Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Dera Natung Government College Research Journal ISSN (Print): 2456-8228
Volume 8 Issue 1, pp. 155-168, January-December 2023 ISSN (Online): 2583-
5483
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
© 2023 by Dera Natung Government College, Itanagar, India. https://dngcrj.dngc.ac.in/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Research Article
Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia: Tracing the Origin of Shared Values
and Culture
Vijay Prasad Jayshwala,* , Seema Kumari Shahb
a
Faculty of Law, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
b
Women’s Rehabilitation Centre, Lalitpur, Kathmandu, Nepal.
______________________________________________________
Cite as:
Jayshwal, V.P., Shah, S.K.
(2023). Narratives of ‘Common
Civilization’ of South Asia: Tracing
the Origin of Shared Values and
Culture, Dera Natung Government
College Research Journal, 8, 155-
168.
https://doi.org/10.56405/dngcrj.2023
.08.01.11
Received on: 02.06.2023,
Revised on: 27.08.2023,
Accepted on: 03.09.2023,
Available online: 26.12.2023
*Corresponding Author: Vijay
Prasad Jayshwal
(vijayjayshwal1991@gmail.com)
Abstract
:
South Asia is a constructed concept. Although South Asian countries choose to
function within the paradigm of independent statehood, they are undergoing overlapping
developments rooted in the distant and recent colonial past. This paper reflects on the notion
that South Asia has a common past. In this context, the civilizational politics of India is
addressed and the discourse on civilization is unwrapped to understand its contemporary and
historical perspectives. The study of South Asian history constructs that Indus valley
civilization presents a common ground for cultural and civilizational associations of South
Asian countries. To understand the changing form of Indian civilization over the period of
time, this paper examines four variants of Indian civilization: Orientalist, Anglicist, liberal
nationalist, and Hindu nationalist variants. In this discussion, the perception of Tagore and
Gandhi on nationalism is considered, and discourse on civilization between Asian thinkers
like Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and Western thinkers like Samuel P. Huntington are provided
to understand the historical underpinning of Indian civilization.
Keywords: Indian civilization, Indus valley civilization, South Asia, Asian unity,
Nationalism.
I. Introduction
The idea of Asia is a contested concept as it is often thought as a European formation which was brought into
play to meet the European principles. The term ‘Asia’ is often looked through the lens of geographical and
cultural unity (Milner and Johnson, 2001). Amitav Acharya (2011) brings forth the notion that Asia has
“multiple (although not always mutually exclusive) conceptions, some drawing upon material forces, such as
economic growth, interdependence and physical power, others having ideational foundations, such as
civilizational linkages and normative aspirations” (Acharya, 2011). The geographical linkages within South
Asia is tracing the concern of common civilization. The Indus civilization and its expansion in region in terms
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
156
of shared culture, values, norms and aspirations are also depicted as of reflection of common civilization. The
source of origin of human development in terms of soft culture narratives are also seen as reflection of common
civilization. The term also is a constructed concept hence encompasses multiple variations in perception and
understanding.
The common civilization construct has helped to connect emotionally and physically in the region and it has
further assisted to think beyond the geographical boundaries of the States. This has further helped to think
beyond relations of the political units and is more soft cultural based narrative in the region. For example, India-
Nepal relation is beyond political level and has multiple layered of development. The common understanding of
the each other cultural values and development in soft power is also significant factors for the understanding.
The thinking pattern based on the values of this region is also one of manifestation of the common civilization
benefit.
Asian unity is driven by the victory of Japan over Russia in 1905. Other various parts of Asian region bring
forth the logic of an Asian Unity. For example, Colombo conference held in 1954 was attended by Ceylon,
Indonesia, Burma, India and Pakistanis, and Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1955 (Milner and Johnson,
2001). To project the Bandung civilization influence, Asia also had civilization of its own (Nandy, 2005).
Europe and North America have been dominated by Western culture, but Asia has unique culture and
civilization that has extended throughout the region (Yamazaki, 1996). Countries went through the phase of
colonization and decolonization in India (Khilani et.al., 2013) which brings a turning point in Southern region
of Asia. South Asian countries developed differently in the political context, but have similarity in institutions
and culture (Singh, 2005). These similarities are also considered as reflection of common origin of the
countries. The long shared different forms of bond has also created a strong projection of common civilization
narratives and further leading to shared values across the region.
South Asia is a more constructed concept which constitutes eight diverse sovereign states of different sizes:
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan and Maldives, including Myanmar, which
was a province of British India until 1935 (Bose, 2004). The term “South Asia” was used after the 1950s, as a
replacement for 'Indian subcontinent' (Markovits, 2014). This term is generally referred to “Indian
subcontinent” (Masica, 2005) which comprises India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives,
Pakistan and Afghanistan. Although these South Asian countries are geographically defined (Masica, 2005),
they share a colonial past. They have universal culture and civilization in links (Khilani et al., 2013). The
subcontinent holds their ancient history which extends back to five millennia. The modern history of the
subcontinent has to do with the experience of British colonialism, the understanding of which has been limited
over the period of time. There has been evolution of shared cultural environment in South Asia (Bose, 2004).
When one talks about South Asian countries, Indian civilization reflects on the idea of South Asia having a
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
157
common past (Katzenstein, 2009). Despite prevalence of commonality among South Asian nations, there are
unique cultural attitudes and practices associated with the concept of South Asian regions (Bose, 2004). This
similarities lead to the common development of perception towards each other existence and values on it.
Due to difference in identities, one civilization could perceives another civilization as a threat and as
Huntington says, there is a chance of clash between civilizations which ultimately becomes threat to world
peace (Huntington, 1996). Susanne Rudolph challenges the claims made by Huntington and discusses the
variants of external and internal conceptualizations of Indian civilization. Civilizational politics of India merges
the existing and past standpoints. He finds out that there are multifaceted identities and civilization which move
inside and outside of South Asia (Rudolph, 2010). Tagore and Gandhi have different understanding of
civilization. This variants in understanding civilizational construct is also major reason for searching the
common shared values and norms, guiding together for the development of civilizational linkages.
II. Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this paper is to look at how Indus valley civilization presents a common ground for
cultural and civilizational associations of South Asian countries? The attempt of this paper is to examine the
four variants of Indian civilization: Orientalist, Anglicist, liberal nationalist, and Hindu nationalist variants to
understand the changing forms of Indian civilization over the course of time. Finally, this paper intends to
produce the narratives of “common civilization of South Asia by bringing into play the perception of Tagore
and Gandhi on “nationalism” and the views of Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and Samuel P. Huntington on
“civilization.”
In the first section of the paper, the discourse on civilization provided a synopsis of understanding the
contemporary and historical perspectives in addressing the civilizational politics of India, thus reflecting on the
underlying evidence of South Asia having a common past. The second and fourth sections of the paper explore
the discourse on civilization in understanding the contemporary and historical perspectives while addressing the
civilizational politics of India. The third section of the paper looks at the history of South Asia which is studied
through understanding of Indus valley civilization where lies a common ground for cultural and civilizational
associations of South Asian countries. Finally, the fifth section of the paper brings forth a conceptual approach
in understanding the Indian civilization through Tagore’s and Gandhi’s perspective on nationalism.
III. Materials and Methods
This paper has a two-pronged analysis: Conceptual and Historical. The research is a qualitative
historical analysis which employs Tagore’s and Gandhi’s perspective on nationalism to understand common
civilization associated with the South Asia region. The paper intends to take the conceptual discourse on
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
158
common civilization further by delving into discourse on civilization between Asian thinkers like Susanne
Hoeber Rudolph and Western thinkers like Samuel P. Huntington. The findings in this paper have been
proposed by looking at secondary sources like books and articles. Due to scarcity of data and materials on
common civilization of South Asian countries, this paper mostly relies on the secondary sources for looking
back the history of South Asia.
IV. Literature
The word “civilization” denotes to the conglomeration of people sharing and practicing a particular set
of values and culture (Wei, 2012). The history of South Asia shows that this region is a home to the Indus
valley civilization. The people of this region are integrated by a common cultural and ethical position, ancient
literature in Sanskrit, Prākrit, regional languages, music, dance, ways of worship, marriage customs, culinary
habits, costumes, dishes, interdependent natural environment, common practices, related to traditions like
Tantric practices and Bhakti. Religion is another necessary force that connects the people of South Asian
region. In the ancient times, Ashoka promoted Buddhism in South Asian countries by sending missionaries to
these countries. The ancient civilization shows that there is apparent cultural difference between egalitarian
Muslim countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Maldives and Bangladesh; egalitarian Buddhist countries like
Bhutan and Srilanka (though Srilanka is more religiously mixed; and Hindu countries like India and Nepal.
The transfer and union of cultures results from the south Asian polity under monarchy which extended
over to South Asian countries. The culture, art, architecture, cuisine, religion surpass beyond the borders of the
states and directs it in the path of a super-national entity. The Asia values associated with the South Asian
culture is significant in developing a sense of commonalities, faith and cooperation among the people of South
Asian countries and thus creates a pan Asian identity. This reflects that the South Asian region believes in the
union of civilization, rather than clash of civilization (Arif, 2014).
It is difficult to discover the starting and ending point of a civilization. There was transformation in the
relationship between nations and civilization during/at the end of World War I. From then, civilization had been
introduced as a “singular and universal phenomena in much of the world”(Duara, 2001). Most analysts find
civilizations to be complicated and mixed as civilizations are open to the outside influence (Jackson, 2010).
Civilization is “an open-ended process, a discursive formation shaped by contestations generated from within
and from without. It is an ongoing processes, and in particular, as ongoing processes through which
boundaries are continually produced and reproduced” (Rudolph, 2010: 137; Hall and Jackson, 2007a: 6).
Boundary separation determines a civilization. The importance of social dynamics is present in the
notion of civilization. In order to know the values of social dynamics, one needs to understand the composition
of civilization and the boundaries associated with it. The study on the prevalence of rigid border in civilization
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
159
appears like structural realists’ explanation for the relations between states in a multipolar system. He highlights
on inter-civilizational anarchy not being different from interstate anarchy. Thus, he brings the relevance of
civilization and their social dynamics to the study of contemporary world politics (Jackson, 2010). The debates
on civilization continue. On one hand, civilization is “monocultural at home and multicultural in abroad”
(Jackson, 2010), as Huntington says. On the other hand, modern civilizational analysts consider civilization to
be varied within and say that a distinct line divides one civilization from the other. It is difficult to recognize a
civilization or draw a fine line to separate one civilization from the other (Jackson, 2010).
In the discourse on civilization, the “civilizational constellation” becomes an important concept which
needs to be understood. There is lack of distinct boundaries, internal unity, and rigid amalgamation in the notion
of “civilizational constellations (Jackson, 2010).” Katzenstein says, “Civilizations are not static and consensual
but dynamic and politically contested” (Katzenstein, 2009). Civilizational constellation in the past is thus
marked by the multiplicity and pluralism in the present. Despite divergence in the course of contestation around
different concerns, there is “unity in diversity” in all civilizations (Katzenstein, 2009). Contemporary literatures
on civilization reject Huntingtonian essentialism in different ways. The temporal variability of a civilization
focuses on the combination of multiplicity of historical practices and processes in order to generate certain
uniqueness. The internal discussion and dialogue among members of a civilization emphasizes on the
controversial nature of those debates (Jackson, 2010).Jackson takes into account the views of Benedict
Anderson who says, “National communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the
style in which they are imagined” (Jackson, 2010, Anderson, 1991:6). Anderson explicitly argues about the
“character of human community and human social action” and observes how people manage to survive in a
group. Susanne Rudolph carries an open discussion about the nature and boundaries of civilization which
structures the activities of participants in those debates. Rudolph takes the debate more towards Indigenous
Indian society (Jackson, 2010)
Indus Valley Civilization: Threshold of Civilization Discourse
Indus valley civilization is the largest civilization of the four ancient world civilizations- Egypt, Mesopotamia
and China. Still, it is the least known civilization as its scripts have not been translated yet. Although there are
around 400 different symbols originated on many pieces of pottery, seals, amulets and other artifacts, the
civilization still lacks the means of translating the script, as a result, the discovery of Indus valley civilization
still remains ambiguous (Shri Devasthanam, 2014).
The historical study suggests that Indus valley culture (3300–1700 BCE) flourished along the Indus river
basin and its streams in present Pakistan. The remains of this culture are also seen in the northern Afghanistan
along the Oxus river, in the current Gujrat and Haryana state in central India. When the people left the Indus
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
160
valley, they also left behind many cities and towns; especially Harappa, Mohenjo Daro and Lothal. The
knowledge about human settlement in history reveals that the Indus valley people were well- planned and well-
organized (Shri Devasthanam, 2014).
Three main theories have been proposed to explain the origin of Indus valley civilization and its
relationship with Hinduism. First, the Indus valley civilization was considered as an Aryan civilization and its
script had roots in the earlier Sanskrit. The Harappan civilization which disappeared was noticeable during the
time of excavation at Harappa. Various forms of scripts like Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, or even old Slavic,
were found during Harappan civilization. This theory of considering Indus valley civilization as an Aryan
civilization has been raised by different groups to prove that Aryan culture was not the outcome of migration
but rather the culture is indigenous to the Indian sub-continent. Second, the Indus valley culture was viewed as
proto-Dravidian. This culture is taken an important component of the indigenous culture of the Indian sub-
continent. This is a popular theory developed by Russian and Finnish teams of researchers in the late 1960s and
1970s, which reveals that the cryptograms can be derivative of the Dravidian language group found particularly
in South India, some are scattered throughout India, particularly in northern Pakistan. The link between Aryan
or Dravidian culture and modern Hinduism is based on the images on the Indus seals like the image of the bull
and the mother goddess, etc as evidence to Hinduism. In the recent years, a team of American researchers have
proposed a third theory which shows that there is not any relationship between Indus valley civilizations with
Aryan or Dravidian culture and Hinduism. The genesis of the Indus symbols from Aryan or Dravidian culture
cannot be evidence of written language. As a result, it has been argued that the Indus valley civilization is
uncultivated and thus it has no relation with Aryan or Dravidian cultures (Shri Devasthanam, 2014). Thus, it is
difficult to reach to a conclusion that Indus valley civilization has or doesn’t have any connection to ancient
Hinduism.
India: A Civilization Territory (A Role Model)
The discussion on civilization provides the insights of India. Indian civilization was weakened by the
state of California. The state of California passed down an explanation of Indian history which did not consider
Indian culture and religion to be indigenous to the subcontinent. As a result, Indians in the United States and
non-Indians received the non-indigenous explanation of Indian history. Such explanation of Indian history by
outsiders would give different understanding to the notion of Indian civilization (Jackson, 2010).
The contemporary and historical perspectives are combined while addressing the civilizational politics
of India (Katzenstein, 2009). Rudolph categorizes the term “civilization” into two forms: first, civilization raises
singularity and holism, second, civilization brings up the idea of heterogeneity and plurality. The former
constructs civilization as “an internally homogeneous cultural program with firm boundaries” (Rudolph, 2010:
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
161
137) and constitutes the idea that people within boundaries find people outside boundaries as the other
(Rudolph, 2010).Ashis Nandy argument on the perception of self and other captures this idea of viewing people
within boundaries as “self” and people outside boundaries as “others” (Nandy, 2005). The latter form of
civilization is considered as “a heterogeneous and pluralist concept” (Rudolph, 2010: 137), in this form of
civilization, there is permeability of borders and engagement of one civilization with other civilizations in
which the members share identities. Pluralists and open civilizations learn from each other and they share many
features among each other (Rudolph, 2010), like Indian civilization.
When a civilization is viewed as “other,” there arise the thought of taking the “other” civilization as
different and a threat to its own civilization (Rudolph, 2010). The thought of differences in the notion of
civilizations might lead to clash between civilizations. Huntington finds the clash between civilizations as the
threat to world peace and highlights on the importance of international cross-civilization cooperation in
restoring peace. He says that there has been reconfiguration of world politics as the dispute on ideological
differences has shifted to the contest on cultural differences. Huntington provides a strategic framework for the
West to conserve its culture and claims that people around the globe should learn to survive in such complex
and multi-civilizational world (Huntington, 1996). This theory of clash of civilizations of Huntington came
across many criticisms.
Amartya Sen (1999) claims, “Diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world. Western civilization is
no exception. The practice of democracy that has won out in the modern West is largely a result of a consensus
that has emerged since the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, and particularly in the last century or
so. To read in this a historical commitment of the West--over the millennia--to democracy, and then to contrast
it with non-Western traditions (treating each as monolithic) would be a great mistake” (Sen, 1999: 16).
Rudolph also challenges the claims made by Huntington on Hindu civilization. “Hindu civilization” takes into
account religion, the one comprehensive cultural factor which overthrows all other factors. She organizes the
notion of civilization from the term “Hindu” to “Indian.”“Indian civilization” provides room for the debates
among numerous cultural elements. Thus, civilization exists as fusion of different cultural factors. They never
remain pure and become mix or hybrid overtime. Rudolph (2010) presents that syncretism and hybridity are
prevalent in Indian civilization. The notion of Indian civilization provides a historical background in presenting
the enough commonality existing among the South Asian countries in terms of language, arts, literature and
religion. The role of both insiders (deshis) and outsiders (videshis) is significant in creation of Indian
civilization as the ongoing debate on the meaning of Indian civilization is based on what these insiders and
outsiders decide to emphasize. In this context, means do not justify the end as no specific conclusion is derived
from the ongoing debates on Indian civilization (Rudolph, 2010).
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
162
Over time, civilization has developed in alternative forms, upon which Rudolph draws our attention.
Rudolph says that the discourses on civilization work as ideologies did. She has presented four variants-
Orientalist, Anglicist, liberal nationalist, and Hindu nationalist variants- of Indian civilization so as to highlight
the “fluid, civilization and changing life forms” to be the foundation of the historical actors and not the creation
of entities like boundaries (Rudolph, 2010).
Variants of Indian civilization
The East India company officials in India shaped the Orientalist variant in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries. Like Western civilization was based on Greek and Roman texts, the “classical Indian
civilization of Orientalists” (Rudolph, 2010: 140) was based on Sankrit language which was interpreted in
India’s traditional texts. The Orientalists gave the concept of “civilization” on India in post-colonial writing. In
this way, the intellectual understanding of Indian civilization (Asian culture, language and people) was
introduced as a new civilization throughout the world. There was “made-in-Europe image of Indian
civilization” (Rudolph, 2010: 141) in the first-half of the nineteenth century. The Anglicist variants came into
play and the image of Indian society was dominated by the utilitarian and evangelical East India company
officials. The first and second generation Indians who were influenced by the Western education supported this
Western domination. Instead of using Indian languages in the education system, the Anglicists introduced
English languages for educating Indians, and the historical evidence introduced in the books written in Sanskrit
language was given less value. Thus, English language used as a tool for educating Indians contributed to the
victory of the Anglicists in making Indians “Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in
morals, and in intellect” (Clive and Pinney, 1972: 249, Rudolph, 2010).
Western literature imposed a different view of Indian history and challenged the “classical Indian
civilization of Orientalists.” The two images of Indian civilization shown by Orientalists and Anglicists are
produced by the Indian actors within India under the influence of external civilizational retort. Rudolph explains
the arguments made by Benedict Anderson (1991) as “nationalism is the appropriation of the process for
characterizing the nation which spills over into the production of civilizational marker” (Rudolph, 2010: 141).
Thus, the discourse on Indian civilization shows how the “outsider is inside” in a colonized country like India
and continues the debate on Indian civilization.
The third variant of Indian civilization explains the inclusionary type of liberal nationalist and
exclusionary type of Hindu nationalist. The image of Indian civilization keeps on changing based on how the
participants are involved in the discourse of Indian civilization and it became more unbalanced in the nineteenth
century. Many aspects of Indian civilization found in the traditional society wiped away and it became difficult
to hold features associated with Indian civilization. Indian civilization, which included peacefulness, religion
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
163
and poverty, now comprise violence, expansion of middle class and politics like nuclear capability, IT
revolution, etc. The third variant of Indian civilization suggests that the Indian subcontinent has “composite
civilization” which accepts many religions, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Swami Vivekanandan’s attempt
to represent Hinduism at the World Parliament of Religion in 1983 pressurized European image of Indian
civilization. Many textbooks once again included the Hindu nationalist as the leading actor, thereby rebuilding
the Indian history and Indian civilization. Gandhi and Nehru viewed Indian civilization as open and liberal.
They adopted non-violent means to freedom and discussed on the existing theology, simplicity and social
hierarchy associated with Indian civilization. A liberal nationalist thus played an important role in bringing back
the classical construct of Orientalists and restructuring the representation of Indian civilization disgraced by the
utilitarians/evangelicals. India became habitat to various civilizational branches, thereby representing Indian
civilization as complex and liberal. There has been ongoing debate between Hindu nationalist variant of
civilization and liberal nationalist variants of civilization since long. The fourth variant of civilization, Hindu
nationalist variant of civilization, contains the discourse on Indian history. Different battles have been fought by
Indians over the demonstration of history of Indian sub-continent and foundation of Indian civilization. There
are several stories told on the origin of Indian civilization; some believe that the roots of Indian civilization lie
in “Aryaninvasion” and Aryans wrote the Hinduism texts, Rigveda. On one hand, theories suggest that Aryan
civilization is Indus valley civilization of ancient Harappa, while some consider Indus valley culture as proto-
Dravidian. These theories differently explain the origin of Indus valley civilization and its relationship with
Hinduism. On the other hand, Hindutva/advocates of Hindu nationalists see the image of civilization as “closed
and self-contained.” They do not accept the claim that the people and culture of India is the result of invasion or
movement, rather, they argue that Aryans were perhaps the inhabitants of Harappa and Rigveda was introduced
by native Harappans. There are both inside and outside facets of Indian civilization. Inside, there was revision
of Indian history of sub-continent in the text-books of schools. Outside, there was an appeal made to the
California State Board of Education by the “diasporic Indian partisans of the indigenous thesis” (Rudolph,
2010:151) for correcting the California public school readers. The Hindu nationalist variant of civilization
raised a question if Muslim sovereign should be included as a part of complete India or as enemy/foreigners.
Although there is existence of syncretism and hybridity in the Indian civilization, Hindu nationalism avoids
syncretic route of Muslim rule. This shows how Hindu nationalism tries to destroy the mixed inheritance of
Indian civilization in order to renovate India into a “homogeneous Hindu civilization” (Rudolph, 2010: 152).
Hindutva takes the majority Hinduism (850 million) as primary civilization of the Indian subcontinent,
and it also takes into account the non-Hindu minorities. Identity politics in India also shaped the exclusivist
nature of Indian civilization. In a multi-religious nation like India, political Hinduism came into power in
1990sand started using extreme anti-Muslim idea in order to secure and develop its political future. Behind the
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
164
hidden political benefit of Hindu extremists, Muslims were represented as a foreigner due to search for a “pure”
Hindu civilization in Indian religion of the Indian history. Hinduism has thus played a significant role in
representing the culture and politics of South Asia. Both the intellectual and cultural communities have been
working eventually on changing the version of Indian civilization (Rudolph, 2010).
Indian Civilization from the Perspective of Tagore and Gandhi
Nationalism is important in the discussion of civilization. Based on civilization links, particular groups
of community or citizens of a particular nation develop the feeling of nationalism. Indian civilization brings
forth the idea that burden of colonial legacy impacted the nationalism. It is essential to understand the history of
South Asia deeply. To understand nationalism, one can go into the history of ideas on nationalism and analyze
the ideas brought by the thinkers of South Asia, and also look at the notion of ethnic nationalism shaped by the
Indian civilization. The two important figures in history, Tagore and Gandhi, have presented their own views on
the discourse of civilization through the lens of nationalism. Tagore and Gandhi understood South Asian
(Indian) social fabric and their idea of nationalism as different. Ethnic identities shape the idea of neighborhood
in South Asia. Neighborhood in South Asia is redefined by triad. After colonization, the process of state
formation in India and Pakistan includes the concept of ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism was also present
in South Asia before 1947. British used ethnic identities as exploitation. Ethnic identities then came against
state after British went (Anderson, 1991). In the course of colonial domination, Western civilization travelled
conceptually throughout the world and influenced the meaning of civilization in the Indian subcontinent
(Jackson, 2010).
Discourse on civilization from Tagore’s understanding of nationalism
Rabindranath Tagore turned out to be an important part within the discourse on nationalism.
Nationalism is derived from the concept of nation and has ideological underpinnings attached to it. Notion of
territoriality differs- nation as an artificial construct- patriotism more tied to the construct as it is tied to home.
He was against the concept of nationalism as ‘self’ distinguishes from ‘other.’ He says that the distinction
between self and other do not really come in home. So, there should be global imagination of nationalism. This
concept of nationalism is anti-Indian as it goes beyond the cultural and religious notion of nationalism. He
differed from other thinkers, in a sense; he says that Indus valley civilization cannot be understood by past, but
in medieval India, this notion is explained. Identity of Indian nation cannot be built on rigid boundaries but
instead need to go with fluidity (Anderson, 1991).
Tagore influenced the Bengali literature and political movement of Bangladesh which shapes the
identity politics in Bangladesh. It has been argued that Tagore had a different perceptive of Indian civilization
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
165
and history which made him imagine ahead of nationalistic dialogue. Tagore’s understanding of nationalism is
critique of realist perspective. For realist, self-interest determines the state behavior. Tagore, on the other hand,
objects the sovereign power of state as it harms the development of individual liberty. He places spiritual
freedom over political freedom. He prefers to use the word “patriotism” and not “nationalism.” He had mix
perception of autonomy, the self, religion and originality. He looks at the negative side of nationalist violence
that ignores individual decorum and sovereignty. For Tagore, society is above the state. He is highly committed
to the welfare of society and is against the use of violence in forming nationalist states. He aims to orchestrate
all human races within the South Asia region and defines nation as a political and economic union of people.
Tagore’s outlook towards nation and State was seen as opposing which shows his willingness towards society
(Rahman, 2013).
For Tagore, “Nations live in an atmosphere of fear, greed, and panic, due to the preying of one nation
upon other [sic] for material wealth. Its civilization is carnivorous and cannibalistic, feeding upon the blood of
weaker nations. Its one idea is thwart all greatness outside its own boundaries. Never before were there such
terrible jealousies, such betrayals of trust; all this is called patriotism, whose creed is politics” (Rahman, 2013:
148).
Tagore finds the origin of India’s problem in the social context and not political, and thus suggests for
the need of social cooperation in order to deal with the social problems with confidence. Rahman presents
Tagore’s nation-state as aggressive and competitive on the outside and disciplinary and dominant internally
which lead to the decomposition of identity. Rahman captures the Tagore’s understanding of civilization
through the lens of nationalism. Extremist activities in the name of nation during the anti-British movement was
really disturbing for Tagore because Tagore had perception of fear of World War I which he thought was the
result of extreme nationalism of Europe. The constructed identity of Bangladesh has been exposed by the
cultural pluralists. People who have constructed the political history of Bangladesh, propose the “usable past,”
and understand history to legitimize their political mission. Rahman senses the values of Tagore’s vision of
ideal society as a driving factor that leads towards a better future, thereby raising concern for social and
individual freedom (Rahman, 2013).
Discourse on Civilization from Gandhi’s understanding of nationalism
Like Tagore, Gandhi was also against the notion of nationalism as it seems to be ideology-based. Gandhi
talks about civic nationalism, which is a universal concept and entails for the need to respect for the dignity of
human beings. In Gandhi’s understanding of nationalism, the difference between ‘self’ and ‘other’ is absent. He
brings forth the idea that notion of justice; right and self-development need to supplement the notion of
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
166
nationalism. Gandhi is a grand strategists and his idea is solely associated with the understanding of non-
violence, compassion and kindness (Anderson, 1991).
Gandhi says that men have not been able to be perfect in any part of this world. He compares Indian
civilization with Western civilization. He says that Indian civilization has belief in God and is intended towards
being a moral human being while Western civilization is godless and spreads immorality through the world.
Thus, Mahatma Gandhi appeals every Indians to attach to their ancient Indian civilization (Gandhi, 2014).
Nehru and Gandhi played an important role in shaping the image of inclusivist civilization. Gandhi believed
that every religion holds truth, while Nehru believed religion to be artificial facts which would fade away.
Gandhi’s and Nehru’s explanation on religion shows the rationalist and spiritualist version attached to the
inclusivist variant of Indian civilization (Rudolph, 2010).
V. Main Results
The liberal nationalist advanced the classical construct of Orientalists and the Hindu nationalist considered
Hinduism primary in the representation of Indian civilization, which arose the feeling of exclusion among
Muslims in India. For Gandhi, there lies truth in all religion and he talks about civic civilization which involves
respect for the dignity of human beings, and like Gandhi, Tagore also discovers the essence of civilization in the
society rather than politics. The discussion on civilization provides the ground reality of Indian civilization to be
fluid and dynamic as there is ongoing debate between Western and Asian thinkers on the image of Indian
civilization, and the debate on the origin of Indian civilization still remains a matter of contest. The paper
attempts to open up the discourse on Indian civilization by exploring the influence of outsiders in shaping the
image of Indian civilization. So, it is necessary that Indian civilization is studied deeply than just highlighting
on the critique of Asian thinkers about Huntingtonian explanation on civilization.
VI. Conclusion
The South Asian countries, despite being attached to distictive cultural beliefs and practices, have a
colonial past and thus there is a shared cultural environment in South Asia. In order to encounter if South Asia
has a common past, the Indian civilization and civilizational politics of India has been reflected through both the
contemporary and historical perspectives. There has been ongoing discourse on civilization between the
thinkers of South Asia (Susanne Hoeber Rudolph) and thinkers of the West (Samuel P. Huntington).The history
of South Asia is studied through understanding of Indus valley civilization which presents a common ground for
cultural and civilizational associations of South Asian countries. The discussion on Indus valley civilization
provides different claims related to its relationship with Hinduism and the origin of Indian civilization.
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
167
Language was used as a tool by both Orientalists (Sanskrit language) and Anglicists (English language) to
present their influence on the history of Indian civilization during eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Availability of Data and Materials: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Funding: There was no funding support for this study.
Authors' Contributions: All authors contributed equally to this work. All the authors have read and approved the final version
manuscript.
References
Acharya, A. (2011). Asia is not One: Regionalism and the Ideas of Asia. The Journal of Asian Studies, 69 (4),
1001-1013.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined community: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso,
London.
Mohammad-Arif, A. (2014). Introduction. Imaginations and Constructions of South Asia: An Enchanting
Abstraction?. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal, 10, 1-27.
Bose, S., Jalal, A. (2004). Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political economy. Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group, New York.
Clive, J., Piney, T. (1973). Thomas Babington Macauley: Selected Writings. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Duara, P. (2001). The discourse of civilization and pan-Asianism, Journal of World History, 12 (1), 99-130.
Gandhi, M. (1938). Indian home rule. Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, India.
Hall, M., Jackson, P.T. (2007). Civilizational Identity: The Production and Reproduction of “civilizations” in
International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Huntington, S.P. (1996). The class of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster,
NewYork.
Jackson, P.T. (2010). How to think about civilizations. In: Katzenstein P (ed.) Civilizations in World Politics:
Plural and Pluralist Perspectives. Routledge, London and New York.
Katzenstein, P.J. (2010). Civilizations in world politics: plural and pluralist perspectives. Routledge, Taylor &
Francis, New York.
Khilani, S., Raghavan, V., Thiruvengadam, A.K. (2013). Comparative Constitutionalism in South Asia.
Oxford University Press, UK.
V.P. Jayshwal and S.K. Shah Narratives of ‘Common Civilization’ of South Asia
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
168
Markovits, C. (2014). Thinking India in South Africa: Gandhi’s Conundrum. South Asia Multidisciplinary
Academic Journal, 10, 1-10.
Masica, C.P. (2005). Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Orient Blackswan, India.
Miller, D. (1985). Ideology and the Harappan civilization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 4 (1), 34-
71.
Milner, A., Johnson, D. (2001). The idea of Asia. In: Ingleson, J. (Ed.), Regionalism, Subregionalism and
APEC, Monash Asia Institute, Clayton.
Nandy, A. (2005). The idea of South Asia: a personal note on post‐Bandung blues. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies,
6 (4), 541-545.
Rahman, M.S. (2013). Bangladesh: State, Nation and Tagore. In: Ahmed, I., Dubey, M., Sikri, V. (Ed.)
Contemporarising Tagore and the world. The University Press Limited, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Rudolph, S.H. (2010). Four variants of Indian civilization. In: Katzenstein P (ed.), Civilizations in World
Politics: Plural and Pluralist Perspectives. Routledge, London and New York.
Shri Devasthanam. (2014). Hinduism and the Indus valley civilization. Retreived from
https://sanskrit.org/hinduism-and-the-indus-valley-civilization/.
Singh, N. (2005). The idea of South Asia and the role of the middle class. UC Santa Cruz: Santa Cruz Center
for International Economics. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3868p628
Sen, A.K. (1999). Democracy as a universal value. Journal of Democracy, 10 (3), 3-17.
Yamazaki, M. (1996). Asia, a Civilization in the Making. Foreign Affairs, 75 (4), 106-118.
Wei, R. (2012). Two Concepts of" Civilization". Comparative Civilizations Review, 67 (67), 6-26.
