Bharat was far ahead of its time in engaging with the rest of the world. This was one reason why we were once an economic superpower and why some of our ideas have endured for centuries, even today, in many countries outside Bharat. – Sriram Balasubramanian
Globalisation has often been touted as a mantra for prosperity, though it has also faced significant criticism for its shortcomings over the past decade or so. However, the concept of engaging with the world through commerce and the exchange of ideas in an interconnected world is a timeless one. Naturally, it seems logical that such engagement should be beneficial if conducted under certain conditions. This has often been measured by how open a society is to trading and exchanging ideas with the world.
Trade is frequently compared to the openness of a society, as it represents an exchange of ideas as well as goods and services. It also serves as an indicator of the level of a society’s engagement with the wider world. We are often told that engagement with the rest of the world began only after the economic reforms of the 1990s. In other words, somehow we were a closed entity throughout our history and our global interactions began almost miraculously after these reforms. But is this really the case? Nothing could be further from the truth, especially when we consider the pre-independence phase of this country.
If there is one thing that all the kingdoms in the common era (CE) in Bharat shared with the current dispensation, it is the ability to engage with the wider world through trade and commerce. Maritime trade was so significant that the largest discovery of Roman coins outside Europe, dating from the early CE, was found in southern Bharat. Numerous secondary sources, such as the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Chinese embassy notes, and Greek traveller accounts, indicate that Bharat boasted some of the world’s most vibrant ports for commerce. A plethora of products, including spices, perfumes, wine, gold, ornaments, and rare metals, were traded widely, from as far as Haifa in Israel to China and Southeast Asia, via an extensive maritime network. Most of these goods were produced in Bharat, positioning it as an export hub for the rest of the world.
Given that Bharat is geographically situated between the Middle East and the rest of Asia, it naturally served as a vital trading interface and a global connector. No one capitalised on this more than the Cholas. At the height of their reign, from the 8th to nearly the 13th century CE, several Chola kings engaged extensively with the wider world through commerce. Renowned Chola kings such as Rajendra and Rajaraja Chola conquered territories both within and outside Bharat, travelling as far as Southeast Asia, where they fought battles with empires in Java, Kedah, and other regions. Was political conquest the primary motivator for the Cholas’ ventures? If so, why did they not establish long-term rule over the Southeast Asian territories they conquered?
Srenis, or corporate guilds, played a pivotal role in motivating the Cholas to engage in battles with Southeast Asian kingdoms. (For more, read my book Dharmanomics.) Srenis were integral to the financing and governance of CE empires, including the Cholas. They were the backbone of trade during the Chola era, functioning much like the multinational corporations we see today. These guilds operated as global trading entities with branches in various locations. Furthermore, guilds such as the Ainnuruvar (meaning “500″ in English) wielded considerable socio-political influence over the economic and political decisions of the Cholas. This influence was not limited to the Cholas but was evident in many CE kingdoms, such as the Pallavas, Pandyas, and the Vijayanagara Empire. These guilds were the torchbearers of commerce, alongside similar organisations, during this period. Their structure mirrored modern corporations, with their own organisational frameworks based on the idea of dharma and its principles.
Beyond their role as instruments of trade, these srenis and kingdoms also played a crucial role in the transfer of knowledge. There have been several instances of evidence of inscriptions which refer to the Arthashastra and its quotations in ancient Cambodia and Vietnam. Cultural soft power was effortlessly transmitted to many of these regions, so much so that during the early common era, cities such as Panduranga, Vijaya, and Ayutthaya (akin to Ayodhya) were named after ancient Bharatiya scriptures. This cultural influence also extended to local traditions and rituals. For example, the famed Ashvamedha Yagna was performed by kings before taking oaths of power in some of these countries far from Bharat. As mentioned in my books, there have also been several instances of rulers from these kingdoms exchanging ideas and thoughts with Bharatiya kings to enable knowledge transfer and the assimilation of best practices.
In retrospect, these instances clearly demonstrate that engaging with the world in terms of commerce and ideas was the Bharatiya status quo for centuries. While newer forms of such phenomena have emerged under the guise of globalisation, we were far ahead of our time in engaging with the rest of the world. This was one reason why we were once an economic superpower and why some of our ideas have endured for centuries, even today, in many countries outside Bharat. – News18, 8 Novemeber 2024
› Sriram Balasubramanian is an economist and best-selling author.
Filed under: egypt, india, rome, south-east asia | Tagged: ancient trade routes, hindu culture export, hindu economics, indian history, open society | Comments Off on The world was Bharat’s marketplace for centuries – Sriram Balasubramanian
BHARATA BHARATI 