History of Mughalstan

[nanda chandran]

Samar Abbas writes :

>In order to defend the concept of a monolithic nation-state, recourse
>must always be had to Brahmanic civilization as this alone is the sole
>"common thread" present in South Asia.

But this thread is as old as it gets anywhere in the land. No other
culture in India is as extensive nor as ancient. And not a single culture
can be identified as totally independent of Brahmanic influence. So instead
of being seen as a common thread, it is better to view it as the "mother"
thread.

>However, this is an outside superposition upon the various ethnic nations
>of South Asia -
>"Brahmanisation" occurred in the post-Buddhist phase.

Only if you're totally ignorant of the Mahabharatha which even according to
Indological dating is pre-Buddhist.

>However, trying to
>justify a common nationhood because 5% Brahmins share a common culture is
>analogous to trying to justify a common European nationhood because the 5
>% Jews share a common culture.

Five hundred years back even in Dravidian Tamil Nadu, both the brahmin and
the "dravidian" non-brahmin Tamil would have :

1. Had Tamil as their mother tongue,
2. eaten sambar, rasam and curd,
3. worn the dhoti,
4. prayed to Shiva and Vishnu,
5. born, married, procreated, lived and died by the general rules of the
   dharma.

Whether brahmin or non-brahmin all would have learnt and lived by the
teachings of the Raamaayanam and other great epics. (I once told a converted
Tamil christian a rare story from the Mahaabhaaratham, only to discover that
he already knew it from some village folk tale). So the morals, the message
of the civilization were known and adhered by all, irrespective of caste
lines.

So where's the great distinction in the culture?

Differences if any in lifestyle were due to the unique nature of their
caste duties - while the brahmin would have chanted the shruti, the
non-brahmin would have done his caste duty - farming, cattle rearing etc If
it is said that others couldn't relate to the brahmin's way of life which
was unique - it is only as unique as the life of the VellaaLars or the
Maravars or the Paraiyars inside their own circles. Each caste had its own
unique practices which were not familiar or adhered to by others ie
VellaaLars have their own practices which are not followed by others,
likewise Maravars and Paraiyars - while the VellALars worshipped the land,
the Maravars would have worshipped the sword. These peculiarities were due
to the distinct nature of the professions.

So if you talk about Brahmin civilization due to the uniqueness of Brahmanic
culture, then by the same logic you would also have to talk about VellALar
civilization, Maravar civilization, Paraiyar civilization etc. These cannot
be grouped together as the Dravidian civilization due to the inherent
differences in the lifestyles/worldview, present inside each group.
_________________________________________________________________________
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.