Extremely surprised to see this bit of news.
views ?
This Pakistani theatre group brought Ram and Sita to the stage. ‘It’s our Ramayana too’
Ramayan in Karachi ?
Posted on Categories UncategorizedPublished by
Extremely surprised to see this bit of news.
views ?
This Pakistani theatre group brought Ram and Sita to the stage. ‘It’s our Ramayana too’
As a liberal Pakistani, I personally think this is great news. We should own all our culture–not just the Muslim parts. Even though The Ramayana has no religious significance for non-Hindus, it is still part of the wider South Asian culture. After all, stories from The Ramayana are presented as part of Indonesian shadow plays (Indonesia is the most populous Muslim majority country).
I actually know Yogeshwar (the director). He works at T2F in Karachi and was involved in organizing a music performance I gave there last year. I’ve also seen him act in a few plays at T2F.
Only civilizational epics endure, against all odds. Just as the Odyssey and the Iliad for the Western civilization; it’s the Ramayana and the Mahabharata for all of the Indic civilization, even those parts that no longer conciously identify as Indic.
I will take issue with the term “civilizational”. You may need to elaborate what you mean by that.
There are plenty of Pakistanis (and perhaps Indian Muslims) who don’t care for The Ramayana and The Mahabharata at all. That’s completely fine. I don’t expect Hindus to gush about the Shahanameh for example.
For what it’s worth, the play seems to have gotten a good reaction from audiences. No one was appalled that Hindu mythology was being staged (perhaps some people were but they just chose not to attend the performance).
I especially liked the anecdote where people came up to the actors playing Ram and Sita after the show and wanted a picture with “Ram ji and Sita ji”. The actress playing Sita had to clarify that she is an actress 🙂
Since you take issues with “civilizational”, no point clarifying what I mean?
Actually I’m curious now, what is the issue being taken? The dichotomy of taking issue/offence and repeated speech policing/censorship while waxing eloquent about the benefits of a Humanities education is endlessly fascinating.
Taking issue is not the same as taking offence. Neither am I calling for censorship.
I asked Nivedita to explain exactly what her use of “civilizational” implies. The debate about whether India is a civilizational state vs. a nation-state continues to be a live one. The Hindu Right believes that it is a civilizational state while the Indian Left believes it’s a nation-state. Like all nation-states it has arbitrary borders.
“Indic” also (to me) seems like a code word for Hindu. I am open to an explanation that this is not the case.
Additionally, the Shahanameh is about pre-Islamic Persia; Rustom and Sohrab being one such story. Surprising that you don’t take issue there?
So, most Indians and Persians connect at the civilizational level, beyond recent religious upheavals like the Islamic invasion of both Persia and Hindustan.
I am well aware that The Shahnameh is about pre-Islamic Persia. My point was only that Hindus may not relate to it. And that’s fine. It’s not a value judgment. I believe in people being free to relate or not relate to whatever they want.
“Hindustan” is a Persian word. It’s the Persian term for the land beyond the Indus. If you’re going to be a consistent Hindu nationalist, probably you should call your country “Bharat”.
Since this was a discussion about civilization, my point was that Persians and Indians connect at a civilizational level which spans many centuries, beyond the ups and downs of rulers and arbitrary nation state boundaries.
What you may not realize is that Hindus relate to any other sister civilizational state and their epics by virtue of shared history over millenia.
I used the word Hindustan deliberately to emphasize the pre-Islamic Persia-Hindustan connect. If I were to use the correct word in today’s context, it would be Akhand Bharat.
I’m no one to tell other people what they should or should not relate to. Similarly, if Pakistani Muslims (for example) choose to have nothing whatsoever to do with The Ramayana, that should be fine as well.
“Akhand Bharat” is problematic because it implies that India has a territorial claim on Pakistan and Bangladesh. Perhaps, I’m being over-sensitive but you can see why Pakistanis would interpret this term as de-legitimizing our nation-state.
By that yardstick it should not be problematic if Hindus do not relate to the Mughals or any part of Islamic history in India. I personally do not have issues with either.
I am certainly not de-legitimizing the nation state of Pakistan. It very much exists and I don’t think anyone would want to lay any territorial claim to it. This does not change the fact that those severed lands were part of Akhand Bharat since that term itself predates Islam or indeed the Islamic invasion of India.
I actually don’t disagree with you (surprise surprise). I’m certainly not forcing Hindus to relate to the Mughals. My problem is only when politicians re-write history as is currently being done in the NCERT textbooks. This is turning an academic subject (History) into state propaganda. That experiment was tried in Pakistan. It’s called “Pakistan Studies” and it has had terrible results. I grew up abroad so I never had to take “Pakistan Studies” except for one semester at college. (Part of the state propaganda is that people are required to study “Pakistan Studies” and “Islamiat” at both the school and university level.)
On “Akhand Bharat” I fundamentally disagree with you and agree with the Indian Left. British India was not a nation-state but a colony (similarly Mughal India was not a nation-state but an empire). Upon decolonization, parts of the colony decided to go their own way. I don’t really see why this is so indefensible for so many people.
British India also included Burma but somehow we don’t see the Hindu Right pining after Burma the way they pine after Pakistan.
On a slightly different note: I was trying to remember which adaptation of The Ramayana I read. I think it was the one by Ramesh Menon. The book cover looks vaguely familiar.
I do not think India was simply a colony
BRITISH India was a colony. This is not debatable but simply a statement of objective fact.
it is interesting – idol worship is “shirk” in Islam so it is very interesing how pluralism, genuine pluralism, can emerge.
Yes, true. I think fighting rigid religious dogma is challenging. I have seen many Indian Muslims reconcile these clearly contradictory notions comfortably. I would say that living in a plural society helps loosen the rigidity of monotheistic faiths in contrast to the worsening of rigidity in predominantly monotheistic societies. Kind of explains the cognitive flexibility in Indians across religion to handle seemingly irreconcilable aspects.
Many South Asian Muslims worship at shrines like that of Nizamuddin Auliya in Delhi. Many Hindus worship at these shrines as well.
Of course more Orthodox Muslims would consider shrine worship to be “shirk” as well.
AB is like EU?
European countries voluntarily chose to join the EU. Your own country (the UK) voluntarily chose to leave it.
I have absolutely no problem with the nation-states of South Asia choosing to come together in an EU type situation (it’s not going to happen though while India and Pakistan hate each other). However, “Akhand Bharat” implies that India has a territorial claim on all the other countries. That’s what makes it problematic.
more like millennia?
Yes!
“Akhand Bharat”
Sri Lanka never considered itself part of Ajhand Bharat since about 2,500 years ago.
Neither do South Indian Kerala and Tamil Nadu Kingdoms consider Sri Lanka to be part of their territory. They have however invaded a few times to loot and pillage. The longest being the Cholas in the 10th century and occupied North Central SL for 80 years
It is only the North Indians who have these “Akhand Bharat” concept that even many South Indians reject.
Yes!
“Akhand Bharat” is a terminology that is extremely offensive to citizens of all South Asian countries minus India.
I keep trying to get XTM to understand this. Using this terminology is a sign of allegiance to soft Hindutva at the very least.
Sure, we’re all entitled to our opinions. I wouldn’t generalize across South India though.
I’m clearly not talking about nation states as we know today. Just like Persia encompasses more than what is today’s Iran; Akhand Bharat encompasses more than what is today’s India. This should not be interpreted as having territorial aspirations on any nation states.
We were all part of the British empire; does that mean Britain still has territorial aspirations on any parts of the empire?
I’m not personally accusing you of anything. Again, all of us are entitled to use whatever phrases we want.
But you seem to be deliberately overlooking the point that all South Asian countries besides India find the idea of “Akhand Bharat” deeply uncomfortable if not downright offensive. They see it as de-legitimizing the territorial integrity of their nation-states. Even Nepal doesn’t like this term, Sri Lanka doesn’t. Pakistan certainly doesn’t.
The British are not pining for the return of their empire (at least most of them aren’t). If they were doing so then the phrase “British India” would be offensive as well. Right now it’s just a descriptive term for the former colony. I personally use it when referring to the pre-1947 entity.
Civilizational continuity is different from the very concept of nation state.
Soft bullying is certainly not going to prevent me from using Akhand Bharat for a civilization that existed far before creations of nation states. You don’t like it, don’t use it.
I don’t take offence to your casual dismissal of the Indic civilization or it’s epics or your refusal to identify with any pre-Islamic rulers. It’s your perspective, whether I find it deeply offensive or not is immaterial. I think you should extend others the same courtesy.
It’s not about you and me. How many times do I have to repeat that you are free to use whatever terms you want? I am however free to judge you for your political ideology.
But if India as a country uses this concept of “Akhand Bharat” it can only expect other regional countries to find it extremely offensive. This is a problem of inter-state relations.
Stop pretending you don’t take offense. You have called me an “Islamist” and an “Islamofascist”. You are a Soft Hindutvadi at best and a Hard Hindutvadi at worst.
I’m clearly not talking about nation states as we know today.
Sri Lanka has identified itself as a Nation State for over 2,000+ years. We have the longest continuous written history in South Asia, the Mahavamsa. Consistent dating system too, i.e. since the Passing of the Buddha…
Oral and written in 6 AD
Heck even even Asoka Mayura was identified and dated using the Mahavamsa. It is not the Ramayana that is in the consciousness in Sri Lanka. It is Asoka Mayura as he was instrumental in introducing Buddhism to SL
To quote from the Mahavamsa Chapter 5; This Chapter references the Moriyas, Bindusara and Chandragupta among others.
Be it known, that two hundred and eighteen years had passed from the nibbana of the Master unto Asoka’s consecration.
Below has more detail
https://www.brownpundits.com/2018/06/01/lanka-and-kalinga/
You’re re-affirming the civilizational link between India and SL based on the written word. That’s what my point was all about; civilizational continuity.
SL has never used the word ““Akhand Bharat”
And has been a “Nation State” for over 2,000 years.
India as a nation state did mot exist until recently. Even ““Akhand Bharat” was never a concept in what is now called India.
Dont push your “North Indian” megalomania.
I dont think Tamil Nadu or Kerala care for it..
100%
“Civilizational continuity” is a Hindutva code. People are entitled to vote for whoever they like but don’t pretend to be obejective.
I completely agree with Sbarrkum. The Republic of India was created on August 15, 1947. Exactly the same moment when Pakistan was created.
All this India is real and a “civilizational state” while Pakistan is a fake entity is deeply offensive.