The patterns of how people live and express themselves, how they value objects and ideas is broadly what constitutes culture in popular parlance. However, culture - especially in a vast land like India, with a hoary past, syncretic values and ways of living - is not monolithic. It has myriad strands which have evolved both centripetally and centrifugally, notes Romila Thapar, a leading member of the History fraternity in India. (On a personal note, this reviewer has had the privilege of being her student, and imbibing many key ideas of historiography and archaeology at the University of Delhi. This review thus is as much a tribute to her ability to inspire students, as to her own thought processes).

 

Dr.Thapar is a founder member of the School for Historical Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, (now Professor Emerita).  A fellow of the British Academy, she was awarded the Kluge Prize of the US Library of Congress (2008), which honours lifetime achievements in studies such as History, not covered by the Nobel Prize. This book is compiled from lectures she gave at institutions as diverse as the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya (CSMVS) Mumbai, to Darwin College, Cambridge and the Kalakshetra Foundation, Chennai, and others.

 With her lifelong work on several phases of Indian history, Dr. Thapar is uniquely positioned to interpret the evolution of strands  creating  Indian culture in the modern age. It is to be noted that the word used in the title is “Cultures”, predicating the idea that culture is not unitary or homogenous in a huge and diverse country like India. Yet, each facet has a context and meaning that links them to this past, and that has a continued presence in the contemporary.

​

She begins by explaining how definition of what constitutes culture has changed over the last four centuries or more, and what requires added attention and explanations. Cultures when defined by drawing on selected items and thoughts from the past, remain relatively unknown, except to a few. Yet each has a context relative to the past, which has a bearing on their present. The author touches upon quite a few of these contexts, ranging from objects that identify cultures to ideas that shape culture, such as role of women, social discrimination  and attitudes to science and knowledge.

​

Throughout her presentation, Dr. Thapar argues that the content of education is a crucial to the cultural reflections of a society. Education can be unquestioning or passive, or worse, be pliant to political ideology of the day. This would suit those who wish to impose a particular way of thinking on people, especially in this age of so-called ‘social media’ which, by its very  way of operation, is open to manipulation by vested interests to convert palpable lies into “truths”, and cause divisiveness in society and distress to sections of people. We see its potency in the West, and that is percolating in the East too. A different kind of content would make a society questioning and active, demanding a greater understanding of the world, and making social ethics a primary concern. The culture that many endorse today is, regrettably, quite removed from such concerns.

​

Every society has its cultures i.e. the patterns of how the people of that society live - the broad categories that shape life, technology that enables control over the natural world; environment that determines relationship with the natural world; political-economy that creates vision of a larger society as a community; social relations that ensure  its networks of functioning; religion that appeals to aspirations and belief; mythology that may transmute into literature and philosophy that tweaks the mind with imagination and questions. The process is never static, and leads to mutations in society. Interactions with other societies also lead to amoeba like breakaways into new cultures. History and culture are symbiotically connected, and the author makes the point that in the last century, cultural contexts came to be predicated also via anthropological studies and excavations, particularly in Asia and Africa where predatory colonialism emerged to muddy the waters. What started off as trading relationships soon changed, in country after country, into political and territorial domination aimed at siphoning off revenue and natural resources. In due course this ended up leaving a deep mark on the cultural scene as well.

 

How does this affect the perception of what came to be regarded as Indian culture in 19th century? As this is when it came to be recognised as a distinct category and a subject of study. The author notes that today when we speak of culture, related objects and ideas may emanate from ancient past, but our definition of culture is rooted in how culture was perceived in 19th century. The hierarchies in this culture were again determined largely by studies of Indian and non Indian scholars writing on the culture of “upper castes”and elite of varied backgrounds.

The larger Indian society functioned on demarcations of community and sect. Identity was determined by the jati in which one was born into, which in turn conditioned marriage, inheritance and often occupation. Such a layered structure is at the root of diversity, and this is further complicated by multitude of languages spoken. Analysis of each language shows up a narrative of the history of the speaker who lived either in isolation from, or more frequently intermingled with speakers of other languages, thus pinpointing the histories of linguistic interactions. In theory, social groups were rigidly separated by strictly enforced social codes. In practice, however, there could be a degree of accommodation between some groups in some activities, but not in others, both being culturally determined.

​

Religious categories could allow for accommodation. There is considerable difference between how religion is formulated at a simple level, and the forms it takes when it becomes a social enterprise. In the latter, it controls crucial institutions involved in preparing the individual through prescriptions of behaviour and practice of religion, largely through institutions of education, and through religious codes. Discussions on the social role of religion have to keep in mind that this role is manmade, and in practice has a worldly aim quite apart from the benefits it may promise in afterlife. It is distinct from the role of belief and faith, and not dictated by any supernatural. It may take the simple and direct ways of the shamans, to the complexities of the current political and economic control exercised by religious bodies through a variety of what are described as social organisations.Consider the interactions between religion and politics..The history of Turks, Afghans and Mughals in India is still viewed in simplistic terms of their being Muslims, ruling over a Hindu population. Yet historians know that there was a complicated web of politics and social relations that involved both Hindu and Muslim elite, this was also present in local populations going beyond a simplistic view. Unfortunately, in this matter, colonial views that are entirely out of date are still propagated by some political and qasi political organisations, whose concerns focus  around building vote banks and using falsified history to construct a new political identity.

​

Dr. Thapar makes the point that cultural values are clearly multifaceted. Cultures as patterns of living are created by, and are acceptableto, most persons that constitute a society.However, not everyone observes the norms, even if the majority does. Where castes and religions work out their own norms of social life, we see these as multiple cultures coexisting. Similarly in later societies, some preferred to opt out of normal society—renouncers who have monasteries with different patterns of living. Culture also emerges sometimes from our responses to the worlds we live in. Societies have multiple patterns, and one pattern alone cannot represent all. This becomes problematic when reference is made to one cultural form to illustrate the many cultures of a society, eg when reference is made to a particular cultural form as Indian culture. The same works for European or Chinese culture. The question then is, can a single label to refer to multiple cultures in a society? Dr Thapar closely examines what goes into making of a pattern of living today that can be called its culture. Earlier it was dependant on the family, the community and education. Today the scenario is slowly giving way to creating of cultures through social media, TV, advertisements and cinema. Social media and TV can distort actual reality, with fantasy becoming more central to social culture than reality. This trend will only exaggerate with time, with development and improvement of Virtual Reality. Exposing fake news through Right to Information can be at the risk of one`s life. But lives either of individuals or publications do not matter now, so long as story is sensational. Journalism once valued serious enquiry and explanation, now it includes statements whose authenticity need not be proven.

​

The brunt of Dr Thapar`s  argument is that often the definition of Indian culture is an attempt to perceive what is thought to be an Indian reality, as well as visualization of an Indian imagination to create forces that accord with this reality. It has been the construct of a group within society that has the wealth, the power and the status to dictate and define the culture they assume should reflect the entire society. In the past it was royalty or upper castes that frequently defined culture and its nuances.. At the same time there are other norms and forms observed by larger parts of society, whose aesthetics and skills may be ignored in the belief that they were only following what their patron told them. They have remained anonymous, but that did not negate their creativity.Culture, she says, is the end product of human purpose and dependant on those who give it shape.Should we not understand its purpose? That would only broaden the horizons of Indian cultures.

​

She notes that we speak of the pattern of living and of culture in the singular, yet in every society there are multiple patterns, more correctly we should speak of multiple cultures. That we do not, is partly because we think about individual civilizations in the singular and extend it to culture, and partly because a culture is defined only by characteristics of the dominant culture, with a bias and sensitivities of both those who perceive , and are perceived. The assumption behind all this was that correct observation of prescribed norms ensured a society committed to duties and obligations---rights were largely ignored. Now that social ethics and justice have become central to philosophical discourse in modern times, this requires us to discard some older identities. For instance, in the nation state, identity of community based on religion, language or ethnicity has less centrality than identity of citizen of the nation. Religious nationalism in present times in various nations of South Asia are battling the secular identity of the citizen that they want to replace by giving priority to a particular religious identity—be it Muslim in Pakistan/ Bangladesh, or Hindu in the concept of Hindu Rashtra,or Sikh in the idea  of Khalistan and Buddhist in Sri Lanka.Identity is a demarcation of a segment of society, and  by its own logic, may require not only separation but in some instances, exclusion of the Other.Nationalism,on the other hand, projects  the reverse by insisting on an inclusive identity, where all are to be included as citizens of a nation. The greater the emphasis on a particular identity, greater will be the insistence on exclusion. Texts such as Dharmashastras reiterate identities, yet in practice there were divergences. Some instances, there were changes in practice, yet the façade remained unchanged .Colonial reconstructions of the past often saw gender and caste as static and historically unchanging. When social practices are studied, then many forms of social negotiations are revealed as ways of change, particularly in the history of women and of lower castes and outcastes.

​

A new identity and new type of exclusion came into prevalence in 19th century---that of Race. Drawing on the theory of evolution in Darwinian terms, this was a useful idea for legitimizing superiority of colonial powers by describing them as more “advanced” on the evolutionary scale. The concept was new to history, and unfamiliar to non Western areas of the world that conceded ground to colonial economic and military power. This was problematic to India as despite the social segmentation, concept of race is absent. But there was no shortage of terms used for excluded segments (some more sharply than others) ---Dasa, Mleccha, Chandala, Avarna, Yavana, Turushka, but none carried the meaning of Race. Modern translations of texts referring to Race often equated these with Jati, which was not only incorrect, but caused much confusion. In the world of today, Race has no scientific basis, but this has not removed its popular usage. In India the label has been and continues to be used for people, language, religions, customs—you name it! As with many myths, it distorts reality, drawing on myths and fantasies related to culture.

​

It is convenient for national culture to be singular, but it seldom can be, as different identities compete. In India, the confrontation involved 3 obvious claims to nationalism, two on the basis of religious identities—Hindu and Muslim, and one contesting these as a secular anti colonial identity. The 2 had identities in pre colonial times, some of which coincided, some conflicted. But the new political identities based on religion [Hindu or Muslim] but claiming to be national, were created and nurtured by the colonizer.In this process, the secular anti-colonial process was to some degree, undermined.

​

 So what goes into making of a national culture? At official level, there is continued use of colonial terms: majority and minority (largely derived from statistics).Instead of looking for more descriptive terms, this configuring of culture is reinforced by saying that whereas majority culture will be prominent, the culture of minorities will also figure What this means is that Indian culture more often is defined centrally by what is projected as Hindu culture, with addition of those items associated with, as required, as come from minority communities. In India today (as in the past) Hindu and Islamic monuments dominate. Should they be juxtaposed, or should there be an attempt to place each of them in a larger context where their relationship can be observed? Many today, either out of ignorance or reasons of political ideology, expound theories that can be called ridiculous - such as, that Hindus have been enslaved/ victimized over the last millennia. This ignorance is astonishing, because it denies the most evocative and cherished religious articulations in different facets of Hinduism that took place over last thousand years.The 14th century compendium Sarvadarshanasangraha has the works of a range of Bhakti sants in every part of the country who propagated various ways of worshipping either Hindu deities, or a deity that was an amalgam of many deities across religions. Pilgrimage centres flourished and bhajans were sung in every regional language. Many aspects of belief and worship that are central to Hinduism today found expression and patronage during 2nd millennium AD, such as worship of Krishna and Rama.In some cases, popular aspects of Hindu and Islamic religion were interwoven, as was courtly culture.

​

Composers of more popular hymns included Muslim poets and Sufis, such as Ras Khan, whose verses in praise of Krishna are still a part of Hindustani classical music repertoire. Classical Indian music, both Hindustani and Carnatic,got substantial shape from many musical forms that were explored  500 years ago by musicians from a variety of religious sects. This was not a one-off, but a reflection of multiple dialogues. Major commentaries on classical texts of an earlier age such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and other Dharmashastras were written, discussed, amplified in this millennium.Sayana wrote his famous commentary on the RgVeda in 14th century, versions of classics eg Krittibas`s Bengali Ramayana  and  Tulsidas  Ramcharitmanas emerged in this age, as did the Kamban Ramayana in its Southern recension. Brahman and Jaina scholars worked with Persian scholars on translations of Sanskrit texts into Persian at the Mughal court.

​

At another level, Rajput royal families intermarried with Mughal nobility. Apart from personal relationships it gave value to traditions. Rajputs and other caste Hindus frequently manned upper levels of Mughal administration. The Mughal army that defeated Rana Pratap at Haldighati was commanded by Rajputs, a command given to them on many occasions.

​

Of course, this is not to say that there was no confrontation at political levels, but this should not be confused with claims that mass victimization of Hindus brought about Hindu resistance in late Mughal period. Political relations should be examined in terms of politics of the Time. Conflicts of a routine kind were clearly local, and relations between communities in general tend to be governed by some degree of accommodation, and some degree of confrontation.

​

To return to our times. Nationalism can determine the selection of what we term as national culture. This helps preserve what otherwise may have declined, and might be called a positive role even if selection of what is to be preserved does not have national unanimity, or citizens may feel that some cultural items were deliberately or inadvertently left out. But there is also the problem of destruction of culture in the name of nationalism or similar sentiment—destruction of Greco-Roman monuments in Palmyra and Aleppo (Syria) destroyed by Islamic extremists of the IS; the massive Buddhas at Bamiyan blown up by the Taliban; the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya (India) destroyed by Hindu extremists who claimed they were avenging the raid by Mahmud Ghazni at Somanath temple a thousand years back, and assuaging a supposed subsequent Hindu ‘trauma’. There is no mention in ancient texts of such a trauma. The Masjid was a 16th century mosque that had been deemed a protected monument of the Indian state, but destroyed by those antagonistic to its presence at a site which they claimed as being sacred as marking a temple to Rama.

​

Another situation that calls for defining a national culture is migrations—  labour forces in the past controlled by colonial masters to serve and develop natural resources of their colonies, as well as limited settlements of commercial professionals in areas like East and South Africa. Independent migration in post colonial area was largely middle class professionals settling in economically advanced societies. Now there exists a thriving Indian diaspora which provides another dimension to interlink culture with nationalism. Migrants carry their cultural identities and are anxious to protect/preserve them. But ethnicity also undergoes change, and so do cultures, grafted as they are on a new host society. The home society also changes; thus the diaspora is constantly inventing traditions; or where the migration has brought success to migrants, it becomes a role model for home society, even if there is a difference of context. This might explain the cultural crisis among some of Indian origin in the West; where the two cultures do not often blend, leading to rootlessness despite the search for syncretism or hybridity.

However, irrespective of where one lives, the images one carries of one`s homeland, and especially its past, are shaped by one`s conception of history and its interpretations---as carried in our minds. National cultures are not static, they mutate depending on those who create them. What was regarded by Indians as national culture is not identical with what some Indians today call Indian culture, as the latter are busy trying to expunge what they maintain as alien elements and so not part of Indian culture as they see it.

​

And then there is globalization. The rush to be globalised brings two contradictions: one is to be open and participate in global economy and society, the other is to create citadels in the name of religion that are effectively self contained citadels. When we speak of national culture today we accept that state as patron is also involved in determining the content of this culture, as it has always been in the past to varying degrees. What we do not concede, but should, is that alternative definitions of culture also have to be protected. This can only become a practice when defining of culture stops going to one source and is able to achieve a balance among different sources.

Dr Thapar opines that civilization in the last analysis is an amalgam of cultures, of patterns of living, with many horizontal and lateral interactions. Our current definition of civilization is too rigid and in some ways, ahistorical, missing out on significant areas of overlapping cultures implicit in heritage. Her book has sections examining the impact of cultures on other connected areas as concepts of Time, Science and Knowledge ,cultural socialization as it pertains to position of women, and most important of all,on Education.

Tightly composed and  thought provoking books like this do spark debate, as they should among younger generations, who will inherit the future, and carry the story further into this century and beyond. Culture, and cultures that constitute its background, are intimately woven as warp and weft of a developing nation seeking its place under the sun. They truly are its “Contemporary Pasts”.