The Indian philosophies of ‘Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah' and ‘Sarve Santu Niramayah' state that all peoples should be happy and contended
Under the guidance of PM Modi, India's stature in the world has grown immensely, and we are being looked to as a 'superpower'. This write-up aims to surface the differences between the Indian concept of a Vishwa Guru and the Western values of a 'great power'. The fundamental values of India's exceptionalism have been the strong foundations of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the entire world is one family) that 'presented the world with a philosophy for uniting humankind. Nevertheless, India's unique approach of 'Sarve Bhantu Sukinah', 'Mitrasya Chakshusha Samikshamahe' (Look at the world with friendly eyes), 'Krinvanto Vishvamaryam' – (be noble and make the world noble) add to India's uniqueness. The same concepts were acknowledged by Dr S. Radhakrishnan, the second president of India, who stated that the "higher concept is world community; it is this kind of world community to which we have to attach ourselves". Thus, India's foreign and security policy has been deeply rooted in the principles of regional and international peace and peaceful co-existence. Thus, India, with exceptional civilisational values, is poised to be the Vishwa Guru once again.
There are fundamental differences between superpowers/ great powers and a 'Vishwa Guru'. As a first, India's civilisation has been scientifically proven to date back to the Indus Valley civilisation (1200-1500 BCE). Later, Bharat's grand stature in the world was defined by the existence of different Universities such as Nalanda and Kanchipuram (Tamil Nadu). Thus, the unique civilisation gave us an intellectual legacy. India's academic and philosophical foundations rest on the premise that the ultimate goal of knowledge is not 'power maximisation' but the enhancement of the mental and physical well-being of all; thus, knowledge and justice share an intricate bond.
The Western traditions of Realism and the English School in international politics speak of maintaining the 'hegemony' and the 'status quo' of the stronger power. Liberalism, on the other hand, speaks for a total market economy with little or no regard for the less privileged. On the contrary, Marxism and its critical strands speak of the marginalised groups and countries but primarily present themselves as a critique of liberalism. Consequently, no theory takes a well-balanced approach while maintaining the interests of all the contesting stakeholders. Here, the Indian traditional knowledge system can play an important role wherein there is justice and prosperity for all. 'Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah' and 'Sarve Santu Niramayah', as core philosophies, firmly believe that all should be happy, contended, and free from diseases as only a healthy mind can contribute to strong nation-building.
Second, the stature of a 'great power is purely a Western or a Eurocentric concept that stands on the bedrock principle of international anarchy and a deep-rooted lust for power. In the West, for external developments and events to serve as triggers for garnering support for specific defence policy agendas, they must be rhetorically portrayed as potential challenges and threats, which in international relations is called 'agenda setting'. The West, in the 1980s and 1990s, had narratives of "rogue states" and "axis of evil" for those "deviant" regimes which did not align with its "ideals and principles". Later, to harness domestic support and finance apart from the international coalition, the fundamental concept of "anti-Christ" leaders came into the picture, the most prominent of which was Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. Later, it was proved that Iraq had dismantled its WMD infrastructure before the invasion. The consequence of such concepts is always a "tragedy" that results in war. The struggle thus is a vicious cycle of power maximisation, security dilemma and great power wars.
India has a very different approach in line with its 'Sarve Bhavantu Sukinah' policy. From ancient times, examples that have used religious terminologies or a religion-based national identity have been deliberately avoided. Later, because of the Mongol and Mughal invasions, India became a multicultural population. India has always tried to adopt an inclusive approach in which it firmly believes that the interests of all countries are better served through the skills of humanitarianism.
Finally, western geopolitics firmly believes in the concept of a geographic 'sphere of influence' for a major power. Since its inception, New Delhi's foreign policy approach has been the opposite of a 'clash of civilisations' and certainly is not "us versus them". India's civilisational glory lies in the fact that it does not believe in 'civilisational subsuming'. Indian philosophers have tried to expand their 'civilisational sphere of influence' where India's soft power, such as cultural values and later Buddhism, were active foreign policy tools.
India has stood in solidarity with the world's countries to ensure that the developing world's concerns are not side-lined. Given the global conflicts with a crisscross of interstate rivalries, the world looks up to India under the leadership of PM Modi. India's presidency of G20 from December last year strongly indicates that PM Modi's multilateral diplomacy based on the ancient Indian knowledge system has been a norm initiator and developer.