
references to the Indus Valley civilisation, the Mauryan Empire, the
Kushan dynasty and even the Khalsa Empire of Ranjit Singh. While there
were certain conscious inclusions and exclusions in the exhibit,
possibly to align with the current nationalist discourse in the country,
the title of the section stood out as a little odd. It felt like a
modern category had been imposed on the ancient, a trend increasingly on
the rise across South Asia. The generally used term “Ancient India”
perhaps would have not evoked a similar reaction.
The overarching
nationalistic tilt of the museum might explain why its curators were
reluctant to use the term “Ancient India” for its exhibits. In such a
nationalistic framework, there is only one India – the Republic of
India. In this narrative, the nuance of the term “Ancient India” –
which, in addition to including parts of contemporary India, also
includes areas of Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh – is lost. In this
simplistic framework, contemporary India becomes the modern-day
incarnation of the ancient civilisation that is India.
Advertisement
However,
this phenomenon is not unique to Pakistan and its nationalist
discourse. The Republic of India, which emerged after the Partition of
British India, embraced its ancient Indian heritage, becoming the
visible successor of Ancient India. What helped its cause was the
continuity in the names – India. While on one hand, the contemporary
Indian state drew historical continuity from its ancient past, on the
other hand, its exclusive use of the name “India”, also helped spread
the perception globally that it was the only rightful inheritor of the
legacy of Ancient India.
India vs Hindustan
A couple of weeks ago Shoaib Daniyal wrote an incisive piece on Scroll.in
in which he pointed out that for a brief moment in the history of South
Asia, Muhammad Ali Jinnah objected to the use of the name “India” by
the new country, arguing that it should be referred to as Hindustan.
Nothing came of that conflict, but there are contesting theories as to
why Jinnah raised the issue in the first place. Perhaps he saw both
India and Pakistan as the successors of historical British India.
As
opposed to being a universal name for the entire Indian subcontinent,
the name “India” was picked by the British after the formation of their
Empire. It has Greek roots. The Greeks referred to the land across the
Indus as India. Once the name took root, the history of the land began
to be referred to as Indian history. In all academic discourse, the
pre-Partition history of Pakistan and Bangladesh continue to be referred
to as “Indian history”. Maybe Jinnah anticipated that the Republic of
India’s use of the name “India” might gradually exclude Pakistan from
this collective Indian heritage.
What also did not help was the
subsequent attitude of the Pakistani state toward its Indian heritage.
Slowly, as relations between the two neighbours began deteriorating, in
Pakistan, the term “India” stopped being associated with a larger
peninsular identity, but was solely identified with the modern state.
Pakistan began distancing itself from its own history, allowing its
antagonistic relationship with India to shape its attitude and
perception of its Indian heritage. Pakistan’s history came to be defined
in opposition to India’s history. A celebration of Muslim rulers ensued
– divorced from the political realities that dictated their actions –
while all other history and heritage of the Indian subcontinent began to
be ignored. Mohenjodaro now lies in Sindh, Pakistan.
Where’s Pakistan in the big picture?
A
fairly complicated situation exists today. In global academia, the term
“Indian history” encapsulates the history of the entire region. But in
the popular imagination, Ancient India ends up being reduced to relating
to the past of Independent India. For example, the demand that the
British return the Kohinoor diamond to modern-day India shows how
historical India and contemporary India are seen as an extension of each
other, with Pakistan and Bangladesh completely sidelined.
Advertisement
On
the other hand, within Pakistan, there has increasingly been some
acknowledgement of this past. The bone of contention, however, has been
how to refer to it and package it.
While calling Pakistan part of
the broader Ancient India is bound to have political repercussions,
referring to it as “Ancient Pakistan” also has the potential to mislead.
However, even if Pakistan today decides to change its attitude
towards its Indian heritage and chooses to accommodate it in its
identity, it would find it difficult to shape the global narrative that
it is indeed one of the successors of Ancient India, along with
Bangladesh and India. The situation is unlikely to change in the
foreseeable future and it seems the term “Ancient India” will continue
to be associated with contemporary India exclusively. Haroon Khalid is the author of four books. His latest book, Imagining Lahore: The City That Is, The City That Was, was released by Penguin Random House in August.
