History of Mughalstan

[nanda chandran]

>So far, the proposed Sakastan has not been refuted. The term `Sakastan'
>is to be found on various coins and pillars, whilst `Mughalstan' is also
>found on coins and manuscripts of the period. Historians may wish to
>reassess traditional views and uncover the history of these neglected
>regions. Instead of viewing Indian history as a series of dyansties, they
>may wish to rewrite it on the lines of European history, with several
>distinct nations engaging in conflict with one another.

In Indian history there's not much evidence that *people* identifed
themselves as nations like it was in Europe. True that they might have had
pride in being part of the Pallava or the Chola empire (which in all
probability was motivated by economic/trade concerns than anything else),
but still the underlying culture - the thread of civilizational unity - was
strong enough for them to identify themselves as Bhaaratiyas or Hindus as
against the foreigners - mlechaas or Turkas or Yaavanas. The bond was strong
enough for saints and philosophers like Buddha and Shankara and Ramanuja to
travel the land amongst *their* people and spread their teachings. The
thread was strong enough for brahmins down the ages to migrate to newer
places *inside* Bhaaratvarsha and settle down to spread the Vedic dharma.
The
civilizational bonding was strong enough for the bhakti saints to come
together and spread theism throughout India overlooking differences in
language/region. This sentiment is implicit in Thiruvalluvar's claim that
unlike Kings who are important only in their own lands, the learned are
revered wherever they go.

So whatever might have been the dynasty in power or the feeling of
nationhood in certain regions , still the consicousness of an underlying
common civilizational unity, was pretty strong in the hearts of the people.
Maybe it was due to the dominant spiritual element in the Vedic ideal which
lifted the civilizational consciousness above the pettiness of
linguism/regionalism.

>Even if a person has a political move in mind,it is encouraging that he
>is seeking legitimacy through intellectual activity.

Yes, generally speaking this is the way to go. But when, as even the Buddha
and Manu advise, it is not good to speak even the truth if it will lead to
harm, what is the point in entertaining Samar's views which has little truth
in it and can only fuel more secessionist/divisive tendencies?

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.