LEADERSHIP

official source: Shabda Cayanika' Part 16

cross-references: Prout in a Nutshell Part 15

this version: is the printed Prout in a Nutshell Part 15, 1st edition, version 
	(spelling mistakes only may have been corrected). I.e., this is the most 
	up-to-date version as of the present Electronic Edition.

      The Sam'skrta term gajata' means a herd of elephants.

      You all know that living beings are divided into two categories. Some live in isolation and some live collectively. For example, common domestic animals are individualistic by nature. They are very self-centered. One animal does not usually come to the aid of another. Domestic animals are neither sincere nor devoted to their masters. In fact, they do not have the least sympathy for their masters' interests. Wherever they are, they live only for themselves.

      Sheep, however, are gregarious animals by nature. If two sheep grazing in separate fields see each other,they will run to each other as they prefer to graze together. A flock of sheep is called gadda'lika' prava'ha in Sam'skrta because of this sponta neous collective movement caused by the herd instinct.

      Aesii gatii Sam'sa'r kii sab gad'har kii t'ha't'.
	Ek jab ga'd'h me giire sab ja'ta tehi ba't'.

	"The nature of people is somewhat like that of a flock of sheep. When one sheep falls into a ditch, the others will follow."

      Human beings are also social beings. If they have to live alone for a long time they feel restless and search frantically for the company of others. So human beings should be very care ful in selecting the leaders of society. Throughout history it can be noticed that many countries with a demoniacal nature have pushed the entire society to the brink of destruction. Sometimes whole communities have been exterminated, while at other times society has overcome destruction only after coming to the preci pice.

      There are some people who vociferously oppose any sort of personality cult. However, they have to realise that personality cults, whether good or bad, have existed since ancient times and will continue to exist in the future. This is why I said that society should be very careful in selecting its leaders. In this regard there is no difference amongst the capitalists, communists or socialists--they are all of the same hue. Leaders should only be recognised after considering the extent to which they possess qualities like intelligence, wisdom, integrity, pioneering zeal, readiness to sacrifice, etc.

6 March 1988, Calcutta
Shabda Cayanika' Part 15

* * * * * *

      Another meaning of gajendra is the leader of the elephants. I have already said a number of times that elephants are gregarious or social animals.

      The solidarity and unity of a group depends on the strength and determination of the leadership. If the leadership is not strong the entire structure--social, economic and political -- becomes weak and ultimately crumbles down. The strong and decisive leadership of Akbar in the first half of the seventeenth century established the Mughal empire on a cohesive foundation. Similarly, the firm and courageous leadership of king Samudra Gupta in the thirteenth century solidly established the Gupta empire from the Himalayas in the north of India to Godabari in the south. Later, due to a dearth of strong leaders, the mighty Magdha empire fell apart. After the death of Akbar the Mughal empire was also balkanised because of the weakness and inefficiency of subsequent rulers. Eventually, with the rise of Mara tha and Sikh powers, the very bones of the Mughal empire were broken apart in the battles of Panipatha and Sithvalti.

	Comparatively democracy is the most favourable of all the systems of government that have so far been evolved. However there is less scope for strong leadership in a democracy than in a dictator ship. Consequently democratic countries, whether in war, socio-economic development or other spheres of activity, always remain somewhat weak, even though a democracy will usually last longer than a dictatorship. While there is greater scope for the rule of rationality than whimsical rule in a democratic system, the solidarity that is achieved in a dictatorship is not found in a democracy because most people do not want it.

      In a dictatorship common people are harassed in many ways by the whimsical rule of the dictator, and in a democracy people are equally harassed by the whimsical decisions of political parties and the expedient behaviour of party cadre. Peace loving citizens are sometimes made to suffer terribly in their hands. I would like you to objectively ponder these observations.

      If the system of individual dictatorship cannot be fully supported, how can we support the system of party dictatorship? In a party dictatorship uneducated or semi-literate cadres often cause harassment to educated and talented people. Under such circumstances people want to end dictatorial rule. Sometimes they even seek the help of foreign powers to gain relief from their unbearable situation. This is the grim reality. The only solution to individual dictatorship, party dictatorship and democrat ic pandemonium is the Proutistic concept of Sadvipras leadership.

27 March 1988, Calcutta
Shabda Cayanika' Part 16