Hindu View of Leadership

Veera Skanda
Indology | 20-07-2015
http://indiafacts.co.in/hindu-view-leadership/
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 has 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.
This 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 Maslows 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 siddhis. 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. Ones 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 ones own control, such
constraints do hinder ones experiences and consequently ones 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.
As 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 karNas 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 Bharat
We can now cite several examples of leaders throughout Bharatas 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

One 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 Gandhis
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. Ambedkars
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 RSSBJP.
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 organizationswhether it is in pushing for swadeshi economy or
building civil movements or being inherently positive in outlook.
The 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 Gandhis
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 Parivars 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 fulfil 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.
I.
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. LalPal-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.
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.

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.

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 indiafactshttp://indiafacts.co.in/review...
Against British I completely agree flawless leadership is found wanting, esp after Lal-BalPal 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.

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?

The need to reject divinity in order to uphold historicity is a modern phenomenon. In the
past, Hindus perceived the two together, an inseparable whole as captured in the tradition,
just as adherents of other native religions did (and extant ones still do).
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.

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.

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....

So you are back with more lies and deception.

"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.