Ancient India: Action Sequences

Non-violence is a good thing. But should we lie to ourselves and say that ancient India was non-violent? Or free from violence? The popular myth told over and over by many in India is that violence was introduced – by the Abrahamic religionists – to a non-violent place: ancient India.

Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru have been the biggest, successful proponents of the idea of a non-violent ancient India. This idea, however, has little to do with historical reality. Because ancient India has its own share of violence, both political and religious, which cannot be dismissed as insignificant.

The Muslims and the British are casually finger pointed at as the sole agents of violence, if or when they talk about the blood drops on the pages of history. While conveniently overlooking the inconvenient truth: the casual and regular violence (organized violence or otherwise) among Hindus.

The rulers and principalities had fought throughout the historical timeline, to sustain or further their interests. So we, as historians and intellectuals, may debate about the boundary between the force required to sustain power and the excess that led to tyranny and oppression. We will then be in a position to express our views on history, and its attendant violence, more accurately. And become more nuanced. And not act like the belligerent and the uninformed.

India’s text books are out of sync with historical realities, as far as the omission of the violence of ancient India is concerned; this makes the young students (i.e. young voters) susceptible to the myth that India was free of religious conflict until the arrival of the Muslims.

Upinder Singh's Book On Political Violence In Ancient India:

REFERENCES
Opinion: Why it’s essential for school students to learn about religious violence in ancient India