Liveblog

Alan Wallace mentions, citing German physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, “the modern scientific enterprise has been the pursuit of knowledge without love—an approach to inquiry devoid of ethics and altruism that has yielded unprecedented power alongside the greatest inhumanity and environmental destruction in human history”.

Recent higher education research argues that universities have overemphasized information, productivity and technical performance while under developing moral formation, reflective judgement and the capacities needed to use knowledge responsibly (Maska et al., 2026; Guzmán, 2026; Case & Tyler, 2025; Schweizer, 2026). The context of higher education is indicating not only a crisis of knowledge production or technological capability but also a crisis in the fractured relationship between knowledge, responsibility and human flourishing (Stewart et al. 2022; Maska et al. 2026; Guzmán, 2026; Chaytor & Tomaney, 2025).

This fragmentation calls for an understanding of higher education in which knowledge is not treated as separate from the person who acquires, interprets and applies it, but as a part of the educational process directed towards human flourishing, ethical discernment and responsible agency (Bhawuk, 2020; Schinkel et al., 2023). Also, higher education learning may be understood as a process through which individuals in addition to competence also develop the capacity to connect knowledge, self-understanding, responsibility and conduct (Bhawuk, 2020; Nandram & Bindlish, 2025). This orientation is consistent with the view that education should cultivate reflective and responsible persons whose intellectual development is connected with the ethical use of knowledge (Calvert et al., 2024; Lolla, 2021). Additionally, a pattern can be observed across dharma, virtue informed & holistic education studies, that moral growth is strongest when duty, reflection, and action are integrated and governance is strongest when values are built into routines, evaluation, and shared responsibility (Isser et al, 2024; Yadav, 2025; Wang et al, 2026; Polla & Sophoeun, 2026).

Within this frame, Svadharma can serve as an architectural principle for higher education as it joins knowing, being and acting within one moral ontology, then translates that ontology into pedagogy, institutional purpose and governance (Mahato & Roy, 2026; Chouhan, 2026; Baral & Giri, 2025; Agrawal, 2026; Dhakal, 2022). Studies confirm that svadharma extends private self-discovery to aligned duty with self knowledge, social responsibility and non-attached action which expands education from content delivery to ethical formation (Sharma, 2025; K., 2025; Basantia & Das, 2025). Literature supports this architecture conceptually, especially when svadharma is read through Gita-centered Indian traditions and recent dharma based education work rather than as a narrow rule of role conformity (Ramachandran, 2020; Frazier, 2021; Isser et al. 2024).

The Bhagavd Gita translations of Śaṅkarācārya and Rāmānujacharya place svadharma within a relationship among self, action and a wider order of meaning (Śaṅkarācārya, trans. 1983; Rāmānuja, trans. 1962). Svadharma is defined here as one’s own responsibility aligned with one’s nature, capacity, role, social and cosmic context rather than private preferences alone (Kumar, 2025; Rastogi, 2018; Gupta & Sharma, 2025). It sits within a wider dharmic order because dharma is portrayed as a connected moral-cosmic framework and svadharma is the point where the larger order becomes concrete for the person in a particular situation (Tuli & Gupta, 2024; Bhangaokar & Kapadia, 2009; Mahato & Roy, 2026). The literature treats svadharma as contextual and dynamic shaped by time, situation, life stage, and social situation rather than as a fixed inner preference (Bhangaokar & Kapadia, 2009; Rastogi, 2018; De Mondal, 2024; K, 2025).

Svadharma, here is therefore, understood as principle of ontological coherence, a responsibility that must be discerned through the relationship between personal capacities, circumstances, and wider ethical context of action (Bhawuk, 2020; Nandram & Bindlish, 2025). This ontological coherence can be extended into areas of leadership, applied education and spirituality (Dutt et al, 2013; Pardasani et al. 2014; Bhawuk, 2019; Frazier, 2021).

Peer-reviewed studies in higher education suggests the application of such an ontology to be translated into institutional form: This svadharma informed pedagogy has four recurring features: Ethics integrated into curricula, reflection, exemplification, peer reinforcement, disciplined practice, supervision and evaluation with lived ethical formation (Nandram, 2014; Barabash et al. 2025; Lapsley, 2025, Sahu, 2026; Sasi & Manjula, 2026). Various approaches inculcated in the Reflection mechanism include ethical case analysis, meditation, self-inquiry, journaling and metacognitive articulation of moral frameworks (Rastogi, 2018; Lapsley, 2025, Tsepkova, 2025). Exemplification appears in the guru-teacher model, in Gandhi's enacted Gita (Calvert et al, 2024, Mclain, 2019). Peer-reinforcement in community learning, service learning and volunteer activity across classroom/ extracurricular life (Chouhan, 2026; Tsepkova, 2025, TSVYK, 2021). Disciplined practice appears in karma yoga, repeated effort, self management and habit reformation (Mclain, 2019; Chapple, 2021; Agarwal et al. 2023). In institutional terms, educators move beyond content delivery, responsibility aims are built into curriculum strategy and evaluative life so ethical formation becomes lived university process rather than a curricular add-on (Isser et al. 2024; Lapsley, 2025; Yadav, 2025; Chaytor & Tomaney, 2025; Nandram et al. 2026). A svadharma informed pedagogy responds to the crisis by treating knowing, being and acting, as integrated and by recasting education as the formation of self-knowledge, ethical responsibility and social purpose apart from transmission of skills alone (Mahato & Roy, 2026; Chouhan, 2026; Yadav, 2025; Saha, 2025, Bindlish et al. 2025).

Keywords: Svadharma, Higher Education, Ontology, Holistic Pedagogy, Values-based Education

Aim: To explore the ethical dimensions presented in T.S Eliot’s “What the Thunder Said” from the lens of Vedic Philosophy in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Objectives: (i) Exploration of the Philosophical perspective presented in T.S Eliot’s “What the Thunder Said” especially the final climatic verse of “Da Da Da”. (ii) Understanding the perspective of “Da Da Da” from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. (iii) Finding a synthesis of Ethical Praxis, Relative Allusions and Contemporary Applications in both the works.

Research Methodology: Conceptual, Comparative, Pragmatic Paradigm.

Discussion: In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, (Fifth Chapter, Second Brahmana), Prajapati give a three-fold solution to his three groups of children, namely the Gods, Humans and Demons. This starts as a one syllable lesson comprised of the letter “Da” which is interpreted differently by the different children. The interpretation is seen differently based on the various values, thought systems and ethics of the different group. These are stated as the three disciplines of self-control namely: Da – Damyata – Self Control – By the Gods, Da – Datta – Give/ Let Go – By the Humans and Da – Dayadham – Compassion – By the Demons.

This same thought has been reflected in the Poem, “What the Thunder Said” final section “The Wasteland” of T.S Eliot which is the solution which the thunder presents to the problem that lies ahead of spiritual famine and philosophical barrenness.

Conclusion: There are definite symmetry and synthesis in T.S Eliot’s work when seen from the lens of Vedanta Praxis. The cohesiveness of the thought in citing the literal thunder of Prajapati which gives the solution can be seen as a melting pot of ethical arbiter for healing a broken world due to its many vices. This paper will seek to explore this merger of thoughts from the joint lens of modern contemporary problem and ancient values.

Keywords: Ethics, Upanishad, Thunder, Vedanta

Responsible leadership is the need of the hour, not just for academic discussions, but also for a global dialogue on the sustainability of human life on the planet. It is not uncommon to see the leadership-thought-leaders attributing the existential global crises of climate change, pollution, corruption, financial scandals, and overexploitation of resources to the misplaced assumptions, models and objectives of the modern management, especially the leadership, discourse. It is also a well-accepted fact that business education is amoral, it only prepares people for a brutal capitalist world. It does not integrate aspects related to ethics, impact of management decisions on the organisation, society and world at large. It is, therefore, important to bring suitable changes into the leadership education so that we develop ethical leaders.

This paper proposes that Dharma based on the Indian Knowledge System (IKS) can address the root cause of the above problems through a simple three-step approach. The first step is to develop a suitable philosophical outlook among the leaders that guides them to lead a life of purpose and meaning. The second step is to create leaders who place organisational, societal and humanity interests above their personal interests. The third step is to develop the quality of Sanyam, self-control, through yogic practices of Dharana, Dhyaan and Smadhi, so that leaders are able to manage ego’s cravings for power, glory and status.

Life of Purpose and Meaning. Modern leadership scholars such as Professor Bennis view leadership education as a form of holistic development that helps individuals lead purposeful lives. However, contemporary leadership discourse says little about the purpose of life itself. The Indian Knowledge System (IKS) offers a rich philosophical basis for addressing this question. As per IKS, the purpose of human life, or Purusharth, consists of four aims: Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. Dharma involves performing one’s duties righteously in accordance with universal principles of balanced living. Artha refers to the pursuit of material well-being, Kama to the fulfilment of legitimate desires, and Moksha to liberation from the cycle of birth and death. These four aims are deeply inter-connected. Wealth and desire must be pursued in accordance with the principles of Dharma. Dharma does not classify actions rigidly as good or bad; instead, it guides individuals to act appropriately in a given context. When necessary, textual prescriptions may be set aside for the larger good of society. Purushartha therefore offers a strong framework for a balanced, purposeful and meaningful life. Modern leadership education should incorporate this concept and emphasise the integration and balance of the four aims of life. Leaders must uphold Dharma while pursuing production, profits and organisational goals.

Hierarchy of Interests. In an interconnected world, interest of individuals constantly interacts with those of their family, community, society, nation, and humanity. Whilst some be in harmony, there are also conflicts in many cases. Dharma has a well-developed body of knowledge to address these conflicts by establishing a clear hierarchy starting from the individual (self) to the humanity. Dharma states that individuals are to sacrifice their interests for those of family, of family for community, of community for society and of society for humanity. This establishes an effective value system and provides clear directions for conduct in real-life. This doctrine of hierarchy is in sharp contrast to the principles of modern management and capitalism that seek to maximise profits and production without any consideration to the impact on organisation, society, and humanity as a whole. The single-minded pursuit of profits and production has led to corruption, greed, over-exploitation of resources, pollution, and climate change.

Self-Control or Sanyam. Many modern leadership thinkers also acknowledge that ego is the biggest enemy of leadership. However, the modern leadership discourse does not pay adequate attention to managing this biggest enemy. On the other hand, the IKS has a rich body of knowledge that defines the meaning of self-control, its constituents, and various practices to develop self-control. Self-control is developed by realising that we are not just the body, mind and intellect but also the soul. While the body mind and intellect are changing based on external stimuli, soul is pure and changeless. Hence, we must connect all sense organs to the soul. This alignment and connection of the sense organs to the soul is achieved through Dharna, Dhyaan and Smadhi. When we achieve all three, we attain Sanyam, that is control over all sense organs. Arth Shastra, the IKS text on material wellness and governance, also places the highest importance on this virtue. As per Arth Shastra, a leader should be wise like a sage, should achieve self-control by renouncing of six senses and by giving up anger, lust, greed, conceit, arrogance, and foolhardiness.

Keywords: Dharma, IKS, Purusharth, Sanyam

Public policy is generally examined through institutions, evidence, incentives, and administrative capacity. Yet policy also requires a normative basis for deciding what public authority ought to pursue, whose interests should be protected, and how collective welfare should be defined. This paper examines the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa as a civilizational source for the normative study of public policy rather than as a literal administrative manual. Using selected episodes across the six Kāṇḍas, the study interprets dharma through contemporary concepts of ethical leadership, institutional accountability, collective action, environmental governance, diplomacy and welfare. The analysis particularly examines the Rama–Bharata dialogue in Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa, collective response to Ravana in Bāla Kāṇḍa, the Bhagiratha narrative, Hanuman’s mission in Sundara Kāṇḍa, and the idea of Rāma Rājya. The paper develops a Dharma-Oriented Public Policy Framework comprising Satya, Dharma, Nyāya, Loka-saṅgraha, Sevā, Karuṇā, and Tyāga. These principles are mapped onto problem definition, policy design, implementation and evaluation. The central argument is that dharma can complement evidence-based and constitutional governance by supplying an ethical criterion for judging legitimacy, responsibility, justice and public outcomes.

Keywords: Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa; Dharma; Public Policy; Ethical Governance; Rāma Rājya; Indian Knowledge Systems; Public Administration; Collective Welfare; Policy Evaluation