DHARMIC MANAGER: MEANINGS AND MEANS by PROF RAJIV KUMAR & DR NISIGANDHA BHUYAN

 ABSTRACT

Many Indians frequently attempt to adopt the construct of Dharm inherent in the ancient Indian tradition to evaluate their and others’ actions amidst the perplexing complexities of daily life. However, the meanings of Dharm change according to space (Desh), time (Kaal), and Individual (Patra).

Given the increasingly pivotal role of businesses in society—particularly in the last few centuries—we support the integrative approach (Freeman, 1984) of business with society as opposed to the separatist view of Milton Friedman (Friedman, 1962, 2007). We contend that people managing businesses play a vital role in society by creating wealth and opportunities for work and perhaps shaping the culture and character of human civilization and its future. Their actions influence a multitude of people directly as well as indirectly.

Hence, ensuring Dharm in their actions can have salutary and cascading effects on society.

The meanings of Dharm change as per texts and their interpretations, as well as with Desh, Kaal, and Patra. Sensing the ensuing complexity, we humbly attempt a formulation of the meaning of this construct for contemporary business managers. We draw insights from Shrimad Bhagwat Gita (SBG) and Mahabharat (MB)—among other texts from Indian tradition—for this purpose. We then aim to offer evidence-based ideas as means to move closer to Dharm thus specified.

INTRODUCTION

A person with managerial responsibilities in any contemporary organization is compelled to live a complex life. This person faces a multitude of dilemmas on a daily basis without much clear guidelines for their resolution. Formal rules and informal norms definitely exist for several situations, but there still remains a wide space for multiple interpretations of rules or norms and consequent choices. Moreover, the rules and norms can be contradictory at times, very flexible and open to varied interpretations at other times, and rigid, fixed, and authoritarian the rest of the time. For example, should a manager penalize an employee for coming late or should s/he first try to ascertain the reasons behind lateness?

Suppose the reasons are genuine, and the manager chooses not to penalize. Would it set a bad precedent for a number of other employees who probably only witnessed the forgiveness but not the underlying rationale? In case an employee is not putting in her or his best effort, should the manager try harder tactics—such as reprimand—or softer tactics—such as persuasion—to elicit the desired performance? One has to deliberate about all this at a time when the practice of work is evolving with new approaches like working from home and increasing diversity of the workforce and so forth.

Recognizing these uncertainties leads to a very important and eternal question: how does one ascertain whether one's actions are good or bad? As discussed above, just following rules and existing norms may not be sufficient for decision-making. Many luminaries before us have attempted to answer this eternal question. Our limited understanding of these answers makes us gravitate toward one particular viewpoint. We contend that a large number of managers in India may evaluate their involuntary or voluntary actions, conscious or subconscious choices, and quick or long-drawn decisions on the criteria of Dharm.1 (Badrinath, 2019). They juxtapose the actions of their life with their notion of Dharm.

However, we also assume that their notion or conception of Dharm may remain largely informed by ancient texts and the conditioning received from family, society, and organization. There could be a few problems with such a notion of Dharm, such as

Varnashrama Dharm. Firstly, the recollections could be incomplete, imprecise and convenient (in order to avoid facing dilemmas). Next, the societal context has changed drastically in the last few centuries, which necessitates reinterpretation and contextualization of any notion associated with the construct of Dharm. Such notions may include duty, division of labor, common good, cooperation, competition and indifference. From an agrarian society with extended families, we have moved into a world of manufacturing or service organizations employing people and living with nuclear families. Such drastic changes in the way of life and technology around us cannot be ignored while deriving the traditional notions

of Dharm.

Our goal in this paper, therefore, is twofold. Firstly, we offer a conceptualization of the construct of Dharm for a business manager, taking into consideration the contemporary context of existence. Secondly, we compile a list of actions—based on extant research—that promise results closer to Dharm.

1 Badrinath views Dharm and religion as two distinct constructs, a view we agree with and borrow in this paper.

RECONCEPTUALIZING DHARM

The most prominent meaning of Dharm, as per Bharat Ratna Pandurang Vaman Kane (Kane, 1941), consisted of the privileges, duties and obligations of a person, including the standard of conduct as an Aryan, as a member of one's caste, and a person of a particular stage of life (Varnashrama Dharm). This definition may be accused of a rigid social division of caste hierarchy. Nevertheless, it contextualizes the duties and responsibilities of human beings in their position and stage of life, intending to maintain social order, stability, and the common good of that particular time. Hence, PV Kane advocated conceptualizing Dharm

according to one’s duties as a member of a community and one’s stage of life. The modernday relevance of this contextualization is that people are assigned specific responsibilities, and their Dharm must be in relation to their responsibility to the community/society/profession in a particular period of time.

The importance of context and time is also seen in the works of moral philosophers of the Western tradition, particularly in MacIntyre (2007), who asserts that "Morality which is no particular society's morality is to be found nowhere" (pp. 265-66). MacIntyre asserts that morality always existed for a particular era. In his germinal work The Idea of Justice (Sen, 2008), Amartya Sen advocates a comparative approach that focuses on the actual behavior of people over transcendental and/or ideal notions of right/good/just. Sen argues in favor of a realization-focused approach to deal with manifest injustice over the arrangement-focused notion of justice that emphasizes the transcendental identification of the ideal institutions for delivering justice. For Sen, ideal institutions are neither necessary nor sufficient for the actual manifestation of a just society. In contrast, the realization-focused champions of justice were often interested primarily in the removal of manifest injustice from the world that they saw.

Similarly, a manager looking for a just and/or right decision in a particular situation exercises practical reason that involves an actual choice and demands a (Dharmic) framework for comparison of ‘what is more right’ with “what is less right’ while choosing from among the feasible alternatives and not an identification of a possibly unavailable perfectly right.

The formulation of Chaturvedi Badrinath (Badrinath, 2007) refers to some other meanings of Dharm as per Taittiriya Upanishad, Bhagavad Gita, Manu- Smriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, and Tantra Vartikka. These meanings manifest in certain specific varieties of Dharm, such as Rastra Dharm, Kula Dharm, Yuga Dharm and so forth. Chaturvedi Badrinath seems to contend that many of the above definitions/views of Dharm are ritualistic, narrow, and sectarian (Badrinath, 2007, p. 80); hence there is a need for a secular and humanitarian understanding of the construct while keeping the important context of existence in view.

Accordingly, he attempted a universal definition of Dharm.

Chaturvedi relied on Mahabharata and other schools of Indian Philosophy to derive a universalistic notion of Dharm. According to Nyaya- Vaaishesheka, Dharm is that which leads one to abbhyudaya (happiness) and to nihshreyasa (beatitude). As per Mahabharata, Dharm is the universal foundation of all relationships of the self with the self and of the self with the other. Dharm is the natural foundation of all social order (everywhere), and it includes every form of life. Dharm means the order in the universe (Badrinath, 2019). As per the learned Rishis, that which sustains is Dharm - Dharayati eti Dhram. As per Chaturvedi (p. 85), the characteristics of Dharm are nurturing, cherishing, providing more amply, enriching, increasing, enhancing all living beings and securing their Prabha (potential). It is supporting, sustaining, bringing together, and in their togetherness, upholding all living

beings and securing their Dharana. Alternatively, whatever has the characteristic of depriving, starving, diminishing, separating, uprooting, hurting, doing violence, debasing, and degrading is the negation of Dharm (p.86).

DHARM AND HUMAN CONTEXT

Chaturvedi notes that Dharm secures for all beings’ freedom from violence and freedom from fear. In ordinary parlance relationship of the self with the self is incoherent, and with others, it is problematic (p. 100), leading to situations of envy, fear, greed, anxiety, violence and so on. Sri Sri Paramahansa Yogananda, in his work God Talks with Arjuna (2007), which is a compilation of SBG writes, "From the moment of conception to the surrender of the last breath, man has to fight in each incarnation innumerable battles - biological, hereditary, bacteriological, physiological, climatic, social, ethical, political, sociological, psychological, metaphysical - so many varieties of inner and outer conflicts.

Competing for victory in every encounter are the forces of good and evil. The whole intent of the SBG is to align man's efforts to the side of Dharm, or righteousness.” (p.7). Dharm is the natural laws governing the universe and man – inherent in which are prescribed duties applicable to given circumstances. Man’s Dharm is to adhere to that natural righteousness that will save him from suffering and lead him to a state of freedom (p. 158).

The universe exists because it is held together by the immutable cosmic principles of creation, usually referred to as Rta in the Vedic literature. The highest Dharm or duty of every human being is to find out (by realization) that she is sustained by cosmic principles.

Dharm is the cosmic law that runs the mechanism of the universe – obeying natural laws of living and existence, which are applicable to all things and beings. This is a teleological view as it relies on there being a final goal and purpose of existence, and human flourishing is dependent on striving towards that goal. In many respects, this view is also closer to the views of the celebrated Greek philosopher Aristotle. Human Dharm is to realize one’s true nature and to perform one’s natural duty selflessly and fearlessly for the welfare of all beings, a view expressed in SBG (Yogananda, 2007).

CONSTRUCT SPECIFICATION OF DHARM ADOPTED

We find the monumental work of PV Kane inspiring as well as apt to begin the journey to arrive at the meaning of Dharm for a contemporary manager. His comprehensive analyses and careful syntheses of the original texts made him believe, as Chaturvedi Badrinath did decades later, that Dharm actually meant a code of conduct, a way of life. He inferred, and we concur with him, that the English word religion reflects an imprecise translation of Dharm, a point repeatedly occurring in the works of Chaturvedi Badrinath.

Being Dharmic most probably means a comprehensive and careful adherence to certain codes in every walk of life (Badrinath, 2019; Kane, 1941) as well as gradually developing the capability to transcend such codes (W. K. Pirsig, 2022) as we attempt to state below.

Kane (1941) documented many manifestations of Dharm in the ancient texts. But the culmination of his interpretations of these texts is seen in his adoption of Varnashram Dharm as the central meaning of Dharm. Kane (p. 11) described the meaning of Varnashram Dharm for a person as performing “right acts in everyday life…according to his station in society.”

On the face of it, this meaning looks static and frozen in time. Specifically, it seems an onerous task to determine one’s station in society, and even if one does end up identifying this station, the dynamic forces of human life (Rogers, 1959) are quite likely to make that person sooner or later rebel against such an immovable position (W. K. Pirsig, 2022).

Needless to say, therefore, this conceptualization of Dharm germinates reasons for rejection even before one can make a serious attempt to understand and practice it. But as we argue later, Kane's specification of Varnashram Dharm may have a very useful purpose. This purpose has to be excavated, perhaps, by getting into the original meanings—etymology—of words like Dharm and other words in its neighborhood.

Many scholars (Kane, 1941; R. M. Pirsig, 1992) believe that Rta is the germ of Dharma. This term appears in RgVed, and scholars understand it to mean the cosmic order of things in general. The key point to keep in mind is that Rta meant order, a kind of orderliness that one was dutybound to realize and maintain. How else will this order manifest itself if not in a stable and balanced understanding of one’s position in the larger scheme of things? This is where Kane’s meaning of Varnashram Dharm makes sense. Probably it is fruitful to stabilize certain boundaries in one’s quest and practice dwelling within them before transcending them. For instance, a disciplined stay within the boundaries of student life most probably enables one to enter fruitfully into marriage and family life.

At the same time, people are also ever-evolving individually and, therefore, collectively. The station of life in which a young adult craves autonomy and agency gradually evolves into late adulthood, wherein the same person benignly wishes to contribute and give rather than gain for oneself (Erikson, 1950). Hence, most likely, an individual has to seek the peace and stability of order and orderliness while also being simultaneously aware that this stability has to eventually give way to new stability both individually as well as societally.

This gradual but certain evolution of the human condition probably renders a precise meaning of such terms beyond any verbal formulation. What seems illuminating here is the familiarity with the root of the word Dharm. The word Dharm itself is derived from the root word dhr, meaning to support, to uphold, and to sustain. Hence this entire scheme of stability and change, static and dynamic patterns of Dharm (W. K. Pirsig, 2022), need to be practiced in a way that supports, sustains and enhances everything, all life.

Pirsig (1992; W. K. Pirsig, 2022) not only acknowledges the logically vague specification of Dharm, but he also claims that perhaps Dharm is beyond proof or reason.

Going further, Pirsig (2022) states that Dharm should guide reason but not the other way around. The realization of Dharm, according to Pirsig (2022), also entails the dissolution of self or ego, which typically results from a logical division between oneself and others.

Pirsig’s formulation of Dharm distinguishes between static and dynamic aspects of it. This classification of Dharm is seen in Kane (1941) as well as in the work of Polanyi (1966). The static Dharma of Pirsig (1992; W. K. Pirsig, 2022) is seen in the explicit formulations or knowledge (Polanyi, 1966) and rituals (Kane, 1941). The dynamic aspects of Dharm described in Pirsig (1992; W. K. Pirsig, 2022) resemble the tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966) and the Smarta tradition (Kane, 1941).

This multifarious and perhaps ambiguous specification of Dharm becomes more crystallized in the work of Chaturvedi Badrinath. He distilled it in the following definition:

relation of self with self and with others. This gels with the idea of the subject and object—a duality seen in philosophical texts. Every self is a manifestation of the Rta and contains the true essence (W. K. Pirsig, 2022) within. If that is true, then what else is left there to relate to? And there lies the seed of Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam; if one can relate to one’s self and also to others, such relating leaves no space for contemplating anything Adharmic. Accordingly, we adopt this specification of Dharm for this paper.

WHO IS A DHARMIC MANAGER?

The Western Parallel

In today’s neoliberal capitalist economic system, a good manager is almost always associated with someone who is efficient and who ultimately adds to the maximization of the bottom line. Neoliberalism coupled with rational choice theory predominates the Western notions of a good manager where the values that matter the most are: narrow self-interest, utility, efficiency or profit (swartha and artha). What is missed and problematic in this western capitalist paradigm of an efficient manager is a holistic approach to all stakeholders, including the environment and being inclusive and taking a moral stand over and above a utilitarian and libertarian stand. Self-interest and rational choice are attributed to Adam Smith and the discipline of neo-classical economics, whereas efficiency as a parameter of the distribution of resources is attributed to John Locke and, more recently, to Milton Friedman.

With the focus on efficiency and self-interest, the consideration given to the means of achieving this set goal of wealth or profit maximization is almost always privileged unless and until there hits a crisis that disrupts the very aim of profiteering like in the cases of Volkswagen, Wells Fargo, Enron, Satyam and so on. Post Milton Friedman's declaration of the sole aim of business as profit maximization, this practice of accepting the Lockean notion of efficiency as the only measure of a good manager is accepted as normal and even ethical in the neo-liberal context. However, it has been challenged as narrow and sectarian from many quarters now.

One wonders if there is any school of thought/thinker that emphasizes values other than efficiency and utility. Do any theory or system account for justice, sustainability and the common good? The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle comes to mind in the context of the common good. In Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle depicts the concept of Eudaimonia; the goal of human existence is the attainment of the highest good for Aristotle. The highest good is synonymous with flourishing, the good-in-itself for which all other goals are pursued.

Flourishing, however, cannot be attained unless individuals are virtuous, and virtue is conceived by Aristotle as being exercised only when each entity acts as per its 'ergon' or 'characteristic activity'. As the characteristic activity of a flutist is to become a virtuoso at flute-playing, likewise, the characteristic activity of a human being is the exercise of the 'capacity of reason’.

Aristotle focuses on the possibility of bringing consistency in human character to achieve the highest good by the use of their capacity of reason and developing the virtues of excellence through habituation. In other words, character consists of virtues, vices, feelings, emotions, and actions and is, therefore, necessary for the coherence of personal identity.

Happiness stems from coherence, coherence of activities to desires, amongst desires, and desires to values. The virtue of character entails 'hitting the mean' between deficiency and excess in a given situation. Crucially for Aristotle, the virtue of character, or the ability to attain the mean, entails the use of reason but also requires habituation into the practice of the

virtues. He cites the instance of the successful athletes at the Olympic Games to argue that the winners are not the ones who possess the greatest strength but the ones who compete and, thereby, participate in the activity.

In conceiving character as comprising of virtues and vices, desires and values; and then, in defining virtue of character as the ability to ‘hit the mean’ between extremes in a situation; and in insisting on the importance of habituation in the inculcation of the virtue of the mean, Aristotle points out that virtue is not a state, but a capacity which can be developed through habituation and reason. Aristotle observes: “So virtues arise in us neither by nature nor contrary to nature, but nature gives us the capacity to acquire them, and completion comes through habituation” (Crisp, 2014). Aristotle argues in Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics that no set of rules or principles can enable the moral agent to grasp the morally salient features of a situation; this entails the use of phronesis or practical wisdom, which can be acquired only through habituation and is guided by reason.

Aristotle was very particular about individuals' being members of a larger community that he called the Polis. What is important in that notion of individuals being part of the Polis is that our virtues are also defined by the larger community. Crucial to Aristotle's argument is that there was no antagonism between the self-interest of individuals and the larger public good. This argument of Aristotle is further developed by contemporary communitarian philosophers like Amartya Sen and Michael Sandel. In Politics, Aristotle divides economic activities into two broad types. While he approved of oeconomicus or household trading but did not approve of chrematisike commerce or trade for profit and labelled the latter as an unethical approach. Contemporary virtue ethicists, especially MacIntyre (MacIntyre, 2007), have gone to the extent of denouncing business as a practice and argue that business managers are clouded by their normative bias towards the fixed goal of economic benefit, and therefore business cannot be a practice, and hence it lacks the ability to develop internal goods of virtues of excellence.

Indian View of a Dharmic Manager

The distinctness of Indian philosophy is the aim of unity of individuals with the universe. It is reflected in proclamations such as vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the entire world is a family), seen in many renditions of ancient Indian texts and thoughts (Hatcher, 1994). It elucidates the global outlook that individuals are capable of. This is similar to the concept of the 'point of view of the universe’ of Henry Sidgwick (de Lazari-Radek & Singer, 2014).

Hence the emphasis on character building over vocational/professional education in ancient India is something very integral to the Indian system of existence and good living. The ancient institutions of education—Gurukulas—were meant to develop the overall character of the individuals and not just the training in specific skill sets or vocational skills. Another significant distinction of Indian philosophy is that it did not condemn or divide the economic activities into profitable and required rather that we embrace concepts like Subha Labh, auspicious or righteous profits.

In this paper, we take the help of the text - The Mahabharata and interpret the characters and their contexts to be able to identify what is the Dharmic thing to do (the morally right thing to do?) for anyone in view of their life circumstances and its potential in

achieving the common good and human flourishing. A Dharmic manager is one who achieves control over oneself. Control over oneself is basically controlling, regulating, and transforming one's negative psychic emotions into a positive, calm, peaceful state. Negative emotions like envy, anxiety, anger, fear, revenge and so on, if fed on a continuous basis, have the potential to damage, dilute and deteriorate one’s relationship with oneself first and then one’s relationship with others and society at large. These emotions are found universally, and each of these emotions is potent to destroy the human character and the character of the

civilization and nation as portrayed in the Mahabharata. The envy of Duryodhana, the anxiety of Karna, the revenge of Ashwatthama, and the fear of Dhritarashtra led to the situation of war. A person who is a Dharmic person should be able to experience and outgrow these experiences and cultivate positive attributes and attitudes. Messages of Swami Vivekanand

imply that if a person’s relation to his colleagues and workers is devoid of love and respect, the person is shrinking (Letters of Swami Vivekananda, 2019). It is hard to see how such a manager can contribute to and to others' wellbeing. The same positive emotions that one needs to develop for setting one's relationship with oneself right are also required for building one's relationship with the others around. Without these qualities, a manager would create a

lot of damage to everything and everyone.

DERIVING THE MEANS OF BEING DHARMIC

Cultivating virtuous habits and maintaining a narrative unity of life with the constancy of character is important for being just, right, and good. One needs to cultivate virtues such as courage, generosity, temperance, justice, honesty, truthfulness and so forth. That apart, one needs to be practically wise, bereft of purely selfish desires and consider work as her share of offering to the human society and universe. A good manager also should be a better listener and be able to relate to the person and situation better.

Pirsig (2022) mentions that the way to become Dharmic is to practice Dhyan or Zen.

The word practice here seems important. Most probably, disciplined adherence to certain codes can, over time, open the paths and vistas of Dharm for a manager. The essence of earlier conceptions can be seen in both the adherence—static—and opening of new vistas— dynamic—aspects of Dharm. In the section below, a potentially useful collection of such practices is made available for readers.

Avoiding Attribution Error

A manager faces several situations when an employee appears to have made a mistake. A central question in such a situation is to decide if the employee is responsible for that mistake or what circumstances led to that mistake. Many managers may hold the

employee responsible (Ross, 2018). However, such a mental habit could be more erroneous than accurate. Published research suggests a way out. It offers a framework to examine if the manager is reaching the right decision in such cases. This framework consists of three considerations termed consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus (CDC) (Kelley, 1973).

Consistency refers to the uniformity—or its absence—in the past behaviors of the employee.

For example, if a manager notices lateness on a particular day, s/he would come to a more accurate decision by considering if the employee has shown lateness in the past. If such an examination yields consistency in lateness, holding employees responsible becomes a more accurate decision. The second consideration—distinctiveness—can be implemented by asking if the behavior under examination stands out as separate from other behaviors of the employee. For instance, if the employee coming late on a given day has also missed several deadlines in the past or has made many errors, one can more reasonably conclude that the lateness occurred due to the employee and not due to uncontrollable circumstances. Lastly, considering consensus means looking at the behaviors of many other employees that day. If many people came late that day, the behaviors of many employees would match with the employee in question. Such a data point can safely indicate that lateness occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of any single individual.

We posit that practicing the CDC principle—habituating oneself—can lead to better relations of self with self and better relations of self with others. Thus, it serves the conception of Dharm.

Ensuring Various Norms of Justice

A manager needs to follow three important norms of justice. The first norm to be kept in mind is distributive justice. This form of justice demands from a manager that rewards and punishments be distributed to employees in proportion to their good or bad outcomes. The next form of justice—procedural justice—poses two demands on managers. Firstly, managers should devise transparent procedures to determine rewards and punishments. And next, employees should have an effective mechanism to appeal if they perceive a lack of distributive justice. The last form of justice—interactional justice—requires a manager to treat employees with respect and dignity irrespective of the conditions under which manageremployee interactions take place (Colquitt et al., 2001).

Evidence strongly shows that ensuring these forms of justice results in several positive employee attitudes and behaviors (Colquitt et al., 2001). Again, we posit that practicing these forms of justice ensures less pain to others and less pain to people in the interdependent entity of the business. Hence, these practices can help the attainment of Dharma (Badrinath, 2019).

Expanding Leader-Member Exchange

According to the theory of exchanges between a manager and an employee, the manager should aim to display certain specific behaviors in order to establish a positive relationship between the two. For instance, a manager should let an employee know the level of satisfaction the manager experiences owing to the employee's output. Besides assessing the output of an employee—and sharing this assessment—a manager should also assess the potential of that employee. A manager should also endeavor to experience the difficulties and problems an employee faces while at work. A manager should try to use her/his authority to enable the work of an employee. Quite frequently, one witnesses a passive possession of authority by a manager, which s/he seldom uses to help the employees. Such an attitude proves dysfunctional, according to evidence. Moreover, certain occasions require a manager to protect an innocent employee who might have unknowingly made a mistake. A Dharmik manager should do that, as the evidence (e.g., Dulebohn et al., 2012) suggests a positive work atmosphere resulting from such managerial actions. Employees actively reciprocate the combined impact of these behaviors by endorsing the manager even when in her/his absence (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Evidence (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) also suggests that managers typically engage in these behaviors for a smaller set of employees close to them. The challenge, therefore, is to expand this circle and engage in such behaviors with an ever-increasing

number of employees. This idea is assumed further importance given that managers may not include the output of employees while engaging in these behaviors (Martin et al., 2016).

Providing Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

Employees experience positive attitudes and display several useful behaviors when they feel supported. In particular, they reciprocate well when they perceive that managers value the contributions they make. Furthermore, employees also expect their managers to care for their interests, not to take advantage of employees' vulnerabilities, and to ensure their overall wellbeing at the workplace (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Evidence also suggests that employees personify their organizations in their managers and find the role of their managers crucial while formulating their perceptions about these kinds of support (Eisenberger et al.,

2002; Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006).

Working to ensure POS demands the practice of valuing people’s work objectively, shedding biases or prejudices, and relating with compassion in order to let employees grow.

Evidence suggests that these actions and their consequences have positive outcomes for employees and organizations (Riggle et al., 2009; Rockstuhl et al., 2020). It seems that such practices can ensure better relations between self and others and probably also between self and self. In other words, these practices seem capable of ensuring Dharm.

Overall, it seems that avoiding attribution error through the practice of the CDC framework, ensuring the different forms of justice, better LMX, and POS can obviously lead to better relations between self and others. We posit that these practices can also ensure peace within and hence ensure a better relationship of the self with self. These, therefore, can be considered Dharmic practices as per the conceptualization of Badrinath(Badrinath, 2007,2019).

CONCLUSION

Probably, the ultimate goal of a manager, as a human being, should be to peacefully surrender to the Wishes of The Almighty. This could be experienced as a non-resistant and childlike response to what the manager witnesses within and without. However, the proponents of action, internal locus of control, and capitalism would be upset with such a prospect. They need to see goals, and goal-directed actions, course corrections in case goals are not met, and so forth. Perhaps it is better left to each manager to choose between peaceful surrender—lest it is misunderstood, we are not advocating inaction—and determined action.

In case the manager does choose the latter, the paper humbly offers some evidence-based suggestions for better prospects of results.

Courtesy: https://www.iimcal.ac.in/sites/all/files/pdfs/wps_878.pdf

THE GENIUS OF SANATANA POLITY AND STATECRAFT: DECOLONISING INDIAN GOVERNANCE by SANDEEP BALAKRISHNA (Dharma Dispatch)

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s vision of and eulogy to the Indian Civil Services in his inspirational speech on April 21, 1947 to the first batch of the Indian Administrative Services needs repetition if only to underscore how farsighted he was: 

Your predecessors were brought up in the traditions in which they … kept themselves aloof from the common run of the people. It will be your bounden duty to treat the common men in India as your own. [Emphasis added] 

It was a truly rousing and heartfelt speech. It was also a challenge to the best men to see whether they could scale the Mount Everest or just Nandi Hills. Fortunately, a sizeable chunk took up the Sardar’s challenge and showed what the Sardar’s “steel frame” was really capable of contributing towards nation-building. Until at least the mid 1970s, there were any number of IAS officers who were also scholars and culturally learned. Fast forward, a decade later, the downward transformation was as swift as it was brutal and criminal. Recent history is witness to the undeniable living reality that the steel frame has transformed into a moth-eaten hollowness. Indeed, it is inconceivable that brazen “politicians” like Lalu Yadav, D.K. Shivakumar et al couldn’t have gotten away with their venal marauding of both the exchequer and public conscience without being ably assisted by the bureaucracy. 

Nirad C Chaudhuri echoed[i] Sardar Patel as recently as in 1997 when he remarked that

…what disappeared from India with the going away of the British had created remained, intact in all its features and above all in its spirit… The immense noisy crowds that greeted the end of British rule in India with deafening shouts of joy on August 15, 1947, did not recall the old saying: they thought nothing of British rule would survive in their country after the departure of the White men… They never perceived that British rule in India had created an impersonal structure…. a system of government for which there was no substitute. In this system, the actual work of government was carried on by a bureaucracy consisting of the highest British officials together with a hierarchy of officials whose lowest but the most numerous personnel was formed by the clerks. Actual initiation of government action was in the hands of the men in the lowest position, viz, the clerks… the basic character of the Indian bureaucracy as it is now: ‘Theirs is a solid, egocentric, and rootless order, which by its very nature, is not only uncreative, but even unproductive. Its only purpose is to perpetuate itself by inbreeding, and ensure its prosperity. Government by such a bureaucracy can by itself be regarded as a decisive sign of decadence of a people in their political life.

The common feature of both the Sardar and Nirad Chaudhuri’s observation is just one word: rootlessness; in other words, psychological and cultural colonization. In practical terms, if there’s any institution that needs to be urgently decolonized today, it is the Indian Administrative Services (I use this term in an all-encompassing sense to include all the Civil Services like IFS, IPS, etc). Many learned Civil Services officers have themselves written and spoken at length about the need for reform in the Civil Services. But the word they’re looking for is not “reform” but “decolonize.” I would also dare add the following to this: the state at which the Civil Services is currently in, reform is simply impossible.

We can also regard this issue with a bit of historical data pertaining to said colonization.

Rule by Theory

One significant consequence—indeed, a defining feature—since India became a democracy in name is something that I call Rule-by-Theory. Under Nawab Nehru’s extended dispensation of darkness, softcore Communism was the theory that ruled India. Till she lifted the Emergency, Indira Gandhi opted for a slightly hardcore version of the same Communism. And Rajiv Gandhi didn’t have a clue about anything. After his demise, the country was pretty much in free fall except for some breaths of fresh air under P.V. Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee. 

But what has remained common for the last sixty-odd years is the selfsame Rule-by-Theory. Or to be more specific, Rule by Western Political Theories, which are completely at odds with the millennia-old genius of Sanatana polity, statecraft and governance. What has worsened the situation is the untested implementation of said Rule-by-Western-Theories. And nowhere is this defect more glaring than in the near-obliteration of the time-tested system of the Gram Panchayat, which had largely remained untouched even by the most oppressive Islamic tyranny. Although the Gram Panchayat system exists only in name, its original sturdiness has perhaps been irretrievably lost. In other words, the form of democracy that India adopted after 1947 centralized political power in New Delhi to such an appalling extent that even state governments were reduced to the status of supplicants. As an example, let’s look at an illuminating if not tragic account[ii] of the deliberations over the Panchayat Raj system in the Constituent Assembly.  

·       I want to ask whether there is any mention of villages and any place for them in the structure of this great Constitution. No, nowhere. The Constitution of a free country should be based on ‘local self-government’. We see nothing of local self-government anywhere in this Constitution. This Constitution as a whole, instead of being evolved from our life and reared from the bottom upwards is being imported from outside and built from above downwards. A Constitution which is not based on units and in the making of which they have no voice, in which there is not even a mention of thousands and lakhs of villages of India and in framing which they have had no hand—well you can give such a Constitution to the country but I very much doubt whether you would be able to keep it for long. 

·       We cannot have a strong Centre without strong limbs. If we can build the whole structure on the village panchayats, on the willing cooperation of the people, then I feel the Centre would automatically become strong. 

·       Dr Ambedkar boldly admitted, and the members of the Drafting Committee do concede that in this Constitution there is no provision for establishing Panchayat Raj…When there is no such provision, it can never be the Constitution of India… If the village is to be discarded, someone can also boldly demand that this Constitution be discarded.

Unprecedented Concentration of Political Power

Some conclusions are inescapable from this. At no other time in the millennia-old civilizational history of India—even under the vast and sweeping monarchies of the Mauryas, the Guptas and the Vijayangara Empire—was political power concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority in a single city: New Delhi. Such concentration of political power is not only alien to the Sanatana spirit, it is a crime against this spirit. Indeed, this centralization and concentration of power is the chief reason for the growth of regional and caste-based parties in just about thirty years after we attained freedom. For example, from the “Dravidian” parties up to say the Telugu Desam Party until recently, it was common to hear their leaders drop such grand public utterances about “taking our fight to Delhi.” Think about what that means. Think about what this kind of “democracy” has done to Bharatavarsha and her Sanatana civilisational continuity. 

Rajyashastra is Subservient to Dharmashastra

In the Sanatana tradition, what is known as politics was always subservient to Dharmashastra. In a way, Rajyashastra (polity, statecraft, governance, administration) was a mere subset of Dharmashastra and couldn’t be divorced or separated from it. Politics, economics, etc were worldly subjects to be regarded as mere tools and implements that facilitate a human being’s continuous quest to attain spiritual liberation. Which is why politics was constrained by the tenets of Dharma, and it is Dharma which guarantees spiritual freedom to the individual. All other freedoms are meaningless without spiritual freedom. In the Sanatana conception, this spiritual freedom of the individual received primacy because the collective actions and remembered traditions guided by this spiritual freedom is what gave us civilizational continuity. 

Consider these words[iii] by the iconic D.V.G.

no matter how far India progresses in the achievement of….material wealth, there will always be numerous other countries as competition… our desire…to be equal to England, Germany, America, and Russia in material acquisitions…is itself an adventure. It’s our duty to attempt such things so let’s do it.

But the one field which doesn’t present any such competition is culture: specifically, the spiritual culture of India. This spiritual culture is the best and the finest of India’s wealth. If we don’t account for or neglect this spiritual culture, there’s no other area which India can take pride in. Forget pride, there is indeed no area where India can become useful to the world.

But think about what these Western political theories, democracy etc have become today, in the lands of their origin: they have become instruments to manipulate the public mind. Indeed, even the notion of the term, “public conscience” has all but been eliminated in public discourse in the West.  

From the Vedic period up to the 18^th century, there was an intimate and a kind of deeply personal relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Indian polity represented perhaps the greatest lived example of what is today known as “last mile delivery of governance” and such other fashionable verbiage. The level of decentralization in governance was truly unparalleled. Every village, the last unit of administration was self-contained. Villagers really didn’t have a reason to step out of their confines for any matter concerning their daily needs. 

Genius of Decentralisation 

Indeed, history shows us that the genius of Indian polity can best be observed in our village setups. In a manner of speaking, the village was the physical manifestation of the proverb that “you can create your own world wherever you are.” 

Speaking at a very high level, what do institutions like Gram Panchayat, Sabha, Samiti, Mahanadu, Oor, Parishad etc really mean? For a fairly detailed treatment of this topic, refer to my essay on the Mackenzie Manuscripts. In any case, these institutions were later refinements of the original administrative and governance systems that existed in the Vedic period: Arajaka, Bhaujya, Vairajya, Samrajya, Maharajya, Swaarajya, etc. Roughly speaking, these refinements were brought in practice during the Mauryan rule and continued in a largely unbroken fashion until the Mughals. Thus, in Northern India, we had administrative units such as Rashtra, Ahara, Janapada, Desha, Vishaya, and Bhukti. Their equivalents in Southern India were Rajya, Pithika, Ventte, Vishaya, Seeme, Naadu, Hobli, Valanad, Mandalam, Naad, Aimbadin, Melagaram, Agaram, Chaturvedi, Mangalam, Kuttam, and Palayapattu. 

See another facet of the indivisibility and unity of India?   

But in the realm of practical life, these were intimate institutions that kept our extraordinary civilization alive and unbroken in the daily life, customs, festivals, and consciousness of Indians for hundreds of generations. Only in the rarest of rare cases was punishment actually enforced at the level of the village because there was an unspoken and interiorized understanding among people that even a minor disruption in these systems would bring down the whole edifice. The fabled inscription at Uttaramerur (near Kanchipuram) is one of the extant records that testify to this kind of near-perfect administrative decentralization. 

Maharaja, Samrat and Chakravartin

The Sanatana conception of a Maharaja, Samrat or Chakravartin also offers tremendous illumination. The Taittiriya Samhita, for example, lists what is known as the Dasharatni (Ten Gems). These were ten top administrative officials (Purohita, Rajanya, Senani, Suta, Gramani, Kshatriya, Sangruhitr, Bhagadhugh, Akshaavapa, and Parivrukti), whose permission was mandatory in order to ratify the King’s coronation. Only after the King took the following vow (Vrata): “I will protect Dharma,” was he pronounced as being officially coronated. But there was an even more practical and profound side to this. Let’s hear it in the words[iv] of the gem of a scholar, Dr. Srikanta Sastri: 

Because there is the Law of the Jungle [Matsya Nyaya] in this world, the [institution] of King was created in order to uphold and maintain peace. The King who enforces the power of punishment using Dharma as his guide is compared to Mahavishnu who preserves order in the world. However, it is completely in violation of the spirit of the Dharmashastra to regard the King as having the Divine Right to rule.

At once, the King was the combined embodiment of the following: he was the leader of the society, the commander-in-chief during wartime, the Chief Justice who would dispense justice after free, frank, and open consultation with wise men, and not folks who had risen to high rank owing to mere technical or subject competence. In the Sanatana conception, dispensing justice was to be done with an attitude of Soumanasya (Pleasantness of mind) as a verse of the Atharvaveda (30: 5-6) says beautifully. When we regard this from another perspective, the genius of Bharatavarsha becomes evident: this is an attitude, outlook, and temperament towards life juxtaposed on the complex tapestry of statecraft and polity. Which is why for the major part in its long history, Bharatavarsha had very few instances of dictators and tyrants. However, every Muslim Sultan or Nawab was a despot and tyrant almost without exception. 

One can cite examples of numerous such Samrats but I’ve considered Harshavardhana here. Harshavardhana divided the income derived from his personal landowning into four parts. He gave one part each to:

1.     Take care of Government expenses

2.     Fund the salaries of high-ranking Government officials

3.     Patronise scholars, Vidwans, Pandits, poets, artists etc.

4.     Charity

More than a thousand years later, the warrior-queen and Raja-Rishika, Ahalyabai Holkar followed the same tradition of Harshavardhana. Indeed, they followed the warning in the renowned aphorism, Rajaa Kaalasya Kaaranam, which simply means this: that political system is despicable which loots people without first solving their economic problems.

I leave the gentle reader to draw their own conclusions.  

Postscript

More fundamentally, recall how we address a long and distinguished line of luminaries – Manu, Brihaspati, Ushanas, Parashara, Bharadwaja, Vishalaksha, Vatavyadhi, Baahudantiiputra, Katyayana, and Chanakya – who first laid down the philosophy of Sanatana statecraft: as Rishis. 

Notes

[i] Nirad C Chaudhuri: Three Horsemen Of The New Apocalypse. Emphasis added.

[ii] Dharampal: Panchayat Raj And India’s Polity

[iii] D V Gundappa: Jnapaka Chitrashale: Vaidikadharma Sampradaayastharu: DVG Kruti Shreni: Volume 8: Nenapina Chitragalu – 2:  (Govt of Karnataka, 2013). Upasamhara. Emphasis added.

[iv] Dr. S. Srikanta Sastri: Bharatiya Samskruti. P. 203. Emphasis added. 

Courtesy: https://www.dharmadispatch.in/culture/the-genius-of-sanatana-polity-and-statecraft-decolonising-indian-governance

THE LOSS OF RASHTRA-RNA: THE TIGHTER WE EMBRACE WESTERN DEMOCRACY THE MORE CHRISTIANIZED OUR OUTLOOK BECOMES by SANDEEP BALAKRISHNA (Dharma Dispatch)

A cultural commentary on key civilisational lacunae in the Indian constitution and how they have played out in practice for seven decades

The profound and irreplaceable loss of spirituality is the cost that the experiment of democracy over the last five hundred years has unarguably extracted from us. It is not mere loss, but destruction, and emotional desolation is the logical consequence of this destruction whose logical consequence in turn is that democracy as it stands, has become deeply dehumanising. In the name of being elected from among the people, the elected representative maintains a big distance after electoral victory or sulks or simmers or plots after defeat. The warmth after electoral victory becomes a façade and people are left guessing about the real meaning of the whim and mood of the representative they elected. This is called political analysis. The dehumanisation is complete both on the part of both the representative and the voter. Let’s aside the realm of politics. At a very fundamental level, this state of being is no way to live.

Neither are these my words. They were uttered and written with unmatched sagacity and spiritual depth by Rishi D.V. Gundappa about a century ago in the repeated warnings he gave, cautioning an India then in a haste to adopt democracy.

It can be argued that another major reason democracy evolved in Europe was to facilitate global plunder under relatively stable conditions at home. European monarchies were essentially oppressive despotisms and the fledgling but ambitious global trading enterprises couldn’t forever remain beholden to the whim of the currently reigning monarch to sanction expensive overseas expeditions. Bloody palace intrigues and succession wars only added to this commercial risk. 

Democracy meant that it was better to have a first among equals than a despot who has no equal. The other major factor was the industrial revolution which pretty much sealed the fate of monarchies. These points become clearer when we note that by the time India formally became a British colony, democracy had been well-established in the UK. And it was the selfsame democracy that sanctioned not only this colonization but passed “laws” for more effectively plundering India. The same democracy also produced several generations of racist academics who in turn fed policy raw material to their political masters.

This cannot be seen in isolation because of a logical question: what was the fundamental character of Hindu monarchies? Short answer: they were largely in tune with millennia-old, established customs, traditions and practices of Raja Dharma which is anything but despotic. Western democracy killed Dharma and “independent” India largely imitated the same democracy. Rajarshis like the Mysore Wodeyars, the Maharaja of Baroda and other truly enlightened rulers had, overnight, become subservient to a faceless democracy which in practice meant that they had to bow down to Congress vermin whose only distinction was Gandhian opportunism.

Civilisational suicide was never embraced with greater fervour.

That said, western democracy has its own intrinsic strength, value, and virtue, and it has endured in the west for so long while it has wilted in most of its former colonies. This is because it evolved over several centuries and was entirely home grown, in tune with the national soil, temperament, and had unique and specific precedents. The European model of democracy requires the constant practice, correction and reform of centuries. This is how DVG puts it:

The strength to govern effectively is a great strength in itself. It requires experience and practice to percolate in the administrative staff. The opportunity for both will be available only when a nation becomes truly independent. A people who are merely clerks cannot develop grand, noble, and lofty ideas and a sturdy work ethic.

This is perhaps the greatest indictment of the IAS. 

India had none of these western precedents and the manner in which we adopted democracy is the reason for the chaotic state we are today in: which writer of the Indian constitution could envisage that in less than seventy years, members of their own party would wage war not just against the constitution but the country itself? The basic trait of Bharatavarsha is Sattva to protect which Rajas is required, the absolute opposite of the west whose basic trait is an unhinged Rajas as a constant whose end goal is the uninhibited enjoyment of Tamas. You cannot outwardly adopt the temperament and tactics of a wolf and pretend that a cow is a wolf.

The other important reason for the chaos-seeded democracy we adopted was the background of the authors of our constitution. In DVG’s words, they were extraordinary scholars endowed with piercing intellect, erudition, logic, and were highly educated. But they were also great theory masters. The overall consequence was the untested imposition of theories like freedom, democracy, liberty, and federalism fashioned in the west on an entire people who lived their lives for more than three millennia based on a thoroughly divergent political, cultural and social inheritance. To put it bluntly, an all-encompassing and far-reaching change for the worse was thrust upon the entire population of the seventh largest country in the world without their consent. From being a duty-bound, participatory “Praja,” the Indian citizen became a mere voter. 

This is civilisational wrecking beyond comparison.

It was the constitution of an ill-informed elite whose outlook was barely Indian, a point which was repeatedly hammered with phenomenal foresight during the Constituent Assembly debates by Damodar Swaroop Seth:

this Constitution as a whole, instead of being evolved from our life and reared from the bottom upwards is being imported from outside and built from above downwards. A Constitution…in which there is not even a mention of thousands and lakhs of villages of India and in framing which they have had no hand, well you can give such a Constitution to the Country but I very much doubt whether you would be able to keep it long.

And Sri Damodar Swaroop ji was right. After a lapse of seventy-three years, we have a mutilated, defaced constitution, worse than just merely keeping it. What Damodar Swaroop meant was the following in practice. Of asking a few simple, rudimentary, every day questions before force feeding the constitution down our throats back then:

1. What are the food habits and diet of these proverbial villagers?

2. What are the unique local/village customs related to worship, traditions, rituals, marriage, death, etc, which they have inherited from time immemorial? 

3. What is their typical daily life?

4. How are disputes resolved at the local level so that satisfactory justice is delivered in the shortest possible time?

5. How do they spend their spare time? What are their typical modes of recreation, sports, etc?

These are the most accurate yardsticks that provide an almost unerring raw material for what is known as policymaking today. Doing this requires the old-fashioned Indian way: of spending time with these real people, eating with them, going to their temples, playing their games, interacting with their kids…But what do our policymakers who go to these criminally expensive schools learn? Numbers. Statistics. Graphs that only a student who pays ₹ 70 lakhs can decipher. But more dangerously, psyche-altering theories that have impoverished entire societies. The more insane the theory, the greater the chances of getting a Nobel. Ask Amartya Sen.

Needless, such warnings by enlightened minds like P.V. Kane, DVG and other such eminences went unheeded.

One fails to understand the meaning of the words, ‘fundamental rights’ in a constitution which took over two years of deliberations, if they could be changed within a year and a half.

P.V. Kane

But the damage had already occurred at the root level. Take the case of the cliché that several folks find it fashionable to utter today: that our constitution has no provision for Dharma, and merely stop at that, not bothering to actually study the details, which is where the real story lies. This is because investigating these details will reveal uncomfortable truths some of which are politically incorrect.

For example, all Dharmasastra texts unambiguously say that the king had no authority to meddle with Sastric rules governing local customs, which were invariably rooted in our conception of Varna. Does any public person today have the guts to call for a thorough rethinking of this fundamental point? The answer is no because the word “honesty” is inseparable from “guts.” What is the bedrock of these local customs, indeed the bedrock of Sanatana civilisation itself? Dharma. Which in daily life also means “duty,” which is what kept our civilisation alive, thriving and resilient for millennia. 

Now, where is the chapter on fundamental duties in our constitution, which has been made out to be some kind of sacrosanct document higher than Dharma itself? The simplest definition of duty is this: it is an attitude of inner life that makes most laws unnecessary because it is distilled spirituality applied in practical life. Because the simplest definition of law is that it is a barbed-wire fence that restrains base human passions. When Dharma is intrinsic to our inner life, we need no outer barbed wires. And an innate sense of duty keeps people from creating mischief in society. 

The Sanatana civilisation until the framing of this constitution was the most glorious, unbroken, glimmering, living jewel of this fact. Instead, by an unthinking emphasis on rights, we gave birth to a political system, which can most appropriately be called Rule by Factions.

At any rate, the injurious consequences were evident almost immediately owing to a rather common sense reason. After India attained “independence” – rather, after the British left in haste – we lacked sufficient numbers of elected representatives who had any degree of competence, capability, wisdom, erudition, and even plain guts to deserve such high offices. Instead of questioning this crater-like deficit, we embraced democracy as a universal good and magic pill. One outcome was that these representatives, deeply aware of their own incompetence began succumbing to mob blackmail. Panicked moves and appeasement replaced decision, the primary function of the elected representative and government. The most representative human specimen who made the most number of panicked moves was Jawaharlal Nehru whose knees turned to jelly at the mob-demand for linguistic statehood. It was all downhill after that.

Indeed, it is noteworthy that there are reams of provisions and directions in our constitution regarding the economic and social aspects of the country but not a word about the key foundations of the Sanatana civilisation: Rna, Rta, Dharma, Yajna, Svadhyaya, Lokasangraha, etc. Almost ninety per cent of urban Hindus wouldn’t have even heard of these terms. As the luminaries of our modern renaissance observed, a secular state cannot and should not mean a godless state.

One can list hundreds of such examples but the summary is this: our constitution is the very antithesis of the civilisation it was supposedly meant to protect. And with the benefit of hindsight, we can make a valid case that the farther we travel down the path of western notions of democracy, the more Christianized will our outlook become...has become.

One inescapable conclusion is that the Indian state, set up after 1947 is fundamentally designed to be an inside ally of a civilisational war against Sanatana Dharma than began a thousand years ago.

Think about something you see every day, something that has become a way of life of Indian politics and politicians. Take a person who is culturally a deep-rooted Hindu. He contests elections, gets into Parliament and almost overnight becomes an alien to his own former self. What remains of his deep roots become mere outward finery now meant to be worn during the five-year circus show called elections because the very constitution upon which he took oath constrains him from discharging a Rashtra-Rna for which the constitution has no provision.

When this happens over more than seven decades, the fault is fundamental: it could be that our political system at its core is still that craven Nehruvian conveyor belt that sucks in the best of people, sucks out the last atom of Dharma in their atma and spits them out after hacking their roots.

|| ॐ तत् सत् ||

Courtesy: https://www.dharmadispatch.in/culture/the-loss-of-rashtra-rna-the-tighter-we-embrace-western-democracy-the-more-christianized-our-outlook-becomes

THE COSMIC SWEEP OF SANATANA STATECRAFT AND POLITY: AN INTRODUCTION by SANDEEP BALAKRISHNA

The luminous hallmark that reveals itself even in a preliminary study is the remarkable antiquity, unrivalled continuity, sturdy endurance and intrepid resilience of Sanatana statecraft and polity. With a recorded history of over two thousand years—dating back to at least the 4^th century BCE—this tradition endured and retained the core elements of its original glory till the downfall of the Maratha Empire. The full text of Chhatrapati Shivaji’s coronation offers a panoramic delineation of the glory of a true Sanatana Samrajya ruled by an uncompromising, rock-solid Kshatriya.

However, the full fiendish disgrace for wiping out the last vestiges and even the living memory and traces of Sanatana statecraft and polity undoubtedly goes to Indira Gandhi who abolished privy purses and criminally betrayed Sardar Patel’s trust. As a rough history experiment, one can consider the regions ruled by the (nominal) Hindu princes from the British colonial period up to the abolition of the privy purses. The conclusion is inescapable: it was in these regions that age-old Hindu customs, traditions, and festivals were preserved largely in their original forms. The last surviving element of this historical fact is visible in Mysore Dussehra, which is a Hindu festival, not a tourist attraction.

The primary and recommended approach for studying Sanatana statecraft and polity is to desist the invariable urge to compare it with western democracy for three important reasons.

The first is the selfsame antiquity; that is, Indian polity and statecraft evolved gradually over more than a millennium. By the time Europe emerged from its soul-eroding Christian Darkness, Bharatavarsha already had a well-rooted and firmly established political tradition which did not rely on One Holy Book to deliver justice in the material world. Above all, this political tradition had inbuilt mechanisms for safeguarding and ensuring cultural continuity. Throughout its evolution, the Sanatana political system faced ebbs and tides but never abandoned its foundational ideals, aims, and retained its core strength till the time of the Marathas and Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

The second is the fact that research done by early Western scholars in this field is winnowed with defective scholarship. Writers like Max Mueller, Weber and Roth ignored or were unaware of or casually bypassed the mind-blowing corpus of literature on statecraft in Sanskrit, Pali and most major Bharatiya Bhashas. We highly recommend reading the introduction in R. Shama Sastry’s classic Arthashastra in which he performs a thorough surgery of such Western scholarship by naming and shaming the scholars.

The third reason relates to the spirit. There is no realistic reason Indians should feel inferior to or ashamed of a comparison between Sanatana and Western political systems. On the contrary, we should welcome it provided truth is the only yardstick of this comparison. Let’s not forget that democracy was “granted” to India in two major phases: first by a pitiless commercial exploitation, and then by military and political colonisation. The sham democracy India experienced roughly beginning in the 1920s up to 1947 was primarily subject to England’s whim and not to its supposed civilised benevolence.

This backdrop is essential for a standalone study and assessment of Sanatana polity and statecraft from the earliest times.

For a start, we can’t find a more illustrious sage than D.V. Gundappa who drank deeply from the profound fount of the founding ideals of Sanatana ethos of whose infinite bounty polity was just one of the outward expressions. His treasure-trove of writing repeatedly invokes the Ashwamedha Yaga portion of the Taittiriya Brahmana of the Yajur Veda, which he correctly calls as the National Anthem of the Rishis.

Let us be bestowed with auspiciousness, safety, security, and abundance. Through this Yagna, may the citizens be blessed with unity and peace.

And DVG was our contemporary colossus (he passed away in 1975). The fact that he regarded this Vedic hymn as one of his primary political ideals in the 20^th century is Proof #97348937479324732932 of the aforementioned sturdy endurance. Neither does he stop at that. Even as Nawab Nehru was thundering his fatuous nonsense at midnight in Delhi about an alleged tryst, in faraway Basavanagudi in Bangalore, DVG penned an inspirational, moving poem in the quietude of his room: alone, elated but anxious for the future of an “independent” India.

His worst fears have come true in a nightmarish fashion.

In the Sanatana annals, polity and statecraft in both theory and practice is familiar by the terms, Rajyasastra or Rajadharma. However, other synonyms—some well-known—exist: Arthasastra, Dandaniti, Nitisastra, Rajaniti, Rajanitisastra, and so on. Indeed, Arthasastra has been synonymous with Dandaniti from the earliest times. This then is the other blight. The calculated destruction of Sanskrit in “independent India” has rendered us inaccessible to ourselves, an unforgivable self-inflicted cultural holocaust that is both unprecedented and unparalleled. One vainly hunts for words to describe the phenomenon where a vote is taken to decide whether we must preserve our own culture and language.

According to the Sanatana tradition, Saraswati Devi gave Danda Niti to this world, which is quite befitting when we think about it.

Keshava [Vishnu] armed with an enormous Sula [spear], created his own self into a form of chastisement. From that form, having Righteousness for its legs, the goddess Saraswati created Danda-niti (Science of Chastisement) which very soon became celebrated over the world… Chastisement should be inflicted with discrimination, guided by righteousness and not by caprice. It is intended for restraining the wicked. Fines and forfeitures are intended for striking alarm, and not for filling the king's treasury.

Mahabharata: Shanti Parva: Section 122

The primary goal and function of Danda Niti is that it should act as the “support of the world” by establishing order and checking and punishing evil. The Raja or king is the upholder of Danda Niti. It is his primary Dharma.

At the broadest level, Raja Dharma has a twofold goal:

1. The Ultimate: As a means of attaining Moksha through virtuous deeds, etc.

2. The Proximate: To create and maintain a condition of sustained peace, safety, stability and ensure the freedom of vocation, right to enjoy personal property, to safeguard the traditions, customs, etc of every clan, guild and sect, and to deliver speedy justice.

Technically speaking, although the king was the master of all land in his domain, he was merely a trustee, and individuals had full property rights. The Nanda dynasty violated precisely this sacred tenet, a crime that deserved the severest punishment. The classic TV series, Chanakya powerfully describes the nature of this violation in this pithy dialogue: “iss dharaa ko apne daasi samajh baite hai” (these people have treated this sacred Mother Earth as their personal maidservant).

The implication is clear: it is only in Bharatavarsha that Arthasastra is subservient to Dharmasastra. Indeed, Arthasastra texts and commentaries unequivocally state that Dharma is the highest goal, a constant theme constant. For example, the Kamasutra says that Kama is the lowest of the three Purusharthas and Dharma the highest.

Invariably, every exponent, scholar, writer and commentator on Arthasastra sounds this refrain: when clashes or conflicts in worldly [Artha]transactions cannot be resolved by law, custom or usage, the verdict of the Dharmasastra prevails. This timeless and perennial primacy of Dharma is what preserved our civilisation. Innumerable Hindu Empires flourished and fell but the Sanatana civilisational spirit has survived. To that proportional extent, our culture and traditions have been preserved.

On a very profound plane, Dharma exists not for its own sake; in fact, such a notion is itself absurd. Dharma achieves nothing by serving itself akin to light illuminating itself. Its presence is intangible and therefore unenforceable by the writ of a king or president. Dharma is both an ideal to be realised and a value to be cultivated in our inner lives and pursued in the outer. There’s a reason Dharma is the first Purushartha, and blessed is the person who realises the straight line leading from Dharma to Moksha by bypassing the avoidable tumults of Artha and Kama.

Without realizing Dharma in both its changeless and dynamic states, we will get the Western (or Islamic) political and social condition of constant one-upmanship and endless strife. Political life or politics is merely an instrument (Sadhana) to attain a higher state of life, and not an end in itself. We shall examine this theme in the next part of this series.

There was a reason our great Hindu Empires survived unbroken for five, six and even seven generations: by realising Dharma in the realm of statecraft, they ensured stability and bloodless succession. The point becomes crystal clear when we contrast it with Muslim dynasties which were as strong as their strongest sultan. The sickening motif of a sultan’s son murdering his own father only to capture political power is more a rule than an exception in the Muslim history of India.

Courtesy: https://www.dharmadispatch.in/culture/the-cosmic-sweep-of-sanatana-statecraft-and-polity-an-introduction

KAUTILYA'S ARTHASASTRA AS A MANUAL OF EMPIRE-BUILDING by SANDEEP BALAKRISHNA (Dharma Dispatch)

A Manual of Empire-Building

One of the glorious parts of the Arthasastra is section dealing with the education of princes. A prince who undergoes this rigorous education becomes a king fit to rule the “whole earth.”

We notice the practical application of this Kautilyan foundation in almost all our great Hindu emperors. The historical accounts of how these emperors were educated, their daily routine, and their command over an astonishing range of subjects are thrilling and inspirational. Without exception, all great Hindu monarchs were primarily, extraordinary warriors, well-versed in wielding a number of dangerous weapons and masters in hand-to-hand combat. Sri Krishnadevaraya would wake up early in the morning, apply oil all over his body and perform vigorous exercises for about two or three hours. He was also a powerful and distinguished wrestler and became one of the greatest royal patrons of this art. And then, his linguistic and literary accomplishments are best reflected in his epic Amuktamalyada. The very fact of that the Vijayanagara Empire attained its loftiest peak of economic prosperity during his reign is itself a huge testimony to his grasp of economics. This list can be expanded with any number of such accomplishments in other spheres.

Broadly speaking, the extraordinary legacy of Chanakya and his work is its inherent capacity to produce powerful conquerors, emperors and administrators from the scratch. Indeed, Kautilya himself cemented this royal path by taking a boy of humble origins and transforming him into Chandragupta Maurya, Bharatavarsha’s first national monarch.

The Sanatana Ideal of Chakravartin

This capacity for creating emperors originates in the theory and practice of the ancient Sanatana ideal of a Chakravartin. In turn, the Vedic conception of the Ashwamedha Yajna inspired and fueled the real-life attainment of this powerful title and throne.

Like his predecessors, Kautilya too, regarded Bharatavarsha as a Chakravarti-Kshetra, i.e., the land spreading towards the Himalaya from the southern sea.

The importance of this ideal cannot be underestimated because of the central role it played throughout the Hindu civilizational history. All our great kings took it seriously, akin to a Raja-Mantra. We must remember that every Hindu king who embarked on a political career ultimately aspired to become a Chakravarti. The extent of the king’s final success in this endeavor is immaterial here.

But the list of Hindu emperors who did attain this exalted status and title of Chakravartin is truly impressive. Spread over 2500 years, this is the (partial) list: Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Pushyamitra Sunga, Bhavanaga, Pravarasena, Chandragupta I, Samudragupta, Chandragupta Vikramaditya, Harshavardhana, Pulikeshi II, Amoghavarsha, Krishna III, Rajaraja Chola, Rajendra Chola, Sri Krishnadevaraya, Shivaji, and Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

 

When we think about it for a moment, we understand the real impact of Chanakya. He is indeed the unrivalled, inspirational, and later, the invisible Director of grand Hindu Empires—director in the sense that his Arthasastra is a detailed manual of military strategy, administration, national security and economic prosperity.

On the other side, Kautilya’s rules for dealing with bad and errant princes, ambitious relatives and scheming vassals are also reflected in our political history.

The Chalukya emperor Pulikeshi II first defeated his rebellious younger brother, Kubja Vishnuvardhana, pardoned him and sent him to rule distant Vengi (near Warangal).

Most Vijayanagara rulers made their family members and close relatives as governors and viceroys of distant provinces to keep them away from palace conspiracies and attempted coups. In spite of such stringent measures, they were not always successful. The subordinate ruler, Saluva Nrsimharaya I managed to usurp the throne from the previous dynasty to which he had sworn loyalty.

Perhaps an overlooked part of the Kautilyan political tenet is the manner in which it places restraints and checks and balances on the king by stressing on Dharma. Even here, Kautilya adhered to the wisdom of his predecessors. Thus, a Hindu king could never become an unchecked despot like a Sultan or a medieval Christian king for precisely this reason. As we never tire of repeating, the fundamental difference between Sanatana and non-Sanatana statecraft is Dharma.

This profound principle had a lasting impact not only on kings but even village heads. For example, if a king had imposed a heavy tax and people complained, he would give them a remission. Which also reveals the historical truth that even the ordinary citizen could make direct appeals to the king.

We have hundreds of such examples in Hindu history.

In the reign of the Vijayanagara king, Devaraya I, tax remission was granted to all the weavers in Chandragiri when the governor found that excess tax was being collected so far.

Similarly, in 1473, in the Gandikota Province, all the Kurubaru or shepherds were completely exempted from the tax they were paying so far.

In 1086, Kulothunga Chola I conducted an extensive land survey throughout his kingdom, and after reading the findings, he ordered the remission of all customs duties. This singular act had a profound impact on his citizens. These overjoyed masses gave him the title, Sungadavirta Chola: “the Chola who exempted Sunkas(tax).” At the heart of such munificence was the desire of the king to be seen as an upholder of Dharma and as a Praja-Vatsala: affectionate to the citizens.

Pioneer of Shasana-Writing

Another important area of Hindu civilizational history where we notice Chanakya’s pronounced influence is his elaborate and fine section on drawing up Shasanas or inscriptions. Kautilya stresses on elegant handwriting, linguistic eloquence, clarity, and etiquette.

In fact, writing Shasanas eventually evolved into a separate art form and became a highly lucrative profession. The better part of Hindu history reveals an array of truly celebrated ­Shasana-writers, and several Shasana-poems can be regarded as brilliant literary feats. Some of these Shasana-writers enjoyed celebrity status rivalling that of the braindead film and fashion celebrities of our time enjoy.

Ravikeerti, for example, was one such celebrity Shasana-writer who gives us impressive details of the early Chalukyan period. In fact, Ravikeerti’s inscriptions still form the primary source for understanding Chalukya history. Next, we have the celebrated Old-Kannada (Halagannada) poet Ranna—whose family profession was a bangle-making and selling—who began his initial career as a Shasana-writer.

Then we have a remarkable 15^th century inscription found in the Anantapur district. This Shasana gives an elaborate tutorial on how to write the perfect Shasana-padya (poem).

There is also a delightful Daana-Shasasana (donation grant) belonging to the Vijayanagara period which praises the donor, the Shasana-writer and the Shasana-engraver as follows:

May prosperity accrue to the writer and engraver of this Shasana and may the auspicious Sri Venkateshwara Swami of Tirumala bless their entire lineage.

 Courtesy: https://www.dharmadispatch.in/history/kautilyas-arthasastra-as-a-manual-of-empire-building