Non-dogmatic historians are always uncomfortable with the issue of how it all began - the defined hour of beginning. This is understandable, for beginning can only invite trouble in comprehension. But my argument here has been that it serves political history little by avoiding the moment of beginning. By eschewing the complications we forego the task of grappling with the phenomenon itself. The task is to delve into it and show that beginning had all that was to appear later, in fact what was considered as origin was actually the structure, visible as only origin, where the elements were arranged in a way as to appear collectively as beginning.