Regional, National, and Universal

Regional, National, and Universal

Satya, one sentence in your message caught my attention: “Political domination of the North.” But this raises the question, “On whom?” While it’s true that the majority of MPs come from the North, a North-vs-Rest dichotomy cannot truly exist in a democracy.

However, such divisions are indeed a reality in Indian politics. In the South, particularly in Tamil Nadu, there is a prevalent political attitude that can seem hegemonic and patronizing, as if they are the “saviors” of India—contributing more economically, for instance, by paying more GST. But I challenged this by pointing out, “Who supplies the raw materials like steel and coal for your industrial growth?” Much like the British once did, they purchase cheap raw materials from the North, particularly from states like Bihar, often at the cost of local workers’ health, then sell finished products at marked-up prices to turn a profit.

This attitude isn’t limited to politicians. I first encountered it not among politicians but among Evangelical Christians, who seem to carry the “White Man’s Burden” to “save” the North from hell. This led to a major confrontation where I pointed out they were replicating the same hierarchical approach as their Western predecessors—keeping locals under their administration rather than fostering leadership among them. When one Tamil missionary argued, “We don’t see the same commitment or dedication from them as we have,” I replied, “Then who’s responsible for that? After decades of your presence, if there isn’t the same or greater commitment, then something may be flawed in your teaching, approach, or attitude.”

It is also a well-known historical fact that kings constructed temples and granted generous tracts of land to them (Devadana) primarily with economic interests in mind rather than purely religious or political motives.

A region can grow quickly due to various historical factors and geographic advantages. For example, states with major natural ports have long been centers of trade and thus developed more rapidly in both political and economic spheres. Landlocked regions, meanwhile, were often blessed with natural resources and mineral wealth. In the past, mutual contributions facilitated relatively balanced growth across regions. However, in modern democracy, the focus on numbers can sometimes lead to one region’s development at the expense of another.

In addition, central governments often succumb to pressure from regional parties that are part of the ruling coalition, as we have seen both in past administrations and in the current government. This dynamic can lead to policies that favor specific regions, sometimes at the expense of balanced national development.

While I don’t deny the value of regionalism or nationalism—both of which can work together to shape a unified national identity—any one-sided domination will ultimately harm the country’s overall welfare and the well-being of its people. Rather than promoting regional or national interests in isolation, we should foster a nationalism that embraces regional aspirations. Both regionalism and nationalism can complement each other, creating a collective identity for the country. Tagore and Amartya Sen advocated for this balance, while Gandhi disagreed with Tagore’s universal vision; it’s a topic that warrants its own article or even a book.

Regional politicians often play the “victim card,” claiming economic, social, or cultural invasion by outsiders, even when these “outsiders” are fellow Indians. For instance, Mamata Banerjee’s decision to drive out the Tata Nano project from West Bengal was quickly countered by Modi, then Chief Minister of Gujarat. A smart politician needs to be an astute economist as well; if not, they would do well to seek guidance from one, just as past kings did with their wise ministers—many of whom were Brahmins, like Chanakya (or Kautalya), the author of the Arthashastra, was to Chandragupta.

Ultimately, fostering a nationalism that includes and respects regional aspirations is essential. This approach, rather than any one-sided dominance, will ensure the overall welfare of the country and its people.

Gurukulam,

2-11-2024

The view that kings built temples and granted lands primarily for economic reasons is quite plausible, and there’s historical evidence to support this perspective. Temples in ancient and medieval India were not just places of worship; they also served as economic and social hubs. By investing in temple construction and granting lands (Devadana), rulers could stimulate local economies, create jobs, and establish a stable income source through temple-owned land, which produced agricultural wealth.

Temples also played a significant role in legitimizing the king’s rule. By aligning with religious institutions, rulers reinforced their authority and gained social prestige, which helped secure loyalty from local populations. Additionally, temples often acted as repositories of wealth and were involved in lending, functioning somewhat like banks within the community, which added another layer of economic importance.

So, while religious and political motivations certainly played a role, the economic incentives for kings to support temples were substantial. By promoting temples, they created centers that sustained trade, supported artisans and laborers, and ensured the circulation of wealth within their territories, which ultimately reinforced their own power and stability.

Champakalakshmi’s work is indeed a valuable resource for understanding the economic and social functions of temples in South India. In her book, “Trade, Ideology, and Urbanization: South India 300 BC to AD 1300,” she discusses how temples served as crucial centers of economic activity, supported by royal patronage not only for religious purposes but also for economic consolidation. She explains that kings used temples as a means to stimulate trade, agriculture, and social organization. Through generous land grants and donations, known as Devadana and Brahmadeya, rulers strengthened local economies and secured loyalty from powerful social groups and religious institutions.

In her analysis, Champakalakshmi illustrates how temples functioned almost like civic institutions, managing resources, supporting crafts, and engaging in agrarian production. Temples often became landlords, managing vast tracts of land, which allowed them to play a significant economic role in medieval South Indian society. This arrangement fostered economic stability, enabling kings to maintain control over their territories through indirect means.

Another valuable reference is Burton Stein’s “Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India,” where he also highlights how temples, through royal endowments and land grants, became central to the agrarian economy, supporting the redistribution of resources and the integration of diverse social groups.

These works by Champakalakshmi and Stein provide a nuanced understanding of temples as multi-functional institutions that went beyond religious significance to shape the political and economic landscapes of their times.

Bibliography

V. Stein, The Political Economy of Indian Agriculture, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,  2003; The Political Economy of Land Reforms in India, Routledge, New Delhi,  2016

Chempakalakshmi, The Political Economy of the Indian State, Oxford University Press, New Delhi,  2008; The Transformation of Indian Society,  Social Science Press,  New Delhi, 2012,