I am thankful to Srijan Foundation for calling me here today. When Rahul ji contacted me first and he gave me a bouquet of choices for speaking on a topic, I thought that I would speak on a topic which is quite current these days, in fact quite fashionable in some circles and that topic is called Hindu Pakistan.
So, talking about Hindu Pakistan I actually went a little deeper into it as to why people are trying to deride us Indians by saying that we want to become Hindu Pakistan, because if we try and deconstruct this term then Pakistan semantically means Land of the Pure. Of course, we have a visceral dislike for this term and I can trace the visceral dislike for this term to Pakistan as a territory being taken out of the Greater Indian territory. We have this notion of India which is the entire subcontinent or as the colonial, especially the Mughal historian called it, they called it Bar-E-Sagheer, so sagheer means small, so subcontinent – small continent. So Bar-E-Sagheer or subcontinent or as they said in Vishnu Puran, “Uttaram Samudrasya Himadrishchaiva Dakshinam”.
So that is the idea of India that we’ve always had and part of that territory being taken out of India was something that the Indian psyche could never come to terms with. And even now we have this Akhand Bharat movement and people like to go back and talk about Akhand Bharat and there are also people who want to restore the Akhand Bharat. So, this term Pakistan is basically detested by Indians because of its territorial connotations. Or if you really try and deconstruct it, Pakistan means Land of the Pure. So, you have what is a classical Pakistan, classical Land of the Pure which exists as a territory right now, and when you say Hindu Pakistan, so actually it means Hindu Land of the Pure.
So today I am going to talk about the differences between the classical Land of the Pure as a territory and the idea that has been floated about what is called the Hindu land of the Pure. And I am going to put forth a proposal for the consideration of this august audience that Hindu Pakistan is actually a much better idea than Pakistan. It may sound a little funny, a little unique, a little strange, a little opaque, whatever you may call it, but this is going to be the summum bonum of my contention today.
So, let us start by discussing what is classical Pakistan and how the idea of this Pakistan, classical Pakistan which ultimately fructified into this territory of Pakistan, how this originated. So what I’ll do is… because I don’t want to go too deeply into it and I’ll go to sixth and seventh century, that will be too far back, so I will take it from a little post-Aurungzeb. Because what happened after Aurangzeb’s… or the Mughal empire decline, there was an ascendance of the Marathas. And Marathas not only started taking over large parts of India, they nearly subjugated the Mughal king to the status of a vassal. The situation was such that from the Red Fort you… you would find two flags simultaneously fluttering from the Red Fort. One as of course the Mughal flag and the other was the Maratha flag and the real power lay with the Marathas and the Mughal emperor could not move and inch, could not move a finder without the approval of the Marathas.
So, it was that time when the idea of the pure struck and there was a guy called Shah Waliullah, don’t know whether you’ve heard of him. This Shah Waliullah was the classmate of the famous Abdul Wahab. I’m sure most of you must have heard of Abdul Wahab and the Wahabi ideology. Shah Waliullah was educated in Arabia along with Abdul Wahab and he found it absolutely repugnant that a non-believer could rule over the Land of the Pure as he thought the Mughal empire represented the Land of the Pure. To Pak ke oopar kafir ka raaj ye bilkul kisi bhi tarah se Shah Waliullah ko bardaasht nahin tha.
Around the same time the British were moving their forces towards Bengal and this was also around the same time when in Mysore, Hyder Ali was coming to power and was later succeeded by Tipu Sultan. So, you had two simultaneous movements for the Land of the Pure, one was Shah Waliullah and the other was Tipu Sultan. Nearly simultaneous, you can say a decade or two here and there. So, Shah Waliullah was the one who formed that alliance between Ahmad Shah Abdali and Najibullah of Rohilkhand and Asafud daulah of Awadh. He was the one who gathered them together and ultimately the Battle of Panipat was the result of the machinations of Shah Waliullah. After the Marathas were defeated in 1761, that is the battle we know very well but the aftermath was that Ahmad Shah Abdali was not able to secure that victory into a firm foothold and he was so badly harassed by the Marathas that he ultimately had to leave India. There was also some kind of a rebellion, a rebellion in Afghanistan within his territory. So he had to go back.
And the Marathas they reigned supreme again, and not only reigned supreme, they actually spread their empire from Cuttack to Attock, as they say, Cuttack se Attock tak Maratha samrajya tha. So, from Cuttack to Attock, Attock is that place on the Indus which was supposed to the traditional boundary of India. Beyond that was always Gandhar, and I think except for Mauryan empire and sometime during the Mughal empire, most of the times it was always not a part of the Indian kings or Indian kingdoms. After this, Tipu Sultan once again attempted to create a Land of the Pure in the South. That was the time when he also wrote to the Afghan king and not only wrote to the Afghan king, he also wrote to the Caliph and he said that we need to establish this Land of the Pure in the Land of the Unbelievers, the Infidels or the Kafirs, therefore I need your assistance.
Of course, the assistance was not forthcoming because you had a very powerful Maratha empire in between. Ultimately a combination of the Marathas, the Nizam and the British, they defeated Tipu Sultan and that was the end of the first dream of the Land of the Pure post Mughal empire. The next attempt was made by a guy called Syed Ahmed Barelvi, and now this is different from Ahmed Raza Barelvi because Ahmed Raza Barelvi is the one who founded the Barelvi sect. This Syed Ahmed Barelvi, he is actually from Rae Bareilly, he is not from Bareilly proper, but he’s still called Barelvi. He was a disciple of Shah Waliullah and he again found it abhorrent that kafirs should be ruling the land of Punjab which he thought should be Land of the Pure because Maharaj Ranjit Singh’s empire was there. So he was the one who went to Punjab, he gathered up his forces and he went to Punjab and he did what is called a jihad against Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Now this has carried on, after that, after Raza Barelvi in the 19th century, his movement was around, say 1820s and 1930s, that was the time.
After the collapse of the Sikh empire of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, then we had Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, he started out with a madrassa in Aligarh. That madrassa was then converted into what is called the Anglo-Oriental College, and that Anglo-Oriental College later became the Aligarh Muslim University as we see it today. The two-nation theory was formally proposed and propounded by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in the Aligarh Anglo-Oriental College and it has solid foundation, it has foundation in the Islamic scriptures. Because in the Islamic scriptures it is even written that you cannot be friends with a non-believer. This is.. er.. I am not exaggerating, this is I think the 3rd Sura, 28th Ayat, 3:28, Quran 3:28. And then a lot of other verses, this is of course not the topic to propound Shariat. But the concept of the entire Ummat, or in Arabic as they call it, Umma(h) and a lot of people do not understand these nuances.
I’ll just do a little digression and clear it up, wherever you find this ‘a’ in the end, that is actually the Arabic pronunciation. So, if they are writing ‘sharia’ that is actually an Arabic pronunciation, when you write it in Urdu, it has its roots more in Persian, so you call it Shariat. So Umma(h) is Ummat, Sharia is Shariat, and a lot of other nuances, there… it has become a fashion to use the Arabic pronunciations these days. I’ll be using only the Urdu-Persian pronunciation in my talk today. So according to Shariat, the Ummat is one and it is the holy duty of every member of the Ummat to spread it by any means, so it is called Jihad. Of course, there are many people who try to rationalize as the bigger Jihad and the smaller Jihad, Jihad-e-Akbar and Jihad-e-Asghar… you’ll find lot of… when you confront them with this concept of Jihad then they will try and rationalize it but there is not mention of this kind of categorization anywhere in the Shariat.
The only kind of jihad that is mentioned is what is called Jihad-Fi-Sabilillah that is Jihad in the way of Allah. That means spreading the word of Allah through force. And when I come to the territory of Pakistan, I will dwell on it a little more detail. So, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan was the original proponent of the two-nation theory, that Muslims are a separate nation. Then Mohammad Iqbal carried it forward. Mohammad Iqbal was initially a very, what is called he was a little romanticized by the Indian past and he even composed, as everybody knows, the Qaumi Tarana ‘Saare jahan Se Achcha Hindostan Hamara’. What people do not know is that within a few years of composing that tarana, he himself disowned it. And he composed another tarana which is called the Milli Tarana, and in Milli Tarana the concept of Ummat is again reinforced and it says, ‘Muslim hain hum, Watan hai saara jahan hamaara’. Goes like this, ‘Cheeno Arab hamaara, Cheeno Arab hamaara, Hindostan hamaara, Muslim hain hum, Watan hai saara jahan hamaara’.
In fact, Sahir Ludhianvi even wrote a spoof on this, if some people are interested in Hindi movies then they would have heard this song, where he replaces the later stanzas and says, ‘Rehne ko ghar nahin hai, saara jahan hamaara’. That was a spoof on this Milli Tarana of Iqbal. And Iqbal, he kept looking for disciples, of course he was quite eclectic in his taste and he even dabbled with a little bit of spirituality, but he gave it up pretty soon and became the basic ideologue of Pakistan. He was the one who persuaded Mohammed Ali Jinnah to come back.
Mohamed Ali Jinnah had given up India for good and he was enjoying a very good practice in Britain. He was the one who persuaded him to come back and I don’t think I need to dwell very long on the history after that and how Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Rehmat Ali and others, mostly the educated and wealthier part of Muslim community, they pitched for a Land of the Pure. They drew their inspiration from the Arabic tales, all the, if you read the 1945-45 speeches of the Muslim League leaders, they are full of Arabic lore and Arabic battles and all the great battles of Arabia and the Prophet are referred there. In fact, the Direct-Action Day of 16 August 1946 was inspired b the Battle of Badr. 17th Ramzan. Even the day was the same. 17th Ramzan, Battle of Badr. Battle of Badr was the epoch-making battle where the armies of Prophet had finally defeated the Ummayads.
So, the territory of Pakistan finally came into being. And how is the territory of Pakistan done? A lot of people try and rationalize that the territory of Pakistan is a secular territory and even our good friend, Jaswant Singh ji also did it, on the basis of a speech that he delivered on, I think, I’m not sure whether it was the Constituent Assembly or a general gathering. The day was 11 August 1947, and that is often cited as Jinnah’s commitment to secularism. Of course, it is all false, because soon after that he wrote to the founder of Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al Wallah, telling him that the principles of Muslim Brotherhood of an Islamic nation were actually his inspiration. There was a lot of double talk and double dealing.
And ultimately, what is the motto of today’s state of Pakistan? That is what is important when we are discussing the ideological foundation of Pakistan. So not just the past, I just tried to do a brief historical tracing, a historical trace, but what is the present situation? What is the present ideological position of the state of Pakistan? Now we know that the state of Pakistan is a Democracy only in name and the establishment is basically the Pakistan Army. Therefore, it is very educative to look at the motto of the Pakistan Army. What is the motto of Pakistan Army? Anyone knows? The motto of Pakistan Army is “Taqwa Imaan Jihad-Fi-Sabilillah”. This is the motto of the institution that runs the state of Pakistan. This is actually the official motto of the Pakistan establishment. Because the establishment in Pakistan is indistinguishable from Pakistan Army. Now what is Taqwa, Taqwa is Trust. What is Imaan? Imaan is Faith in Islam. I think a lot of us very loosely use this term called imaandaar, this imaandaar is basically an Arabic term which means Faith in Islam. So Imaan is Faith in Islam, so Taqwa, Imaan and Jihad-Fi-Sabilillah – Jihad in the way of Allah, which means a violent form of Jihad, that seeks to expand the boundaries of Islam throughout the world.
Why it seeks to expand the boundaries of Islam throughout the world, because the second part of Shariat which is Hadis, the first part is Quran. Anyone knows what is, what is the Shariat trilogy? Anyone knows, what is Shariat? (Audience answers) That’s right. Shariat consists of 3 books. The first one is Quran. The second one is Hadis, Hadis are the traditions or sayings, recollections of Prophet’s conduct. And the third one is Seera or Seerat-E-Rasool or. Also called Seerat-E-Nabi which means biography of the Prophet. Quran is roughly 14% of the Shariat. And Hadis is about 60-70%. And about 15-25% is Seerat-E-Rasool. So, the Pakistani establishment, the ideology of the classical Pakistan as we were discussing, the ideology of classical Pakistan even today seeks to expand itself throughout the world, as a part of Ummat. Why it does so, it does so because the prophecy in Hadis is that you cannot go to Heaven till the entire world has become Muslim. Only after the entire world has become Muslim, the last day of judgement will come, a lot of people do not want to wait for that last day, so they are in a hurry. And there’s also an exception, of course, I don’t know whether you know the exception, the exception is that somebody who does Jihad-Fi-Sabilillah, Jihad in the way of Allah, which all these Jaish-E-Mohammed and what is called, Lashkar-E-Taiba and all these various terrorist groups do, even ISIS for that matter. All of them, the inspiration is that if you, if you do this then you don’t have to wait for the last judgement. Then you can go directly to Jannat. And of course, Jannat is beautifully described, all that 72 plus 28 or whatever. And this is the founding principle of the classical state of Pakistan.
Now I have tried to firm up the basic ideological foundation of the classic state of Pakistan. Now we come to Hindu Pakistan. So, as I said in the beginning that I have tried to deconstruct it in a semantic fashion, and what I say is that Hindu Pakistan means the idea of the Hindu Land of the Pure. So, if you had to have a Hindu Land of the Pure, a theoretical Hindu Land of the Pure, what would it be like. So, what it is going to be like, that would mean that you have to basically go to the foundational principle that would govern this kind of a state. We had these kinds of states in the past. What is loosely called Dharmic States, the states governed by Dharma. Let’s not go into the nuances of Dharma as such, we just go the fundamentals of what a Hindu way of life presupposes or even lays down. Unfortunately, I have this great difficulty that the scriptures in India, in Indian philosophy, in Sanatana Dharma and if you take the definition of Vishnu Purana which I recited right in the beginning, if you take that, then I am in a hopeless quandary. Because there would be tens of millions of pages of scriptures that you’d have to find out from, so what I will do is that I will stick to a generally accepted principle among Sanatanis, what is called the Prasthana Trayi that is the Upanishads, the Brahmasutras and the Bhagavad Gita.
We don’t have time to discuss the Upanishads and the Brahmasutras so I will stick to the Gita because the Gita is basically the essence of all that is there. “Gita Sugeeta Kartavya Kimanyaih Shastravistaraih” – If you’ve learnt Gita well, then you don’t have to learn much else. So, what is the basic foundational principle of Sanatana Dharma laid out in Gita? Of course there will be many versions, but the one that I like the most is that there are two particular shlokas which I always recite to lay out the basic foundational principles and that agree actually basically with the Isha Vaasya.. the Ishopanishad, that first verse of Ishopanishad, it says that “Isha Vaasyam Idam Sarvam Yatkincha Jagatyaam Jagat”. So Krishna says, “Samo’ham Sarvabhuteshu.. Samo’ham Sarvabhuteshu Na Me Dveshyo’sti Na Priyah”. If you compare it with the Islamic principles, it is totally different. Because here what He is saying is that ‘I am equal in all beings.’ All beings, not just human beings. ‘I am equally present in all beings.’ Na Me Dveshyo’sti Na Priyah – ‘Neither I dislike anyone, nor do I love anyone.’
Similarly, there’s again another one in the similar way, that says, “Samam Sarveshu Bhuteshu Tishtthantam Parameshwaram”. That ‘Paramshwara resides equally in all beings.’ Again, all beings, not just human beings. ‘Paramshwara resides equally in all beings.’ “Samam Sarveshu Bhuteshu Tishtthantam Parameshwaram Vinashyat Su Avinashyantam Yah Pashyati Sa Pashyati” – ‘That who sees the indestructible in the destructible, He is the one who actually sees.’ These are the, according to me, the foundational ideology of Sanatana Dharma.
Now this has also been taken to mean various other things, that I will come to because we have to make these nuances, otherwise what happens is that a lot of apologia is created around this and some people have even interpreted it to mean a pacific kind of ideology. Of course, we all know that Bhagavad Gita is not preaching pacifism in any manner whatsoever. So now we go back to the beginning of Bhagavad Gita where Arjuna is having great doubts about the value of a war and he’s given up. He says this is futile, why should we do all this. And it is at that time that certain things that Krishna tells him, which has to be read with what I’ve said. Because Gita has to be read as a whole, it cannot be read in isolation. So, in the beginning when he is having doubt, then Krishna tells Arjun, and He tells him “Klaibyam Ma Sma Gamah Partha Naitat tvayyupapadyate Kshudram Hridayadaurbalyam Tyaktvottishttha Parantapa”. He actually calls him, asks him to get up, asks him to shed his inferiority, Kshudram, Kshudram means complex of inferiority. Hridayadaurbalyam of course is weakness of heart. Klaibyam Ma Sma Gamah Partha Naitattvayyupapadyate – Doesn’t behove you. Kshudram Hridayadaurbalyam Tyaktvottishttha Parantapa – Get up and fight. Also, He tells him that if you have to fight, then you have to fight with a very very equitable mind. “Sukh Dukhe Same Kritva Labhaalabhau Jayaajayau” – You have to treat the two impostors the same. And in fact, this is, because I am also involved in a lot of sports, and this is what we see that we are teaching our kids today, especially in cricket, and we tell them, look you just perfect your process, don’t bother about what is going to happen. Because if they, If they keep worrying too much about what is going to happen on the field, then they go and underperform. This is the psychological deduction that is being made and today all coaches, every coach teaches his ward, just perfect the process, just perfect the process, don’t bother about the result. It’s the same thing.
Then we have brought this strange concept of ‘Ahimsa Paramo Dharma’ and what is called ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’. Every time you talk of Hindu philosophy and the people who throw Hindu Pakistan at you, they will invariably talk about these two terms. That look, Hinduism means ‘Ahimsa Paramo Dharma’ and Hinduism means ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’. Now I have always, in every talk these days, I am asked about these two terms and I explain this, and I’ve explained a little bit of this in my book also, and I’ll explain this in fair detail in the next one as well. And the next one it will be in much greater detail and I’ll give you also a preview of that, a.. a what is called a sneak peek.
So, the ‘Ahimsa Paramo Dharma’, it occurs in Mahabharata, but where does it occur? Anyone? It occurs in Shanti Parva, after the war is over. After the war is over and everyone has gone to Bhishma to get the lessons from him. it is at that time that ‘Ahimsa Paramo Dharma’ occurs. And why ‘Ahimsa Paramo Dharma’ does not occur before the war is that Himsa and Ahimsa is, they are facets of your Manas and Chitta. Himsa and Ahimsa are not facets of your actions. So, if you are doing something to kill your enemy who has mounted an unjust war on you do it with the attitude “Sukh Dukhe Same Kritva Labhalabhau Jayajayau”, then that, you are not committing Himsa at the level of your Manas and Chitta. And that is the kind of Himsa, and Ahimsa, the differentiation that has been made throughout Mahabharata. If you read my book, I have tried to make it simpler for people and I have said that Kriya and Karma – that your Kriya is not the same as your Karma. That your Kriya is your apparent action but your Karma is that mental state behind that action. And I always give this simple example, I say that you go to a temple, ki aaj mangalwar hai, aaj Hanumanji ke yahan jaana hai and you go there… Hanuman ji… and there you see somebody, you see your rival and then you go to Hanuman ji and you pray to Him. So apparently everybody is seeing ki bhai, bada bhakta aadmi hai, badhiya Hanuman ji ki pooja kar raha hai, Hanuman Chalisa padh raha hai, sab kuch kar raha hai. But you’re telling Hanuman ji, Hanumanji isko jo haina, iska ilaaj kar dena, mereko kuchch nahin chahiye, Aap to iska ilaaj kar dena. Now this is the difference between your Kriya and karma, your apparent Kriya is you’re doing a pooja, you’re doing a worship, everybody thinks this man is very very pious and bada Hanumanji ka bhakta hai, bahut badhiya kaam kar raha hai, but there is Himsa in your mind. That is your Karma. Ultimately, jo Karma phal milega aapko, the fruit of your Karma will be of your mental state, not of your apparent action. So that is where you have to distinguish between Himsa and Ahimsa.
There is a very very nice what is called Upakhyaan a story in Mahabharata. It is mentioned by my good friend Sandeep Balakrishna in his book, ’70 Years of Secularism.’ And that is called the Kanika Upakhyaan. Before the Lakshagriha incident, I think most people here sitting here would know the Lakshagriha incident, before the Lakshagriha incident, a guy called Kanika is brought by Shakuni to Duryodhana. And this Kanika teaches Duryodhana and Shakuni that, ‘look Dharma-Adharma is not important, what is important is the expansion of your empire and territory’. Now that’s not very different from the idea of the old, classical Pakistan. And all kind of deceit and treachery is allowed.
So Duryodhana and Shakuni, they have always been finding Dhritarashtra to be a bit reluctant. So, they take this Kanika guy to Dhritarashtra, and then Kanika very beautifully explains the nuances of empire building and why it is important and why it is proper Kshatriya Dharma to expand your empire without any regard for such tender considerations like Dharma and all. And Dhritarashtra acquiesces, he agrees. Dhritarashtra is a very interesting character in Mahabharata, he is sometimes believed to be very very neutral, but his selfishness and his love for his son has always prevailed.
Now contrast this with the, try and contrast this with the apparent deceit played by Krishna in Mahabharata. There are plenty of instances, all of us know that. Now I’ll just leave you to ponder over this, that whatever is done by Krishna is regarded as Dharma and therefore not regarded as Himsa. But whatever is done by Duryodhana and Shakuni is regarded as Adharma and therefore, regarded as Himsa. That again fortifies my point about Kriya and Karma. My simple point is that if we are looking at a Hindu Pakistan, then we are looking at a concept of the pure foundation of Hinduism, then what is bad about it? ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ is something, I mentioned it, you cannot let ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ come into it, you know, ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ is again thrown at Hindus as some kind of a great pacific idea they, which they must adhere to.
Now ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ is basically occurred in, the first instance of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ is in Mahopanishad And in Mahopanishad it occurs in a very very spiritual, temporal kind of a situation where you are expanding the highest consciousness into the highest realms of Cosmos, and it is in that context that that particular shloka occurs in Mahopanishad. “Ayam Nijah Paro Veti Gananaa Laghu Chetasaam” – the word is Chetasaam, Chetana, Chetana is Consciousness, Chetana is not your everyday routine. So “Gananaa Laghu Chetasaam Udaar Charitanaam Tu Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”. This comes from Mahopanishad.
Now what happened is, even in the older times people started quoting this to their rivals and kind of started disarming them. Ji look, this is the old saying from Mahopanishad, comes from an Upanishad, you must follow them. And once the opponent or the rival becomes disarmed, then they come with full force and conquer him. So, what happened was that in Hitopadesha, a commentary was written on this particular phenomenon. And that actually what this ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ should actually be read as. This is a story, I’ll just narrate this story briefly. It says that there was a jackal and there was deer. I forget the name, what was the… I think the jackal was Kshudrabuddhi and the deer was Chitrang or somewhere it is written as Chitrangada and there was a crow which was called Subuddi, these are the characters, they’re in that. So Subuddhi, Kshudrabuddhi and Chitrangada, these are the three main characters in that story.
And this Chitrangada is living happily in a forest and it’s got Subuddhi for company and this Kshudrabuddhi, he saunters over to his lace and looks at this deer and he starts craving for his meat. He says okay, this deer is very healthy, and I must somehow get to bury my teeth into his flesh. How to do it, because if I try, he will run away, he’s very fast. How to do it? So, he goes to the deer and tells him, look friend I’ve come from outside and I need a place to stay, why don’t you give me shelter? Now the deer of course is the animal of the forest, he does know his way about and he does know a few things about jackals, so he tells him, look I know your kind and I’m not going to get into this trap, you just get lost from here.
This fellow, he says, ye to mushkil ho gayi, ab kya kiya jaaye? So, he recites this shloka to the deer – “Ayam Nijah Paro Veti Gananaa Laghu Chetasaam Udaar Charitanaam Tu Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”. Now this poor deer, ki shloka bol raha hai ye to, ye siyar shloka bol raha hai, ye to bada vidvaan hai. Aise vidvaan ko to sharan deni hi chahiye. Ye bhi likha hua hai Shastron mein ki vidvaan ko sharan do. He just you know, puts a few caveats, I hope you will not do mischief. No No, aap dekh rahe ho, main to Sanskrit ka gyaata hoon, sab jaanta hoon, Shastra-wastra. No chance. Err.. he says ki okay, I’m very impressed. Waise aapko bata doon ki aaj bhi koi shloka padhta hai na to hum log bade impress ho jaate hain. Itna impress hone ki zaroorat nahin hai, uske peechhe jaaiye.
So, he takes him to his place where he lives, he lives in a little cave and there is a tree there where Subuddhi, that crow, he lives. Subuddhi sees this fellow coming with Kshudrabuddhi, the jackal, and he tells him what the hell are you doing? Pagal ho gaya hai kya? Ye kya kar raha hai? He says, no no, you don’t know, this jackal is not an ordinary one. He recites shlokas, he knows Shastras. Ki are bewakoof, Sharta-wastra kuchch nahin hai, tere ko bewakoof banana ke chakkar… Ki no, no way, I think you are wrong. And you don’t understand because you don’t understand shlokas and I understand the Shastras. So I know that this fellow what he is saying is absolutely true, is Shastra sammat… that is the word used… Shastra sammat baat kar raha hai ye.
So, what can the crow do, this fellow is bent on committing suicide. And he even narrates his story to him. Within this story there’s another story, I’ll leave that. That story is regarding an eagle who’s become old and a cat comes and deceives him… something to that effect. But this guy is adamant, ki no, ye to shloka padhta hai, Shastra jaanta hai, main to isko rakhoonga hi rakhoonga. Theek hai phir, kya karein, but be on your guard, I am also watching, all that. Ultimately, as you would expect, the jackal what he does is that he lures him into a trap and when he gets trapped at a farmer’s field, and he sits there, salivating that this guy is now going to starve out and die and then I will have my feast. This deer finds him sitting nearby and he tells him ki are, good yaar, you’ve come, now you use your sharp teeth and you please cut out this leather net and free me, I’m very happy that you are here. Wo kehta hai bhai aisa hai ki aaj to mera fast hai, aaj ravivar hai, aaj mera fast hai, I cannot touch this leather, so you please wait until tomorrow, then I will cut this net and free you. Of course, that crow did not find the deer coming back at his routine time, so he went around, and he found this guy trapped. And then they worked out some kind of a scheme by which the crow was able to free the deer and the jackal got killed. This is how, Hitopadesha explains ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’. So, whenever somebody throws ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumabakam’ at you, please feel empowered and use this Hitopadesha story.
So, I’ll just sum it up that in a Hindu Land of the Pure, everyone is to be treated equal, everybody is treated, to be treated in an inclusive manner, basic tenets of Dharma will prevail and there will be no cowardice. What’s wrong with such a place? What’s wrong with Hindu Pakistan? I think if somebody throws Hindu Pakistan at me, I will say, damn good, since you cannot give me Hindu Hindustan, if you want to give me Hindu Pakistan, I’ll take it.