Introduction

China’s foreign policy principle of “non-interference,” presented at the Bandung Conference in 1955, was a strategic move to distance itself from the Cold War bloc politics. China strengthened its relationships within the global non-aligned movement by promoting a non-interventionist stance. This concept of non-intervention took on new significance under Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s, as he prioritised a “low profile” in foreign policy to focus on economic development. Chinese leaders believed that pursuing an assertive foreign policy could hinder China’s economic progress by limiting trade partnerships or diverting resources toward military spending rather than economic investment (Sofer, 2012).

Deng carefully employed the “keeping a low profile” (KLP) strategy to achieve selective progress. According to Deng, a balance should be maintained between achieving success in some areas and not overreaching in others. He emphasised the importance of safeguarding China’s core values, including sovereignty, regime security, and national interests. Deng also stressed the need to support the rights of developing countries, promote global and regional stability, and work towards a fair, reasonable, and just international economic and political order. However, he warned against seeking global leadership or hegemony, arguing that China should avoid overextending itself in pursuing such ambitions (Wei, 2020).

The 2008 global financial crisis and China’s subsequent rise as the world’s second-largest economy sparked debate among Chinese scholars about shifting from the ASA strategy (Attaining Some Achievements) to a more proactive international engagement proportional to its growing economic power (Chen & Wang, 2011). China officially endorsed this idea, asserting that countries should take on global responsibilities in accordance with their national strength, stating, “China will assume more international responsibility as its comprehensive strength increases” (White Paper, 2011).

When Xi Jinping came to power in 2013, the ASA strategy was revitalised and expanded into what he described as “striving for achievement” (fenfayouwei). Xi advocated for active peripheral diplomacy to secure a favourable environment for China (Yamaguchi, 2014). The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a notable example of this shift. The BRI has significantly increased China’s involvement in international mediation. Research by the Mercator Institute for China Studies indicates that China engaged in nine mediation efforts in 2018, compared to just three in 2012, the year after the BRI was launched. As a result of the BRI, Beijing’s mediation efforts have expanded to South Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa—strategically essential regions to the initiative (Legarda, 2018).

China’s engagement in conflict resolution

China’s engagement in conflict resolution has two dimensions: its contribution to international efforts as a member of the UN and its mediation efforts along the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China views the UN as a legitimate platform for anchoring its role as a global security provider while simultaneously working to reform the international liberal order by promoting Chinese norms. Initially, China opposed the UN, considering it a mandate of the Western bloc. However, it later shifted its position, recognising the UN as a forum for international cooperation and conflict resolution. China has since become one of the largest providers of peacekeepers among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Despite this, China actively contests some of the normative foundations of UN peacekeeping operations, particularly Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which outlines measures for maintaining peace and security. Specifically, China resists the third pillar of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle (Arrey, 2023). R2P is based on three pillars: “the responsibility of each state to protect its populations” (pillar I), “the responsibility of the international community to assist states in protecting their populations” (pillar II), and “the responsibility of the international community to protect when a state is manifestly failing to protect its populations” (pillar III) (Simonovic, 2016). China views the third pillar as conflicting with its long-held principles of non-interference and mutual respect for sovereignty. It is wary of states using R2P to justify actions motivated by self-interest, including the forceful imposition of liberal norms (Fung, 2016).

China’s most vigorous critique of the R2P principle emerged following the 2011 military intervention in Libya, which was carried out without the host state’s consent. This was the first instance in which the UN Security Council authorised the use of force for humanitarian purposes without the permission of the involved state. Historically, China’s approach in the UN has been to ensure the legitimacy of the governments in question. For instance, during the 2006 conflict in Sudan, China was pivotal in persuading Khartoum to agree to deploy peacekeepers in Darfur. Similarly, in late 2008, China actively urged the governments of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to resolve the conflict in eastern DRC, exacerbated by Rwanda’s support for rebel groups (Saferworld Report, 2011). However, the Libya intervention and the Council’s failure to block the resolution despite objections from members sceptical of using force prompted China to rethink its stance on R2P (Gowers, 2012). Beijing is also concerned that R2P could be used to justify military interventions or sanctions aimed at promoting regime change or influencing China’s policies in sensitive regions like Xinjiang and Hong Kong (Li, 2019).

Moreover, China does not fully adhere to Western norms of peacemaking and peace-building. Chinese officials and diplomats often adopt a cautious and measured approach when discussing peace, preferring terms such as “sustaining,” “supporting,” and “safeguarding” rather than “building” or “making.” This choice of language reflects China’s focus on maintaining stability and preserving the existing order rather than actively engaging in peace-building or peacemaking as understood in Western contexts (Mariani, 2022). In official Chinese discourse, “hotspots” or “hotspot issues” often refer to conflict zones.

During a press conference on March 7, 2024, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said, “Constructive engagement in settling international hotspot issues is a due responsibility for China as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. China learns from international practices and draws wisdom from Chinese culture, and has found the Chinese way to address hotspot issues.” Wang outlined four commitments regarding China’s approach to hotspot issues: non-interference in internal affairs, a commitment to political settlement, “commitment to objectivity and impartiality,” and “commitment to addressing both symptoms and root causes.” China’s commitment to addressing root causes has been evident in its conflict resolution efforts in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

China’s Developmental Peace agenda under the UN and involvement in African Peace and Security

Drawing from its own developmental experiences, the Chinese model of peace emphasises addressing the root causes of conflict through economic advancement. It views economic development as a crucial precondition for achieving sustainable internal peace. Unlike the liberal peace agenda, which imposes governance structures to safeguard civil and political rights (Kuo, 2020), the Chinese approach opposes such external impositions. Instead, it advocates for the involvement of outside parties in peace-building only in an auxiliary or necessary capacity. Dai Bin, China’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, underscored that national reconstruction is primarily the country’s responsibility. He emphasised the need for the UN and the international community to help these countries enhance their development capacities (Yuan, 2022).

Chinese scholars and officials argue that underdevelopment is a fundamental cause of conflict. They assert that through trade, investment, and development assistance, China contributes to Africa’s economic growth, promoting peace and security. They also point to a positive correlation between conflict reduction and development, which justifies China’s increasing role in the economic aspects of peace-building in post-conflict nations. In 2015, Xi Jinping committed $1 billion to support the United Nations’ peace and development efforts over ten years. By 2020, the PRC-financed fund had invested approximately $100 million in nearly 100 projects to support the UN’s work in peacemaking, preventive diplomacy, poverty reduction, and development. The fund prioritised collaboration with regional organisations, especially the African Union. It focused on strengthening peacekeeping capacities in regions such as the Horn of Africa, the Sahel, West Africa, North Africa, and the Middle East.

At the fund’s fifth-anniversary commemorative conference, the official PRC summary highlighted the benefits the fund brings to the UN system in promoting peace and security while fostering cooperation among member states, particularly in Africa. (Freeman et al., 2023). In a message to the Security Council, UN Secretary‑General António Guterres stressed the importance of China-Africa cooperation for the UN’s peacekeeping missions, noting that African nations are the largest regional contributors of troops and police. Despite significant political and economic security challenges, these countries remain committed to peacekeeping operations. China’s support for African contributors aligns with the Secretary-General’s 2018 Action for Peacekeeping initiative, demonstrating tangible results in countries like the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan. Moreover, the African Union and its member states have made substantial progress in enhancing their effectiveness, self-reliance, and collaborative efforts in peacekeeping (UN Press, 2019).

Critics argue, however, that China acts as a neo-colonial power, using its developmental peace agenda in Africa primarily to secure access to natural resources. This perspective is bolstered by the fact that a significant portion of trade between Africa and China consists of natural resources. The World Bank reported that, in 2006, loans from the China Export-Import Bank for infrastructure projects amounted to over $12.5 billion, with much of this aid directed toward resource-rich countries such as Nigeria, Angola, and Sudan. This pattern suggests that Beijing’s assistance is closely tied to its strategic interests. A prominent example is the 2005 agreement in which Angola received a $2 billion loan from China in exchange for 10,000 barrels of oil daily (Saferworld Report, 2011).

The Saferworld report also highlights that one of China’s strategic motives for deepening its economic and security relations with Africa is to bolster its ‘One China’ policy regarding Taiwan. Except for the Vatican, Taiwan is officially recognised only by a few developing countries, four of which are in Africa. African support has played a crucial role in blocking repeated proposals to allow Taiwan to participate in the United Nations, thereby reinforcing China’s diplomatic position. This support has aided China’s rise as a global power and strengthened its relationships with neighbouring countries.

While the report acknowledges China’s policy drivers in its security engagement with Africa, it also raises concerns about the risks of over-prioritising the developmental peace agenda for conflict resolution. In some cases, the revenue generated from resource sales to China has been used to purchase weapons, exacerbating conflicts, as seen in Sudan (Saferworld Report, 2011). More broadly, such revenue has enabled regimes operating through patronage systems to consolidate their power and amass wealth. Over time, this dynamic can weaken governance structures, perpetuating cycles of instability and violence.

China’s mediation efforts along BRI

Mediation diplomacy involves resolving disputes through diplomatic channels rather than military or legal means, with the agreement of all involved parties. China has increasingly prioritised mediation diplomacy to enhance its global presence and influence in recent years. In its approach, China typically focuses on issues of significant global importance where international mediation efforts are underway, particularly concerning security matters related to countries involved in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) (Rumi, 2022). Notable examples include China’s active mediation in the Syrian conflict, the Israel-Palestine war, and the Rohingya crisis between Bangladesh and Myanmar, which reflect its focus on security concerns in BRI regions. China’s emphasis on maintaining stability along the BRI stems from a desire to ensure the smooth flow of commerce and investment in unstable regions. This strategy goes beyond economic interests and aims to enhance security conditions for Chinese citizens and businesses operating in these areas. A failure to maintain stability in crucial BRI countries could present significant obstacles and potentially jeopardise the success of the entire initiative (Legarda, 2018).

One of the motivations behind China’s peace-brokering efforts in the Middle East is the security of BRI investments. The BRI has expanded across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Oceania and has seen investments exceeding $1 trillion. By 2016, China had already positioned itself as the leading foreign investor in the Middle East, committing $29.7 billion to new projects in the region. Chinese investments have primarily targeted countries such as Egypt, Iran, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), focusing on port and infrastructure development. China has also secured agreements with Egypt, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, and Israel to enhance telecommunications infrastructure, despite Israel facing U.S. diplomatic pressure to reconsider such partnerships. The reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran could significantly bolster the security of BRI projects, including safeguarding transportation routes and vital infrastructure. Improved coordination between these two nations could reduce geopolitical risks and uncertainties, creating a more stable environment for BRI operations. This would also promote energy cooperation and facilitate the diversification of partnerships along critical BRI routes, strengthening the initiative’s overall success and resilience (Baabood, 2024).

The BRI, which includes many Arab and Muslim-majority countries, is seen as a factor influencing China’s evolving stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Historically, China has tried to maintain a delicate balance, supporting both sides diplomatically. Initially pro-Arab, China was a strong advocate for an independent Palestinian state while simultaneously maintaining commercial relations with Israel, mainly to protect its investments and assets along the BRI. However, during the 2024 conflict between Hamas and Israel, China faced criticism for failing to uphold a neutral stance (Banerjee, 2023). In October 2023, as the conflict escalated along the Gaza Strip, Beijing refrained from directly criticising Hamas, which it has not officially designated as a terrorist organisation. A week later, Chinese authorities stated that Israel’s bombings had gone beyond self-defence, condemning them as “collective punishment.” This stance contrasted with the ongoing support for Israel’s military operations in Gaza from many of its Western allies (Ahmadi, 2024).

China’s Vision of a Global Security Provider

On February 21, 2023, China released a concept paper on the ‘Global Security Initiative’ (GSI), calling for “a new vision for common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security.” While the paper offered proposals for addressing conventional and unconventional global security issues, it has primarily been seen as a declaration of China’s ambition to position itself as a global security provider in the future international order. The GSI is the latest addition to several initiatives, such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Global Development Initiative (GDI), reflecting China’s vision for reshaping the international order. The GDI, introduced by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the UN on September 21, 2021, was presented as a solution to the economic challenges exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The GSI, seen as the political counterpart, was proposed in response to the global security crisis triggered by the Russia-Ukraine war. China has turned to the GSI as a strategic response to the growing security challenges accompanying its expanding economic and geopolitical influence on the international stage. While China has traditionally maintained a cautious approach to security engagements, particularly in conflict resolution in regions like Africa, its rising status as a global power with significant economic and military clout is prompting a broader international outreach. Emphasising multilateralism, China is now championing the creation of Sino-centric organisations to promote its vision of conflict prevention and security development (Das, 2023).

Conclusion

Emerging as a sovereign state during the Cold War, China’s foreign policy was initially grounded in non-interference principles and national sovereignty preservation. It deliberately avoided involvement in conflict resolution and power politics, maintaining a low profile while focusing on domestic economic growth. However, as China transformed into a significant global economic power, there was increasing pressure for it to take on greater international responsibilities. In response, China began actively participating in security affairs, mainly through contributions to UN peacekeeping efforts, while introducing its standards and approaches to peace-building. Drawing heavily from its developmental peace model, China shifted its focus to security issues in Africa and the Middle East, where it sought to contribute to peace and protect its foreign assets and investments in fragile states. This developmental peace approach is the cornerstone of its broader global security framework.

However, questions remain about how China intends to ensure global security, particularly as its own Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) faces numerous challenges (Economic Times, 2022). Additionally, there is growing concern about China’s perceived lack of commitment to respect the sovereignty of other states, as evidenced by its assertive security actions in the South China Sea, which seem to contradict its longstanding non-interference stance. Furthermore, the intensifying rivalry between the U.S. and China for influence presents a significant challenge to international security cooperation. Building a stable and secure global environment requires constructive engagement, dialogue, and collaboration among all stakeholders, including the U.S., China, and regional actors. Without such cooperation, the prospects for effective international security governance may remain elusive.

Author Brief Bio: Shivani Deswal is a Phd Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak.

References

Wang Yi. (2024, March 7). Wang Yi Shares Four Commitments of the Chinese Way to Address Hotspot Issues. China News. http://in.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgxw/202403/t20240308_11256420.htm

Ahmadi, A. (2024, January, 10). China’s Break With Israel Was Years in the Making. World Politics Review. https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/china-palestine-israel-relations/

Arrey, L.E. (2023, May, 28). China’s Push for Normative Change in UN Peacekeeping. Institute for Security and Development Policy. https://isdp.se/un-peacekeeping-china-pushing-for-normative-changes/

Baabood, A. (2024, February, 15). The Geopolitics of Economic Development in the Middle East. Carnegie Middle East Centre. https://carnegie-mec.org/2024/02/15/geopolitics-of-economic-development-in-middle-east-pub-91650

Banerjee, A. (2023, November 22). What is China’s stance on Israel- Palestine conflict and what does it want? India TV News. https://www.indiatvnews.com/explainers/what-is-china-s-stance-on-israel-palestine-conflict-and-what-does-it-want-explained-wang-yi-xi-jinping-abbas-netanyahu-2023-11-22-903973

Chen, D., & Wang, J. (2011). Lying low no more? China’s new thinking on the tao guang yang hui strategy. China: An International Journal, 9(2). doi:10. 1142/S0219747211000136.

Das, S. (2023, July, 30). Dissecting China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) and Global Development Initiative (GDI). https://www.cescube.com/vp-dissecting-china-s-global-security-initiative-gsi-and-global-development-initiative-gdi

Economic Times. (2022, Oct 3). China falls into its own debt trap as loans under the Belt and Road Initiative pile up. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/china-falls-into-its-own-debt-trap-as-loans-under-belt-and-road-initiative-pile-up/articleshow/94621452.cms?from=mdr

Freeman, C; Gill, B; & McFarland, A. (2023). China and the Reshaping of Global Conflict Prevention Norms. United States Institute of Peace Report.

Fung, C.J. (2016, June). China and the Responsibility to Protect- From Opposition to Advocacy. United States Institute of Peace. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/PB205-China-and-the-Responsibility-to-Protect-From-Opposition-to-Advocacy.pdf

Gowers, A. G. (2012). China and the “Responsibility to Protect”: The Implications of the Libyan Intervention. Asian Journal of International Law, 2(2), 375–393. doi:10.1017/S204425131200015X

Kuo, S. (2020). Chinese Peace in Africa: From Peacekeeper to Peacemaker. Routledge Publications, London and New York.

Legarda, H. (2018, August 22). China as a conflict mediator- Maintaining stability along the Belt and Road. Mercator Institute for China Studies. https://merics.org/en/comment/china-conflict-mediator

Li, S. (2019, August 27). Chinese Characteristics: How China Justifies Its Non-Interference Policy. Stimson Centre. https://www.stimson.org/2019/conflict-mediation-chinese-characteristics-how-china-justifies-its-non-interference-policy/

Mariani, B. (2022). China’s Engagement in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings: The Quest for Stability. PeaceRep: The Peace and Conflict Resolution Evidence Platform.

Rumi, A. (2022, July 15). China’s Mediation Diplomacy in Myanmar. The Japan Institute of International Affairs. https://www.jiia.or.jp/en/column/2022/07/china-fy2021-07.html

Saferworld Report. (2011, January). China’s growing role in African peace and security.
Simonovic, I. (2016, December). The Responsibility to Protect. UN Chronicle, No. 4 Vol. LIII, Human Rights.

Sofer, K. (2012, March 8). China and the Collapse of Its Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy. Centre for American Progress.

UN Press. (2019, September 26). China-Africa Cooperation Boosts United Nations Partnership with African Union, Secretary-General Tells Security Council Ministerial Meeting. https://press.un.org/en/2019/sgsm19772.doc.htm

Wei, L. (2020). Striving for achievement in a new era: China debates its global role. The Pacific Review. doi: 10.1080/09512748.2020.1728572.

White Paper (2011, September). China’s Peaceful Development. The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2014/09/09/content_281474986284646.htm

White Paper. (2023, February 21). The Global Security Initiative Concept Paper. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/202302/t20230221_11028348.html#:~:text=Chinese%20President%20Xi%20Jinping%20has,with%20a%20win%2Dwin%20mindset.

Yamaguchi, S. (2014, September). Briefing Memo, The Foreign Policy of Xi Jinping’s Administration and The Establishment of China’s Air Defense Identification Zone. Asia and Africa Division, Regional Studies Department. The National Institute for Defense Studies News.

Yuan, X. (2022). The Chinese approach to peacebuilding: contesting liberal peace? Third World Quarterly, 43(7), 1798–1816. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2074389

On the night of 14-15 August 1947, Mr Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, delivered his now famous and oft-quoted tryst with destiny speech to the Constituent Assembly in an address telecast over the radio. The speech, a carefully crafted masterpiece, was a defining moment in India’s history, holding great promise for the future. “A moment comes”, he said, “which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new — when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance”.

It was an interesting play of words: “a soul long suppressed.” The meaning of the phrase was never amplified. In the decades following this powerful oratory, there was no mention of what the elected government proposed to do to unshackle the hearts and minds of the people and enable their souls to find utterance. There was little clarity also on what exactly was suppressed that Mr Nehru referred to. Was it just political suppression and economic subjugation that India needed to be freed from? Or was it something much deeper?

Referred to in our ancient texts as Bharat, the subjugation of this land was far more than political and economic subjugation. It was a brutal assault on our culture, beliefs, spirit, and our very way of life. It was a subjugation of our scriptures, our sacred spaces and our core identity.So what did India’s rulers do about setting right this very grievous wrong? A reasoned assessment of the actions of various governments in the first few decades after independence shows that far from doing anything to address historical wrongs, they set about further exacerbating old wounds.

Using the legislative route, the Central Government passed The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991—a legislation that sought to maintain the status quo of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947. The Act was merely to stay action on claims by the Hindu community to restore sacred sites of many Hindu temples, such as the Krishna Janmabhoomi Mandir at Mathura,—a place revered by Hindus who believe that this was the birthplace of Sri Krishna. The Mandir was demolished by Aurangzeb in 1670 CE, and a mosque was constructed atop its ruins—a fact supported by the official court bulletin of February 1670. This is just one example. Many others abound, the more prominent being the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, constructed over a destroyed Hindu Mandir, as evidenced by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) findings.

The reclamation of all Hindu sacred spaces should have taken place soon after independence, for that would have given utterance to the soul of India, long suppressed. But that did not happen. A false sense of what it means to be secular kept all such issues at abeyance. The grievous hurt extended to other matters, too. The state control of important Hindu mandirs and pilgrimage places was legislated, but no similar legislation for mosques, churches or Gurudwaras was ordained. To exacerbate matters, the Waqf Boards set up in 1913 to manage waqf properties were, post-independence, given extraordinary powers to the extent that they became unanswerable to any authority. This led to piquant situations where these boards started usurping private and government land. Why such powers were given had much to do with vote-bank politics, wherein certain political parties sought to consolidate the Muslim vote in their favour. In the process, it created schisms in the very fabric of India and resulted in the rise of communal politics in the country.

In the field of education, rather than creating a conducive education environment which drew inspiration from India’s past, to preserve the soul of India, we outsourced education to the left-leaning cabal. As stated by Sanjeev Sanyal, “The Left dominance over the intellectual establishment has its roots in the systematic ‘ethnic cleansing’ of all non-Left thinkers since the 1950s”. As a result, “there were no non-Left academics remaining in the social sciences field in India by the early 1990s”.^[1]

These self-declared intellectuals trampled over Bharat’s traditional and progressive cultural practices, jettisoning our rich cultural values. Speaking at a book discussion on the unveiling of the book The Indian Conservative by Jaithirth Rao, Dr Abhay Firodia, President Force Motors, made the point that the history taught today is “malicious, synthetic and fabricated, which is trying to break our affinity to our land, destroy our confidence and make us hate ourselves”.^[2] Many intellectuals have expressed similar sentiments over the years, but only now do we see some signs of change, as indicated in the new education policy which has been promulgated.

On the economic front, for many years, India’s intellectual establishment remained wedded to the idea that Nehru’s socialist economic model was the right course for India to emerge as a developed country. All that was required was proper implementation. This, again, was a product of leftist thought and had no rationale or model to back it. India’s stagnation, even three decades after pursuing the Nehruvian dream, was not attributed to the failure of socialism but, quite perversely, to the majority community of India. It was an economist of the establishment, Raj Krishna,  who derisively coined the term “Hindu rate of growth”^[3] to show India’s failure to the world as one resulting from its people who professed the Hindu faith. This was insulting. We do not see the term Muslim rate of growth being applied to countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia and Afghanistan. Nehru steered India through difficult times, but his economic and social models were not recipes for success. One of the reasons was that they were an artificial import, not suited to the genius and culture of Bharat.

In another 23 years, India will commemorate a century of freedom. However, steps to free the long-suppressed soul of India began in a real sense only in 2014 when the people of India gave a thumping mandate to the BJP-led NDA government and repeated the same in 2019.  Over the last decade, we have seen the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A, the abolition of instant Triple Talaq, the introduction of the New Education Policy, and various such initiatives in multiple fields. In the economic sphere, we are now the fifth largest economy in the world and will soon become the third largest; the GDP and the per capita income are on the rise, we have successfully weathered the downturn caused by the Chinese virus, and despite the conflicts prevailing in India’s neighbourhood, we are the fastest growing large economy in the world. Today, there is a renewed sense of pride in our civilisational heritage and ethos, and the world looks up to India.

India’s culture, cuisine, and ethos are respected worldwide. Yoga, India’s gift to the world, has become a household word. This is no small achievement.

However, many challenges still need to be addressed and overcome. Despite a reduced mandate in the 2024 elections, the coming decade promises to be exciting, purposeful, and challenging. But the difference now is that we have finally started shedding the hesitancies of the past and reclaiming our lost heritage. The soul of Bharat has found utterance. Bharat is in churn, but the churn reflects the ‘SamudraManthana’ or ‘churning of the ocean’as depicted in the Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, and the Mahabharata. It is truly a time for hope and rejuvenation.

Author Brief Bio: Maj. Gen. Dhruv C. Katoch is Editor, India Foundation Journal and Director, India Foundation

^[1] http://www.sanjeevsanyal.com/home/article_detail/86

^[2] https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/indian-conservatism-has-not-received-academic-recognition-jaitirth-rao/story-NCBSGMyxska32KenM3TeyJ.html

^[3] https://www.livemint.com/economy/the-history-behind-hindu-rate-of-growth-in-charts-11678370005198.html

The Context

The Indian state has a highly complex relationship with religion. The relationship is complicated by 1000 years of history of oppression and colonisation of the Indigenous people on the basis of religion and a continuous 1000-year effort of resistance overtly and covertly by the oppressed majority to have a voice in government. A short reading of Indian history would show that it has been a tendency for outsiders who have ruled India to bring in their co-religionists and appoint them to positions of power and influence in the state or the kingdom they formed. This was as true about the Turkish sultans as the Mughals and the British. Unless absolutely necessary, the indigenous locals, who were primarily Hindus, were not appointed to government positions. Undoubtedly, during all these rules of foreigners ruling India, there were some exceptional Indians and Hindus who rose to great prominence. However, they were exceptions and not the norm. Though there has been a tendency post-independence to show as if in all the period for the last 1000 years, Hindus were equally appointed in positions of governance, an objective study would clearly show that it was by far not the case. The ruling dispensation of the period clearly preferred their co-religionists to Hindus when appointing people to power.

This has been a source of grievance and anger amongst Hindus historically. During the end of the British Raj, one of the places of great contestation was the appointment of Indians to the bureaucracy and the judiciary, especially the bureaucracy. The appointments to the bureaucracy are the genesis of today’s debate about reservations on religious lines.

It had been the specific grievance of explicitly Muslim politicians during the period after the first war of independence in 1857 that Muslims, who were the rulers of this country and who had a right to rule, were being displaced by Hindus in government appointments by the British. There was much angst that ‘martial’ Muslims were being replaced by ‘effeminate’ Hindus, and especially Bengali Hindus, in the governance of the country. The argument was that Hindus who had adapted themselves to the British Raj and had learnt English with the help of Western education were being taken into the bureaucracy in very large numbers by the British. The Muslim intelligentsia and the elites were especially aggrieved by their perceived displacement from their positions of power after the events of 1857.

The Muslim struggle leading up to the partition of this country was primarily based on that very grievance. At the heart of the demand for the formation of the state of Pakistan was that Muslims of India were not adequately represented in the executive and legislature. The British, supported by the Indian National Congress, tried to alleviate these fears by providing various measures, including separate electorates and reservations in the bureaucracy and public employment and education. Unfortunately, instead of allaying these unjust demands, these actions catalysed the road to the partition of the country and the formation of Pakistan. Reservations based on religion once given were never enough.

It is, therefore, important to remember this when addressing the question of religious reservations in India.

The Constitutional Debates on Religious Reservations

When the Constitution was being framed after the country’s partition on religious lines, the Constituent Assembly came to discuss the issue. On the question of providing safeguards for minorities, Shrimati Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, during the debates on 20^th January 1947, famously said:

“The Resolution before us stresses complete freedom for the individual and concedes guarantees to every legitimate group. Therefore, in this, there is no justification for fear for the minorities. Even though certain minorities have special interests to safeguard, they should not forget that they are parts of the whole, and if the larger interest suffers, there can be no question of real safeguarding of the interest of any minority.”

Sardar Patel,in the discussion on the Report on the Advisory Committee on Minorities on 11^th May 1949, made specific observations of reservations for religious minorities, harking back to the history of reservations for religious minorities in India:

“the advisory committee concluded that the time has come when the vast majority of the minority communities have themselves realised after great reflection the evil effects in the past of such reservation on the minorities themselves, and the reservations should be dropped.”

He further concluded the debate by stating firmly:

“the Muslim representatives put forward this plea that all these reservations must disappear and that it was in the interests of the minorities themselves that such reservations in the Legislature must go. The report states that it is no longer appropriate that there should be statutory reservation of seats for minorities except the Scheduled Castes and the Tribals.”

Naziruddin Ahmed observed that:

“Sir, I believe that reservation of Muslim seats, especially now, would be really harmful to the Muslims themselves. In fact, if we accept reservations and go to the polls, the relationship between Hindus and Muslims, which now exists, will deteriorate. The great improvement in the situation that has been achieved will be lost. The Hindu-Muslim relation of the immediate past will be recalled, and feelings will be embittered…8.91.153 Sir, reservation is a kind of protection which always has a crippling effect upon the object protected. So, for all these reasons, I should strongly oppose any reservation for Muslims. Now, Mr. Lari’s amendment is to the same effect that there should be no reservations for Muslims, and I welcome it so far as Muslims are concerned.”

The danger of reservation for religious minorities was expressly recognised. It was decided explicitly during the framing of the Constitution that even though such reservations preexisted the Constitution, it had no place in the Constitution of India, which came to be framed.

The Supreme Court on Religious Reservations

The Supreme Court has not addressed the question directly and clearly. However, the issue has been brought before it several times, especially in the context of repeated attempts by governments of so-called “secular parties” to bring in reservations in employment for religious minorities disguised as reservations for Other Backward Classes. However, the broad line of the Court can be made out when the Court was confronted by a live religious reservation in the legislature, which was a historical legacy. Broadly, while addressing the question of reservations even though in the context of representation in the legislature in the Sikkim Assembly of the Buddhist Sangha, which had a reservation in the historical context of the state, the Court in a Constitutional bench decision observed in  R. C. Poudyal v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 324 at page 388:

137. The Sangha, the Buddha and the Dharma are the three fundamental postulates and symbols of Buddhism. In that sense, they are religious institutions. However, the literature on the history of the development of the political institutions of Sikkim, adverted to earlier, tends to show that the Sangha had played an important role in the political and social life of the Sikkimese people. It had made its own contribution to the Sikkimese culture and political development. There is material to sustain the conclusion that the ‘Sangha’ had for long associated itself closely with the political developments of Sikkim and was interwoven with the social and political life of its people. In view of this historical association, the provisions in the matter of reservation of a seat for the Sangha recognises the social and political role of the institution more than its purely religious identity. In the historical setting of Sikkim and its social and political evolution the provision has to be construed really as not invoking the impermissible idea of a separate electorate either. Indeed, the provision bears comparison to Article 333 providing for representation for the Anglo-Indian community. So far as the provision for the Sangha is concerned, it is to be looked at as enabling a nomination, but the choice of the nominee is left to the ‘Sangha’ itself. We are conscious that a separate electorate for a religious denomination would be obnoxious to the fundamental principles of our secular Constitution. If a provision is made purely on the basis of religious considerations for the election of a member of that religious group on the basis of a separate electorate, that would, indeed, be wholly unconstitutional. But in the case of Sangha, it is not merely a religious institution. It has been historically a political and social institution in Sikkim and the provisions in regard to the seat reserved admit of being construed as a nomination and the Sangha itself being assigned the task of and enabled to indicate the choice of its nominee. The provision can be sustained on this construction.”

According to the Supreme Court, any reservation based on religion is anathema to the Constitution.

The New Political Game

The new political game of trying to circumvent this Constitutional bar by incorporating religious minorities into the Other Backward Classes category and thereby pushing reservations in employment and education for them under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution in a large number of states by so-called “secular” political parties must therefore be seen in that light. It is clearly an attempt to do something which is expressly unconstitutional in a way so that it does not look as if it is against the constitutional bar against reservations based on religion. It must be called out as it is: a colourable action with unholy motives.

The Endgame

 

It is surprising (or maybe not surprising at all) that 70 years after the culmination of the disastrous policy of religion-based reservations, resulting eventually in the partition of India with substantial human costs, calls for the same thing are being raised again.  The coalition calling for it is the same coalition of interests that did the same in pre-partition India.  A coalition of leftists, so-called enlightened liberals and Islamists are again leading the same movement. Like those in pre-partition India, the trend started with the completely made-up report of the Sachar Committee, whose data has never stood up to scrutiny. Just like in pre-partition India, the Westernised elites have primarily been complicit in this scheme to be able to hang on to power when they see it slipping away from their hands in the face of growing calls for democratic representation. This is a fool’s game and, more importantly, a very dangerous one considering the history of grievances and documented history of discrimination against Hindus till the partition of India and the sensitivities surrounding the same.

As those invested in India, we must actively, openly, and aggressively thwart this badly thought-out design. As we learned during partition, the cost of not resisting it successfully is just too high. Therefore, we must resist this demand with all our might right at the beginning or risk our very existence again, like in the medieval tale of the dwarf and knight.

After all, “Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

Author Brief Bio: Shri Vikramjit Banerjee is a Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and Additional Solicitor General ofIndia. The views expressed by the author are entirely personal and have nothing to do with the Government.

A few months from now, Indians will be celebrating the 75 anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949. The day is observed as Constitution Day every year. It is marked by major public events in which the president, prime minister and other prominent public figures participate and recall the strenuous efforts made by members of that august assembly to draw up a document that would foster unity and integrity, deepen democratic traditions and ensure the social and economic advancement of the nation.

Notwithstanding 106 amendments and a serious challenge to its core principles in the 1970s, the Constitution has stood the test of time. However, some nagging issues persist, one of which is the Indian State’s inability to introduce a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)—something critical for society’s overall advancement along the core principles of equality and non-discrimination, which are central to the Constitution.

The inability to enforce such a code can be attributed to the national leadership’s lack of firmness at the time of independence in drawing up a legal framework wherein the core principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which constitute the bedrock of the Constitution, would prevail in all circumstances and override laws and customs inimical to the emergence of a secular, democratic, and liberal society.

A UCC primarily deals with issues such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, succession, etc. From time immemorial, the Muslim clergy has resisted conforming to a uniform civil law in these matters. They claim that all this is governed by the Sharia, and no true Muslim can accept any law that is against the Sharia, which is the religious law.

The failure of India’s political leadership is all the more glaring in the context of the politics of the 1940s in the sub-continent when the Muslim leadership stepped up the demand for a separate Islamic State for Muslims and secured it with the creation of Pakistan and the bloody partition of the country. However, the India that remained after partition opted for a secular, democratic constitution because that was the will of the Hindus and persons of Indic religions, who constituted 88 per cent of the population. India did not go the Pakistani way because the Hindus abhorred a theocratic state. The political leadership, which was influenced by this sentiment in the majority, ought to have insisted that those who stayed back, especially the Muslims, would have to conform to these liberal values. Those who felt that religious injunctions must prevail at all times could cross over to the newly created Islamic state.

Consequent to this hesitation, a UCC was not drafted. Instead, the Constituent Assembly paid lip service to the idea by incorporating it in Article 44 under Part IV of the Constitution titled ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’, which was a kind of advisory—thus conveniently passing the buck to future generations. The article directed the State to “endeavour” to secure a Uniform Civil Code for its citizens. Meanwhile, the issue has grown even more complex due to demographic change.

How the Constituent Assembly faltered

How the secular, democratic Indian State lost the initiative to enforce laws that gave paramountcy to the Constitution rather than to sectarian laws and customs originates in the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, which drafted the country’s Constitution. This was most evident when Article 44 (then Article 35) on adopting a Uniform Civil Code was debated in the assembly on November 23, 1948.

The protests began with Mohamad Ismail Sahib, who opened the debate. In his speech, Ismail Sahib argued that the right to follow one’s own personal law is a fundamental right. He claimed that many European nations had made such concessions to Muslims. He moved an amendment that said the personal laws of any group should not be interfered with.^[1]

Mahboob Ali Baig Sahib Bahadur also moved a similar amendment. He said: “As far as Mussalmans are concerned, their laws of succession, inheritance, marriage and divorce are completely dependent upon their religion.”^[2]

1. Pocker Sahib Bahadur supported these amendments and described the Article as “a tyrannous provision which ought not to be tolerated” because it interferes with religious practices and murders the people’s conscience. Mr. Hussain Imam expressed similar views.

MrNaziruddin Ahmad moved an amendment and said UCC violates constitutional guarantees. Thus, all Muslim members who spoke on Article 44 were opposed to the introduction of a uniform civil code.^[3]

Mr. K.M. Munshi confronted them. He said that Article 25 permits the State to make laws concerning“secular activity” associated with religious practice and for “social welfare and reform”. Therefore, Article 44 allows the government to attempt a unification of personal laws. He challenged members who said a Uniform Civil Code would be “tyrannous”. Nowhere in Islamic nations is the personal law of each minority recognised as sacrosanct. He cited the example of Egypt and Turkey and said no minority in those countries is allowed to have such personal laws. Even in India, although the Khojas and Cutchi Memons were highly dissatisfied, the Shariat Act was imposed on them. They were forced to submit to it unwillingly. “Where were the rights of minorities then?” he asked, referring to minority sects in Islam who were compelled to accept the Shariat Act. He said ‘we want to divorce religion from personal law”. What has inheritance, succession, and such other matters got to do with religion? Mr Munshi was categorical and blunt. He said “We have reached a point when we must put our foot down and say that those matters (marriage, divorce, succession etc) are not religion, they are purely matters for secular legislation”. He cited the example of Hindus moving away from the injunctions imposed by Manu and Yagnavalkya. Muslims must abandon this “isolationist outlook on life.”^[4]

Mr Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar said the Hindu Code had moved away from ancient Hindu law because they had to move with the times. If Muslims are opposed to a common civil code, how is it that they do not insist on a separate Islamic criminal law for Muslims? He said, “The only community willing to adapt to changing times, it seems, is the majority community.”^[5]

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, replied to the debate and rejected the contentions of the Muslim members. He said he was surprised by their arguments because the country already has a uniform code of law covering almost every aspect of human relationships. This includes a uniform criminal code, a uniform transfer of property act, the negotiable instruments act and practically a uniform civil law. The only province in which civil law has not invaded is marriage and succession. “It is this little corner which we have not been able to invade so far”, and this Article intends to bring about this change.

As regards the contention of Muslim members that Shariat law is immutable and uniform throughout India, he reminded the House that Shariat did not apply to Muslims in North-West Frontier Province until 1939. They followed the Hindu law regarding succession, etc. Also, Muslims in the United Provinces, Central Provinces and Bombay followed the Hindu succession law until the Shariat law was enacted in 1937, and the Muslims of Malabar followed the Hindu matriarchal law. Therefore, he said, all the amendments suggested by Muslim members had to be rejected.^[6]

India today is paying the price for the pusillanimity of the national leadership in the initial years of independence.

But Nehru Imposes a Common Code for Hindus  

The government headed by Jawaharlal Nehru succumbed to pressure from the Muslim minority while drafting the Constitution and placed the UCC idea under the Directive Principles of State Policy, which is of an advisory nature, instead of making it imperative. However, the leaders of the Congress Party were on an overdrive to modernise Hindu laws and pursued this project with utmost commitment. When it came to reforming Hindu Law, there was no such hesitation. The Nehru government passed a clutch of bills going under the umbrella of the Hindu Code Bill to reform and modernise Hindu laws. These included the Hindu Marriage Act,the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Hindu Succession Act, and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. These laws were made applicable to all “Hindus” and this included Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains.

It must also be noted that there are other religious groups in the country which have their own personal laws, like the Christians, the Parsis and the Jews. Still, one has not seen this kind of vociferous resistance to a common civil law among these religious groups. They are more willing to align their family laws with the larger constitutional scheme.

A Significant Directive from the Supreme Court  

The Supreme Court has repeatedly dwelt on this issue and emphasised the need for a UCC.

One of the most significant judgements of the Supreme Court on the need for UCC was delivered by Justices Kuldip Singh and R.M.Sahai in Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani &Ors Vs Union of India &Ors in May, 1995. They described Article 44 as “anunequivocal mandate… which seeks to introduce a uniform, personal law – a decisive step towards national consolidation”.

The judges noted that Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru, while defending the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill instead of a Uniform CivilCode in the Parliament in 1954, had said, “I do not think that at the present moment the time is ripe in India for me to try to push it (UCC) through” and observed somewhat sarcastically that it appears that even 41 years thereafter, the Rulers of the day “are not in a mood to retrieve Article 44 from the cold storage where it is lying since 1949”. The Governments – which have come and gone – have failed to make any effort towards a unified personal law for all Indians.

The judges said the reasons were too obvious to be stated. The utmost that has been done is to codify the Hindu law in the form of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, The Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, which have replaced the traditional Hindu law based on different schools of thought and scriptural laws into one unified code. “When more than 80 per cent of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law, there is no justification whatsoever for keeping in abeyance, any more, the introduction of “Uniform CivilCode” for all citizens”.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi seemed to echo the sentiment of these two learned judges while addressing the nation on Independence Day recently when he asserted that the nation needed a “secular” civil code and not a communal code. This meant that the current civil code was limited to Hindus and citizens adhering to the Indic religions but not to others. He also referred to several directions of the Supreme Court in this regard.

The court said Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilised society. Article 25 guarantees religious freedom, whereas Article 44 seeks to divest religion from social relations and personal law. “Marriage, succession and like matters of a secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25, 26 and 27”. The personal laws of the Hindus, such as those relating to marriage, succession and the like, have all a sacramental origin, in the same manner as in the case of the Muslims or the Christians.

Equally significant was the apex court’s view that the Hindus, along with Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains, “have forsaken their sentiments in the cause of the national unity and integration,” but some other communities would not, though the Constitution enjoins the establishment of a “common civil code” for the whole of India.

They said that successive governments have been wholly remiss in their duty to implement the constitutional mandate under Article 44 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, request the Government of India, through the prime minister, to have a fresh look at Article 44 of the Constitution of India and “endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” This was in 1995, when Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao was the prime minister.^[7]

In a separate judgement, Justice R.M. Sahai said that when the Constitution was framed with secularism as its ideal and goal, the consensus and conviction to be one, socially, found its expression in Article 44 of the Constitution.

Justice Sahai hits the nail on the head when he says,“Freedom of religion is the core of our culture. Even the slightest deviation shakes the social fibre. But religious practices, violative of human rights and dignity and sacerdotal suffocation of essentially civil and material freedoms are not autonomy but oppression. Therefore, a unified code is imperative both for the protection of the oppressed and promotion of national unity and solidarity”.

He then advised the government to rationalise the personal law of the minorities. He even suggested that the government bring in an anti-conversion law to check the abuse of religion by any person.^[8]

The ApexCourt returned to this issue on a couple of occasions after that and reiterated the need for a UCC.

Uttarakhand Bites the Bullet  

It is tragic that almost 40 years after this landmark judgement of the apex court, India’s political leadership has not gathered the nerve to implement Article 44.

However, amidst all this intransigence, it must be said that a small state – Goa – had, by tradition, adopted a UCC long before India’s independence. The Goa Civil Code, based on the Portuguese Civil Code, came into being in 1870 and still holds good. It applies to all religious denominations. Even after Goa merged with the Indian Union in 1961, the civil code continued, even though an attempt was made to knock it down in the 1980s. The Goa Civil Code does not permit polygamy and ensures joint property ownership by husband and wife.

Barring Goa, Uttarakhand is the first state to fulfil the constitutional mandate of having a UCC. Despite much resistance from the usual suspects, this state decided to bite the bullet early in 2024. It passed a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the state legislature, secured the consent of the state assembly, and sent it up for the assent of the President. This is the first state to adopt such a measure after independence. The law aims at uniformity in matters such as marriage, divorce, succession and inheritance and seeks to override customary law or religious injunctions. However, the law does not apply to Scheduled Tribes. The Uttarakhand law bars polygamy and child marriage. Also, dissolution of marriage is possible only under this law.

As usual, Muslim leaders objected to the Uttarakhand law and said they should be exempted. Sadly, the response of the leaders of this community to the UCC proposal now is no different from what was said 76 years ago on this issue by Muslim members in the Constituent Assembly.

Maulana Arshad Madani, head of the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind, said,“We do not accept any law against Sharia. Muslims can compromise on everything, but not with Sharia”.^[9]

Mr Asaduddin Owaisi, chief of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, also slammed the bill and declared it contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.^[10]

Qazi Mohammad Ahmad Qasmi of Dehradun City held out a threat. He said, “The government will be responsible for the damage caused to the State”.^[11]

The Law Commission Wakes up at Last!

The Supreme Court had advised the government in 1995 to consult the Law Commission to draft a UCC. There was some movement on this front when the Law Commission of India put out a consultation paper on ‘Reform of Family Law’. Again, last year, when the Narendra Modi government asked the commission to examine the issue, the latter issued a public notice calling for suggestions and opinions from all stakeholders.^[12]

It is learnt that the commission has been flooded with responses and, at last count, had received 7.5 million suggestions.^[13]

Where do we go from Here?

Unfortunately, because of the dominance of the Congress Party in national politics in the initial decades after independence and the party’s pseudo-secular policies and commitment to minority appeasement, some fundamental truths about the politics of the sub-continent leading to partition were brushed aside. This effort of the Congress Party was aided and abetted by left-leaning and Nehruvian academics and media persons. As a result, sustained efforts were made to bury the truth about how the Muslims stepped up their demand for a separate Islamic nation in the 1940s and secured one with the creation of Pakistan in 1947. Secondly, although the Muslims opted for a theocratic state, the fact that the Hindus and citizens belonging to the Indic religions, who constituted 88 per cent of the population in India after partition, chose to establish a secular, democratic nation with liberal values was never acknowledged by the Congress Party, the communists and their fellow travellers and the leaders of the religious minorities. They did not have the grace to say that India’s Constitution, which provided a basket of fundamental rights to religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities, flowed from this incredible sense of humanity and respect for pluralism among the Hindus. Nor did they ever understand or acknowledge that the Indian Constitution provided all this to the minorities because Bharat was civilisationally secular and democratic.

What has this respect for pluralism among the majority done in terms of demography?  As many as 35 million Muslims preferred to stay back in India at the time of independence. Today, the Muslim population in India is estimated to be 210 million. Similarly, the Christian population in the country has risen over the last 77 years from 8 million to 35 million. The consequence of all this is the emergence of a kind of separateness, especially among Muslims.

Yet, the leaders of the Muslims who stayed back in India began once again pursuing what Mr K.M. Munshi described in the Constituent Assembly as an “isolationist” policy yet again, objecting to a UCC  and such other measures which promote the core principles in the Constitution like equality before law and non-discrimination.

Dr. Ambedkar brilliantly analysed the problem eight decades ago when he said,“The dominating consideration with the Muslims is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how will democracy affect the Muslims in their struggle against the Hindus”.^[14]

Dr. Ambedkar elaborates on his fears in this regard. He died in 1956 and, therefore, did not have the benefit of listening to or reading about the fiery speeches of the Shahi Imam and other Muslim leaders who encouraged separateness. Yet, he had said:

“The allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his, but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim,’Ibi Bene Ibi Patria’ is unthinkable. Wherever the rule of Islam is, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin”.^[15]

In these circumstances, how does democratic India achieve the social and political goals outlined in the Constitution?

Sadly, politicians of certain Muslim parties like the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) are once again kindling separateness among Muslim citizens, leading to fresh tensions.

As a result, the problem has now been aggravated. Although Muslims have lived in a liberal, secular, democratic society for 76 years, the urge to demand special privileges persists. Some members of this community believe that they can have a veto on every matter. We hear the same absurd, myopic arguments from Muslim leaders now vis-à-vis a uniform civil law.

If India is to remain a liberal, democratic society, the Muslim arguments against a UCC must be challenged and brushed aside. There need be no confusion about it.

In other words, we need to disprove Ambedkar if we are to save the Constitution that he has given us. As this writer said in another context, we must ensure that religion dissolves into the great crucible called the Constitution of India. It must yield to the Constitution rather than the other way around. Should there ever be a conflict between a religious text and the Constitution, the latter must prevail.  In other words, the Constitution is supreme. We cannot allow any other text to have a perch above it.  This is the prescription for establishing a secular society. This is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message on Independence Day. The enforcement of a Uniform Civil Code is a must to establish the supremacy of the Constitution of India.

Author Brief Bio: Shri A. Surya Prakash is a Trustee of India Foundation & Vice-Chairman, Executive Council, Prime Ministers Museum & Library, New Delhi.

References:

^[1]Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD), Volume VII, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi,1989, p.541

^[2] Ibid .543

^[3] Ibid 542

^[4]Ibid 548

^[5]  Ibid 549

^[6]Ibid 551

^[7]https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/10742.pdf

^[8]Ibid 14

^[9]https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/uttarakhand-uniform-civil-code-maulana-asad-madani-jamiat-ulama-i-hind-dont-law-against-sharia-2498522-2024-02-07

^[10]https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/asaduddin-owaisi-questions-government-on-uttarakhand-ucc-uniform-civil-code-muslim-rights-2509580-2024-03-02

^[11]https://sanatanprabhat.org/english/93445.html

^[12]https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2023/06/2023061446.pdf

^[13]https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/uniform-civil-code-law-commission-received-over-75-lakh-public-feedback-2413073-2023-07-28

^[14](Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker and Company Ltd, Rampart Row, Bombay, 1941, p.223)

^[15]Ibid  233

Significance of Sacred Geospatial Areas

As famously said, “Sometimes it is impossible to know where you are headed without reflecting on where you came from”. Revisiting revered locations takes us to a land which today is the world’s oldest and only living civilisation. It is impregnated with deep-rooted, widely spread auspicious spaces of the original Bharata, a ‘viksit’ and the most sought-after destination. A vital step to regain that glorious status would be to revisit the sacred geo-landscape that gave traditional ‘Gyan-Vigyan’ and nurtured this ‘Vishva Guru,’ Bharatvarsha.

The mention of ‘sacred spaces’ takes us to ‘Bharata’, the terminology specifying a land of knowledge, the name instinctively evoking reverence. The G20 Summit of 2023 left a significant imprint as the invites from the President invoked our land’s original name ‘Bharata’; it gently reconnected us to our sacred identity, invoking a sense of pride, contrasting with ‘India’ that conjures up colonial baggage. What a blessing to reinforce its distinctiveness, signifying also the uniqueness of its meaning. ‘Bha-Ratha’ implies the land of ‘Bharatavansha’ kings and their kingdoms; it also denotes significant aspects that define our deep-rooted civilisation. ‘Bharata’ is a ‘ratha’ of ‘light’, a vehicle or carrier of knowledge. Knowledge is sacred, and so is the land that gave us our Gyan-Vigyan, Itihasa, Tiraths and remarkable places that were cradles of Bharatiyasabhyata.

Bharatiya Sanskriti (culture) evolved from Prakriti (nature), as is evident from our traditions, rituals, and celebrations, which coincide with the different seasons of nature and human life from conception to death. Centuries of tapasya (research) by Rishis (ancient scholars) led to comprehension of the universe and developed the philosophies and cultural understanding of the values of Mother Earth, our ‘Dharti Ma’. This reverence is so embedded that many among us wake up with a prayer to Mother Earth.

समुद्रवसने देवीपर्वतस्तनमण्डले।

विष्णुपत्नि नमस्तुभ्यं पादस्पर्शं क्षमस्वमे ॥

O Devi (Oh Mother Earth), You, Who have the Ocean as Your Garments, and Mountains as Your Bosom, O Consort of Lord Vishnu, Salutations to You; Please Forgive my Touch of the Feet (on Earth, which is Your Holy Body).

This blessed mother earth, Bharata, was a perfect cradle to give birth to the core civilisation’s wealth. The gift of this land’s spiritual energy developed profound systems of knowledge that still baffle many scholars.

As Rishis decoded the ‘Brahmaand’, travelling across vast geographical landscapes to study the ‘Prakriti’, the evolution of life and, more importantly, the meaning of life, they gained insight into every aspect of the sciences of life. Thus arose concepts of VasudhaivaKutumbakam and the four ‘ashramas’ of human behaviour and life systems—Brahmacharya, Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sanyas. More profound perceptions of the functioning of the human psyche, mind and body, and affinities with nature led to the evolution of traditions of life management via the 16 ‘sanskaras’ that cover the circle of life from material birth to death to mingling back to nature. Evolved rulers and rishis patronised and promoted the learnings of the four Purusharthas of Kama, Artha, Dharma, and Moksha. Such enriching eternal principles for the prosperity and well-being of all humanity were the unique contributions of this motherland.

In this context comes the sanctity of particular locations. We have unique texts known as Mahatmya for all such sacred places. They comprise relevant knowledge from the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Puranas. Details of important rulers, the mandirs, and events of Itihasa are narrated. The Ayodhya Mahatmya facilitated the resolution of the Ram Janam Bhoomi dispute.

Similarly, we have Mahatmyas of Kashi, Kampilya, Indraprastha, Mathura, Braj areas, Bhalka, Dwarka, Prayagraj, and many ancient places across Bharata. This reveals a well-documented repository of sacred spaces, termed Tiraths, Mandirs, etc. Reviving them is reestablishing this land’s original identity and preserving it for posterity.

The ‘mandirs’ here were places of education, adhyatma (philosophy), and even centres of trade that followed dharmic principles. ‘Tirath’ implies places that evolved on the banks of rivers and water bodies and have historical and spiritual significance. Rivers have been the cradles of all civilisations. The Nadi Sukta of the Rigveda is considered the key to the sacred geography of Bharatavarsha^[1].

गंगे !चयमुने !चैवगोदावरी!सरस्वती !

नर्मदे !सिन्धु !कावेरी !जलेSस्मिन्सन्निधिंकुरु।। (Rigveda 1.32.12)

Water bodies are the bedrock of our precious spiritual and historical geo-coordinates. Here developed iconic places and personalities having empowering influences since time immemorial, reflecting the times traversed from Vedic, Treta, Dwapar and Kalyuga, unfolding the trajectory of sacred landscapes of Bharata. Located within the Jambudweep continent, we learn how Bharata comprised almost all of South East Asia and much more. This article focuses on the current Bharata areas, left after being trampled upon and destroyed by invaders and colonial rulers and transformed by political ideologues. For brevity and priority, it highlights noteworthy sacred spaces that have reverberated in our hearts for centuries and reflect our nation’s universal beliefs.

According to astronomical data from the Mahabharata, the Kurukshetra War of the Dwapar Yuga occurred around 3067 BCE.^[2] The Ramayana, on the other hand, is set more than 2,000 years earlier. The Vedic Satayuga is believed to be even further in the past.

Prayagraj

Considering rivers have been the source and nourishing mothers of our sacred geography, a tribute to them is overdue. The landmark initiative of restoring the original name of Prayagraj can be enriched if this most sacred confluence of our three significant rivers showcases their Itihasa. Interestingly, Yamuna is the sister of both Ganga, our ‘sangini’ through the earth, and Yam, the ruler of death. Along with Saraswati, representing knowledge, this ‘Sangam’ of three sacred rivers gets its significance with the Maha Kumbh Mela held here every 12 years. To pay tribute to our mother rivers, a ‘Naadi Sukta’ Darshan Kendra at Prayagraj and Floating Boat Museum on rivers will be a value-added connection to the ‘Prakriti-sanskriti’ essence of Sanatan culture and awareness for sustainable environment protection.

The storyline could cover ‘Avtaran’, Itihasa, the lands they traverse, traditions, and rituals of culture and cuisine. This entwining of Prakriti and Manushya will be an exemplary initiative that instils reverence and respect for sacred spaces. Recreating the ‘Saraswati journey of Balram’ will highlight many lost and forgotten places on its holy banks and invigorate interest in the past.

Ganga River Tirath

Gyanvapi: River Ganga’s ‘jal’ is integral in our lives from birth to death. Credited with the maximum number of holy sites, Ganga has the most profound connection to Shiva, who guided her path on earth. One of the most contentious and critical sacred spaces at Ganga banks is the Kashi Vishwanath Shivlinga. Destroyed on orders of the tyrant Aurangzeb, it awaits reclaim. For this reason, ‘Nandi’ has silently waited for centuries. The evidence of the original Shiva Linga screams out of the images on the walls of Gyanvapi, from Kashi’s Itihasa, from Mughal texts, and most clearly from the face of Nandi facing the Shivalinga of his Lord therein. The scientific survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has also confirmed the pre-existent ancient temple and Shivalinga here. The authorities concerned must respect the beliefs and evidence to facilitate and expedite the handing over of the holy place to the Kashi Vishwanath Mandir. The complex has a beautifully designed building but could be further enhanced with ‘Prakriti’ of sacred groves and Nakshatra trees that hold the key to environment cleanliness.

Kampilya: Sacred Ganga bestowed us with another ancient Tirath, the cradle of Vedic wisdom from time immemorial. Kampilya is the ancient Samrajya, when King Sudas was so powerful that he expanded his empire up to Punjab in the west and Saket in the east. He also defeated Samvaran, the father of Kuru, in Hastinapur. Kampilya is mentioned in Vedas, Ramayana, and Mahabharata and was the pivotal point of Adhatyatma. It had intellectual rulers who promoted scholars in lakhs and spread Vedic knowledge worldwide. Its scholars developed the structure of Vedic shlokas. Here evolved the Ayurvedic book Charac Samhita, the Karmakand, the original version of Kamasutra, the Upanishads, etc. Besides the Vedic lineage Kampilvasini Mandir, the Rameshwar Mandir was established by Shatrughan, brother of Sri Rama. In Dwapar, Draupadi established the Shiva Temple after her marriage, as she learns that Pandavs are Shiva’s avatar and she is reincarnated Parvati.^[3]

In 1920, Kampilya was among the centrally protected sites of the Archaeological Survey of India. However, 99% of its ancient heritage landmarks have been systematically destroyed, stolen and subjugated with buildings by vested ideological/ political interests. The Gazette of Farrukhabad gives its importance as the birthplace of Maharani Draupadi. Draupadi Swayamvar was also solemnised here, which event reflects in the Uttar Pradesh state symbol. The antiquity and relevance of this holy Tirath have been downplayed despite volumes of evidence. This forgotten marvel symbolises the strength of Vedic knowledge and the glorified status of women in ancient Bharata. It is also famous as the birthplace of Varahmihir, the writer of Brihatsamhita, and credited with 27 Nakshatra mandirs of Mehrauli, Delhi.

Kampilya^[4] has great antiquity and is home to Kampilyavasni Mandir, mentioned in Yajurveda.

प्राणायस्वाहामानायस्वाहास्यानायस्वाहा।

अम्बेऽअम्बिकेऽअम्बालिकेनमानयतिकश्चन।

ससस्त्यश्वकःसुभद्रिकांभद्रांकाम्पीलवासिनीम्।। 23/18

Kampilya is mentioned in the Balkand of Valmiki Ramayana, and Brahmadatta, the 12th descendant of the Ikahvaku dynasty, ruled here like Indra.

सराजाब्रह्मदत्तस्तुपुरीमध्यवसत्तदा।

काम्पिल्यापरयालक्ष्म्यादेवराजोयथादिवम्।।बालकाण्ड33/19

Somak, Sanjal, Durmukh, and PravahanJaivali were rulers of this line associated with Kampilya. The Shatapath Brahman mentions that King Kaivya and Durmukha performed Ashvamedh’s sacrifice at Kampilya. The Mahabharata provides a detailed description of the city. Draupadi, the daughter of King Drupad, and his son Dristadyumna were born here (Mahabharata 1/166/39-44).

The commentator, Mahidhar, explained that the ladies of Kampilya were learned and beautiful. Mammat shares this view in his commentary on this verse.^[5]

काम्पीलवासिनीम्काम्पीलनगरेहिसुभगाःसुरूपाःस्त्रियोभवन्ति।

Yamuna River Tirath

 

The oldest recorded sacred places on the Yamuna River plains are Indraprastha, Mathura, Vrindavan, the Braj Kshetra, and Prayagraj. The antiquity and sacredness of any nation’s Rajdhani gives deep insights into that country’s eco-political importance and civilisation strength.

Indraprastha: Bharata’s most ancient capital, Indraprastha, the ‘Swarg’ of Indra and Pandavansha, is now a city of graves transformed by people with ulterior motives.

Indraprastha dominated world trade and politics for the most prolonged period. UNESCO’s World Heritage Day is a yearly celebration of the beauty of monuments and the maintenance of their identity from their roots. The greatest irony of celebrating any monument’s ‘identity from roots’ is reflected in our Capital region. Do we celebrate the ‘roots’ of the most ancient sacred spaces here at Mehrauli – Yogmaya Mandir, the scientific wonder- VishnugiriStambh (Iron pillar), the 27 Nakshatra Mandir (astronomical observatory of Varahmir, whose location has ironically been a UNESCO site of ‘medieval time and name’- Qutub Minar, even though it displayed an inscription of 28 temples). In the Mehrauli area were inscriptions of Shankarashana and the 1^st BCE Ghosundi mentioning Narayana Vataka. These are the real roots of Bharata. Likewise, the most ancient Indraprastha Qila and the mandirs of Pandavavansh or Raja Bhoja within this complex have never been celebrated on World Heritage Day. UNESCO and ASI have ignored the ancient Nigambodh Ghat, where the Vedas were revived, and the Nili Chhatri mandir of Sri Krishna at Rajghat. The Indraprastha Tirath points at Yamuna banks lie in a pathetic condition. Two ancient inscriptions are located at Safdarjung Tomb, but the roots are hidden and neglected.

Fortunately, traces of ancient legacies still exist, daring subjugation under medieval and colonial onslaught. The sacred landmarks of civilisation and ancient heritage legacies, the roots of our capital region, which is the face of Bharat to the world, need a facelift and a skyline of actual history. A tall statue of Yogeshwar Sri Krishna facing the Rashtrapati Bhawan or Sansad or at Kartavya Path will be an acknowledgement of his contribution as founder of Indraprastha and proponent of Kartavya.

The antiquity of Indraprastha, which was promoted by the moniker ‘Delhi’, denting its originality, is revealed in Indraprastha Mahatmya. The text records the vast geographical location of Indraprastha, mentioning Kashi at a distance of 21 Dhanush from its west point. It also tells us that it is as important a ‘Tirath’ as Haridwar, Prayagraj, Pushkar, etc.

The first mention of a sacred land area named Indra’s land appears in the Narad Purana (pp 645- 647) and Vishnu Purana (pp 870-875). Narsingha had killed Hirankashyap and saved Bhakta Prahalda. Subsequently, King Indradev was gifted with this ‘Swarga’ land, and Guru Brihaspati was advised to perform Yajnas and purify the Khandav Forest around the Yamuna River banks.^[6]Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh blessed this Yajna, leading to its special sanctity. Sri Vishnu told Indra Devta to donate ‘prasthas’, or 48 handfuls of pearls/gems, to pious people after Yajnas. Prastha also means a plateau. The place where Indra gave ‘prasthas’ of wealth became Indraprastha. HonouringIndradev and antiquity, during Dwapara Yuga, Sri Krishna chose this holy land to be the central point of Pandava’s Indraprastha Kingdom and its Rajdhani.

‘Love your monuments; they are part of a rich civilisation and speak volumes about a bygone era’. It is a ‘monumental’ task to find the complete ancient remains of sacred spaces in an area that was deliberately trampled upon and, for centuries, systematically destroyed. This defeats the often-said view – “A rich cultural heritage depends on the ability of people to maintain their distinctiveness and unique identities”.

Reclaim and Revive Subverted Sacred Spaces at Indraprastha

Nigam Bodh Ghat is actually ‘Nigam’ or place where Rishis once again ‘recollected’ the Vedic Knowledge, i.e. had ‘Bodh’. How this specific place, at Yamuna River banks, was converted to a cremation is a mystery.  The most significant event here was the auspicious ‘Yajnas’. Special efforts to revitalise the original spiritual and philosophical character of the precious Nigam Bodh knowledge area, renaming the Zone as Nigam Bodh Kshetra by DDA, will be ‘justice delayed but not denied’.

Indraprastha Pandav Kila has been popularised as Purana Qila to wipe out its original identity. Located at Mathura Road, the Ain-i-Akbari mentions that Humayun settled here for a few years before Sher Shah Suri defeated him. Humayun returned victorious after years but died within a few months. The last Hindu ruler at Indraprastha was Hemu Chand, who defeated Akbar’s army and crowned himself King there. This was a sought-after place because of its antiquity. The Sabha Parva of Mahabharata details its making, description of the grand forts with huge white walls secured by armed men, white double-storied buildings, and the beautiful lotus pond, which Duryodhana mistook for a carpet and fell in. Architects have recreated some perspectives of Indraprastha. Restoring some of the iconic structures at this Qila, its original white form, with the lotus pond, will be natural justice for the shaken roots of its historical legacy.

The Vishnugiri Hari Stambh (Iron Pillar) at the Qutub complex area, which has defied rust for centuries, is a testimony to ancient Bharata’s expertise in metallurgy. Quoting mediaeval historian Firishta, historian Dr Ved Veer Arya has traced its antiquity to around 950 BCE. Highlighting this and the redevelopment of the 27 Nakshatra Mandir, the Astronomical Observatory of Varahamir will nourish the natural heritage legacies of the National Capital Territory (NCT). Indraprastha, the first urban city of North Bharata, had deep links to Mathura Dham and Braj Kshetra.

Mathura is one among the Saptrishi or seven holy cities, and Mokshyadayni Tirath. The Ramayana credits Madhu of the Yadu tribe as the founder of Mathura and narrates how Shatrughna defeated his son Lavanasura and ruled here. Though the whole Brajkshetra circuit has great spiritual and historical significance, the most sacred land is the birthplace of Sri Krishna at the Kesava Deo Temple. This and the Dwarkadhish Temple display the beauty of traditional Indian temple architecture. The destruction of the sacred Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, the holiest place for all Sanatanies, is a continuous thorn in our hearts. The process of reclaiming Sri Krishna’s birthplace has been initiated, yet the troublemakers keep denting the efforts. Like Ram Janmbhoomi, Krishna Janmbhoomi awaits a grand revival, with government and well-meaning citizen devotees sincerely fulfilling their responsibilities. We are all eager to see the majestic Keshav Deo Mandir revived and re-energised to bless devotees. It is good news that Mathura has been chosen as a city for the Government of India’s Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana scheme. This will stimulate interest in Itihasa.

Our sacred spaces have given spiritual enlightenment because they were ‘grounded’ with ‘sacred groves’. Such virtuous places need greenery of Nakshatra Bagh, flower gardens, and widespread space with shades of the traditional trees that are endemic to climate management. Pilgrims need shaded relaxing areas. The proposed Braj Corridor has to avoid the complete tiling that inconveniences pilgrims walking during summer or rainy season. Equally critical is the redevelopment and beautification of the riverfront and river waters across Mathura. The twenty-five ancient Ghats have Vishram Ghat at the centre, where Sri Krishna rested before departing for Dwarika. It also has the temple of Charchika Devi, whose inscription has been found at Vidisha mandir, Madhya Pradesh. The revered and spiritual feel of Vrindavan Riverfront Ghats could be enriched with good landscaping by reclaiming it.

‘Pavan Bhumi’ Brajmandal carries forward the Vedic, Treta, and Dwapara legacies. Prioritising, reclaiming, and reviving this place of antiquity will nourish our ‘Dharovar’. The Goverdhan Parikrama and the Brajmandal Parikrama could use a beautification plan and be improved for pilgrims’ ease.

Kurukshetra: This is our connection to the sacred land of Bhagawad Gita, the Dharma Kshetra- Kurukshetra. Besides the Brahma Sarovar and the Gita Museum at Jyotisar, much more is required to generate awareness about the deep roots of civilisation linked to the Saraswati River. Excavations in the Indus-Saraswati areas have revealed Vedic Gyan Vigyan. Kurukshetra also has a 48 kos Parikrama, considered very sacred in our texts. An exciting revival could be the recreation of the ‘Saraswati journey of Balram’ even here. This can revitalise many sacred lands mentioned in the Mahabharata.

धर्मक्षेत्रेकुरुक्षेत्रेसमवेतायुयुत्सवः।

मामकाःपाण्डवाश्चैवकिमकुर्वतसञ्जय।।॥१/१॥

हेसंजय! जबमेरेऔरपाण्डुकेपुत्रयुद्धकरनेकीइच्छासेकुरुक्षेत्रकीपुण्य-भूमिमेंएकत्रितहुएतबउन्होंनेक्याकिया ?

Heritage of Kashmir: Rishi Kashysap’s land, Kashmir, has many sacred spaces of high academic and spiritual wealth. Among the three holiest shrines of Kashmir, along with Amarnath, are two precious pilgrimage sites, the Martand Mandir and Shardapeetham. Martand Mandir was destroyed in the 13^th century by Sikandar Shah Miri to Islamise and subjugate the locals. Historian Kalhan credits Lalitaditya Muktapida for having commissioned its making in 8 CE at Anantnag. It is devoted to Surya, a prime deity of the Sanatan faith, and is now dilapidated despite ASI patronage. ASI has had no objections to the ‘renovations and beautification’ of mediaeval heritage but prevents the revival and reconstruction of Sanaran sacred buildings.

Kashmir is so integrally linked to Shardapeeth’s spiritual ethos that it gained the moniker of  ShardaDesh. Situated near Neelam / Krishna River, Shardapeeth is also a Maha Shakti Tirth, the traditional location of Devi Sati’s right arm. Around 6^th – 12^thCE, it was among the most prominent Temple universities of Akhand Bharata. Historical texts like Rajatarangini, traditional scriptures, and Al-Biruni’s chronicle reveal how it was the most sought-after university, enriched by a well-stocked library and Vedic scholars. Shankaracharya’s were trained and selected here. Currently, its ruins are in Pak-Occupied Kashmir, about 10 km from the border. Till Bharat regains its entire Kashmir lands, an arrangement can be initiated for devotees’ visits on the lines of the Kartarpur Sahib Sikh shrine in Punjab across the Indo-Pak border.

Conclusion

Reading historical texts of Muslim invaders or modern thinkers like Sitaram Goel, we learn of the unending list of lakhs of sacred spaces of our Itihasa that were mutilated and superimposed with mediaeval structures. Many have been completely transformed, while some are deliberately kept in ruins to show the vicious subjugation done across the north, east and west of Bharatvarsha, a region that bore the brunt of attacks. Places of remotest antiquity are the roots awaiting nourishment to bring alive our tree of civilisation. Controversial Black American nationalist political activist Marcus Garvey authenticates it as: “A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots”.American Author Steve Berry’s quote indicates the move ahead for Bharata – “A concerted effort to preserve our heritage is a vital link to our cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational and economic (scientific) legacies—all of the things that quite literally make us who we are”. Our sacred geography, traced from Nadi Sukta, the Mahatmyas and various historical texts, encompasses geo-coordinates to all these subjects of values. For current ‘India’ quoting from our traditional sources would bracket this article into the ‘Hindu revival’ remark of late J.L Nehru made to subvert reconstruction of Somnath Mandir.

Author Brief Bio: Neera Misra is an Independent Researcher focused on Vedic and Mahabharata period history and culture, and its socio-cultural impacts. She is the Founder Trustee and Chairperson of Draupadi Dream Trust.

References:

^[1] Prof. Deen Bandhu  Pandey has also referred to the Narada Purana shloka (नारदपुराण, 1.27.33) naming the major rivers.

^[2]The Mahabharata Revisited, 2012, Chapter 5, Prof. Narhari Achar.

^[3]KampilayaMahatamaya, 2003, translated by Durga Datta & Corrado Puchetti, D.K Prints

^[4]The early rulers of Kampil relating to Krivi (Rigveda 1/30/1, 8/2/24, 8/22/12, 8/87/1, 9/9/6), Turvasu (Rigveda 1/36/18, 5/31/8, 6/20/12, 8/4/7, 10/49/8), Keshin (Shatapath Brahman 11/8/4/6), Shrinjai (Rigveda 4/15/4, 6/27/7, 6/47/22) and Somak families are frequently mentioned in Vedic literature.

^[5] Prof D.P. Tewari Report Kampilya Excavation 2010-12

^[6] 63, 64 in pages 174 and 175 of,  Sing, Om Prakash, 2013, Adi Patrakar Narad aur Unki Patrakarita, Classical Publishing Company, New Delhi