Identifying the Enemy
Who is the enemy ? Is it a person ?
Take the case of Shri Anwar Sheikh, he was brought up under the influence of islamic ideology. Inculcated with jihadi ideas, he was dangerous to other human beings who did not follow that ideology. In his youth he killed three persons in the name of islam.
Later his ideas changed, he came to question the ideology of islam, renounced it and became its critic.
It was not Anwar Sheikh the person per se that was dangerous in his early youth. It was the ideas that influenced him that made him dangerous. Anwar Sheikh of later years was a safer human being because he was not under the influence of harmful islamic ideas.
Similar case in point is that of Maharshi Valmiki who wrote Ramayana. In his youth, Ratnakara was dangerous to other humans because he believed that he is justified in robbing other people to support his family. Later he changed his views and as Maharshi Valmiki was immensely beneficial to humanity.
It is therefore the ideas that motivates and influences a person that are important, in terms of his/her effect on society, more important than the person himself.
Ideologies
Islam talks about peace and brotherhood, in Dar-Ul-Islam. Christianity claims to propagate ‘love of God’. Communism talks about ‘equality and upliftment of masses’, Capitalism talks about ‘free market, development and prosperity’.
Yet these very ideologies have been used as excuses to cause deaths of millions of people during the past two millenniums. Killing kaffirs because Allah ordained so. Killing pagans because God willed so. Killing class enemies to bring about revolution for an egalitarian state. Killing the native americans, indians and africans to free the markets and natural resources from control of primitive barbarian tribes; of late, killing vietnamese, iraqis and afghanis to bring them democracy, to civilize them.
Is it that these purported ideologies are dangerous ?
Yet, it is also fact that every muslim is not bloodthirsty towards kaffir. Every christian does not seek to kill pagans. Every communist does not call for killing class enemy. Every capitalist does not seek to usurp money and resources of others.
Therefore it is not ideology per se that is dangerous, it is the motivation that is behind which determines harmfulness or otherwise.
Motivation
What is the motivation that is behind the deaths of millions of people during past two millenniums ?
The common feature of all these killings is the motivation to expand what is considered self-interest, where self is considered in a very narrow sense identified with physical body.
A person who is indoctrinated to consider that Allah will reward him both in terrestrial life and thereafter if he kills kaffirs, is motivated to do so, in the process extending the influence of a select group of people who may be considered high priests of that ideology. Similarly, person misled to consider that he should make pagans owe allegience to an almighty entity called God, else kill them in order to gain the pleasure of that entity, is motivated to do so, again empowering and extending the influence of the group of people considered high priests of that ideology. Equally, a person brainwashed to identify himself as part of a ‘class’ and to consider others who are not part of his class as class enemies, who are to be killed off for betterment of his condition, is motivated to do the killing, in the process expanding the power and influence of a narrow group of people who are considered high priests or politburo. Likewise, person indoctrinated in a consuming culture considers the rest of creation as objects for his consumption and goes about ravaging the earth and killing people who are in the way, again, in the process expanding the power and influence of a group who are considered capital owners, who funds the endeavour.
The motivating factor that causes the killings is the selfish intent of the foot soldiers and the self-aggrandizing intent of the high priests. The ideology is mere excuse.
That is why the killings never stop even if catholic christianity is replaced by protestent christianity, even if christianity is replaced by islam, even if sunni islam is replaced by shia islam, even if christianity and islam are displaced by capitalism or atheism, even if capitalism and atheism are displaced by nazism or fascism, even if capitalism and nazism are displaced by communism, even if marxism is displaced by maoism.
The different ideologies are different branches of the same tree of self-aggrandizement that draw sustenance through roots of selfish-interest.
This tree, due to its inherent nature, seek to draw the entire nourishment from the soil, leaving it barren, seek to stifle and destroy other trees around it. Each of its branches and sub branches exhibit its inherent characteristic of strife, seeking to dominate and destroy one another.
This tree grew from the seed of narrow self-interest that identify physical body as primary and everything else in relation to the body. This narrow self-identification causes the urge to seek to expand and displace others as means to compensate the resulting feeling of constriction and inadequacy.
It is therefore not the person, nor his purported ideology that is the cause of harm, it is the mindset that limit a person’s identity to physical body and consequently seek the crutch of an idea called God/ Allah/ Yahweh/ class-struggle/ socialism/ free-market/ democracy/ freedom/ secularism/ atheism/ nationalism/ racism/ development/ modernism/ globalization/ civlizing or any other such idea to alleviate the pain caused due to their own constriction of sense of self, and seek collaboration with the like-minded to bring other people under their control.
The attachment with the physical- kama, and the consequent inadequacy/insecurity generated agitation- krodha, drives the person to cause harm, like cancer cells, to the body of earth- vasudha; displacing, destroying, devouring other human beings, animals, plants, birds and Nature itself, extending their urge for voracious consumption, turning other beings coming under their influence into rapacious replicas of themselves.
According of primacy to the physical makes science of western origin come up with theories of ‘struggle for survival’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ as defining of life, thereby deprive western science and the societies influenced by it, of spiritual, intellectual and moral direction.
bharatiya samskriti
bharatiya samskriti, on the other hand, consider the entire world as family- vasudhaiva kutumbakam and consequently inspire people to grow together amicably, co-operatively, respecting each other, giving primacy to dharma– that which sustains. It guide people to consider themselves as atman and the physical body like a cloth that is discarded when it becomes old. bharatiya samskriti also inspire people to seek and realize themselves as the supreme, brahma.
Solely identifying with physical body, attaching to it and launching self-aggrandizement drive at the cost of others, is recognized as adharma, that which diminishes, and therefore, discouraged by bharatiya samskriti. People who indulge in such behavior are considered mleccha and shunned.
India Today
bhAratam came under mleccha rule intermittently during the past millennium. The effect of this on society is palpable. The mleccha coined word ‘hindu’ has been accepted as suitable identifier for themselves by many people, despite it being only an indicator of geographical identity. The mleccha attitude of considering physical body as primary identifier has been extended to mis-identify bharatiya samskriti as limited in physical-geographical terms defined by the word ‘hindu’. By identifying with the spiritually, intellectually and morally empty word ‘hindu’, people have been cut off from spiritual and moral intelligence. The effect of this is seen in the way society reacted to the burning to death of 58 ‘hindus’ in a train by a muslim mob in 2001 at Godhra, to the killing of Swami Lakshmanananda and his disciples by christians and maoists at Kandhmal in 2008 and to the bomb blasts carried out by muslims in Mumbai in 1993. The society that is supine to everyday adharma, in the form of corruption in bureacracy, in political and business field, in academe, in fact in virtually every sphere of life, reacted to these incidents, because the victims were identified as fellow ‘hindus’. This shows that the society has come to raise its voice, not to uphold dharma, but only to ensure physical safety of people considered their own. This rajasic reaction, though an improvement over tamasic passivity towards everyday adharma, is nevertheless irrational, largely mis-directed and does not provide long term solution. The mis-identification with the physical, imbibed from mleccha rulers of past, makes society blind and deaf to spiritual, intellectual, moral corruption that is fast degenerating it. This is evident from the way some ‘hindus’ attempted to justify/defend Rajasekara a.k.a Swami Nithyananda who had sexual relations with disciples; like Dhritarashtra of Hastinapuri, blind to adharma committed by kin.
Solution
Spreading the bharatiya samskriti, that considers every being of the world as family, that considers the self not merely limited to physical body nor in time, but as imperishable atman and capable of realizing brahma, the samskriti that considers both the male and the female as equally respect-worthy and essential, integral part of creation, that inspires people to see beyond the physical, beyond words- beyond nama-rupa, and discern the essence ; spreading this samskriti is essential to bring harmony and balance to world. Real peace-love-equality-freedom will result only when that happens.
Meanwhile see beyond appearances, beyond the facade, beyond the name, beyond words, beyond ‘religion’, beyond the purported ideology, beyond the apparent actions and see the atman behind the body, the motivation that drives the person. Does the person seek to discern dharma and uphold it like Sri Rama did, or does s/he identify with physical body and seek to self-aggrandize, like Ravana (who was very accomplished and staunch devotee of Shiva), more concerned with kith and kin, ‘achievements’, ‘ideology’, legacy, good name, than dharma ?
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 11, 2010 at 9:54 am
Ram
People appear with different attributes – dark / light, tall / short, soft / hard, white skinned / black skinned etc.. It is very difficult to appreciate the concept of “Vasudheiva Kutumbakam” as long one looks at the physical appearance of the other living being.
Unless people understand the concept of “unversal truth” and look at the “Atman” of evey other being, the world will not be a peaceful place. This is an excellent article bringing out the core concept of “Bharathiya Samskriti”. What else are we doing when our duty itself is to uphold “Dharma”. Even the God’s duty is to ensure that “Dharma” is established and “Truth alone Triumphs”. The affinity to western thoughts has dragged Bharathiyas to narrow their minds and live only for their physical self, kith and kin.
May 11, 2010 at 9:56 am
Ram
Can I take the liberty to propagate this article through the forums that I participate ?
May 11, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Incognito
Sure
August 20, 2010 at 9:15 pm
seadog4227
The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: Hitopadesha
By: Sarvesh Tiwari
Along with its short form “vasudhaiva kuTumbakam”, this shloka somehow finds a massive popularity among the
modern Hindus. Of late though, the secular variety seems to have developed quite a fetish for it and the verse has
gained a rhetorical note. Apparently it offers them an aesthetic emblem of multiculturalism and universalism, as well as
an authority of yore to denounce the nationalistic thought as narrow-minded. Even the most Samskrita-phobic ones
therefore can be seen reciting this shloka on every sundry occasion.
Thanks to the rhetoric, the traditional Hindus too seem to have taken to this shloka like a duck to the water.
vasudhaiva kuTumbakam is often cited by them as an evidence of how ancient Hindus had set for themselves (and for
generations thereafter) the principles of an unconditional universal brotherhood. It has been generally taken for
granted by them that VK is an unquestionable value, a traditional nIti recommended by wise ancestors of how to deal
with the world.
VK has also become an unchallenged cornerstone of India”s official policy-making in the last six decades, and has
been officially proclaimed so on several occasions since independence. No wonder then, that as a symbolic reflection,
VK has been literally inscribed in stone, on the walls of the India”s Parliament House.
However, this prominence to VK in the modern public discourse springs from a superficial or even a perverted
understanding. If we study the original sources which recited it in the first place, it becomes amazingly apparent that its
application in the matters of policy is a height of ignorance and squarely flawed. That is precisely the objective of this
note in which we shall glean through the original sources, recognize the contexts in which the ancient Hindus uttered
VK, and most importantly, validate whether it was meant by them as a recommendation.
Contrary to the popular myths, the verse is neither located in Rigveda nor in Mahabhaarata, neither in manusmriti nor
in the puranas. Thus far, we have seen the verse in the following Samskrita sources: hitopadesha, pa~nchatantra,
certain compendiums of chanakya and bhartrihari, mahaupanishadam, certain recensions of vikrama-charita, and
finally in the works of the great kashmIraka poet bhatta udbhata. While there might be additional sources of the verse
as well, which we might identify in future, here we shall make an excursion into these texts identified so far, and
understand the proper contexts and true purport of VK in each occurrence.
vasudhaiva kuTumbakam in hitopadesha
That this verse comes to us from the massive web of tales called hitopadesha, this I accidentally learnt while reading
the preface of Mahadevi Varma”s collection of autobiographical essays called “Mera Parivar” (My Family). The
towering modern-Hindi poetess was a lover of animals and had in her home a curious gathering of different creatures
which is what she described as her family in this book. The preface compares her family to “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam
of the creatures described in pa~nchatantra” — although the author would have really meant hitopadesha — and that is
how I came upon pa~nchatantra and hitopadesha in search for origins of VK.
Several centuries before Friedrich Froebel proposed the ideas about educating the child through entertaining activities
– kindergarten as he called it – teaching young pupils through entertainment must have been a successful practice in
India. If the terse instructions are wrapped inside intriguing and memorable tales, not only are the lessons better
received by the instructed, but also acquire meaningfulness and longevity of the teaching — arguably the discovery of
this principle is to the credit of ancient Hindu-s, and hitopadesha is a shining evidence of the same. It was compiled by
narayana pandita in roughly 5th century of the CE either in Pataliputra or in Bengal, as a textbook for two young
princes who being hard at studies were dropouts from the conventional schooling.
Organized into four chapters, hitopadesha is a fascinating loop of one tale inside the other which itself is inside the
other tale – going all the way back up to the kathamukha or the face-tale. Vasudhaiva kutumbakam makes its sole
appearance in its first chapter known as mitra-lAbhaH (“Gaining of Friends”). A mouse named hiranyaka relates to his
friend laghu-patanaka the Crow, a story about another Crow, the Deer and ksudrabuddhi the Jackal, and inside this
story ksudrabuddhi the Jackal would recite VK as a reaction after hearing from this Crow another story known as
“jaradgava the Vulture and dIrghakarNa the Cat”.
Encapsulated in this intriguing way within three layers of fables is this important message about VK that narayana
pandita the great teacher of politics relayed to his pupils. To understand the context in which VK is quoted and more
importantly the instruction of the teacher about it, let us enjoy these two stories: one in which the VK is uttered; and
another in response to which it is uttered. Reproduced in the following paragraphs are both of these in a condensed
form.
The Crow, the Deer and ksudrabuddhi the Jackal
“Long long ago, in the champakavaTI forest of magadha, there lived two friends – a Deer called chitrA~Nga and a
Crow named subuddhi. It so happened that a Jackal named kshudra-buddhi, (the proposer of vasudhaiva
kuTumbakam, as we shall soon see), was passing by and his eyes caught hold of the healthy Deer as he was grazing
nearby. The lust to devour him immediately arose in the Jackal”s mind, but knowing Deer to be too swift in a chase, he
decided to fall back on his cunning – to win first the confidence of the Deer. The VK-preacher therefore approached the
Deer, saluted him, and introduced himself as a lonely newcomer with friendly intentions, and proposed a friendship
and brotherhood with the Deer. The naive Deer fell for the sweet words of kshudra-buddhi, and not knowing his true
intentions, invited him to his own dwellings.
So, they started towards the Deer”s place, and on their way sitting on the branches of a champaka tree was Deer”s
old and wise friend subuddhi the Crow. Seeing them passing by, the Crow asked the Deer, “O chitrA~Nga, who is this
second fellow with you? ” “A Jackal, my new friend”, answered the Deer. To this, the Crow asked: “But, do you know
him well enough? One should never extend friendship and shelter to anyone without knowing their real nature and
intentions, learning the history of their ilk and giving them a test of time.” The Deer lightly shrugged this aside, saying,
“But this Jackal is very friendly”.
Seeing his friend in delusions, the Crow began relating to him a story about how jaradgava a Vulture was killed by
unwisely trusting an impostor (that story reproduced later below). He warned the Deer against trusting the Jackal
without learning more about him.
So far the Jackal had kept quite, and it is at this juncture that he opened his argument with the famous shloka of
vasudhaiva kuTumbakam, demanding the Deer to not be of a narrow mind by considering the Crow a friend and
himself an alien. The vasudhaiva-kuTumbakam discourse successfully put to rest all doubts that had arisen in the
Deer”s mind, and dismissing the Crow”s wise council he went ahead in bringing the VK-preacher into his home.”
The remainder of the story can be summed up in two sentences. The cunning VK-reciting Jackal started dwelling with
the naive Deer, and as soon as the opportunity arose, pushed him into a deadly trap. However before he could kill the
Deer, our wise hero subuddhi the Crow devised a clever trick by which not only the Deer was rescued but also the VKreciting
Jackal was slain.
So that is the context in which VK is recorded in the hitopadesha by the great paNDita of politics nArAyaNa, and he is
unambiguously clear about its application when he assigns this shloka to come from a brotherhood-preaching shrewd
subversionist. It gives a clear warning against blindly welcoming any idea, individual or group without due diligence of
studying their history, nature and intent.
However, let us also read the other story, in response to which the VK is uttered in hitopadesha, which would leave
absolutely no room for any doubts in this matter of how hitopadesha treats vasudhaiva kuTumbakam:
jaradgava the Vulture and dIrghakarNa the Cat
While warning his friend against trusting the Jackal, subuddhi the Crow thus addressed the Deer:
“There, on the banks of the mighty bhAgIrathI is a cliff called gR^idharakUTa, and upon it grew a great fig-tree. In the
shelter of its hollow lived an old Vulture named jaradgava, who due to old age had neither any eyesight left in his eyes
nor nails in his claws. The other birds that lived on that tree were friendly to him, and out of pity used to donate from
their own food small portions to him, and this way the poor fellow was passing his days. In return, jaradgava used to
guard the little offspring of the birds when the parent birds were away.
One day, when the older birds were gone, a Cat called dIrghakarNa (“Long Eared”) came there to make a meal out of
the nestlings; and those tiny birds alarmed at seeing him, created noise that roused jaradgava from his slumber. “Who
comes there?” demanded jaradgava. Now dIrghakarNa, on noticing the big Vulture, aborted his meal plans, but as a
flight was not possible he resolved to trust his destiny and to approach tactfully. “Arya,” he responded, “my salutes to
you!” “Who is that?” asked the Vulture. “A Cat,” answered dIrghakarNa. “Lay off, Cat, or I shall slay you,” shouted the
Vulture. “I am ready to die if I deserve death,” said the Cat, “but first let me be heard.” “OK then, tell me first your
purpose of arrival.” asked jaradgava.
“I live,” melodramatically began dIrghakarNa, “on the banks of ga~NgA, bathing daily, performing the penance of
chandrAyaNa vrata, strictly being a vegetarian like a bramachArI. The birds that come there, speak very highly of you
as the one firmly established in dharma and worthy of all respects. So with my curiosity greatly aroused about you, I
decided to drop by Sir, to learn from you about nIti and dharma.”
“You appear like so deep gone in learning,” he continued, “and still Sir, I am surprised that your sense of dharma tells
you to be ready to slay a guest! Doesn”t the nIti say unambiguously about what a man”s dharma is towards his
guests?” The Cat then went on delivering an elaborate speech, quoting eloquently from the shAstra-s about the
dharma and cut quite an impressive lecture on peace and non-violence.
Shrugging that onslaught of quotations from shAstra-s aside, wise jaradgava interrupted, “Listen, I know only this, that
you are a cat and the cats eat meat. Since here are young birds that I am given to protect, I warn you one last time –
leave immediately.”
Upon this, dIrghakarNa intensified his drama, and touching the ground with his two claws and then his ears, invoking
all the Gods, he said, “I have overcome all the passions by practicing the chandrAyaNa vrata; I have learnt the
shAstra-s; and I am a follower of the religion that is called non-violence itself. And so he went on.
Such prolonged drama of the Cat finally silenced the old Vulture, who at last allowed him to live in the hollow of the
tree with himself.
With the passage of days, and having gained more confidence of the Vulture, the Cat slowly began picking the
nestlings for his meal. After devouring them one by one, the cunning fellow would drop their bones near the hollow of
jaradgava, who being blind did not notice it.
One day, alarmed at their children going missing, the parent birds began investigating. The shrewd cat quickly made
his escape, and the birds soon discovered the bones near the hollow of jaradgava. They at once inferred that their
children had been eaten away by the old Vulture in whom they had placed their trust. Thus enraged the birds swiftly
executed jaradgava in no time. Although being innocent and a true well-wisher of the birds, he paid for the folly of
giving shelter to the wrong kind.”
Above story is which evokes the vasudhaiva kuTumbakam from the cunning subversionist in hitopadesha.
We should be by now convinced that the ancient AchArya of politics nArAyaNa paNDita was not teaching the policy of
universal and blind brotherhood to his pupils. Quite to the contrary, he is actually warning precisely against this
tendency of blind application of this brotherhood in the matters of policy, as is being apparently taught and believed by
the modern powers that be of India.
While developing the textbook of hitopadesha, nArAyaNa paNDita had the benefit of referring to, besides other
sources, the most widespread repository of fables ever composed on planet, the great pa~nchatantra. In the preface
of hitopadesha, nArAyaNa paNDita talks of pa~nchatantra mentioning how viShNusharman a great AchArya of nIti
and politics had instructed a certain young princes in the matters of policy through tales. In fact many have
convincingly argued that hitopadesha is nothing but a contextualized eastern recension of pa~nchatantra itself.
Now, this amazing and fairly ancient work of AchArya viShNusharman, pa~nchatantra is probably the single most
traveled, widespread and translated work of the ancient world, and dateable with fair certainty back to the late
mauryan period, of around third century before CE. The place of its composition is a matter of debates, and varying
opinions place it from Kashmir to Nepal to South India. Beyond any doubt however is that soon after its composition, it
got transmitted amazingly to almost all the contemporary major civilizations. As a result, fairly ancient derivations of
pa~nchatantra are found under various names in a number of languages, notably in Pehlavi and Persian, Syriac and
Turkic, Greek and Latin, Hebrew and Arabic, Tibetan and Chinese. Several of the traditional fables of Europe such as
those in Pilpay”s, Aesop”s, Grimm”s and of Persian-Arabic literature are indebted to pa~nchatantra for their origins.
hitopadesha not only inherited from pa~nchatantra the marvelous structure of looping tales, and plots of fables, but
also various shloka-s in exact verbatim, and this includes the one of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam too. In aparIkshitakArakam,
the fifth tantra of pa~nchatantra, AchArya viShNusharman records it in a fable known as “siMha kAraka
mUrkha brAhmaNa kathA”, and assigns VK to come from a declared fool. To understand the attitude of this nIti-text
towards VK, a condensed version of that fable is presented below:
“Once upon a time there lived a group of four young brAhmaNa friends in some nondescript village. Three of these
were fools, although very erudite and deep gone in learning of shAstra-s. On the other hand the fourth one was
altogether lacking in shAstra-learning, but fairly intelligent.
The learned members of this group once contemplated upon the merits of moving to a city where they could put their
scholarship to better use. After all, what good was all the learning if it did not yield them wealth and fame? The idea
was approved unanimously and the group at once took off towards a large city at a fair journey”s distance.
While going forth on their way, the oldest of the scholar-fools expressed his opinion that it was futile for the un-erudite
one to join the excursion. Although the intelligence of that fellow was not in doubt, it was useless in absence of any
formal learning, he said. The second scholar-fool agreed too and suggested that the uneducated one should rather
return back to their home-village.
However the third scholar-fool was more generous who reminded the party that although worthless, the fourth one was
their childhood friend and therefore they ought to allow him in sharing their exploits. It is at this juncture in the story,
that this third fool recites the shloka of vasudhaiva-kuTumbakam, and convinced the other two scholar-fools, to let the
uneducated one remain in the party. And on they went.
Upon going a little further the travelers came upon a decaying carcass of some creature been long dead. Seeing that,
the learned members immediately decided to put their learning to test by making the dead creature come alive.
The scholar-fool number-one used his knowledge in gathering and properly reassembling the skeleton according to its
accurate anatomy. The number-two successfully applied his formulae in adding organs, flesh, and skin. Our VKreciting
third one then began his experiments of breathing prANa into it to finally resurrect it.
At this point the fourth fellow, the intelligent though uneducated one, interrupted them. “Friends, wait a minute,”
warned the intelligent one, “listen, this dead-body appears like that of a lion, and you people want to bring it to life.
Surely, my learned friends, if you resurrect the lion, it would put our own lives into grave danger. Therefore, for the
sake of our lives better let the beast remain as safely dead as it now is, and move on to our destination.”
But the VK-reciting stupid-scholar wouldn”t listen to the common-sense and the warning was shrugged aside by him.
At last seeing the scholars foolishly bent upon performing the suicidal act, the wise one at once climbed the tallest tree
he could locate nearby. As anticipated, the VK-reciter successfully resurrected the lion, and no sooner did the lion
come alive, it devoured all the three foolish brAhmaNa-s. Only the uneducated one, having wisely climbed the tree,
escaped the sorry fate of their shAstra-knowing friends and returned home lamenting for the unnecessary and foolish
ends of his mates, especially the kind-hearted but naive VK-reciting one.”
So, that is the place of vasudhaiva kuTumbakaM in pa~nchatantra.
Surely if nArAyaNa paNDita had made some rather acidic use of VK in satires of hitopadesha, viShNusharman did not
display much regard for it either when he first declared this character a fool, and then had this fool recite vasudhaiva
kuTumbakam. In the argument of this foolish brAhmaNa which he delivers to convince his other friends about letting
the fourth friend continue in the party, quoting this shloka seems quite unnecessary or even grossly irrelevant. It does
appear likely that the shloka was deliberately inserted in the dialog by viShNusharman to be made to come from a
foolish character. The lesson being that un-erudite commonsense is far superior to impractical adherence to shAstrIyalearning.
Furthermore, the author leaves no room for any doubt about his attitude towards VK, when he lets its
preacher perish by his own stupidity, meeting the same end as that of the VK-reciting Jackal of hitopadesha who was
slain by the Crow, a realist hero.
We now have ample reasons to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that both the textbooks on nIti-education –
pa~nchatantra and hitopadesha – are very critical of the tendency of unconditional application of vasudhaiva
kuTumbakaM in the realm of worldly matters. Their message about VK is loud and clear. One: the brotherhoodpreaching
that VK represents, is a popular instrument of subversion; two: gullible are often seen foolishly seized by it;
and three: both are destroyed.
vasudhaiva kuTumbakam and kauTilya”s artha-shAstra
Both of these textbooks of nIti, pa~nchatantra and hitopadesha, transmit many popular shloka-s to their students,
quoting from several original sources such as itihAsa-purANa-s and earlier nIti-literature. One of the authorswhom
both predominantly quote is viShNugupta aka chANakya or kauTilya. In fact, in the preface of pa~nchatantra itself,
viShNusharman reverently acknowledges kauTilya as a foremost luminary of politics and humbly proposes himself to
be in the same line of intellectual succession.
Having fulfilled his mission of establishing the mauryan Empire and stabilizing it as its Prime Minister, kauTilya is said
to have retired to southern India where he dedicated long years in collecting and editing various extant sources on the
matters of polity and economics, and compiling a unified compendium along with his own contributions as
arthashAstra. As we know, in even farther ancient India, all the knowledge used to get appended into the common
body of shAstra-s, and the growing size of that knowledge must have, after a point, become exceedingly hard to
manage. Therefore at some point in history, we start noticing that Hindus started to divide the common shAstra-s into
independent shAstra-s for each realm of life – viz. dharma-shAstra-s, artha-shAstra-s, kAma-shAstra-s etc. We even
notice the emergence of shAstra for niche subjects such as nATya-shAstra for dramatics, and pAka-shAstra for
cookery and so on.
kauTilya”s work should therefore be seen in this context as a window through which we can understand the political
philosophy of ancient Hindus, not only of kauTilya but also of even earlier than him. Indeed, in preparing arthashAstra,
he consulted all the important sources from at least five distinct schools of politics then prevailing (mAnava,
bArhaspatya, aushanasa, pArAshara, and AmbhIya) and quotes in arthashAstra from the works of not less than
thirteen individual authors of past whom he refers by name: bhAradvAja, vishAlAksha, pArAshara, pishuna,
kauNapadanta, vAtavyAdhi, bAhudanti-putra, kAtyAyana, kaNi~Nka-bhAradvAja, dIrgha-chArAyaNa, ghoTaka-mukha,
ki~njalka, and pishuna-putra. Here it is important to highlight that kauTilya has quoted the opinions of these earlier
authors not only where he agreed with them, but also where he radically disagreed. Under various topics, he first
quotes them, and then expresses his personal agreement or disagreement along with an explanation.
Even as the preceding paragraphs might have appeared like a digression from our subject of vasudhaiva
kuTumbakam, but it was indispensable to establish first the background of kauTilya”s arthashAstra, and to show that
although the various works of all of those individual authors are not extant anymore, kauTilya”s artha-shAstra alone,
gives us a single source to understand the authentic political thought process of Hindus as propagated by several
ancient AchAryas of nIti. Having said this, not only the verse of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam is missing in artha-shAstra,
but in fact the sentiment is very incompatible with what they thought of state policy.
If unconditionally applied in the realm of statecraft as a pivotal hinge, VK manifests itself as it has done, in a state with
pusillanimity and diffidence as its operating principles, and banal bhai-bhai rhetoric as its anthem. It summarily stands
for a Soft State with minimalistic governance leaning towards an organized milder anarchy. And kauTilya has nothing
but contempt for such a state.
Contrary to such romanticist-anarchic tendencies, kauTilya is a realist and his worldview of basic human nature and
society is grounded in perceivable hard realities. He does not consider “brotherhood” is the core of the state-principle
but “Power to punish the wicked”. In the first book of artha-shAstra kauTilya states, “apraNIto hi matsya-nyAyam
udbhAvayanti balIyAn, abalam hi grasate daNDadhara abhAve”, that (far from being a family) human society in its very
basic nature is like a group of fishes in water, where mightier ones devour the weak, unless a chastising rod is
exercised. And therefore the danDa, the chastising rod and power and willingness to wield it, are at the core of the
statecraft. Artha is the very purpose of the society he says, by dharma that is achieved, and only daNDa sustains it.
In this worldview he is joined by bhIShma, (whom kauTilya refers as kauNapadanta), expressing the same opinion to
the eldest pANdava in the sixty-seventh chapter of shAnti-parvan. Manu too expresses a similar opinion, “yadi na
pranayed rAjadanDam danDyeshvatandritaH jale matsyaniva himsyAn durbalAn balavattarAH” (MS7.20): If the state
would stop un-wearisomely exercising the chastising rod on those deserving to be chastised, the wicked would kill the
meek like fish do in water.” So these AchArya-s are abundantly clear that if the upholders of the state absolve
themselves of their primordial duty, under VK-belief or otherwise, of exercising the daNDa, then there will be no
kuTumbakam but only a matsya-nyAya.
Unlike the world-a-family model, kauTilya”s arthashAstra also holds that wickedness and enemies are always going to
be around and therefore a firm discretion is needed in the matters of statecraft. Identifying the enemies of the country
and not hesitating to crush them relentlessly, is an essential part of the duties of statesmen to maintain a sustainable
order. Just sample a few of kauTilya”s utterances: Like sandalwood does not abound every forest, like each elephant
does not carry a mANikya, remember this that not everyone is a gentlemen (CND 2.9); By various means, one should
protect one”s own people and hurt those of the enemy (AS 14.3); My Lord, follow the rule that there should be no
delay in putting down the enemy, even a very strong confederacy of the wicked people. Never be tiresome or hesitate
in applying full force against them (AS 5.4).
So, I believe we can move on by saying that at least in kauTilya”s opinion, the operating guideline of statesmen
holding the duty-rod of the state is not to preach the romantic anarchy of “vasudhaiva kuTumbakam”, but a very
realistic distinction between the friend and foe, and an unhesitating suppression of the inimical forces for a sustainable
peace in society.
vasudhaiva kuTumbakam in other works of kauTilya
Besides artha-shAstra, there are some other collections that carry the name of chANakya, and contain hundreds of
aphorisms popularly attributed to him. Some popular compendiums that carry the name of chANakya include: laghuchANakya,
vR^iddha-chANakya, chANakya-nIti-darpaNaM, chANakya-nIti-shAstra, chANakya-nIti-shataka,
chANakya-rAja-nIti-shAstra, chANakyaM, chANakya-shatakaM, chANakya-nIti-vyavahAra-sAra-saMgraha, chANakyasUtrANi,
and rAja-nIti. A few in this list are published, while the most are in manuscript form in various libraries around
the world.
Of the above list, the first four – laghu-chANakya, vR^iddha-chANakya, chANakya-nIti-darpaNaM, chANakya-nItishAstra
– are certainly very widespread, as their manuscripts have been found from a diversity of places as distant as
Tamilnadu and Nepal, Gujarat and Bengal, Rajasthan and Karnataka. These four therefore are fairly ancient
collections containing as it seems, “the other” sayings from the pen of chANakya himself. For the rest, it appears more
sensible that the later composers might have added the luminary”s name to enhance the credibility and popularity of
their own products.
Coming back to vasudhaiva kuTumbakam, of all the secondary collections of chANakya”s sayings, vasudhaiva
kuTumbakaM is found in only one single manuscript of vR^iddha chANakya, in the Tanjore recension, in addition to a
certain version of chANakya-nIti-shAstra. In all other widespread manuscripts and sources on the rest of the
compendiums of chANakya”s aphorisms, VK is simply non-existent just like in artha-shAstra, suggesting a later
interpolation by some scribes in these two individual manuscripts, quoting from some other sources.
Ludwig Sternbach had done a signal work in collecting and analyzing all the different sources of chANakya”s sayings
to compose a unified single compendium of his authentic original aphorisms. He employed a very sound statistical
technique to scrub the interpolations. Using this methodology, vasudhaiva kuTumbakaM appears to be a later
interpolation coming from some other non-chANakyan source. Sternbach has also demonstrated various other
aphorisms popularly attributed to chANakya to actually be coming from earlier texts like mahAbhArata, showing how
those have crept into chANakya”s compendiums, suggesting interpolation.
Above all, when the authentic line of thought of chANakya, as represented by artha-shAstra, is brought into
consideration, it becomes an impossibility that he would ever recommended VK as a guideline for statecraft or a policy
cornerstone for society.
Credit for that innovation is safely with the wise and talented secular politicians of modern India.
Very few monarchs come close to finding a comparable place in the Hindu subconscious, which even after the elapse
of a millennium, the memory of legendary bhojadeva paramAra of dhArAvatI commands. Unlike others confined to the
pages of history, his legacy lives on in so many ways, in urban proverbs and rural songs, in crude jokes and scholarly
legends, or in massively popular folklores inspired by siMhAsana-battIsI aka dvA-triMshata-puttalikA-siMhAsanam or
vikrama-charita, which to this date are the favorite of rural storytellers.
First composed probably during the rein of bhoja, or more likely shortly afterwards, vikrama-charita is an eleventh
century collection of thirty-two tales in a unique framework. In its each tale, bhoja tries to ascend a throne supported
by a base of thirty-two statuettes and belonging to the legendary vikramAditya. In each attempt, one of the statuettes
would recite to him a story about the greatness of vikramAditya and demand bhoja whether he was up to him in virtue.
Hearing the tale bhoja would silently step back from the throne in humility, until the very end of the work when he
would be proclaimed entitled to the throne by the very decree of Gods, a symbolic way of the author to claim for bhoja
the same pedestal in glory as that of vikramAditya the chief hero of these tales.
It is in this popular work that we find our next stop for the shloka of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam, and at last here it is
seen definitely in a positive sense. There are six major recensions found of vikrama-charita: a most common southern
recension, manuscripts of which are found mostly from Andhra; a metrical recension with entire text in anuShtubha
meter; a prose-only brief recension; two individual jaina recensions in devanAgarI mostly from central and western
India; and finally a recension of vararuchi. Then there is another popular collection of tales spawned by vikramacharita:
twenty-five vetAla fables known as vetAla pa~nchaviMshati or vetAla pachIsI, the germs of which are found in
one of the 32-siMhAsana tales itself.
Among all the six recensions, VK can be sited in three, coming in three separate stories.
In the southern recension mostly in Telugu manuscripts, the shloka appears in the opening of a tale called sarvasvadakShiNA-
yaj~na-varNanam recited to bhoja by the third puttalikA named suprabhA. Here the VK shloka is a very
different variant from the popular one:
ayaM nijaH paroveti vikalpo bhrAnta chetasAm
punastUdAra chittAnAM vasudhaiva kuTumbakam (VC, South, 3.1)
This tale which opens with VK is about vikramArka”s bravery in renunciation. He once decides to perform a grand
ya~jna in ujjayinI, in connection of which he dispatches a brAhmaNa towards south to invite Sea-God. While Sea-God
did not come, he returned the brAhmaNa with a gift of four rare magical gems for vikrama, each of which had a
different magical quality. By the time this envoy returns back to ujjayinI, the yaj~na is completed and the king has
donated everything he had to others. Having nothing left with him, he would ask this brAhmaNa to accept any one of
those gems whichever he chose. An interesting debate would ensue between the brAhmaNa, his wife, son and
daughter-in-law, about which one of the four gems should be kept. In the end they being undecided, vikrama would
generously grant them all the four gems, even though he had no wealth left with himself and was in need.
In jaina recension, the shloka of VK appears in an intriguing tale known as paropakArAya-svadehAhuti-dAna, recited
by suprabhA who is here the seventeenth statuette. This tale too is about the magnanimity of vikrama and his
generous disposition. In this story, there is a certain ruler of an insignificant fiefdom who once overhears the praises of
vikrama and inquires as to why vikrama was so great. He is told that it was because of his generosity in donations. In
jealousy the ruler decides to perform his own enterprise of donations, but having not sufficient income he would think
of generating wealth through tantra-prayoga. He contracts a group of sixty-four yoginI-s to perform a certain
anuShThAna which every time conducted would produce for him a certain amount of gold. However each time he
would have to give up his body in an arduous prayoga at the end of which the yoginI-s would resurrect him with a new
body. This painful exercise was undertaken a few times while vikramAditya came to learn about it. So one day when
the prayoga was on, at the right moment vikrama would appear at the scene and jump into flames. The yoginI-s would
be greatly pleased and after resurrecting him, they would grant him a desired boon. The story climaxes with vikrama”s
generosity, when he appeals to yoginI-s to grant wealth to the jealous ruler without having to repeatedly undergo that
ordeal.
In yet another jaina recension, and a quite late one written by paNDita shubhashIla gaNi in 1437 CE, the standard
shloka of VK recurs in yet another story where it represents the justice of vikrama.
In the other recensions the shloka is simply absent. Incidentally, bhojadeva also composed (or commissioned) a
compendium of subhAShita-s attributed to kauTilya, titled chANakya-rAjanIti-shAstra, and VK is not found in the
versions we have seen so far.
VK appears this way in vikrama-charita, representing the generosity and justice of the king, and yet, not in any sense
of universal brotherhood as is commonly misunderstood these days.
vasudhaiva kuTumbakam in Classical Poetics
Now, if the authors of various recensions of vikrama-charita decided to quote VK to highlight the magnanimity of their
hero, it must have surely been a popular shloka by their time representing the sentiment of generosity. Indeed VK has
appeared in all of these, explicitly in sense of a quotation.
By the time of their composition, the art of poetics in saMskR^ita literature had been transformed into a proper
discipline of science. Accuracy in characterization of each emotion, appropriateness of expression, accuracy in usage
of right meters for specific purposes, acceptable tolerance of liberty with grammar in poetry, how and when new words
can be coined if at all – these had become commonplace knowledge among not only saMskR^ita literati but even
broader elites. A few distinct, independent, and often competing schools of thought on poetic discipline had already
evolved and matured such as the vaidarbha, kAshmIraka and gauDIya schools.
By this time the system of yellow-pages-like encyclopedic anthologies of subhAShita-s, the free floating, orally
transmitted, public domain maxims, adages and aphorisms, had also become quite popular. Such anthologies, often
called kosha-s or saMgraha-s were not only useful to common users to enhance their expression in speech, but also
certainly referred by the dramatists and prose-writers such as those of vikrama-charita, to quote suitably according to
the mood and situation of the context. subhAShitAvaliH of vallabhadeva is one such grand collection with thousands of
such poetic phrases coming from dozens of poets, and classified under various topics. It lists the shloka of vasudhaiva
kuTumbakaM as an ideal expression of audArya, the sentiment of generosity, in its following variant:
ayaM bandhuH paroveti gaNanA laghu chetasAM
pumsAmudAra chittAnAM vasudhaiva kuTumbakaM (subhAShitAvaliH, udArAH, 498)
vallabhadeva has listed VK as third in the sequence under “generosity” (ironically, next to the section on niggardly
misers). vallabhadeva hands us another very significant lead by assigning the authorship of this shloka to udbhaTa
bhaTTa an eighth-century poet from kAshmIra, who was an important milestone in the progress of kAshmIraka brand
of poetics, the development of which began with bhAmaha and completed in mammaTa.
Now let us then examine where exactly and in which context udbhaTa might have uttered this verse. Of all that is
available anymore from the pen of udbhaTa, and he is said to have composed at least three major works, we are
unable to find the shloka of VK. We do know through his contemporaries that he composed bhAmaha-vivaraNa a
commentary on bhAmaha, kumara-sambhava a kAvya, and kAvyAlaMkAra-sAra-saMgraha, a treatise on
recommended expressions and embellishments in poetry. Of these the first two are lost and not extant anymore — the
first one probably falling to disuse after mammaTa had delivered the last word on the subject, and kumara-sambhava
probably drowned in competition to the mahAkAvya of same title by the emperor of saMskR^ita poetry. However, his
kAvyAlaMkAra-sAra-saMgraha is still extant besides other snippets of his, quoted by writers such as indurAja the
teacher of savant abhinavagupta in his laghuvR^itti, or indeed like the three verses of his preserved by vallabhadeva
in subhAShitAvaliH from where we came to him.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that udbhaTa might have used the shloka of VK is some works which are lost to us,
although we have no means of knowing the context in which he would have used VK. But we do know that he would
have been only quoting this shloka and not have been its original author as claimed by vallabhadeva, since more than
a full millennium before udbhaTa, pa~nchatantra had already quoted it.
Talking of poetry and talking of vikramAditya and bhoja, another name that naturally springs up in our minds is
bhartR^ihari, the maverick elder brother of vikramAditya. bhartR^ihari”s three famous volumes of a hundred shloka-s
each, nIti-shatakam, vairAgya-shatakam, and shR^iMgAra-shatakam, are very widespread and commonly found.
Although the contents of shataka-s vary between various versions of theirs, the sholka of VK is not found in any of
these that we have seen so far except for one edition compiled by Marxist historian D.D. Kosambi. [bhartR^ihariviracita-
shatakatrayAdi-subhAShita-saMgraha, D.D.Kosambi (1948)]. However, considering the overwhelming
evidence of VK being absent in a vast majority of various recensions of bhartR^ihari”s trayI, it seems more sensible to
conclude that it must have been an interpolation in this single source where kosambi sighted it. Besides, as the earlier
works already quote this shloka, that rules out its authorship to bhartR^ihari.
vasudhaiva kuTumbakam in upaniShada
So far we have seen hitopadesha and pa~nchatantra, compendiums of aphorisms of kauTilya and bhartR^ihari,
Andhra and jaina recensions of vikrama-charita, encyclopedic anthology by vallabhadeva and through him the
snippets of udbhaTa. Nowhere, not in the least, do the authors of any of these works ever claim to be the origin of
vasudhaiva kuTumbakam. In every single instance, the verse has been explicitly quoted as a remark often appended
with “as has been said”.
But there is one and the only one exception to this where this shloka comes as a natural, inherent and intrinsic part of
the base text, and that is why we had kept that source to be examined in the end.
In the seventh adhikaraNa of the second chapter of shrI-bhAShyam, the prominent and most celebrated commentary
on bramha-sUtra, AchArya rAmAnuja is critiquing the philosophies of kApAla, kAlamukha and pAshupata schools of
shaiva mata-s in its thirty-sixth sUtra. There, he quotes in support of his arguments the first line of a rather less known
and referred upaniShada – mahopaniShada (“eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsinnabramhA neshAnaH. sa ekAkI na ramate”
MU1.1). Now this upaniShada, although not as much circulated or read as the others, is certainly not devoid of
authenticity and importance. For, we also find many other classical vedAntins making references to mahopaniShada,
including but not limited to yamunAchArya in puruSha-nirNaya, nArAyaNArya in tattva-nirNaya, and yAdavaprakAsha
in his commentary on the bhagavadgItA, to mention but a few.
The shloka of vasudhiava-kuTumbakam, a slightly different variant of it, is to be found in this mahopaniShada as the
seventy-second shloka of its sixth chapter. Here instead of “ayaM nijaH paroveti”, the shloka reads as “ayaM
bandhurayaM neti” (“this is a friend and that one not”), while the rest of the anuShTubha remains the same.
To understand the total meaning and context of VK here, quoted below are the shloka-s 70-73 from its sixth chapter:
udAraH peshalAchAraH sarvAchArAnuvR^ittimAn
antaH-sa^Nga-parityAgI bahiH saMbhAravAniva
antarvairAgyamAdAya bahirAshonmukhehitaH
ayaM bandhurayaM neti gaNanA laghuchetasAm
udAracharitAnAm tu vasudhaiva kuTumbakam
bhAvAbhAva vinirmuktaM jarAmaraNavarjitaM
prashAnta kalanArabhyaM nIrAgaM padamAshR^aya
eSA brAmhI sthitiH svachchhA niShkAmA vigatAmayA
AdAya viharannevaM saMkaTeShu na muhyati
(mahopaniShada 6.70-73)
The above text is describing the lakShaNa and behaviour of great men who are elevated to the coveted brAmhI sthiti
of spiritual realm. The above says:
“(That elevated one in brAmhI sthiti) is generous, always clean in behaviour, in accordance to the established norms of
conduct, and free from all attachments in life. From inside, he has renounced everything, even though outwardly he
would appear to carry out worldly duties (like any other mortal. However, unlike) the small hearts of (ordinary) people
(who discriminate by) saying “This one is a friend and that one a stranger” these (great men in brAmhI-sthiti) are of
magnanimous hearts and embrace the entire world as their own family. They have gained liberation from all
constraints of ordinary life, like old age and death; their fires (of klesha-s) have become extinguished; and in them no
attachment finds any shelter (anymore). Such (Listen O best amongst the brAhmaNa-s, are those who have achieved)
the status of brAmhI sthiti, the absolutely pure; that which is beyond all cravings and sufferings. Equipped with such
attributes they freely roam (the earth), without knowing any calamity.”
Not a recommendation of any sort, not an ideal, certainly having nothing to do with anything outside the realm of
spirituality, but simply a statement on the very nature of the bramhavAdin yogi-s of highest attainment.
Now, as we have commented earlier in this section, mahopaniShada is the only text where the shloka of vasudhaiva
kuTumbakam is the natural and intrinsic part of the rest of the text, whereas in others the shloka has been quoted as
an explicit quotation. We have therefore a very strong reason to comfortably believe that this upaniShada might be the
original source of this shloka. We have not come across any research having tackled the question of dating
mahopaniShada, as that could have helped us in this matter. However, indeed the upaniShada having VK as its
integral part, and so many other texts as early as pa~nchatantra quoting it, would itself support an early date for this
part of upaniShada if not whole. This is also supported by the fact that upaniShadakAra-s by very nature tend to be
original except for quoting the passages of or retelling the themes from veda-s or at times from other upaniShada-s,
but never from any external literature, whereas the reverse can be seen very often. At any rate, an upaniShada
quoting an already popular shloaka and in a natural sense of its integral text is unimaginable.
Closing Remarks
We had set our on an excursion into the forest of saMskR^ita literature, to figure out where does the famed verse of
vasudhaiva kuTumbakam come from, what was the sense and context in which ancient AchArya-s had uttered it, and
whether they ever meant this shloka to mean a recommendation for unconditional universal brotherhood or a principle
of state.
mahopaniShada (6.72) describes this as one of the lakShaNa-s of brAmhI-sthiti of highest level of spiritual progress.
pa~nchatantra (5.3.37) has it come from a declared fool who is killed by his naivety, suggesting it as a symbol of
impracticality. hitopadesha (1.3.71) goes a step further and not once but twice demonstrates its usage by
subversionists as well as tendency of gullible to fall for it. kauTilyan compendiums don”t have VK, except for two minor
recensions, and kauTilya has nothing to do with VK. Three recensions of vikrama-charita (Andhra 3.1, Jaina 17.3,
Jaina-shubhashIla 6.270) quote VK to stand for generosity and justice. subhAShitAvaliH (udArAH.498) lists this as a
subhAShita for its poetic value in representing kindness.
What we can deduce therefore is that when we hear the politicians of modern India vouching by VK and making it an
authority, indeed an obligation, for our state and foreign policy, vasudhaiva kuTumbakam becomes nothing but a
Hoax. It is of these types that our nIti texts have warned against, and we would like the reader to ask him/herself when
they hear the shloka recited, whether the speaker is a bramha-yogI, or a magnanimous ruler ready to burn his own
body in ya~jna, or an upholder of justice without discriminating between a son and a stranger, or a ignorant gullible
half-educated, or a charlatan, or indeed a subversionist villain.
To make the message memorable, here is an iconographic representation of the above practical wisdom carved in the
ancient complex of mahAbalIpuram temple, where a cat is shown in penance and gullible mice shown drawn to him.
The theme comes from a story in tamilnadu recension of pa~nchatantra.
August 21, 2010 at 7:22 am
Incognito
Rajasekara a.k.a. Nithyananda used shiva sutra and bhagavad gita as he misled people and self-aggrandized.
To discard shiva sutra or bhagavad gita for that reason would be foolish.
As to the point brought out in Shri Sarvesh Tiwari’s article, let alone vasudhaiva kutumbakam, anything and everything that aggrandizing mlecchas lay their hands on is misused and misinterpreted. Lofty ideas of ‘Love’, ‘Peace’, ‘Brotherhood’, ‘Equality’, ‘Freedom’, etc., all are tools for self-aggrandization in the hands of greedy subversionists.
namaste