It's the Pluralistic Vision that made Our Unlikely Union Possible

ACUTE ANGLE

- Anand Neelakantan Author of Asura, Ajaya series, Vanara and Bahubali trilogy

When we speak of Indian unity, we often drift into the comfortable realm of mythology rather than historical fact. The Mauryan Empire, at its zenith under Ashoka, stretched across much of northern India, yet failed to penetrate deep into the Tamil kingdoms of the south. The mighty Guptas barely extended their direct control beyond the Vindhyas, while the Deccan remained under independent rulers. The Cholas dominated the seas and expanded into Southeast Asia, but their control rarely extended beyond the Vindhyas, except for Bengal and Odisha. The Pandyas remained confined to the southern tip of the peninsula. Even the Vijayanagara Empire never ventured successfully beyond the Deccan plateau. The Mughals, often cited as unifiers, reached their greatest extent under Aurangzeb. Yet, the Ahoms of Assam remained independent, and the Travancore kingdom maintained its sovereignty. The Marathas exercised more of a tribute-collecting authority rather than direct administrative control over much of their claimed territory and many parts of India remained outside their influence.

This is a crucial reminder that India's current political unity is unprecedented. When we chest-thump about "5,000 years of Indian civilisation," we conveniently forget that this civilisation flourished precisely because of its diversity, not despite it. Our modern nation-state is a British construct, and many parts of India are together only because of the historical accident of British rule. The myth of cultural unity in India is perhaps our most cherished fiction. We speak of "Indian culture" as though it's a monolithic entity, when in reality, what exists is a patchwork quilt of regional identities stitched together by colonial borders.