Vice-president Jagdeep Dhankhar has an inimitable speaking style, both in its articulation and substance.
It is assertive, if not aggressive. It is often not related to the subject at hand.
It is usually but not always logical and consistent. It uses picturesque phrases to level accusations at opponents real or imagined.
Indeed, it would not be inappropriate to call it Dhankharspeak. The vice-president’s address at the inauguration ceremony of the 27th International Congress of Vedanta at the Jawaharlal Nehru University on January 3 was an illustration of Dhankharspeak.
The theme of the Congress was ‘Re-imagining Vedantic World Order’. Dhankhar did not directly seek to infuse Vedantic philosophical ideas and ideals in the contemporary world order but emphasised the need to take “recourse to Vedant philosophy” at a time of unprecedented technological change, existential crises such as climate change and global turmoil. He asserted that that “it will navigate us in the groove of righteousness like the North Star”.
There can be no quarrel with Dhankhar holding his view except that if one philosophical system is pressed to be the anchor of world order the followers of other philosophical and spiritual traditions would emphasise the validity of their own. Hence, in modern times the international community has emphasised the universality of ideas based on the equality of all human beings. This principle flows from ideas which arose at the time of the European Enlightenment and was expanded thereafter, including in the 20th century. (I am aware that by merely mentioning the European Enlightenment I am opening myself to the charge of being a Macaulay-putra – son of Macaulay – after all, India is the ‘mother of democracy,’ and by implication believed in human equality). There is, though, at all times and in all systems, a wide divergence between precept and practice.
Dhankhar recognises that the crises of our times – he mentions “cyber warfare” and “apocalyptic climate menace” and that they require “technological solutions with ethical approach”. He goes on to emphasise, “Ethical wisdom and practical approach can emanate from…deep understanding of Vedant philosophy”. The quest for humankind to use technological advance ‘ethically’ goes back to the beginning of the human race itself. But the development of technology and of finding technological solutions to issues follow their own logic and a longing for infusing “ethics and practical approach” has never worked.
Dhankhar goes on to assert, “The world can be better with hopes coalescing, but we are having the very converse of it. Hope, sublime tendencies are not coming together. Those that are coming together are driven by sinister designs, nefarious tendencies, their objects are not pro-humanity”.
Who are these negative elements for Dhankhar? They are those who do not appreciate ‘Sanatan’. As he puts it:
“Ironically and painfully, in this country, reference to Sanatan, reference to Hindu, evokes baffling reaction beyond comprehension rather than understand the depth of these words, their deep meaning, people tend to be in reaction mode, at a drop of a hat”.
Dhankhar asks:
“Can ignorance be more in extremity? Can the enormity of their lapse be countenanced? These are souls that have misguided themselves, driven by a dangerous ecosystem that is a threat not only to the society but to themselves”.
It is noteworthy that Dhankhar does not mention if the entire corpus of the Indian philosophical system is ‘sanatan’ or does it apply only to systems that derive their authority from the Vedas?
Dhankhar emphasised the importance of expression and dialogue. Indeed, he asserted, “Right of expression is a divine gift,” and that expression and dialogue go hand and hand. From here – in what can only be interpreted as a reference to present politics between the ruling dispensation and the opposition – Dhankhar goes on to say, “It’s a matter of great concern, hugely concerning, the disturbance and disruptions, they have hambled (sic), virtually defeated dialogue and expression. Dialogue, debate, discussion, deliberation have exited under the onslaught of disruption and disturbance, even in the theatres of democracy”.
It does not cross his mind that the intrusion of politics in an inauguration of the Congress of Vedant philosophy is inappropriate. In fact he reinforces the political aspect of his reference by asking the public to “generate pressure on people who fail to perform their duty”.
Dhankhar accuses those who believe Vedanta and Sanatani texts as regressive suffer from “perverted colonial mindsets”. That fact is that not all Indian philosophical systems are based on the Vedas but there is a more important point. Even those who accept Vedanta or unorthodox Indian philosophical texts can consider the Manusmriti as not only socially regressive but the antithesis of values of the Indian constitution. It can be argued that by swearing the high oath that every constitutional authority does to uphold the constitution they ipso facto, also swears that the hierarchical social order ordained in the Manusrmriti is wrong and that they will abjure it. This view cannot be attributed to “perverted colonial mindsets” unless it is held that the constitution itself is the product of “perverted colonial mindsets”.
Calm and rational discussion, the abjuring of dogma, ceaseless questioning and plurality of thought are the foundations of Indian philosophy. This is what professor Arindam Chakrabarti who briefly addressed the Congress on Vedanta just before Dhankhar’s inaugural address reminded the delegates. Perhaps it was this thought that was expressed in Dhankharspeak thus:
“Vedanta’s transformative power which is enormous which is much beyond the nuclear power, which is much beyond the power of disruptive technologies would go a long way. First, in arresting the downside. Second, in retrieving the situation, repairing it and lastly getting us back into the right groove. Vedanta is much beyond a philosophy, it is algorithm for human consciousness and consciousness both”.
And, the vice-president would like MPs to absorb this idea. Would he also like Indian doctors to accept his opinion that “when we faced COVID, Atharveda dominated because it was encyclopaedic on health”!
Vivek Katju is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, Ministry of External Affairs.
