Indian
scholarship in realpolitik, foreign policy, strategic affairs, defence, among
other disciplines has traditionally found itself rooted through the prism of
Western thoughts and scholars than indegenious models. Indian scholars might
bandy about Machiavelli but would shy from Chanakya, might draw thoughts from
the Bible but would hesitate to quote from Mahabharata or its central piece the
Gita, would discuss Hobbes or Rosseau but remain clueless whether any Indian
thought leaders have similar thought processes. The answers can be varied. Most
Indian scholarship or treatises of leadership, politics, society etc. remained
lost and undiscovered till recent times. A manuscript of Chanakya’s Arthasastra
was discovered in Mysore only 1905 or so. It was only after that there was an
interest in Chanakya and his thoughts. Therefore Chanakya was equated or
compared to Machiavelli rather than the other way round. It is different matter
Machiavelli was evil and built a theory that supported the means as long as they
achieved the ends something justifiable for the rulers he served. Thus, while
Machiavelli theorised justifying the actions of his patrons including the
divine right to rule, Chanakya on the other hand prescribed the do’s and don’ts
for the rulers. It was a guidance to the king rather than the justification for
the king’s actions thus morally binding document.
Indians
discovered their ancient sources of scholarship only through the help of
Western scholars and theoreticians. It was Max Mueller who studied Sanskrit and
founded the discipline of Indology. Therefore, Indology by its very nature
became a discipline in the Western universities before it became a staple part
of Indian universities. Therefore, the readings of Indology were rooted through
those scholars including Mueller who studied Indology and interpreted for the
Western audience. Rather than studying directly through original sources or
indigenous sources, Indians had to depend on secondary sources or
interpretations of Indian scholarship by the Westerners. Indians who sought to
study through the inner prism or indigenous prism found themselves isolated.
The Aryan Invasion theory among others find itself popularised because of this.
However, in recent times there has been revived interest in decoding statecraft
and realpolitik through the works of Chanakya, Mahabharata etc.
This aspect is
interesting covered in this post by
C Raja Mohan in the Indian Express. This piece is written on the book “Indian
Way: Strategies for Uncertain World”. The book written by Dr. S. Jaishankar,
the Indian External Affairs Minister is bound to be discussed at length in many
a diplomatic parlour and might be kindling interest in the ancient pieces of
Indian scholarship in the Western strategic affairs circles. As Raja Mohan
talks about the book, he mentions, there is something to learn from across all
strategic traditions and not necessarily from the Western source alone. In
fact, a movement away from the Western source might actually be beneficial.
At one glance,
if every scholar places their reliance on single source of leadership thought
process, it would become easy replicable and loses the source of advantage.
Each country is best placed to achieve a headstart or gain a psychological
advantage at the least when the other countries find it unpredictable to
decipher its strategy. A lot of mystery attached to China is perhaps
significantly due to its ostensible following Confucian or Sun Tzu model of
strategic thought process which remained untouched in the West. The West learnt
China through Chinese sources and scholars and not independently as was the
case with India. Similarly, Japanese thought process rooted in the ninjas and
other mysteries find itself attracted with a certain allure in the West. In the
Indian context, the reluctance of the Indian scholars themselves have been a
reason of neglect of strategic dimensions of the Indian ancient thought
leadership structures and theories.
Dr. Jaishankar
borrows references from Mahabharata apparently as he builds his case for the
Indian stand to turn more practical and realistic grounded on realpolitik
rather than moral compunctions.. Two instances are illustrated by Dr. Raja
Mohan from this book to highlight the Indian non-alignment conundrum. The first
was ostensibly a reference to Balarama, the elder brother of Lord Krishna.
Balarama’s sister was married to Arjuna and his brother Lord Krishna was the
strategist in chief of the Pandavas whereas he personally favoured Duryodhana
whom he originally wanted to marry Subhadra before Arjuna eloped with her. Not
dissimilar to India’s predicament in the Cold War era, he decided to sit out of
the war. He in fact went on a pilgrimage before returning in anger over the
direction of war. He returned in time for the mace battle between Bheema and
Duryodhana. All his non alignment achieved was nothing except to be mere
spectator in the final battle though was given a titular status of a referee in
that battle. Another reference which happens in the Mahabharata would be Rukmi,
the king of VIdarbha and brother of Rukmini, wife of Lord Krishna. He usually
thought high of himself. He apparently used his boasting skills to make a pitch
or bargain with both sides but ended up getting up accepted by neither. India
perhaps did not face this issue in some ways. But in certain other ways, our
ability to boast of going the third way did end up isolating us. Perhaps our
stand on CTBT during 1996 final negotiations illustrates this in some way. India’s
intransigence was more of its inability to conduct nuclear tests before the
deadline rather the alleged have and have-nots that was sought to be imposed by
CTBT that made India a perennial thorn in the bush for the global negotiating
community.
Dr. Mohan quotes
Dr. Jaishankar as the stating in the book, Mahabharata being the “most vivid
distillation of Indian thoughts”. Further, apparently Mahabharata presents an
account of the complexities of the challenges that the decision makers face as
they confront the ground realities day in and day out. Apparently to
Jaishankar, Mahabharata presents the best illustration of every dimension of
decision making in the international power calculus. Naturally since the Indian
foreign minister talks at length on the this, the study of Mahabharata, Bhagvad
Gita and many other Indian puranas or epics might find themselves a subject of
interest once again for students and practitioners of realpolitik once again.
As PM Modi said recently and was subject matter of a blog, India can adapt to
both the Krishna the flutist enchanting Radha as also with Krishna wielding
Sudarshan Chakra killing Shishupala after forgiving his one hundred sins as
promised to his mother.
Comments
Post a Comment