The Ocean of Churn: How the Indian Ocean Shaped Human History by Sanjeev Sanyal

 Nehru the Great?

History is not cast in stone. Or should we just restate this? History is indeed cast in stone in a very literal sense. Consequently as ancient inscriptions, and other physical evidence is unraveled by unrelenting efforts in historical research, each successive generation of historians is obligated to reinterpret the emerging facts to arrive at as close a description of “truth” as is possible. But what impedes this process? The original narrative. Once “a particular path has been taken all later events are influenced by it (this is called path dependence). --- once the turn is taken, it is hard wired into history and all subsequent events derive from it.”

History is generally written from the viewpoint of an observer on land gazing outwards. But the history of coastal regions ought to be seen from the viewpoint of a seafarer gazing inwards. In this book, the author does this to re-narrate what we already know by adopting the viewpoint of a seafarer. The author finds the coastal histories as being essentially matrilineal whether Kerala or the Khmer. This enabled male seafarers from modern day Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala to marry into powerful matrilineal families, and establish Indic Kingdoms in various coastal states of South East Asia. This led to the dissemination of Hinduism, Buddhism, the Sanskrit language, and Indian names into South East Asia (for more on this read Dalrymple, The Golden Road). The book covers a wide ground of history originating from the Indian Ocean rim, and spreading towards both West Asia, and South East Asia. It covers the spice trade, diamond and opium trades, the Japanese campaign of the Second World War, and the Naval Mutiny of 1946. There are other more detailed sources on all these topics which makes this particular book of limited impact. It however locates these events from the centrality of the Indian Ocean.

Of the many retellings of history, this Reviewer finds one instance of how a widely disseminated narrative has distorted India’s history to the detriment of a more comprehensive appreciation of our past.

Was Ashoka really great?

History from the school text books upwards recount how Ashoka converted to Buddhism at the end of the catastrophic Kalinga war, and then began to spread the message of peace, and non-violence throughout his vast empire, and in the lands beyond such as modern day Sri Lanka. He spread his message through numerous rock edicts erected in the far corners of his empire. These rock edicts stand to this day, and this Reviewer had the privilege of visiting the site of the Kalinga War on the banks of the Daya River in Dhauli near modern day Bhubaneshwar. How factual is this narrative? Recent archeological evidence bring out the following facts.

(1)    Ashoka had converted to Buddhism at least two years before he attacked Kalinga.

(2)    Kalinga had already been conquered by the Nandas who preceded the Mauryas. So when Ashoka’s grandfather Chandragupta defeated the Nandas, and took over the empire, Kalinga was already a part of the empire.

(3)    So what was the Kalinga “war” all about? Kalinga was a rebellious province or an untrustworthy vassal, and Ashoka entered the province to teach the renegades a lesson.

(4)    By all accounts the Mauryan army was merciless in dealing with Kalinga. More than a lakh of soldiers were killed as they made their last stand at the Kalinga capital of Tosali, and a lakh and a half were enslaved. Undoubtedly the catastrophe affected Ashoka’s psyche, but not adequately, for him to even release the slaves.

(5)    The rock edicts at Dhauli within the province of Kalinga differ from those erected outside in such far flung areas as in Shahbazgiri (modern day Afghanistan). In the former, there is no expression of regret. In actual fact, they remind the forest dwellers and other rebels of Ashoka’s powers to punish them which are held in abeyance by his recently acquired pacifism.

(6)    The Buddhist text Ashokavadana, talks of further acts of genocide perpetrated by Ashoka against the Jains and Ajivikas many years after he had turned pacifist (See Pages 72-76). Their sin? They had politically opposed the accession of Ashoka.

Why then was a dubious narrative so carefully cultivated in newly independent India? The author does not answer this question directly but only hints at a possible answer. By all yardsticks, India’s independence was a momentous event in the nation’s history, and the role of the first Prime Minister was of pivotal importance. Jawaharlal Nehru as the first Prime Minister was in search of an appropriate historical lineage.

What was Nehru’s self-image? He imagined himself a true pacifist. As a tribute to his pacifism, he emasculated the Indian Army by reducing its size, and starving it of modern weaponry. He thought of himself a Statesman, while his proclivities were that of an ordinary politician. As a result, even while he extended the hand of friendship to the Chinese (remember the Hindi-Chini bhai bhai that we were taught in the school Social Studies Textbook), he followed a “forward policy” on the disputed Chinese border. While he forged the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) with Nasser, Tito and himself forming the NAM triumvirate, he felt no discomfiture in being seen in the company of these two dictators. He was the father of nepotism. He inducted his daughter into politics, while in actual fact she had no interest even in living in India (see Indira by Sagarika Ghose)! He proclaimed himself a liberal, but ended up banning 16 books in his life time, most of them harmless publications which showed him in poor light. He banned the Harmonium on All India Radio. An avid Nehruvian friend explained it away as a quirk, forgetting that turning personal quirks into public policy is the hallmark of a dictator!

Nehru being a historian himself was well aware that,

(1)    India was not land of peace and nonviolence. On the other hand it was a highly militarized society. This was somehow intertwined within the Indian concept of kingship. It was incumbent upon every king to expand his kingdom (see The Pregnant King, by Devdutt Pattanaik). This could not be done without an army.

(2)    Warned of the mighty Nandas who ruled on the eastern bank of the Indus, Alexander had wisely refrained from crossing the river, and returned home to preserve his reputation.

(3)    Jainism and Buddhism had originated in India as a protestant movement in response to mainstream militarism. Gandhian nonviolence was of recent origin.

Consciously or otherwise, Nehru chose Ashoka for his Mentor.

“After independence, it appears academic historians were further encouraged to build up the legend of Ashoka the Great in order to provide a lineage to Jawaharlal Nehru’s socialist project and inconvenient evidence was simply swept under the carpet.” (Author’s words, Page 77)

Did the first Prime Minister of India like to be remembered as Nehru the Great? We do not know the answer to this question. But Nehru certainly failed where Ashoka succeeded. The latter was a pacifist who retained the potential to perpetrate violence should the need arise, and made no secret of it. In contrast, when the Chinese attacked India in 1962, Nehru could hardly muster 20,000 ill-equipped troops in response to an invading force of over 80,000. No looser gets the sobriquet that Nehru secretly hankered for. His dreams were shattered by this defeat. Sixty years after his death the narrative of Ashoka the Great still persists.

Two centuries after Ashoka, Kharavela liberates Kalinga by defeating Ashoka’s successors. In the process he defeated the Satavahanas, the residual Mauryas, the Indo-Greeks, and the Pandyas. He is remembered to this day in Odisha. Is it time to proclaim Kharavela the Great?   

One last point, this author repeatedly refers to West Asia as the “Middle East” showing he has also become a victim of eurocentric narration despite his acute sensitivity for the need to develop an Indic perspective.