Understanding the cultural element in nationalism is conditional upon comprehending about what constitutes a nation. Nations in the sense of people having common identity and common ancestry have always existed, but rarely, and even more rarely continuously. So have States. But the nation states in the modern sense in which we have come to view them today are just a development of the 18^th and 19^th centuries in the West. These modern nation states are the outcome of royal marriages and concubinage, plunders and dowries and intrigues and wars within Europe. It had to the least with the common characteristics or culture of the people who were the subjects of these states that emerged out of the turmoil of formation and reformation of nations and states in Europe. Benedict Anderson says in his seminal work Imagined Communities, Reflections on the origin and spread of Nationalism, “In realms where polygamy was religiously sanctioned complex system of multi-tiered concubinage were essential to the integration realm. In fact royal lineages often derived from their prestige aside from any aura of divinity, from shall we say miscegenation?” The substratum of the nationalism which formed the basis of the different nation states that emerged during the 18^th and 19^th centuries in Europe is the royal politics and personal relations. There is no cultural, linguistic, ethnic or racial dominance in the formation of nation states in Europe. For instance when Italy was formed, less than two and a half percent of the whole population of the so-called linguistic state knew the Italian language. This is how the modern nation states emerged in the west. The formation of the USA and Canada was by similar exercises, political and economic quarrels and wars, within the same and subsumed ethnicities. This is how modern nation states, that is, contrived nations whose states show cased the identity of the so called nation, emerged in the last two centuries.   

In contrast in the pre modern past, there have been States which transcended beyond the extent of what could be perceived as Nations, like at one time the Roman and Greek powers extended beyond their national frontiers and conquered and ruled other nations and dominated the world. “The Roman eagle floated over everything worth having in this world’—this is how Swami Vivekananda described the Roman domination of the world. The Roman State extended beyond Roman nation. At the other end of the spectrum, human history knows that there have been nations without states like the Jewish nation which existed without a state, even without a territory for two thousand years, and which existed only in the consciousness of the Hebrew people.

As a third dimension to these extremes, there has been at least one nation with multiplicity of states, that is, the Hindu or Indian nation in ancient times. It was one nation with multiplicity of states – the people were one, the culture was one, but the states were many. The world never perceived these states as one, but it also did not perceive India as anything other than one—other than as one nation, one people and as representing one all inclusive thought.

But nation strictly as synonym of state -- that is, nation and nationalism as a concept limited to state and territory-- is a development in the Christian west. The idea of limiting and defining a nation with reference to the expanse of the state and its applicable territory is the identity of the modern nation state. The modern nation state is an evolution of the intra-Christian struggles in the West. As Christianity turned the Roman Empire into a religious theocracy and dominated almost all of Europe, a new phenomenon of religious conglomerate extending beyond traditional ideas and limits of nations came into being. This religious state craft of Christianity also constituted the Christian effort to establish of the Kingdom of God on earth as the inevitable religious duty to enable the Second Coming of the Christ. The idea of a state driven by religious ideology was starting point of the convulsions which led to massive changes in the geographic divisions within Europe in the last thousand years. This also constituted the erosion of local cultural and religious consciousness -- dismissed by Christian theologists and historians as paganism and animism -- that marked the pre-Christian identity of different people and of the nationalism approximating to local cultures in the West. The result of Christian domination of the state was the undermining if not the destruction of all culturally defined pre-Christian identities and the substitution of a collective and composite Christian identity through the Roman Catholic Church and State in their place. But the Roman Catholic Church was too artificial a construct to last and so it broke up eventually, like the other artificial construct on the secular plane and a recent one, the Soviet Union, did in the last century. The break up of the Christian church later resulted in ever evolving and changing new identities based on local territorial factors rather than on their ancient civilisational identities. This sequence led to the evolution of the present nation states in Europe. Thus the process of Christianisation led to the destruction of ancient local civilisational identities, but the break up of the church did not and could not reinstate the ancient identities which had largely diffused into the collective Christian consciousness. The religious conglomerate broke up on local factors and prompted by local leaders, into new and distinct states. This is the short history of the evolution of nation states in Europe. 

This initial idea of modern nation state, which evolved as a protest against the Chrisitian consolidation as a State through the Roman Catholic Church that devastated the original identities of the people whom it converted to its ways and beliefs, has considerably influenced -- why actually confused -- the scholarship and debate on what constitutes a nation. This is particularly so in comprehending and understanding the identity of nations which existed when the modern West was not thought of and have continued to exist after the modern nation states came into being. In its present concept and form the idea of modern nation state is co-terminus with and completes the identity of a nation. But this was not so in ancient times. The present understanding about the idea of nation is based on the changes contrived by Christian thrust and its effects in the west. The modern nation states came into being as a result of the aggressiveness and enterprise of statesmen who asserted their rights over the Roman Church domination. They were not defined by any distinct culture or tradition. They were, in a sense, contrived nation states, contrived dominantly by enterprising kings and leaders. Together they have in a sense a common identity in Christianity even today, without any highly conflicting individual identities which have been subsumed into their Christian identity over centuries. That is why a union of European nations is emerging with a common constitution now. It is because of the common and contrived Christian heritage which evolved in the last millennia, in the draft Constitution of the European Union which is emerging, Italy is keen to mention the Christian tradition as the common identity of the different nation states in the European Union. This effort is despite the fact that Turkey which is an Islamic nation being part of the Union. There is of course objection to this suggestion, but that objection does not stem from the fact there is any other identity that marks these nations, but, from the secular stand point of separation of religion from the State. Thus in a sense Europe is one nation, culturally a Christian nation, comprising different states. Like the Hindu nation in India was for thousands of years. That is why today they are discussing the formation of a single political confederation. Thus the Western experience of a single common cultural identity with multiplicity of states defuses the ancient idea of culturally defined nationalism.          

The manner in which the modern states evolved and their rationale will not easily allow the modern scholarship to comprehend those ancient identities which did not face or which have survived the coercive compulsions which translated the ancient West into modern nation states. Identities of nations and nationalities which existed before the advent of Christianity and Islam which subsumed different civilisational identities and created a trans-civilisational religious identity were cultural. That is, the ancient and pre-Christian and pre-Islamic national identities were civilisational and cultural. Like the Roman and the Greek. Like the Egyptian and the Babylonian. Like the Indian and the Persian. It was cultural identity that formed the basis of the national identities. So the original national identities were essentially cultural. That is the pre-Christian and pre Islamic national identities were cultural. It is the intervention of Christian and Islamic exclusive religious contamination of state craft which led to the erosion of cultural nationalism in Christendom and Islamic Umma. Even though the German nationalist movement attempted to rest on cultural nationalism, it was more an effort to recreate an exclusive ethnicity which had disappeared long before.        

The modern scholarship on what constitutes a nation seems to assume that the indices of what constitutes a nation are what the modern West has discovered in the emotive reformulation of its geo-politics leading to and following the break up of the Roman Catholic Church which was synonymous with the Christian State or the Kingdom of God on earth. It almost amounts to presuming that the idea of nation did not exist before the advent of the Christian nation states in the modern West. It is explicit that nations did exist before the advent of the modern nation states, but this explicit fact does not inform the debate to day. The truth is that the modern nation states were the product of the compulsive break up of the Roman Catholic Church. Just as the Roman Catholic Church itself was the product of the process of destruction of all ancient civilisations approximating to national consciousness as understood today, which pre-dated Christianity. This critical element in history is not factored into the debate, particularly in India, and this distorts the elite and intellectual understanding about the core of what constitutes nationalism and nation in India.  

So nations like India which did not pass through the tectonic changes which the modern West underwent, that is, nations which did not experience civilisational discontinuity, have a different basis for their identity, even though they have had like India civilisational disturbances, but no civilisational disconnect. This is where the modern scholarship is confounded by its own confusion in understanding identity of nations which had a civilisational continuity, however disturbed that continuity was. The modern understanding of what constitutes a nation is bewildered by the incomprehensibility of such great civilisations which constituted nations like China and India. The modern scholarship is unable to accept, nor deny that these ancient civilisations constituted nations, For instance the modern scholarship would regard China as a civilisation pretending to be a state, that is, a nation state. This shows not clarity in understanding what is nation but the utter confusion which forms the basis for evaluating what is the fundamental basis for a nation.     

The basis for modern nation state is the social contract theory. This is the theory of choice of the arrangement of state. The individuals choosing to be bound by the contract compose the state. The confusion about what constitutes a nation in terms of the understanding of modern nation states based on social contact theory is a creation of the process that started with the atomisation of the western societies after the protestant revolution. With the result the individual emerged as the basic unit of the societies and dominantly legitimate with the institutions of society and even family becoming subordinate to the individual, the individual subjecting him self only to the rule of law of the state and to the obligation of being loyal only to the State, the state and the individual interfaced without being interrupted by any other consciousness. But in nations where like in India the individual is part of the multilayer and expanding consciousness extending from the individual to the family, to the community and ultimately the nation, the western ideas of social contract and individualism based on such contract are not applicable. The secular ideas which evolved within the Christendom also contributed to the rise of individual consciousness de hors the collective identities of family and community. The erosion of such collective identity also led to the erosion of collective cultural consciousness as the dominant identity in the West. But in societies like the Indian society where the individual consciousness is integrated with, and not divorced from the different collectives, of which individuals are an integral part, the atomisation individuals and consequent cultural erosion and de-legitimisation of culture as the principal drive of the society have not taken place. With the result the collective nature of the society with individual sharing public space with the collective, not usurping its public space is preserved. So culture defines the collective life of the nation particularly in the non-western part of the world. So culture influences the idea of nation where the societies are not atomised. Nation states formed by social contract philosophy are an artificial construct. If popular will is what constitutes a nation state under the principle of social contract, what Ivor Jennings wrote about the popular will that constitutes nation states is relevant. He said, “On the surface it seems it seemed reasonable; let people decide. It was in fact ridiculous because people cannot decide unless some body decides who the people are” [International Enclopaedia of social sciences. p 11]. Therefore the elites who choose who the people are constructed the nation states. This is the substance of the modern nation states in Europe, which has defined the current understanding not just nation states, but, wrongly, what constitutes nation itself.          

With the world today confronted by rising civilisational and cultural consciousness and even risking cultural and civilisational clashes, the idea of culture as an essential element of national consciousness and even defining nationalism is an undeniable reality. So the concept of cultural nationalism is becoming relevant today, even in the societies in the West. For instance, the Greek nation, though Christian, does not identify with Christianity elsewhere. It does not relate to the Roman Catholic Church. It has its own traditions. It has its own church. This is nothing but the Greek continuity within the Christendom. So culture as an essential drive of the national consciousness of societies is prevalent even in the West, even though in general the cultural element has lost its legitimacy as the collective drive in Christendom. But in the non-western societies and nations the influence of culture is pervasive. The national trait and spirit is culture driven. The national identity is dominantly cultural. This does not detract from the secular state which the culturally defined nation may have adopted. There is no need for an inevitable conflict between cultural nationalism and secular state. But only a culture which is compatible with secularism and democracy can accommodate both. Where however the culture is not compatible with secular state and democracy, there exists the possibility of cultural and civilisational clashes between such culturally defined nationalism and nation states and the state based on secularism and democracy.

So the debate in India on cultural nationalism has proceeded on the wrong premise that there exists an inevitable conflict between cultural nationalism and secularism, even democracy. This is incorrect, since the Indian culture is essentially accommodative of secularism and democracy. The Indian culture is not just tolerant. It accepts all other cultures, faiths and lifestyle. In contrast the cultures of countries and religions which seek to convert others to their methods and worship are not accommodative of secularism and democracy. So there is no scope for conflict between the Indian culture and secularism. So the idea of cultural nationalism in India is non-conflicting and inclusive and accommodative. But these dimensions of the culturally defined nationalism of India have not been effectively brought into the debate in the public domain. But with the advent of the Ayodhya movement in the 1980s and 1990s and the ascension of the Bharatiya Janata Party to power, the concept of cultural nationalism expounded by the BJP has brought the issue of the cultural current in Indian nationalism into public debate.  

The seminal work of Purnima Singh on the Stream of Cultural Natinalism During The Freedom Struggle brings into focus how the idea of cultural nationalism was the principal drive of the freedom movement against the aliens which led to the freedom of India. This stream which was the critical element of the freedom movement became anaemic after India became free. With the result the chief drives of the freedom movement became burdens on free India. Like for instance the song Vande Mataram which triggered millions to sacrifice for the freedom of India turned a national problem if not a national burden. Similarly the idea of Ram Rajya which Mahatma Gandhi kept as the goal of free India became a sectarian and communal idea. So was the concept of Sanatana Dharma which Maharishi Aurobindo defined as the nationalism of India. Identical was the fate of Hindu nationalism which Swami Vivekananda had expounded. Thus all the elevating thoughts and concepts which triggered the nation into action were virtually discarded by free India’s rulers and scholars. With the result the very identity this ancient nation became confused and at the elite intellectual level remains so even now. The work of Purnima Singh is a painstaking effort to relate the present confused national consciousness to the cultural stream of the freedom movement. It is signal contribution to the ongoing debate on cultural nationalism in India.

Beginning of National Consciousness in Ancient India

Nineteenth Century European mind had come to believe that nationalism was a political phenomenon born in Europe after the French Revolution. It is also believed that five unities (a well-defined territory, state language, race and religion or culture) were essential pre-requisites to make a Nation. State was the main instrument to initiate the process of nation formation on any territorial unit. Conditioned by this perception and face to face with India’s territorial vastness along with its bewildering multifaceted diversity, the early British administrator-scholars easily concluded that India could not have been a nation in the past. They propagated the view that it was only after the establishment of the British rule over whole of India that the process of nation formation had begun and that only now India could claim that she was a nation in the making. This British view may be summed up in Sir John Strachey’s words written in the year 1880, “This is the first and foremost thing to learn about India that there is not, and never was an India, or even any country of India possessing, according to European ideas, any sort of unity – physical, political, social and religious, no Indian nation, no ‘people of India’, of which we hear so much”, though a few scholars like Sir John Seeley saw in Brahmanism the seed of Indian nationalism (Expansion of England, London, 1882).

Largely, English educated Indian Intellectuals were carried away by this British view. But a small section represented by Rajnarain Bose (1826-1899), Nabagopal Mitra, Bankim Chandra Chatterji (1838-1894) were not convinced about it. In the wake of Swadeshi Movement (1905-1910), and the emergence of the triumvirate Lal-Bal-Pal, this British view about Indian nationalism was seriously questioned by many Indian leaders and intellectuals. In the year 1909 Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, far away from India in South Africa, wrote in his most seminal work “Hind Swaraj”: “The English have taught us that we were not a nation before and it will require centuries before we became one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. It was because we were one nation that they were able to establish one kingdom.” (M. K. Gandhi-Hindu Dharma, Ahmedabad, 1950, p. 56).

Almost simultaneously in March 1909, a young historian Radha Kumud Mookerji read a paper before the Dawn Society, Calcutta, presenting his scientific researches on the Fundamental Unity of India. An expanded form of this essay was published from London in 1913 under the same title. In January 1912, Bipin Chandra Pal after his return from England contributed a long article in his monthly journal, ‘The Hindu Review’ under the title ‘Hindu Nationalism: What It Stands For’ followed by an other article ‘Nationalism and Politics’ in May 1913.

In these articles B.C. Pal drew attention to the different courses of evolution and the philosophy of nationalism in Europe and India. In his view European nationalism, being isolationist and materialist in nature was anti-humanity, while the Indian nationalism represented a higher stage of group consciousness and was a positive step towards human brotherhood and spirituality. In his own words, Hindu nationalism stood for – “God, Humanity and the Motherland” (B.C. Pal, Nationality and Empire, Calcutta, 1916. pp. 22-48 and pp. 73-112)

Another scholar Sukumar Dutt in his masterly study “Problem of Indian Nationality (Calcutta, 1926) was of the firm view that “A mind free from western conception of nationality is absolutely necessary to comprehend the problems of Indian Nationality” (p.18) because “it is difficult for a western mind to grasp the order of the ideas, unknown in European history, which has evolved this unique conception of the spiritual unity of India.” (Problems of Indian Nationality, Calcutta, p.17)

The outbreak of the First World War shook the Western scholarship and made it to rethink about the nature and definition of nationality based on five unities. Admitting the impact of the World War I, C.J.H Hayes wrote, “Most of my adult life has been devoted to observation and study of nationalism. My interest in it is aroused by the outbreak of the World War I. That event took me by surprise and shocked me out of easy optimism……… "(Nationalism: A Religion, New York 1960, p. V). Scholars like Ramsay Muir, G.P. Gooch, MacDougall rejected the old definition based on five unities. MacDougall defined it as a ‘group consciousness’ (The Group Mind, London, 1920, p.100). G.P Gooch (Nationalism, London 1920) was more explicit, “The core of nationalism is group consciousness…………. neither the occupation of a well defined area, nor community of race, language, religion, government or economic interests are indispensable to national self-consciousness” (p. 5-6). Ramsay Muir wrote “Nationality, then, is an elusive idea, difficult to define……………. Its essence is a sentiment”. (Nationalism and Internationalism, London, 1919).

Carlton J.H. Hayes at the end of his half a century long explorations into the nature and definition of nationalism arrived at a conclusion in his 'Nationalism: A religion' (New York, 1960):

"In simplest terms nationalism may be defined as a fusion of patriotism with a consciousness of nationality" (p. 2) and that "A nationality receives its impress, its character, its individuality from cultural and historical forces" (p. 3). He further wrote, "historical tradition mean an accumulation of remembered or imagined experiences of the past" (p. 4). He defined patriotism 'as a peoples' territorial past, its ancestral soil, involving a popular, sentimental regard for a homeland where one's forefathers lived and are buried or cremated" (p. 4).

Rejecting the nineteenth Century belief that nationalism was a political phenomenon and the existence of State was a prerequisite in nation-formation, Hayes said, “If we are to grasp what a nationality is, we must avoid confusing it with state or nation” (p. 6). Accepting the idea of cultural nationalism, Hayes wrote, “Cultural nationalism may exist with or without political nationalism. For, nationalities can do and exist for fairly long periods without political unity and independence.” (p. 6)

Hans Kohn, another authority on the history of Nationalism wrote a full book on the idea of cultural nationalism. He discovered that the nature of the processes of nation formation in Europe and Asia was not the same. In Europe ‘state’ was mainly instrumental in nation formation, while in Asia nationalism had cultural origins. Even in Europe, political unity of Germany and Italy was preceded by vigorous intellectual and cultural movements led by Herder, Goethe and Kant etc. in Germany and by Mazzini in Italy. These studies on Nationalism show that nations are not born in a day. It takes a centuries long historical process for the emergence of national consciousness through a fusion of patriotism with cultural consciousness. Regarding patriotism, Hayes writes, “Loyalty to familiar places is relatively natural, but it requires artificial effort-purposeful conscious education and training to render men loyal to the sum total of places unfamiliar as well as familiar in an entire country inhabited by his nationality” (p. 9). That means that the spirit of patriotism and national consciousness does not permeate all sections of the population in the same degree at a given point of time. To quote Hayes again, "only through an intensive and extensive educational process will a local group of people become thoroughly aware of their entire nationality and supremely loyal to it" (p. 10). The need for educational process suggests that only a small section of the population is inspired by the spirit of patriotism and cultural consciousness in the beginning and this small section or elite assumes the role of educator for the masses.

            In ancient India, the epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata and the vast Pauranic literature played an important role in the education of the masses about their country and culture. We know that every Purana text contains a section called Bhuvan Kosh, in which the boundaries of the land called Bharatavarsha are clearly defined and its progeny is given a common name Bharati.[1] A list of all the Janapadas scattered all over the country is given alongwith the lists of rivers and mountains. A smaller list of seven holy rivers[2], seven holy mountains[3] and seven holy cities[4] symbolizing the unity of the land are given there. These slokas were recited daily by every Indian in ancient times. A list of holy places or pilgrim centers (Tirthas) is also given in the Puranas as well as Mahabharata. These pilgrim centers cover the whole land from Kailash Mansarovar in the Himalayas to Kanyakumari in the south and from Hingulaj in Baluchistan to Parshuram Kunda in the present day Arunachal Pradesh.

This devotion to the land is not confined to its physical or material aspect only. All these pilgrim centers or holy places have history and culture imbued in them. The name Bharatavarsha arouses historical memories. It is immaterial whether the name Bharat belongs to a king or a tribe, whether that king Bharat was the son of Jain Tirthankar Rishabh Dev or king Dushyanta. But more than history, it is the cultural uniqueness of this land that instills a sense of pride in those who are fortunate to have been born in this land of Bharatavarsha. Vishnu Purana says that the gods in heaven also feel envious of those who are born in the land of Bharatavarsha because the gods after the expiry of their merits will have to take rebirth on the earth while those born in Bharata will be able to transcend the cycle of rebirth[5].

Here cultural dimensions of Bharatiya nationalism are very clearly delineated. Chapter 9 of the Bhishmaparva in Mahabharata is devoted to the description of Bharatavarsha as well as its glory. While eulogizing the greatness of Bharatavarsha the poet gives a long list of ancient kings who loved this land.

v= rs dhrZf;I;kfe o"kZa Hkkjr Hkkjre~A
fiz;feUnzL; nsoL; euksoSoZLrL; pAA 5AA
i`FkksLrq jktUoSU;L; rFks{okdkseZgkReu%AA
;;krsjEcjh"kL; ekU/kkrquZgq"kL; p AA 6AA
rFkSo eqpqdqUnL; f'kosjkS{khujL;pA
_"kHkL; rFkSyL; u`xL; u`irsLrFkkAA7AA
dqf'kdL; p nq/kZ"kZ xk/ks'pSo egkReu%
lksedL; p nq/kZ"kZ fnyhiL; rFkSo pAA8AA
vU;s"kka p egkjkt {kf=;k.kka cyh;lke~A
losZ"kkeso jktsUnz fiz;a Hkkjr Hkkjre~AA9AA

Without delving into the historicity and chronology of these ancient rulers, we can say that these slokas from the Mahabharata text fuse a love for the land (Bharatavarsha), in other words, patriotism rooted in a pride of historical tradition.

Thus, we find that all the ingredients of the group consciousness called nationalism are present here. Modern scholarship has fixed 5^th century A.D. as the lower limit for the composition of the present versions of Mahabharata, Ramayana and the older Puranas such as Vishnu, Vayu and Matsya etc. It proves that Bharatavarsha was pulsating with full-grown national consciousness at least fifteen hundred years ago. This consciousness of the geographical unity and its hoary antiquity was capsuled in the Samkalpa mantra, which exactly defined the place of every Bharatiya in Time and Space. This Samkalpa mantra used to be the part of daily prayers and was recited at the beginning of every sacred act or ritual:

v| czge.ksfõ f}rh; ijk/ksZ Jh'osrojkg dYis oSoLor eUoUrjs v"Vkfoa'kfrres dfy;qxs dfyizFke pj.ks ckS)korkjs tEcqnhis Hkjr[k.Ms vk;kZorsZd ns'kkUrj xrs------ veqd{ks=s ------- veqdLFkys ------- laoRljs ------- _rkS ------- ekls ------- frFkkS ------ le; ------ xks=% vga --------------- dfj";sA

Such a highly developed patriotism and national consciousness is not available in the literary or oral traditions of any other ancient civilization. As far as Europe is concerned Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji said that “India was preaching the gospel of nationalism when Europe was passing through what has been aptly called the Dark Age of her history, and was labouring under the travails of a new birth. (Nationalism in Hindu Culture, London 1921, 2^nd Edition 1957, p. 47)

But this Epic and Pauranic presentation of Indian nationalism must have been the culmination of a long historical process which led to the discovery of this vast land on one hand and gave it a common cultural personality while preserving its multifaceted diversity, on the other. To trace the beginnings of this historical process we have to go back in time. Can we find out when and how the geographical unity of this vast land was visualized? From which part of the country did that historical process begin? What was the nature of the agency, which had initiated that historical process and what was the inspiration of that agency?

In search of the answers to these questions, when we go back in time we find that the Asokan inscriptions of the 3^rd Century B.C. are found scattered from Afghanistan in the north to Nepal and Bihar and Orissa in the east, from Gujarat and Maharashtra in the west to Andhra and Karnataka in the south. The southern most kingdoms of Chera, Chola, Pandya and Satiyapute are also mentioned in the inscriptions, which means that whole of the country was known in those days. Significantly, a common dialect and script with minor regional variations were used in these epigraphs, which were meant for the information and education of common people. It conclusively proves that some sort of lingua franca had also been evolved by that time. But Asokan inscriptions nowhere mention the name Bharatavarsha, rather use the name Jambudvipa in its place. Do we suppose that the name Bharatavarsha had not come into vogue by that time and this land was called Jambudvipa which in later times was tagged on to a bigger continent of which Bharatavarsha was only a part. This fact is supported by the Samkalpa mantra where Bharat Khande or Varsh is treated as a part of Jambudvipa (tEcw}his Hkjr [kaMs))

Further back, Kautilya Arthashastra of 4^th Century B.C. while defining the territory to be conquered by a Chakravarti King (pdzorhZ {ks=) defines it as the land between the Himalayas and the ocean from north to south and eight thousand miles from east to west. It says: ns'k% i`fFkohA rL;ka fgeoRleqnzkUrjeqnhphua ;kstulglz ifjek.ka fr;Zd~ pdzofrZ{ks=e~AA Book 9, Chapter 1, Prakarana 135-136. This reference from Kautilya proves that by that time the ideal of political unity of this whole land had got fully established in Indian mind. Kautilya tried to achieve that ideal through his disciple Chandragupta Maurya. Dr. R.K. Mookerji believes that the conception of a single power dominating the whole country had not originated with Chandragupta Maurya or Kautilya rather it must have been much older then Chandragupta, Aitreya Brahmana (VIII 15) also presents the same ideal,

i`fFkO;s% leqnzi;kZUrk;k ,djkfMfrAA

i.e. there should be one ruler of this Prithvi upto the seas.

It is noteworthy that in both the above references the word Prithvi (i`fFkoh) has been used as the name of the country. In Kautilya the world (ns'k) means land, while Prithvi appears to be the name of that land. Interestingly, in the Mahagovindsutta of Digha Nikaya which is considered to be the oldest portion of the Buddhist Tripitakakas and has been placed by some scholars in the 5<sup>th</sup> century B.C., Maha Prithvi (egki`Foh) name has been given to the land whose shape has been compared with that of a bullock cart ('kdV) which happens to be rectangular (vk;rkdkj) in the north and conical ('kdVeq[k) in the south. Great Buddhist scholar Rahul Sankrityayana while translating this sutta into Hindi had identified (egki`Foh) with Bharat. Obviously, the word Prithvi could not have been used for the whole earth beyond Bharatavarsha.

The famous Prithvi Sukta of Atharva Veda (XII.I) which is rightly called the first national anthem in the history of mankind uses the common word Bhoomi (Hkwfe) for land, but uses Prithvi for that particular territory which was in later times called Jambudivpa or Bharatavarsha. Here, Prithvi is clearly identified with the Vedic history and culture. This Sukta of 63 stanzas, at one place says that this is the land where our ancestors displayed their valour, where gods defeated the Asuras (5); where our gods Ashwinis, Vishnu and Indra, the husband of Shachi performed their divine feats (10); it is the land where sacrifices are performed, for them altars are established, where our sacrificial posts stand erect (13) where five classes of men (four varnas and fifth the Nisad) live (15); this land which is sustained by Dharma (17) where we are protected by god Indra himself (18); where we offer ghee to the agni, who acts as our messenger to the gods (20). It is land where men offer their oblations to the gods in sacrifices and relish the remains of the sacrificial offerings (22). Here Indra destroys the enemies of gods - Asuras and the demon Vrtra (37). This is the land where pillars (Yupas) are erected for the Sacrifices and where the Rishis chant the mantras of Rigveda Samaveda and Yajurveda, where Indra is offered Somarasa (38). The land, where ancient Rishis sang divine songs, where they performed seven sattras with Yajnas and Tapas (39). This is the land where men move in their chariots and bullock carts on the roads (47) where Sabhas and Samitis function in the villages (56).

Here we find the Vedic culture and historical tradition described in their fullness. Obviously this description cannot apply to any other land outside Bharatavarsha. Although the Prithvi Sukta does not give exact boundaries of the land, but the mention of Himalayas (11), Sea and Sindhu (3), the six seasons (36), the flora and fauna, agriculture and crafts in so many mantras all point to the land called Bharatavarsha. Prithvi Sukta uses the world (Hkwfe) to denote 'land' while the word Prithvi denotes its name. The emotional description of its natural beauty, its climate, its natural resources, its cattle wealth, its flora and fauna, forests, rivers, milk and ghee, arouse a deep feeling of gratitude and filial attachment for the motherland. Again and again we are reminded that this motherland sustains us, feeds us and will give us place even after death. Therefore, this land is our mother and we are her sons (ekrk Hkwfe% iq=ks·ga i`fFkO;k%) (12), because it feeds us just like a mother (10).

Prithvi Sukta presents very vividly the philosophy of Indian nationalism. It recognizes that the people inhabiting this land speak different dialects and follow different norms of behaviour according to their own regions, but this motherland just like a cow, feeds them all with her milk without any distinction (45).

tua foHkzrh cgq/kk fookpla] ukuk/kekZ.ka i`fFkoh ;FkkSdle~A
lglz /kkjk nzfo.kL; esa nqgka /kzqoso /ksuqjuiLQqjUrhAA (45)

The opening verse of the Prithvi Sukta mentions those values and ideals which sustain this land called Prithvi, which has accommodated our past and future generations.

lR;a c`gn`reqxza nh{kk riksczg~e ;K% i`fFkoha /kkj;fUrA
lk uks HkwrL; HkO;L; iRU;q#a yksda i`fFkoh u% d`.kksrqAA

The values which sustain Prithvi are Truth (lR;), Cosmic Law (_`rq), Initiation (nh{kk), Penance (ri), Veda (czge) and Sacrifice (;K).

Prithvi Sukta nowhere preaches hatred or aggression against others. It prays for a peaceful, self contented life full of joy and entertainment, in tune with the Nature. This Sukta proves that cultural nationalism was in full bloom in the period of Atharvaveda whose period the modern scholarship has not been able to push below 800 B.C. Here we find a complete fusion of patriotism with cultural consciousness and historical tradition rooted in the ideal of 'unity in diversity'.

The evidence of Kautilya Arthashastra, Mahagovinda Sutta, Aitreya Brahmana and Atharvaveda led me to humbly suggest that in the earliest phase of our nationalism this land was given the name Prithvi, drawing its origin from the legend of king Prthu who is said to have initiated agriculture on the land and thus led us from a wandering tribal state to a settled agricultural life. Here civilization and culture appear to be marching hand in hand.

But this civilizational and cultural process could not have started all over this vast country simultaneously. Could we identify a central tract where this civilizational process had taken shape and from where it spread all around? Manu Smriti seems to have preserved this story of cultural spread. According to Manu Smriti (II. 18-19) the land between the divine rivers Saraswati and Drishadvati was created by the gods themselves and was known by the name Brahmavarta. In this land the code of conduct (vkpkj) transmitted by the tradition in regular succession from generation to generation was seen as the noble code of conduct (lnkpkj) for all varnas".

ljLorh n`"kn~oR;ksnsZou|ks;ZnUrje~A
ra nsofufeZra ns'ka czg~ekorZa izp{krsAA 2- 18
rfLeUns'ks ; vkpkj% ikjEi;Zdzekxr%A
o.kkZuka lkUrjkykuka l lnkpkj mP;rsAA 2- 19

As the second phase of this cultural spread beyond Brahmavarta, Manusmriti mentions (II. 20-21) the name of Brahmarshi Desh which included the Janapadas of Matsya, Kurukshetra, Panchala and Shurasena, covering the area of the present day Haryana, western U.P., Brij Mandal and the area around Jaipur. The very name Brahmarshi Desh delineates its cultural pre-eminence. Manusmriti says that the people born in this land were the torch bearers in the realm of human conduct and therefore all the inhabitants of Prithvi should learn the lessons in character and conduct from them (Manu II. 20-21).

dq#{ks=a eRL;k'p ik.pkyk% 'kwjlsudkA
czg~ef"kZns'kks oS czg~ek"kZorkZnuUrj%AA 2- 20
,rn~ns'kizlwrL; ldk'kknxztUeu%A
Loa Loa pfj=a f'k{ksju~ i`fFkO;ka loZekuok%AA 2- 21

The third geographical phase of the cultural spread is named Madhyadesa in Manusmriti (II. 22). It covered the land between Himalaya and Vindhya mountains from north to south and to the west of Prayag in the east and to the east of Vinsana in the west, (the place where river Saraswati is believed to have disappeared).

fgeon~ foU/;;kseZ/;s ;RizkfXou'kuknfiA
izR;xso iz;kxkPp e/;ns'k% izdhfrZr%AA 2- 22

The fourth and the last stage mentioned by Manu Smriti was called Aryavarta, i.e. the land of the Aryas. It was spread from eastern sea to the western sea and from Himalaya Mountain in the north upto river Narmada in the south. This pure land is worthy of performing sacrifices (yajna) and the black antelope, the symbol of sacrifice, could roam there freely. The lands beyond Aryavarta are impure (EysPN), i.e. not yet part of the cultural stream. (Manu II. 22-23).

vkleqnzkRrq oS iwokZnkleqnzkPp if'pekr~A
r;ksjsokUrja fx;ksZjkZ;kZorZ fonqcZq/kk%AA 2-23
d`I.klkjLrq pjfre`xks ;= LoHkkor%A
lk Ks;ks ;fK;ks ns'kks EysPNns'kLRor% ij%AA 2-24

Manusmriti stands testimony to the cultural dimension of the expansion of geographical horizons starting from Brahmavarta upto the territory called Arya varta, and there it stops. Further story of cultural spread covering the whole land called Prithvi or Jambudvipa or Bharatavarsha is fully described in the Epics and Puranas. In the present state of our perceptual conditioning by the nineteenth century Aryan Race Theory, the word Arya in Aryavarta (the land of Aryas) may give it a colour of racial expansionism. But if we keep in mind the etymology of the word Arya from the /kkrq v;Z meaning 'agriculture' as well as its use as a qualitative connotation denoting 'noble, respectable, higher' in the whole of Sanskrit and Prakrit Literature it becomes clear that if Rigveda pronounces d`.oUrks fo'oek;Ze~ i.e. Aryanise the whole World, it simply means a civilizational process leading to the spread of a higher culture. It is in this sense that the word Arya has been used in the earliest Buddhist and Jain tradition. The story of Mathav Videgh following the march of Sacrificial fire from the bank of the river Saraswati to the banks of the river Sadanira (modern Gandaki) preserved in the Shatapath Brahman also proves that it was a cultural process and not a racial one. The Vratya problem in ancient India has also to be seen in this light. The Vratyakanda in the Panchavimsa Brahmana (XVII. 2) clearly says that the Vratyas were a wandering people who practiced neither agriculture nor trade. They were brought into the Vedic stream of settled life by a process of initiation or purification through sacrifices. These tribal groups were accommodated with all their special customs and traits. They were allowed to continue with their old social organization. This decentralized mode of organization of social and economic life may have led to the emergence of various types of corporate bodies such as dqy] tkfr] Js.kh] iwx] lkFkZ] ik"k.M] fuxe] x.k] xzke etc. Every corporate body was free to frame rules for its own members. Such rules were called le;; while the conduct rooted in higher moral and spiritual values was called Achara. Amalgamation of le; and Achara was the basis of the Dharma prescribed in the Dharmasutras and Smritis. These Samayas were inviolable and even the king had no authority of interfere in them or to change them. Every individual used to carry simultaneously many group loyalties within himself. But all the group loyalties were complimentary to each other. They had an ascending order also, leading from a lower to a higher level of group loyalty. Mahabharata clearly says that an individual should sacrifice his self interest for his family, the family may have to be sacrificed for the village and the interests of a village ought to be surrendered in favour of that of a Janapada, while all interests ought to be surrendered for the universal soul (Atma).

R;tsnsda dqyL;kFksZ]
xzkekFksZ p dqya R;tsr~A
xzkea tuinL;kFksZ]
vkRekFksZ Ik`fFkoha R;tsr~A A

Obviously, group loyalty to a bigger territorial entity called Bharatavarsha which stand between Janapada and Humanity (vkRek) did not exist at that time and must have been a later development.

Beginning from the Nadi Sukta in the Rigveda covering a small area of Northern India upto the Nadi stotra in the puranas covering the whole of India, the geographical base of the culture was expanding. But at every stage geography and culture were completely identified with each other, permeated by a strong feeling of gratitude and devotion to the land. This feeling of gratitude and attachment manifested itself in the emergence of more and more tirthas in every nook and corner of the land of culture. Institution of pilgrimage ought to be seen as a practical method of education of the general masses by which a fusion of patriotism and cultural consciousness was impressed upon the masses. Mahatama Gandhi saw in this institution of pilgrimage the foundations of national consciousness in India. He wrote in Hind Swaraj (1909). "Our leading men traveled throughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts………. what do you think could have been the intention of those farseeing ancestors of ours who established Setuabandh (Rameshwar) in the south, Jagannath in the East and Hardwar in the North as places of pilgrimage? You will admit they were no fools. They knew that worship of God could have been performed just as well at home. They taught us that those whose hearts were aglow with righteousness had the Ganga in their own homes. (eu paxk rks dBkSrh esa xaxk) But they saw that India was one und