China Rising Middle East Burning Indias Strategic Moment Upclose With Pankaj Saxena

TITLE: China Rising, Middle East Burning: India’s Strategic Moment | Upclose with Pankaj Saxena CHANNEL: Upword DATE: 2026-06-06 URL: https://youtu.be/Kk0k1LQUtCE ---TRANSCRIPT--- But if you see, it is exactly on the lines of how America aligned with the Sunni world and how its opponents and I aligned with the Shia world. India is, you know, more Sunni, so they align with the Indian minority. We see Iran as a friend, but Iran, no Islamic country, is a friend as such. Even when Taliban came here, they did not let women enter and in the background there was Bamiyan. They were declaring in Hindu country, this is what we’ll do to you also whenever we come to power. So they can never be your friends. Iran now has a very significant, completely ex-Muslim population. 10 to 12% of which is a very significant proportion. If India really does think of it as a Hindu civilization power, we should start arming, supporting those ex-Muslims inside Iran. Market has to be aligned to Christian interest, but Christian interests are never dead. Christianity has always been able to even something as woke revolution. They have been able to work it in favor of Christianity.

In this there is this third which is Israel. How does that enter the mix?

Israel is because of its decreasing power in the US is looking for a strategic depth in [music] any country. So we should align with the indigenous people. That’s why the pagan whatever, if you hate the term or love the term, we should align with the pagan people all over India, in China, in Korea, in Japan, in our Southeast Asia. There is so much of us that will directly align with Hindu. The Hindu-Buddhist problem will also not come there and we have to be realistic. Next three decades India cannot be the dominant partner in this. So of course it will be China leading India somewhere, but Belt and Road failed. We also have to credit ourselves for some things. Belt and Road failed only because of India.

Welcome Pankaj. Welcome back to Upward Studio in our new studio here and it’s a pleasure to have you back after almost 1 year, right? Almost 1 year, a little short of that.

So, I mean, we decided to have this impromptu conversation. So, let’s first talk about what is happening. The most significant event right now is the Gulf War, the Iran-US-Israel war. So, how do you see the war? What is happening? I mean, I’m I’m not asking you as a geopolitical expert, but as a Hindu like myself, you know, what is your perspective on what’s going on?

I feel like there have been many reactions in the Hindu side also in India to what’s happening in Iran. Many catatonic reactions on both sides. Generally, Hindus have all the reasons to be happy about what’s happening despite all the LPG and other things which is happening because of a very fundamental rule. Any standing civil war in the heart of Islam anywhere is many headaches off any country like India. Because the focus of these powers at least for some time is diverted. So, that’s a primary reason. I’ll not go just like you said into the geopolitical reason of what’s happening, but what the geopolitical analysts miss in all of this because right now they’re claiming look, there is where is Islamic unity? They’re fighting off each other and all of this.

But if you see, it is exactly on the lines of how America aligned with the Sunni world. And how its opponents and I aligned with the Shia world. So, it’s actually very religiously it conforms to whatever has always been happening even inside India because India is, you know, more Sunni, so they align with the Indian minority rather than with Hindu majority. So, they will never align for many reasons, but here also the same things carry on. The Shia-Sunni divide. And because in Islamic world, there is a lack of a single leader unlike the Christian world which US is an undisputed leader of the Western world. In Islamic world, it has never been so. Their only misfortune is this. Most of their bulk of their population is Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia. Around more than 50% is here. And yet all the leadership elite lies somewhere else, which countries can never boast of demographically leading. So, they have this crisis. That crisis has been exploited by Christendom. So, it is a religious fight in that regard.

What we forget is that after the fall of Saddam Hussein, what happened after the Iraq war is that Iran is a Shia country ruled by Shia leaders. Iraq before Saddam was a Shia country ruled by a Sunni leader. Saddam Syria was a Sunni country ruled by a Shia leader. And Lebanon, which gets you to the Mediterranean seaboard, was a Shia influenced Shia majority because Hezbollah and Hezbollah’s power inside Lebanon after the Lebanese Civil War. And Christians became minority over a period of 15-20 years. And Muslims came to majority. And in that around 30-35% were Shia. So, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, what happened is that from Iran to Mediterranean, there was a continuous Shia belt. Starting from Iran and then after the fall of Saddam, Iraq also reverting to its Shia majority. Syria, despite being a Sunni country, but due to Assad leading to the Shia line. And then Hezbollah. So, Iran could directly attack Israel and also a lot of other things in this. For a long time, such a concentrated Islamic power had not been created in the world. So, America was just looking for that to break.

Now, how does it pertain to India? We see Iran as a friend, but Iran, no Islamic country, is a friend as such in the longer run. Even when Taliban came here, right now we are supposedly popping a few terrorists in Pakistan, which we should do use tactically if they have some internal fight, we should always exploit. That’s good. But when they came to India, you could see they did not let women enter, and in the background there was Bamiyan. They were declaring in Hindu country, this is what we’ll do to you also whenever we come to power. So, they can never be your friends. So, we should be thankful about what is happening because the civil war is growing.

I think in the ideal case scenario, what should happen is that Iran now has a very significant completely ex-Muslim population. If according to some surmises, 10 to 12%, which is a very significant proportion. So far, this has not happened in any other Islamic country. Because those ex-Muslims are like you can count them on your fingers, maybe a few thousands. But in lakhs to the proportion where they can become significant minority, they have become in Iran. If India really does think of it as a Hindu civilization power, we should start arming, supporting those ex-Muslims inside Iran. Because if we don’t, the West will, and the West will do it for Christianity. If we do, then it will be a very faithful Hindu fifth column in foreign countries. For the first time, we’ll have a stake directly in the war. And this is more potent than having Indian experts, Indian people who have shifted to Dubai and all of these countries because they come from a culture where they are not willing to fight at all. But these people, everything is at a stake. They will take help from anywhere it comes. And if it comes from people who are not disturbing their religion, because they say that we are Persians, we used to worship sun, lion, and all of this. If they are openly saying that they are murti pujak, idolaters, polytheists, whatever you choose to call them, then India as a Hindu civilization power should come to support all of these people. That is also a great geopolitical strategy.

But this narrative, I do agree in parts with the conclusion especially that if there are these so-called ex-Muslims, then those could become strategic assets and all that. One is whether India is poised to do that at the moment given the realities of our politics. But that’s a different question. But the way you framed it, when you say that this was a Shia belt — are you saying that this is the primary dynamic of this whole war or is it also one of the narratives? Because from what I have studied a bit is that Iran was always a thorn in their side because Iran happened to have the wherewithal, the technological superiority to manage its own oil. And right from ‘53, the West was eyeing their resources. And ‘53 itself, they toppled their democratic government because they wanted to nationalize oil. So, oil happens to be one of that war.

Oil is always a reason. It is always one of the reasons. So, US and the Western Christianity cannot work any institution to power if they do not involve modern markets, contemporary markets into the equation. If they don’t figure that into the equation, then no power is willing to openly spill for pure Christian reasons. So, they have to align the market interest with the Christian interest. So, that’s always the angle. The oil I’m not denying. But the thing is in the Islamic world, all the populations are poor. All the heavy populous Islamic countries, Sunni countries are poor, like Pakistan. Indian Muslims are anyways a non-state power even after all the power in Indian state. Bangladesh is nothing. Indonesia, Malaysia are also nothing. In Sunni world, all the powerful countries are heavily enemies of each other because of the rivalry. Saudi Arabia doesn’t recognize Turkey because of racist reasons. They hate Turks. They say that they are debauched and they bring Western influences into their country. Turkey thinks that Arabs are primitive, superstitious monsters. So, this is the equation between them. At no point in last 100 years was any Sunni power in a position to lead the Islamic world.

What happens with Iran is it’s an overwhelmingly Shia country, more than 92-93%. And it controls Shia populations. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is virtually a province of Iran. So, between them it has almost more than 60% of world’s Shia population under one control, one command. And there are enough Shias in all of the Sunni countries including Saudi Arabia that they can play a fifth column. So, such a strong Islamic power, Shia or Sunni, has never been formed in last 100 years or so, ever since the ascendance of West and particularly the US and Western Europe. So, that is a significant threat which never happened anywhere else, which they are not even afraid that the Sunni world will be able to throw because Pakistan’s life will be spent in fighting India. Indonesia, Malaysia are anyways not in the position. So, the only candidate of that stature which could become a problem for entire world not just for the US but for other powers also was Iran which will defy all Western dictates which is able to defy China also. So in that it is in our interest that a grand Shia power should not create even though populations in India you might favor some because he or she has our minority. So you might play Shia against Sunni but even then a grand Islamic power whether Shia or Sunni is not good for any non-Islamic power. So that equation is also there. Oil of course just like Venezuela they destroyed and right now US controls most of LNG supply and all. So that is always there but you have to think that market has to be aligned to Christian interest but Christian interests are never dead.

Christianity has always been able to even something as woke revolution they have been able to work it in favor of Christianity. Like let’s break India apart first. Brahminical patriarchy for whatever reasons they have to destroy this because just like left was, just like Marxists were, just like Islamists were, just like openly Christian missionaries are — so they are able to work all of these in their favor. That angle should not be forgotten because some might say that they keep harping on that. There is no greater player on world stage than Christianity. For last 2,000 years even greater than Islam. It is more barbaric on the streets I agree but Christianity is not and that is why it is more dangerous. Which is very difficult to show people even our own people that it is the greatest danger. So for 1,700 years Christianity has been the biggest player. It still is the biggest player. The amount of conversions that they have broken the code in North India that was unthinkable until just 15 minutes ago. And I’m not just talking about Punjab. I recently went to Darbhanga in the center of Darbhanga where most of the freedom fights took place. It was a great place but of course socially infrastructure wise very bad still because of what happens in there. Right in the center of Darbhanga there is a huge church nobody is even talking about it. Imagine if they breach Bihar and UP that is game over for a lot of Hindu nations. Then the Hindu world will so called only be in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and this UP and Bihar which is very necessary will be multiple times more difficult also because a lot of caste politics will also play into this angle which already does. So Christianity remains the largest and the most dangerous player. If we do not pay attention towards that then it’s not okay.

So in this there is this third pole which is Israel. How does that enter the mix?

Israel is because of its decreasing power in the US is looking for a strategic depth in any country. And there is no other power on earth because China will not easily play to this. China also doesn’t need any such power like Israel. So it is looking for a strategic depth in India. For creating their factories and everything and that’s why they are doing some deals which was unthinkable now what they are doing with Indian government. Unthinkable until five six years ago that Israeli government will share all of these things with any other government. They need a strategic depth. They now after three terms of this government have some belief that this government is capable of defying the US or the western or any great power to a certain extent. They need India’s support. It’s very clear. So, they are creating another asset except US. In India.

Why India?

Because there is no other country which is willing to play. Otherwise, Christian Islamic politics will always be there. Islam will never play into their hands.

No, but my question is, before we come to India, I want you to share your perspective on how Israel is involved in the war.

Look. Right now it is debatable whether it is Israel leading the war or America leading the war.

Yeah, it is you can see it from both perspectives also.

All of Israel’s objectives are being completed with this war. But, of course, US is getting the objectives of dominating the Middle East and conclusively breaking, at least for two decades, two and a half decades, any Islamic power which is capable of hitting them like it hit it 1 and 1/2 or 2 years ago in October. So, no other power is capable of doing that. Its objectives will completely be fulfilled. So, Israel is very much interested in this war. Iran’s stated goal was to destroy Israel. So, it’s very common sensible to think that Israel will have to fight. What should our attitude be towards them? Of course, India can provide strategic depth. In exchange, we can become a lot more self-dependent in our military needs. Because no other power, France is not a blind power in this. It is only willing to sell us finished equipment. No other Western power will ever want India to grow. In fact, in recent conclave, they said, “We will not make the mistake with India which we made with China. So, we’ll not let them grow at our expense.” So, Western powers are not willing — only power inside all of West, if you consider Israel is West, is Israel which is willing to give us technology in exchange of safe passage for Jews or their factories and whatever installments that they want in India. India should be able to use that. It’s a technical friend.

A lot of our factions inside, our sections, they say no, Israel is also an enemy. What’s it doing to Iran and Venezuela? What US did with Venezuela was absolutely dictatorial invasion. In that sense, Iran is also that. But Iran is also not in our benefit if an Islamic power keeps growing and becomes a stable pillar. We need always instability in Islamic world. So, from that angle it is good. How is Israel good or bad to us? Judaism as an ideology is an enemy. No questions asked because all the evil that exists in the name of prophetic monotheism originates in Judaism. Absolutely. But you have to separate Judaism from Israeli state and third is Jewish society. Jewish society and Israeli state are different things because they have moved on from literal interpretation of Bible which were Torah Jews to Talmudic Jews. And as soon as they accept that symbolic interpretation, they almost cross the fire. Not your friends, but they can be tactical friends. That’s why all the advances in science and other things. And if you read some of their text, they are reaching — without the benefit of meditation traditions like India, they will not reach there, but a lot of their texts are quite deep in spiritual sense also in ecological sense also. That’s because they have moved on from literal belief from the Bible. So, they are not contrary to what we believe. A lot of Christians in the West are no longer Christians say this. I’m not talking about them. But everyone who calls himself a Christian has literal belief in certain central tenets of Christianity. The Talmudic Jews, which is 99% of Jews of Israeli society, have moved away from that. They have accepted the interpretation of their text and spiritualized them to a large extent. Israeli state is something you should see just as another country, which if it benefits you, you should be with it for certain years. If it’s not, then let’s move on. So, we should be very practical with that. Jewish society can be our friend. Because some of their publications do such deep criticism of monotheism that outside of Hindu fold — Ram Swarup, S.N. Balagangadhara, Sri Aurobindo — the deepest criticism of monotheism has come from Jewish publications. There is one publisher, Prometheus. They keep publishing text after text, which are so fundamentally deep that they unravel all of monotheism. So, that’s the only country.

So, are those texts anti-Judaism?

Yeah, anti-Judaism also in many ways. That is why I said that Jewish society has moved away from it. And many will be surprised to know actually literalist Jews — those who say that Old Testament has to be — stoning to death and all of that, Quranic, those who believe in those literal injunctions in this world, they are with Palestine. And just like a lot of people in our side also say that at least they follow the rituals. At least Islam is following the rituals. So, they are following Yahweh’s word more closely than these Zionists who have become secular, who have reformed Judaism. So, the same sort of divide exists in their society. That extreme minority which say that we are literalist guardians of Jewish texts, they say that Palestine is right. But 99% of their society say that these are reforms. They have distorted Judaism.

Oh, very interesting. So, the rabbis and all, are they —

Not all rabbis. So, rabbis maybe majority are reformist. Majority have accepted that there are symbolic interpretations. You don’t need to go literal on these things. If you go to Israel — I have not been to Israel — but if you see, they will keep extremely long beards and will have some like early Christian monks, they will have some routines and rituals like early Christian monks, punishing themselves and a lot of those things also.

Oh, okay. So, this ideological divide, you said that it mirrors the divide here in India. Tell me more about that.

The parallels are that the literal side in the Hindu faction also they see some good in Islam and Christianity. They accept them as tradition. And the criticism and the acceptance is also that they follow rituals. And they accuse —

Are you talking about, let’s say, A.K. Saran or —

For some followers of A.K. Saran, I would say. Because there are other passages in A.K. Saran which are different, but some followers of A.K. Saran, yes. Israel, they hate. They mock those Hindu factions who support Israel. And on the other hand, they say that paganism is degraded. And then these Hindus keep celebrating any “Huga Buga.” So, yeah, this is wrong. On the other hand, they accept Islam and Christianity. Which is the same with — every political movement in India will have some inspiration in the West. Even the so-called traditionalists currently will have some inspiration in the West. So, a lot of these features mirror their political sides. These also accuse that the other’s majority side is reformist. Whether it is true or not, we are not going to those discussions. But they accuse them because they are reformist, so they are degrading the text and hence Hindu society. So, at least some orthodox people in Islam and Christianity at least they follow their text. Maybe we should do the same as they do. Similarly, they say that Islam at least Palestinians are following — they are doing five times of namaz. These Zionist Jews — so for example, the exact same criticism these Hindutva Hindus. And this is — Judaism has to be saved from Zionism. Just like in India you hear that call that Hinduism has to be saved from Hindutva. For example, Arun Shourie has played right into their arena. I mean, before the book hit Savarkar, I had a very neutral view. I loved his earlier works which are still absolutely fantastic. But, in this book he ends with the sentence — Which book? The new icon Savarkar. Which is a very poor hit job. I mean, he’s mocking grammatical mistakes in his letters which is like dude, get real. And at last his sentence is we have to save Hinduism from Hindutva. They say we have to save Judaism from Zionism. Zionism is what? Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, Netanyahu. Right now Netanyahu. They see Netanyahu exactly as a copy of Modi. That he’s distorting the fundamentals of Judaism. He’s leading on a reformist path which is you are no longer Jews. Because you don’t practice this, you’re no longer Jews. So, this in Israeli society, you can exactly see the parallel.

So, to understand this better, like Hinduism versus Hindutva, these differing perspectives, these are mostly political opinions, right? And this is in the realm of politics. So, you have yourself talked about the fallacy of reform many times. So, how is it different from what you say?

So, reformism is bad. Because then you’re reforming just for its sake without seeing whether something should be reformed or not. Similarly, conservativism is also wrong in the sense that you’re conserving — whether something should be discarded, you are still carrying it on. Sanatana Dharma, any eternal and living tradition means that the core will always be preserved and some things will always keep changing. So, you need neither be reformist nor be conservationist. Depending on the situation, depending on what needs to be conserved, what needs to be reformed, you do it. Like I keep saying, I’ve said this in my book also, unlike monotheism, Sanatana Dharma attaches values not with actions and ideas, but with context. That’s why you need an entire Mahabharata to know the nuances of Dharma.

In one of these interviews with FIHC, one of the candidates, the issue came up — the definition of defining Dharma. And one of my fellow panelists made a radical statement. She said that it’s impossible to define Dharma completely. And a lot of us said, “How is this possible? It’s not impossible to define.” But I agree with her in certain sense, and I’ll explain how. If something is purely theoretical like religion, a universal definition is possible. But if something is contextual, then any definition will fall short in some context, in some time and place. And so Dharma is like a formula which you implement in certain times and places, opens up and gives results a certain little differently. So you have to meditate upon it in a certain situation. That’s why Mahabharat, that’s why Ramayana. That all of the characters are in eternal conundrum. And conundrum is about what? It’s always Dharma Sankat. Nobody is confused between Dharma on one hand and Adharma on the other. It’s very clear. Arjuna’s confusion is great, it’s deep. It’s one of the fundamental questions still in Hindu society. We are still debating that. He’s not just a warrior, he’s not stupid like we think. He got confused. Because Rajiv Malhotra once said, “Arjuna is a moron.” So I liked that idea. But then when I read Gita, no, his objections are fundamental. So his objections are fundamental and he is not just a great warrior, he’s a great knower of Shastras also. All of them are very great scholars also. So his concern is very fundamental. He’s confused between two Dharmas, that’s always the case. Because it’s definite whatever path you will choose, one of the Dharmas will be violated. From here there is no path which you can take in which no Dharma will be violated. So you have to choose between what is the greater party and what is the lesser party. That’s always the case with all of the characters of Mahabharat.

In fact, I’m reading now the original Sanskrit with Hindi aid in Gita Press. And then Draupadi actually makes a very certain statement about Sanatana Dharma just before the Cheer Haran episode. Because in my book I claim that Arjun’s Vishada Yoga is about Varna Sankara. He’s saying that you have taught me that this happens then this happens. His logic is very clear that I’ll kill my brothers. My Kul will become Purusha Vihin. When that happens, they will marry Purushas from other Kulas. That will lead to Varna Sankara. That will lead to Adharma. So, you’re telling me to commit an Adharma. Krishna accepts this logic because it’s also very logical if you believe the text. He still tells him to go ahead. Why? Because Sanatana Dharma itself stands violated by that Kula which he’s talking of saving. And Draupadi says before Cheer Haran, she looks at Kauravas — Kauravo Ke Rajya Mein Sanatana Dharma Ka Nash Ho Gaya Hai. So, she uses the phrase that Sanatana Dharma itself stands violated. In that case, thinking about Kul, Kutumba, Sampradaya, Jati, Varna, anything becomes meaningless because if a Kul has lost the Vivek so much that an innocent royal woman is denuded in public for no reason, that Kul has lost everything. There is nothing left to save in that Kul. And because of that Krishna doesn’t even think for a second before saving.

Even Bhishma Pitamaha — imagine the Dharma Sankat is so soul deep that an authority, 98% of Mahabharat, a great authority in Dharma, we cannot deny that. He has entire Parvas on Bhishma. And when Draupadi asks very pointedly, “Tell me, oh, Bhishma Pitamaha, you are an authority in Dharma. Is what is happening right?” He takes that sort of very Christian-like statement here I will say. A lot of people will be scandalized, but he says now God works in mysterious ways. He says Dharma Ki Gati — I’m lost. I cannot tell what is right and what is wrong. So, he’s lost. He feels that it’s very wrong. And he says also, “The end of Kauravas is near. I can see it.” But, he’s stuck in the technicalities. And Krishna, without even thinking for a second, the only character in Mahabharata who has no confusion about what dharma is, he helps Draupadi. And there are a lot of pratigya vira in Mahabharata that they keep taking faltu ki pratigya and because of that there is so much trouble. Bhishma pitamaha himself. Arjuna has taken so many pratigyas that if somebody criticizes my Gandiva, then I’ll have to kill him. Then Yudhisthira does it and Arjuna proceeds to kill him. And then when Krishna stops him, in anger he has to kill himself because he also took a pratigya that if I criticize my elder brother, then I have to stop this dude from self-destructing. Because the most powerful of people, they are not destroyed by lack of strength. They are destroyed by confusion. Because right now any Western European country is capable of destroying entire Islamic world, all of them combined, including even France. But, look at their great fall. They have pressed the self-destruct button so much that they are consuming their own society. Even if Hindu society comes together united and is very clear about it, after all the poverty, we have everything in us to solve all our problems. But we are not — that China and India come together is no power on earth which is capable of fighting us, but it’s not happening that soon.

So, these dharma sankat — that’s why the definition of dharma has to be displayed in an entire epic through life situations. And so you cannot say you are either a conservationist or a reformist. The problem is in the ism. Thinking that this is the marker. For example, violence is good or bad. What will you say? A Hindu will say, “Hey, but context, what is the context?” So how can you say it’s either good or bad? Of course it’s bad in certain cases. It’s good in certain other cases. Similarly, with dharmic choices, either reform or conservative.

So this is very interesting. This is going in the direction that I had hoped it would. Now this Hindutva versus Hinduism, I’ll give you an example because to be completely honest, I’ve been guilty myself of rage baiting on Twitter. It was fun. And I tweeted recently when there was this hearing going on against Pashu Bali. And there was this Hindu, some Pooja Bisht or someone, the petitioner who had approached the court to ban the practice. So obviously, coming from a tradition of goddess worship, it does not sit well with me. So I was a little riled up and I actually wrote that Hindu unity is a curse. Now again, going back to the context, why Hindu unity is a curse is because as you know as well as I do, the structure of Hindu society is not uniform. The sheer mind-boggling diversity that exists in our society is because we are designed differently. So, the concern when a lot of people raise this, not Arun Shourie, but steel-manning this position — the concern that people raise about Hindutva being dangerous to Hinduism is that when the political unity becomes the primary goal, then the very structure is at risk. And taking this concrete case, if you go through the petition, it was not someone who came from an atheistic lens. The recent UGC — Not the UGC. I’m talking about the ban on pashu balidan. So, the language of the petition is very Hindu oriented. You could argue it is Hindutva because it says that Hinduism is this. And that this is one strand of Hinduism. It is not the entire spectrum. And there are contradictory strands, as we all know. So, Hindutva sometimes does not follow that lane discipline. And often comments on things which are honestly beyond its scope, don’t you think?

No, I don’t think so. Hindutva is being unfairly blamed in this and I’ll prove how. So, of course, I absolutely agree that there is no society on Earth which is as diverse as India, Bharatvarsha. And that diversity is very important. It’s there for a reason. It also has to be preserved. And our society, our traditions, our texts, our rishis, our gurus have always sought to preserve that. But, I will also hinge on one word. Unity is not uniformity. You said the word uniform. Uniformity is certainly not what we are achieving, but Hindu unity I consider far from a curse, it’s a boon for us. How? Hindu unity is not destructive of India’s diversity. It’s actually generative of it and I’ve written it in my book how. That India, Sanatan Dharma is the only system which has brought about a system where you can have both Hindu unity and India’s diversity. There are certain examples of that. Ashwamedh Yagya is the greatest example of that. That this horse will run through all of these kingdoms. The only allegiance, the only unity that this seeks is unity against external enemy militarily — whenever somebody invades, this is the Chakravarti. So that Chakravarti clause is always there. That this is the Chakravarti Samrat. Everyone will submit so that we stand united. And when that tradition was forgotten in India, that’s when we started losing to invaders. That you need to accede that in times of emergency, in times of external attack, you will united against that certain faction. But otherwise, what you eat, what you wear, what you speak is nobody else’s business. That society is completely free to decide it for itself. So Hindu unity and India’s diversity can always coexist.

Hindutva — maybe I will give you the different shades of it. Hindutva, I’m going to write a book on it. It’s far from the domain of a single political party or even a single social organization. They might currently be one of the largest factions which carry that tradition or legacy, but they are far from it. The kind of social experiments that they are doing is not the core of Hindutva. It’s never happened before. So, Hindutva is not doing it. It is certain political factions — for them it is very beneficial to project that. But, otherwise, Hindu unity is not a threat to India’s diversity. And the reason is very spiritual also. There are many cases in Itihasas. For example, Shri Ram when he goes to Kishkindha, he lives there for many months before intervening in the Bali matter. He doesn’t intervene until he can know up front that there are some things wrong with it. Until he sees that Bali has kept the wife of his younger brother, he is being a very bad king. Then, he will intervene. And he says, “It is my duty to re-implement dharma wherever in this great land it is being violated.” So, this is the clause. Until Sanatan Dharma is violated, you don’t intervene in the customs and traditions of that single particular place. Only when that is violated, that’s when you clamp. That unity clause. Otherwise, anyone can be as diverse.

No, that I agree, Pankaj, but the difference here is not on account of what we mean. You are playing on this formal definition of unity. I’m talking about the practical. In the name of unity, what is happening? And I’ll say something, maybe you and I differ, which is fine.

This petition, those kinds of debate you can see in your tradition much before Hindutva came into play. For example, Vaishnavas always keep attacking Shaktas on this.

I agree. The point is that today, what is being weaponized by this reformist strain — what is being weaponized is the Indian state itself. And we know that Indian state is the most powerful entity that we are aware of. And when you are weaponizing the state to clamp down on a practice of another Sampradaya, that is where the problem really starts. Similarly, on a more philosophical or subtle approach, when you look at the management of temples or the development of corridors, you and I may differ on what — Which is okay. So you may think that the Kashi Vishwanath corridor was a good thing. I may say that no, it could have been done better. And I am perfectly fine with that difference. But ultimately, there is one version which is getting implemented. And those voices which have something to say, they get completely disregarded. Like in the Kashi Vishwanath corridor, I don’t think anyone with some intellectual honesty can deny the fact that there were actually excesses which happened. And to point that out and say that this could have been done better does not make you an anti-national. But that is how the discourse has turned. So then the question is practically — this is what Hindu unity has given us. And that is the criticism that I am talking about.

Which is true. The criticism is all fine. We should keep bringing to notice that this should not happen. But to sacrifice the cause of Hindu unity due to that is self-destructive because divided also it’s certain that we’ll see — What happened in Kashmir? A lot of people give all sorts of community reasons, that they didn’t fight. In the end of the day they were left there alone. Any other community which would have been left there alone would meet the same fate. It’s not about that community. It’s about the nature of Islam. And it’s about what happens to a Hindu population which is left in that. For example, Pahalgam is the greatest example. We should not sacrifice Hindu unity but keep hammering that our unity is not the Western sort of ideological political unity. This is a spiritual unity — at the same time the one is many like we say that the same Brahma is all of this. So why on this level it will seek to destroy all diversity, because at the same time the same Upanishadic Vedic texts which illuminate on self-realization and that Brahma is everything, at the same time they are Rishis seeking for rain, for prosperity, for worldly desires. So why would they be stupid and demand this because both are necessary. For example, varna caters to the diversity of birth, ashram makes everyone the same. So at the same time both are there. These nuances are lost because we have tended to copy all of even our intellectual movements from the West. This side that side also. The moment we correct that — for example, we need to freshly study. I never limit Hindutva to Savarkar. In fact, this strain of Hindutva was started very clearly by Swami Vivekananda. When he says reform within and also Ghar Wapsi — he didn’t use the phrase Ghar Wapsi, but he says that we have to take them back. So, this strain was started by Swami Vivekananda. In fact, that Hindutva is that shakti of Hindu society whenever it’s in danger, it’s an emergency clause.

If I have not said this on your podcast, let me say it now. This is the metaphor I have started from. Prayagraj Kumbh is held on the piece of land which Ganga and Yamuna vacate every 12 years due to the natural flow of water. And on that Kumbh Mela is held. So, there it’s a great spectacle of Hindu unity. Everyone comes together forgetting all the divisions, social, political. Cohabit, eat with each other. There is no division in Kumbh Mela. After that is done, they go their home and keep practicing all the diversity that was there before. So, it’s a clause which appears on its own in emergency, also disappears on its own when that emergency is gone. We should never forget that this is an emergency measure. And that once the external threats that we are fighting right now meet their layer. Because Western society suffers from — their srishti, there is a sthiti, sometimes, but mostly it’s a cancerous society. Why? Just endless creation, but no laya. Hindu society thinks of laya also. So the emergency clause which comes also has to disappear over time. We should educate our people more. But I don’t think we can sacrifice either India’s diversity or Hindu unity.

No, to be very frank, I don’t think that to spell this out as Hindu unity is very important — because Hindu unity happens. You and I may collaborate on a project. That is unity. We will forget our differences of opinion, our working styles. That always happens. Like even in a secular environment, you’re working in an organization. You don’t like your colleague, but you get along, you deliver the project. So that, when it’s scaled up to the societal level, that is what unity is to me. Borrowing Sri Aurobindo’s words, I don’t think that we should make a fetish out of unity. We shouldn’t be talking about unity unity unity because unity happens.

Unity happens on its own, but then you could make the same case about diversity also is the nature. But when diversity is directly under threat, like when there is external threat, to have a united — because that becomes the goal, maybe we’ll die, or we have some noble goal like building the Ram temple again. You didn’t require lectures on unity. Similarly, when diversity is under threat like in Sabarimala — I haven’t been to Sabarimala, but I was involved in whatever capacity in my small world — then diversity has to be protected. So even diversity can’t be fetishized. You have to just protect it whenever it is under threat. So both these ideas, whether it is unity or diversity, or unity and diversity as Congress said. I say diversity and unity for a certain reason. Because unity is more primary — not political unity I’m saying — the sense that all this is one and the many descends from one is more fundamental.

Of course. That I agree with. But now to take this further, the threat — I’m just trying to bridge that gap here. Because I am reasonably sympathetic with the view that Hindutva can actually be dangerous, the political movement can become dangerous and can cannibalize its own — you cut the branch you’re sitting on. So, that is what I’m — and I totally hear you when you say that unity is primary. We’ve always been this one people. India. Hindus. So, in this strain again there are two strains of thought about our approach to let’s say Buddhism. So, where do you —

Buddhism is a very good example to illustrate. But before that let me also tell you what I mean by Hindu unity. I say it’s a necessary but not a sufficient condition. United you can fall also. It’s not necessary that you will stand united. You can be stupid, you can commit collective suicide by being united also. So, that’s not a guarantee of survival. It’s necessary but not enough. So, you need to do more. Second, all you need to do is remember pyramid of priorities. That when the greatest authority is at stake, for example Sanatan Dharma, then you forget all your differences for that particular period of time. My argument is this. Krishna is not saying, “Go either this way, reformist or conservationist.” He’s not speaking against the dominant social structure of that time. He’s saying, “In this case, you cannot be stuck in this because something greater is at stake. You should remember that order of priorities that Sanatana Dharma should never be at stake.” For example, recent disturbances, a lot of people lost their composure in the last two judgments. There was so much on Twitter, and that’s exactly where I think you were also not very regular on Twitter during those days. A lot of people say, “Even if somebody calls me anti-Hindu, that’s okay.” The moment any faction, which happens a lot in Hindu society, you demonize your own society, prefer Islamic and Christian — I am concerned only with two, three, and radical rapid modernity as it comes. These three, if you prioritize over your own Hindu faction, that is only when you are violating Hindu unity. Otherwise, you’re not. Having Bali, preferring Bali, or not preferring Bali is no reason for saying that this Hindu unity is not related. That sort of unity I’m not saying. All of that diversity is extremely necessary.

I asked Shankar Bharadwaj once about beef. How do you place beef? So, there are some Sanatana rules. He says, “It’s not a Sanatana rule. It’s a Desha Dharma. It’s not a Sanatana Dharma.” So, for example, in most of mainland India right now, that will be a rule that it cannot be done. But suppose in northeast, where it has always been eaten, that is not a universal rule. Our job is to culturally influence and convince them gradually. It’s decreasing in Meghalaya, for example, because a lot of studies were also published that there are some adverse medical effects, and then they used it well. So, it’s decreasing at some places.

No, but there is a category error to imagining it this way because when we say that we should do it, we assume that the state is Hindu. But the state is not Hindu, we are not doing it anyway. So, if the state is secular and the state clamps down on a certain habit or practice, then it’s problematic. How can we do that? But if the state is Hindu, then it’s a different thing.

It’s a different thing. And culturally our direction was — for example, Arvind Sharma makes a very fundamental difference. He says that we do not proselytize, which means that you have to stop others from worshipping in their tradition. Proselytizing means also that, not just accepting you, but they have to stop worshipping their deities. But we were missionary. We did take our dharma to others. Otherwise, how would Bali become Hindu? How would Hindu temples be across outside the boundaries of Jambudvipa? So, we were missionary. Our sadhus were going to all of northeast. Wherever they were able by that time to significantly influence until 19th century when British clamped the ILP. They did influence. For example, even in Delhi mall — what is the biggest mall here? Select Citywalk. So in that there is buff meat available. Big Chill is one of the most popular — they included beef. So buff is buffalo, most of beef in India is buffalo only. So buff is there. These violations keep happening and until the state is sufficiently Hindu that will keep happening. Our job is to culturally influence gradually so that they leave this. That was anyways our way and that will happen once again. Once we create enough bridges.

Now you asked about Buddhism. So where does Buddhism stand? Ram Swarup has analyzed it very deeply. That the seed of Buddhism is dharmic in the sense that they believe in karma, prarabdh, punarjanm and they prefer meditation and diksha from a guru. So that seed is dharmic. But the reason that Sanatan Dharm never went after personality cults is that no matter even if it’s a gyani like Buddha or jivanmukta like Buddha — they don’t dispute that — even then anybody will have its prarabdh, that’s why it is born. We all are born because we had certain good and bad karmas. It will have some idiosyncrasies of its own. The tradition which forms on that personality will become cultish very soon. So the social system that Buddhism formed was at that time very much against Hindu social system. But over time it disappeared completely from India. I will not talk too much on new Buddhists. That’s a different way, they have nothing to do with anything with this. It has become something entirely different. But the classical Buddhism at social level, of course, there were rivals, and that’s why there is so much harsh exchanges between them on both sides. But right now I see it as a myth. But not as us. They are clearly — because anyone who rejects the authority of Vedas, we should not also be too eager to make them us.

Actually, someone asked me on Twitter that there was this recent tweet by one Muslim handle who had written — our religion says that ours is the one true God. And there was some observation in the court where the judge had said, “You can’t have this kind of a supremacist belief.” And he said that this is against us, which is very interesting. So, context is in them. What about Buddhism then? My personal take is that I don’t think we should be breaking our heads on this, because we are who we are. If they want to identify as Hindus, very good.

That’s why I’m saying we should not be too eager to call everyone us.

No, but why should we even bother? We are the majority here.

Buddhists — I said don’t even exist. Just leave them out of the equation. They are new.

Even talking about Sikhs. So, we recently did a video on that famous Guru Nanak connection with Kashmiri Pandits. That is my pet peeve. And how we have framed it is that if you identify yourself as a Hindu, we welcome you with open arms. If you don’t then it’s also okay.

Yeah, and that’s a perfect position because I’m saying we should not reject those who want to identify. And we should also not be eager when somebody says that we are not, to —

Correct. And that nastik-astik problem is for them to solve. Not for us. We are clear that we are astikas. If someone comes from a nastic school and still identifies as a Hindu, the problem is for them now.

In fact Iran says that when you are weak everybody will try to break away from you. When you are strong everyone will gravitate. And then they will change their behavior also. Some of them will start denying what they are finding right now. We just need to increase this. We’ve seen in our lifetimes only with the Ram temple consecration. I have seen people in front of my own eyes with my own ears go from here to there completely. This was a great learning for me. Now I think it’s very difficult to oppose Ram temple. At least if you are extreme radical leftist very anti-Hindu only those will say it was a wrong thing. Otherwise 90% of Hindus have come over. That’s a huge thing. Nobody thought — I never thought in my lifetime I will see this happen. But it happened.

With Buddhism also — once again bringing it to geopolitics — our stupidity is that we have always befriended the wrong kind of Buddhist. The Dalai Lama, sheltering Dalai Lama inside India, making China a perpetual enemy because of that was not a smart move. They virtually call it government, parliament. They have an entire city to themselves in Himachal, Dharamshala. And the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism is hardly done us any good I’d say. It has created perpetual animosity with China. Japan also has, except giving some no interest loans, not done much for India or for Hindus. China should have been Chinese Buddhist or Chinese traditionalist because a huge faction identifies as not Buddhist but Chinese ancestral religions. These are the faction which are not even Buddhist. So the classical Hindu-Buddhist binary — because initially if you see the text you will always find that binary. The reason that a lot of anti-Hindu factions have managed to latch on to some Buddhist idea or claim that Buddha also said this — Buddha didn’t say this but in the Buddhist religion there are a lot of things which they can latch on to. So if you align with Chinese traditionalists then this danger is not there. I’m not saying we should antagonize Buddhists, but we are with the wrong kind of Buddhist. We have antagonized China because of this. We even gave CIA our air bases to intervene after 1962 happened. We have denied four times their offer to solve because McMahon line has never been put on paper, on ground it is never — all the disputes are actually unnatural. We cannot say that it’s just China’s misfault because you also have never solved it.

So we should align with the indigenous people. That’s why the pagan, whatever, if you hate the term or love the term, we should align with the pagan people all over India and China, in Korea, in Japan, in our Southeast Asia. There is so much of us that will directly align with Hindu. The Hindu-Buddhist problem will also not come there.

It comes back to the point that if the Indian state does not see itself as a Hindu entity, then how will they —

I say politically in many ways it is. But our society in a lot of ways is no longer that, or it should become more Hindu. So we need to bring more awareness.

But what will society do with Indo-China relations?

It’s not the wider society, but the scholarly society at least has a lot of role to play. This is what Chinese scholars are doing all over.

The intelligentsia is almost non-existent in India. Every time you look at Indian society and you want to understand some aspect of it — I’m just working on a script on meritocracy, caste reservations — and all the material that I have access to is Western. And it’s so unfortunate. I fail to understand what these big institutions are doing here. Humanities produce all that. You have your society to study, the context of it.

That is what we need to do. In fact, Babri Masjid happened in ‘92. Within ‘96, within 4 years the existing government was toppled for the first time, a non-Congress BJP sort of government came. From ‘98 there was a 6 years rule. So within a decade there was an entire government which came riding on that wave. It has become just 10 or 11 years, but I see a lot of positive development in the sense there are scholars coming up, societies coming up, small organizations coming up which are trying to do a lot in the right direction. We need to keep up this momentum for one more generation, which means 30 years. Three more decades. If we dedicated instead of just perpetually being on Twitter. If 100 to 150 scholars dedicate themselves to long-term work for three decades, so much will change. Today itself in another talk, somebody asked that why did we not do any pushback all these years, the intellectual output that is expected of our society did not happen. Why is it so? But then look at the other way. There is no other pagan political society which has even remotely done as much as Hindu society has. Not Japan, neither China, nor Southeast Asia. The kind of criticism that starts from Swami Dayanand, very rational logical, he completely puts it in tatters. Then Swami Vivekananda, then Sri Aurobindo bringing it to the level of yoga, Ram Swarup Ji using primary Hindu framework of yoga sutras and yogic chitta bhumis. Not denying the power of Islam and Christianity, but classing them as devatas originating from vikshipta and kshipta chitta bhumis. This kind of output has not been done by any other pagan society which has survived. So, if you see it as a fight between monotheism and natural dharmas, then we are the only society which has not just survived, but also put up a counter.

Ram Janmabhoomi is the only case where a pagan political society with force has snatched its most centered place from the opponent and reestablished the same. However long they took, this is the first instance. There is a reason they hate us. This is a very dangerous precedence for them because if Ram Janmabhoomi, then why not Kashi Mathura, and then why not all the lakhs of other temples? If one is possible, then why not 1 lakh? So, that precedence is very bad for them. I say we are far from the intellectual output which is necessary to weaponize all our features into attacking our enemies and winning the war. We should be realistic. But so far the work we have done is exemplary. As intellectually advanced society as Japan has not been able to do this. China had great interaction with both of these religions, and if you see their literature, it’s mostly about countering US and Western Europe, but it’s not on the level of religion. So, the kind of criticism that Hindus have put up is also unprecedented.

Yeah, and plus the way in which we tend to be self-critical, in some ways it is good because it keeps making you better. But this is also a bad habit. Like recently this Japanese Prime Minister when she went to the US, she was humiliated. I think a political leader in India would have — it would have been the end of that kind of humiliation. And every time we tend to glorify Japan.

But they are not able to — the humiliation of Japan ever since Second World War is so absolute complete. They have not been allowed to keep military beyond a point. Now they are releasing because they are afraid of China. So, they are allowing Japan, but that’s the master allowing the slave to actually have something. And all the depressed sort of movies and literature that comes out of Japan is also that. They aspired globally, they lost globally, and so the adjustment is very depressing. So, that’s why moving towards China is a more important thing. Of course, China also has to solve a lot of problems and we have to be realistic. Next three decades India cannot be the dominant partner in this. So, it will be China leading India somewhere, but Belt and Road failed. We also have to credit ourselves for some things. Belt and Road failed only because of India. Every other country China had bought completely. It was only because of India that the plan failed. So, India made them realize that it cannot do anything with antagonizing India. The Prime Minister also before during the elections said that we have no civilizational fight with China. Which is a significant statement in the direction. And after what Trump did, China — if you see, most of the issues are not raked up too much. Of course, we are two states at loggerheads, but otherwise not. So, we should move in that direction.

So, I totally agree with you with very little knowledge that I have of geopolitics, but as a layman, I think that there is no reason for India to be permanently at loggerheads. And things should move in a good direction. But I find myself very uneasy when we sort of become strategicalized with the US because that intuitively feels repulsive to me.

See, there is a reason Russia can be your long-term ally. I will once again come to religious fault line. Russian Orthodoxy no longer has any desire of power left in it to convert others. That’s why it is not a threat to you. Whatever it supports, it is not seeking to convert us to Orthodoxy. Russian state is not seeking, but US state actively collaborates with most rapid missionaries on earth. Southern Baptist, evangelicals. In 19th century, there is a conference in Boston. They decide to come to northeast and in India. They say you are not a Christian until you convert others to Christianity. And your playground is India. And they name our states, these regions, Naga regions and Lushai Hills and all of this Mizoram. And they come here. So, we ignore them at our own peril. US has destroyed South Korea in a span of 50 to 60 years just by supporting. People see South Korea as an economic miracle, but during that economic miracle it has been laid to waste. The entire Sindo tradition is gone. So, whoever survives there is Buddhist. The population which is not converting is actually Buddhist. So, their local tradition which identified only as local is gone. Sindo is killed in a span of 50-60 years without an active war going on. US was just supporting South Korea and then they converted entire tradition. Christian population is around 35 to 40%. So, an entire country they wasted. So, until you grow strong enough, you can balance US in some things. But beyond that it can never be your friend. It was very much shown during the Doklam. You saw a lot of videos which came on internet in which US policy circles — and that’s why I say no big policy circle exists in India right now which is willing to go significantly away from US policy. And that is very detrimental to the health of our nation. During this Doklam war, what did they do? There were so many videos saying India will win this war because India has been fighting constantly and China has not, which is an absolute lie. India is in no position to fight a headlong war with China and come out winning. Even if it’s not completely destroyed, it will be a significant destruction if it goes headlong with China. And that only US will benefit. In Operation Sindhur, it was seen that it was seeing us as a vassal. What they did to Ukraine in destroying Russia. They want to use India against China the same way. And if we play to that, we’ll get destroyed. They’ll destroy China by opposing. Operation Sindhur, you could see until they thought we’ll play the vassal role, they were very good, we are friends and all India is a great country. The moment they thought that this might hit US investment in South Asia for 70 years, it didn’t even take them hours to completely go towards the other position. So, it can never be a friend.

Pankaj, I wanted to discuss our common favorite author Byung-Chul Han. And I also wanted to get into a discussion on philosophy of parents and things like that, but —

We’ve run out of time. Byung-Chul Han is a mutual favorite, so we’ll discuss. So for now thank you very much and I will look forward to attending your sessions in the cultural festival also. Thank you for coming again.

Thank you, thank you. It was a pleasure. Thank you.