What exactly is Indian culture? It can be said to be a vast cultural continuum which has affected all aspects of human life and society in the last two thousand years or more. It can also be said to have affected all aspects of life and society in the last two thousand years or more. The people of India are widely dispersed over a large area in South Asia and the peripheries of Central Asia and there are communities that have their own language, culture and traditions related to religion, ritual and lifestyle.
The definition of Indian culture offered by the present author is intended to provide a partial description of the diverse socio-cultural heritage of India. The book was designed as a research project for the doctoral students in the field of Ethnicity and Civilizations in India. In this book the focus is on three issues, one of which is caste, the other two being land and religion.
What exactly is meant by the term “caste”? According to the present author, the meaning of the word is usually associated with castes in South Asia. But the meaning is not limited to castes. In fact, all social classes and groups in India have had their own caste system even when they were originally categorized as members of a common group or community such as villagers, landholders, artisan farmers, Brahmins and so on. So the present author refers to this concept as the “linguistic hierarchy of Indian society” and he clarifies it as follows:” caste as a social category, and not a physical trait or attribute, is a relatively recent phenomenon in the history of India and the practice of which can be traced only to late nineteenth-century developments.”
The present author further explains that caste has emerged out of three aspects. The first one is resistance to integrate into the mainstream social group by Lower castes (the “Scheduled Caste”) who were economically and socially backward. The second was the rise of an upper caste class, especially after the advent of Islam in the nineteenth century. The third aspect was the rise of Muslim communalism and consequent rise of Brahmins as relatively the dominant community in few aspects in India. All the three aspects of castes are important in the analysis of the meaning of Indian culture.
Why do we need to know the meaning of Indian culture this way? For starters, the present day Indian political establishment, while proclaiming its commitment to secularism sees a parallel between the modern Hindu ethos of social consciousness and the communal sentiments of the masses. Hence the question is, why should Hindus be denied their right to participate in the communal festivals or the right to establish their own institutions such as temples? What is wrong with promoting a concept of Hindu collectivity and a concept of the Hindu society as a whole while excluding the Hindu religious elements? Is not this an attempt to bring Hindu religion inimical of the pluralistic ethos of the west?
Such a view is totally baseless and irresponsible. It is also accompanied by a number of assumptions and misinterpretations. For example the author often puts the Brahmins in a separate category all their own, ignoring the fact that they form a major constituent of the working class too. The economic conditions in India have been far from ideal and both the upper castes and the poor classes have fought for their rights.
This divide did not arise overnight and is a product of social and political developments over a period of centuries. On the other hand, the authors apparently prefer a simplistic understanding of the role of religion in shaping India’s social and cultural heritage. For example, the reference is made to the “Spiritual Army” in the book, whom, incidentally is no more than the Hindu yogis. The term is unfortunate and its usage is an attempt to give a simplistic explanation of a complex reality. The spiritual army was and is a very important aspect of Indian tradition and heritage, which have endured despite the turbulence and perils that have marked India’s past and present.
In fact, the term is misleading and its use ought to be avoided. The term refers to the elite class that was created as a result of the evolution of Hindu civilization but it cannot be called a specifically Indian heritage because it did not emerge suddenly nor was it created or dominated by the Hindus. What is called the mutual heritage is actually the legacy of the Muslims who occupied and later absorbed much of what the Hindus had built in their bid to build a united India and not the other way round.