The Deception of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), intended to provide citizenship to the persecuted religious minorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, namely, the religious groups of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Christians and Parsis, was passed as a Bill by both Houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha, 10 December 2019, 12:11 A.M. (IST), 311 for and 80 against and Rajya Sabha, 11 December 2019, 125 for and 105 against). Subsequently, on 12 December 2019, the passed Bill received the assent of the President, thereby attaining the status of an Act.
Thereafter, the government also announced its intention to implement the National Register of Citizens (NRC). Such of the citizens who would be unable to prove their citizenship would, in accordance with its provisions, be deported. That a major country like India has yet not prepared an NRC while even penurious countries in Africa have done so is in itself a stinging animadversion on the government’s reputation. Here, I do not refer to any particular party or Prime Minister’s government, but the government as an institution.
So soon as the government announced its intentions, violent protests and anarchy spread across the nation by vested interests who, err not, sought to incinerate the nation from within.
As part of internal assessment in our university, a student made a presentation blatantly critical of the CAA and NRC, lacking too many facts. He alleged that the Act was in contravention of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding that reality was quite the opposite. The most vexatious part of his presentation was a shloka from a Hindu scripture, employed by him in order to justify his criticism of the said Act. The shloka was quoted utterly out of context. I was further alarmed to witness our professor commending him to no end. As a side note, yet another student made a presentation extolling the CAA, and he had several facts to highlight — albeit not all of them and thus not holistic — yet our professor only had criticism for him. The professor accused him of being biased towards the government. It was then that I realized the subtle ways in which students were subjected to indoctrination in universities. In my view, both students should have been criticized. In a presentation, one is supposed to deal with both pros and cons. Lamentably, both the students subscribed to their personal biases, and so did our professor during evaluation. What is it but an example of profound misfortune if not benumbing deliration?
The shloka I refer to in the foregoing paragraph is a verse from the Mahopanishad. The text is classified as a Vaishnava Upanishad. The verse is as follows:
अयं निजः परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्।
उदारचरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुंबकम्।।TRANSLATION: The disposition which leads one to harbour notions of, ‘this is mine, the rest belongs to others’ is that of the parochial. For the open-minded and philanthropic, the world itself is family.
The contention made by the student whose presentation was critical of the CAA, was that this spirit of magnanimity is the true essence of Hinduism, and that the CAA and NRC proposals violate the same. Consequently, the incumbent government under the BJP is not as Hindu as it claims to be.
Unfortunately for not only him, but many others who quote this shloka in an effort to remind the right wing in India of the inclusiveness of Hinduism, almost everyone appears unaware of the spiritual context behind the shloka.
Sanjay Dixit is a retired Additional Chief Secretary in the Government of Rajasthan, and a renowned researcher in Dharmic philosophies. His depth of knowledge shall be evinced by means of his lectures and talks, as well as his blogs, which have the endorsement of yet another renowned Vedic scholar, Dr. David Frawley. I seek to establish his credentials in order that there may be no skepticism as regards his credibility. He says that there are two primary concepts in Sanātana Dharma. The first is chitta (individual consciousness) and the second is chita (cosmic consciousness). A truly enlightened individual can use his buddhi (intellect) to discover his chitta and relate it to the chita — achieve a synchronization, so to speak. The aforementioned shloka in the Mahopanishad occurs in that context; expanding the highest consciousness into the highest realms of Cosmos. “Ayam Nijah Paro Veti Gananaa Laghu Chetasaam” — pay heed to the word, “Chetasaam”. In Sanskrit grammar, it is the Shashti Vibhakti or the Genitive Case of the Sanskrit word “Chetana.” Chetana is Consciousness. It is not to be interpreted as one’s material intelligence. Therefore, the contention that one must be magnanimous at a degraded stage of consciousness is unfounded.
According to Sanjay Dixit, even in the older times, people started quoting this to their rivals and started disarming them. The typical argument would be something to the effect of, “Look! This is the old saying from Mahopanishad! You must follow it.” And once the opponent or the rival becomes disarmed, they come with full force and conquer him.
In light of this, a commentary was written in the Hitopadesha. It is basically a story which has three principal characters: a jackal named Kshudrabuddhi, a deer named Chitrangada and a crow named Subuddhi. Chitrangada is depicted living happily in a forest, and he has Subuddhi for company. Once, he saunters over to a lake, looks at Chitrangada and starts craving for his meat. He thinks, “This deer is very healthy, and I must somehow get to bury my teeth into his flesh. How do I do it? If I try, he shall run away. He is very agile.”
So, he approaches Chitrangada in a friendly manner and tells him, “Look, friend! I need a place to stay. Why don’t you give me shelter?” Chitrangada knows a few things about jackals, and answers, “I know your kind very well. I shall not be entrapped. Just leave.” Consequently, Kshudrabuddhi recites a shloka to the deer, “Ayam Nijah Paro Veti Gananaa Laghu Chetasaam, Udaara Charitanaam tu Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the very aforesaid shloka). The deer begins thinking, “This jackal is reciting shlokas! Quite a creature of knowledge! We must harbour knowledgeable people. Even the shāstras say so.” Accordingly, Chitrangada consents.
He takes him to his place where he lives: a little cave. Right next to it is a tree where Subuddhi resides. Subuddhi sees his friend arriving with Kshudrabuddhi, and asks, “What are you doing? Are you insane?” Chitrangada immediately responds, “No! This is not an ordinary jackal. He recites shlokas and knows shāstras.” Subuddhi replies, “I do not trust him! This is a ploy to get to you.” Chitrangada retorts, “I do not agree! You do not understand the shāstras. I do.” Subuddhi narrates a story wherein an old eagle similarly traps a healthy cat and ends up consuming it, but Chitrangada is adamant.
Subuddhi gives up. Ultimately, as one would expect, Kshudrabuddhi leads Chitrangada into a trap, at a farmer’s field, and intends to wait until the deer would starve out and die. The deer implores him for help, asking him to cut the net with his teeth. Kshudrabuddhi offers an unfounded and illogical excuse, “Today being a Sunday, I observe a fast. I cannot be near an animal and use my teeth. Do wait until tomorrow and I will set you free.”
Meanwhile, Subuddhi realizes that some misfortune has befallen his friend, since Chitrangada hadn’t returned home at his usual time. He proceeds in his search, and finds his friend trapped. They work out a solution to free him and simultaneously, get the jackal killed.
In sum, therefore, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam holds true only for an individual who has attained the highest level of spiritual progress, and one who is capable of performing his worldly duties without attachment to material possessions. Such an individual does not see another human as “the other”. Within the other human, he simply sees a miniature version of the cosmic consciousness. This also needs to be true the other way round. It is then that the world can be perceived as one family, belonging to the cosmic consciousness. Only such humans can perceive themselves as being the same, at the level of consciousness, and only in different material bodies. Only then is such a society free from all discriminations. The concept is extremely difficult to grasp, and one needs the guidance of a spiritual guru accomplished in the Vedas and in the Sāṃkhya, Nyāya, Vedānta and Vaisheshika philosophies.
Sanjay Dixit explains it in the following manner: “A kriyā is merely the action of our body. Karma is the motivation behind the kriyā. When one attains the greatest degree of detachment in one’s actions, the accumulated karma has absolutely no relation to the outward kriyā. It means that if one concentrates on the process rather than the result, that kriyā becomes nishkāma (detached) karma. Then, your karma does not bind you, and you achieve liberation. For instance, if you are praying to a god in a temple, your piousness is your kriyā. But if you are actually praying to request god that harm may befall someone else, your wrong intention is your karma. The Law of Karma punishes you precisely on the basis your karma, and you remain trapped in the cycle of births and deaths, also known as saṃsāra. It is nishkāma karma that fetches liberation.”
Therefore, it is evident that the context behind Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is spiritual. In the material world, it is simply too arduous to abide by this concept. We not only have different religions; we also have different traditions and values. How can one conform oneself to the values propounded by, say, ISIS? Does Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam apply to ISIS? Those who propound Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam in the context of the material world must have no problem in giving shelter to a terrorist. In this world, it is always of prudence to remain on guard. Not everyone conforms to Dharmic values. We all have, on occasion, lied. Why? Because we focused on the results. It is also practical, for we cannot expect ourselves to always ignore the results. We have to take calculated action. This does not bring us anywhere close to nishkāma karma. Consequently, we haven’t reached the highest stage of consciousness. Therefore, any statement to the effect of, “the world is one big family” is nothing short of indoctrination.
It is true that the concept of one world is an ideal. As Savarkar presciently noted in his famed tract “Essentials of Hindutva”:
There is throughout the world but a single race — the human race, kept alive by one common blood, the human blood. All other talk is at best provisional and only relatively true. Nature is constantly trying to overthrow the artificial barriers you raise between race and race.
Yet, the fact remains that the existence of nation-states is the incontrovertible reality of the contemporary world. Savarkar notes in the same tract:
It may be that at some future time, the word Hindu may come to indicate a citizen of Hindusthan and nothing else; that day can only rise when all cultural and religious bigotry has disbanded its forces pledged to aggressive egoism, and religions cease to be “isms” and become merely the common fund of eternal principles that lie at the root of all that on which the Human State majestically and firmly rests. But as even the first streaks of this consummation, so devoutly to be wished for, are scarcely discernible on the horizon, it would be folly for us to ignore stern realities.
The most glaring issue with the globalists is not that they wish for a world bereft of borders — a truly wondrous ideal — but that they seek to impose such an order in an abrupt manner. The existence of nation-states today means that there is a sovereign institution called the state that is willing to bequeath to itself the monopoly of violence, which essentially indicates its duty to uphold law and order. The globalists want a globalized world bereft of national governments, yet offer no plausible and practical global version of law enforcement agencies.
The existence of nation-states today is further evidence of people having willed to constitute them under nations. It is only when society as a whole is ready to be constituted under a global government that the materialization of such an ideal is possible. So long as society remains unprepared, any abrupt action would be a classic instance of enforcing a utopia, which results in a cascade of social cataclysms.
Therefore, the sacrifice of national interest at the altar of the sentiment of “world is family” is evincive not merely of utter inanity, but irresponsibility and ineptness to wield power. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam could never indicate that India must be a dharamshala where foreigners could storm in without having been vetted.
Should a principle in Hinduism not be in synchronization with present times, it must be discarded. Had Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, therefore, proved inimical to India’s interests, we should have had no hesitation in discarding it. I, however, know that it is not one of them. The context, I reiterate, is spiritual.
Indoctrination must cease. Our adherence to philosophies must not so mislead us as to isolate ourselves in an echo-chamber of paradisaical ideals, imperiling stern realities.
