Importance of preserving our culture

Importance of preserving culture

Culture is the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time. It is the attitudes, behaviour, opinions, etc. of a particular group of people within society. It is the way of life of a particular people, especially, as shown in their ordinary behaviour and habits, their attitudes towards each other, and their moral and religious beliefs. In the context of a country, culture is the general way of life of the citizens of that country. The culture of a country is a dynamic entity that grows with time. The culture of a country at a given time is the result of the growth of that society over a period of time. Now the question arises, should we remain neutral spectators to the growth of the culture or should we try to give it the desired shape?

If we look at the development of various cultures in various parts of the world, we get a heterogeneous picture, and if we give distinct colour to every culture, we get a very attractive multicoloured painting. All cultures have a long list of merits and demerits. If we judge their merits and demerits, we get confused because our judgement will vary with the parameters we take and also the priorities we give them. Some cultures started with a discernible note, persisted for some period of time, and vanished into the graveyard of history, while others withstood the test of time and are still surviving. The survival of a culture depends upon its capacity of adaptability of itself according to the changed circumstances as well as adoptability of new concepts. The cultures with less adaptability and adoptability could not withstand the pressure of the development and vanished.

For understanding the growth of civilization we may consider the views of social contract thinkers, Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau. For Hobbes, the state of nature is characterised by the “war of every man against every man,” a constant and violent condition of competition in which each individual has a natural right to everything, regardless of the interests of others. Existence in the state of nature is, as Hobbes famously states, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The only laws that exist in the state of nature (the laws of nature) are not covenants forged between people but principles based on self-preservation.

For Locke, by contrast, the state of nature is characterised by the absence of government but not by the absence of mutual obligation. Beyond self-preservation, the law of nature, or reason, also teaches “all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions.” Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed individuals were naturally endowed with these rights (to life, liberty, and property) and that the state of nature could be relatively peaceful. Individuals nevertheless agree to form a commonwealth (and thereby to leave the state of nature) in order to institute an impartial power capable of arbitrating their disputes and redressing injuries. Locke’s idea that the rights to life, liberty, and property are natural rights that preceded the establishment of civil society influenced the American Revolution and modern liberalism more generally.

The idea of the state of nature was also central to the political philosophy of Rousseau. He vehemently criticised Hobbes’s conception of a state of nature characterised by social antagonism. The state of nature, Rousseau argued, could only mean a primitive state preceding socialisation; it is thus devoid of social traits such as pride, envy, or even fear of others. The state of nature, for Rousseau, is a morally neutral and peaceful condition in which (mainly) solitary individuals act according to their basic urges (for instance, hunger) as well as their natural desire for self-preservation. This latter instinct, however, is tempered by an equally natural sense of compassion. In Rousseau’s account, laid out in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755), individuals leave the state of nature by becoming increasingly civilised—that is to say, dependent on one another.

Shanti Parva describes the pre-political (pre civilized) phase of human society, which is also described as the ‘Golden Age’, wherein people lived righteously in society without any monarch or state. However, after a certain period of time, people started losing their virtues and forgot the path of dharma. Bhishma gives a logical sequence of how society degenerated. Men became covetous, they started acquiring objects that did not belong to them, they got trapped by lust, lust led to anger and greed; and this led to a complete state of disorder and anarchy. The Vedas disappeared with righteousness and chastity. Thus, the gods were taken by fear and approached Brahma, the creator God. Brahma thought over the matter and was convinced that man cannot live in society harmoniously without a codified law enforced by a ruler. Thus, Brahma, on the request of God, established law and order and created dandniti, the science of punishment/chastisement. Hence, the science of politics came into existence.

The Dandaniti can be more appropriately called ‘the science of chastisement;’ Bhishma says that chastisement leads or governs everything, and thus the treatise that Brahma created is the ‘Science of Chastisement.’ After the Dandaniti was created, the gods approached Vishnu and requested that he appoint a king to rule the masses. Vishnu created Virajas, but Virajas refused to take over the reign because he was inclined towards the attainment of moksha. Vena, one of Virajas’ descendants, became king. He was completely possessed by his passions, disrespected dharma, and was unrighteous towards all the creatures in his conduct. The Rishis ousted him and killed him through the power of their mantras. Vena’s right arm was churned, and out of that, the king Prithu was born. Prithu was well equipped with the knowledge of the Vedas, war and weapons, and the knowledge of dandniti. He promised the Rishis that he would always abide by dharma and the dandniti as a ruler of mortals. He was thus anointed as king by the gods and the sages.  Vishnu entered the body of Prithu and declared that nobody would transcend him. He was thus offered divine worship. Prithu was called the ‘Rajan.’ Though it is a mythological story, it gives some idea about Indian intellectuals regarding the origin of civilization and culture in India.

The major constituents of Indian culture in the ancient period are: equality (‘Sarvam khalu idam Brahm’ i.e., everything has God in essence and ‘Tatvam asi’ or though art that or the God is in you as essence), liberty (‘Pragyaanam Brahm’ or the unadulterated knowledge is God or ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ or God is in me as essence), and fraternity (‘Vasudhaev Kutumbkam’ or the entire earth is an extended family). Later on, the Vena system, which was based on the profession of the individual, was converted into a system based on the birth of the person, and people were forced to practice the occupation of their ancestors only. Then somehow the caste system developed in India, which was very rigid, discriminatory and resulted in the hierarchical division of society, mainly into four vernas. In Verna, many castes based on the birth of the individuals evolved, and thus the entire society was divided hierarchically into more than thousands of castes. It was a unique phenomenon that developed in India only and did not develop in such a rigid form in the rest of the world. Thus, a new ingredient was added to our ancient (post Vedic) period. Religion became very important, and the social fabric was weakened. In the sixth century B.C., Mahaveera and Budhha tried to influence the direction of the development of society, and some rigidity in the society was relaxed. In the Maurya period, King Ashoka propagated Buddhism, which tried to reduce rigidity by promoting the Middle Path, including the elements of humility and humanity, and discouraging the caste system. After Mauryas, the rigidity of the caste system, discrimination on the basis of caste, and inequality in society increased.  Though the prosperity of the country improved and touched historic heights, inequality in  society remains glaring. During the Mughal period, the share of India in the world’s GDP increased to about 30 percent, but the majority of the people remained poverty ridden. In the British regime, the exploitation of the country touched the pinnacle, and India had to face many famines in later periods of British rule. When the British left India, it was a devastated country with only about 1.5 percent of the world’s GDP. Since Independence, India has strived to get rid of poverty, illiteracy, and social inequality, and now India is the fourth-least developed economy in the world. Though social inequality, poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, and political apathy are still there, the country has maintained its national security and integrity against all odds. It is the largest and most vibrant democracy in the world.

India has given a number of noble laureates and technical graduates to the world. Indian have —-

I

I

I

The culture of a country is a dynamic entity. It keeps on changing with the passage of time. Indian culture has maintained its ethical base since ancient times, and whenever one wishes to appreciate it, one must judge it on the basis of its proximity to ethical norms. With the passage of time, some unethical and inhuman practices developed in Indian society, like the practice of untouchability, Sati, child marriage, etc., but the society overcame these unethical practices to a great extent, and our leader adopted the policy of the welfare state, maintaining unity in diversity, which is giving the desired results in various areas of human development. The people of India must remain watchful for the development of unethical practices in our system and try to nip the same in the bud. A culture is not a wild entity. It is cultured in a desired way, and in context with India, the Indian culture must be cultured in ethical ways, which requires timely weeding out of the unethical growths and ethical reshaping on the basis of free and fare discussions and deliberations. Our parliamentarians are fulfilling their responsibilities well in this aspect.