Re.: Business vs. Ethics: The India Tradeoff?
(Published: January 03, 2012 in Knowledge@Wharton)
Considering the exalted Ivy League status of Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, one would normally expect a more rigorous and much higher standard of scholarship from its students as compared to their counterparts in the non-Ivy League universities. Unfortunately, the above article written by the students (Indian American sounding names) of the Class 2013 is a combination of lack of analytical depth, historical distortions and inaccuracies and inferiority complex reflecting in their pro-Western bias.
To put it bluntly, the writers’ knowledge of the world history in general and particularly Indian history and Hindu scriptures seems minimal, to the extent of being non-existent. Had they taken some pain to read the original Hindu scriptures and treatise and authentic European history of the last one thousand years, their conclusion would have been completely different. However, it is obvious that the authors, being ignorant of their own Indian heritage, have relied entirely on the secondary sources emanating from the anti-Hindu American academia.
Portraying Chankya as unethical and Machiavelli as ethical shows how ill-informed the writers are. Their only source of reference is Max Weber, the Nineteen century German sociologist and political economist, who like his European contemporary Indologists have portrayed Hinduism and its scriptures negatively by denigration and distortion. Whereas Chankya (Kautilya) was mainly guided by the Hindu Dharma Shashtras in composing his famous treaties, Arthashashtra, Machiavelli’s primary aim in composing ‘The Prince’ was not for any moral or noble cause but to gain trust of the Medici who had imprisoned and tortured Machiavelli after reclaiming Florence in 1512”. Chankya has devoted one whole chapter on corruption and remedial measures in Arthashashtra. Punishments for such offences have also been described in detail. Chankya makes it very clear that a ruler should never allow people to swerve from their duties. He said that Artha (material wealth) is the root cause of everything including Dharma and Kama. According to him Artha is of paramount importance because unless one has the material resources, he will not be able to indulge in other two pursuits but one has to acquire wealth through proper means.
The comments that “Lord Krishna repeatedly devises “underhand” methods to defeat the opposing army”, are not only factually incorrect but also offensive and insulting to the followers of Hinduism for whom Krishna represents the very embodiment of the basic principles of Dharmic spirituality, morality and ethics. Arjun and Karna were adversaries fighting an epic war in the battle field. Krishna’s advice to Arjun was that his duty was to protect Dharma (righteous path) by fighting against the Adharmic (unrighteous path) forces to bring peace and prosperity to the society at large. Therefore, it was necessary for Arjun to kill Karna who had not surrendered in the battlefield and was on the side of the enemies following Adharmic path and had earlier supported Kauvravs in disrobing the Pandavas’ helpless wife, Draupadi, an Adharmic morally degrading act, in the open royal court.
How do Hindu scriptures relate acquisition of wealth in terms of ethics? The universe’s orderliness and unity in diversity are part of the divine pattern that the Hindu sages call ‘Rta’. According to the rishis, ‘Rta’ is the law of being, a universal presence that governs nature, human ethics, conduct and justice. Rig Veda, mankind’s oldest scripture, advises men to “think of wealth and strive to win it by ‘Rta’ and by worship.” Atharva Veda advises newly weds: “Enjoy good fortune by observing rita and always bear yourselves according to Rta.” Alexander’s generals (3rd century BC) recorded that the Hindu armies were impeccably honest. Not one act of licentiousness marred the Hindu bivouacs. The most pervasive of Hindu ethical obligations are the ‘Yamas’ (to rein-harness the base nature) and ‘Niyamas’ (to unleash- cultivate the high soul nature) recorded in the sage Patanjali’s 2,200 years old Yoga Sutras, which reflect moral do’s and don’ts. One of the
‘Yamas’ is ‘Asteya’, do not steal or covet.
For thousands of years, India remained one of the wealthiest and prosperous countries in the world because its people were guided in their daily life by the Dharmic principle of ‘Rta’ as mentioned above. Unfortunately, the Indian society started on the downhill path by abandoning the principle of ‘rta’ during the last one thousand years when it got subjugated first by the Islamic invaders and subsequently by the British colonialists.
In 1875 Salisbury, the Secretary for State of India urged in the British Parliament that “as India must be bled, the bleeding should be done judiciously.” Behind the façade of Salisbury’s ‘judicial ethics’ (basically European ethics), the British looted India right from the inception of their rule around 1700 AD to such an extent that a highly materially and culturally advanced ancient country was turned into a third world country when they left India in 1947. They destroyed the Indian agriculture, manufacturing industries, judicial and educational systems and village level administrative apparatus. Prior to the arrival of the British, India’s percentage share of the world GDP in 1700 AD was 24.4% as compared to UK’s share of 2.9%, that of total Western Europe 22.5% and USA 0.1%. By 1913 India’s share of the world GDP went down to 7.6% and that of UK to 8.3%. (Angus Madison: The world economy: a millennial perspective (2001).
A nation with back broken, majority of people turned into ‘illiterate masses, agriculture and industry destroyed, and the entire socio-political system completely uprooted, its power hungry leaders imposed an alien western democratic system of governance on its people in 1947 instead of rejuvenating and adopting its successful social, economic and political model prevailed before the arrival of the British. The result of this grave mistake is the current picture of a great country in a state of moral decay.
If the writers had done a little homework, they would have realized the present moral decay of the Indian society is not due to ‘Hindu ethics’ but absence of understanding of Sanatan ‘dharma’ as a universal, perennial, global ethic. It is primarily due to blindly opting for the so-called European/American economic model devoid of ethics by the Indian politicians and businessmen.
While no one can deny the moral and ethical degradation of the present Indian political and business system, it would be unwise and hypocritical to hide under the rug about the immoral and unethical practices followed worldwide by the American and European business community to further their profit oriented objectives. Right from Enron to Lehman Bros. and the 2008 economic meltdown at home are the stark reminders of the fact that humans world over are prone to corruption and unethical behavior whenever the society looses its basic moral values.
During the last one thousand years, in the name of Christianity and its ‘value system’, the West wiped out several ancient civilizations like Maya and Aztec, slaughtered millions including American Indians, enslaved millions, burnt witches at stake, tortured hundreds of thousands during the inquisitions, and endorsed slavery and racism. Even during the 19th and 20th century, this much touted western ethics by the authors were used by the West with the active support of its mighty industrial complex to kill millions of innocent people during the world wars including the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. As Samuel P. Huntington said: “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do”.
The forgoing analysis makes it clear that the authors were either ignorant about history or were encouraged to link Hinduism to the current Indian corruption by the faculty members with a promise for some rewards in the form of higher grades in their classes. In either case, it reflects adversely on the Wharton School for its poor and bigoted academic standards. I sincerely hope and trust that the Wharton faculty will take this criticism in the right spirit and try to improve their teaching methods which would make their students use better analytical tools with a strong emphasis on accuracy of the research data in their studies.
Sincerely,
Dhiru Shah
(alumni- London School of Economics & Harvard Business School)
0 comments:
Post a Comment