The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – I

[Guest guest]

The Hoax Called Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – I: Hitopadesha

Posted by Sarvesh K Tiwari on August 30, 2008

 

 

 

If a survey of the saMskR^ita verses most quoted in the modern times were undertaken, the following would certainly secure the top rank:

 

ayaM nijaH paroveti gaNanA laghu-chetasAm

udAra charitAnAM tu vasudhaiva kuTumbhakam ||

 

“’This is my own and that a stranger’ – is the calculation of the narrow-minded,

For the magnanimous-hearts however, the entire earth is but a family”

 

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 saMskR^ita-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 Hindu-s 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 Hindu-s 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 R^igveda nor in mahAbhArata, neither in manusmR^iti nor in the purANa-s. Thus far, we have seen the verse in the following saMskR^ita sources: hitopadesha, pa~nchatantra, certain compendiums of chANakya and bhaR^trihari, mahA-upaniShadam, 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.

 

Read on: http://bharatendu.com/2008/08/30/the-hoax-called-vasudhaiva-kutumbakam-%e2%80%93-i-hitopadesha/Searching for weekend getaways? Try Live.com Try it!

[Guest guest]

[i am posting the reply by Bharat gupta who has done imporatnt research in Indian theatre. His remarks are important since Sarvesh himself seems to be interested in theatre of Ancient India - Kishore patnaik]

 

 

Shri Sarvesh K Tiwari on August 30, 2008 in the posting onVasudhaiva Kutumbakam, has taken an entirely erroneousroad about interpreting the text/ shloka.I wonder why he overlooks the fact that Pancatantra is a

niti text, that is instruction in worldly wisdom for administratorsby saama, daana, danda and bheda.It is not going to display high ideals of conductfor their own sake and hence it willbe using all the subhaashitas, the good sayings, to support practicality

and caution. But does that mean that any high ideal mentionedin the niti text is to be seen as irrelevant and ineffectual.There are so many sayings, preceeded by the expression, " uktam ca " in sanskrit texts which have

an important status are found in not one but several texts.There authors or sources are known not.They are used according to the need of various texts butthey do not loose their instrinsic worth.They all dont have to be from Smritis or the most famous

of texts in order to be authentic.It is perverse to say that vasudhaiva kutumbakam should beinterpreted as an injunction of ironical intention, that is,let us be cautious and not be gullible enough to think that the

whole world is one family, as it is full of kapatiis, kutilasand dhuurtas. Just because scoundrels exist, there isno need to believe in the earth family. Just because there arecharalatans, so let not believe in Gurus, or no more in Vedas because

they were monopolized by some casteists brahmins at certain times.To call this ideal a hoax is to dismantle a good and sensible visionthat the world needs today and Hinduism can claim it as an orginalidea.

I am wondering if Sarvesh is not going to be quoted by Zakir Nayakand John Dayal soon to show the 'real meaning' of Hindu texts.Or is he one of them?Mr. Ronald Bhola please circulate my comments on other lists in defence

of Vasudhaiva kutumabkam.svasti,Bharat GuptAssociate Professor, CVS, Delhi University,Founder member and TrusteeInternational Forum for India's Heritage.PO Box 8518, Ashok Vihar, Delhi 110052 INDIA.

mobile: +91-98100 77914home phones: +91-11-2724-1490,+91-129-404-4590email: bharatgupt

homepage: http://personal.vsnl.com/bharatgupt

[Guest guest]

, " kishore patnaik "

<kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

>

> [i am posting the reply by Bharat gupta who has done imporatnt

research in

> Indian theatre.]

 

In front of an authority like Prof. Bharat Gupt, I hesitate to

dissent. Then again, dissent comes easily to me. So here goes.

 

>

>

> Shri Sarvesh K Tiwari on August 30, 2008 in the posting on

> Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, has taken an entirely erroneous

> road about interpreting the text/ shloka.

>

 

I haven't noticed any obvious errors, and neither does Prof. Gup

point out an error. Instead, he points to an omission or oversight:

 

 

> I wonder why he overlooks the fact that Pancatantra is a

> niti text, that is instruction in worldly wisdom for administrators

> by saama, daana, danda and bheda.

>

 

Exactly. Both Pancatantra and Hitopadesha are full of stories

counseling against trusting strangers. Thus, even in a situation

where the scorpion is totally dependent on the frog for his own

survival (sitting on his back in mid-stream), he nonetheless stings

him, thus causing the death of both,-- because unlike frogs, and

disregarding any calculation of the consequences, scorpions have it

in themselves to sting and kill. The listeners are taught to shun

strangers and develop ways to outwit them, like the monkey escaping

from the crocodile by telling him his heart is not in his chest but

hanging in his home tree where he has to go get it. The worldly

wisdom taught to the lazy princes in these fables is very largely the

opposite of trust in everyone as if he were a brother and part of the

universal family.

 

 

 

> It is not going to display high ideals of conduct

> for their own sake and hence it will

> be using all the subhaashitas, the good sayings, to support

practicality

> and caution. But does that mean that any high ideal mentioned

> in the niti text is to be seen as irrelevant and ineffectual.

>

 

If the cunning jackal can use Vasudhaiva Kutumbakan to fool his

prospective victim in a manner credible to the story's audience, it

is because the phrase enjoyed a certain authority already. Clearly

there must be some truth in it, or so te fable's author acknowledges.

But he also, and primarily, teaches the limits of this vision.

 

 

> There are so many sayings, preceeded by the expression,

> " uktam ca " in sanskrit texts which have

> an important status are found in not one but several texts.

> There authors or sources are known not.

> They are used according to the need of various texts but

> they do not loose their instrinsic worth.

> They all dont have to be from Smritis or the most famous

> of texts in order to be authentic.

>

 

Unlike many scripture-worshipping Hindus, i don't particularly care

whether the fable has the status of smrti or shruti or itihasa or

kavya or any other. But the Hindu babas who intone VK tend to make

those distinctions and to pretend or (usually) to believe that the

phrase VK does have scriptural authority.

 

> It is perverse to say that vasudhaiva kutumbakam should be

> interpreted as an injunction of ironical intention, that is,

> let us be cautious and not be gullible enough to think that the

> whole world is one family, as it is full of kapatiis, kutilas

> and dhuurtas.<

 

Let us indeed be cautious, for there are indeed scoundrels out there

scheming to abuse our trust.

 

> Just because scoundrels exist, there is

> no need to believe in the earth family. Just because there are

> charalatans, so let not believe in Gurus, or no more in Vedas

because

> they were monopolized by some casteists brahmins at certain times.

>

 

That's not the same thing. One point that is entirely part of the

fables' lesson in distrust is the need to discriminate between friend

and enemy. Transposed to scriptures and gurus, this means the need to

discriminate between trustworthy and false authority.

 

 

> To call this ideal a hoax is to dismantle a good and sensible vision

> that the world needs today and Hinduism can claim it as an orginal

> idea.

>

 

It is one truth, yes, but its opposite is also true, viz. the need to

be wary and cautious.

 

 

> I am wondering if Sarvesh is not going to be quoted by Zakir Nayak

> and John Dayal soon to show the 'real meaning' of Hindu texts.

> Or is he one of them?

>

 

It is indeed possible that those snakes will use Sarvesh's findings.

But then not Sarvesh is to blame but those silly babas who used this

phrase without checking its total meaning, those who extolled it into

the creed or shahada of Hinduism whereas it is only a double-edged

witticism, those who failed to see the utter banality of its

superficial meaning in an era when universalism is professed by

Christians, liberals and socialists.

 

 

> Mr. Ronald Bhola please circulate my comments on other lists in

defence

> of Vasudhaiva kutumabkam.

>

 

Idem.

 

svasti,

 

 

KE