By Dr JP Singh
History is rarely remembered as it was lived. More often, it is reconstructed through the anxieties, ambitions and political compulsions of the present. Every generation inherits a version of the past shaped by those who hold power, where religion, caste, race and region become convenient instruments for mobilizing loyalty and sustaining authority. Yet, history itself is far more complex than the narratives imposed upon it.
The writer argues that recovering this complexity requires a radically different way of seeing—what the Bhagavad Gita describes as Sakshi Bhava, or Witness Consciousness. This ancient ideal calls for observing human events without prejudice, ideological attachment or inherited bias. Only through such detachment, he suggests, can history be understood on its own terms rather than as an extension of contemporary political battles.
From this perspective, Bharat emerges not as a narrowly defined nation bounded by modern identities, but as an expansive civilizational idea rooted in the Vedantic vision of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—the world as one family. Sanatan dharma, in this understanding, is not an exclusionary political doctrine, but a universal philosophy embracing the whole of humanity.
The writer contends that reducing this universal vision to the narrower boundaries of modern identity politics fundamentally contradicts the philosophical foundations of Indian civilization. A civilization built upon inclusiveness, he argues, cannot sustain itself by creating new categories of insiders and outsiders.
The epics themselves, the writer asserts, reinforce this lesson. The Bhagavad Gita and the Ramayana are not manuals for social division, but explorations of human nature. Every individual contains opposing impulses—compassion and cruelty, renunciation and greed, courage and fear. Human conduct is shaped as much by material circumstances as by belief. To freeze people into permanent political or religious categories is to misunderstand both history and humanity.
According to the writer, much of contemporary politics thrives precisely by doing so. Electoral narratives transform fluid social identities into rigid camps of “us” and “them”, encouraging perpetual conflict because conflict itself becomes politically useful. Through selective education, simplified historical narratives and media amplification, complex realities are reduced to emotionally charged binaries.
Against this backdrop, the writer presents India as a civilization defined less by ethnic purity than by continuous migration and assimilation. Across millennia, successive communities entered the subcontinent, settled, intermarried, exchanged ideas and reshaped the cultural landscape. The question of who arrived first, he argues, ultimately becomes historically unknowable—and morally irrelevant. No community possesses an exclusive claim over India’s civilizational inheritance.
This leads to one of the essay’s central propositions: the macro defines the micro. India’s larger civilizational identity cannot be reduced to narrower religious, regional or political identities without fragmenting the nation itself. The writer attributes many contemporary divisions to colonial historiography, which emphasized India’s internal fractures while minimizing its long traditions of cultural synthesis.
He distinguishes this expansive civilizational idea from the modern political ideology of Hindutva, arguing that the latter belongs to a particular historical moment whereas the philosophical foundations of Vedanta transcend political boundaries and sectarian definitions.
History itself, the writer argues, consistently demonstrates that political power has been driven less by theology than by land, resources and strategic interests. The Indian subcontinent witnessed repeated waves of migration—from Indo-Aryans and Persians to Greeks, Kushans, Scythians and numerous Central Asian dynasties. Yet, each eventually became woven into the subcontinent’s evolving social fabric.
Similarly, medieval political history, he contends, cannot be accurately understood through a simplistic Hindu-versus-Muslim framework. Alliances routinely crossed religious lines. Rajput chiefs fought alongside Delhi Sultans against Mongol invasions. Marathas marched north to defend a declining Mughal empire against Ahmad Shah Abdali. Dynastic marriages, shared military leadership and administrative collaboration reflected political pragmatism far more than religious exclusivity.
For the writer, these examples reveal an enduring historical pattern: rulers pursued survival, territory and stability rather than ideological purity. Self-interest, statecraft and strategic necessity repeatedly overrode sectarian identities.
Beyond courts and battlefields, however, India’s deeper unity emerged through everyday life. Shared languages, local dialects, music, poetry, festivals and pilgrimage gradually produced a cultural synthesis that neither conquest nor political rivalry could erase.
Perhaps nowhere was this synthesis more visible than in the interaction between Vedantic philosophy and Indian sufism. While expressed through different traditions, both explored the dissolution of ego and the unity of existence. Shared devotional spaces, overlapping cultural practices and common artistic traditions fostered social relationships that often transcended formal religious boundaries.
This social fluidity, the writer argues, was profoundly disrupted under British colonial rule. The colonial state did not invent India’s diversity, but it institutionalized it through legal classifications, censuses and administrative categories that hardened previously flexible identities into permanent political divisions. Simultaneously, economic extraction devastated the country through punitive taxation, recurrent famines and the systematic transfer of wealth abroad.
The essay, therefore, cautions against selectively assigning historical blame to individual dynasties while overlooking the structural impact of colonial rule, culminating in Partition—a rupture whose consequences continue to shape South Asia.
Ultimately, the writer rejects the popular assumption that religion has historically been the principal engine of conflict. Human societies, he argues, have consistently gone to war over territory, wealth, resources and political power. The same patterns appear across civilizations—from medieval India to Europe’s Christian wars and the rivalries within the Islamic world.
The writer’s conclusion returns to the spiritual foundations from which the essay begins. Witness Consciousness is presented not merely as a philosophical concept, but as a civic discipline. Only by cultivating detachment from partisan narratives, embracing compassion and recognizing the shared humanity beneath competing identities, he argues, can India remain true to its deepest civilizational inheritance.
In the end, the measure of national greatness is not the triumph of one community over another, but the creation of a society in which every individual is treated with dignity, every child has an equal opportunity to flourish, and diversity is regarded not as a threat, but as the very source of the civilization’s enduring strength.
—The writer is retired Associate Professor of History, University of Delhi
The post The Illusion of Identity appeared first on India Legal.