Re-reading the civilization against Barbarism With
special ref to India in Gujarati
novel KURUKSHETRA
Meaning of
Barbarism and Civilizatio
Theoretical Analysis of text – KURUKSHETRA
Acculturation: assimilation to a different culture
Civilisation
without Hierarchy?
The Image of the
Barbarism in Early India
What may be
justifiable is not necessarily inevitable
Who are real
Barbarians on the name of civilization?
Justifying
Barbarians from the KURUKSHETRA
Rebuilding the
meaning of Civilization
‘What may be
justifiable is not necessarily inevitable.’ -
Jhaveri
Re-reading the civilization against Barbarism With special
ref to India in Gujarati novel KURUKSHETRA
Abstract:
Every time, barbarism
is a brutal term used to define non-cultured people of backward areas in any
region. We need to ask a question: who has defined this barbarism and on which
grounds!? If civilization is itself differentiating the barbarism as it's
opponent then civilization is nothing but to be ashamed of!
Study
of civilization usually forces on the relationships or the similarities and
differences between one civilized and another. Those between civilized people
and their less developed neighbours- referred to as Barbarians. Traditionally,
historians attempt to answer historical questions through the study of written
documents and oral accounts.
This paper researches
the term civilization again to re-read the context of Barbarism and researcher
had taken special reference to the Gujarati novel KURUKSHETRA by Manubhai
Pancholi, pen named - Darshak.
Key
Words:
Barbarism,
Civilization, Indian Context, Kurukshetra, Darshak
Preface
Every time, barbarism
is a brutal term used to define non-cultured people of backward areas in any
region. We need to ask a question: who has defined this barbarism and on which
grounds!? If civilization is itself differentiating the barbarism as it's
opponent then civilization is nothing but to be ashamed of!
Study
of civilization usually forces on the relationships or the similarities and
differences between one civilized and another. Those between civilized people
and their less developed neighbours- referred to as Barbarians. Traditionally,
historians attempt to answer historical questions through the study of written
documents and oral accounts. They also use such sources as monuments,
inscriptions, and pictures. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can
be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is
physically preserved. Historians often consult all three. However, writing
is the marker that separates history from what comes before
Lewis Henry Morgan proposed
the three universal evolutionary stages of savagery, barbarism and
civilization.
Civilizations
are, by and large, the world’s creators and innovators- the bell- wethers of
evolution whose cultural imitated, insofar as they can be, by the people around
them.
Civilization and Barbarism in Gibbon’s history…
“‘savages’ or
‘barbarism’ were described as people who live without laws, without police,
without religion and who have no fixed habitation.”
New discoveries, as well
as theoretical re-evaluations, have questioned the standard paradigm, both in
terms of chronology and the driving factors leading to civilization.
(1) How do we define
civilization?
(2) How do we
recognize civilization in the record?
(3) What are the
ingredients and driving forces leading to civilization?
(4) What factors
underlie the collapse of civilization? In particular, what caused the demise of
early civilization evidenced at the end of the last ice age?
What relevance does the
study of early civilization have for modern society and modern civilization?
Arguably, today’s sophisticated technological civilization is highly vulnerable
to both natural and human-induced catastrophes. The truism that we can learn
from the past is perhaps more important and relevant than ever before.
Characteristics
of Barbarians
Characteristics of Civilized
Nomads are nowhere close to being a civilization even though sometimes groups
of nomads have good technology. Nomads travel around all the time following
food. A civilization is a stationary place with agriculture. This means that
the community of people occupying this civilization does not have to go running
around scrounging for food. Nomads are just a small group of people without
cities, sometimes without writing, no organizations, and their technology is lacking.
Civilizations have the one-up on nomads without a doubt. If everyone was just a
bunch of nomads, the world would not be organized, and cultures would not be as
complex and great as they are today. Nomads are just a bunch of underdeveloped,
not modern, and sometimes barbaric people.
Here in this paper, researcher studies Gujarati novel – KURUKSHETRA by
Manubhai Pancholi to justify Civilization looking at barbarism. Now, let’s take
brief overview for the text – KURUKSHETRA.
About the
text – KURUKSHTERA
Here
is a deep, seething anger terminating into profound, paralytic pathos. Incensed
and with revulsion at the senseless atrocity and repeatedly benumbed with
sadness for the life destroyed, it is not easy to read this text without
breaking down repeatedly.
Henceforth…
unconcealed irony will accompany in addressing Arjun as – pious – without sin
and Krishna as veer mahatma, brave and noble soul.
In
Mahabharata’s Adi Parva, from skipping the earth of Naga’s Forest, land it is
only a short distance call to disrobe the glory of the victors. But Poet Vyas
Muni still desires to avoid the disgrace but we must not forget that,
‘What may be
justifiable is not necessarily inevitable.’
Theoretical Analysis of text – KURUKSHETRA
‘તક્ષક નાગ રહે એ જ ઉત્તમ હતું ને મહત્વનું પણ ચિંતામણિએ પોતાના પુત્રને ઉત્તમ આર્ય બનાવવો હતો.’
As Damon’s mother used to say, it was like…. “Don't behave
like Nigger though actuary he belongs to Nigro community.”
In the novel, we find the description of Naga's community. Their
villages and people when Tapti talk with them and try to their condition.
‘તપતી બાળકો ઉછેરવા વિશે નાગોની સ્ત્રીઓને જયારે વાત કરે તો સાંભળનાર બાઘાની જેમ જોઈ રહે, બાળકોને કોઈ ઉછેરવાના હોય? એ તો જંગલનાં વેલ, ફળ,ફુલ જેમ જ ઉછેર ને? એમાં તે વળી શું કરવાનું હોય?’
‘તક્ષક માનતો હતો કે જેણે અપમાનને સહન કર્યા હોય તે બીજાનું અપમાન ન કરે. તેની વેદના જ તેની ગુરુ થાય પણ કર્ણ નો વર્તાવ જોઇને થયું કે આ માન્યતા ઓછામાં ઓછી કર્ણ પુરતી તો સાચી નહોતી નહીતર તેણે રથશાળાની ઓરડીમાં તેને ઉતારો ના આપ્યો હોત અને એ જાણ્યા બાદ કે તક્ષક પોતે પોતાની વ્યૂહરચનાનું એક પરિબળ થઈ શકે તેમ છે એવી પ્રતીતિ થયા પછી એ 'તું' માંથી 'તમે' પર ના આવ્યો હોત. શું સંપતિ અને સત્તા સાથે અવિવેક અનિવાર્ય હતા?’
Acculturation: assimilation to a different culture
We imagine cultural influences as spreading by their
own innate appeal from primitive people to primitive people to primitive
people, independently of any conscious will on the parts of donors or recipients.
Yet we tend to think of influences of civilization as something forced down the
throats of helpless primitives. But if our attitudes toward the influence of
civilization upon primitives has usually been disapproving, it has at least
been realistic.
“વાસુકિ કંઈ કેટલાય વર્ષોથી નાગો અને આર્યાના ઐક્યની વાત કરે છે. તેને આ બંનેનાં મિલન સિવાય કોઈ ઉપાય દેખાતો નથી. તક્ષકનો બાપ ચિત્રરજ આ સ્વીકારતો નથી ને કહે છે; પણ મિલન કોની સાથે? હાથ લંબાવે તેની સાથે કે પગમાં પડતા જવું નાગકન્યાંને ઉપવસ્ત્ર તરીકે રાખવા તૈયાર આર્ય તો દેખાડો?”
Civilisation
without Hierarchy?
Standards of civilization are an explicit tool of
hierarchy, separating those admitted to the international society of states
from those deemed unworthy and denied entry, at least until they can measure
up. As the term standard suggests in many contexts, standards of civilization
are largely about widely accepted norms and expectations, or the norm; in this
case, what is required in terms of perceptions about civilised behavior.
(Bowden
Civilization and Hierarchy Go Hand-in-Hand)
Birth of civilization created hierarchical order between
‘societies. Greeks and Roman acknowledged no cultural peers, but ranked their
various neighbors- barbarians- as more or less civilized according to the
degree to which they shared the values and beliefs of the Greeks and Roman
themselves.
“આર્ય નાગોનુ સંમીલન જે તેની માતાની દૂરાશા હતી તે શક્ય હતું ખરું? તેનાં પિતાની વાત સાચી નહોતી કે સંમિલનનો સમાન વચ્ચે જ સંભવે ?કાં તો આર્યાએ નિચે આવવું જોઈએ કાં તો નાગોએ ઉંચે જવું જોઈએ”
– Here concept of equality and equity.
It
is important to recognize that just as various hierarchical rankings were
generally accepted by their respective occupants within the civilized
societies. So also, the peaking order which civilization created between
different societies was generally accepted by the various people involved.
Thus,
not only the immediate neighbours but much more remote and primitive people
were affected by the ramifying power structures created by Civilizations.
The
Image of the Barbarism in Early India
Romila Thapar mentions
in her article ‘The Image pf the Barbarism in early
India’, The Indo-Aryan speakers spoke Sanskrit whereas the Indigenous
people probably spoke Dravidian and Munda.
Sanskrit
word for Barbarian is ‘mleccha’, which represents a cultural event rather
than a linguistic fact.
‘Maleccha’ as
a term of exclusion also carried within it the possibility of assimilation, in
this case the process by which the norms of the sub culture find their way in
varying levels. The obvious forms are noticeable in external habits such as
names, dress, eating habits and amusements.
‘Me-luh-ha’
is Sumerian name for all Eastern land with which the Sumerian had trading
relations- possibly the people of Indus civilization. Relationship between
Mleccha and Arya went into the making of a caste society. No self-respecting Arya
would marry into a mleccha family where the malecchas in question were
technologically inferior, their occupation was low and this affected their
rituals status which was heavily weighted on the side of impurity and therefor
low.
It
is possible that the distinction between Arya and maleccha had become blurred
in actual practice although the ‘Dharanshashtras’ continued to maintain it.
How
Barbarism is cultivated and rather preserved is such an important point to
notice here.
“તપતિ એ નિસાસો નાખીને કહ્યું; ' બા તમે પણ મારા પિતાજીની પસંદગી તો જાતે જ કરેલી ને! એ પણ માતામહિની સામે થઈને. કાશિરાજ ની પુત્રી થઈને તમે પણ બ્રાહ્મણને પરણ્યા હતા ને!' ત્યારે બા એ જવાબ આપ્યો કે હું કોઈ 'હિન' કુળમાં ન્હોતી જતી. એ શબ્દએ તપતીનાં માથા પર હથોડા માર્યા.
પિતાના સાનિધ્યમાં રહેલો નાનામાં નાનો છાત્ર પણ જાણતો હતો કે હીનતા ને'કર્મ' સાથે જ સબંધ છે. તેને વર્ણ, જન્મ,સ્થાન,વિધ્યા કશાનિય સાથે સબંધ નથી. આ વાતની પ્રતીતિશું માતા ને જ નથી! પૃથ્વીને પ્રકાશ આપનાર સુર્યનમા જ આવડું ધાબુ હતું!”
What
may be justifiable is not necessarily inevitable
Javeri
defines in his article ‘Mahabharat and Environment’ that this
narrative is centred on all embracing ideal and extending the freedom of
existence to everyone, ‘KURUKSHETRA’ with the burden of plenty and our culture
with the burden of poverty have survived till today.
Krishna plays very vital role throughout the novel. Takshak and Tapati
both want to live together but they support different party. Takshak supports
Kauravas because- Duryodhana says that if they won, they will give them their
land back.
Who
are real Barbarians on the name of civilization?
•
Khandav Van is set afire by Arjun and
Krishna as coveted by Agni. (Jhaveri Mahabharat and Environment)
•
Friendship between Takshak Nag or snake
tribe could well be an earlier historical pact of peaceful coexistence and
cooperation between the force of urbanizes and power of primitives.
As Rousseau eloquently put it…
“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of
ground, to who it occurred to say this is mine, and found people sufficiently
simple to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes,
wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors” would humankind “have been spared
by him who, pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had cried out to his
kind: Beware of listening to this impostor; [y]ou are lost if you forget that
the fruits are everyone’s and the Earth no one’s.”
This
narrative is ventured on an all embracing ideal and extending the freedom of
existence to everyone, ‘KURUKSHETRA’ with the burden of plenty and our culture
with the burden of poverty have survived till today.
“પણ, પોતાની જ પુત્રી તપતી ને નાગ પરિવારમા વરાવવાની વાત આવે ત્યારે વ્યવહારમાં એ ભાવ ને મુકવા તૈયાર નથી. ધૌમ્યના આશ્રમમાં વિધાર્થિઓ સાથે વિધ્યાધ્યયન કરે તે બરાબર પણ, આર્ય તથા નાગ સંસ્કૃતિનું મિલન થાય ત્યારે આ આદર્શને પંપાળનાર ધૌમ્યનું મન પણ સાશંક થઈ જાય છે.”
“ધૌમ્યઋષી આશ્રમમાંવર્ષોથી નાગો, કિરતોને આર્યાના મિલનની વાત કરી રહ્યા હતા. શા સારું કરી રહ્યા હતા? પાંડવોના કુલપુરોહિત હોવા છતા ખાંડવદહન વખતે જયારે અનેક નાગો બળી ગયા હતા ત્યારે તેમણે યુધિષ્ઠિર મહારાજને પ્રકોપ સાથે કહ્યું ; મહારાજ એ વનવાસીઓને એમનાં વનમાં તો જીવવા દો. વર્ષા નો આધાર જેમ આ વનો છે તેમ જ આપનો આધાર એ વનવાસીઓ થશે. તેઓને તેઓની જમીન માં તો રહેવા દો.”
Researcher
has found that Aryas – Pandvas who were considering civilized and more cultured
than Nagas, destroyed their land and made their kingdom there. Aryas and Rishis
were morally talking about welfare of Nagas but when it comes to implement,
they are not ready for that.
Justifying
Barbarians from the KURUKSHETRA
“તક્ષકના પિતાએ જ એકવાર મુની પાસે માગણી કરી હતી. અમને તમે શા સારું- ધનુંર્વિધ્યા
નથી શીખવતા? આર્યાથી અમને તમારે જ નબળાં રાખવા છે? ધૌમ્ય કહે "આર્ય એ - ધનુંર્વિધ્યા શીખીને શું મેળવ્યું તે જુઓ તો ખરા? પછી જોશું? ફરીપાછાં ધૌમ્ય કહે; - ધનુંર્વિધ્યા શું કરશો?”
Aryas and their Gurus were not even ready to teach archery Nagas to take
their land back and it was also on the name of their protection.
'અમારી ગયેલી જમીનો મેળવીશું પછી જમીનોનું શું કરશો? જમીનોનું બીજું શું થાય? ખેડીશું? ગંગાકાંઠાની અમારી જે જમીનો છીનવી લેવામા આવી છે તે પાછી મેળવીશું.
જો નાગો ને ધનુવિધ્યા આવડતી હોત તો- કદાચ તેઓ ખાંડવવનને નાશ કરતા અર્જુન અને શ્રી કૃષ્ણ ને અટકાવી શકયા હોત. અર્જુને ઇન્દ્રપ્રસ્થની સ્થાપના માટે નાગોની જમીન પર પોતાનું આધિપત્ય સ્થાપ્યું હતું.’
Researcher
firmly believes and supports this notion that Nagas were not even given
opportunity to fight for themselves.
Rebuilding
the meaning of Civilization
If
we say now-a-days we are not in these kinds of conditions and we have overcome
of it we just need to keep in mind that it’s about the walls were gathered the
subjugated tribes, they often being divided into clans and held as retainers or
slaves.
Thus,
it was that a state become something more than homogeneous body of kindred, a
body politic composed of many bodies of tribes. The ruling body still had a
tribal organization yet such tribal organization was weak and often broke down
so that the subject bodies were hordes of people in part or wholly disorganized
government but having something and government imposed upon them by the ruling
tribe of the walled city.
‘ક્યાં મુનિવર ધૌમ્યની વેદજ્ઞ, શીલવતી, સ્નેહભર, તપતી ને ક્યાં સુરામાં સડબડતા ચિત્રરથનો ઉધ્ધત પુત્ર તક્ષક! બાવળ અને બોરસલ્લી એક ગાંઠે બંધાઈ શકે?’
Thus,
we are in need of rebuilding the Meaning
of ‘CIVILIZATION’.
As Emile Benveniste states, “[C]ivilité, a
static term, was no longer sufficient,” requiring the coining of a term that
“had to be called civilization in order to define together both its direction
and continuity”
“Civilization is a powerful stimulus to theory,”
and despite its ambiguities, there is an overwhelming “temptation to clarify
our thinking by elaborating a theory of civilization capable of grounding a
far-reaching philosophy of history.”
J.
B. Bury asserts that the
“idea
[of progress] means that civilization has moved, is moving, and will move in a
desirable direction.”
Epilogue
Thus, researcher has found from this research that…
In modern times, the
savage and barbaric tribes and civilizations are incorporated into nations not
only without going through the stage of city states and tribute – playing
dependencies but also without going through the forms of feudal organization.
The word ‘civilization’, it is notorious has rather two distinctive meanings.
On the other hand, it is term with very positive connotation which by its logic
is grammatically singular, denoting processes which have made men more ‘civil’,
that is, less animal like ‘savage’
On the other hand, there
is the plural usage, in which a civilization refers to a particular cunctation
of world-view, view, customs, structures and culture which forms some kind of
historical whole and which coexist with other verities of this phenomenon.
The purposes of this
exposition are completed when the change of barbaric institutions into
civilized institutions is explained and the latter properly characterized.
References
•
“Barbarism.” Merriam-Webster,
Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barbarism.
•
“Civilization.” Merriam-Webster,
Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization.
Work
Cited
•
Adams,
William Y. “Civilizations, Barbarians, and Savages : The Social and Political
Nexus of Diffusion.” Civilisations, vol. 25, no. 3/4, 1975, pp.
319–324. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41229295. Accessed 26 Apr.
2021.
•
Bowden,
Brett, and About The Author(s) Brett Bowden is Professor of History and
Politics at the University of Western Sydney and Senior Visiting Fellow at the
University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy. His
recent major publ. “Civilisation and Hierarchy Go Hand-in-Hand.” E, 30
Apr. 2015,
www.e-ir.info/2015/04/27/civilisation-and-hierarchy-go-hand-in-hand/.
•
Bowden,
Brett. “Civilization and Its Consequences.” Oxford Handbooks Online, 11
Feb. 2016,
www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935307.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935307-e-30.
•
De Mora, Juan Miguel. “The ‘Mahabharata’:
A Portrait of Humanity.” Indian Literature, vol. 49, no. 1 (225),
2005, pp. 137–145. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23346583. Accessed
26 Apr. 2021.
•
J.
W. Powell. “From Barbarism to Civilization.” American Anthropologist, vol. 1,
no. 2, 1888, pp. 97–123. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/658712. Accessed 26 Apr.
2021.
•
Jhaveri, Dileep. “Mahabharat and
Environment.” Indian Literature, vol. 50, no. 5 (235), 2006, pp.
162–168. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23340742. Accessed 26 Apr.
2021.
•
Thapar,
Romila. “The Image of the Barbarian in Early India.” Comparative
Studies in Society and History, vol. 13, no. 4, 1971, pp. 408–436. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/178208. Accessed 26 Apr. 2021.
•
Truschke, Audrey. “The Indian Epic
Mahabharata Imparts a Dark, Nuanced Moral Vision – Audrey Truschke: Aeon
Essays.” Aeon, Aeon, 26 Apr. 2021,
aeon.co/essays/the-indian-epic-mahabharata-imparts-a-dark-nuanced-moral-vision
No comments:
Post a Comment