'Parampara' and India i.e. Bharat

India i.e. Bharat. The constitution of Modern India starts with this phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean or does it define the geographical territory that is India? Certainly, yes. Does the Constitution of modern India defines what is Bharat or What is Bharatiyata? Certainly not. 

Certain features, characteristics of Bharatiya Sabhayta are imbibed in the modern constitution but it dose not define the Bhartiya Sabhyata entirely. Then what does? Does the Bhagvad Gita, Ved, Vedanga, Upanishads, Purana, Aranyaka, Brahmnyaka define the Bharatiyta? yes. 

These are the literary sources that define Bhartiyata. Is definition of Bharatiyata limited to these literary sources? Certainly not. There are multiple factors that define the Bharatiya Sabhyata.

The Sindhu-Saraswati Civilization has given magnificent archeological wonders that define the initial stages of Sabhyata. It is now proven with scientific studies and excavations that human inhabitations were not limited to the areas commonly known as or described as Sindhu-Saraswati area. 

Recent excavations, DNA studies have debunked the Aryan invasion, migration theory. It is now very much clear that India i.e. Bharat has perpetuity of thousands of years. 

Bhartiya Sabhyata has faced multiple invasions. In terms of armed invasions and in terms of cultural also. But with necessary modifications the original civilizational crux is intact. 

Urdu poet Mohammad Iqbal has written in his famous poem 'सारे जहाँ से अच्छा...' that 'युनान-ओ-मिस्र मिट गये, मगर हस्ती मिटती नही हमारी' (This very Mohammad Iqbal later on coined the Two Nation Theory that resulted in bloody partition of the Bharat is different matter.) But the fact remains that Indian civilization, culture is intact. 

There are many threats to this culture, civilization but we Indians are smart enough and collective enough to identify the threat and work to revive, protect the civilizational values. On this brief background the question needs to be answered how the Bharatiya Civilization has survived!

 Puranas are one of the important literary sources for the understanding of ancient history. Especially the social aspect of that period. Purana also explain various traditions i.e. Parampara that are still prevalent. 

These Parampara are not in terms of Kulachar, festivals etc but in terms of lineage, tradition that defines the civilizational value. We often say that Bharatiya Sabhyata has been evolving since ages. What is this evolution? It denotes a great Parampara that has benefited in the perpetuity in the civilization. 

Ramayana and other Purana mentions two Rishis. Vasishtha and Vishwamitra. 

Vasishtha was Rajpurohit in the Kosala i.e. Ayodhya court. Vasishtha is known as the 'Brahmarshi' on the other hand Vishwamitra is known as 'Rajarshi.' 

These two sages-Rishis are not limited to their own wisdom but from there on two different Parampara have emerged. Vasishtha and Vishwamitra Parampara. 

Vasishtha Parampara believes in knowledge, wisdom over Kshatradharma on the other hand Vishwamitra Paramapara believes in both knowledge and Kshatradharma. 

Both these Parampara consider themselves superior to another but there was no enmity, bloody rivalry among them.

We can trace example of acceptance of other point of view in Ramayana itself. When Rishi Vishwamitra visited the court of Dashrath, and requested Raja to give Ram, to destroy Asur who are disturbing the Yajnya. 

There Rishi Vasishtha being Rajpurohit did not pose an objection to Ram-Laxman and Raja Dashrath to accompany Rishi Vishwamitra. He advised Raja that Vishwamitra is wise not just in Ved jnyan but also in Shastra Vidya also. He will guide Ram-Laxman. 

Legacies of vasishtha and Vishwamitra Parampara still continue in various forms. 

One of the greatest political scientist of India, Arya Chanakya mentions importance of Vishwamitra Parampara. Chanakya himself can be considered as Acharya belonging to Vishwamitra Parampara. He has propagated most pragmatic way of Rajya Shastra. 

There can be enormous examples of such wise men, Rishis. According to changes in social dynamics, terminologies are changed but we call those wise men with different term. 

Vishwamitra parampara can be traced in Vidyaranya swami, instrumental in establishment of Vijaynagara empire, Saint Eknath and Ramdas in Maharashtra with respect to Maratha empire. 

 Along with the Vasishtha and Vishwamitra parampara there is another parampara which has to be considered carefully if we want to analyse or answer the question how and why Bhartiya Sabhyata has survived and still evolving.

Bhargav parampara which originated form Rishi Bhrigu and Narayaniya parampara which originated from Mahavishnu. 

There are fundamental distinctions between these two traditions. Bhrigu parampara is static i.e. स्थितिवादी and Narayaniya parampara is dynamic i.e. गतीवादी. 

Bhrigu parampara believes in status quo, maintaining the existing system. It does not accept changes, does not accept other point of views, traditions etc. 

Narayaniya tradition is more open to changes according to changes in social dynamics, expansion of Sabhyata in new areas, changes in science etc. 

Time and again Narayaniya parampara has overpowered the Bhrigu parampara. There are various Puranic examples as well as historic examples. 

In Ramayana, Ram broke the Shiv Dhanushya which originally belonged to Parashuram, when Ram broke it, Ram and Parashuram fought, where Parashuram lost. This fight was not just fight over breaking of Dhanushya. 

It has reference of the paramapra. Parshuram, though known as the Avatar of Vishnu, but he belonged to the Bhrigu parampara and Ram has legacy of the Narayaniya parampara. 

Ram went on to ally with Sugriva and Hanuman, which in historic sense can be termed as tribal kingdoms. Ram went on to ally with the Asura i.e. Vibhishan. 

Another Puranic reference of this Narayaniya parampara is the concept of Dashavatar. 

The most scientific explanation to the Dashavatar concept is through the perceptive of accepting the concept of supreme deity in various areas as the Avatar of Vishnu. Starting from the 'Meen' to 'Buddha.' 

It's the Narayaniya tradition that prevails and expands the fold of Sanatan dharma. 

Another such example can be the entire Mahabharata. Pandavas have created matrimonial alliances with Arya Mahajanpada as well as kingdoms, Janpad those were out of Mahajanpad fold. Arjun married Chitrangada and Ulupi, Bhim married Hidimba etc.

                        

 Post the Ramayana and Mahabhrata, in the known history, as of now, we see number of invasions from North-West frontiers of India have happened. Starting from the Iranian invasion of 5th Century B.C to Alexander to Shaka-Kushana- Huna-Mongols- Ghori- Mogul. How does the concepts of Parampara fit in here? 

When we consider and analyse invasions up to Hunas, we can see the later generations of these invaders resided and got assimilated in Indian/Indic fold. 

It is kind of a secondary matter that what sect within the Indic fold they adopted. for example Shakas, which later on ruled western parts of Indian Subcontinent as Western Kshatraps, adopted Shaiva sect. 

Kushana king Kanishka adopted Buddhism many of them adopted Jainism but the fact remains that they were assimilated in the Indic fold. 

In current times it is very difficult to identify certain group of people as descendants of Shakas, Kushana etc. By DNA studies and other technologies one can establish the genetic traces. 

Keeping all this in mind has the 'Parampara' been trickled down in any sect which originated in India? 

We can see it in Buddhism. Buddhism has a differences among the Hinayana and Mahayana. 

Hinayana sect is more static, stuck to the fundamentals of Buddhism on the other hand Mahayana sect has been expansionist. Hinayana Buddhism does not believe in Idols worships but Mahayana does. In fact the first ever Murtis- Sculptures in India are Buddha murtis. 

Mahayana sect also adopted the Ramayana and Mahabharata, with their own modifications. Mahayana sect and most importantly the Indic values, culture, thought was propagated in South East Asia, East Asia through Mahayana Buddhist monks. 

Keeping all this on one side question arises what about the later invasions? That to be specific the Islamic invasions.

Indian Subcontinent has faced Arabic, to be politically correct in current situations, but to remain honest to the historical facts, it is clear that invasions from Mohammad bin Kasim to Ahmadshah Abadali were in the name of Islam. 

Kasim and Ghazanavi invaded, plundered and went back. Invasion by Ghori and defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan led to establishment of Islamic rules in India. Most of the Northern India had been under Islamic rule from Delhi Sultans to Moguls. For large parts of time the peninsular India was also under Islamic rule. 

What is the difference between Pre-Islamic and Islamic invasions? The difference lies in assimilation. 

Can we say Islam and Islamic rulers and Islamic people assimilated in Indic fold in true sense? The answer unfortunately is no. There are certain exceptions to this. From Adilshahi ruler of Bijapur, Ibrahim Adilshah, Dara Shukoh to Dr. Abdul Kalam and many such can be termed exceptions. 

Babur was born in Samarkand but later generations of Moguls were born in India, but they never consider themselves as Indians. The legacy still continues. 

Every Islamic ruler in Medieval period emphasized on sanction from Iranian or Turki Khalifa. Tipu Sultan also tried his best to establish contact with Afghan ruler and the Ottoman Caliphate to overthrow Marathas initially and British in later struggles. 

Indic civilization has always assimilated various sects, people, race, caste etc. because the flow was two-way. 

Indic fold accepted Kushanas at the same time Kushanas accepted the Buddhism. Indic fold accepted the Shakas and at the same time Shakas accepted the Shaivism. This list can go on. 

What about Islam? There has been some cooperative things on cultural level be it literature, architecture, emergence of new language of Urdu etc. but in Political, social terms Islam and to some extent Christianity in India still consider it as invaders, conquerors, rulers. 

This presentation may seem provocative but the fact remains, we can see traces of this in modern period also. Be it the Khilafat movement, Mopallah rebellion, Direct Action Day, Number of Hindu-Muslim riots, Call for Partition to current protests against CAA. 

                On this background where does the Indian civilizations stand now? The Breaking India Forces as the term coined by Rajiv Malhotra is operating which is threat not just to the political integrity but to the civilizational entity and continuity also. What is the answer to this? Going back to the fundamental principles? What exactly are those? Let's start to learn what the Indian civilization is. Once we learn the greatness of the civilization in  true sense we'll get answers for the future automatically.