Who ruled India?
Recently, in an online chit chat, my attention was diverted to how India was being ruled and who had ruled India in the past. We always hear comments like: India has been ruled for a 1000 years by invaders or India has been ruled by Muslims for 800 years or India has been ruled by the British for 200 years and so on and so forth. These comments are some of the more common ones that float around in social media and are used by all sides of Indian politics to drive home a point. On closer scrutiny, I found most conversations related to these as being dealt half-heartedly. Actually, such comments are far removed from reality and are mere generalizations. The more I delved into the question: Who has ruled India and who rules India; I came across 3 themes:
- First, what is India? I mean where are the geographical boundaries of India.
- Second, who had control over India.
- Third: Is India defined by the commonness of racial pedigree, language, culture, civilization, way of life, food, thinking, historical, spiritual and geographical memory as a nation.
What is India?
For a minute, if we think of India as a geographical piece of land, then we need to go back millions of years when the Indian plate was formed. This land also called Indian sub-continent consists of modern day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Afghanistan is a special case that though geographically it was not part of the Indian plate (parts of modern day Afghanistan are), it had deep cultural, social and economic links with India and continues to do so even today. Even if we go back thousands of years during the Mahabharata, the queen of the Kuru dynasty — Gandhari was from Gandhara, a kingdom which ruled over parts of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was thus part of many Indian empires: Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic. So, if we settle and agree that India, the geographical land mass consists of modern day Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, we can agree on who ruled India and who rules India. After all, a ruler rules over either parts or whole of the land mass which is geographically demarcated by natural borders (not borders created by current or former rulers).
So, who ruled India and who rules India?
If we go by history, in a time, when there was no religion apart from Vedic religion, north and west of India was ruled by a powerful ruler based in Ayodhya or Hastinapur or Indraprastha (near modern New Delhi). There was inter-marriage between various kingdoms, clans and tribes. No one king had full control of India. Even during the Indus Valley Civilization and Harappan Settlement, no one ruler or system ruled over India. However, if we go by the Ramayana, it mentions Sri Lanka (as Lanka) and the creation of Adam’s Bridge or Rama Setu. A pretty big thing in those times when there were no satellites, trains or airplanes (except of course, the Pushpaka Vimana). Maldives finds mention as Mala Dwipa (Islands like a garland of flowers) while Kailasha is/was famous for being Lord Shiva’s abode. Irrespective of what we believe (based on archeological finds) or biased and unbiased perspectives of Indian pre-historic times, one thing is clear there was no one king with lordship over all of India. Also, like Kailasa there were regions which do not form part of modern day India.
If we move into the recorded periods post the so called vedic period (now doubtful in terms of dates as most of India’s history is lost and perhaps parts, if not whole have not been understood and analyzed properly), the successors of the powerful kingdoms in the north were followed by the Haryankas, Shaishunagas, Nandas and Mauryas. All of these empires also didn’t rule India as it was. Out of these, Chandragupta Maurya and his grandson Ashoka are of great interest. Ashoka ended up ruling large parts of India for approximately 50 years, which included parts of Afghanistan in the west and Manipur in the east, parts of Kashmir in the north and Karnataka in the south. More importantly, Ashoka did what no other Indian ruler did: he extended the sphere of Indic influence to Sri Lanka, SE Asia and other parts of the known world. It is because of his efforts that we see a philosophical similarity in anything that lies east of India.
Post the Buddha and Mahavira eras, the kingdoms that came followed the same model — many kings, many kingdoms. Surprisingly most weren’t ambitious enough to push the boundaries further than their area of influence. The South was ruled by the Cholas, Cheras and Pandyas. Of these, the Cholas were the most ambitious and not only did they push the northern boundaries of their empire, they ruled Sri Lanka and had great influence, if not direct rule on large parts of modern day Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam and Singapore. It was probably easier for the Cholas with the social and spiritual level ground work started by Ashoka.
Post, the birth of Jesus (history of the world is written by his followers), all Indian dynasties whether it was the Shungas, Kanvas, Kushanas, Satavahanas, Guptas, Vakatakas, Kadambas, Kamarupas, Vardhanas, Pallavas didn’t bring all of India under their control. Of note, the Guptas, Kanishka and Harsha Vardhana did have claim over large swathes of India and even parts outside it, but again, they too didn’t have full control. Later, the Palas, Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, Pratiharas and many other dynasties fell in the same bucket of influence. Even though, Muhammad Bin Kasim defeated King of Sindh in 712 A.D, Hindu dynasties continued to rule over large parts of modern day Afghanistan, Pakistan and Northern India for over 200 years. Thus, it is wrong to state that Muslim occupation of India started in a big way after the 19 year old kid defeated Raja Dahir of Sindh.
After 1000 A.D., the Ghaznavid and Ghurid empires too didn’t rule all of India. Yes, they did capture Delhi but Delhi isn’t India and India isn’t Delhi (Even after a 1000 years, it took time for Arvind Kejriwal to understand this in 2014). After the centralization of India in some ways through a ruler in Delhi, whether it was the Mamluks, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Sayyids or Lodhis, all had only parts of India under their control. For a very short period, Tughlaqs had captured large swathes of the Indian subcontinent. However, somehow in Indian history, the notoriety of Muhammad bin Tughluq (MBT) and his achievements as an eccentric ruler have been so oversold that even Narendra Modi is compared to him. The Vijayanagara empire provided the greatest resistance to the Delhi based Sultans.
After the sacking of Delhi in 1398–99 by Timur, the lame (not Saif and Kareena’s son), the Timurid empire of central asia morphed into the Mughal Empire of India. The Mughals sometimes ruled large swathes of India either in alliance with Hindu kings or directly. There was constant warfare and even during the lifetime of Akbar, southern India (ruled by many Deccan Sultanates) had not submitted to him. It was only during Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb’s time that many parts of South India came into control. However, Aurangzeb ran into trouble with the Marathas, Sikhs, Pashtuns, Ahoms, Satnamis and Jats. Even though maps show Aurangzeb’s Mughal Empire extending up to 80% of India including parts outside the subcontinent, it is a matter of great doubt how often the borders changed and even how much of the lands shown under his control were actually under his control. At best, like MBT’s empire, it can be said that Aurangzeb’s Mughal Empire was in control of large parts of India for a brief period of time. And, this doesn’t prove that India was ruled by Muslims (of any hue, shape or size) for 1000, 500 or 300 years. It is just a clever ploy used by biased historians, social scientists and politicians in modern India to polarize Hindus and Muslims for electoral success. Such historians forget that Delhi is not India (and neither is north India) and India is not Delhi. Before independence this was used to justify the 2 nation theory and after independence, this has been used to needle Hindus.
After Aurangzeb, the breakup of the Mughal Empire began and the Great Trading Game started. The English, French, Dutch and Portuguese made a beeline for India (the wonderful land which had caused them to come around the Cape of Good Hope and also accidentally re-discover the Americas). Luckily or unluckily for India it is the English traders (through English East India Company(EIC)) that gained supremacy. However, be under no confusion that the British could rule without the collusion of Indian kings (Hindus and Muslims) and elites (traders, bankers and businessmen). Even though Indian history classes are riddled with too much emphasis on Battles in Plassey (Palashi), Buxar, Panipat and stories of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, the EIC also had to fight a long string of wars with the Marathas, Sikhs, Afghans and the Mysore Sultanate. The East India Company was thus not in direct rule over most of India. After the 1857 revolt, the real rule of Britain was imposed on India and it is only after that they ruled over 90 years. And, even during this time lazy princely states took to ruling rather than administering India, leaving it to the British. Thus, it is a massive generalization to say that Britain ruled over India for 200 years. It is better to say that they looted India for 200 years.
After the British had milked the Kamdhenu (Indian Cow Goddess of Plenty) like India and were still penniless after the Second World War, they gave the ultimate gift to India. First they cut one leg of the Kamdhenu through creation of Pakistan and lo and behold even before the lame Kamdhenu could learn to walk it was given another superb gift; like Salman Khan (in Dabangg), it said to the Kamdhenu : I will make so many holes in your body that you will be confused where to breath from and where to fart from. India was left with 600 odd princely states to tackle and merge with it. Luckily, Sardar Patel emerged as the Iron man of India and completed this difficult task. Also, the sawing of the leg of kamdhenu was not new for the British as earlier on in 1893, they had hived off Afghanistan(from India) with the Durand line. Thus, Afghanistan was lost by India forever and didn’t even form part of the independence discussions.
Finally…
When we tackle the third theme, I can only say that (no explanation required after the second theme), YES there is commonness in India (from Afghanistan to Arunachal, Ladakh to Lanka, Nepal to Maldives) but this has suffered greatly over the last (specifically) thousand years due to the impact of invaders who have slowly chipped away at chunks of the Indian civilization. This chipping away has sometimes created new Indians and new culture but has resulted in loss of territories and influence. When Kangana Ranaut says that India gained independence in 2014, I can only agree with her (agree she has a big mouth) as it was only from 2014 that India’s elites lost power. For the first time, a poor man’s representative, a non-dynast, rose through the ranks of Indian Democracy and wrested power by a majority. Like the Kamdhenu that we inherited after 1947, this non-dynast wasn’t handicapped by a common minimum program ( a program with minimum outcomes for India and maximum for its rulers). Like the 1991 economic liberalization (led by 2 commoners) and later the entry of regional and local players in India’s Bollywood and Cricket (the hallmarks of power and success in India), 2014 certainly marked a new beginning for India. The trouble now is how long will it last.
To end, I must quote Imran Khan (nowadays India’s Tormentor in Chief — I hope Tavleen’s son is listening) on what he said when the Taliban re-gained power in Afghanistan, “When you adopt someone’s culture you believe it to be superior and you end up becoming a slave to it, and it creates a system of mental slaves that is worse than the actual slavery.” So true! I hope the beards, mustaches and tilakas sitting in New Delhi understand this properly and know that until they rule India from Afghanistan to Arunachal, Ladakh to Lanka, Kailasha to Maldives; India will always be under attack and there will be turmoil. Until then, Best of Luck ruling India!
