Empowering Bharat: 10 Years of the Modi Government An Interview with Shri Jayant Sinha

Aayushi Ketkar: How do you see the progress India has made in the last decade under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi? 

Jayant Sinha : In the last decade, India has transitioned from being a weak country, unsure of its future, to becoming a very strong rising superpower, confidently advancing towards the vision of Viksit Bharat. This transformation is truly incredible.

 

Aayushi Ketkar: There has always been this interplay between economics and politics. Perhaps, the economic part is even more crucial because we are a young nation, and we talk of the demographic dividend. Considering this demographic dividend, how do you view initiatives such as Atmanirbhar Bharat, Make in India, and the strong startup ecosystem, as being game-changers?

Jayant Sinha: A lot of us draw inspiration from Kautilya’s magnum opus, the Arthasastra, in which Kautilya emphasises that the foundation of a strong state lies in its economic prowess. That is precisely what Prime Minister Narendra Modi has accomplished over the last decade. When we came into power in 2014, India was counted among the fragile five economies, grappling with unstable macroeconomic indicators, raising doubts about sustained growth. Now, we are among the top five economies in the world and on track to being the top three. This transformation from being a fragile five country to moving towards the top three is indeed extraordinary and is the bedrock for the strength that India possesses today. The esteem and reputation that have come India’s way are due to this extraordinary economic transformation.

As you pointed out, given our youthful demographics, ensuring meaningful employment opportunities is paramount. But let me emphasise just five things that have been accomplished over the last decade at a very high level, with respect to our economy. Firstly, we have achieved macroeconomic stability. In 2013, we had a mini balance of payments crisis. The rupee plunged by 14-15%, and there was a real concern about whether India could manage its macroeconomic situation. But over the last 10 years, despite facing various shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic and disruptions in global supply chains due to events like the Ukraine conflict, India has maintained robust growth, with a GDP growth rate of 7-8%, inflation at 4%, and a current account deficit below one percent. Today, investments are rising, every macroeconomic parameter is extremely robust, and the world is looking up to India with great hopes and expectations. Maintaining macroeconomic stability, has been a major accomplishment of our government.

Secondly, we have transformed the social security system. Providing free food grains to 800 million people and delivering financial aid directly to bank accounts with minimal leakage showcases the effectiveness of our social welfare initiatives. Thirdly, substantial progress has been made in infrastructure development. The construction of 50,000 to 60,000 km of national highways and landmark projects like the Atal Setu bridge connecting Navi Mumbai with Mumbai, the construction of ports and airports, etc., exemplify this achievement. Fourthly, the rollout of the goods and services tax (GST), has formalised the Indian economy, leading to lower tax rates and increased tax collection efficiency. At present, indirect tax collection as a percent of GDP has gone up by two percentage points, which is huge. The fifth success story is the thriving startup ecosystem and the emergence of over 115 unicorns, signifying a renaissance in India’s entrepreneurial landscape, and offering hope for the future. So, in my view, these are the five major accomplishments that have propelled India from fragility to emerging as a top three economy on the world stage.

 

Aayushi Ketkar: That brings me to the next question, which is the role of youth and women in India’s growth story. How do you see this playing out?

Jayant Sinha: Today, the global landscape is characterised by deglobalisation, decarbonisation, and digitisation, all of which pose significant challenges to job creation. With global supply chains fracturing, it is more difficult now to plug into the global export economy. China had accomplished this earlier, during the globalisation phase, as a result of which it now accounts for 30-40% of the world’s manufacturing. That is harder to do when supply chains are breaking down. Today, the stress on decarbonisation, digitisation and artificial intelligence, makes it harder for us to create jobs. Despite these hurdles, India has excelled at generating employment opportunities, particularly for its youth.

The robust growth in formal employment, as evidenced by the EPFO data, which indicates that about 2-3 million high-quality jobs are created every year, reflects this trend. Furthermore, integrating more women into the formal workforce holds immense potential for driving sustained economic growth. While currently, 20-30% of women participate in the workforce, predominantly in informal sectors like agriculture, formalising their participation will fuel growth for decades to come. We have favourable demographics. With a focus on education and skilling, India is well-positioned to harness this potential. We have done extremely well so far, and I am hopeful that we will be able to manage it equally well going forward.

 

Aayushi Ketkar: The unorganised sector poses a significant challenge to India’s growth trajectory. How do you propose bringing it into the organised sector? You rightly said that efforts are being made in this direction, but this is a time-consuming task, and we do not want to miss out on India’s growth story.

Jayant Sinha: For an economy to grow, people have to become more productive. That is, for the same inputs, because of the higher skills and improved capabilities of people, there will be increased productivity. This is difficult to achieve in the informal sector because it requires the use of equipment and tools as well as improved skills. This, in turn, would require an infusion of capital, equipment, and skills. So, that is the transformation and the transition that we now have to undertake. The good news is that the Indian economy is gradually becoming more formalised, as indicated by the increase in the number of taxpayers from 98 lakh people before GST to 140 lakh post GST implementation. This is an indication that the formalisation of the work force is moving along very quickly.

We have about 6 crore MSMEs. As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I have closely monitored the MSME sector. Through the UDYAM portal, we have registered about three and a half crore MSMEs, all of whom now have bank accounts, a PAN number, and a GSTN, and thus they are getting formalised. They have access to credit, and their productivity is increasing. Because we are a very large economy, this transformation is gradual, but the momentum has swung towards that end, and we are steadily progressing towards it.

 

Aayushi Ketkar: Do you observe a shift from women’s empowerment to women-led development? Are we giving impetus to women in the startup ecosystem as we now see a surge of women entrepreneurs and women in key political roles? Many women of Indian origin have done exceedingly well abroad, like Indra Nooyi. This brings me to another question. How do you see the role of the Indian diaspora adding to India’s economic growth, especially through FDIs and investments?

Jayant Sinha: You have correctly identified two extraordinary reservoirs of strength that we have in India. One of course is our women, which, as of now, comprise just about 20-30% of the workforce. Recently, parliament passed the Nari Shakti Adhiniyam to reserve a third of our seats in our elected assemblies for women. This is aimed at bringing women into the mainstream and making them feel that they are not only leading but are also defining India’s destiny and are absolutely empowered to do so. This is being done through different mechanisms. Increasingly, as we formalise the economy, we are giving women the tools, the equipment, and the access to credit to make them entrepreneurs and leaders. So, this will certainly happen.

India’s diaspora, as per some estimates, numbers about 30 to 40 million people and is an extraordinary source of strength for India. Their purchasing power equals the purchasing power of India as a whole. So, it’s an extraordinary economic capability that we possess in terms of money, technology, and knowledge sharing that comes into India through the diaspora. Our outreach to the diaspora has been proactive, and because of the infrastructure that we have built and the quality of our cities, it makes little difference if one is working from New York, London, or Paris, or from New Delhi, Mumbai, or Bengaluru. In addition, initiatives like the privatisation of Air India facilitate easier access for them and foster stronger global ties. Direct flights from major Indian cities to global hubs not only benefit the diaspora but also bolster economic and cultural exchanges, positioning India as an integral part of the global community.

 

Aayushi Ketkar: Earlier, there used to be a debate between defence and development, the classic “guns versus butter” scenario. However, now we are emphatically pursuing both defence and development concurrently. This approach is bringing about a new India, a stronger India. With our enhanced defence preparedness and modernisation efforts, including the recent strides in defence exports, do you see this bolstering our soft power? Previously, India was renowned for its adherence to rules and other positive soft power attributes. Do you envision this advancement in hard power contributing to how the emerging Bharat or the new Bharat is perceived globally?

Jayant Sinha: I started by quoting Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which states that a strong economy is essential for strong national security. We have demonstrated this. Not only are we strengthening our defence forces, but we are also investing in new technologies such as drones. Because we have economic strength, we can invest in advanced technologies. As our economy grows, so does the amount invested in defence, which further increases our strength. This is not soft power, but hard power. What we follow is what President Wilson said, which is to speak softly but carry a big stick. We exhibited this in our stance on the Ukraine war, where Prime Minister Modi clearly stated that this is not an era for war. India’s voice is now heard because we can project our hard power very clearly across the world.

There are two more points I wish to emphasise. The first is that we are also enhancing our defence production capabilities through the creation of two defence corridors, one in Uttar Pradesh and the other in Tamil Nadu. Secondly, we are investing in advanced technologies. Through the Innovation Agency, our startups are being enabled to acquire advanced technologies in different fields, such as missile and space technology, drones, advanced munitions, aerospace, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. In all of these advanced areas, because we are building up our capabilities, we are able to project a lot more hard power.

 

Aayushi Ketkar: How do you perceive the “Modi factor” in the upcoming election, where we witness the “Modi guarantee”? How has the exceptional leadership of Prime Minister Modi, both domestically and globally, hastened the recognition of the new India by the world at large? How do you envisage the role of visionary leadership, including that of the younger generation in politics, in shaping this new India?

Jayant Sinha: The best way to think about the extraordinary contribution that the honourable Prime Minister’s leadership has made is to use the Hindi phrase ‘Yug Purush’. The Prime Minister is a once-in-a century figure. He is defining not just India’s growth and development but is also completely repositioning India on the global stage. His contributions have been extraordinary across multiple domains, which will be long remembered. After centuries, we finally have a chance to position India as a global superpower, and we have a leader like Shri Narendra Modi to take us through this transformation.

Often, there is a debate among historians, whether history is shaped by forces or by individuals—the great forces theory versus the great leader theory. I think, perhaps, both are required. In the case of Prime Minister Modi, it is very clear that great leaders are really, in some ways, able to harness these great forces and turn them to the advantage of the country. This is what we see happening in front of our eyes.

 

Aayushi Ketkar: Shifting to our final question, what challenges do you foresee for this emerging Bharat, and where do you believe our focus should lie? While sectors like finance, economy, and infrastructure have received considerable attention, areas such as education and health seem to demand more focus. From an academic standpoint, I perceive education as a critical game-changer, alongside the crucial role of the health sector. Could you shed light on the areas you believe require our attention to sustain the momentum of our progress? Additionally, with the advent of Modi 3.0, what trajectory do you anticipate for India?

Jayant Sinha: As I see it, the first five years (2014-2019), were about strengthening and stabilising India. The subsequent five years, under Modi 2.0, have been about resilience—dealing with challenges like COVID and conflicts while ensuring economic resilience. Looking ahead to Modi 3.0, the next five years will really be about global leadership and India’s emergence in the top three economies globally. We will be able to project both hard and soft power and will be a prime destination for leading global companies.

I am reminded of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan of the United Kingdom, who, when asked what he worried about, famously said, “Events, dear boy, events.” If you ask me what I worry about, it is not internal challenges, as we have a prime minister who can take extraordinary and courageous decisions and has the will to implement them. So our internal challenges will be appropriately addressed. But it is external events that we need to be concerned about, such as the COVID pandemic and the Ukraine war, which can destabilise our economy. So, it is the global macro-shocks that we have to watch out for and manage. The good news is that the honourable Prime Minister and his senior colleagues have been able to manage all such external shocks, and achieve resilience and stability despite them. Therefore, while we are equipped to manage internal issues effectively, we must remain vigilant and proactive in addressing external challenges.

 

Aayushi Ketkar: Thank you immensely for your insights. Your perspective on the past decade and India’s future trajectory has been invaluable.

 

Brief Bios:

Shri Jayant Sinha is Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha

Aayushi Ketkar is Assistant Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Kissinger: Amorality as Realpolitik

 

The opening to China, détente and arms control talks with the Soviet Union that resulted in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in 1969 and later the Helsinki Accords (1975) that secured Europe’s borders, and the bombing-cum-secret negotiations with Vietnam that won the Nobel Peace Prize, secured Henry Kissinger his place in history. President Richard Nixon’s decision to end the convertibility of the US dollar to gold to cope with domestic economic problems in 1971, while the dollar remained the fiat currency for buying oil, strengthened US dominance in world affairs.

Kissinger’s assiduous diplomacy in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War (1973) coaxed Egypt-Israel talks and paved the way for a peace agreement between the two countries. More pertinently, his Middle East diplomacy elbowed Moscow out of the region for decades, until President Vladimir Putin deployed the Russian air force in the Syrian civil war in 2015. Moscow has since taken a high profile in the Gulf and in Africa.

Kissinger’s amoral foreign policy initiatives were often stiffly opposed by his State Department colleagues, but his proximity to Nixon helped him overcome all resistance. Under his direction, the United States supported brutal dictators in Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, East Timor, and West Pakistan, and turned a blind eye to Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus. At the same time, he cynically crafted “human rights” as a tool to hound third-world nations to conform to US expectations.

China

The desire for an opening to Communist China has long been cited to explain Kissinger’s unwavering support to Islamabad in the slaughter of nearly three million East Pakistani civilians by the Army in the spring of 1971. Gen. Yahya Khan was secretly helping the Nixon administration to establish contact with China to create a schism between Moscow and Beijing, and create a rival Asian power on Russia’s southern border. Fifty years later, this seems less impressive as successive crises have forced Russia to rediscover its Asian roots; the Moscow-Beijing relationship is tighter than ever; and China has emerged as a formidable rival to the United States with its ambitious Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).

Ironically, the Pakistan crisis was triggered by Gen. Yahya Khan presiding over the fairest election in Pakistan in December 1970, whereby the Awami League of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman won the majority of seats. The results were rejected by foreign minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; the subsequent crisis led to a massacre of Bengalis in East Pakistan, war with India, and the emergence of a new nation: Bangladesh.

The crisis saw the Nixon administration “tilt” toward Pakistan; the US aircraft carrier Enterprise was sent to the Bay of Bengal and China was nudged to make military moves against India, with the promise of US support if the Soviet Union came to India’s rescue. But Chairman Mao refused the bait, and the wider confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union failed to materialise.

In East Pakistan, the army’s rampage against Bengali dissidents and civilians alarmed the US Consulate General in Dacca (Dhaka); most notable was the shooting of unarmed students at Dacca University. But Nixon and Kissinger were unmoved, even though most members of the Consulate General in Dacca signed a dissent channel message to Washington on April 6, urging the US Government to condemn the genocide. Consul General Archer Blood endorsed the dissent; he was later transferred from Dacca. Archer Blood’s warnings to Washington were documented in Gary Bass’ book, The Blood Telegram (2013), which exposed the devious calculations of President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

As millions of refugees from East Pakistan poured into India, the State Department suggested exerting pressure on Islamabad to restrain the army and set up a regional civil administration to check the flow of refugees and calm Bengali sentiments. Nixon responded with handwritten instructions: “To all hands. Don’t squeeze Yahya at this time.” On May 7, Kissinger met the US ambassador to Pakistan, Joseph Farland, in Palm Springs, California, and informed him about the opening to China, including Kissinger’s proposed trip in July 1971.

Washington was unmoved by India’s concerns. In June, Nixon and Kissinger met Foreign Minister Swaran Singh in Washington and urged non-intervention in return for USD70 million in humanitarian assistance to compensate for the refugees. Singh responded that the fundamental question was how to stop the flow of refugees (eventually estimated at ten million).

Kissinger again pressed for Indian restraint in his meeting with Prime Minister Gandhi in New Delhi on July 7. He then went to Pakistan, from where he made his legendary trip to Peking (Beijing) on July 9. In China, Chou En-lai told Kissinger that China would support Pakistan in a confrontation with India.

Washington viewed the India-Soviet treaty of peace, friendship and cooperation (August 9) as open support to New Delhi. In a meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko in Washington on September 29, Nixon urged Moscow to help restrain India from war. Gromyko opined that Pakistan needed to be curbed. In November, Prime Minister Gandhi visited Washington and other foreign capitals to garner support for India’s position. Nixon informed her that war between India and Pakistan was unacceptable to the United States. Gandhi denied sponsoring Mukti Bahini guerrillas and dismissed suggestions that Indian forces were poised for conflict. Despite two meetings, she did not respond to Nixon’s proposal for a mutual withdrawal. Exchanging views on the visit, Kissinger said, “the Indians are bastards anyway. They are plotting a war.”

The war began on November 22 but was formally declared on December 3,  when Pakistan opened a front from West Pakistan, attacking six Indian airfields in Kashmir and the Punjab and shelling border areas. Nixon withheld USD90 million in pending aid to India. Kissinger urged Soviet chargé d’affaires Yuli Vorontsov (December 5) to restrain India. He said the United States viewed the situation in South Asia as a “watershed” in US-Soviet relations. Nixon underlined these points in a letter to Brezhnev on December 6, warning that if India achieved its ends militarily, with Soviet support, it would adversely impact US-Soviet ties. Kissinger believed India intended to break up West Pakistan. Eventually, Pakistani forces surrendered in East Pakistan on December 16 and India announced a cease-fire, which was accepted by President Yahya Khan.

Vietnam and Cambodia

The Vietnam War was a legacy of President Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat). Kissinger was negotiating peace with North Vietnam in Paris, but delayed the accord to help Richard Nixon (Republican) win the election. When Nixon became President in 1968, Kissinger changed sides and became Nixon’s most important foreign policy adviser. He carried on the negotiations while the US was still bombing North Vietnam.

Kissinger informed Melvin Laird, Secretary of Defense, that President Nixon had ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia (March 15, 1969), in the belief that the shock would force North Vietnam back to the Paris peace talks (March 18, 1969). South Vietnam President Nguyen Van Thieu had already agreed to private talks (March 17, 1969). The secret bombing raids continued for a year.

After Seymour Hersh of the New York Times broke the story of the secret bombing of Cambodia, Nixon and Kissinger directed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to begin telephone surveillance on four US officials suspected of the leak (May 12, 1969). Hoover provided information on three persons, viz, London Sunday Times reporter Harry Brandon; Kissinger’s former aide Morton Halperin, and State Department official William Sullivan. However, the source of the leak was never identified.

Harry Brandon’s wife was taped speaking about opposition to Kissinger’s Vietnam policies among his former Harvard colleagues. Morton Halperin was planning to quietly resign from the White House staff after stepping down as a top specialist on Kissinger’s NSC. William Sullivan’s phone taps revealed that Ambassador Averell Harriman was planning to host a gathering at his home of State Department officials who had signed a letter of protest against the secret bombing of Cambodia. The FBI used this information to spy on the meeting at Harriman’s house; this was revealed in congressional hearings on the wiretap scandal four years later.

The Peace Agreement won the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for Kissinger and North Vietnam leader Le Duc Tho. But the war did not end and Le Duc Tho refused to accept the prize because Kissinger had violated the truce he had agreed to when Hanoi was bombed on Christmas 1972.

Interestingly, Kissinger’s secret taping system recorded a late-night call from wire service reporter Ken Fried who informed him about the fall of Saigon and General Duong Van Minh’s unconditional surrender to the Viet Cong (North Vietnam’s People’s Liberation Armed Forces). Kissinger instinctively asked, “Is it true?”, and then tried to disguise the fact that he was unaware that the Vietnam War had finally ended in Washington’s defeat and the victory of the Viet Cong Communists (April 29, 1975).

The Vietnam War had a host of critics. Seymour Hersh, who won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, noted that Kissinger never hesitated to dump those who “did dirty work for him” and became inconvenient. John Lavelle, a four-star Air Force general, was publicly sacked and demoted after he admitted authorising Air Force crews in Thailand to conduct bombing missions on unauthorised targets in North Vietnam.

Urged by Otis Pike, a New York Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, to seek Lavelle’s version of events, Hersh met the general in Maryland. During their discussions, Hersh concluded that Lavelle had been given backchannel orders for the illegal bombing from Kissinger and Nixon because they wanted to covertly expand the war against North Vietnam.

Lavelle (d. 1979) never spoke on record and remained loyal to the White House. Later, Kissinger’s White House tapes revealed chats between Nixon and Kissinger about Lavelle’s plight. Nixon expressed unhappiness, “I don’t want him to be made a goat,” while Kissinger urged Nixon to stay out of the controversy. Nixon agreed but showed remorse, “I do not want to hurt an innocent man.”

Not everyone admired Kissinger or his grandiose views on shaping the world. President Barack Obama said he had devoted much of his tenure trying to repair the world Kissinger had left. “We dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos than on Europe in World War II,” (The Atlantic, 2016) “and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and all we left behind was chaos, slaughter and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have emerged from that hell.” Obama said that while in office he tried to help countries “remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids.” Quite an indictment.

Chile

Kissinger’s intolerance of democratically elected communist governments led him to plan the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. CIA documents reveal that in the weeks preceding Allende’s swearing-in, Kissinger supervised covert operations for a military coup that resulted in the assassination of Chile’s army chief, General René Schneider, on October 25, 1970.

Unfazed, Kissinger coaxed President Nixon to reject the State Department’s advice to build bridges with Allende and to authorise covert intervention to “intensify Allende’s problems” so that his government collapsed. “It was vital,” Kissinger wrote in a memorandum, “that the world’s first freely elected Marxist government must not be allowed to succeed”. Eventually, Allende was overthrown on September 11, 1973.

When Gen. Augusto Pinochet took over, Kissinger moulded US policy to help him consolidate his brutal regime. On complaints by his deputies of human rights atrocities, Kissinger retorted, “I think we should understand our policy – that however unpleasant they act, this government is better for us than Allende was.” Privately meeting Pinochet in Santiago at a conference of the Organization of American States in June 1976, Kissinger said, “You did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.”

Raul and Rene Schneider, sons of Gen. Rene Schneider, filed a civil lawsuit against Henry Kissinger and the US government for the “wrongful death” of their father on September 10, 2001. The suit was amended in November 2002, citing declassified US records as evidence of liability in the case. But, the judges ruled that Kissinger had immunity for actions undertaken as part of his official responsibilities as national security advisor to the President.

Kissinger was adamant that the US should not berate friendly military regimes for their human rights record, including assassinations abroad. This gave immunity to Gen. Pinochet in Chile, Gen. Videla in Argentina, and junta officers in Uruguay. Soon afterwards, former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his young colleague, Ronni Moffitt, were killed in a car bomb planted by Pinochet’s agents in downtown Washington, D.C.

Argentina

Kissinger’s distaste for human rights grew in proportion to the US Congress passing laws restricting US aid to regimes that violated human rights. He rebuked Assistant Secretary Harry Shlaudeman on learning that the State Department’s Latin America Bureau had issued a demarche to the Argentine military junta for growing death squad operations, disappearances and reports of torture after the March 1976 coup (June 30, 1976).

The demarche contradicted Kissinger’s message to Foreign Minister César Guzzetti during a private meeting in Santiago on June 10, to act “as quickly as possible” to repress leftist forces in Argentina. At a secret meeting with Guzzetti at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City, in October 1976, Kissinger reiterated his support for the action against the left: “The quicker you succeed the better.”

East Timor

Kissinger supported Gen. Suharto’s decision to invade East Timor in December 1975; between 100,000 to 180,000 Timorese were massacred. On the eve of the invasion, Kissinger accompanied President Gerald Ford to Jakarta to discuss US-Indonesia security cooperation with Suharto.

There, amidst a discussion on guerrilla movements in Thailand and Malaysia, Suharto mentioned his plans for “rapid or drastic action” against the newly independent country. Both Ford and Kissinger supported the invasion. Kissinger stressed, “It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly.” (December 6, 1975)

Conclusion

A great admirer of Bismarck and Metternich, Kissinger respected American statesmen and diplomats such as Dean Acheson and George F. Kennan. He said Kennan had all the conceptual tools for shaping American foreign affairs, but lacked the ability to translate them into action. This was a gap he aspired to bridge, according to Jacob Heilbrunn, editor, The National Interest and non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. Kissinger rose to the peak of power in Washington, a testimony to the rise of Jews in the Protestant establishment after World War II. He went to Harvard, joined the Council on Foreign Relations, and was an adviser to Nelson Rockefeller, the titular leader of the Eastern Establishment wing of the Republican Party.

His policy of amoral realpolitik in Vietnam, under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was widely despised by the right and the left. However, the Nixon-Kissinger policy of détente served to erode Soviet power. The notion that the arms race must be limited was very sound. Without détente, the Soviet Union may not have collapsed peacefully between 1989-1991. Kissinger dubbed it an “indispensable prelude” to the Reagan era.

Henry Kissinger maintained an exhaustive record of the memos and memcons he wrote or read regarding the secret deliberations, operations, and policies of his time at the White House and Department of State. He marked the voluminous telcons (daily transcripts of conversations he secretly recorded and had his secretaries transcribe) as “personal papers” and took them with him on demitting office in 1977. Careful selections were used to write his memoirs. The National Security Archive pursued these records for several decades and finally compelled the US government to recover them by drafting a lawsuit. This made a major repository of records of US foreign policy in the 20th century accessible to scholars. The documents reveal a different facet of Kissinger’s legacy and its appalling impact on the lives of peoples of Southeast Asia and Latin America.

As the first quarter of the twenty-first century comes to a close, a multipolar world order seems irreversible. The growing axis of Iran, Russia and China indicates the emergence of a new anti-NATO grouping. North Korea’s joining this ‘bloc’ could produce a formidable military alliance with an impressive array of weapons, advanced technology and military experience. China and Russia are already committed to jointly developing high military technology. Iran has received advanced Su-35 warplanes from Russia, and North Korea received its first satellite with Russian help. Russia, with 60 per cent of the world’s nuclear weapons, will be the fulcrum of this group.

The emerging world order is thus a far cry from the one envisaged by Kissinger and his patron-President, Richard Nixon, in which Pax Americana was to rule the waves far into the foreseeable future.

Author Brief Bio: Sandhya Jain is a political analyst, independent researcher, and author of multiple books. She is also editor of the platform Vijayvaani

 

References

  • Henry Kissinger: The Declassified Obituary. The Primary Sources on Kissinger’s Controversial Legacy. Edited by Peter Kornbluh, William Burr and Tom Blanton, Published: Nov 29, 2023.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile-cold-war-henry-kissinger-indonesia-southern-cone-vietnam/2023-11-29/henry?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=ddc144de-5acb-4bf7-ac3d-b3f8245b803c

  • Henry Kissinger Is Dead at 100; Shaped the Nation’s Cold War History, New York Times, David E. Sanger, Nov. 29, 2023.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/us/henry-kissinger-dead.html

  • Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume XI, South Asia Crisis, 1971. Released by the Office of the Historian.

https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/xi/45650.htm

  • Henry Kissinger Was the Right Man for the Moment, National Interest, Christian Whiton, November 30, 2023.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/henry-kissinger-was-right-man-moment-207621

  • Henry Kissinger Was a Legend for a Reason, National Interest, Jacob Heilbrunn, November 30, 2023.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/henry-kissinger-was-legend-reason-207622

  • Henry Kissinger: ‘If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be antisemitic.’

Benjamin Ivry-November 29, 2023

https://forward.com/culture/470300/kissinger-at-100-if-it-were-not-for-the-accident-of-my-birth-i-would-be/

  • How Henry Kissinger tricked the world, Indian Express, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, December 1, 2023.

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/pratap-bhanu-mehta-writes-how-henry-kissinger-tricked-the-world-9048637/

  • Henry Kissinger’s (Maybe) Last Interview: Drop the 2-State Solution, Politico, Rolf Dobelli, December 2, 2023.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/02/henry-kissinger-interview-israel-hamas-war-00129374

  • KISSINGER, ME, AND THE LIES OF THE MASTER, Seymour Hersh, Dec. 6, 2023.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/kissinger-me-and-the-lies-of-the?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1377040&post_id=139504015&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=8eknc&utm_medium=email

 

Interaction with a Delegation from MCC, Budapest

A multi national student delegation from MCC Budapest visited the India Foundation Office for discussions on “India’s Economic positioning in the contemporary world”. The session was addressed by Shri Apurv Mishra.

Interaction with a Business Delegation from VIFA and HUFO, Vietnam

India Foundation hosted a senior 15-member business delegation from Vietnam-India Friendship Association (VIFA), and The Ho Chi Minh City Union of Friendship Organizations (HUFO), Vietnam, led by Mr Huynh Thanh Lap from 07-11 April, 2024 in New Delhi. The visit of the delegation included a roundtable interaction on “India-Vietnam Ties” on 08 April, 2024, followed by interaction with Nalanda University, Delhi Office; visit and briefing at Apollo Hospitals; visit to Taj Mahal and Agra Fort, Agra; meetings with MEA Officials; visit to Swaminarayan Akshardham Temple; visit and briefing at Pradhanmantri Sangrahalaya and visit to Dilli Haat – INA.

Book Launch – Exploring Consciousness: From Non-Duality to Non-Locality

India Foundation launched an edited volume titled, “Exploring Consciousness: From Non-Duality to Non-Locality” on Friday, 05 April 2024 in India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. The book had been published by Motilal Banarsidass Publications. His Holiness the Dalai Lama very graciously contributed the preface for the book.

This book is a compilation of contributions from 26 of the world’s leading academic, scientific and spiritual minds. It brings together some of the most eminent research and inventions in the area of physics, biology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, cybernetics, quantum computing and allied fields as well as Indic spiritual and psychological disciplines to provide a holistic picture of the present and future of the study of consciousness and its implications.

The Chief Guest for the event was Dr. Karna Singh, Former Governor, Jammu and Kashmir, Dr. B.N. Gangadhar, Chairman (officiating), National Medical Commission was the guest of honour and Mr Come Carpentier, Distinguished Fellow, India Foundation delivered the keynote address. The panel was Chaired by Maj. Gen. Dhruv C. Katoch, Director, India Foundation.

Interaction with a delegation from Shanghai Institutes for International Studies

India Foundation organised an interaction with a five-member delegation from Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS), Shanghai, China on April 04, 2024. The delegation was led by Prof. CHEN Dongxiao, President, SIIS and the other members included Prof. LIU Zongyi, Director of South Asia Studies Center, SIIS; Professor YU Hongyuan, Director, Institute for Public Policy and Innovation Studies, SIIS; Professor WANG Yuzhu, Senior Fellow, Institute for World Economy Studies, SIIS; and Miss. LI Hongmei, Research Fellow, South Asia Studies Center, SIIS.

The discussions in the interaction incorporated various issues from India-China relations to AI and technological advancement. The delegation talked about advancing India-China relations and the global outlook for the same. The discussions included shared bilateral concerns along with boundary disputes and thus encouraged more face-to-face conversations and the need to accelerate and encourage interactions at governmental, ecological and think tank level. There were also discussions on Russia-Ukraine and Palestine-Gaza conflicts and the urgent necessity to maintain a global inclusive and resilient supply chain. The interaction also focused on the need of a shift from fixed perceptions to changed dynamics as India-China have been big old neighbors with historical linkages and thus look out for more stable and complementary relationships.

India Foundation Dialogue – 94

India Foundation hosted the 94th India Foundation Dialogue on 02 April, 2024 in New Delhi. Vice Admiral G Ashok Kumar, National Maritime Security Coordinator, National Security Council Secretariat, Government of India, delivered his address on “India’s Maritime Security – Challenges and Prospects”. The session was chaired by Capt Alok Bansal, Director, India Foundation.

नेपाल–भारत अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संस्कृत सम्मेलन – २०२४

काष्ठमण्डप, नेपाल

विक्रमसं. २०८० चैत्र १४ – १६ तदनुसार २७–२९ मार्च २०२४

सम्मेलन-प्रतिवेदन

पृष्ठभूमि

वि. सं. २०८० चैत्र १४ – १६ तदनुसार २७–२९ मार्च २०२४ को, नेपाल के संस्कृत विद्वानों की सक्रिय उपस्थिति में पार्क विलेज रिसोर्ट, बुढानीलकण्ठ, काठमांडू, नेपाल में तीन दिवसीय नेपाल–भारत अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संस्कृत सम्मेलन आयोजित किया गया था । नेपाल–भारत संस्कृत सम्मेलन का आयोजन नीति अनुसन्धान प्रतिष्ठान नेपाल (नेनाप), इंडिया फाउंडेशन, दिल्ली और केन्द्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, दिल्ली द्वारा किया गया था। सम्मेलन को तीन दिनों में क्रमशः तीन मुख्य विषयों, उद्घाटन सत्र, चर्चा सत्र और समापन सत्र में विभाजित किया गया था। इस संक्षिप्त प्रतिवेदन में अत्यंत भव्य, सभ्य और गरिमामय तीन दिवसीय संस्कृत सम्मेलन के संबंध में एक संक्षिप्त सर्वेक्षण और वर्णनात्मक परिचय प्रस्तुत किया गया है।

अंतर्राष्ट्रीय नेपाल–भारत संस्कृत सम्मेलन का उद्घाटन सत्र

सम्मेलन का पहला दिन वि.सं. १४ चैत्र २०८० तदनुसार २६ मार्च २०२४ को बुढानीलकण्ठ, काठमांडू में आयोजित संस्कृत सम्मेलन का उद्घाटन समारोह संपन्न हुआ । समारोह के मंच पर नीति अनुसन्धान प्रतिष्ठान, नेपाल (नेनाप) के कार्यकारी निदेशक डॉ. श्री केशवराज पन्थी जी उपस्थित थे, जबकि नेपाल सरकार के ऊर्जा, जलस्रोत और सिंचाई मंत्री माननीय श्री शक्ति बहादुर बस्नेत मुख्य अतिथि के रूप में उपस्थित थे। इसी प्रकार विशिष्ट अतिथियों एवं वक्ताओं में कुलपति प्रो. श्रीनिवास वरखेड़ी (केंद्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, दिल्ली), कुलपति प्रो. यादव प्रकाश लामिछाने (नेपाल संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय) प्रो. शशिप्रभा कुमार (अध्यक्ष, भारतीय उच्च अध्ययन संस्थान, शिमला) वक्ता श्री दिनेश कामत (अखिल भारतीय संगठन मंत्री, संस्कृत भारती), प्रो. काशीनाथ न्यौपाने (चेयर प्रोफेसर, केन्द्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, दिल्ली) अतिथि के रूप में मञ्चासीन रहे।

आयोजक संस्थाओं की ओर से डा. दीपक कुमार अधिकारी, निदेशक, नीति अनुसन्धान प्रतिष्ठान नेपाल (नेनाप) ने सभी का गर्मजोशी से स्वागत किया । उन्होंने स्पष्ट किया कि यह महत्त्वपूर्ण है कि नेपाल और भारत दोनों ही संस्कृत के भी मातृदेश हैं और आयुर्वेद के भी मातृदेश हैं । स्वागत भाषण के दौरान, उन्होंने भारत से पाशुपत क्षेत्र में आए संस्कृत के विद्वानों का स्वागत किया और उन्हें बताया कि यह अनुष्ठान बुढानीलकण्ठ के आसपास शुरू हो गया है और यह पशुपतिनाथ के दर्शन के बाद पूरा होगा ।

प्रो. काशीनाथ न्यौपाने जी ने अपना बीजभाषण देते हुए कहा कि भारत नेपाल का तीर्थस्थल और नेपाल भारत का तीर्थस्थल हैं । भौगोलिक सीमा और राजनीतिक रूप से अलग–अलग देश हैं परन्तु संस्कृत और संस्कृति की दृष्टि से वे एक अभिन्न देश हैं । उनका विचार था कि नेपाल और भारत के बीच सहयोग अपरिहार्य है । उन्होंने सम्मेलन के विषय पर भी जानकारी दी और बताया कि तीन दिवसीय मंथन क्यों और किसलिए है ।

अपने शुभकामना मन्तव्य के दौरान प्रो. शशिप्रभा कुमार ने कहा कि भगवान बुद्ध और माता जानकी की जन्मस्थली नेपाल भारत के लिए भी तीर्थस्थल है, उन्होंने कहा कि भारत के साथ सांस्कृतिक संबंधों में नेपाल के ५ विशिष्टताएँ हैं ।

  1. वैदिक संस्कृति को पर्वतों के राजा हिमालय (अस्त्युतरस्यां दिशि देवतात्मा, हिमालयो नाम नगाधिराजः) द्वारा संरक्षित किया गया है और माउंट एवरेस्ट, जिसे उतुंग कहा जाता है, नेपाल में स्थित है ।
  2. दूसरी महत्त्वपूर्ण कड़ी बौद्ध धर्म की जन्मस्थली नेपाल है । विश्व के ज्ञान के प्रकाश भगवान गौतम बुद्ध की जन्मस्थली होने के कारण नेपाल भारत के लिए तीर्थस्थल बन गया है ।
  3. विक्रम संवत नेपाल और भारत के संबंधों का भी सूत्र बन गया है । विश्व में केवल नेपाल और भारत ही लोकप्रिय हैं कि दोनों देशों में कालक्रम, ज्योतिष आदि एक समान हैं ।
  4. विभिन्न त्यौहार, उत्सव और परंपराएँ नेपाल और भारत के बीच संबंधों के सूत्र भी हैं । दोनों देशों के सांस्कृतिक उत्सव एक जैसे हैं । दोनों देशों में रीति–रिवाज, पहनावा, रहन–सहन में एकरूपता या समानता है । गुरुपूर्णिमा, रक्षाबंधन, होली उत्सव, दिवाली उत्सव, नवदुर्गा उत्सव, श्रीपंचमी, नववर्ष, शिवरात्रि, छठ उत्सव, रामनवमी आदि दोनों देशों में समानरूप से मनाए जाते हैं ।
  5. इसी प्रकार दोनों देशों के ध्येय वाक्यों में भी समानता है । नेपाल का आदर्श वाक्य जननी जन्मभूमिश्च स्वर्गादपि गरीयसी है, जबकि भारत का आदर्श वाक्य सत्यमेव जयते नानृतम् है । चूंकि नेपाल और भारत दोनों वसुधैव कुटुंबकम् को अपनाकर आगे बढ़े हैं, इसलिए हमारे बीच एक सांस्कृतिक एकता है । इस प्रकार पाँच संबंध सूत्रों का प्रतिपादन करते हुए प्रो. शशिप्रभा कुमार जी का विचार था कि नेपाल और भारत सांस्कृतिक दृष्टि से सदैव अविभाज्य रहेंगे ।

वहीं, समारोह के विशिष्ट अतिथि एवं नेपाल संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपति प्रो. यादव प्रकाश लामिछाने ने शुभकामना मन्तव्य देते हुए संस्कृत के महत्त्व और उपयोगिता को बताया और कहा कि संस्कृत नेपाल और भारत की साझा संपत्ति है, इसलिए दोनों देशों को संस्कृत के प्रचार और प्रसार के लिए अध्ययन और अनुसंधान पर जोर देना चाहिए ।

समारोह के मुख्यवक्ता प्रो. श्रीनिवास वरखेड़ी (कुलाधिपति केन्द्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, दिल्ली) ने मन्तव्य के क्रम में कहा कि नेपाल और भारत दो शरीर लेकिन एक आत्मा वाले देश हैं, भारत का विकास करते समय नेपाल का भी विकास करना आवश्यक है, विकास की जड़ शिक्षा है, हम सक्षम हैं संस्कृत के उत्थान के लिए । और यदि हम पौरस्त्य शिक्षा प्रणाली को अपनाकर आगे बढ़ सकें, तो हमारे दोनों देश समृद्ध होंगे और दो साल के भीतर नेपाल और भारत दोनों एकत्र होकर शिक्षाका नेतृत्व लेंगे ।

नेपाल को वैदिक धर्म और बौद्ध धर्म का उद्गम स्थल मानते हुए, नेपाल सदैव एक शाश्वत राष्ट्र के रूप में एक अजेय स्वतंत्र राष्ट्र रहा है, सीता की जन्मभूमि नेपाल मर्यादा और अनुशासन का सम्मान करने वाला देश है, संस्कृत न केवल एक प्राचीन भाषा है बल्कि संस्कृत नेपाल और भारत का भविष्य है । नयाँ पाठ्यक्रम बनाया जाए । संस्कृत में लघु वीडियो बनाना चाहिए । उन्होंने सामाजिक अभियान चलाने जैसे महत्त्वपूर्ण सुझाव भी दिये ।

समारोह के विशिष्ट अतिथि एवं संस्कृत भारती के अखिल भारतीय संगठन मंत्री श्री दिनेश कामत जी ने अपना उद्बोधन के क्रम में नेपाल को देवभूमि बताते हुए कहा कि नेपाल भगवान विष्णु की रचना अर्थात अमूल्य प्रतिमा की भूमि है । विष्णु का आभूषण शालग्राम शिला नेपाल (कृष्णगंडकी) में पाया जा सकता है, भगवान् शिव का रत्न रुद्राक्ष नेपाल में पाया जाता है । नेपाल और भारत सांस्कृतिक रूप से एक दूसरे पर निर्भर या अभिन्न देश हैं, एक ही संस्कृति है । उन्होंने उपस्थित सभी लोगों से प्रतिदिन दो घंटे दिए जाने पर दस दिनों में संस्कृत सीखने का भी आग्रह किया । उन्होंने हम से संस्कृत पढ़ने और अध्ययन करने का आग्रह किया क्योंकि हजारों साल पहले से ही संस्कृत दोनों देशों की संपत्ति है, जिसमें ज्योतिषशास्त्र भी शामिल है, जहां सूर्योदय, मास, पक्ष आदि की गणना की गई है ।

समारोह के मुख्य अतिथि एवं ऊर्जा, जलस्रोत तथा सिंचाई मंत्री माननीय शक्ति बहादुर बस्नेत जी ने सम्मेलन की पूर्ण सफलता की कामना करते हुए कहा कि संस्कृत भाषा एवं संस्कृति नेपाल एवं भारत के सांस्कृतिक संबंधों को जोड़ने का एक सशक्त माध्यम है। वहीं प्राचीन संस्कृति और संस्कृत में निहित ज्ञान–विज्ञान को आधुनिक जीवन शैली से जोड़ने की आवश्यकता पर विचार करना आज आवश्यक है ।

उद्घाटन समारोह के सभापति डा. केशवराज पंथी (नीति अनुसन्धान प्रतिष्ठान, नेपाल के कार्यकारी निदेशक) ने सम्मेलन की समापन करते हुए कहा की कि १६ भारतीय विश्वविद्यालयों के कुलपतियों और नेपाल संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपतियों की उपस्थिति और ३० से अधिक संस्थानों के प्रतिनिधियों की भागीदारी ने इस संस्कृत सम्मेलन को भव्य बनाया है । उद्घाटन समारोह का कार्यक्रम संस्कृत भाषा में सम्मेलन के संयोजक डॉ. प्रेमराज न्यौपाने ने सञ्चालन किया ।

इस प्रकार, नेपाल–भारत संस्कृत सम्मेलन के उद्घाटन समारोह में नेपाल और भारत के समाज के विभिन्न क्षेत्रों से प्रतिष्ठित व्यक्तियों की उपस्थिति संख्या लगभग ५०० थी । उद्घाटन समारोह का कार्यक्रम शाम छह बजे से आठ बजे तक आयोजित किया गया था, साथ ही कार्यक्रम से पहले शाम ४ बजे से स्वागत चाय से सभी का स्वागत किया गया और कार्यक्रम खत्म होने के बाद शाम ७ बजे से सभी के लिए रात्रि भोज की व्यवस्था की गई थी ।

अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत सम्मेलन – द्वितीय दिवस

नेपाल–भारत अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत सम्मेलन के दूसरे दिन परिचर्चा सत्र आयोजित किये गये । चर्चा सत्रों में विभिन्न विद्वानों के अवधारणा पत्र प्रस्तुत किये गये । जिनका संक्षेप में यहां अलग से उल्लेख किया गया है ।

प्रथम सत्र

प्रथम सत्र के अध्यक्षता प्रो. काशीनाथ न्यौपाने ने किया और वक्ताओं में डॉ. दिनेश कामत, प्रो. विजय कुमार सी. जी., डॉ. माधव प्रसाद लामिछाने, प्रो. दिनेश शास्त्री एवं डा. उत्तम पौडेल थे । इस सत्र की शुरुआत प्रो. काशीनाथ न्यौपाने के स्वागत भाषण से हुई और उन्होंने कार्यक्रम की अध्यक्षता किया ।

  • प्रथम वक्ता प्रो. विजयकुमार सी. जी. ने अपने भाषण के दौरान संस्कृत के प्रचार और संरक्षण के लिए कहा कि निम्नलिखित ३ पहलू आवश्यक हैं – क. भाषा शिक्षण (भाषा शिक्षण के लिए आवश्यक प्रयास), ख. शास्त्रशिक्षण (गीता, भागवत आदि शास्त्र शिक्षणार्थ प्रयास आवश्यक), ग. जीवनशिक्षण (जीवनोपयोगी संस्कृत को ज्ञान शिक्षण आवश्यक)।
  • श्री दिनेश कामत (मुख्य वक्ता) ने भी निम्नलिखित ३ सूत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा कि संस्कृत के विकास के लिए संस्कृत का क्यों समझना आवश्यक है –
    • भाषिक दृष्टि से संस्कृत आवश्यक – चूँकि नेपाल भारत में बोली जाने वाली भाषाओं की मातृभाषा संस्कृत है, इसलिए जो लोग नेपाली या हिंदी बोलना जानते हैं वे आसानी से संस्कृत बोल सकते हैं। तकनीकी युग के कारण संस्कृत में पारिभाषिक शब्दों का निर्माण आवश्यक है। आवश्यकता है कि केवल उन्हीं लोगों को संस्कृत पढ़ने की आदत से छुटकारा दिलाया जाए जिनकी अन्यत्र गति नहीं है और ऐसा वातावरण बनाया जाए कि हर कोई संस्कृत पढ़े। लार्ड मैकाले की शिक्षा पद्धति को स्वीकार करने के कारण हमारा रहन–सहन, पहनावा, आचरण आदि खराब हो गये हैं । इसलिए जीवनशैली में सुधार के साथ–साथ भाषाई दृष्टि से भी संस्कृत पढ़ना जरूरी है ।
    • भावैक्य निर्माण हेतु संस्कृत – नेपाली या भारतीय की भावना में एकता है । संस्कृत ने हमें सहिष्णु बनाया है । संस्कृत ही सभी में समादर की भावना विकसित करती है । संस्कृत सार्वभौमिक है । हम मुस्लिम, ईसाई और अन्य संप्रदायों का भी सम्मान करते हैं ।’ राष्ट्रीय भावना की एकता के लिए संस्कृत अपरिहार्य है । संस्कृत सबकी भाषा है, हृदय की भाषा है।
    • जातिगत भेदभाव समाप्त करने के लिए संस्कृत – यह आरोप गलत है कि संस्कृत केवल ब्राह्मणों की भाषा है । क्या अगस्त्य जन्म से ब्राह्मण हैं ? कुम्भोद्भवः (टेस्ट्युव वेवी) और उसे किस प्रकार की जाति माना जाता है ? व्यास की माता सत्यवती का जन्म और पालन–पोषण मत्स्यगंधा के घर में हुआ था । इन सभी पौराणिक सन्दर्भों पर विचार करें तो संस्कृत किसी जाति विशेष की भाषा न होकर सभी जातियों की भाषा है ।
  • प्रो लक्ष्मी निवास पांडेय संस्कृत के महत्त्व को दर्शाते हुए कहते हैं कि संस्कृत वस्तुतः संस्कृत सर्वहितकारी है। पश्चिम ने हमें बीमारी दी है, जबकि पूरब ने हमें योग दिया है। पहले संस्कृत भाषा संपूर्ण भारत की आम भाषा थी, संस्कृत देवताओं, पितरों और राक्षसों की भी भाषा है। इसलिए उन्होंने कहा कि अमर भाषा संस्कृत कभी भी मृत भाषा नहीं बन सकती और सबसे पहले संस्कृत को घर–घर पहुंचाने की जरूरत है, गृहिणियों को संस्कृत सिखाने की। वस्तुतः संस्कृत एक भाषा है, संस्कृत एक धर्म है, संस्कृत एक संस्कृति है और संस्कृत एक जीवन पद्धति है।
  • डॉ. माधव प्रसाद लामिछाने ने नेपालशाक्तपरंपरायां भारतीयशाक्ताचार्यणामवदानञ्च शीर्षक से एक शोधपत्र प्रस्तुत किया। यह विचार सामने रखा गया कि नेपाल और भारत को नेपाल में मौजूद संस्कृत पांडुलिपियों के संपादन और प्रकाशन में सहयोग करना चाहिए, जिसमें नेपाल और भारत की शाक्त परंपराओं और आचार्य के योगदान पर प्रकाश डाला जाए।

द्वितीय सत्र

दूसरे चर्चासत्र का विषय वेदवेदांग परंपरा था। इस सत्र की अध्यक्षता प्रो. प्रफुल्ल कुमार मिश्र ने की, जबकि प्रो. आनंद प्रसाद घिमिरे, प्रो. ललित कुमार त्रिपाठी, प्रो. सत्यम कुमारी, प्रो. रानी सदाशिवमूर्ति, प्रो. गौरी माहुलीकर और प्रो. उपेन्द्र कुमार त्रिपाठी ने वेदवेदांग पर चर्चा प्रस्तुत की।

  • सत्र के अध्यक्ष प्रो. प्रफुल्ल कुमार मिश्र ने वेदों की शिक्षा के लिए वेद पाठशालाओं की आवश्यकता जताई और कहा कि भारत के विभिन्न राज्यों और पड़ोसी देशों में भी वेद पाठशालाएं एवं गुरुकुल संचालित किये जाने चाहिए। यह भी विचार किया गया कि तपोभूमि नेपाल में गरुकुल वेदशाला खोलकर संस्कृत का विकास किया जाये।
  • प्रो. रानी सदाशिव मूर्ति ने वेदों के निरंतर, गहन और गहन पाठ की आवश्यकता व्यक्त की और सुझाव दिया कि संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय में पौरोहित्य कर्म की स्थापना की जानी चाहिए।
  • प्रो. ललित कुमार त्रिपाठी का विचार था कि भारत को दो भागों में विभाजित किया जा सकता है, राजनीतिक भारत और सांस्कृतिक भारत, राजनीति या भूगोल की दृष्टि से नेपाल और भारत अलग–अलग देश हैं, लेकिन सांस्कृतिक दृष्टि से नेपाल और भारत एक हैं। इसी तरह, उन्होंने पुष्टि की कि नेपाल एक बौद्धिक केंद्र एवं ज्ञान की भूमि है। नेपाल के धौलागिरि क्षेत्र में आर्य वाल्मिकी ऋषि द्वारा रामायण की रचना करने का प्रमाण पुराणों में मिलता है। रामायणं काव्यं मुनेः परमशोभनांच, उन्होंने चिंता व्यक्त करते हुए कहा कि ऐसी ऋषिभूमि, तपोभूमि, शांतिभूमि नेपाल भी हाल के दिनों में राजनीतिक कारणों से प्रदूषित हो रही है।
  • वेदवेदांग पर चर्चा करते हुए प्रो. सत्यम कुमारी ने कहा कि वेद हमारे सभी धर्मों की आत्मा है और वेदार्थ के निर्धारण के लिए वेदांग का अध्ययन आवश्यक है।
  • प्रो. उपेन्द्र कुमार त्रिपाठी ने कहा कि नेपाल और भारत का शरीर अलग है लेकिन आत्मा एक है। आज भी भारत में काशी विद्या की नगरी के रूप में प्रतिष्ठित है, जैसे न्याय न मिले तो गोरखा चले जाते हैं और ज्ञान खो जाए तो काशी चले जाते हैं। आज भी धर्मसंकट में काशी के विद्वानों की राय निर्णायक बन रही है। काशीनाथ और पशुपतिनाथ की एकता ही नेपाल और भारत की एकता है। यह विचार कि एकीकरण का माध्यम वैदिक धर्म और संस्कृत या वैदिक साहित्य है।
  • प्रो. आनंद प्रसाद घिमिरे ने पर्यावरण विज्ञान विषय पर वेदों में निहित विचारों को अपने शोधपत्र के माध्यम से प्रस्तुत किया। यह कहते हुए कि वेदों में पर्यावरण के बारे में बहुत कुछ सोचा गया है, उन्होंने वेदों के पर्यावरणीय पहलुओं जैसे द्यौः शान्तिरन्तरिक्षशान्तिः, मधुववता…, विश्वनिदेव… आदि की चर्चा की।
  • प्रो. गौरी माहुलीकर ने वेदों की चर्चा करते हुए कहा कि निरुक्त वेदों का महत्त्वपूर्ण अंग है। उन्होंने निरुक्त पर काम करने के लिए नेपाल संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय और भारतीय विश्वविद्यालय के साथ सहयोग करने का प्रस्ताव रखा था। इसीलिए उन्होंने कहा कि नेपाल नाक की भूमि है, कम् सुखम्, नाकाम – अकाम = कष्ट, न अकम् इति नाकम्। ऐसा राष्ट्र नाक, नक्षदेशः सुखभूमि की व्युत्पत्ति प्रदर्शित करके नेपाल को मोक्ष भूमि के रूप में जाना जाता था।
  • वेदवेदांग सत्र के अध्यक्ष प्रो. प्रफुल्ल कुमार मिश्र ने वेदांगमय के संरक्षण के लिए विद्वज्जन के प्रति आभार व्यक्त करते हुए वेदों के संरक्षण के लिए महत्त्वपूर्ण विचार व्यक्त किये। इस प्रकार यह सत्र समाप्त हुआ।

तृतीय सत्र

तृतीय परिचर्चा सत्र का विषय राष्ट्रिय शिक्षा नीति को क्रियान्वयन एवं नेपाल पर इसका प्रभाव था। इस सत्र की सभाध्यक्षता श्री लाल बहादुर शास्त्री राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपति प्रो. मुरली मनोहर पाठक जी की, तथा अन्य वक्ताओं के रूप में प्रो. लक्ष्मीनिवास पाण्डेय, कुलपति, कामेश्वरसिंह दरभङ्गा संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय), प्रो. शिशिरकुमार पाण्डेय, कुलपति, जगद्गुरु रामभद्राचार्य दिव्याङ्ग राज्य विश्वविद्यालय, प्रो. सर्वनारायण झा (निर्देशक केन्द्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय), प्रो. भागवत ढकाल (प्राचार्य नेपाल संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, वाल्मीकि विद्यापीठ, डा. प्रकाश तिवारी, आचार्य, नेपाल संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय एवं प्रो. वनमाली बिस्वाल, अधिष्ठाता, केन्द्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय – सभी ने इस परिचर्चा समारोह सहभागिता की। इस  सत्र का संयोजन एवं सञ्चालन प्रो. श्रीगोविन्द पाण्डेय, निर्देशक, केन्द्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, गुरुवायूर परिसर, त्रिस्सूर, केरल ने किया।

  • प्रो. सर्व नारायण झा ने कहा कि ऐसी व्यवस्था है कि जो छात्र उत्तीर्ण नहीं हुए हैं, वे केंद्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय में विभिन्न विषयों की पढ़ाई कर सकते हैं। यह सोचा गया कि पश्चिमी शिक्षाप्रणाली को त्यागकर राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति (2020) को अपनाकर शिक्षा में सुधार किया जा सकता है और भारत को समृद्ध बनाया जा सकता है। यह कहते हुए कि विभिन्न पाठ्यक्रमों को एक विश्वविद्यालय में विकसित और भेजा जा सकता है। उन्होंने यह अवधारणा प्रस्तुत की कि समृद्ध नेपाल और खुशहाल नेपाली बनाने के लिए नेपाल को भूमि पर आधारित एक नई शिक्षा नीति भी विकसित करनी चाहिए।
  • प्रो. भागवत ढकाल ने कहा कि लार्ड मेकाले द्वारा लागू की गई शिक्षा नीति ने नेपाल में एक अजीब स्थिति पैदा कर दी है, जिसे यतो यतः समीहसे, द्यौः शान्तिः जैसे वेदमंत्रों का पालन करके हम विश्व में शांति स्थापित कर सकते हैं। यह तर्क दिया गया कि देश एवं माटी, भूमि या समाज की आवश्यकताओं को पूरा करने के उद्देश्य से एक नई शिक्षा नीति बनाई जानी चाहिए, यह देखते हुए कि संस्कृत शिक्षा की कमी के कारण आज घर में समस्याएँ पैदा हो रही हैं। प्रत्येक कार्य के लिए विदेशी आर्थिक सहायता प्राप्त करने की अनिवार्यता के कारण नेपाल अपनी स्वतंत्र शैक्षिक नीति एवं पाठ्यक्रम नहीं बना सका है, इस तथ्य को प्रस्तुत करते हुए संस्कृत के सुधार से राष्ट्र समृद्ध होगा, इस विश्वास के साथ समाज अनुशासित बनेगा केवल मातृ देवो भव, पितृदेवो भव, आचार्य देवो भव, आचार्य देवो भव, और स्वाध्यायप्रवचनाभ्यम् जैसे दीक्षा मंत्रों का पालन करके सोचा था।
  • डॉ. प्रकाश तिवारी ने नेपालभारतयोरात्मीयसम्बन्धस्य मूलं संस्कृतम् शीर्षक से शोधपत्र प्रस्तुत किया। प्रके दौरान उनका मानना था कि नेपाल और भारत की ज्ञान परंपराएं अविभाज्य हैं और उन्होंने निष्कर्ष निकाला कि शास्त्र परंपरा के विकास के लिए कई गुरुकुल, आश्रम और विश्वविद्यालयों की स्थापना और संचालन किया जाना चाहिए।
  • सत्र के अध्यक्ष प्रो. मुरलीमनोहर पाठक ने बताया कि भारत पर पश्चिम का नियंत्रण होने के कारण भारत में पश्चिमी शिक्षा नीति लागू करनी पड़ी, जिसके कारण भारत में प्राचीन गुरुकुल ध्वस्त हो गये। तीसरे सत्र का चर्चा सत्र इस सुझाव के साथ संपन्न हुआ कि नेपाल को भी अपनी क्षेत्रीय शिक्षा नीति विकसित और लागू करनी चाहिए, जिसमें कहा गया कि भारत में राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति और भारतीय शिक्षा नीति के लागू होने के बाद उत्साह में स्पष्ट वृद्धि हुई है।

चतुर्थ सत्र

दूसरे दिन की चर्चा के चौथे सत्र में भारत और नेपाल में विज्ञान अध्ययन की दशा और दिशा पर चर्चा की गयी. वाल्मिकी विश्वविद्यालय के समारोह का संचालन प्रो. शांतिकृष्ण अधिकारी ने किया। समारोह की अध्यक्षता भारतीय दार्शनिक अनुसंधान परिषद के सचिव प्रो. सचिदानंद मिश्र ने किया, जबकि वक्ताओं में कविकुलगुरु कालिदास संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपति प्रो. हरेराम त्रिपाठी, सोमनाथ संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपति प्रो. सुकांत कुमार सेनापति, जगद्गुरु रामभद्राचार्य राजस्थान विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपति प्रो. रामसेवक दुबे, केंद्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, भोपाल परिसर के निदेशक प्रो. रमाकान्त पांडेय, काशी हिंदू विश्वविद्यालय के प्रो. ब्रजभूषण ओझा एवं डा. रघुनाथ अधिकारी रहे। इस बैठक में सभी विद्वान वक्ताओं ने नेपाल और भारत में विज्ञान अध्ययन की दिशा और दशा पर गहन विचार प्रस्तुत किये।

 

  • प्रो. सुकांत कुमार सेनापति ने शास्त्रों के अध्ययन की स्थिति और दिशा के बारे में बोलते हुए कहा कि शास्त्र दो प्रकार के होते हैंः भौतिकवादी और आत्म–दार्शनिक। धर्मग्रंथों की रक्षा कैसे करें? प्रश्न के संबंध में उन्होंने कहा कि शास्त्रों की रक्षा स्वाध्याय, प्रवचन, प्रशिक्षण और शोध से ही की जा सकती है, साथ ही शास्त्रों की रक्षा के लिए परिश्रम, त्याग, धैर्य और सकारात्मक सोच जरूरी है।
  • प्रो. हरेराम त्रिपाठी ने नेपाल एवं भारत में शास्त्रों के अध्ययन की दशा एवं दिशा पर चर्चा करते हुए कहा कि शास्त्रों की प्रवृत्त त्रिधा – क. प्रयोजन, ख. लक्षण, ग. परीक्षण है। राष्ट्र निर्माण के छह प्रकल्प प्रस्तुत किये – क. मंदिर, ख. अध्ययन, ग. सेवा, घ. उत्सव, ङ. सद्भाव एवं च. कौशल विकास शामिल हैं। इसी तरह उन्होंने कहा कि नेपाल और भारत में ज्ञानपरंपराओं में समानता है और एक व्यापक आधुनिक संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय चलाया जाना चाहिए, इसकी अवधारणा और प्रस्ताव प्रस्तुत किया। नेपाल और भारत के बीच समन्वय जो विदेशी छात्रों को भी आकर्षित करेगा।
  • सत्र के अंत में प्रो. शांतिकृष्ण अधिकारी ने नेपाल में संस्कृत अध्ययन की स्थिति के बारे में एक तथ्यात्मक पेपर भी प्रस्तुत किया और अध्यक्ष प्रो. सच्चिदानंद मिश्र ने चर्चा में भाग लेने वाले सभी वक्ताओं और दर्शकों को धन्यवाद ज्ञापन के साथ बैठक का समापन किया।

नेपाल–भारत अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत सम्मेलन – तृतीय दिवस

मिति २०८० चैत्र १६ गते तदनुसार मार्च २९, २०२४ शुक्रवार दिन, चतुर्थ सत्र अन्तर्गत बहुशास्त्रीय संस्कृताध्यययन विषय में विद्वद्गोष्ठी सम्पन्न हुई। नेपाल संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय का पूर्वकुलपति प्रो. पूर्णचन्द्र ढुङ्गेल को सभाध्यक्षता में सम्पन्न उक्त समारोह में श्री श्री विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपति प्रो. बी. आर. शर्मा, गुरुकुल काङ्गडी विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपति प्रो. सोमदेव शतांशु, चिन्मय इन्टरनेशनल फाउण्डेसन की प्रो. गौरी माहुलीकर, नेपाल संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के प्रो. लालमणि पाण्डेय ने संस्कृत अध्ययन के सम्बन्ध  में महत्त्वपूर्ण विचार रखे। इस समारोह का सञ्चालन त्रिभुवन विश्वविद्यालय के संस्कृत विभागाध्यक्ष प्रो. माधवप्रसाद उपाध्याय ने किया।

समारोह में अध्यक्ष प्रो. पूर्णचन्द्र ढुंगेल ने आयोजकों के प्रति धन्यवाद एवं आभार व्यक्त करते हुए कहा कि नेपाल भारत संस्कृत सम्मेलन बहुत ही सफलतापूर्वक सम्पन्न हुआ और विचार व्यक्त करते हुए चर्चा का समापन किया कि जो लोग संस्कृत नहीं पढ़ते वे जीवन के अर्थ से वंचित हैं तथा जो संस्कृत पढ़ते हैं उनका जीवन सार्थक होता है।

सम्मेलन का समापन

चर्चासत्र के बाद दिन में समापन समारोह आयोजित किया गया। केंद्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपति अध्यक्ष प्रो. श्रीनिवास वरखेड़ी थे और दो दिन का सम्मान ऋषिकल्प गुरु आचार्य प्रो. पूर्णचंद्र ढुंगेल को समर्पित था, जो तीनों दिन उपस्थित रहे और बैठक की शोभा बढ़ाई। समापन समारोह में मुख्य अतिथि के रूप में इंडिया फाउंडेशन के अध्यक्ष डा. राम माधव उपस्थित रहे। नीति अनुसंधान संस्थान, नेपाल (नेनाप) के निदेशक डॉ. दीपक कुमार अधिकारी, संस्कृत सम्मेलन के संयोजक डा. प्रेमराज न्यौपाने एवं भारत समन्वयक डा. नितिन कुमार जैन ने सम्मेलन के अंत में अपने विचार रखे और सभी को धन्यवाद ज्ञापन किया ।

तीन दिनों में समाहित किए गए समग्र विषयों का सारसंग्रह डॉ. प्रेमराज न्यूपाने द्वारा प्रस्तुत किया गया। डॉ. दीपक कुमार अधिकारी ने सम्मेलन का आयोजन क्यों किया गया इस पर अपनी राय प्रस्तुत करते हुए कहा कि हमें समाज के उस बड़े वर्ग तक पहुंचने के लिए काम करना चाहिए जो संस्कृत में रुचि रखते हैं लेकिन उन्होंने संस्कृत का अध्ययन नहीं किया है।

केंद्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के कुलपति आयोजकों की ओर से प्रो. श्रीनिवास बरखेड़ी ने इस बात पर गहन विचार व्यक्त किये कि हम भविष्य में भी सभी की भागीदारी से संस्कृत गतिविधियों का नेतृत्व करें तथा सभी समर्थकों को धन्यवाद दिया। डॉ. नितिन कुमार जैन ने सभी का आभार व्यक्त किया। इसी प्रकार सभी प्रतिभागियों का ग्रूप फोटो खींचकर एवं संस्कृत सम्मेलन का स्मृति चिन्ह देकर संस्कृत सम्मेलन का विधिवत समापन किया गया।

संकल्पपत्र

नेपाल और भारत की प्रसिद्ध संस्कृत विद्वान विदुषी और विभिन्न संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालयों के कुलाधिपति, उपकुलपति, प्रोफेसरों के साथ संस्कृत पर चर्चाएँ बहुत भव्य, सभ्य और सफल रहीं। संस्कृत सम्मेलन ने संस्कृत भाषा और संस्कृत में निहित ज्ञानमीमांसा के प्रचार, अध्ययन, अनुसंधान और उत्खनन के कार्य में निम्नलिखित संकल्प जारी किया। अंतर्राष्ट्रीय नेपाल–भारत–संस्कृत सम्मेलन का संकल्प पत्र–

  • नेपाल में संस्कृत शिक्षा में गुणात्मक सुधार के लिए प्रयास करने हेतु नेपाल में नीति अनुसंधान संस्थान के माध्यम से नेपाल में संस्कृत पांडुलिपियों का अध्ययन, संपादन और प्रकाशन करना।
  • नेपाल की ज्ञान प्रणाली पर आधारित अर्थव्यवस्था और शिक्षा प्रणाली के लिए समर्थन और आयुर्वेद प्राकृतिक चिकित्सा आदि के अध्ययन में सहयोग।
  • नेपाल के गुरुकुलों और शैक्षणिक संस्थानों में पढ़ने वाले छात्रों के व्यावसायिक विकास के लिए और भारत में शैक्षिक गुणवत्ता को बढ़ावा देने के लिए, नेपाल में गुरुकुलों और अन्य संस्कृत संस्थानों के पुस्तकालयों को सहायता प्रदान करना।
  • प्रत्येक वर्ष क्रमशः नेपाल और भारत में अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संस्कृत सम्मेलन आयोजित करना।
  • महर्षि सांदीपनि राष्ट्रिय वेदविद्या प्रतिष्ठान, उज्जैन, मध्य प्रदेश, भारत द्वारा नेपाल में गुरुकुलों के विकास हेतु सहायता प्रदान करना।

धन्यवाद ज्ञापन

नेपाल में नेपाल भारत संस्कृत सम्मेलन के आयोजन में नीति अनुसंधान प्रतिष्ठान, नेपाल (नेनाप) के निदेशक डा. दीपक कुमार अधिकारी की सक्रियता के कारण सम्मेलन आसानी से संपन्न हुआ। इसी तरह, नीति अनुसंधान प्रतिष्ठान, नेपाल (नेनाप) के निदेशक कार्यालय के कार्यकारी निदेशक डा. केशवराज पंथी की सक्रियता के कारण सम्मेलन में सभी कार्य निर्धारित समय पर पूर्ण करने में आसानी हुई। अतः नीति अनुसंधान प्रतिष्ठान नेपाल की पूरी टीम का हार्दिक आभार व्यक्त करते हैं।

केंद्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय, दिल्ली के कुलपति प्रो. श्रीनिवास वरखेड़ी जी की भूमिका एवं संकल्प सराहनीय है। कार्यक्रम समन्वयक का दायित्व निभाने हेतु केन्द्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के डा. नितिन कुमार जैन ने बहुत मदद की है। भारत से आने वाले सभी महत्त्वपूर्ण लोगों से सम्पर्क एवं व्यवस्था में डा. नितिन कुमार जी की प्रमुख भूमिका रही। धर्मराज जी  और सम्मेलन स्थल पार्क विलेज रिसॉर्ट के पूरे स्टाफ के योगदान को भी यहां याद करना आवश्यक है। उद्घाटन के अवसर पर समाज के विभिन्न स्तरों के गणमान्य व्यक्तियों की उपस्थिति से हमें सम्मानित किया गया। इसी प्रकार मैं इंडिया फाउंडेशन, केंद्रीय संस्कृत विश्वविद्यालय के सभी शुभचिन्तकों का हृदय से आभार व्यक्त करता हूं।

प्रबंधकीय पहलू से जुड़े वित्तीय पहलू की व्यवस्था में मदद करने वाला समाज का प्रत्येक व्यक्ति एवं संगठन धन्यवाद का पात्र है।

डॉ. प्रेमराज न्यौपाने

कार्यक्रम संयोजक

नेपाल–भारत अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत सम्मेलन

 

Tibet Talks- 4 – The Indian Himalayas and Tibet

India Foundation organised the fourth session of the Round-Table Discussions in the ongoing “Tibet Talks” series. The topic for this session was ‘The Indian Himalayas and Tibet’. The session was addressed by Tenzin Tsundue, a Tibetan writer and activist. The Round-Table Discussion took place on 28th March 2024, at the India Foundation office, with the session being chaired by Major Gen Dhruv Katoch, Director, India Foundation.

The speaker’s presentation encompasses diverse facets of Tibetan culture, spanning language, arts, medicine, and cuisine, delineating its geographical and cultural significance. Tibet’s vast expanse, equivalent to 2.5 million square kilometres, belies its often misconceived stature as a small, subterranean nation. In Tenzin Tsundue’s speech, he highlighted the complex dynamics of borders and tribal communities, focusing on the symbiotic relationship between India and Tibet. Tsundue reflected on local customs and interactions along the border, revealing a nuanced understanding of historical treaties and modern geopolitical challenges. He emphasized the significance of bilateral agreements, particularly the 1914, McMohan treaty between Tibet and India. Tsundue underscores China’s contentious stance on territorial disputes and asserts the enduring relevance of historical treaties in understanding contemporary geopolitics. This discourse seeks to illuminate Tibet’s rich tapestry, intricately woven into the fabric of India, bridging diverse cultures and landscapes across the region. The Round-Table Discussion was attended by the young Tibetan diaspora in India, Former Diplomats, Entrepreneurs, Indian scholars, and the India Foundation team.

 

Rajasthan Young Thinkers Meet

Under the aegis of India Foundation, Rajasthan Thinkers Forum organised the 1st Rajasthan Young Thinkers Meet in Jaipur on 08-10 March, 2024. The Meet was graced by the presence of Shri Kalraj Mishra, Hon’ble Governor of Rajasthan. The Meet was attended by young delegates across Rajasthan.

Interaction with Dr David Santoro, President & CEO, Pacific Forum

India Foundation hosted an interaction with Dr David Santoro, President & CEO of Pacific Forum on March 05, 2024, in New Delhi. Dr Santoro discussed the strategic significance of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) which is considerable and growing. It consists of vast and diverse maritime geography of several subregions, including the Indian subcontinent, parts of Australia and Southeast Asia, West Asia, and Eastern and Southern Africa.

He highlighted in his lecture how should the United States approach the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). The United States recognizes the importance of maintaining a peaceful, secure, and prosperous IOR. In recent years, Washington has embraced the terminology “Indo-Pacific,” as opposed to “Asia-Pacific,” and in 2018 it renamed the US Pacific Command the US Indo-Pacific Command. Even if US strategy documents say little about the IOR, several US officials have recently stressed that Washington is committed to elevating its engagement there, notably through new partnerships.

Dr Santoro during the deliberations focussed on the problems and challenges. He mentioned that the US bureaucracy is not structured to engage the IOR. The US Department of State approaches it through four different bureaus: African Affairs, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Near Eastern Affairs, and South and Central Asian Affairs. The US Department of Defense, for its part, separates it into three combatant commands: the Indo-Pacific Command, Central Command, and Africa Command. These divisions make it difficult for the United States to appreciate and address the dynamics of the IOR as a whole, especially maritime developments.

Another problem is that the United States does not include the Western Indian Ocean or the eastern coast of Africa in its conceptualization of the Indo-Pacific, unlike India, Australia, Japan, and a few others. The US framing of the Indo-Pacific coincides with the Indo-Pacific Command’s area of responsibility, which ends with India. That further complicates the US’s ability to craft a unified strategy for the IOR.

Dr Santoro in conclusion strongly advocated that partnering with India, the predominant IOR power, should be priority number one. The United States should build upon the recent flurry of cooperation agreements it has concluded with India and work out ways it can best support Indian activities in the IOR.

International Conference on ‘Integral Humanism: Perspectives of Deendayal Upadhyay and Jacques Maritain’

March 4-5, 2024 at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi

India Foundation, in collaboration with Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Chair at Banaras Hindu University, and supported by the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), organised an International Conference on ‘Integral Humanism: Perspectives of Deendayal Upadhyay and Jacques Maritain’ on March 4-5, 2024. The conference provided an academic forum to discuss the Indian and Western perspectives on ‘Integral Humanism’, particularly focussing on the views of Deendayal Upadhyay and Jacques Maritain. It aimed to explore various dimensions of the concept of ‘Integral Humanism’, including its social, philosophical and political dimensions along with its economic implications.

Under the broader rubric of Integral Humanism, the Inaugural Address of the conference on March 04, 2024, was delivered by Prof. Anil Sahasrabudhe, Chairman, National Educational Technology Forum. He focused on Integral Humanism, linking it to the Indian knowledge systems and sustainable development of the society. Discussing the praxis of Integral Humanism in Indian governance, he explained the significance of National Education Policy and its blending of value-based education with holistic development of the human being.

Dr. Ram Madhav, President, India Foundation, delivered the Keynote Address in the Inaugural Session of the  Conference. He emphasized on the philosophical foundations of Integral Humanism as propounded by Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay and Jacques Maritain. He highlighted upon the idea of ‘Integral Humanism’, and delved on the convergences and divergences of both the thinkers. He explained how Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay developed the idea of ‘Integral Humanism’ from the concept of ‘Dharma’, while Jacques Maritain derived his theory of ‘Integral Humanism’ from ‘Christendom’. Despite the cultural differences, both the thinkers displayed striking similarities in their thought and raised common concerns sharing a commitment to the holistic development of human beings within the framework of a just and harmonious society.

The Inaugural Session was chaired by Prof. Arun Kumar Singh, Registrar, Banaras Hindu University. Prof. Tej Pratap Singh, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Chair at Banaras Hindu University, delivered the Welcome Address. The Inaugural Session of the conference brought together eminent academicians and senior scholars, thinkers and philosophers from across India and abroad to deliberate on the theory and praxis of Integral Humanism as it has evolved both in India and the West. The conference was attended by eminent faculty members, research scholars, and students of Banaras Hindu University, and eminent citizens of Varanasi.

Dr. Ram Madhav, President, India Foundation, chaired the Plenary Session on ‘Integral Humanism of Deendayal Upadhyay and Jacques Maritain: A Comparative Study’ on the first day of the conference. The session was addressed by eminent scholars including Prof. Chandrakala Padia, Former Vice Chancellor, Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Prof. Timothy Samuel Shah, Distinguished Research Scholar in Politics, University of Dallas, and Mr. Come Carpentier, Distinguished Fellow, India Foundation. The speakers elaborated on the philosophical, social and cultural roots of Integral Humanism, both in the worldview of Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay and Jacques Maritain. Through a structured comparative analysis of both the thinkers, they highlighted the overlapping spaces in their worldview, which provided promising avenues for further research on the subject, and showed the possibility of sparking a global dialogue on Integral Humanism.

The Plenary Session was followed by two parallel sessions of academic paper presentations by young scholars, budding researchers and professors, on the broad theme of Integral Humanism. Scholars from various academic institutions put forth their arguments and ideas about Integral Humanism, situating them either in a comparative analysis or by developing on the practical and theoretical aspects of Integral Humanism. The two parallel sessions were chaired by Prof. Amarnath Mohanty, Head, Department of Political Science, Banaras Hindu University (BHU), and Dr. Guru Prakash Paswan, Visiting Fellow, India Foundation.

On March 05, 2024, Day 2 of the Conference began with the Special Keynote Session on the theme of the conference. The Special Keynote Address was delivered by Prof. Santishree Pandit, Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The session was chaired by Prof. R C Sinha, Former Chairman, Indian Council for Philosophical Research. Prof. Pandit delved into the spiritual and cultural roots of the idea of Integral Humanism. The session was moderated by Dr. Sonu Trivedi, Distinguished Fellow, India Foundation.

The first working session on ‘Social Dimension of Integral Humanism’ was addressed by Prof. Shri Prakash Singh, Director, South Campus, University of Delhi, and Archbishop Dr. Felix Machado, Diocese of Vasai, India. The session was chaired by Prof. Tej Pratap Singh, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Chair at BHU. The session sought to take a deep dive into the socio-cultural framework of Integral Humanism and contextualize its tropes in the respective Indian and Christian religious frameworks.

The second working session was on the theme ‘Philosophical and Political Aspects of Integral Humanism’. The session was chaired by Prof. R. C. Sinha, Former Chairman, Indian Council for Philosophical Research. It was addressed by Prof. Claude Vishnu Spaak, Head, Philosophy and Sociology Department, Sorbonne University, and Prof. K. Jayaprasad, Dean, School of Global Studies and former Pro-Vice Chancellor of Central University of Kerala.

The third working session was themed ‘Economic Implications of Integral Humanism’. The session was addressed by Prof. Gopa Kumar, Former Vice-Chancellor, Central University of Kerala, Prof. Sanjay K. Jha, Dean, School of National Security Studies at Central University of Gujarat, and Mr. Alexis Rostand, Managing Director, Eiffel Investment Group. Prof. H. K. Singh, Dean, Faculty of Commerce, BHU, chaired the session. The economic policies of the state, the concept of Antyodaya, and the centrality of dignity of an individual in formulation of policies driven by the ideas of Integral Humanism were some of the discussion points that featured prominently in the session.

Through their analysis and critical appreciation of the works of both Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay and Jacques Maritain, the speakers in the conference explained how Integral Humanism, as a philosophical and political concept, finds expression in the works of thinkers from diverse cultural and ideological backgrounds. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay, a key thinker of Bharatiya tradition, developed the concept of Integral Humanism in the context of post-independence India. Rooted in Indian cultural and spiritual traditions, his integral humanism emphasizes the integration of material progress with spiritual and ethical values. According to Deendayal Upadhyay, “body, mind, intelligence and the soul – these four make up an individual which are all integrated. We cannot think of each part separately.” The concept of Integral humanism as developed by Deendayal Upadhyay looks upon life as an integrated whole.

The comparative analysis of Integral Humanism as articulated by Deendayal Upadhyay and Jacques Maritain reveals the universality of certain principles despite the cultural and religious diversity of their contexts. Both thinkers offer valuable insights into the promotion of human dignity, ethical governance, and the integration of material and spiritual dimensions in the pursuit of a just society. The conference marked the initiation of a global dialogue across cultures and civilizations, inspired by the idea of Integral Humanism.

Prof. Binda D. Paranjpe, Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, BHU, chaired the Valedictory Session of the conference. The Valedictory Address was delivered by Prof. Shri Prakash Singh, Director, South Campus, University of Delhi. Prof. Singh shed light on the continuing significance of Integral Humanism for the shaping of India’s academic discourse and explained its potential to transform Indian public policy and governance. Prof. S. N. Sankhwar, Director, Institute of Medical Sciences, BHU, attended the session as the Guest of Honour. The concluding remarks were delivered by Dr. Sonu Trivedi, Distinguished Fellow, India Foundation.

Explide
Drag