jabdakhata

A leader is one who grows not at the expense of others, but take others long. A true leader is perfectly unconcerned about himself/herself, and is concerned about the welfare of his people. A true leader loves his/her people and does not differentiate or discriminate. A true leader is painstakingly righteous and would never allow personal compulsions cloud his/her sense of justice. A true leader will always do whatever it takes for the real long term benefit of his/her people and would never give in to short term temptations like popularity. For their long term benefit he/she would not even hesitate to take hard and unpopular decisions. He is, in the language of Sri Ramakrishna, a good physician. An inferior physician will merely prescribe medicines. A medium one will only request the patient to take medicines. A good one not merely requests, but will apply force if necessary, because he/she knows that it is in the best interest of the patient. A true leader does not enjoy power. He/

At the same time Mahabharata tells us one simple thing - the course of virtue is not so straight forward as some people think. There are many twists and turns. It narrates a story about a certain Brahmana called Kaushik who was extremely foolish but wanted to stay on the course of truth. While he was resting by the roadside, a few persons came running in fear for their lives and hid behind a bush. Shortly a gang of robbers came with the intention of killing those innocent victims and demanded the information from Kaushik about their whereabouts. The foolish Brahmana, knowing the great perils that these innocent guys face, gave away the information to stick to his vow of truthfulness. Now truthfulness is considered as a great virtue, but what do you think happened to those guys? They were all butchered. And what do you think happened to Kaushik? Despite being truthful he was sunk into the deepest hell. So what would the moralists say? Obviously neither the ends, nor the means we

How do we define a virtuous end? An end which is devoid of all selfishness, from which will result good for a large majority and which would not result in any harm to innocent victims, will be treated as a virtuous end. Struggle for Indian independence is a virtuous end, so is the restoration of kingdom to Pandavas. Both would serve as good for a large majority. Therefore any means can be adopted for that purpose. In the two examples cited in the first blog of this series, rescuing the damsel in distress is definitely a virtuous act even if the means employed are as cruel as causing grave injury to those bandits. Similarly helping the child to get well even by begging, borrowing or stealing from the rich is a meritorious act with a selfless end objective if done by a third person not related to the child. When we look into the examples cited in Mahabharata, killing of Abhimanyu is not a virtuous end and nor is the means employed. This is because Duryadhana’s victory would b

In Ramayana we have couple of examples like Lord Rama killing Vali while the latter was engaged in a battle with Sugriva. Laksman killed Indrajeet while the latter was busy in performing a sacrifice. How do we justify the acts of such so called cruelty and immorality perpetrated by the incarnations of God? And why would the scriptures written by great sages, whose main purpose is education of the masses for a very long period of time, probably till the end of humanity, would glorify such events? These lead us to look more closely into the end vrs. means debates and the objections raised by moralists as well as apologetics. It is not that end should always justify means or means should always justify end. However, if the end is virtuous and devoid of any selfish agenda, any means can be adopted for achieving it as long as it does not cause any harm to the innocents. Even this can be a yardstick in judging the actions of Lord Krishna and others in the above scenes in Mahabharata.

Would means justify ends or would ends justify means? There have been endless debates on this by scholars of excellent reputation. However as far as I know that this debate has produced two schools of thoughts – a) moralists, who decry every so called foul act and try to view the world through the prism of righteousness, and therefore opine on behalf of righteous means for anything and everything and b) pragmatists – who assert that righteousness is good as long as it is practical and therefore would depend on situation. Means and ends can be righteous if ordained practical, else one should be “pragmatic”. Now imagine two hypothetical situations. In the first, a child is going to die because his parents cannot afford his medical treatment. There is a rich man living nearby who has plenty of money but would not donate. There is no other source of getting help for the child. In the second, a gang of rapists is dragging a hapless victim in an uninhabited place. The only way of res

Gita also talks about compassion, kindness, non violence as essential traits for an individual on the path of realizing God. But it does not advocate weakness masquerading as non violence. In explaining His Vibhuti or the Supreme Powers to Arjuna,the Lord mentions – Ahimsa samata tusti tapah danam yashah ayasha bhavanti bhava bhutanam matta eve prithagvidha Non violence, equanimity, contentment, austerities, charity, prosperity, adversity, all these different aspects of human nature originate from Me only. These are not standalone traits, they are in Me, even though they appear to be different. Non violence is therefore an essential trait which the Lord advocates, but it is not a path for Arjuna, a Kshatriya who is facing a just and righteous war against a bloodthirsty brutal enemy. A true non violent person like Buddha will be able to disarm thousands of forces of violence. But until one reaches that very advanced spiritual stage, one is advised not to indiscriminately use th

Sri Ramakrishna, like a child, was always very guileless and straight in his evaluation of others, esp. the so called scholars and intellectuals with mere book learning (who do not have spiritual traits like discrimination and renunciation to complement the learning thus acquired). He equated them with larks and vultures which soar high up in the sky (a reference to the high social status of the former) but still have an eye on the charnel-pit of greed and lust. These intellectuals clamour for name and fame. Being obsessed and driven by their ego they are highly opinionated. They are egotists and treat anybody differing from their opinions contemptuously. There are many a living sample of them whose quotes and opinions many times appear on the front pages of the newspapers. They have certainly made a name in the academic and material world without providing any practical benefit to the society and mankind. They adorn academic chairs. They are considered by the left liberal or right l

Sri Ramakrishna had a simple way of teaching. Through many parables he has handed down very profound messages of Vedanta and other scriptures to his devotees and disciples. Himself uneducated in the traditional sense, he nevertheless derived this source of knowledge from direct realization. The supreme mother of the universe, according to him, passed on the required knowledge whenever a need arose for teaching others, just as a peasant woman moves forward the paddy for the removal of the husk. One of his famous parables was that of a physician to whom one day a father and a son duo appeared from a different, far away village for the treatment of the latter. The physician did a general check up but did not suggest any remedy. Instead he told them to come back next week. The next week the duo turned up and the remedy suggested was simple – “don’t eat any of those molasses”. The father was astonished – “why didn’t you tell us this last week?” he asked the physician in private. The lat

While poverty of material wealth is a widely acknowledged source of tribulations, another type of poverty frequently goes unnoticed, and that is the poverty of mind. Poverty of mind is manifested in various forms – like corruption and nepotism, where gathering of material wealth at any cost is considered to be the very purpose of existence and where little consideration is displayed towards others, crime, vulgar display of wealth and power, fanaticism, bigotry and intolerance, biases and prejudices, deliberate maligning of whatever or whoever one dislikes ( You may be good, but I don’t like you and therefore I’ll say only bad things about you), lack of compassion, indifference towards injustice and evil ways, and so on. The drivers are ego, lust, greed, pride, jealousy, and so on. They obfuscate truth and cover mind just like fog covers a landscape. Poverty of mind is ubiquitous. One can see a rich spending millions in his daughter’s marriage while some poor and hungry suffers not far

A democracy, one would argue, would pave the way for a more liberal and tolerant regime and people would be aware of any transgressions in an era of fast communication. Dissent can be voiced and people can throw away elected representatives if they do not function properly. Secularism and pluralism are encouraged. Just puase, look around, and think. You are living in a democracy, are these the traits around you? The media, which is supposed to be the watchdog of a democracy often connive with the ruling elite as they propagate certain ideologies and hate campaigns against others. Media exhibit certain biases against specific classes, creeds and communities as they are controlled by organizations and insititutions which have their own vested interests. Thus news and opinions promoted are often false or worse, selectively false. Ruling classes often suppress information, esp. the ones which would be detrimental and inimical to their interest. Power and money play the supreme role and pe

In West such checks and balances were not elaborate. The king in the middle ages in Europe was often in cohort with the church which interefered extensively with the state affairs,and the nobility, who had their own vested interests. Thus Rajtantra in West was often of an inferior form and therefore people suffered a lot, whereas in India we hardly find any notable instance of people suffering for long under a corrupt regime, except during the period right after Shashanka in Bengal (known as Matsyanyaya) when there was no strong king at the helm and when the lawlessness reigned supreme. That state of affairs was discontinued when a strong monarch came to power (in case of Bengal the Pals ascended to the throne of Gauda). However when we come back to the flawed democracy that we’ve inherited we find that much of Swami Vivekananda’s apprehensions have come to be true. There is a heartless bureaucracy at the centre of affairs which is also largely corrupt and which has largely retaine

Swami Vivekananda was not very comfortable with the concepts of Western democracy, although he was aware of the merits. He saw various democracies from close quarters and felt that in their present form they would not be ideal for India. Because in a democracy, people should be intelligent and educated enough to understand the nuances of various decisions. Otherwise there is an inherent risk of an unintelligent or honest majority being taken for a ride by a cunning, devious but shrewd minority. Swami Vivakananda also felt that a democracy run by bureaucrats, is unsuitable as bureaucracy is normally heartless. Bureaucrats go strictly by policies and procedures and peoples’ woes do not matter to them. In an informal discussion with his disciples he cited the examples of many innocent persons from India who lost everything, including their lives, while nurturing a vein hope of going to England to lodge their complaints with the Queen and getting their problems resolved. He said that t

In Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, there is an interesting story as part of the conversasion between Bhisma, the aged Kuru warrior who is on his deathbed, and Yudhisthira, his grandson, the Pandava king,who belongs to the opposite camp and whose army just won the war against the Kauravas or the Kuru clan. In response to the questions asked by Yudhisthira, Bhisma is explaining to him the duties of a king, of a householder, of an ascetic, the path of righteousness and virtue and the ways of dealing with people, as well as the paths of attaining the highest knowledge. In the process we come across several stories and parables – one of them illustrates how diverse interest groups instigates persons to behave in a certain way and how people should be wary of the motives behind what seems like innocent advices. A Brahmin who lost his only son went to creamte him along with his village men. Since it was already evening they decided to stay for the night and cremate the child in the morning. A

When Swami Vivekananda was wandering as a mendicant in Varanasi, he was once troubled by a group of monkeys. He started running out of fear but the monkeys chased him. Seeing this, another ascetic shouted at him, ‘Swami, turn around, face the brutes!’ Swamiji did just that and the monkeys vanished. Later, while recalling this experience Swamiji said that problems in our life are like that of these monkeys. If we run away from the problems, they will chase us and hunt us down, but if we face them bravely, we may be able to beat all odds and emerge unscathed. It is a vital lesson of life that unless we stand up and face the challenges, the challenges will multiply and will eventually destroy us. What is a vital lesson for an individual is also a lesson for a nation and for the entire world. India has repeatedly been attacked but it has not faced the brutes. Time and again for the past 60 years or so it has proved that it is a nation of cowards, non violence and tolerance are just its f

Another terror attacks strikes Mumbai. The pattern is now oft repeated – bold headlines, TV channels running for TRP and excitement, innocents losing lives, families getting shattered, politicians including the heads of the state “condemn” and request people to maintain “calm” (why don’t they just hand over a previously recorded version instead of repeating the same glib statements is something beyond my limited wisdom, and why do media attach so much importance to their repetition is also strange). Another thing that comes up repeatedly, esp. in the media is the “resilience of Mumbaikars”. Now that leads me to wonder, what is meant by resilience? Is it to suffer attacks time and again and do nothing, just go back to old business, forgetting everything – is that what is resilience? Silently suffering all corruption, bad civic infrastructure, monsoon flood – are these all part of the same resilience? To my mind, this is not resilience but far from it, it is cowardice. It is the tendenc

Why is there so much anger in the media over CWG mess? Media is behaving as if they have suddenly woken up to the deficiencies of Governance and corruption in India. We who encounter it day in and day out know better. We know that the Government services will not be able to deliver any goods - because our roads are poor despite paying road taxes and they are increasingly becoming poorer - because we have filthy cities as garbage remains dumped on roadside - because we have virtually no sanitation and sewage disposal which during monsoon season either often comes up on the roads or contaminates the drinking water causing all sorts of diseases - because we have no public urinal and people relieve themselves on the roads along with dogs - because we do not provide toilets to poor and underprivileged and they defecate in public - because our roads remain inundated with flood water during monsoon - because our flyovers take an eternity to get completed causing colossal loss of publi

Nowadays media is crazy about God-men, but not about men of gods. For instance not a single newspaper mentions anything on Swami Vivekananda’s birthday but a lot of newsprint is wasted on some god-men’s sexual exploits and consequences. Hilarious but pitiable is the condition of spiritual stupor into which this country has denigrated itself. Media is anyway a reflection of the socio cultural condition prevailing in a particular time. They sell what sells with the public. And what sells with public is dirt. Media also shows how the followers of the same god-men feel cheated and self proclaimed columnists in editorials raise doubts on the concepts of chastity and Brahmacharya as written in scriptures. That’s why it is said in Sanskrit – ‘Gandusha Jalamatrena Shafari Pharpharayate”, which is similar to the proverb “Empty vessels sound much”. The article writers are those empty vessels, without adequate knowledge or research they would like to draw attention to their opinions. Ramakri

Sometimes back there was some initiative by a leading newspaper group in India to identify future leaders. Novel initiative no doubt, but it was mostly a marketing gimmick. Reason is simple, you cannot identify leaders through a marketing campaign. Leaders are identified through their work and attributes. True leaders do no need to go to a market place and beat their drums. True leaders do not need followers, followers need true leaders. As Ramakrishna Paramhansa used to say - "you do not need to write on your forehead that come people, I am a leader, I'll teach you, lead you. If you have right kind of attributes God will make you a leader, even if you do not want to be one." People will find the true leader and will follow him/her themselves. A Gandhi ( an I am talking about the only one true Gandhi who could abdicate all power and adulation, not the other power hungry ones)  emerged when there was a right situation for him to do, he was not picked up by some newspaper.

A certain gentleman named Robert Bhadra (bhadra implies "civil" in Sanskrit) is exempted from any security check in Kolkata airport and that is declared very proudly by airport authority of India in a written instruction in front of the security counter. This certain gentleman (replace Bhadra by "Vadra" and you'll get the sense) is the son in law of UPA chair person, the most powerful woman in India. Both the honorable madam chairperson and the gentleman Mr. Bhadra would do really well and gain some appreciation from general public if they make sure that Mr. Bhadra undergoes security check just like any other layman and do not fall pray to the VIP culture which has so engulfed the nation's political class. With due respect Mr. Vadra/Ms. Gandhi, would you dare to be a little different?

An Agatha Christie whodunit is a sheer pleasure for anybody who loves mystery stories. It reduces stress appreciably as it leaves you less time to ponder on your present woes and miseries and problems. Be it a cold winter morning or a windy day, a warm summer evening or a rain washed afternoon, you can always recline in your easy-chair or sofa or even sit outside in the porch drinking tea or coffee, or smoking your favorite brand of cigar, and read the exploits of the Belgian detective with his little grey cells, egg shaped head and characteristic mustache. Agatha Christie in one of her books rued the fact (through her another famous character Ariadne Oliver) that once you have put up a character you cannot change the same, as readers who have taken to that character will never accept any change. Therefore Poirot cannot come out of his idiosyncrasies. What can Poirot, the eccentric Belgian teach us? Of course, apart from his unique ways of detection of solution to a problem, sitting i