“罗摩”根基历史与印度教民族主义现实侧观

“Rama” Primordial History and the Realistic Observation of Hindu Nationalism

在印度向现代民族国家转型的过程中,印度教民族主义势力出于建构同质历史文化的需求,借用神话英雄原型“罗摩”建构了一套由印度教民族共享的、关于民族共同起源和历史流变的“根基历史”。在结合集体无意识、根基历史等理论基础上,大致可以梳理出“罗摩”根基历史的形成过程。在印度教民族主义兴起前,受不同群体需求驱动,罗摩的身份经历了从神祇化身、王室先祖到民族先祖的转变。19世纪以来,随着印度民族意识的觉醒,印度教民族主义势力重新解释“罗摩-罗波那之战”“罗摩之治”等神话情节。20世纪后半期,在完成对原有神话情节的再解释后,印度教民族主义者聚焦罗摩出生地阿约提亚以续写根基历史。以此为基础,在印度现代民族国家建构的视域下,“罗摩”根基历史又区分“自我”和“他者”。“自我”身份以血缘、祖地、罗摩崇拜等主客观条件为界定标准,其中罗摩崇拜的实质则是民族文化认同。作为“自我”的对立面,“他者”的建构始终服务于因时而变的政治需求。进而通过结合相关数据的进一步分析,可以窥见印度教民族对于根基历史的正向反馈,以及当前“他者”的消极抵抗趋向。

During the process of India’s transition to a modern nation-state, Hindu nationalists, out of their necessity of constructing a homogeneous history and culture, have drawn on the mythical heroic archetype “Rama” to construct a primordial history of a common origin and history of the nation collectively shared by the Hindus. This essay traces the formation of “Rama” primordial history, using theories such as the collective unconscious and primordial history. Before the rise of Hindu nationalism, the identity of Rama had undergone a transformation from an incarnation of a deity, a royal ancestor to a national ancestor, as a result of the needs of various groups. Thanks to the awakening of India’s national consciousness starting from the 19th century, Hindu nationalists have reinterpreted mythological scenarios such as the “Rama-Ravana Battle” and the “Ramrajya”. In the second half of the 20th century, Hindu nationalists focused on Ayodhya, Rama’s birthplace, to continue the history after the reinterpretation of the original mythological scenarios. It is on this basis that this essay examines how the Rama primordial history makes distinctions between the “self” and the “other” from the perspective of the construction of modern Indian nation-state. Lineage, ancestral land, and Rama worship are subjective and objective factors that determine the identity of the “self”, with national cultural identity serving as the fundamental component of Rama worship. The construction of the “other”, which is the opposite of the “self”, has always suited the shifting political demands of the times. Taking into account relevant data, this essay further examines the favorable responses of the Hindu people towards the Rama primordial history and the current propensity of the “other” to passively resist.