Vishwaguru: From Sri Aurobindo to PM Modi
The 75th anniversary of India’s Independence coincides with the 150th birth anniversary of Sri Aurobindo, who was best described in the words of Deshbandhu C.R. Das as “a poet of patriotism, a prophet of nationalism, and a lover of humanity”. The Amrit Mahotsav was put forth as a deadline to meet many of India’s developmental targets, from ‘housing for all’ to assured drinking water and sanitation. It was felt that by meeting these targets, India would finally be able to step into the role of Vishwaguru. Though the word Vishwaguru (or World Teacher) was brought into the public lexicon by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015, the idea itself is not new to Indian political thought.
According to Aurobindo, it was India’s divine destiny to be a Vishwaguru. This was based on his understanding of what he called “nature’s law of aggregation”, whereby humans associate themselves with progressively larger groups starting with the family and passing through the different stages of tribe, village and nation. The final stage of this evolution, as per Aurobindo, had to be a Universal Brotherhood of Man. India, with its civilisational ethos of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam and Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava, was in the unique position to lead the world to this final stage. However, Aurobindo asserted, that India could not spread this ‘gospel of humanity’ while it was herself still in shackles. Indian Independence thus became a necessary first step in the spiritual and intellectual upliftment of the human race.
These ideas were echoed by Mahatma Gandhi, albeit in more practical terms, in his letters to Rabindranath Tagore where he countered Gurudev’s assertion that nationalism was an obstacle to universal brotherhood. While the two elder statesmen concurred on the ultimate goal, Gandhi felt that no one would take India’s message seriously while it was still a subject nation. India had to first join the comity of nations for its voice, and gospel, to be heard. In both Aurobindo’s and Gandhi’s analyses, India’s role as Vishwaguru was intimately tied to Sanatana Dharma. India already had all the ingredients needed to step into the role, namely the ancient wisdom contained in her sacred shastras. The only thing holding her back was British rule.
We know now that this was an extremely idealistic position, divorced from the realist world of international relations which concerns itself with power politics and self-interest. Far from being a leader and a teacher, India was reduced to a bit player in international politics due to its refusal to pick sides in the Cold War. Shut out of power blocs, we reconciled ourselves to moralising and grandstanding at international forums. This was followed by a transition to a more realistic outlook of international politics, where non-alignment became a pragmatic choice, rather than a moral one. An example of this shift was seen when India abandoned its unequivocal pro-Palestine policy in favour of more balanced relations with Israel and Palestine in 1992.
In its renewed bid for global leadership, India looks to shed dogmas of the past and insert greater realism into her foreign policy, as External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar outlined in a landmark 2019 lecture. The idea of Vishwaguru, in its latest avatar, is borne of an acute understanding of the balance of power in various geopolitical theatres. It seems to be incongruous with the ideas of Aurobindo and Gandhi, as well as the values of Sanatana Dharma.
With ideas of universal brotherhood taking a back seat, the India of today strives to be a net security provider in the Indo-Pacific theatre and expects to be recognised as a legitimate stakeholder in Afghanistan and the Middle East. On this new path to global leadership, nationalism is no longer a necessary evil on the path to cosmopolitanism, it is a potent force that consolidates national strength and resolve. Only when the population “rallies around the flag”, can a state hope to exert the sustained coercive force that one needs in order to be a global leader. Examples of this can be seen in the US invasion of Iraq, and closer at home, in the 2016 surgical strike and the 2019 air strike in Balakot that occurred shortly after major terrorist attacks, specifically ones that fractured the people’s sense of security and whipped up jingoistic fervour.
Despite the long reign of realist scholars in the field of international political theory, it seems inconceivable that the ideas of Aurobindo and Gandhi carry no weight. Even Jawaharlal Nehru, as a westernised liberal internationalist, recognised that peace brought about through guns and nuclear weapons was an “uneasy peace”, and not a peace worth striving for. Thus, setting aside the effectiveness of realist policies in realising national interest (whether real or imagined), one must ask if a muscular Indian foreign policy is in the best interest of the entire human race and furthers their spiritual and intellectual upliftment. As the current socio-political climate in the United States makes clear, neither economic power nor power projection in distant theatres has any bearing on the real quality of life or the creation of an equitable and harmonious society. If India continues on its current economic and political trajectory, it will sooner or later become a leading power, or Vishwaguru, but before it does we must think hard about what lessons we want to impart to the world.
