"INDIA: A LABEL OR A LEGACY?

John Starchy, a British civil servant and member of the Governor General's Council, believed that the idea of India as one nation is impossible; he also stated that India is merely a geographical label, not a nation. This man quoted " The first and most essential thing to learn about India is that there is not and never was an India." India was only a convenient label for British administrative purposes. According to him, due to extreme regional diversity, India cannot be governed as a single national identity. India is so inherently fragmented that only external power could hold it together. By saying this, he also gave the justification for British rule. To his reasoning, Jawaharlal Nehru argued that, "India's unity is not just political but emotional and civilizational, and Indian diversity is a strength and not a barrier to the unity."

Now we are going to evaluate both the arguments for why John Starchy said that, and whether Mr. Nehru's arguments made a point. Let's start with why John Starchy would say so. We are aware of our nation's extreme diversity, great differences between regions like Sindh and Madras linguistically, socially, and culturally, and with these differences in existence, it is hard to administer social justice. Social justice is a key to eternal peace, but administering social justice in India is quite difficult because justice to one community leads to inconvenience to another, which is injustice. When we talk about justice based on general perception, but here in India, every class has its own different perception, which is contradictory to another.

when we think on a literal and practical level, Mr. Starchy would sound correct, but as Mr. Nehru argued, it is not to be thought of, only practical and political level but India's unity is emotional and civilizational too. When we talk about the civilizational unity of our country, it completely arose from 'religious coexistence'. this civilizational unity of our country is based on principles like Satya, Sarva Dharma Sambhav, and Sarvoday(welfare for all). This kind of ideology with these principles will lead to 'welfare of people', which is not merely a political responsibility but a moral responsibility.

These Indian thoughts of civilizational unity were so ahead of the thoughts of Western materialism. but the contemporary issue herein is that Western materialism has influenced the Indian Civilization way too much in the recent past; instead of thinking about moral deeds, people have become money-driven, which is completely overhauling the Indian Values. Profit-driven decision making, consumerism and instant gratification, competitive individualism, identity-based polarization, and status through wealth and possession these new values from western materialism were incorporated in the Indian civilization, and with this incorporation, 'religious coexistence' is impossible, and ultimately, there is no civilizational unity.

The original ideology of people on the Indian subcontinent was to give every individual the amount of freedom that they can grow their intellect to the fullest, as reference is also there in the 'Vedas'. the process was more about creating an environment where every individual would have adequate resources for their livelihood. back in time we used to value spiritual wellbeing over material possessions, but with time-to-time encroachment from external societies, our original ideologies are being affected, and preserving our original ideologies keeps India united. People shouldn't get influenced by any political ideology that is breaking the religious coexistence of our beautiful nation, and definitely, starchy's upcoming generations will understand the concept of Indian civilizational unity by watching India with 'religious coexistence'.