Review - A Trojan Horse... (The Hindu, 23/06/2026)

A friend of mine from the IITD faculty asked me to analyse and comment on the above article. I went through this article line by line. Here are my observations on the article and otherwise. I hope this will enlighten you. 

Probable Objectives of Such Articles.

1)    Sometimes the objective of such articles is to create political noise, and sometimes, the still deeper objective is to create civilizational aberrations. One should keep in mind the objective of these articles while judging them.

2)   It is quite possible that the author has a particular inclination and, being uncomfortable with a certain turn of events, may have genuinely raised the issue. But the reader should be careful to separate facts from opinions and find out if the article is sharing facts or promoting opinions.

3)  Sometimes, these articles are not written for critical thinkers, or for the people who are already convinced otherwise, but the hidden objective of the article is to retain people in its folds, if possible, to pull some of the fence-sitters to its folds, or to create doubt in the minds of the people belonging to the opposite camp. This is done to preserve or promote a vote bank, which ultimately determines the direction and fate of democracies.

4)   The world is always engaged in civilizational or economic wars, and such articles are part of psychological warfare that is deployed during peacetime as well as wars.

5)   Nevertheless, such articles may also be a genuine attempt to bring up the problems in the system before the people.

The Nature of Such Articles:

1)   This is not a scientific article and, like any non-scientific article, it is highly opinionated.  Many statements made in this article are the opinion of the author, which he has considered as true and conveniently skipped to substantiate with data or analysis.

2)   Since non-scientific articles are based on opinions, it is always possible to reach an opposite conclusion by using selective examples and by assigning an opposite opinion to them. For example, while integrating the traditional knowledge with current knowledge, the author may opine that it is backward and a waste of time or say that it will strengthen the knowledge system and make it comprehensive without substantiating it.

3)   Unlike scientific problems, human systems are a mix of good and bad. It is possible to twist the same article to an opposite conclusion by being selective and highlighting only one side of the issue.

A similar article with an opposite conclusion can be written on the same topic. It depends on which way the money is flowing.

Credibility and Competence of the Author:

1)   While reviewing this article, we also need to investigate the Credibility and Competence of the author. Is Vasudevan conversant with IKS, the IIT system, and the scientific temperament of the IIT faculty and competent to comment on them? It is possible that he has written an unbiased article as per his conscience. Maybe the author is compelled by his ideological orientation or attraction to money to reach a particular conclusion.

2)  The reader must know the history of the author to evaluate his article. As this is a non-scientific article, its tone and conclusions depend heavily on the inclinations and motives of the author.

Credibility of the Media - The Hindu:

1)   Of all the newspapers, ‘The Hindu’ is not an objective paper. It is a highly polarised and anti-Hindu paper. It is well known that ‘The Hindu’ paper is driven by agenda, ideology, and perhaps monetary considerations as well. To expect objectivity and rationality from ‘The Hindu’ is asking for too much. All that ‘The Hindu’ writes must be verified critically. Therefore, the first objection to this article is that the credibility of the newspaper which has published this paper is seriously in doubt.

We can’t expect truth from a politically driven newspaper.

Comments on the Contents of the Article:

1)   Coming to the text of the article, the author only briefly supports the idea of IKS (Col.-1, Para-1), just to show his unbiasedness, but soon follows an ideological path.

2)  Col.-1 Para-2: He is suggesting that “IKS might focus on linguistics of Panini, the Nyaya school of logic, the Kerala school of mathematics, the development of Wootz steel, and so on.” 

a) He is missing many domains of IKS, such as Veda, Upanishad, Gita, Puranas, Architecture, Astrology, Astronomy, Ayurveda, Nritya Shastra, Music, etc. We need to explore all these fields and accept whatever suits us.

b) Is the author competent to suggest what shall be part of IKS or not? We don’t know. But in one statement, he has rejected the IKS system currently being followed, which is still developing.

3)   Use of words like myth and pseudoscience:

a)   Whatever he calls a myth is his personal opinion. Many people do not believe so; for them, the so-called myths are a record of the history of the nation. Can he prove the myths are ‘myths’? If not, is he not succinctly imposing his personal and negative opinion on the readers?

b)   What is a pseudoscience? Is science perfect in itself? Is science the touchstone to judge everything? Aren’t there forces and phenomenon which defy science? Should we reject them because they don’t conform to science? Einstein’s Relativity and Quantum physics defy classical physics and common sense. Haven’t we changed our science to accommodate new observations? Our objective shall be, if a thing is useful for mankind, we shouldn’t be bogged down by terms such as science or pseudoscience. Is he not again succinctly imposing his personal and negative opinion on the readers by terming something as pseudoscience since the word carries a negative connotation? Does the author know about the methodology and limitations of science? Is he assuming that the faculty of IIT is not competent to segregate sense from nonsense, that they don’t know the methodology and limitations of science and that they can’t investigate truthfully so-called pseudoscience?

c)   Thus, using words like ‘pseudoscience’ and ‘myth’, which have a connotation of something unscientific and unreal, respectively, he has already decided what he wants to conclude from the article.

4)  Col.-1, Para-4: He has used the names of great scientists like Jagdish Chandra Bose and Prafull Chandra Rai, just to add value to his article. He has tried to use their name to give value to the word pseudoscience he is using liberally. I don't think these scientists ever said anything about pseudoscience and decolonisation. He is, without any basis, saying that “they proved that decolonisation does not have to open the door to pseudoscience.” Did they ever say so? If yes, he should have quoted them here; if not, then isn’t he using their names to push his own narrative?  

5)   Col.-1, Para-4: “The IKS centres intend to embed myth-based inquiries in the framework of the IITs”. Isn’t the author showing disbelief in the competence of the IIT Faculty and the IIT system? Having spent a number of years in IIT as a student and about 30 years in academics elsewhere, I think IITs know better what they are doing, and if something goes wrong during a new and evolving system, they have the means of correcting it. Although IITs have many problems, it is a living and conscious system which has grown continuously despite many challenges.

6)  Col.-2, 3: He is also assigning motives to the introduction of IKS in IITs and other institutes, which is quite premature. It is only his ideological orientations which make him conclude like this. In any system, intent is very important, and it is not known until that system matures. Therefore, before a system matures, concluding that the system is going to bring politico-religious dogma into scientific institutions is just a fear or hypothesis.

7)  Col.-3, Para-2: “the participating IITs have signalled their willingness to trade their academic credentials for theological dogma.” Is the author not casting aspersions on IITs’ faculty? Does he have anything in support of his allegations, or is he doing so to steer the article to a particular conclusion? Is he not casting aspersion on the intent of the IITs faculty even before the system has matured?

8)   Col.-3 Para-4: "the 'researchers' are fundamentally creating the very stimuli they claim to be 'discovering'”. Is he not questioning the scientific temperament of IITs’ Faculty? Is he competent to do so? Is he not aware that all research work before being accepted goes through peer review?

9)   Col.-4, Para-2: Forceful approach – “it seems the Hindutva programme has finished shifting its strategy to an inside-out approach with top-down force. Doctoral students were required to attend the "special session". Nothing unusual about it. Almost in all organisations, when a program is organised, the biggest problem for the organisers is the audience. Everywhere, the audience is attracted in different ways; IITs are no different. But that doesn’t mean people accept an ideology due to ‘force’. At least in India, the ‘force’ doesn’t remain for long. Even if some people come to the fold of any philosophy due to a temporary ‘force’ or attractions, those who remain with any philosophy, almost do it voluntarily, and there is nothing wrong with it.

10) Col.-4, Para-2: “The lITs' administrators know they are compromising the institutions' reputation, but they are willing to risk that because their goal is not scientific leadership. It is domestic ideological consolidation.” What is the basis for this statement? The author seems to know too much about the IIT system, the faculty, and their hidden intentions. Or is it simply to reach a particular conclusion, which is the hidden objective of the author?

11)  Col-4, Para-3. “The spreading rot of pseudoscience at the IITs will encourage top-tier Indian talent to move to universities abroad.” It seems the author doesn’t know why a researcher moves to a different university in India or abroad. A researcher is guided by opportunities and remuneration in his field of specialisation. The institute’s character doesn’t affect his decision unless that becomes overwhelming and detrimental to his personal growth.

12)  Col-4, Para-3. “Good international scientists are beginning to look down on IIT’s degrees because of these 'special sessions'”. Does the author have any material in support of this statement, or is it just a statement thrown to reach a particular conclusion?

Conclusion:

1.  Despite commenting adversely on the article, I must agree that a person with a different allegiance may write a similar article in a different way, imposing his opinion on it and concluding a entirely different conclusion. That is, a similar article with the opposite conclusion may also be opianated and may face similar criticism.

2.  If the author's objective was to highlight a problem in the system, he should have considered the unbiased views of the faculty and students involved in the system and presented his results in the article. Instead of giving his opinion freely, he should have shared the experiences of the faculty and the students involved in it.

Suggestions:

1.   Such articles also serve an ulterior purpose in a democracy. The objective of such articles is to hold on to the people who believe in a particular narrative, to create confusion in the minds of the people who are sitting on the fence, and, if possible, to bring them over to this side. These articles create narratives and vote banks and are quite useful in democracies to change the course of a nation. Therefore, such articles are either promoted by political parties or unfriendly nations that wish to interfere in a democratic country.

2.   If such is the case, what is the safeguard for us? First, we need to differentiate between a scientific and a non-scientific article. In a non-scientific article, we need to differentiate between information, opinions and analysis. We need to critically examine the opinions and not be swayed by them. We need to understand the motive and credibility of the author and the media that promotes it. Lastly, we must fit in such articles in the historical, social, local and geo-political, and industrial framework and pick the trend rather than being swayed by a single article. This is an era of psychological warfare when the true objective of any action is hidden much below the surface. While examining an article, we shall also relate it to the underlying trend, which will expose the real purpose of the article.

3.   Nowadays, people rarely work for society, the nation, or humanity. Instead, they are working for sheer selfish motives. Like advertisements, creating narratives brings a lot of money. Therefore, to evaluate a non-scientific article, we must also investigate the character of the author, the media, and be aware of social, political, and commercial objectives and narratives being played.

Then only we may understand if the article is highlighting something important before us, or it is creating a narrative to serve its political or commercial objectives. 

The article:  

A Trojan horse has breached the IITs 

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-trojan-horse-has-breached-the-iits/article71134594.ece

The Law of Karma vs. Vasudeva Sarvam Iti

Question: 

I was blessed to hear from you on Savitri, the Secret Knowledge

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=897NveFwhKY).

I truly believe that "Vasudev sarvam iti. He is the doer, and he is the deed. He is the actor, and he is the act. Srasta bhi wo hai, sristi bhi wo hi hai.  Man is only an instrument of the divine Will. When man does everything as per the instructions of the divine, then why should he suffer? Where do the questions of bad karma, good karma, karma phala, and karmic debt come from?  When one goes through a difficult time, then very often he is told "aap ko karma phala bhogtana padega". When I did nothing, then how am I supposed to suffer? Kindly enlighten.

Warm Regards,

A Sadhak of Savitri.

 

Reply:

“वासुदेवः सर्वम् इति" (श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता-०७/१९) - यह सकल जगत् ईश्वर ही है।

“Vasudev Sarvam Iti” means that the whole of this world is God, i.e., He is the Creator and the Creation; He is the Actor, and the act; He is the Dreamer and the dream; He is the Thinker and the thought. It is He alone who has become man. So, it is very natural to ask how a man is responsible for his acts when God is working through him, and what the justification for this law of Karma and Fate is. 

It will be appropriate to recall the first verse of the Sri Aurobindo Upanishad, which says -

“ॐ एकमेव अदिवितीयम् ब्रह्म सदसद्रूपं सदसद्तीतं नान्यत् किन्च्चिदस्ति त्रिकालधृतं त्रिकालातीतं वा सर्वन्तु खलु ब्रह्मैकं यत किन्च्च ज्गत्यामणु वा महेद्वोदारं वानुदारं वा ब्रह्मैव तद् ब्रह्मैव जगदपि ब्रह्म सत्यं न मिथ्या।“ (श्रीअरविन्दोपनिषद्:, verse-1)

Which means: “Om. There is Brahman alone, the One without a second. Being and non-being are its forms and It is also beyond Being and Non-Being. There is nothing else except That. All that is contained in the three times and all that is beyond the three times is indeed that One Brahman alone. Whatever is in the universe, small or large, noble or mean, is Brahman alone, Brahman alone. The world is also Brahman. It is true, not false.” 

In the Sri Aurobindo Upanishad, Sri Aurobindo says, “ॐ एकमेव अदिवितीयम् ब्रह्म and जगदपि ब्रह्म सत्यं न मिथ्या”, that is, all this is God, and there is nothing in this world which is other than God. This world is also God, and it is real. 

To understand the above problem, let’s now go through three examples -

 

Example-1)  

          Consider the realities of the awakened and dream states.

 

Both the realities of the awakened world and the dream world are true. However, when we are awake, the dream appears to us false, and when we are in a dream, the awakened world appears to us untrue. However, both are true in their own domains, but when we look at them from outside the domain in which they exist, they appear false to us.

 

When we are in the real world, we forget the dream world, and when we are in the dream world, we forget the real world, and therefore, one of the two realities appears to us as false.

 

The real problem is not that one or both observations are untrue, but that we are not able to rise to a world where both worlds appear in their proper place and in harmony with each other, and therefore, we are not able to see that both these observations are true.

 

Yet if we can take a higher position from which we can see both, we will find that both are real.

 

Example-2)   

 Consider the realities of Earth and Heaven.

 

        We all have heard about the glory of heaven, and many a man has attempted to reach heaven. Some of them, having reached heaven and being wonderstruck by its glory, came down and professed the path to heaven which they found, declared that the glory of heaven is not reachable on earth, and advocated leaving the earth as it is and working to enjoy heaven.

 

The reality of the Earth is not false; we know this, for we live here, while heaven is imaginary for us because we have no access to it. But heaven is not false - the reality of heaven is true in heaven, and the reality of earth is true on earth. So long as we are bound to earth, heaven appears false to us. Perhaps, for those who live in heaven, earth is false. It is only for those who can live both on earth and in heaven, transcend both earth and heaven, and can harmonise between earth and heaven, that both earth and heaven are true.

 

It is only when we can transcend earth and heaven and establish harmony between the two that we can find that both are real.

 

But why is it so?

 

In the cosmic lila, things have been so arranged that we get glimpses of the beauties of a higher world, but we can’t enjoy them unless we change and transcend our present limits. If it were so that we could enjoy heaven while living on earth, there would be no urgency to change earth, and earth would have remained the same for eternity. It is an evolutionary necessity, which entices us with glimpses of the glories of the higher world but does not let us enjoy them unless we change ourselves and become rightful claimants of those riches. This incompleteness and corresponding dissatisfaction force us to participate in evolution.

 

Example-3)   

         Consider a room which is closed from the inside, and you are trapped in it. But it is only you who has, in a moment of unconsciousness, closed the room from inside and hid the key somewhere inside the room. 

         Now, if you don’t know that you closed the room and also have the key to unlock it, you feel trapped in it. But the moment you remember that you have the key, you realise that you are in fact free. So, the feeling of freedom or imprisonment depends only on your memory. (Once we realise who we are and are able to recover our ‘smriti’ (स्मृति), we are no longer entrapped in the world or the body.)

 

Freedom and imprisonment are both real. So long as we do not have the smriti (memory), who we are, we are under the subjection of Nature and feel imprisoned, and the moment we get our smriti (memory) back, we become free and the masters of Nature.

 

        So, freedom and imprisonment are both true, but what we experience depends on the state of our consciousness.

 

Coming back to your question –

 

         The Law of Karma and Fate are true in the domain we live in, and the truth of “Vasudev Sarvam Iti” is true in a domain of perfect unity. Both seem contradictory, but both are simultaneously true.

 

God, being Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Absolute, can assume both states simultaneously. The Absolute, the Alone, and the All-Powerful can become One as well as Many simultaneously. But man bound by Reason thinks that the two are opposites and can’t exist together.

 

          So long as we live in human consciousness, we are governed by the Law of Karma and Fate; it is only when we rise much above this divided world to a world in which there is perfect unity and only One, that “Vasudev Sarvam Iti” is true.

 

        Even if the fundamental truth is “Vasudev Sarvam Iti”, it is only the Law of Karma and Fate that are applicable to us. So long as man is bound to human ignorance, he can’t claim the privileges of the world of unity. 

This is the cosmic lila; if it weren’t so, man would not feel himself entrapped and suffocated and never try to escape the human consciousness, and the whole plan of evolution would fail.

 

Not only that, a light, a beauty, a bliss from the highest region of creation enters our world and creates discontent among some. It is this discontentment which forces them to rise and find their truth. And the whole of humanity advances with them.

 

This is the hidden Divine Plan!