Ever since India got her independence from the British colonial rule, the intellectuals and the political leaders of the country have turned towards their roots. The search for ancient civilisational roots has resulted in the creation of not one but several (and competing) historical narratives.
At the heart of this debate lies an important question which has a huge significance in contemporary Indian politics. The question is this. Was India a peaceful country before foreign invaders conquered much of its land? This question is also central to the divide between Hindus and Muslims that persists till today. And most people pick the answer which suits their version of history.
What is the truth, then? Upinder Singh, an Indian historian and professor, tries to answer this question in her book Political Violence in Ancient India. Before we delve into the book, we must pause and ask ourselves: why are we even pursuing this question in a country where two of its major epics – Ramayana and Mahabharata – are about war? But that’s all right. There are no silly questions and we must attend them all. Now, let’s see what the book says.
Contrary to what many believe, a peaceful state has never existed in India. There is a theory that the prehistoric Harappan civilisation was a peaceful culture held together by tradition rather than force, but weapons and walled citadels suggest a different story. Vedic texts are pervaded with violence and war and allude to the ideas of extensive conquest, political paramountcy, and empire. In the Vedic world, the killing of animals in sacrifice was an issue of some concern, but the killing of men in battle was not.
In early historic north India, relations between states were marked by alliances (including matrimonial alliances) as well as incessant warfare. The transition from a hereditary military aristocracy toward a recruited and salaried army was accompanied by changes in military administration and organisation. This, of course, took a lot of time. After Alexander’s invasion on the fringes of the subcontinent in 327-326 BC, the subsequent centuries witnessed the invasions of Indo-Greeks, Shakas, Pahlavas, and Kushanas.
In such a scenario, how did religious ideas emphasising on nonviolence (Buddhism or Jainism) arise? That is precisely the point. The idea of nonviolence grew out of violence. This is the irony but the world is full of ironies everywhere. Which is why, the most celebrated and successful proponents of nonviolence emerged from the ranks of the warrior elite and expressed their ideas using the warrior vocabulary of mastery, conquest and paramountcy. Interestingly, war is an important metaphor in Buddhism as well as in Jainism. In fact, both these traditions witnessed battles and violence in their early days despite their relentless focus on nonviolence.
Following the rise and decline of these two religious beliefs, foreign invasions became more frequent. Then, there was caste-based oppression within the society too. These conflicts and struggles led to the formation of Sikhism, which later organised itself as a community of warriors fighting against oppression. It was during the reign of Guru Hardgobind Sahib – the sixth Guru – when Sikhs first organised themselves in a military unit to oppose their persecutions by Mughals. The violence, thus, continued from ancient to medieval India.
To answer the first question, clearly there was violence in ancient India. There were wars, battles, political and military conflicts and much more. At the same time, there were some people who stood up against the very idea of violence and whose teachings have inspired millions, including the likes of Gandhi and Dalai Lama.
Kalampedia 