BHARATA AND DHRITHARASTHRA

Parented by Dushyanta and the famous Shakuntala, Bharata poses as an ideal example for someone who wants to pursue leadership. Bharata realized that his sons could make for no good rulers and had to make a tricky choice in the matter, even consider elimination. It was his sons versus his subjects. His sons were a potential threat to the entire Kuru dynasty. If they were left to live, they could create havoc, and even bring out the dance of death. But if they were put to rest, the subjects would benefit immensely. With great pain, Bharata made a choice that was difficult but constructive. He decided to eliminate his sons and offered the throne to someone worthy of it, someone who could rule the kingdom keeping Dharma in centre. The new ruler was not one of his biological sons, but Bharata adopted him and the Kuru dynasty continued.

On the other hand, Vidura warned Dhritarashthra upon the birth of Duryodhana, “Abandon this child so that your entire Kuru Kula survives”. For Dhritarashtra, this was too harsh to hear. He couldn’t give up his child. And paying a deaf hear to that advice cost him all his children and endless curses from his subjects.

Leaders like Bharata are motivated by the greater good and are therefore willing to sacrifice what comes in their way, even if it personally dear to them. Leaders like Dhritarashthra chase personal gain and small good, and eventually even that small good is eliminated, leaving a large number to suffer.

RAMA OR RAVANA

While ‘Ravana’ means the one who makes others cry, ‘Rama’ refers to the one who is the personification of pleasure. Leaders like Ravana make others cry out of hankering for not having what others have, caused by the ‘less supply more demand’ policy. Such leaders prefer to keep resources under control, abandoning the people from experiencing freedom, which they fear leads to independent thinking, critical analysis of the situation, fault finding in the faulty governance and eventually dislodging them. But Ravana like leader ensure that the subjects continue to cry over little things so that they never think of higher values like creating positive revolutions. 

Ravana’s policy is creating mini-Ravanas by awarding handsome remunerations to the loyalist and shrewd so that they keep the people under control, exploited and in continuous lamentation and hankering of personal needs.

In Rama’s leadership, one finds subordination.  They  are loyal subjects  and they choose their leader   unanimously,  and out of gratitude to Rama, they are willing to do anything. When Rama was leaving for Vanvaas, all of Ayodhya was moving out. For them, Ayodhya was there where  Rama was. Rama not only gave them resources in abundance, but also gave them His very self. In return, Ayodhyavasis gave themselves to Rama.

Therefore it is the duty of the subjects to choose their leaders critically. Depending on whether they choose  Rama or  Ravana, they will experience the respective consequences.

LETS MOVE ON WITH LIFE..

In the Indian traditional wisdom, whether scriptural wisdom or be it the folk lore, the common thread is respecting the nature’s law is of prime importance.  So therefore the Great traditional wisdom in the form of Mahabharata, Ramayana, and the Bhagvata,   very realistically conclude likewise in their compilation.  It depicts a complete cycle of  creation, maintenance, and eventually destruction, and legacy goes on for the next generation.  Putting  it  plainly, there is birth followed by decay and finally death.

This concept could be applied in all aspects of life, what to speak of the  alluring subject  of Leadership. 

 Leadership is permanent, but not the leader, leader has to be changed  with force of time and part of being good leader is to withdraw oneself  from  being one and move on to next stage of life, that is to fizzle out!  Perhaps may sound  bit cruel,  but rather healthy for the future legacy.

 Sadly, this wisdom is found lacking  even in a so called  good leader, who vainly  tries to cling on to continue, by somehow bloating about  past  activities and  holding on to their ineffective present situation, and if by hook or crook  he continues, brings upon a dark and rotten future. 

Therefore, even the Great Gods, in their Incarnations in human form, like Lord Sri Rama and Sri Krishna set the  ideal example, as they come to establish Dharma, and  part of  which would be to move on in life without being attached to the position of being the Leader, in any shape or form. 

Truly enough, on these footsteps , the Great leaders  like the Pandavas  moved on in life, after setting up someone else to rule, not monitoring or being possessive about the situation.

When the  “Move On..” principle is violated  it creates, dissensions, treachery, and at worst even  murder.  So, this  would mean to end up with anarchy, amidst in  those people who put on their claim to be the  ‘Leaders’ , but sadly are far from  being even human beings !!

WHAT ARE YOU EXPECTING?

While expecting things to change by  the power of higher force,  and at the same time working to make things happen from our side is a complete circle of action.
Unfortunately when we have too much expectation form a hope giving leader,  we fail him by increasing our barometer of expectations,  which no leader can humanly fulfill.  This makes life frustrating, not because he failed, but because we expected  things more than a leader can accomplish.
In Mahabharata,  therefore Bhishmadeva advises Yudhishthira about the duties of the king and the duties of the people.  They are interdependent.  The growth of  both  the parties depend on each other, success of the citizen and success of the leader or the king,  leads to the  ultimate success of the King as a very effective leader.  King’s positive approach and hard work, leads to confidence in the subject to do good to themselves and to their surrounding.
Adharma is not only caused by the leader but also by the subject and specially when the subject looses the enthusiasm and the desire to fight the war of life.  Pampered citizens are worst enemy of the leader,  he does not need any outside enemies to destroy him.  Similarly  an arrogant  leader is sufficient to destroy the peaceful living of the citizens,
Pandavas were great leaders and their subjects were responsible to their good leadership.   The pandavas and the subjects were responsible to each other.    The citizens were not imaginary  about their leaders, and Pandvas were not harsh and deceptive to their citizen.  In Ramayana also, we notice,  the subject, shared theirs joy and the sorrows with their king, and the king shared his joys and sorrows with the  subject.
Rana pratap singh when he lost everything, many of his loyal citizens chose to wander along with him and would not stay in a dwelling till Rana would get back his kingdom, that was their commitment.
Gandhiji was the same inspiration, he motivated people to work like him, he created the work force, who worked hand in hand with him, and created a mass movement.
Are we willing  to work with our leader to make him successful?   So that he can produce desired results expected of him.

In  the  Mahabharata, particularly in Bhagavad-Gita,   Krishna was the successful visionary and Arjuna being his  subordinate,  was successful executionery.  Hence Krishna’s vision was made successful,  by Arjuna, and Krishna, made Arjuna successful by his vision.  In conclusion,  the true leader gives credit to his followers, and the true followers give all glory to their leader.

LAXMANA AND INDRAJIT

Loyality of Indrajit to Ravana was based on his personal relationship, since Ravana was his father.   It was not based on the  principles.  On the other hand Laxmana’s relationship with Dasaratha Maharaja  was there not only from 'son and father's  point of view, but more so on the bases of his character.  When  Dasaratha maharaja was weak in admonishing his favorite wife for sending Rama to the forest, Laxmana while respecting  the  fatherhood of Dasarath, became  critical of his action and  was willing to stand by Rama and punish Dasharath maharaja.  It was conflict between father or principle of justice.  Laxmana was able to stand by principle, which Indrajit was not able to do so.  Indrajit not only did not give any attention in this regard,  rather he endorsed Ravana’s crime towards Sita.

When  we have choice between loyalty to person or loyalty to Dharma.   It is not a easy decision.  

Seldom we see the political party having the guts and honesty to critically analyze their leaders.  It is mostly yes to everything what thier leaders say, like Indrajit,   he was his father's best yes man.   Such political party has to come down, because of its own crime, like Ravana and his party was washed off,  along with all his loyalist.

Rama denotes giving opportunities to other's opinions, Ravana denotes opinions are offensive.  Laxaman represents respect the superiors and at the same time rejects the wrongs of their decisions.  Indrajit presents; whatever his father does is good, forever.

Rama represens Gana Rajya(group decisions).  Ravana represents Gunda Rajya(muscle power).

Chose those group and leaders who have the concept of dialogue, and  not a monologue, worst are the silent observers, and false flatters of their arrogant and blind leaders.

WHO IS MY ROLE MODEL

One who has the courage to depend upon, when there is a need, and the maturity to be independent when forced upon by the nature is our true role model.

Life is not designed like a washing machine, which works as it is supposed to be, and life is neither like a new born baby’s unpredictable behavior.  Life is a predictable reality and within that there is another predictable reality that is ‘Unpredictable events.”  One who can handle predictably the predictable and unpredictable realities of life, in a very honest way, he certainly becomes our role model.

We see pandavas had the  power to deal with prosperity and poverty, with same mind set.  In kingdom they lived like saints,  even though externally they were part of the royalty.  and in the  forest, they lived like warriors, even though they dressed like ascetics.  They could handle steadiness of the mind and intelligence in unsteady life’s situations.

On other hand one who is accustomed to live predictable life, or forces life to run around to please him, is already beaten by his own stubbornness.  Duryodhana was the looser because of his  stubbornness.  This is not determination, determination is very constructive, expansive, and accommodating.  Stubbornness is divisive, narrow and conflicting.  Duryodhana,  therefore said, “not even space for a needle.”   What to speak of 5 villages to pandavas.  That is adharma.   Dharma is accommodating without braking the tradition, adharma is braking in the name of dharma or in the name of  expanding dharma.
Dharma builds, adharma brakes, dharma uplifts our consciousness and adharma down grades.

LEADER AND LEADERSHIP

The vital and often forgotten difference between the two is that 'leader' is a title and 'leadership' is a responsibility. Leader is a position and leadership is legacy. When leadership is taken by the unqualified to assume the position of a leader, it creates adharma, which creates conflict, pain, anxiety and eventually anarchy. What is most unfortunate is that even in anarchy, the ineligible leader starts asserting his ideologies aggressively to push himself as a leader and employs all kinds of conspiracies to maintain his priced title and position, having no concern of his responsibilities and the legacy of true leadership.

Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana were perpetually absorbed in anxiety because they were not qualified to be leaders. This is why they worked very hard to grab the title by any means.

On the other hand, Yudhishthira and his father Pandu didn't look for the title but were concerned about its responsibility, a part of which entailed that no stray leader assumes the throne of Hastinapura, ensuring the safety and development of the subjects. Pandu and Yudhishthira did not want to hurt their brothers, but they were forced to because it was in favour and benefit of the subjects.

Duryodhana strongly held Yudhishthira responsible for him being denied the throne, but he never understood that he was thoroughly disqualified to be a leader, because he inherited the legacy of not being a leader. His disqualification was self-generated, not imposed or generated by Yudhishthira.

Duryodhana's disqualification did not imply Yudhishthira's qualification. Yudhishthira's qualification was self-earned. He left no stone unturned to maintain and develop the kingdom under the guidance of Krishna and saintly people.

Duryodhan believed that coming from the Royal family and blue blood running in his veins was enough to pronounce him as King without having to prove his mettle. But one of the most important quality of a leadership is that, he who is born leader must especially work hard in his life to realize and earn it. On the other hand, he who is born ordinary, sometimes grows and develops the falsity that he is born to lead by grabbing that position. His surrounding, in fact, urges him to be good citizen, a good follower and make way for the real leader. When this doesn't happen in an organised, non-violent way, what comes along is the war of Mahabharata. Does this make sense? Will this war of Mahabharata ever end?

We must choose what kind of leader we would like to elect - the grabber or the grateful leader who is humble but leads with confidence.

Today, Duryodhanism persists strongly and Yudhidhthirism is still forced to fight, giving us the freshness of conflict - the eternal Mahabharata. So from whose side are we fighting is the choice we are assigned. The Mahabharata begins in the process of decision making and continues the battle for life.

KRISHNA - CHARMING OR CHARGING

Krishna presents Himself in two facets. He attracts the residents of Vrindavan with His charm but as soon as He senses unruly life, He uses His charging power to deal with those who consciously break the principles.


The Gita proclaims that, "Whenever there is a decline in Dharma, by the force of God's compassion, He Himself appears to re-establish the orderliness.

Establishing Dharma may not have a peaceful beginning but it certainly ends in peace after a lot of violence in the execution of the mission. It is an unavoidable reality of life, the universal law. The Mahabharata shows us the complete picture of how both dharma and adharma work. Adharma takes over by unnatural means and creates unrest and disorderliness. And when Dharmik people, headed by the Pandavas, struggle to fight to the best of their abilities and fail, Lord Krishna comes charging and destroys the representative of adharma, headed by Duryodhana, thus establishing the dharmik kingdom.

God's charm is most desirable because it is the ultimate destiny of the atma. But with the imprisonment of this body, the atma is enslaved and immersed in fights within and without, oscillating between its ultimate destiny and puny desires of the flesh. Its ultimate destiny allow it the charming Krishna and its temporary desires invite the charging Krishna in the form of law of action, the time factor, death and repeated push and pull in ghe form of multiple bodies, but with variety.

Duryodhana chose the charging Krishna while Yudhishthira chose the charming Krishna. What is our choice? Because Krishna is ready and available in either ways.

LEADERSHIP: INTEGRATED OR ISOLATED?

Bhismadeva continues to amaze people, even now by his character in which there was no iota of desire for personal happiness. He represents 'all for others'. Even with such a transparent life, he made certain decisions which were detrimental to the growth of those whom he represented.

His life shows that your personal character, integrity, intentions and actions do not necessarily make you a perfect decision maker. Even with all such powerful qualities you can still make wrong decisions. Bhishma's  role in the drama of Mahabharata proves this point.

Sometimes pure hearted and transparent leaders make selfless decisions and they assume that selflessness is synonymous to making right decisions for others. This presumption is true specially of those areas where they are not necessarily skillful.  

The Mahabharata has a  different view about making decisions. It does not give one single person the sole responsibility to decide for everybody in every situation. Mahabharata talks about an integrated approach.

Of course, the core principle is intention, and a high level of integrity. Along with these principle qualities, is a combination of various factors including  intelligence, quick action, interdependence with other leaders and subordinates, interactive analysis of situations and plans,  their execution, and  probable pros and cons of the decision.

Krishna exhibits this quality of integrated leadership, even though he himself can decide for the whole world and for eternity, since he is God. But he becomes a part rather than the whole in decision making to teach and demonstrate.

He went as a peacemaker on behalf of the Pandavas even though he had decided the Pandavas would fight the Kauravas. While in Dwaraka he would follow the good advice of his friend Uddhava. He followed the kind of leadership where one person is certainly responsible in regards to the consequences, but seeks advice and good counsel from his equals, elders and even subordinates. This is integrated leadership.

Integrated leadership is necessary not only for good character but also good intelligence.  Intentions, integrity, interdependence, an ability to see and analyze all the past, present and future, and the humility to not  declare one’s  selflessness as all in all: when an action takes place after all these considerations there is a greater chances of success. And yet the results are not in the hands of such leaders. The Gita rightly says, for every endeavour there are many causes, but one of the most important causes is the hand of God.  Thus one who follows the principles of integrated leadership, has the satisfaction of going  the right way, and he leaves the rest to God.

The Pandavas represent, integrated leadership.  Yudhisthira is the personification of integrity and freedom from selfishness, Bhima is known for his enterprising nature and quick action, Arjuna is synonymous with reflective intelligence and focused action. Nakul and Sahadeva represent cultural submissiveness and trust in their superiors and if they make opinion, they are healthy opinion makers. Draupadi deals with diversity of Pandavas, and always succeeds in uniting them. Krishna remains the inspiration and guiding force for the skill of Pandavas.

Do we want isolated leadership, or integrated leadership? The choice is ours.  

INDIA AND DISROBING

It would be very sad if one would lose respect for his parents and start wishing for someone else to be his mother and father. With such thoughts, a person can never fully serve and take care of his parents, let alone speaking of them to others with pride.

The Kauravas tried but could not disrobe the Pandavas of their self-respect. Result? –The Kauravas(pandavas) were proud to have each other as relatives. They neither minimized themselves nor became psychologically extinct. They were assertive, but never offensive.

The Indian mind, without its connection to the scriptural wisdom, has lost its pride and assertiveness. This mind has been thoroughly disrobed of its roots and is therefore sad and shameful about its existence. This has only led most Indians to artificially identify with someone that is not in their roots and culture. The Indian mind thinks that whatever it has is not worth having – the traditional dress, affection for cows, language, etc. It has even come to believe that its very homeland is inferior and must be replaced with the western world. Its defeatist mentality makes it feel that there is nothing good in him / her and their tradition. This disrobing is worse than any other. This is the disrobing that has robbed him off his pride, which has led him to feel distant from his spiritual culture and there is no loss greater than this.

Thankfully, it is never too late, because we have our scriptures and saints. They teach us, “Oh son of that soil, you are brihat. Go and conquer, not with your sword and war cry, rather with Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavatam, and lead and change your destination and also that of the world.”

Just like Lord Krishna installed Yudhishthira as the king of Hastinapura, He is calling us too, waiting for us to arise from our stupidity, stand up and walk ahead with the gait of an elephant – not to destroy, but to carry on our backs the legacy of dharmik living, which is the only solution and means of prosperity of consciousness.

MAYA AND YAMA

There is ‘Maya’ and there is ‘Yama’ and they have their respective roles to play in this world. Maya implies affection and illusion while Yama represents death and discipline. Leadership demands one to play both roles but using affection and discipline rather than illusion and death.

Unfortunately, present day politics often showcases illusion and death over the other two. Here, illusion could mean creating confusion amongst followers. And if one tries to expose that confusion, his punishment is likely to be severe, in many cases even elimination – if not physical, then at least sidelining the (so-called) rebel and regarding him as disloyal. ‘Disobeying the high command’ is the name of the game. The current leadership certainly creates discipline, but this discipline is of continuous deaths of the followers, of their elimination and their exit. There is room for affection in this leadership too, but only for those who sell themselves to flatter their leaders. They have little or no critical analysis of the situation and only nod their heads in agreement to everything for puny gains.

True leadership evades the negativity of death and rejects the false imagination of immortality. In the Mahabharata, we see how long it took Lord Sri Krishna to re-establish the Dharmik kingdom, appointing the hesitant but just Yudhishthira in the helm of affairs. Yudhishthira is that incarnation of Yama who only practices his discipline side, not the destructive. He was Maya, the mother who gives affection.

When the king or the administrative head plays a fair leader with a balanced combination of both Maya and Yama, healthy and great governance emerges.

One must analyze carefully the grounds on which Maharaj Yudhishthira achieved political and governing success. It was by the assistance of Lord Krishna who facilitated Yudhishthira to be an affectionate and disciplined King simultaneously by eliminating the flatterers and creating illusions for those who were trying to cause adharma. Yudhidhthira Maharaj was thus established as King on the throne of Hastinapura, which is also the throne of Dharma, creating a legacy of rightesousness and an incessant flow of dharma.

COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM OR CHANAKYAISM?

Communism implies that everything is the property of the State while capitalism entails that the State can be my property. Communism proposes anti-individual growth white capitalism comes across as anti-prosperity for all. Communism regards everyone as a laborer while capitalism doesn't say so but practices the philosophy of ‘few wealthy at the cost of large numbers of white collar laborers'. Communism is all about apparent the so-called equality, while capitalism pushes the ideology of money making: it doesn't matter how much you make as long as you make money.

Communism is perpetually at war with the wealthy while capitalism is engrossed in continual cut-throat competition with other capitalists. But both systems make everyone's lives hostile, making them choose either to make just enough money for everyone or to somehow make more than his / her rival.

In such scenarios, ‘Survival of the fittest' becomes the mantra of sustenance. And to be fit, one fights and starts scheming against all sorts of resources - good, bad and ugly. The effect? -A generation of people ridden by anxiety.

Both these systems are unfriendly to the Indian soil. Chanakya, based on our Traditional economics, presents simple concepts that were prevalent in India till the colonial rule. You can refer to Anguis Medison's research on this. (He may not quote Chanakya but certainly gives the statistics).

The system that Chanakya recommended was friendly,  so co-existing. It stemmed from co-operative living, against a mere competitive or conflicting existence. It endorsed collecting resources in a way that brought about complete growth - money, family, values, society and spiritual upliftment. This system balances itself on 4 legs - Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha, which uphold harmonious living. You may do as you please, but without breaking human values. You enjoy your bit in a way that it doesn't create bondage but opens roads to the ultimate destination of boundless joy.

SPONTANEOUS OR SYSTEMATIC??

Pampering and caring may appear similar but one can tell the difference in the result. Caring is flavored with future consequences and has a hard cover of discipline. Stubbornness of the person one who  cares for is dealt with detachment. Caring happens by set of principles, agreed by both parities - the one who cares and the one he/she cares for. In the end, systems bring sweetness in relationships.

Pampering is sensual in nature. It is all for the body, willingness to make any arrangement for the cared. It welcomes affection and spontaneity. But discipline comes across as unfriendly and abusive in the way of pampering. Its philosophy is to be present-oriented, no worries about the future, the consequence. Such so-called love is sure to create confusion, conflict and cluelessness and generates callousness in the person’s behavior. Dhratarashtra pampered his children; Kunti cared for her children. The result was unimaginable incoherency and coherency respectively. That coherency bred Dharma and the opposite bred the opposite.

Duryodhana was thoroughly indisciplined and therefore was imprudent to the concept of future and consequences. Pampering in his formative days led him to blackmail everyone, including his Guru, grandfather and of course his father, who was most willing. But the laws of coherency, Dharma and nature are fair judges. They give you what you must get; if you resist, they insist; if you try to escape the law, they escalate the law.

Yudhishthir always bound himself by discipline, almost making others feel that he was obsessed with it. But it was that discipline that freed him from being affected by the most adverse of situations. He lost his kingdom so abruptly but he was still the master of his surroundings. He was thus most eligible to govern the kingdom and rule for the benefit of his praia.

We have the option to be pampered now and punished in the future, or we have the choice to be disciplined and experience continuous clarion call of freedom.

WHEN YOU NEED IT, DOES IT WORK?

In the Mahabharat, Karna was seemingly a greater archer than Arjuna. But whenever there was a real fight, he was seen losing it. Instances like Karna running away in the Dvaita vana episode when Gandharvas captured Duryodhana, him losing to Arjuna in the Swayamvara of Draupadi, Arjuna making him unconscious in the battle with Virata suggest the same. When he had to finally face Arjuna in the ultimate battle, the battle of life and death & victory or defeat, he couldn’t even remember his divine weapon, however much he called for it. Eventually, his head rolled in the soil and dust of the war field.

Imagine someone who needs to attend an important engagement and his or her car fails to work repeatedly; or one is making an important presentation and computer crashes again and again; or a student has studied so hard round the year but his pen starts breaking in each exam. Such situations can be very traumatizing, creating hopelessness.

For many, life seems like Karna’s situations – failing at the wrong moment. But the Pandavas bring new light to such circumstances. They teach us that how many things you have and how special they are is not important; what matters is how you use them when you need them the most.

It is an art of life, use things more effectively rather than just accumulating them. Utility is more important than storing, because what is unused and stored simply burdens the space either in our homes or in our brain.

Karna can be regarded as stuff collector who lacks substance. Arjuna illustrates the art of making substance out of ordinary stuff. Karna may be dressed gorgeously on the outside but his skin is fully diseased. This can be compared to a beautiful appealing showroom that has nothing in its cellar to sell.

Arjuna personifies substance and essence. This is like having a beautiful showroom with a beautiful cellar full of beautiful things, clean and elegant, inside and outside.

Therefore, the fight between Arjuna and Karna is a decisive one. And someone has to win. The opponents are substance and superficial stuff.

So whom are you cheering for?