      |
|
|
|
Cultural unity in diversity in
the SAARC region As in politics in the sphere of religion and culture too, South Asia presents a picture of great diversity. But absorption and synthesis postulated by Jawaharlal Nehru is evident in the cycle of history. Hinduism, the foremost among Indian religions, has shaped the whole range of civilization of India and was a part of the custom and belief of many sections of society. Although different practices, beliefs and superstitions prevailed among various sects of Hindus at different periods of history; beliefs of all groups — rulers, other elites as well as the masses — were absorbed and synthesized within Hinduism throughout history. Sometimes ideas from other religions too have been absorbed within Hinduism. For example during the heyday of the Hindu culture in the Gupta age (4th century A.D. to 6th century A.D.), the founder of Buddhism, Lord Buddha, was considered to be one of the many incarnations of Vishnu. Under the greatest Hindu empire builders in the Tamilnad — the Cholas, (9th to 12th century A.D.), Buddhism was considered sufficiently important for some scenes from the Buddha's life to be representative in decorative panels in a balustrade of the famous Hindu temple of Tanjore. Similarly, the ancient Buddhist temple, Velgam Vehera on the banks of the Periyakulam tank near Trincomalee in Sri Lanka was remodelled and considerably extended and renamed Rajarata Perumballi by the imperial Cholas in the eleventh century. In 877 A.D. in the neighbourhood of Kanheri in the north-western region of Deccan a meditation hall was constructed for Buddhist monks by a minister of the Hindu ruling dynasty called Silaharas of Konkan and other endowments donated for the regular worship of the Buddha. However, there were instances in which this trend was occasionally disturbed. For an example, in the Tamil country during the period between the fifth and seventh centuries the Hindu establishment began to entertain fears of the whole land going over to Jainism and Buddhism. The growth on the one hand, of an intense emotional devotion or bhakti to Siva or Vishnu, and on the other, of an open hatred of Buddhists and Jains were the chief characteristics of this epoch. But if the long span of history is considered as a totally, these were rare instances and 'synthesis and absorption' can be considered to have been the main trend. In India, Bhutan, Nepal and Sri Lanka, Buddhism assimilated many features of Hinduism. Even the Hindu caste system became an important element of Buddhist society. Gods of the Hindu pantheon were admitted into popular Buddhism. Of course, as in politics, in religion too, there were sectional feuds. Mahayana and Theravada Buddhist sects had their followers in all these countries and each sect struggled for supremacy and royal favour. Likewise, there were struggles between followers of Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhist ascendancy in India began to wane after the downfall of the Maurya dynasty and it is believed that subsequent Indian dynasties attempted to revive Hinduism and succeeded in their efforts which reached the climax during the era of the Guptas. Later on after about the twelfth century, Buddhism virtually disappeared from India leaving only a few followers but Buddhist influence on Indian Hinduism remained intact. On the other hand, in Sri Lanka, where there was no strong challenge from any other religion, Buddhism survived though partially influenced by Hindu customs and beliefs. Buddhism also survived in some other South Asian countries particularly in Nepal and Bhutan. While Buddhism almost disappeared from India, Jainism had greater influence than Buddhism on the life of the people in Karnataka and in the Tamil country owing to the striking contributions made by Jaina authors to the Kannada and Tamil literature. Besides, Jainism had much more in common with Hinduism than with Buddhism, and many popular beliefs and practices were common to both systems. Islam was introduced into South Asia from outside in the seventh century AD through the Muslim traders who frequented ports of the western coast. But the main force of Islam came through north-western passes particularly through Khyber pass with the invading armies. With the establishment of Muslim rule in India after the eleventh century, and of the Mughal rule from the sixteenth century onwards, Punjab, the Gangetic Valley, Deccan, Bengal and several regions began to be dominated by Muslims. Although inter-marriage, inter-dining and such other social relations among Muslims and Hindus were rare, several Hindus embraced Islam owing to compulsion, hope of personal gain or through conviction. There were marked differences between Islam and Indian religions but there was a union of Hindu and Muslim cultures in several respects. A good example is the evolution of the Urdu language. The Muslim conquerors spoke either Turki or Persian while the majority of the Indians of the north spoke Hindu. The frequent association of these two peoples necessitated a common medium of speech. Thus words of Indian origin began to find a place in the Indo-Persian literature of the time, while numerous Persian words became naturalized in Hindi and other vernaculars. Out of this mingling of Persian, Arabic and Turkish words and ideas with words of Indian origin grew up 'Urdu' or the camp language. Many of the Hindu converts retained their ancestral ways and some retained their caste designations adding further diversity to the complex Indian society. Such developments prompted some religious reformers like Guru Nanak (1469 — 1538) to propagate a new religion — Sikhism, synthesizing ideas from both Hinduism and Islam. Consequently the followers of Sikhism emerged as another distinct community — the Sikhs. Guru Nanak retained the belief in Karma and rebirth but rejected the vedas, caste, idol worship and the authority of the Brahmins. He preached the gospel of universal tolerance and said "there is no Hindu and no Musalman". Even certain political leaders attempted at religious synthesis. The best example is the attempt made by the Mughul emperor Akbar (1556-1605) to formulate a new religion, Din-I-Ilhai or divine monotheism. But with the death of Akbar's son Jahangir, the idea faded. It is difficult to say how far Islam influenced Hindu religious thought and practice. Some traits of the Hindu reform movement in medieval India, such as the increasing emphasis on monotheism, on emotional worship, on self-surrender, on the need for devotion to a spiritual teachers as well as the growing laxity in caste rules and indifference to ritual, at least among some sects, have all been held to be in one way or other the result of Islamic influence. In Sri Lanka, demon rituals of the original tribal groups were accommodated both in Buddhism and Hinduism. Through royal patronage, Buddhism became the dominant religion from the third century BC onwards. But, the Buddhists were extremely tolerant towards Hindus. As in India, Hindu gods and religious rituals were accommodated in popular Buddhism, although the precepts of the Buddha, discouraged belief in gods. Hindu temples were constructed in close proximity to Buddhist centres of worship. The co-existence of the Vihara organisation and the Devale organisation up to the present, both recognized and supported by the state, exemplifies the peaceful co-existence and synthesis of Hinduism and Buddhism. Some Buddhist kings patronized Hinduism so much so that the Culavamsa chronicle considered it worth recording a few instances. According to record, in one instance king Sena II (853-887) who reformed the three Buddhist fraternities fed a thousand Brahmanas with milk rice in pure jewelled goblets "clothed them, also as a friend of meritorious works with new garments at their hearts desire." Through South Indian migrants, invaders, mercenaries and traders, Hinduism also gained ground in Sri Lanka from early periods. Some Hindu kings such as Elara (205-161 BC) patronized Buddhism for reasons of political expediency. In general, a synthesis of religious ritual and custom between Buddhists and Hindus can be recognized as one of the principal themes in the religious history of the Island. Islam came to Sri Lanka very much later than Buddhism and Hinduism, as a religion of the Muslim traders who frequented the ports of the Island. The numerical strength of the Muslims was small and as a trading community the followers of Islam lived harmoniously with Buddhists and Hindus. In South Asia, while empires and kingdoms appeared and disappeared, the popular religion, social structure and village life sustained through assimilation and absorption. In these respects and in other aspects of culture, South Asia, with all its diversities, can be regarded as a unit distinct from the rest of the world. Although generalizations can be misleading, it will not be wrong to state that South Asian political units were linked together by a mutual sharing of peoples and cultures. Each southern Asian geographical unit represented a multiple pattern in which one set of regional, cultural, religious and social values was predominant, but with the cultural traits of other regions and peoples in subcontinent interwoven with it. For example, in India Hindi and also Urdu after the Muslim conquest were the dominant languages but along with them there were hundreds of secondary regional languages co-existing. In Sri Lanka, Sinhala was the dominant language, but Tamil, the language of the South Indian migrants, soldiers and merchants had a place in society. Words from the Tamil language were assimilated into the Sinhalese language and in certain trading stations such as Dondra even edicts were inscribed in Tamil. While there were several sub-cultures in South Asia, links can also be seen in the arts: in music, dancing, drama, painting and sculpture. Occupation patterns, techniques used in the performance of occupational duties and village life were also similar in the cub-continent of Asia. Paddy cultivation methods or the art of the village blacksmith or the potter were not very different be it in Bengal, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan or Sri Lanka. These similarities in the South Asian sub-continent become clearer when they are compared with those of Western Europe, Middle East or the Far-East. In fact, the history of South Asia cannot be adequately evoked by concentrating upon the central events and the dynastic history of rulers; it has to be seen as a panorama of peoples. |
