Bharat As a Civilizational State

 

This refers to the essays by Portuguese politician Brunos Maçães and Dr. Sashi Tharoor on the rise of civilizational states. At first glance, Tharoor's perspective seems to challenge Brunos' view on how a civilizational state can replace a liberal state. However, both views show a similar level of limited perspective and are flawed in their underlying assumptions. I would like to point out two significant flaws.

Firstly, Brunos argues strongly that civilizational states are becoming a substitute for liberal states, thus implying that a civilizational state is different from a liberal state. Tharoor concurs with this viewpoint and explicitly declares that a civilizational state is inherently illiberal. Therefore, when it comes to their understanding of civilizational states, Brunos and Tharoor are in agreement with each other.

Second. Both Brunos and Tharoor have attempted to confuse the concept of a civilizational state by grouping China, India, and Israel as examples. A civilization refers to a human society that has its own unique culture and social organization. Social organization includes political or religious elements. Culture encompasses the shared beliefs, values, knowledge, and ideas that shape a society. Social organization can be a part of culture, but it is not a comprehensive reflection of it. Today's China has a distinct social organization, but its society under communism hardly resembles its traditional cultural beliefs and values. Thus, what we see in China is the growth of an authoritarian state under communism and not a re-emergence of a civilizational state. Israel may be a better example of an emerging civilizational state, but it is limited to a particular religious group. By including these examples with a true civilizational state like India, Brunos and Tharoor have detracted from the discussion on this topic.

Now let's turn to a more fundamental question on this topic in the context of India: if India re-emerges as a civilizational state, will it become illiberal? To examine this, let's use the lens of “liberalism” packaged as "European values". To distinguish it from the general definition of liberalism, I will refer to it as "European Liberalism". And for a better historical context for readers, I will refer to India as "Bharat". European liberalism, which is founded on the principles of liberty and equality, emerged as a response to the excesses of medieval Europe. Let's compare these excesses in medieval Europe with the civilization of Bharat.

The first excess in medieval Europe was a lack of religious freedom. After destroying the "pagan" cultures, the Church established a strong control over the relationship between an individual and their god, acting as a mandatory mediator (e.g. through the sale of indulgences) for this connection. The Protestant revolution was a response to this excess and aimed to break the Church's hold on the relationship between an individual and their god. In contrast, the civilization of Bharat never had a defined "religion". The Bharateeya civilization is a combination of various belief systems, including philosophical systems (known as the six darshanas), integrated into a diverse yet cohesive and harmonious way of life. Those who believe in the Vedas and those who do not, have always been a part of this civilization. Those who prioritize materialistic pursuits and those who prioritize spiritual pursuits have always been equal parts of this civilization. Those who believe in a god and those who are atheists have always been equal parts of this civilization. A compromise between conflicting religious groups in Europe resulted in so called religious tolerance and religious freedom, while the Bharateeya civilization has always reflected a grassroots harmonious way of life. Moreover, none of the scriptures of Sanatana Dharma require a mediator between an individual and their god. In fact, the Upanishads, which are the highest form of Vedic thought, state that an individual is the god - Tat Tvam Asi.

The second issue in medieval Europe was the distinction between ascribed and achieved status. The medieval European society was structured like a pyramid, with the king and the church at the top, followed by the aristocracy, and the poor and peasants at the bottom with an ascribed status. The lower class suffered for a long time from inequalities and suppression, and had to resort to violent revolutions to attain the freedom for an achieved status. On the other hand, the Indian society was not structured like a pyramid, but rather a quadrilateral system of four fluid varnas. How these equal and fluid varnas denigrated into a rigid caste structures due to internal friction and external (British) tactics, is a separate topic of discussion. But the fluidity of the societal structure is reflected in ancient Indian texts such as the Upanishads, Itihasas, Puranas, etc. In fact the birth of Sage Veda Vyasa, who organized the Vedic knowledge into four Vedas, was the result of a union between a Rishi and a fisherwoman. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna clarifies that one's varna is based on their nature and actions, not birth.

The third issue in the medieval Europe was about divine rights of the king. In contrast to the concept of divine right of kings in medieval Europe, the leaders in Bharateeya civilization have always considered the welfare of the people and justice as a key responsibility. From figures such as Satya Harishchandra, Rama, and Yudhishthira to the rule of the Mauryas, Guptas, Ahoms, Cholas, Vijayanagara Rulers, Marathas, and many more, public welfare has been a paramount duty in the Bharateeya civilization. Chanakya's Saptanga theory of state in the Arthashastra also highlights the importance of the welfare of the people (Janapada) as a key pillar of the state.

So, European liberal values originated as a result of bloodshed and compromise, and were later presented as the product of the Renaissance. However, the actual practice of these liberal values was less than ideal, as evidenced by the oppression of women and the existence of slavery. On the other hand, true liberal values have been a part of the Bharateeya civilization for thousands of years and are not limited to individual liberties, but also encompass the self-actualization of individuals through the four Purushardhas of dharma, artha, kama, and moksha. While today’s Indian society may not be perfect, it is important to acknowledge and preserve its inherent liberal values passed on to us through the civilizational flow, instead of trying to adopt a flawed system of hypocritical European liberalism.