The Bhagavad Gita, famously known simply as the ‘Gita’, is not just a song; it is a meditation, true knowledge. People see flashes of insights or flaws in it according to their own capacity. For Arjuna and Sanjaya, who possessed internal vision, it became nectar, whereas for people with Duryodhana’s ideological mindset, it feels unacceptable. Thus, it is natural for it to have both devoted followers and detractors.
A few years ago, Allahabad High Court Justice S. N. Srivastava had delivered a judgment stating, “The Gita should be declared as the national Dharmic scripture of India.” Supreme Court Justice Anil R. Dave had made a statement saying, “If I were a dictator, I would have made the study of the Gita compulsory from the first standard.”
This is a good stance. But there are practical and legal hurdles to fulfilling such demands in India. Despite knowing all that, the late Sushma Swaraj had urged, “Srimad Bhagavad Gita should be officially declared as the national book of our country. We will declare it soon.”
It is natural for anyone to have immense faith and devotion towards the Bhagavad Gita at a personal level. But wishing for it to receive government recognition is like accepting the supremacy of the government, as if “the government is the greatest authority in Dharmic matters too.”
The Bhagavad Gita is a wonderful guiding text. It is not a narrow sectarian text. It is a text that brings together and harmonizes several paths of Yoga. Everything is in it. This is precisely why Gandhi said, ‘To me, it is like a mother. Whichever problem arises, I seek refuge in this mother. I find verses in it that give me solace and guidance.’
The Gita was exemplary to many social reformers such as Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Gandhiji, etc. Similarly, it is commonly mentioned that several foreign dignitaries were also influenced by the Gita. Aldous Huxley, Robert Oppenheimer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Hermann Hesse, Henry Kissinger – and so on.
But, the fact that ‘all these great men praised the Gita’ is not the proof that proclaims the importance of the Gita. Even if they had not been born on earth, the Gita would still have its own importance.
Likewise, many prominent figures like Ambedkar have raised objections about the Gita too. That has not harmed the importance of the Gita in any way. Because, the importance of the Gita lies in its intrinsic strength, in its inner light. Not in external ‘endorsements’.
Just as there are people who love the Gita, there are also people who hate it. That is their respective capability. It is like what a great Kannada poet Kumaravyasa says, “As if the cripple who could not walk to Varanasi had mocked and laughed at Varanasi…”.
A few years ago, some Christian groups in Russia demanded to “ban the Gita”! The matter came before the Tomsk Court of Siberia in Russia. The missionaries of the local Orthodox Church had filed a lawsuit against the translation of the Gita by ISKCON founder Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami. The argument of those missionaries was that “the Gita is an extremist literature that harms Russia’s social harmony”! To top it off, three professors from Tomsk University had given their ‘approval’ to this. Since the court took it seriously, its heat reached the Indian government too, and the Indian government shook itself awake and applied diplomatic pressure in favor of the Bhagavad Gita.
What idea is there in the Gita that could become an obstacle to tolerance or Russia’s social harmony? It is not a missionary book. It is not a religious book. Nor is it any manifesto. Although the Gita does not need to gain more weight because of Gandhi, it is noteworthy that he too was a worshiper of the Gita. Even those who do not accept Sri Krishna as God have praised many rational aspects of the Gita. Even now, the Gita is being taught in the management courses of many Western universities. If we go on banning everything because someone does not agree with Plato’s views, or someone else does not agree with Marx’s views, there will be no rationality left in the world. The world will reduce itself to such a ridiculous level where each school of thought rules over a territory just like rowdies rule different areas.
After the grip of the Russian Orthodox Church, Communist rule occupied Russia in the 20th century. The Soviet Union became the driving force for Communist movements across the world. A strange situation had arisen where through the ‘Comintern’ system, the Soviet Union was like a ‘Fatherland’ to the Communists of other nations! After the Soviet Union dissolved by shedding its Communist skin in 1991, having no other direction left, a bit of inclination towards the Church emerged again in Russia. It is true that the Russian Orthodox Church, which had lost its religious freedom during the Soviet era, gained a new enthusiasm due to the fall of the Soviet Union. Even though the mindset of the missionaries is like a compressed spring that leaps the moment it is released, the missionaries’ dream of ruling Russia again has not yet come true. Russia did not become a full-fledged democracy, it is not fully Communist, nor is it a fully Christian nation – it slipped into this kind of suspended state. In such a situation, it is no surprise that the Church perceived the ISKCON organization, which follows a missionary method of operation, as its competitor. The extremity of going to court also took place, so as not to give up its monopoly over the religious market space to anyone.
In the Old Testament of the Bible (especially the chapter of Deuteronomy), calls are given to torture, kill, and burn those who do not believe. Can the Bible be banned for that reason? Religious texts cannot be banned in a democracy. The Kolkata High Court stated this clearly in 1985 while rejecting a petition seeking a ban on the Quran (Chandmal Chopra vs. State of West Bengal). Russia ultimately showed the consciousness and maturity of not banning a spiritual book like the Gita.
Similarly, the Bhagavad Gita does not need government recognition either. It is enough if governments remain quiet without dabbling in either recognition or banning (it is good if the government facilitates the study of The Gita). It was natural for Vishwamitra to desire that Vashistha should accept and recognize him as a Brahmarishi. Because Vashistha was a great Brahmarishi. A sort of ‘certifying authority’. Does Sri Krishna need a certificate from any government? Are our politicians big enough to give that?
The Bhagavad Gita does not have any kind of mere national dimension. Because its scope exceeds the scope of the entire universe. There are no non-political benefits to binding it to the level of any one nation or making it an object of nationalism. One cannot limit the scope of The Gita to India only. Wishing to give government recognition to the Gita is just as ridiculous as saying let’s give the ‘Bharat Ratna’ to Adi Shankaracharya.
The Bhagavad Gita is not a book that establishes a specific religion like the Quran. A society based on a single book did not exist in India. It is not that such a ‘wonderful idea’ had not flashed to our ancestors. The reason for it is that India’s society is not a ‘Kitabi’ (book-based) society like the Arab society.
No matter how supreme a book the Gita is, respect is accorded to many books in India. Ours is a knowledge-based society (the Gita says ‘Na hi jnanena sadrusham’ – there is nothing equal to knowledge), not a book-based society. A single source is never possible for knowledge. The concept that ‘everything that needs to be known is contained in this single book, it is enough to study this one alone’ does not belong to India. This is why our ancient emperors and sovereigns, no matter how much power they possessed, had never declared any single book as the official guiding text of their state. Such a thing was possible in the Roman Empire, in King Constantine’s empire, and in the court of the Papacy, but all that was neither possible nor required in Indian society, which possesses spiritual freedom. The Gita, Upanishads, Vedas-Vedangas, Brahma Sutra, Yoga Sutra, Bhakti Sutra, Kama Sutra, Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavata, – all were recognized, all were texts of study. Ours is a ‘Bahushruta’ (multi-hearing/diverse perspectives) concept, not an ‘Ekashruta’ (single-hearing/monolithic) concept.
Let that be, what is the core essence of the 700-verse Gita? Is it Jnana Yoga? Karma Yoga? Bhakti Yoga? Or does it speak of everything? Is its fundamental perspective Advaita, Dvaita, or Vishishtadvaita? Many Acharyas have written commentaries on the Gita. They have argued that the very philosophy they propound is what is in the Gita. Everyone has the freedom to accept or not accept any given argument.
Arjuna knew that Sri Krishna knew everything. Yet, he had not asked Sri Krishna for many decades. It is noteworthy that Krishna too had never taught Arjuna on his own accord. It was only after Arjuna requested, “I stand here knowing nothing. Please decisively tell me, teach me what is beneficial for me. I am your disciple” (Shishyaste’ham shaadhi maam tvaam prapannam – 2:7), that Sri Krishna taught him. After teaching everything, in the 67th verse of the 18th chapter of the Gita, Krishna says, “Idam te naatapaskaaya na bhaktaaya kadaachana. Na chaashushrooshave vaachyam na cha maam yo’bhyasoorayati”. This means, “Do not speak this to a man who does not practice penance, who has no devotion, and who has no desire to listen. It should also not be spoken to those who look for faults in Me.”
Those who do not have the urge to acquire knowledge, who do not have genuine inquiry, are outsiders from the perspective of that knowledge. Even so, carrying out forced publicity by saying “Come, come, read this.. this is the passport to heaven” is the method of missionaries. It is not the method of spiritualists. There is no doubt that the Bhagavad Gita is a supreme book. It contains religious, spiritual, and political elements. There is guidance regarding all facets of life. For those who have faith, it is a guiding text. Those who do not have it have the freedom to be left to themselves.
Similarly, if parents wish to introduce the Gita to their children, an open policy should exist in our education system to provide an opportunity for it. If the religious education rights granted to minorities are extended to the majority as well, it will be good for them too.
Author
