Hindu View of Leadership

The kind of sAmarthya required for a good leader does not even figure in the list of priorities of the Hindu society.

The colonization of India had one major destructive impact among several others: a near-complete obliteration of all brahma-kshAtra spheres of activity including leadership.

Today, both the Indian state and academia is driven by inherently anti-Hindu ideologies and not by knowledge and ability (which have to be essentially rooted in Hindu thought if they have to suit Hindu society). Therefore, the understanding of what qualities are needed for leadership have almost gone out of public discourse.

This has led us to such a pass that that we now believe that leaders have to be born thanks to interventions of fate, and wait for such leaders to be born. There is very little thought and effort invested in the institutions that train leadership. Now when “Hindutva” is trying to revive Hindu leadership, it is necessary to understand what makes for a good leader rooted in Hindu thought.

Qualities

The prototype of a good leader is to be found in the ideals of kshatra – being selfless, well learned in subjects like statecraft, governance, war-science, justice, commitment to dharma, ability to endure and face hardships, an attitude of being dispassionate and impersonal when delivering justice and punishment.

booksThis is a very high level view, and the several qualities required of a leader or ruler are found across hundreds of primary texts, which can be primarily classed as under:

  1. Ramayana, Mahabharata, Purana, arthaSAstra, and smRti-s: These elaborately discuss rAja dharma, and the main qualities required in a king such as prajA-ranjakatva and sikshA dakshata.
  2. Pancatantra, Vikramaditya-Betala and Bhoja-sAla bhanjika: These texts demonstrate through stories the subjects discussed above in a way that lay people of these subjects can understand.

Being wise, having presence of mind, courage, perseverance, ferocity, dispassionate delivery of justice, being on the right path and showing the society what the right path is, encouraging people to tread the right path and levying a high cost for deviation, imparting fearlessness among the virtuous, strategy, solving problems of people and polity through proper application of the subject, and logic are a few examples of a range of qualities a leader must possess, to be qualified as great.

Most of the attributes can be found in the self-actualization and self-transcendence layers of Maslow’s pyramid, and form a subset of these (problem solving, morality, creativity, spontaneity, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts). The stories of Vikarama or Bhoja or Rama or Sibi repeatedly affirm these attributes.

One implicit statement of all this is that a good leader is one with infinite positivity. If we were to go back to dhArmic parlance, this translates to a near-absolute lack of handicap or inability.

Disqualifier – asAmarthya

ShashThi Tantra enlists 28 kinds of indriya asAmarthya (inefficiency of sense organs that constrain human experience and knowledge).

11 of these are because of disabilities of the 11 senses, and 17 are buddhi doshas (mental/intellectual disabilities. Absence of nine tushTi-s and eight siddhi-s. tushTi-s and siddhi-s are limbs of a perfectly healthy buddhi.

Positivity can be enlisted in the form of tushTi, siddhi and completeness of experience of the world. One’s contentment, happiness, and wisdom depend much on internal factors, along with training. However, there is definitely a factor of misfortune in some forms of experience of the world – for example, in the case of physical handicaps. Although the reason is not always in one’s own control, such constraints do hinder one’s experiences and consequently one’s tushTi and siddhi.

One can expect factual counters to this assertion with great examples like sUradAsa, whose realization had little to do with his blindness. But the most important point here is that such inability is never said to be a hindrance in spiritual experience but in the experience of world. Physical health and soundness is a primary requirement for a leader and not for everyone. So we do celebrate the perfect body-vAstu of Sri Rama, Vikramaditya and Nala, their lack of handicap (of the mind or the senses), their infinite positivity, their siddhi-s and tushTi.

dhritarashtraAs negative examples we have dhRtarAshTra and Karna. The former had a physical handicap and also a buddhi dosha, a negativity stemming from a sense of being wronged. Hence he was deemed unfit to be a ruler, as he lacked conviction in justice. Similarly karNa’s sense of being wronged, his jealousy towards those he thought were more fortunate resulted in his siding with adharma, and in fact acted as a pillar of adharma.

On the contrary Vidura who had no personal ambition, was a selfless saint, devoted to knowledge and righteousness, and remained dispassionate throughout and sided with what is right. He is called one of the greatest ministers in the history of Bharata.

What differentiates a leader from others is his will to lead, which always runs the danger of becoming an exercise in egotism. A Raja represents will, and it takes great austerity to keep the will in line with dharma and untouched by qualities of ego such as ambition, self-righteousness, arrogance and audacity that comes with power, partial knowledge of reality and so on. It is not possible to overcome these without the 17 forms of tushTi-s and siddhi-s.

Thus a study of sAmarthya (ability, competence) and asAmarthya (disability, incompetence, disqualification) is a primary prerequisite in any attempt at dhArmic leardership.

Leaders of Bharata

We can now cite several examples of leaders throughout Bharata’s history from ancient times up to the independence struggle.

To begin with, we can cite bright examples like Lokamanya Tilak and Veer Savarkar for these qualities:

  1. Infinite positivity in the wake of the struggle they put up and the hardships they faced
  2. SAstra jnAna required to make the dhArmic decisions
  3. Very little if any, incompetence of buddhi
  4. Solving most complex problems and coming up with timely solutions that are most apt for the nation and society (karma yoga and other writings by Tilak and Hindutva by Savarkar)
  5. Did not take recourse to ego but commitment to the cause of Bharata and pragmatic decision making

netajiOne can also cite how Netaji Subash Chandra Bose stands out on #1 #3 and #5 as a bright example. Netaji is also an example of how people like him suffered because of Congress decisions rooted in ego and megalomania.

One can recall how Gandhi imposed principles meant for personal practices on a political movement. This stemmed from his ego. One can relate how Gandhi’s ignorance and absence of positivity reflects in his decisions, in cases like Khilafat and Chauri-chaura. Thus, Gandhi stands out only on #1 and partly on #4, but does not quite fare as a great leader by Hindu standards, though he might be a great leader by western standards.

smRti karta

It also makes occasion to examine the qualities needed for an expert who can give us a smRti. The Constitution is a kind of smRti, and therefore in some corners, we hear the notion of constitution makers being smRti karta-s.

The qualities required for a smRti karta are slightly different from the qualities required to be a ruler. One should be a Rishi tulya (equivalent of a rishi) to be able to give a smRti for a dhArmic nation. He does not need too much of kshAtra but requires an in-depth knowledge of SAstra jnAna and an absolutely disability-free buddhi. While we did and do have such great men in this nation, clearly, those who gave us our current law and constitution were not endowed with such mettle.

Both the primary qualities (knowledge of dharma and being free of asAmarthya) were missing in our constitution makers. This includes the primary person credited with authoring the constitution Dr. B R Ambedkar. Ambedkar’s asAmarthya and consequent negativity, lack of dispassionate judgment, is visible not only in his writings like Riddles of Hinduism and Annihilation of Caste, but also in the constitution in a more subtle manner. His decision to convert to Buddhism was not rooted in positive conviction but one emanating from his sense of being wronged. This sense of being wronged by the society becomes fundamental to his assumptions in constitution-making instead of the fundamental principles based on which the state and society should be designed.

Thus, putting the author of the Indian Constitution on the same pedestal as Sri Aurobindo or Ganapati Muni would be undermining the very meaning of the word Rishi and the tradition of Rishi-munis. A Rishi is one who, having seen the social condition with utmost compassion, retires into contemplation and devises a solution to it with utmost dispassion. Examples like Devala and Ganapati Muni serve well in this context. Their solutions therefore, are not only socially viable but complete and just – they do not suffer from side effects like counter-suffering.

The concept that if someone who has seen and experienced suffering is empowered, can give solutions to it, is rooted both in compassion and ignorance. One who places himself beyond suffering, but is filled with compassion, is the one who is capable of giving its solution. A Rishi does not provide social design by undergoing suffering but by a dispassionate understanding of where suffering originates from and what its solution is.

Current Condition

Since independence, the standard of leaders in Indian politics has not risen, nor did we have any institution that grooms leadership based on traditional principles.

While the ill-fated separation of kshAtra spheres of activity (knowledge, military and governance) under a west-modeled constitution is one reason, there has not been enough understanding of what yields quality leadership necessary for a society like ours.

Most of the good leadership we saw arose despite the quality of politics and entered polity from outside political organizations. After the near-total destruction of the Hindu Mahasabha by Nehru, barring small initiatives like RRP, it is primarily the RSS-BJP that has been trying to build quality leadership for the country. Even the current PM who is known to be committed and capable is a product of the RSS-BJP.

Indeed, owing to their inherent commitment to the Hindu cause, the sangh parivar philosophy of leadership has some of the important features of what makes for a good leader rooted in Hindu thought.

They believe in positivity, and instead of going after differences with Gandhi, Ambedkar et al, they attempt to pick the positives wherever possible while criticizing leaders for their mistakes. It is therefore not surprising that today, the RSS is one of the most Gandhian organizations–whether it is in pushing for swadeshi economy or building civil movements or being inherently positive in outlook.

rssThe RSS makees abundant ground level activity and sacrifice in line with the principles they believe in (this is also why Gandhi and the RSS had a positive view of each other). We can ignore superficial and motivated criticism like Gandhi’s nonviolence would not approve of RSS. Had Gandhi been alive today, chances are very high that he would dump the Congress to side with the RSS.

Today, what we see in social movements and polity is negativity, groupism, rhetoric, bargaining, and mortgaging social good for political and personal mileage.

Whether Hindus in popular discourse express this articulately or no, whether the public discourse today allows its expression in traditional terms or no, the innate craving for a leader with kshAtra (warrior) qualities shows often in our society.

This is one of the reasons Netaji, Bhagat Singh, Chandrasekhar Azad, Alluri Sitarama Raju et al happen to be popular in this country in spite of the Nehruvian education trying to put all these down as extremists. More popular are people like Tilak, Savarkar, and Sri Aurobindo who went beyond physical ferocity and tried instilling that spirit in Hindu hearts. However, the fact that Hindutva organizations are better than others hardly means they are fulfilling the leadership needs of society. They are trying to put up alternatives to those requirements.

Knowledge of SAstra and dharma is one area where we have the biggest shortage, and in which efforts from the Hindu side are rather scattered. On this, the Sangh Parivar’s philosophy is more on the lines of inspiring people instead of imparting it at the same time. For instance, rAjanIti is not taught but stories of great rAja-s are taught to inspire people into learning. This does not fulfill the need of learning but superficially keeps the spirit alive.

The kind of sAmarthya required for a good leader does not even figure in the list of priorities of the Hindu society: this shows how far we are from having one. A part of it is achievable through sAdhana/upAsana and SAstra jnAna. However, the conception of and institutionalizing kshAtra training cannot be substituted with any other kind of training.

  • m p

    Abraham Lincoln vs. Mahatma Gandhi
    What would Abraham Lincoln’s legacy If he followed the footstep of M Gandhi?

    1946 provincial election was a referendum on partition. M Gandhi repeatedly promised ‘Vivisection of my country over my dead body’;Hence, Congress won. When faced with civil war, Gandhi promptly catapulted.He did even went on a hunger strike. In contrast, He did went on a hunger strike when Indian Govt. refused to split national treasury with Pakistan because money might be spent to attack India. His hunger strike forced India to part with national treasury and same money helped Pakistan finance its 1st war with India.

    Lincoln’s presidential campaign was NOT a referendum on slavery. He
    did not promise to abolish it. Yet, He decided to abolish it. When faced
    with civil war, He did not back down.

    Now Imagine the scenario:-
    Lincoln makes his presidential campaign a referendum on Slavery;Hence, He wins. When faced
    with civil war,He agrees to partition USA into two parts. He also signs a presidential decree giving half of national treasury to confederate state. Confederate state uses that money to capture half of western frontier including California. Would unionist treat him as hero?

  • yogesh

    I am appalled but not surprised by your projection of Gandhi. Most nationalists including yourself failed to understand Gandhi completely.

    First and foremost Gandhi was true inspiration for many of the freedom fighters and first generation leaders of independent India. This includes well celebrated Sardar Patel. Initially western educated Sardar was making fun of Gandhi and his works/style/cloths etc. But he eventually had transformation after sufficiently following Gandhi’s work. One can argue that India may have get freedom from Britisher without Gandhi’s help but India would have missed its first generation leaders like Sardar who were critical in strengthening india post indepnedce in absence of Gandhi.

    Further Gandhi was true son of soil who kept Hindu philosophy at heart in each of his actions and decisions. This include not adopting western philosophy/cloths despite being western educated and living in west for many years. There could be very less example of such tenacity of being different where most western educated folks started adopting western thoughts while thinking Indian/Hindu as substandard. Gandhi was fully aware of Indian tradition and Philosophy and could very well understood its superiority against materialistic influenced western thoughts.

    • Jishnu

      “show me one such example whose reach was as comparable as Gandhi”

      shows how illiterate you are about 19-20 century Hindu leaders and scholars.

    • Dr. MS

      You are right Yogesh. Leave it to a Hindu to stone another Hindu. And there are such people right on this net. How they are being set up they don’t even know. Was it not a Hindu who assassinated Gandhi? When Hindus get emotional, like Vishnu, Hishnu, Jishnu, the first thing they do is flog their women. their children and other Hindus. That itself is a colonized, indentured or enslaved behavior. I do not agree with all your points, as they are debatable, but some of your comments about Gandhi are spot on. Do keep writing, thinking and engaging.

      Best wishes,
      Dr. MS

      • Anfauglir

        What, the Jishnu who comments here? Though other witnesses can be found too, none less than the generally well-respected Radha Rajan herself will testify that Jishnu is well-spoken to women and treats them on par with those of his own gender, thus once more exposing your lies.

        If Jishnu did not flog anyone, he really should sue you for libel or get you banned for it. Liar.
        Yet every appellation that I’ve seen him give you sticks because they factually describe you. But because you have no logical response, you resort to libel and whining, which is your way of admitting that he’s totally got you outmaneouvred.

        What really bothers you about Jishnu is that he’s the only one who wouldn’t accept your constant attacks against Hindu men but dared to respond by exposing you for what you really are, your littleness and vindictiveness. And all while he never stooped to your level, as his responses to you were on fully logical grounds. Had he but attacked you with gender-specific insults, had he but insulted your gender or generalised about it in a retort, you could whine persecution as you prefer to. But he didn’t. He treated you as he would treat any man who said the same things as you did. And so you detested it and him even more: he gave you no reason, no occasion to blame the patriarchy, which is your game. You scratch, you bite, selectively against the male gender of Hindu society, all in the hope of generating counter-abuse to your gender (else you will spin just abuse against yourself into being abuse of your gender instead), so that you can then use such a reaction as you seek as an example of ‘Hindu male abuse of females’, which is your thesis. It is your sole subsistence.

        Sometime after I first noticed you troll about here, I contemplated intervening against your poisonous assault against Hindu men (who are your gateway to attacking Hindu society). But just then Jishnu beat me to it and so it wasn’t necessary.

        Your incessant lies about Hindu men are born of your hatred for them because they can see through you, as any Hindu woman who cared to notice can too. But you predictably ended up whimpering when Radha Rajan exposed her contempt for you, since she was a woman and so you could not pretend you were the victim of misogyny there, as is your usual tactic. You ran away too because you could not attack her for being an “ignorant” Hindu woman, who are another target of your poisonous tongue: You know full well that Radha Rajan’s intellect is universes ahead of yours, and you can only dream of the regard she justly enjoys among Hindu men and women, for both this and for her loyalty to her tradition and people. And so, like the typical fraud you are, you crouched and whimpered when you had sufficiently made yourself a nuisance such that even she had to respond and tell you to stop your endless tantrums.

        Any Hindu who denies you respect does so not because you are female, and you know this full well despite your play-acting, but because you have repeatedly demonstrated you are not worthy of Hindu respect but are poisonous: you call yourself a Hindu only to get nearer to attack them, a common ruse of Hindu-baiters. The Hindu men on this site who deny you treat you as an individual in doing so, singling you out for avoidance, but not other women. Being of a petty, jealous character, this made you angrier still and made you lash out more against Hindu men. You can’t stand it that others see through you. You can’t stand it that your PhD credentials blazoned next to your initials don’t command the automatic respect among Hindus that you thought this should confer, but that you still had to earn such respect by means of your character, which you haven’t earned, simply because it is vile. And you know this too. You are bitter, poisonous, misandrist, misogynist too, subversionist and conspire against all of Hindu society.

        But you may stop your attack of Hindu men. They’re not yours, they’re mine.

        Try me instead. Unlike the others here who, being Hindus, are far too respectful of women to treat you quite as you deserve, I will not hesitate to stoop to your level or whatever level is required to make your ectoplasm evaporate at last.

        I suggest beforehand you don’t whine misogyny: I have nothing against females or males (of any species), nor do I generally differentiate between them. But like so many other Hindus who occasionally visit here, and were victims of the sight of your constant bile, I have something against you: your attack on my religion and my society, via my men. In fact, I detest you more than any of the others do, can or know to. So do try me. Or better yet, get lost.

        I repeat: keep your poison away from Hindu men, women and society, all of which are mine. Never yours. Only I know to value them. Not you. You irredeemable ingrate.

  • ps

    Articles like these keep me coming back to this site. Reading articles here enriches me who is pauper when it comes to subjects discussed here.

  • Vidyadhara Buddhiraju

    Nice thesis. But a couple of comments maybe in order.

    Karna’s greatest trauma came from the fact that he was abandoned by his own mother at birth. His assumption of an other family identity brought some disadvantages but by no means crippling. Except in two or three significant instances where it was brought to notice in an offensive manner. Karna’s resentment through his life was not that of a person whose tribe had been disadvantaged by disabilities. But a much more personal grudge that he was abandoned by his own mother. Surely fair for an individual to bear but not in itself directly relevant to an entire society. Karna’s fault lay in his equating personal grudges to national politics.

    Ambedkar on the other hand faced very debilitating handicaps. However his grudges were about the crippling injustices imposed upon a very large section of the society. Rather than those relating more exclusively to himself. Surely a far more relevant question socially. While it maybe tempting to compare Ambedkar with Karna, the comparison is not quite tenable.

    Ambedkar’s central concern was very correct. That hundreds of millions
    were confined to an inhuman treatment with no justice, redemption or
    route of escape.

    He can perhaps be accused of faulty prescription rather than faulty diagnosis. But such is the risk that every innovator runs. He maybe also be accused of faulty analysis insofar as he attributed every fault of hindu society, as he saw it, to either the content or interpretation of hindu scripture. A fault very common among the scholars of the British Era, whether defenders or opponents of the Hindu Dharma.

    • Skanda

      “He can perhaps be accused of faulty prescription rather than faulty diagnosis.”

      As you noted correctly, that millions were ill-treated with no justice is a symptom, not the cause. So it is essentially a misdiagnosis as he reads the cause wrong. The misdiagnosis is also not independent of his perception of social reality and sense of being wronged (not necessarily personally, but that hampers conviction in justice nevertheless).

      “While it maybe tempting to compare Ambedkar with Karna, the comparison is not quite tenable.”

      True, and no comparison is done: Ambedkar and Karna are discussed in different spheres one for kshAtra and one for a smRti karta.

      “He maybe also be accused of faulty analysis insofar as he attributed every fault of hindu society, as he saw it, to either the content or interpretation of hindu scripture. A fault very common among the scholars of the British Era, whether defenders or opponents of the Hindu Dharma.”

      It was not the common feature of really trained men and visionaries but only those made popular by English discourse: Ram Mohan Roy, Gandhi, Ambedkar etc. There were people who had a deeper understanding and had better prescriptions: Ganapati Muni, Aurobindo, Tilak etc. What makes the difference and how we should enlist the qualities required in persons chosen for such portfolios is what concerns us right now. Not really an attempt at critique of these committed men who did their best within their abilities to help the situation.

  • Sumanth Sharma

    Also regarding Bose, I do not have any citation but I am told he was deeply spiritual and was a student of Philosophy. Not sure how much SAstra gnAna he had though.

    Based on this we could we say, he scored decently (if not an authority) on #2 as well ?

    • Jishnu

      Given his secular-atheist thought, one would wonder how Hindu-thinking he was. See bharatendu’s scholarly analysis of Bose and INA here:

      http://bharatendu.com/2011/02/10/subhas-chandra-bose/
      http://bharatendu.com/2011/03/10/subhas-chanda-bose-2/
      http://bharatendu.com/2011/04/08/subhas-chandra-bose-another-look-part-3/
      http://bharatendu.com/2011/04/15/subhas-chandra-bose-another-look-part-4/
      http://bharatendu.com/2011/04/19/subhas-chandra-bose-5/

      Of course you can say pseudo secular obsession is Hindu phenomenon, but that is not correct of Hindu-thinking people only Hindu people.

      • Sumanth Sharma

        Bose was influenced by Socialist movement no doubt, but I am not sure how detached he was from bhAratiya ways. Will read through, thanks.

      • Anfauglir

        Proviso. Not sure who the author of those articles are, but the owner of that blog:
        1. Emphatically wrote that Rama and Krishna were not avataaras of Vishnu, requesting that Hindus “not be sentimental when analysing” relevant Hindu scriptures. That is, he blackmailed Hindus who would keep to the tradition, and whose scriptures were already analysed by various acharyas and traditional scholars of note in history steeped in the first-hand knowledge of the Gods, and who had yet come to the very conclusion which he disparaged as mere “sentimentality” since it did not align with his, which he clearly regarded as more expert.
        2. Not very long after, his position further evolved along predictable lines to deny that Rama and Krishna were ever Gods at all: they were but “godlike” human heroes who were merely deified.

        Others can confirm the above points with him. He will not deny them, as he is not a liar (or at least he wasn’t several years ago). He is not a hypocrite either. People who take a stand should stick to it. Doubly so when they’d blackmail others that no other position is tenable. And he was quite conscious of his declarations being binding first, foremost and actually exclusively on him and any offspring (and any other relatives or persons looking to him for instruction on the Hindu scriptures, since he would not be so sentimental toward family as to unfairly avoid subjecting any continued adherence to the tradition among them to the same blackmail). Because he well knew his insistence to be binding on him, nothing but hypocritical sentimentality could of course ever induce him to conclude differently than his analysis had derived. Were he to ever attempt so nevertheless, it would not only make him a hypocrite, but would be an admission on his own part that he was a dangerous subversionist to other Hindus, and he would have to cease from ever again lecturing them in any matters pertaining to dharma.

        I think when propagating that blog and hence its owner among the Hindu community, Hindus should attach provisos informing others of his less views too. And should make themselves aware of these as well. So all know who they’re linking to and in how far they agree with him.

        • Jishnu

          Which article are you pointing to (where he calls Rama & Krishna not avataras)? I do not know if the owner of the blog is the same as the author of these articles – as far as I know almost all are written by Sarvesh Tiwari.

          “He will not deny them, as he is not a liar (or at least he wasn’t several years ago). He is not a hypocrite either.”

          Who is the “he” you are referring to?

          By the way an original thinker usually deviates from the conventional thought, which is why he brings out new perspectives. Many can be valid, many invalid. In Sarvesh’s case I think many are valid (on Asana, Patanjali, INA/Netaji, MFHussain, vasudhaiva kuTumbakam to name a few). So I would not really be surprised or care much if he takes a non/anti traditional line in the notion of avatara (again depends on context in which he is doing it). The problem comes if we take him as the golden standard for everything he put up – which we should not and take things on the merit of argument/source. Also, he is quite knowledgeable and most of the times knows what he is saying.

          “I think when propagating that blog and hence its owner among the Hindu community”

          I am not sure if pointing specifically to an article that I think is accurate amounts to propagating the blog/owner – but point taken.

          • Anfauglir

            > Who is the “he” you are referring to?
            The same referred to throughout my comment: the owner of the blog/site you linked to.

            > Which article are you pointing to (where he calls Rama & Krishna not avataras)?
            He was a member of a now defunct nationalist forum, where he made his insistent statement to the public.

            > By the way an original thinker usually deviates from the conventional thought

            (Established views on Vishnu, Rama, Krishna are not mere convention. They are considered tradition for a reason. And tradition has a value to insiders for a reason.)

            If there is an official definition of original thinker, I’m not familiar with it. I’ve always taken original thought to mean truly novel solutions to current or long-standing or potential problems, or the artificial development of new (disastrous) memes, else of new ideas to counteract existing memes, or of novel views (subversions) projected as having been the ‘actual’ original views and which are propagated to negate and replace the actual original (traditional) views.

            But I’d not have classed under ‘original thought’ any discussion aiming to educate on what is factual, or offering reasoned arguments to a less-aware modern readership using primary sources to demonstrate the reasoning in these sources and highlight what was considered self-evident to these. Doing this last is mere pooling of existing materials to support established views. And no less valid or useful for it.

            I’ve not read most of the articles you mentioned, but on those concerning Asana and Patanjali, did he add to the extant materials and thought on these, or merely refer to primary sources and established traditional secondary sources to clarify the very points they were making? That is, was the writer being original on these matters, rather than collating primary references to repeat them (including, by extension, to underline the inherent reasoning in them) to justify tradition?

            For instance, I’d only read his article on Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, or only one article thereof if this were part of a series. From memory that article merely cited primary sources to reveal the actual contexts in which the phrase was used historically in tradition, demonstrating that the modern misuse of generalising the phrase and blindly applying it in the literal sense everywhere (and even as the very nature of our ethos) is not reflective of the reasons the phrase was coined and used, and hence is a novelty. I’d not considered such a discussion as original thought, even if it is a useful revelation to others, but rather a clarification to a modern audience which is often less versed in common sense and/or in the actual texts that used the phrase and in what contexts it was ever meant literally.

            “So I would not really be surprised or care much if he takes a non/anti traditional line in the notion of avatara (again depends on context in which he is doing it).”

            Really? And what context is even needed as regards his insistences concerning Rama and Krishna? Suffice to say he did not use sarcasm in making his declarations (which could then have indicated he intended the inverse meaning rather), but meant them literally. There are no ‘extenuating circumstances’ for those who take an interest. And he himself was certainly far less accepting to transgressions of what he regarded tradition when, earlier, his final response to the even more subverted haranguing about Rama was to specifically cite a traditional injunction to avoid all those who spoke against Rama and Sita. But perhaps that was still mere sentiment on his part, as since then he’d simply evolved, like many others have done before and since, to more views.

            It remains the case that it is not people like Doniger against whom Hindus are not immune, or whom Hindus may wrongly come to admire or turn to as authority. Such persons hardly have Hindus’ ear, and most Hindus are immune to them by nature. It is people far closer to home, who sound right and sane often enough. Yet it is the few times that they do not, that actually makes them dangerous. If they were only a danger to themselves and their family it would matter not at all. It is when they would lecture (and even blackmail) Hindus on their anti-traditional views, using the admiration such seem to amass in the internet age, that it becomes a problem. Which is exactly why the provisos become useful: to alert Hindu readers to decide beforehand where their own loyalties lie, and what are considered true authorities in the tradition and to investigate for themselves why traditional views actually have validity than merely those that sound readily-rational on the surface.

          • Jishnu

            “He was a member of a now defunct nationalist forum, where he made his insistent statement to the public”

            OK. I think I have the background now.

            One can be original without saying anything new 🙂 For, most of the ideas exist in tradition yet one could collate things one one’s own making one’s own findings (which are not nonexistent). After all the process/act of creation is an internal one. As Sri Aurobindo says, in such matters it simply doesn’t matter whether the attempt is first or hundredth of its kind.

            “That is, was the writer being original on these matters, rather than collating primary references to repeat them (including, by extension, to underline the inherent reasoning in them) to justify tradition?”

            There was one attack on Hinduism (that Asana is a new addition taken from medieval Europe) and he was among the first ones who responded to it in his own way, by making his interpretation of the text and inferences. He made his own polemic, and whether you call it secondary creativity or anything else, it is his own attempt. He is original in that sense to that extent. Of course there existed at the same time many men who could be more articulate with their sheer knowledge of the subject (of yoga, dhanurveda, nATya SAstra etc). Of course there were many men who could make similar correlation even without such knowledge out of their creative thought. That does not take anything away from his work.

            “And what context is even needed as regards his insistences concerning Rama and Krishna? ”

            Context is relevant and important. For instance many Hindu idiots invoke Rama and Krishna’s avatarhood to deny their emulation by “common folk”. In which context avatarhood is an irrelevant concept and needs to be denied. Avatara is an important concept yet has its context. There are spheres in life where its denial is also valid. Neither do all traditions coincide on this notion nor is it the case that they all uniformly accept or deny such concept’s relevance in all spheres of life. You may disagree with me, but that precisely is the point 🙂

            “It is people far closer to home, who sound right and sane often enough. Yet it is the few times that they do not, that actually makes them dangerous.”

            I agree, and this is exactly the reason why I invoked “originality”. To elaborate:

            Sarvesh Tiwari is but one of the several such thinkers/bloggers. Probably more original (and also possibly deviant at times) yet way more informative is manasataramgini. A lot of what such persons write, is scholarly. And in scholarly circles acceptance and non-acceptance are open. Unfortunately the layers in Hindu society that bring these down, filter them and cater to general public only the ratified and not in-the-debate ideas have been invalidated/obliterated. You cannot get the scholarly debate down to layman and blame the scholars for debating untenable ideas.

            I am yet to come across any single Hindu(s)’s blog that can be acceptable in-toto by any norm.

            “Which is exactly why the provisos become useful”

            Agreed. As said point noted from the previous post itself.

            Albeit, in the specific article in question he does not really speculate Bose’s knowledge but evaluates from his actions and decisions his pro/anti-Hindu thought.

          • Anfauglir

            “I am yet to come across any single Hindu(s)’s blog that can be acceptable in-toto by any norm.”

            Yes, there are none. This is reflective of the quality of Hindus of this and all subsequent generations.
            There are sites by adherents of native far-eastern religions that are entirely acceptable in all stated views, though they are not Hindus or anything Indic (and yet have come to some very accurate insights on Hindu matters too). This discrepancy between them and Hindus is the telling part.

            “As Sri Aurobindo says, in such matters it simply doesn’t matter whether the attempt is first or hundredth of its kind.”

            Naturally, independent derivation is original and convergence of indepedently derived ideas does not deny originality.
            But I find more people don’t consider their ideas as being original, merely of stating or even regurgitating in simpler terms of what is factually true. For instance, I never concluded that in his Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam article he was trying to be original, I assumed he was trying to educate readers on tradition itself. I could be wrong.

            ‘For instance many Hindu idiots invoke Rama and Krishna’s avatarhood to deny their emulation by “common folk”. In which context avatarhood is an irrelevant concept and needs to be denied.’

            Not at all. All that is required is to drive the point home that the purpose of the human-looking avataaras of Vishnu (or of any Gods, like the others seen in the Mahabharatam) are entirely aimed at setting the example for humans: to be emulated.

            There is never a reason for traditionalists (a.o.t. subversionists) to deny the fact that Rama and Krishna are avataras. Either it is so or it is not so. No context. Though this instance can’t be confirmed by conventional means, and any can argue that contary views were merely “later interpolations”.

            In any case, the blog owner stated his conclusion absolutely and for all contexts: that the real case of history, the ‘real’ ‘truth’ itself, was that these were originally merely human and later underwent apotheosis at the hands of the adulating. Again, there are no extenuating circumstances. And this lecture is all he may teach his progeny, not the traditional view. Binding on him, especially for lecturing the unrelated.

            “You cannot get the scholarly debate down to layman and blame the scholars for debating untenable ideas.”
            So you believe modern ‘scholars’ may pretend one ‘simplified’ opinion for the layman and believe in novelties among themselves? Sounds a deception. And a novelty. Considering the famous learned traditional persons including acharyas did not merely state Rama and Krishna to be avataaras of Vishnu to the public and conclude these were deified humans in private.

            As far as the Gods are concerned, I go by those who know them. Since I have direct relatives who know the Gods first-hand (in the the very literal sense that Taoists see their Gods, and famous traditional Hindus of history did), it’s easy enough for me to weed out novel opinions of “scholars” pertaining to these.

            “Probably more original (and also possibly deviant at times) yet way more informative is manasataramgini.”

            Who? Ah, I got who you mean. Pass.
            To each his own.

            I’d thought you unfortunately sounded a lot like (an earlier variant) of the originally-mentioned blog owner, except that you diverged or seemed to in at least one very important point: in an earlier conversation with Radha Rajan here, you affirmed that Rama and Krishna were avataras of Vishnu to you. So I took this as proof positive that you were distinct from him. It is the only reason I addressed you.

            Now that you seem to imply that a single person may both insist on Rama and Krishna being avataras to one lot, and yet elsewhere publicly deny that they were originally avataras of Vishnu (but were even deified human characters instead), means I can’t rule out an identity relation between you and he after all, so now I lean one way. And be you two still different, certainly you sounded sufficiently like him that I thought you likely to repeat his experiences under similar circumstances.

            But, when the occasion arises, do repeat what you said about the malleability of such traditional views to Radha Rajan. I actually want to know how many and perhaps even who will agree, and how many will draw the line. For some, this may still prove to be a most fundamental point of difference, so much so they may cease to listen to lectures on ‘dharma’ by those who hold such views. I further also think all should be made aware as to where their modern instructors stand, not merely what views are filtered down for them, and what the full views of those who would influence them are.

            Am sorry I interrupted the page and sorrier to have started what has become this regrettable .
            But the original point stands. To repeat in general: that blog owner spoke very generally and universally in insisting on Rama and Krishna not being avataaras of Vishnu. Later he more privately affirmed his evolved belief, from what you may deem his further “deep, scholarly” analysis, that these are not Gods but men. Any can make of such what they will.
            Also, all should have the honesty to stand by their actual full views in public, instead of feigning traditional views in front of one set of Hindus and privately holding to the inversion.

          • Jishnu

            “so you believe modern ‘scholars’ may pretend one ‘simplified’ opinion
            for the layman and hold to and pursue novelties among themselves? Sounds
            a deception.”

            Such layers exist always. In modern parlance you have the scientific communities where research work is presented and debated, then journals where certain standard is expected, then popular journals where relatively more solidified knowledge is presented in semi formal ways for the common man. What exactly is deceptive in this? I am saying these layers are lost in traditional knowledge and that it is creating both perception and synthesis problems.

            ” in an earlier conversation with Radha Rajan here, you affirmed that Rama and Krishna were avataras of Vishnu to you”

            Of course yes, and if my understanding is the question I would assert the same any day. But someone else evaluating the very concept of avatara or someone being an avatara or not, and my disagreement on that matter (I can’t say until I read the article) hardly stops me from knowing what information he gives on that or other topics and what arguments he makes. It is not necessary I agree either, much less endorse. One can only see such blog’s merit on a per topic and per argument basis.

            I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say… your point?

            “Also your use of certain words, for instance avatarahood”

            That is Aurobindo’s term and used by many. Very likely he picked from there too 🙂

            “Also, all should have the honesty to stand by their actual full views in public, instead of feigning traditional views in front of one set of Hindus and privately holding to the inversion.”

            Unlikely, since one would only have studied some areas in depth and in many others formed one’s opinions through a superficial reading or gut feel (at any rate insufficient reading). Each one has a few nice ideas to contribute and we should not overdo our expectations 🙂 Appearing traditional in public is not necessarily dishonesty but conformism on areas where you do not have sufficient understanding/conviction. After all tradition is vast and it is unlikely one would have an informed opinion on all or even a good proportion of it (esp without years of traditional training).

          • Anfauglir

            “Such layers exist always. In modern parlance…”
            It is not what I meant, nor is the analogy to academic publication apt therefore.

            “where relatively more solidified knowledge is presented in semi formal ways for the common man.”
            But do people today (scholars, original thinkers, what have you) need to keep attempting to re-establish what earlier native scholars steeped in both traditional training and first-hand knowledge of the subject matter have already directly validated and thus repeatedly established as tradition? Further, persons today come up with conclusions at total variance with the earlier ones, as demonstrated in the sort of blackmail that was used in the instance I stated.

            Compare for instance: From what is factually known of the 16th century author of the Narayaneeyam, he was a prodigy trained by his father an acharya in Bhatta Meemaamsa and Tantra, by other acharyas in Vedas, Logic/Nyaaya-VaisheShika and Shaastras, and was himself a renowned scholar in Grammar, Meemaamsa and Poetry (on all 3 of which he published works). He was among the many to provide direct validation by having direct darshanam. So did an even more recent learned one in tradition, Sengalipuram Sri Anantharama Dikshitar.

            But it is this part in your comment that most interests me:
            “Of course yes, and if my understanding is the question I would assert the same any day.”

            I am being pedantic to be absolutely clear: Have you therefore also never asserted otherwise in the past, such as on the internet and/or under other usernames? (This will answer for me the part you said you did not understand.)

            “What exactly is deceptive in this?”
            I merely meant that any scholar or original thinker to both pretend to hold a traditional viewpoint as valid to some, and yet at the same time insist it is invalid to others (and not allowing them the traditional view), is simply disingenuous. But this may not be what you meant. Your explanation comes across as attempted reasoning for reconciling your perception of my description of the blog owner. But compounded by my misunderstanding you, I think you misunderstood: In any case, the blog owner is not two-faced, or wasn’t before at any rate. As I stated, his insistence that Rama and Krishna were not avataras of Vishnu was made publicly. Later on this had evolved to his affirmation that these two were but deified. It so happened that this last affirmation came up in a more private setting, but had it come up in public he’d have stated this in public too.

          • Jishnu

            “But do people today (scholars, original thinkers, what have you) need to
            keep attempting to re-establish what earlier native scholars steeped in
            both traditional training and first-hand knowledge of the subject
            matter have already directly validated and thus repeatedly established
            as verified tradition?”

            Not necessarily: that is the job of a different section of people is my point. And for that we do have traditionally trained people in SAstra and pedagogy. That they should be given prominence and be our main source of learning is my view. Although there is no hardline between them and the thinker-scholar kind we are discussing, the overlap is not too much as it stands today.

            “Have you therefore also never asserted otherwise in the past, such as on the internet and/or under other usernames?”

            OK I get what you are saying. As a matter of fact I did/do not assert the contrary, though I did make several arguments that do not invoke avatara concept and are agnostic of it (as I deemed to be epistemologically more apt). I do not see those as contradictions but different contexts. Of course if I say once they are avataras and in another contexts assert they are NOT avataras instead of saying I will not use their avatarhood to make my point, that would be a contradiction.

            “It so happened that this last affirmation came up in a more private setting, but had it come up in public he’d have stated this in public too”

            more like Darwin’s later realizations that don’t see much light 🙂

          • Anfauglir

            It seems I was not clear. When I asked whether scholars, original thinkers today ‘need to keep attempting to re-establish what earlier native scholars steeped in both traditional training and first-hand knowledge of the subject matter have already directly validated and thus repeatedly established as verified tradition?’ I did not anticipate your answer to be essentially in the affirmative.

            My question was more of the form of “(why) do we need to keep reinventing the wheel’ or ‘if a logical proposition has been proved, (why) do we need to keep proving it again and again, instead of treating it as established and moving on’? That is: what use is there in modern ‘scholars/original thinkers’ opening up for “debate”, as you chose the term in an earlier response, _established_ views in the tradition, that have long been repeatedly verified and validated and thus re-iterated by true authorities? What is the use of this when any number of modern ‘scholars/original thinkers’ furthermore come to conclusions that are directly opposed to the very conclusions established by what were factually more capable and all-round better persons?

            The question reduces to rhetorical, questioning the sense of any who thought ‘debate’ on established points necessary in the first place, and questioning how any who came to opposing conclusions could even be regarded as authorities or learned in any sense. I certainly did not expect that questions of the form ‘does the (round) wheel need to keep being reinvented when it is clearly already in our ken (let alone by people who derive useless square wheels instead)’ or to the question ‘do proofs need to be provided again for things already proven (let alone by people who end up wrongly with a disproof)’ should lead to an answer of the form “yes (by so-and-so)”, as you have responded to my question with. But perhaps my phrasing of it was simply not clear. In any case, I am in obvious disagreement with the response.

            Within the tradition, individuals are ever encouraged to validate established views for themselves, and the learned ones of each generation can always re-iterate the validity thereof and produce further material to enhance the existing body of established tradition, but to speak of such repeatedly-validated views of tradition as things whose very validity can justifiably keep coming up for debate among a new strain of ‘scholars/thinkers’, means that the very ones who would do so, and more so the ones to come to inverse conclusions, are far from adept. Not authorities for anyone within the tradition, only for those without.

            It’s very unfortunate that my other question was phrased more open-ended than I ever foresaw, as you have answered it in a manner that I’m actually none the wiser about something I sought from your response. Therefore, could we please try this again? I don’t mean to remain a drain on your time, but could you answer whether (anywhere on the internet or under any username, say) you have ever in the past:

            1. mentioned that the (Vishnu) ‘avatarahood’ of Rama and Krishna is not something that originally (necessarily) even followed from the Ramayanam and Mahabharatam; and/or
            2. have ever stated to anyone that Rama and Krishna are to be viewed as Gods in ‘their own right’ since their being avataras of Vishnu is not a necessary assumption; and/or
            3. referred to “deified heroes/hero deification” in a context that specifically included Rama and Krishna.

            The above are specifically yes/no questions, and that’s all I seek, where “can’t remember” or “not certain” are not possible answers, as anyone to whom Rama, Krishna, Vishnu or any Hindu Gods are important would always be aware of what they said (if anything) on the above subjects had they ever come up.

            That anyone should pose the above questions to you may come across as nonsensical, but could you please answer them? (Personally, I’m hoping your honest answer is No to all three.)

          • Jishnu

            “’if a logical proposition has been proved, (why) do we need to keep proving it again and again, instead of treating it as established and moving on’”

            Because that is the nature of knowledge. There are central propositions whose status is unchanging and there are many propositions whose status is changing. Plus each concept is has certain level of importance in a particular worldview/philosophy. New concepts evolve not
            necessarily by assuming the validity of all existing ones but by undermining some of those.

            Avatara for instance got prominence in bhakti-paurANic parlance, but it did not happen without undermining the prevalent theological notions (such as primacy of Indra etc). These are hardly proven-forever propositions but rose in phases in which those concepts were deemed more important than others.

            They in turn will get undermined in subsequent phases when needs of the times change. For instance the bhakti approach regardless of its immense contributions had a pretty bad side effect in undermining the rigorous intellectual disciplines and complex ritual structure which is important for karma yoga. Regardless of where one wants to lay the blame, a revival of rigorous SAstra education would involve questioning some of these concepts. That is necessary if we are to come out of the present intellectual and cognitive bankruptcy of Hindu society.

            I would however definitely add my catch that it cannot be any arbitrary questioning but a well informed and studied inside-out questioning. But I do see the need for study, for churning, for reasoned questioning.

            I run the risk of not being articulate in the above, but had to give it a try nevertheless.

            “Not authorities for anyone within the tradition, only for those without.”

            This is a risk we run and I agree.

            “1. mentioned that the (Vishnu) ‘avatarahood’ of Rama and Krishna is not
            something that originally (necessarily) even followed from the Ramayanam and
            Mahabharatam; and/or”

            NO. But it is not a yes-no question though J That is because
            Ramayana-MBH are “layered” texts and scholars do differentiate the “core” from
            other layers. In which case the question of whether avatarhood belongs to the
            core layer or not will arise, and the answer to your question may or may not be
            a YES. If for a layman learning the whole text avatara is inherent in the text,
            the answer to your question above is a NO.

            “2. have ever stated to anyone that Rama and Krishna are to be viewed as
            Gods in ‘their own right’ since their being avataras of Vishnu is not a
            necessary assumption; and/or”

            NO. But again, it doesn’t matter whether it is an avatara – Rama’s upAsana
            essentially posits Rama as tAraka parabrahman and there is no avatAra or Vishnu
            relevance there. Any form is full. You would ask someone following it, he will
            not give you a yes/no answer J which is not an outsider perspective but an insider
            perspective.

            “3. referred to “deified heroes/hero deification” in a context
            that specifically included Rama and Krishna.”

            NO. Answer is clear, no nuance here 🙂

          • Anfauglir

            Again, I’m still none the wiser, as the conclusion from your short yes/no answers goes against that drawn from your longer elaborations and from the entirety of your comment, which last make you sound more like another than ever before. (For instance, even bringing up the unrelated topic of the eclipsing of Indra worship and this being as a consequence of the popularity of Avatara worship, sounds identical.)

            Nothing for it but an even more direct question to settle the matter then. Did you ever state these next words anywhere (again, including anywhere on the internet, under any username):
            “E.g. the issue of viShNu-avatArahood to kR^iShNa. Indeed, after reading the life of kR^iShNa in MBh, and that in bhagavatpurANa, one can not escape realizing that this viShNu-avatAra status is a later addition to kR^iShNa with retrospect effect.”

            It’s once more the type of question that simply requires an honest Yes/No.
            (None of the popular search engines I tried have the above statement in their publicly visible index.)

            For the record, the short answer to your comment as a whole is that I am largely in disagreement with it. The only obvious point of agreement is this: “Rama’s upAsana essentially posits Rama as tAraka parabrahman and there is no avatAra or Vishnu relevance there. Any form is full”. This is well-known, being tradition, which is why that was not my question.

            “Avatara for instance got prominence in bhakti-paurANic parlance”

            Yet Vishnu’s Trivikrama avataaram is already well-known to Valmeeki’s Ramayanam and already considered worshippable there. And Bhakti derives from the Vedas, as traditional Hindu scholars have demonstrated, and is thus inseparable in origins from Vedic ritualism and Vedic cosmological views, being one whole. Which is why there are Vedic ritualists of unbroken tradition (as opposed to broken ones) who continue that perspective.

            This and many of the other issues you’ve raised sound identical to those brought up by that blog owner long ago elsewhere. But nothing in my response, which would needs be incredibly verbose and rather largely a repetition of things stated elsewhere, would matter either way. So I’ll leave off with one exception below. You should however raise all these other issues more publicly, and thus declare your fuller views here expressed, so all may know.

            Concerning Indra: I think people overlook Buddhism as an important factor. In brief, my own supposition, for which I have extremely verbose reasons, is that Buddhism successfully hijacked Indra, such that Hindus resorted to damage control in the form of severe self-amputation. There are indications that for Brahma too, the case is similar. Whereas comparatively more minor instances of self-amputation is seen in localised cases of certain other Hindu Gods who were inculturated upon.

          • Jishnu

            Well your questions tend to have a catch that I am wary of a fully committed yes/no 🙂 That you disagree is something I can see, but I did not want to sneak out with one word answer for its own sake. The same applies to the new question:

            “”E.g. the issue of viShNu-avatArahood to kR^iShNa. Indeed, after reading the life of kR^iShNa in MBh, and that in bhagavatpurANa, one can not escape realizing that this viShNu-avatAra status is a later addition to kR^iShNa with retrospect effect.””

            I definitely did not and would not say so. Purana and Avatara (and more so Bhagavata and Krishnavatara) are inseparable in my mind. But I am not sure I can be equally assertive in case of Mahabharata. Note however, that Itihasa is a different category of text and that the jaya-Bharata distinction isn’t unknown in tradition.

            “Yet Vishnu’s Trivikrama avataaram is already well-known to Valmeeki’s
            Ramayanam and already considered worshippable there. And Bhakti derives
            from the Vedas, as traditional Hindu scholars have demonstrated, and is
            thus inseparable in origins from Vedic ritualism and Vedic cosmological
            views, being one whole.”

            Which is fine, for that matter the avatAra khanDa shows cause of Rama’s birth as Vishnu’s promise. I also agree Bhakti is very much present in Veda itself. I am not drawing a Veda-Purana dichotomy at all. After all Puranic phase was one of recompiling the prevalent Vedic knowledge and can hence not be distinct from it in content.

            “For instance, even bringing up the unrelated topic of the eclipsing of
            Indra worship and this being as a consequence of the popularity of
            Avatara worship, sounds identical”

            I made that as an example of transition and phases within tradition and not as a conceptual assertion.

            “Concerning Indra: I think people overlook Buddhism as an important factor.”

            Interesting, thanks. I will do my homework and see how well this sits with my understanding.

          • Anfauglir

            Thanks for answering my questions very diligently. And I appreciate the increasingly rare logical mind. (More so because I don’t seem to understand any other kind quite as well.)

            “Well your questions tend to have a catch that I am wary of a fully committed yes/no :)”

            Ah, so is that why you were so cagey? I merely wished to be sure that I was not talking to a specific person I was already a little familiar with, and therefore wanted to confirm that you were a total unknown to me. It wasn’t technically a catch, other than that I’d simply have known to stop responding if you were that someone else.

            “Would you mind an email contact as the topic is big and comments may not be good enough?”

            Continuing the topic is not necessary: your longer answers do not evoke any need to further discuss the points you raised, as you have been generally quite clear and articulate so that I think I quite understand what you mean. That I don’t agree is because my stance is non-negotiable on certain matters, coincidentally also on several of the very points you made in your communications to me. Since silence can be misconstrued, I disagreed as a necessity, but merely stating so suffices for me. My own reasons for disagreement (which will be interminably long) are not crucial for me to convey anyway, as I don’t aim to convince. There will therefore be no purpose to any further discussion on these matters. I also know this last from similar prior experience elsewhere.

            I’ve stored your e-mail in case I ever want to ask you any questions or the like. Therefore do you remove your e-mail address from your comment now, so that you don’t receive unwanted messages from unknown or uninvited persons.

            In return for your taking trouble to respond to me, I say the following for your benefit though not to mine:

            Despite certain non-crucial technical differences, your views expressed here seem in general in remarkable natural agreement with that of the first of the two bloggers you mentioned. They may also be sufficiently conformant with that of the other blogger whom you recommended as being “way more informative”. Because similarity of thought, views and tendencies are the basis of actual and lasting friendship (in my opinion), you may do well to befriend them. If I’d been you, I might well have done so. There may be occasional minor differences, but you will bridge any gaps in time. (I suppose that last didn’t come across as very complimentary to you, but rather as a compliment to them, neither of which I intend. I’m just stating what I think will happen.) I don’t have the e-mail of the former any more, and shouldn’t divulge others’ email ids anyway regardless of your being benign, but blogs usually have commenting facilities, so you could introduce yourself to them there. They are, or were, quite approachable.

            Now, as you seem to comment prolifically on national interest sites, if you come across anyone who sounds like me, do direct me to them or vice-versa. It may turn out to be true that people actually like sycophants: but only their own.

          • JagatguruDas

            Anfauglir, I’d like to get your email id if that’s ok with you. But not sure how this can be done. Can moderator/administrator help?

          • Anfauglir

            My e-mail? I don’t understand. Did you perhaps mean Jishnu, as he’s the one who published his e-mail id?

          • JagatguruDas

            Yes, your email id please…

          • Jishnu

            Would you mind an email contact as the topic is big and comments may not be good enough? If you are not comfortable sharing email id here please drop a test mail at [email protected] thanks.

          • Jishnu

            For a good example of a person actually believing in the notion of avatara and divinity yet rejecting it as part of historic research is NSRajaram’s book “Search for Historical Krishna” (again doesn’t mean I agree with all he says in that book).

          • Anfauglir

            “For a good example of a person actually believing in the notion of avatara and divinity”
            I’m taking his statement with a pinch of salt.

            ‘yet rejecting (avatara and divinity) as part of historic research is NSRajaram’s book “Search for Historical Krishna”‘
            Which defeats the purpose, if there was one.

            The need to reject divinity in order to uphold historicity is a modern phenomenon. In the past, Hindus perceived the two together, inseparable, just as adherents of other native religions did (and extant ones still do). That is, the perception that tradition having been established repeatedly by adepts is confirmed history, being handed down by tradition.

            It is the enforced and false historicisation of christianity at the deliberate expense of rendering the religious histories of all other religions as “mythologies” that has caused Hindus today to seek to dismiss that which was earlier regarded as our history as being now either mere mythology or else to humanise the divinities in our historical texts. Both means take recourse to destroying fundamental parts of the religion in order to salvage “something”, and ultimately salvage nothing worthwhile, being self-goals. Both compromises erode and destroy the tradition by contorting perception, but one more than the other.

            Modern persons who cannot reconcile both need not bother to try. But others may simply remember that such established traditions are Real in an important sense, whether demonstrably historical or not, and have been repeatedly validated by many starting with famous learned ones.

            Such books are not useful to those rooted in tradition (who can thus turn to actual authorities on the subject) and who have an interest in following tradition. Nor are they meaningful to those that are not so rooted. Nor are they relevant for the alienated, except if these wish to lecture Hindus that ‘Hindu authors’ have themselves ‘admitted’ that Krishna or the like are not Gods but mere humans, before proceeding to evangelise.

          • Jishnu

            “The need to reject divinity in order to uphold historicity is a modern phenomenon.”

            Yes, that is because the notion of historicity is itself a European introduction to India (see Balagangadhara’s paper “What do Indians need? A History or the Past”). I am not debating whether we should entertain such notion or not. Regardless, historiography is one of the subjects all flavors of scholarship Hindu or otherwise are pursuing.

            What Rajaram does is to not reject divinity for upholding historicity. He does not reject the MBH narration of divinity. He simply does not count those aspects for an analysis of chronology. At the same time he says those aspects are very relevant in other subjects but not historicity. Which is fair – each subject has its own etymology and does not accept explanations beyond it. Since MBH is a collection of knowledge of several subjects each would follow its own evaluation.

            “But others may simply remember that such established traditions are Real in an important sense, whether demonstrably historical or not, and have been repeatedly validated by many starting with famous learned ones.”

            Absolutely. That even Rajaram accepts in the same book.

  • Dr. MS

    I believe more than half the Indians do not know what leadership means or “is”.

    If one were to take a simple survey asking Indians in India to define leadership in their own words, and “then ask them to provide a list of qualities of what a good leader must exhibit”, most Indians would provide a very “childish, nunnish, filmy definition”…that has nothing to do with the challenges of leadership in India, and its various institutions…nor the complexity of leadership in a diverse society like India.

    I mentioned this to my assistant few weeks ago.

    When movie stars, who pretend leadership, are elected….one can see how simplistic, foolish and maybe delusional the mind must be to be unable to make the distinction between a celluloid character and a real leader.

    Our leaders would not be so mediocre and/or crooked if the Indian people really had an accurate and appropriate understanding of leadership, what it is to lead…and what it “takes” to lead.

    What can one expect in a country where “hierarchy and patriarchy” defines everything. For example: Loyalty is important, but not blind loyalty. Speaking out and speaking up is important, but not talkativeness or argumentativeness. Being quiet and silent is helpful at times, but silence when speaking up is necessary and important can be an act of cowardliness or laziness. Proactiveness is important…not narcissistic aggressiveness. Cooperation can be helpful and important in certain situations, but not passivity….A leadership mind knows these subtle differences, and people who can identify leaders understand these distinctions and appreciate it….

    Most Indian men have only one or two models for leadership: authoritarianism (dictatorial personalities, commanding personalities, demanding personalities, difficult personalities, selfish personalities…) or cronyism (even in universities you get such characters….). Not much diversity in leadership, or in character development.

    Goddess help this nation….

    • Jishnu

      The fraudulent troll is back with more lies, more filth and more hate.

      “What can one expect in a country where “hierarchy and patriarchy” defines everything”

      Are you talking of your paymaster country? The ONLY major surviving civilization that has both patrilinear and matrilinear cultural units is India. The whole of your paymaster west has ALWAYS been and continues to be male-centric.

      “Goddess help this nation”

      This nation is herself a Goddess and the ONLY nation that is called a Goddess by her sons (“Indian men”). This is the only nation that has Goddesses, and that is because of Indian men.

      • Dr. MS

        Worshipping a Goddess idol with abhishekam and alankaar is not the same as understanding the “real woman”, and the “diversity of women”, in your society with appropriate support and respect.

        I am tired of your argumentativeness. Try silence for a change. Are you so insecure in your identity that you need hot air up your backside 24/7 to feel good about yourself or your country?

        As Indian woman I must give the compliment to Indian men..not you! There are nice Indian men…but you do not rank very high among them.

        And you would know about paymaster country…since your attitude and communication have certainly contributed to the ruination of this country you call home. I wish men like you would migrate out. India would do a lot better without argumentative fools like you.

        • Jishnu

          “Worshipping a Goddess idol with abhishekam and alankaar is not the same
          as understanding the “real woman”, and the “diversity of women”, in your
          society with appropriate support and respect.”

          So patrilinear and matrilinear cultural units are not about “real women” in society. Worshiping “real women” is not something in “my society”. Recognizing feminine principle in social order is not about understanding “real women”.

          So, my statement “you are back with more lies and deception” is quite accurate and here is one more bit of evidence:

          “As Indian woman I must give the compliment to Indian men”

          Your comments are repeatedly rants on “patriarchy”, hateful of Indian men esp Hindu men. So liar, your lies and dishonesty are too open by now. You can call me names: for which you have NO substantiation offered so far. Whatever I called you has abundant evidence in your comments.

          • Do not feed the troll, even when she tries again and again.

        • Sree Charan R

          Sorry, for the interruption.But,
          1) Worshipping a Goddess is as same as Respecting the other woman-companion,in India,because: the way Indians express their emotions itself is in a Devotional manner, please understand. Because,at least until recently, the “Gods and Goddesses” in India are seen as subtle Psychological-Experiential manifestations that are happening in Human Body(or the Mind,if you will….).And, most importantly,this is NOT just restricted to Philosophical/Metaphysical arguments, but this is how the people of this Nation feel and decipher.And, this embodied understanding is slowly seeing a Slow Death( or, I am afraid, it is already dead); and this is (one of the main)reason for the increasing disrespect/atrocities against the Women in the nation.
          2) Argumentativeness is the disease of the Left (both the Brain, and the political)—and it indicates lack of Wisdom.But, this age of today is NOT that of Wisdom; it is of “intelligent articulation of pseudo-enlightened thoughts”.And hence, this is needed today, whether we like it or not.Especially, in these times of severe Identity-Crisis, a sensitive sense of Jingoistic pride is necessary.
          3) Using personal abuses/slangs/mockery is the sign of the death of intellect in a person; please avoid it, if it is possible.

          • Dr. MS

            Argumentativeness is what I see often on logs like this often, and most of it from your male peers. They attack for attack sake…calling me a slut, a liar, etc. That is perfectly okay by you? Preach to your peers to watch their language. Every time Hindu men resort to these kinds of language they give weapons to others to beat you with. Dumb Hindu men cannot figure that out…Blame it on a damaged Y chromosome that never learns, nor evolves…but only attacks women. They are incapable of polite feedback or intelligent analysis with facts. Yet you preach to me. Look at your cronies and see their language. Do you feel proud that Hindu men call Hindu men on the net as “sluts., hypocrites, etc”….Do these kinds of writings by your male peers make you proud of being a Hindu man? This is pure bullying, harassment and ultimately killing of your own women psychologically. These are the enemies within…and you cannot see it.

          • Sree Charan R

            Note: If you were just sticking to the topic of the concerned article,instead of repeating the same-old ideological slogans again and again; I am confident that, no one among my “male peers”, would ‘harass’ or ‘blame’ you, and I think you know this better.
            Bye !!

    • Xiang Chen

      All your comments are pitiful. So if you are a “real woman” PhD in addition lool…. What do you expect to write articles to expose your view.

    • Xiang Chen

      Courtly love and courtesy rules were invented in France in medieval times . So study and then teach to Indians = 100% more love (from the heart) and respect between men and women.

      Note that there remains no more than 1% of men educated in this way in Europe it follows that men and women are equal….. but as enemies.

      In sum : Women must change their way of educating children because it is women who make misogynist adult…….Pappu Chetan Bhagat can not do anything for you !!!

  • Ramu Yadav

    What an article…… Hats off.so lengthy but made me read completely generally I don’t read lengthy articles completely.

  • Prashant S.

    Much before one can rule the world, one has to rule one’s mind and the lower self.

    This is a great article and opens up many possibilities to assess leadership potential and for training of future leadership.

  • R Nanjappa

    This is an interesting piece, but I feel it does not address our real needs at present.
    Hindu Society lost its leadership qualities at least 500 years before European colonisation. What was our response to the Muslim invasions? We succumbed. Hindu ideas or ideals of leadership were developed in insular society, with a hierarchical structure, largely inherited. It could not withstand a different system which did not honour its foundations. (Will Durant put it differently: he said that a settled civilisation could not withstand an attack from barbarians).This is the simple fact. It was only Shivaji who really displayed leadership in dealing with the Muslim hordes, but it was shortlived. But even he faced internal problems from within his own family, but it was defused by Samartha Ramdas by creating a separate command for the contenders in Mysore and then Tanjore.

    The situation in the Ramayana is too idealistic. In the Mahabharata, which is more down to earth, we already see the problems: the various princes in the same clan do not imbibe the same values or leadership style or qualities. But when it comes to rulership, Duryodhana is not found wanting. In his assembly, even learned Brhamins claimed that he had ruled according to the rules and so they found no problem with him How he got to rule is a different question. Vyasa is vexed and in frustration simply exclaims that he shouts with both hands upraised for people to follow dharma, but no one listens!

    The problem before us is that we are in a democracy (or mobocracy) and so how to identify a leader, when the traditional yardsticks do not hold. A hundred years before Chanakya was compiling his manual, precisely this issue was addressed by the Greek philosophers. Socrates and Plato held that democracy was swayed by rhetoric and sophistry (where arguments could be used by skilled speakers to sway public sentiment, regardless of the merits of the issue-its innate right or wrong) and so democracy was not good. The ruler had to be good person- person of virtue, endowed with wisdom. He had to know the ‘self’ and should have self control,before he could be entrusted with rulership. The idea of the philosopher-king was proposed in this connection. But it did not seem to have worked- they simply did not know how to translate it into practice. Socrates is portrayed as attempting to train a few youngsters like Alcibiades with political ambition, infusing them with the right moral values, but they turned out to be rascals, bringing disrepute to Socrates himself.

    The fusion of the qualities of head and heart- that is what we are looking for in a leader, essentially- is very rare in practice, in any society, at any time. Perhaps the only modern example is Churchill- but he was good as a leader only in war time, and only for England.(His warning on Russia went unheeded).. Earlier, his economic measures- especially restoration of pre-war gold standard caused great misery. And even during the second world war, his policies caused the great famine in Bengal, causing the death of three million Indians. The British people had the sense to throw him out as leader after the war. More recently, Reagan in the US was a good leader personally- but his economic and foreign policies were disastrous- creating the biggest deficit in non-war times. So it is not easy to settle on leadership,issues in a democracy. But one thing is sure: whatever the mainline press writes is usually wrong!

    Almost every leader we had during the freedom movement failed in some respect. Lal-Pal-Bal , their revolutionary fervour declined after the Bengal partition era was over.Sri Aurobindo left active politics in 1910, though he kept writing on political issues. He criticised almost every move of the Congress, but when he was invited to come back to politics and lead, he declined. ( Gandhiji himself had admitted his incompetence and sent his son Devdas to Sri Aurobindo in the 20s, but Sri Aurobindo refused to come). In 1942, in a desperate attempt to direclty influence matters, he sent a special emissary to the Congress leaders urging them to agree to Cripps’ proposals as a way to avoid partition, but those gents spurned his advice. Gandhiji’s career began with the monumental blunder of Khilafat and ended with his disastrous parleys with Jinnah, after coming out of prison. And to cap it all, he did great injustice to Sardar Patel,and greatest damage to free India by anointing Nehru as the PM, when the overwhelming majority of the PCCs had wanted Patel. During his short stay in the central cabinet, tolerating all the insults heaped on him by Nehru, he showed his mettle by creating a united India, but Nehru frustrated him in Kashmir. Subhas Bose sided with Hitler and Japan in the end, two of the most atrocious forces in history. But it at least created the INA by fortuitous circumstances and that put the fear in the minds and hearts of the British and hastened their decision to leave India.(as admitted by Attlee himself.) Alas, but for the brief silver lining we got from Patel, none of the others had displayed positive leadership qualities in times of need.

    Prof. S K Chakraborty has discussed the issue of leadership- especially in the management context- in the light of Indian insights and cocepts in a couple of books. These are much deeper than the ideas of Maslow. Maslow is mainly psychological, and he fights shy of saying openly that ultimately, self-actualisation involves spiritual transformation, and not a mere psychological state. Earlier, Jung also fell short at this stage.

    This is what then the issue boils down to: leadership has to spring out of spiritual values. But how to foster and develop these values in a modern democracy, which is secular, is the problem. Ancient insights do not address this practical question. But then, we should not lose sight of the ideal.

    • Skanda

      I agree with you in parts. For instance, our record in muslim invasions is much brighter than is usually acknowledged and that should be attributed to kshAtra. I posted this argument recently recently on indiafacts http://indiafacts.co.in/reviewing-stereotypes-of-indias-medieval-political-history-1

      Against British I completely agree flawless leadership is found wanting, esp after Lal-Bal-Pal and results are there to be seen.

      Regarding psychologial vs spiritual I think its just a matter of terminology one adopts. As you noted Maslow in “Farther reaches of human nature” describes a lot of “spiritual” phenomena by giving it a “psychological” color without calling it out as spiritual, but the father reaches are indeed a subset of what we call the higher reaches in adhyAtmic progression (and more so with self-transcendence layer of the pyramid). What he really falls short of is to spell out how to systematize such experiences – something the upAsana SAstra masters.

      However I do not see secular-spiritual dichotomy to be a problem: neither Indian society believed in such dichotomy nor Indian philosophy. As I understand it is the lack of trained persons emerging as leaders that is the problem, not the acceptance of such leaders in society/polity. There is simply no positive training involved in our polity, secular or otherwise. The only thing that one learns by rising in ranks of a political party is electoral politics.

      • R Nanjappa

        I agree with you sir. There is no secular-spiritual dichotomy in life, nor is there one in our philosophy. But the whole of the modern trend is to deny the reign of spiritual values over life, and seek some ultimate value in humanism or some such secular ideal. It has come to such a pass that the very notion of ethics or right or wrong is banished from science, economics and politics.And there is the other problem of passing on the baton- how the values are going to be transmitted. The old institutional arrangements have broken down, and enduring new ones have not taken their place. There is too much transience everywhere. How Hindu India is going to face these trends and whether it can reverse or stem them is what worries us. But we thank you for keeping the ideal before us, lest we forget.

    • Dr. MS

      Mr. Nanjappa, thanks for the write up…though much of it I already know and know more. But look at the response I got for writing what I did, and I was being less severe than you? It appears that there are those who will listen and learn, and those who will not. Some just need to argue to sort of play power games with no learning or evolution. And they particularly will not learn from women…because of unresolved misogyny. One hopes early out migration or death of such men will help this country. :)) Do you have any other solution? :))

      • R Nanjappa

        “Unresolved misogyny”- yes, this is the most accurate description. Indians may call themselves ‘goddess worshippers’ but this is a form of hypocrisy. They cannot relate to women as equals, leave alone accepting their greater intellectual attainments. Like they worship the deities in the temple, but disregard human misery around them.We may at least learn something from Vivekananda here. He refused to talk about women’s issues and said that they should be allowed to study and settle their issues.

        Frankly, i do not feel much hope for this country- for there is neither integrity nor sincerity in any sphere, especially among the educated.They do not have standards- instinctive application of the highest principles.. Before we celebrate our ancient virtues, we should ask ourselves why, if they were such real.exalted, virtues, did we fall?

        We should remember two women leaders who taught us something. One was Annie Besant. She was a fervent freedom fighter, but she did not agree with the policies of Gandhi, especially his Satyagraha. She asked him what would the Indian govt do when it became free if people adopted the same techniques. And it happened. Potti Sriramulu went on a hunger strike demanding Andhra on linguistic basis and the govt. succumbed when he died. Since then, Andhra itself has been further divided, making a mockery of the concept of linguistic state! It shows Mrs.Besant had a long range vision, essential in a leader.

        The other leader is Sister Nivedita.Though her main work was educational among the girls of Bengal, she could not suppress her nationalist spirit. Though she was a direct disciple of Vivekananda, she had no formal connections with the RK Math. Yet, the Math felt uncomfortable with her. So,she had to make a formal public statement distancing herself from the Math. Her writings and speeches on Indian themes are a source of deep insights.Her epitaph reads that “she gave her all to India”.Of how many Indian leaders can we say this? (Incidentally, both were of Irish descent,and the spirit of nationalism ran in their blood.)

        Vivekananda pointed out the lack of leadership qualities among Indians. He said we could not even work as teams.He pointed out our lack of organisational skill. He said that jealousy among people would ensure that no one was allowed to function as leader for long.It was the organising ability of the people in America, and the education and the spirit of freedom and character of the women there that attracted him to the American people. When in service, I used to hear a joke related by exporters. They once found a crate of crabs meant for export lying with the lid open in some port. Someone expressed fear that the crabs might escape. But others assured him: ‘don’t worry, they are Indian. If one tries to escape, others will pull it down.’ This is how our leadership works in practice.

        We may be proud of our ancient wisdom- whatever it is. But there is nothing wrong in learning some practical skills and current values from people and nations who have achieved something.if we believe that we know everything, we will cease to grow. Again as Vivekananda said, our downfall began when we invented the word ‘milechha’.

        • Jishnu

          “we should ask ourselves why, if they were such real.exalted, virtues, did we fall?”

          Are the reasons really not known? Or do we flip flop between external and internal causes and keep self-flagellating? Thousand years of causes are quite openly visible, people just don’t relate them to the prevalent problems.

          A constrained family or society will start fighting inwards. Something as elementary as this beats us when we start analyzing Indian society.

          “We may be proud of our ancient wisdom- whatever it is”

          It is not ancient, it is eternal hence called sanatana.

          Vivekananda’s history reading is not great (was product of his times and prevalent convention), and after a century if we have not developed insights of past which show what is wrong with his reading, that is the real problem.

          • R Nanjappa

            Sir, you have a point about Vivekananda’s reading of history. But whose reading of history is perfect, or even fully correct? Arnold Toynbees’s? Eric Hobsbawm’s? E.H.Carr’s? Will Durant’s? Daniel Boorstin’s? Anthony Pagden’s? David Cannadine’s? Niall Ferguson’s? Arthur Herman’s?Every historian who tries to answer what happened in history ( ha asa:) says ‘iti’- thus or this- which is his own take. This is just human nature- our prejudices are part of us, sometimes all of ‘us’. So, Vivekananda is not alone in being influenced by the spirit or ideas of his times.

            Rather, we should take the specific things he said and show where he was wrong. He predicted the rise of Russia and the proletariat. He questioned the historical existence of Jesus, and hinted at the Buddhist origins of their faith and practices He pointed out that Mohammad was a half-baked prophet..He pointed out where Hindu society fell short in practice of its lofty ideals. He said that India would fall in three generations if it forgot its spirituality and took to social reform. He said that for the next hundred years we should forget all other gods and devote ourselves to uplifting the poor. Where , Sir, in all of this he was wrong? But in his general discourse, he adopted the Western rational-scientific method, which is to be expected when he was addressing a predominantly Western or Western-educated audience. If we use only old Sanskrit words, does it make us more Indian, or more of an adherent of the ‘eternal’ religion? A religion which cannot renew and reinvent itself from time to time is as good as dead. ( But Vivekananda was wrong in departing from the strict line of Ramakrishna and entering into the hot waters of social questions, which he could not solve, and which Ramakrishna had avoided. He was perhaps wrong in organising the RK Math on the lines of the Roman Catholic church, and thus making a new cult.He was wrong in his idealistic admiration of America, which he himself realised during his second visit. He was surely wrong in his judgment of people- some of his followers turned betrayers later.)

            If for a thousand years we have been facing or fighting some causes,and have not yet overcome them, does it not show that there is something wrong with us- rather than the causes? It is a bad dancer who complains of the inadequacy of the stage.

          • Jishnu

            “Rather, we should take the specific things he said and show where he was wrong”

            His being wrong is not really my emphasis, since his reading is based on the information available at his time. My emphasis is in Hindus of today getting those things right with advantage of hindsight and available data. It would be preposterous for me to go on a fault finding exercise with someone of Vivekananda Swamy’s stature and contribution.

            But speaking of a few examples

            1. His analysis of “caste” isn’t accurate (which he probably noted later in his own life). This is an important area where we should get things right today.

            2. His Vedantic background and lack of comprehensive SAstra training (sAngopAnga Veda, dharma SAstra etc) results in a somewhat skewed presentation of the social structure, whole popular religious and ritual structure (which is amplified in RKMission), understanding of polity.

            As a result of #2, he resorts to karma theory to explain the Hindu suffering under invasions and not political wisdom. This is something many Hindus do today too.

            “If for a thousand years we have been facing or fighting some causes,and have not yet overcome them, does it not show that there is something wrong with us- rather than the causes”

            Not necessarily. It is logically possible (and factually true) that the causes are simply too powerful. The sheer size, number, duration and persistence of external attacks is something we largely underestimate. The waves of invasion only got stronger as the two abrahamics got only increasingly powerful in middle east and west (and hence increasingly difficult for us to dislodge from India).

            To reorganize, Hindus need independence and we do not have yet (we have a proxy colonial rule even today). Until then the strategy remains clandestine preservation. Unless Hindus have hold of social structure (which the state has today) we cannot simply attempt a structural correction or renovation of the damaged structure. Yet, given the inherently compassionate nature of Hindu seers they keep attempting small changes within their capacity.

          • R Nanjappa

            Noted. Thanks.

        • Dr. MS

          Thank you Mr. Nanjappa. You are absolutely right. I interact with Indian men and women of many ethnic, linguistic and age groups, including Hindus, many times, and I am horrified at their level of social ignorance and social callousness. Even basic courtesies have been forgotten. But some men on these weblogs go on and on in a delusional way, thinking that if they attack you and me for speaking up, speaking the truth and disagreeing with them that somehow they’d all be okay. One can only imagine the level of Maya they must be creating and expanding to be so “insensitively clueless and cruel”…while being delusional.

          I worry too. You are the fiftieth person I have met who has said to me, “I see no hope for India”. It breaks my heart to hear this. Maybe you are right, but I am too much of an optimist.

          And HOPE, as you might remember from the famous Greek mythology, was the last to jump out of the Pandora’s box and follow MISERY and ILLNESS. Hence we struggle, live and breathe with that hope.

          Best wishes, and thank you for your writing….

  • Sumanth Sharma

    Once again, Skanda Veera raises the bar for Hindu Intelligentsia. Also another shining example that there more than enough that our dharmic knowledge capital has to offer.

    The only question is, are We, Hindus willing to listen and build collective mindset to make this the main discourse ?

  • cool
  • Jishnu

    “Gandhi stands out only on #1 and partly on #4”

    According to the logic mentioned here (good problem solving and partial compromize on positivity) Gandhi comes out on #4 and partly on #1. Not on #1 and partly #4.

  • Krispy K

    Excellent article

  • Pen

    Very much timely article lots of people wanting to know Hindu leaderships quality,including my self.

  • sighbaboo

    What a joy it was to read this article! Dispassionate analysis, cogently presented. Thanks.