By Dr Sachchidanand Joshi
There is a passage in Frantz Fanon that every post-colonial state eventually confronts: the moment when the liberated nation must decide whether independence was an arrival or merely a change of address.
For nearly seven decades after 1947, the Indian state largely chose comfort — the inherited address of Nehruvian modernism, which tacitly accepted that civilisational legitimacy must be earned through Westphalian categories: secular rationalism, linear progress, text-based scholarship. Heritage was admirable, but it was safely archival, managed by the Ministry of Culture with the quiet diligence of a good librarian.
The twelve years since 2014 represent something qualitatively different. Not simply a change of government, nor even a change of cultural policy, but a structural reordering of the question India asks of itself: not what shall we preserve? But what shall we project?
The Parliament as Philosophical Statement
The New Indian Parliament Building is the most legible symbol of this reordering, and its legibility is precisely the point. When Edwin Lutyens designed the old Sansad Bhavan, he built a monument to the idea that India could be made governable through imported Greco-Roman rationalism softened by a few Mughal chhatris — tolerance as decoration, indigeneity as accent. The new building inverts this hierarchy entirely.
The Samudra Manthan mural is not decorative; it is constitutional. In placing the cosmic churning of the ocean — that great Puranic metaphor for the productive conflict between order and chaos, creation emerging from collective effort — at the heart of the legislative complex, the state has made a philosophical argument: Indian democracy does not derive its moral authority from Westminster or Montesquieu. It draws from the ancient Sabhas of the Vedic era, the village republics of Uttaramerur, and the dharma-danda traditions that predate Magna Carta by millennia. The installation of the Sengol — the sacred sceptre from the Chola tradition symbolising righteous, accountable rule — adjacent to the Speaker’s chair is an equally deliberate act of historical correction. It is an acknowledgment that India’s democratic ethos is not borrowed; it was merely interrupted.
If the Parliament building was a domestic statement, the G20 Presidency of 2023 was its international translation. The decision to decentralise the summit across sixty cities was administratively complex and deliberately so. It forced the world’s most powerful economies to encounter India not as a single, manageable Delhi abstraction, but as a vast, hyper-diverse civilisation whose sophistication resides equally in the weavers of Varanasi and the bronze-casters of Thanjavur.
The placement of a twenty-eight-foot Chola Nataraja at Bharat Mandapam was the signature gesture of this approach. The Nataraja is not merely aesthetic grandeur; it is a compressed philosophical system — Shiva’s cosmic dance encoding simultaneously creation, preservation, destruction, concealment, and liberation within a single bronze form. To conduct global economic negotiations beneath this image is to insist that India’s worldview operates at a different register of temporal and philosophical depth than the quarterly-earnings horizon of contemporary geopolitics.
The mainstreaming of millets — rebranded as Shree Anna — and the institutionalisation of International Yoga Day extend this logic into the domain of global problem-solving. The argument is subtle but significant: when the world faces crises of nutritional security, metabolic disease, and existential anxiety, India offers not merely agricultural commodities or wellness tourism, but a 5,000-year-old knowledge tradition that anticipated these crises.
The Epistemological Frontier: Shruti Against the Archive
Perhaps the least visible but most consequential dimension of this civilisational reassertion is its epistemological ambition. Western academic methodology is fundamentally text-centric — history begins with the document, and the manuscript validates knowledge. India is, at its core, a civilisation of Shruti and Smriti: the heard and the remembered. The Vedas were not primarily written; they were breathed, chanted, and transmitted with extraordinary fidelity across generations through sonic memory.
For decades, Indian institutions attempted to earn Western scholarly legitimacy by playing on Western terms — digitising manuscripts, cataloguing physical archives, translating Sanskrit texts. These are necessary and valuable projects. But they concede the epistemological premise: that the written record is the real record, and the living oral tradition is merely its imperfect backup.
The shift of the past decade has involved a more ambitious challenge to this premise: treating the living carriers of oral knowledge — the Vedic chanters whose pronunciation preserves Sanskritic phonology unchanged over millennia, the folk bards who encode local ecology and cosmology in song, the tribal knowledge-keepers who maintain botanical and astronomical systems outside the text — not as quaint performers of dying traditions, but as active, rigorous epistemic authorities. Codifying their knowledge with academic methodology rather than reducing it to ethnographic curiosity is a genuinely revolutionary curatorial move.
Media and the Democratisation of Deep Culture
Civilisational narratives, however sophisticated, remain inert without a distribution infrastructure. The institutional partnership that produces research-driven documentaries on lesser-known monuments, vanishing art forms, and indigenous knowledge systems addresses this directly. By deploying cinematic language, high-definition production values, and narrative compression to make archaeological and cultural scholarship accessible to millions of ordinary households, this initiative bypasses the traditional gatekeeping of elite cultural institutions. It democratises depth.
The arc of these twelve years, viewed dispassionately, reveals a single governing insight: India’s greatest contemporary strategic asset is its temporal depth. Most nation-states argue from the present; India can argue from five thousand years. The liberation achieved is not merely political but psychological — the shedding of what might be called the post-colonial permission-seeking reflex, the habit of validating Indian civilisation only once it received Western scholarly approval.
Vikas bhi, Virasat bhi — development and heritage together — is not merely a political slogan. It is a philosophical proposition: that a society need not Westernise in order to modernise, that the ancient and the contemporary are not in tension but in dialogue. Whether this proposition is fully realised in practice remains, as with all civilisational projects, an open and evolving question. But the terms of the question have irrevocably changed. Bharat no longer waits to be discovered. It has stepped forward, offered its own vocabulary, and asked the world to keep up.
Author: Dr Sachchidanand Joshi is the Member Secretary of IGNCA and vice chancellor of the Institute of Heritage
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
