Dr. Rajan

Answering the question “What is Dharma according to the Mahābhārata?” is as complex as the epic itself, often symbolised by the Dharmayuddha—the war fought in the name of truth and righteousness. Key figures such as Yudhiṣṭhira and Bhīṣma are themselves portrayed as deeply conflicted in their attempts to define and uphold Dharma. This paper joins that interpretive tradition by proposing that the Bhagavadgītā offers the most coherent philosophical response to the epic’s normative riddles. After explaining the complexity of Dharma in the epic, we argue that the Gītā is not merely a didactic interlude but a sophisticated treatise that reconciles the competing voices within the Mahābhārata. Through a focused hermeneutic reading, the study foregrounds how the dialogue between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna addresses essential concerns—karma, duty, social cohesion (loka-saṅgraha), and moral conflict—by organizing Dharma into three interconnected yet distinct categories: Svadharma (to hold one’s own Dharma or ontic nature), Sādhāraṇa-dharma (universal moral norms), and Āpaddharma (duty in crisis). These normative categories, interpreted in a contextual manner, form the basis of a pluralistic ethical framework that enables a deeper understanding of which Dharma applies when, making the Gītā not only a spiritual guide but also the Mahābhārata’s central philosophical key.

In an era where truth is increasingly malleable and violence—both physical and epistemic—permeates global discourse, _Gandhi, Truth, and Nonviolence: The Politics of Engagement in Post-Truth Times_ emerges as a timely and provocative intervention. Edited by Vinay Lal, this anthology does not merely revisit Gandhi as a historical figure but resurrects him as a “necessary provocation” (p. 1), challenging readers to confront the unsettling moral rigor of his vision. The book’s central thesis is audacious: Gandhi’s twin pillars of Satya (Truth) and Ahimsa (Nonviolence) are not relics of idealism but urgent counterpoints to the nihilism of our post-truth age. Through interdisciplinary scholarship, the volume examines Gandhi’s ethical, political, and aesthetic innovations, revealing their radical potential to reorient contemporary struggles for justice. The anthology’s strength lies in its refusal to sanitize Gandhi. Rather than smoothing over his contradictions, it amplifies them—presenting him as a figure both globally resonant and deeply discomforting. In his introduction, Lal critiques the “performative reverence” (p. 11) often accorded to Gandhi in contemporary India, where political elites selectively invoke his image while betraying his ethos.

Lord Acton’s famous aphorism, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lazarski, 2012, p. 11), carries profound humanistic implications. It serves as a warning both to advocates of genuine freedom and to those pursuing positive axiological aims in life. As this paper will discuss, many thinkers have endorsed and elaborated Acton’s insight in diverse ways. Their shared concern is straightforward: reflection on catastrophic historical events compels us to ask who most damages society when vested with excessive power — often those governing under so-called utopian regimes. While some contend that not all state structures are inherently corrupt, this paper challenges the foundational premise of a perfect state. It questions the optimism invested in utopian projects by examining strategies such as cultural relativism, deceptive propaganda, and romantic political fantasies. Through a qualitative analysis of historical events, the paper invites philosophical and moral reflection on the obstacles to realizing the values essential for a healthy society. Specifically, it aims to provoke critical thought about the notion of an ideal regime, taking into account historical failures and the necessity of confronting challenges in the pursuit of humanistic values.

The philosophy of free will is a longstanding concern that has been continually reformulated. Acknowledging this, the present paper has three objectives: first, to introduce the free will problem as it appears in contemporary philosophical debates; second, to examine the claim that free will may be an illusion; and third, to suggest that critical reflection on this issue can help us recognize the extent to which we remain free to make decisions that resist existential nihilism and affirm meaningfulness in human life. In brief, this paper explicates the ongoing debate on free will and traces the shifts among illusionism, indeterminism, and compatibilism. Whether explicitly acknowledged or not, free will is presupposed in all domains of human thought and action. For this reason, many thinkers have treated it as a postulate without which existence, value, and agency lose their significance. To advance this debate, we seek to balance illusionism and indeterminism through a compatibilist account of free will. This approach serves two purposes: it dissolves the rigid binaries that often structure positions on free will, and it provides a philosophical standpoint from which to consider whether we are genuinely free or live under the canopy of fate.

In recent times, there has been a growing interest in the comparative analysis of Immanuel Kant and K.C. Bhattacharya’s contributions to the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, and methodology. Numerous significant works have emerged, examining the confluence of these two thinkers’ ideas within these domains. However, an area where their joint study has been notably lacking is in their perspectives on culture, humanism, and civilization. Likewise, while there is an abundance of literature addressing their individual views on enlightenment and Swaraj, there is a dearth of works that explore these topics together. In light of this gap in the existing scholarships, the present paper endeavors to examine Immanuel Kant’s renowned essay “What is Enlightenment?” and K.C. Bhattacharya’s “Swaraj in Ideas” through the lens of comparative philosophy. Similarly, we shall also integrate some of their pertinent ideas in this regard available in their other works. Through this comparative exploration, we aspire to embark on a journey where these two philosophical luminaries can enrich a distinctive philosophy of freedom and redemption. And last but not the least, this intellectual undertaking explicitly reveals that their respective views on Enlightenment and Swaraj can be interchangeably applied for redemptive goals, shedding light on the consistent nature of their ideas.

This paper examines the nature of True World theories, which uphold transcendental and utopian conceptions of reality while devaluing earthly existence. It explores their structure and background, prevalent in both philosophical and religious discourse, analyzes the existential anxieties they seek to address, and critically interrogates their fundamental tenets through the life-affirming philosophies of Lokāyata and Friedrich Nietzsche. By the end of this composition, our aim is to refresh several important existential questions: Do we truly require belief in an eternal, unknown world to lead a fulfilling life? Can we not withstand the suffering we encounter in this apparent or present world without aspiring towards transcendental reality? We intend to present these questions in an open-ended manner, encouraging individuals to contemplate the meaning of life more holistically. Similarly, this examination provides an opportunity to research into the distinctive pursuits of Lokāyata and Nietzschean philosophy, offering distinct yet comprehensive theoretical and practical elucidations of human life and its existential quest for meaning.

As science continues to expand its capacity to explain the nature of existence and reality, a new belief system has emerged regarding how humans can acquire pure knowledge, often referred to as Scientism. Scientism posits that science is the exclusive source of knowledge about the world. This belief gained prominence in the early 20th century, influenced by movements such as logical positivism. Prominent thinkers such as Karl Popper, A.O. Quine, Thomas Kuhn, and Ernest Nagel have contributed to refining scientific practice. This article offers a critical philosophy of science, safeguarding it from dogmas, biases, and pseudo-practices while engaging with Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn's notions of “Real-Science” and enhancing the pursuit of a purely scientific culture. The history and philosophy of science owe much to Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, who delved into significant aspects of the philosophy of science, including its logic, doctrines, and evolution. Aligned with the viewpoints of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, this paper is structured into five sections. When examined collectively and viewed through the lens of the hermeneutic circle, these sections share the overarching objective of elucidating the essence and methodology of science, providing a critique of scientism, and, as a result, presenting a blueprint for guiding the transition towards a purely scientific culture and temperament: 1. Introduction: Science, Scientific Practice, and its logical Foundations 2. Induction and Background Theories of Scientific Practice 3. Socratic Spirit in the Karl Popper’s Falsificationism 4. Thomas Kuhn and the Systematic Phases of Scientific Growth 5. Conclusion and an Integrated Way to pure Scientific Culture.

The reviewed book, titled “The Making of Contemporary Indian Philosophy Krishnachandra Bhattacharyya” (Raveh, D., & Coquereau-Saouma, E. (Eds.). 2023) (the/this book hereafter), edited by Daniel Raveh and Elise Coquereau-Saouma, is part of the Routledge Hindu Studies Series in collaboration with the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. This series aims to foster dialogue between Hindu traditions and modern research trends. The editors deserve commendation for adding value to the series and contributing significantly to debates in Indian philosophy, particularly regarding Krishnachandra Bhattacharyya’s philosophy (KCB thereafter). This book brings together scholars who have carefully looked at KCB’s big ideas, giving us clear and deep insights into his philosophy. This review carefully examines each chapter, simplifying the book’s content and ensuring that no significant details are overlooked. Our aim is to motivate readers to delve into KCB’s broader body of work and, more specifically, this book, which greatly enriches our understanding of his worldview. In harmony with the book’s flow, we delve into the current trends in Indian philosophy, giving special attention to situating KCB’s philosophy within this context, as discussed by the contributors. Additionally, we seek to clarify any misunderstandings surrounding this field, aiding aspiring researchers in tackling the intricate intellectual challenges within modern Indian philosophy—an endeavor certainly worth pursuing.

What is the central philosophy of the Upanishads? Is it theistic, monistic, polytheistic, panpsychistic, or something else? Are the world and God real or unreal? Such questions have been a riddle for ancient sages and modern scholars of the Vedāntic tradition, alike. Interestingly, if any thinker has made this discourse more puzzling, it is none other than Śaṅkarācārya (c. 7th–9th centuries CE); through his famous dictum, Brahma satyam jagat-mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah (“Brahman alone is real, the world is unreal. Jiva is not other than Brahman”), he almost changed the entire Vedāntic paradigm, akin to Nietzsche in Western thought with his “God is Dead” dictum. Now, before any thinker embarks on the Vedāntic path, they must first encounter Śaṅkarācārya’s thesis in one way or another, as only then can one engage with notions including ethics, aesthetics, bhakti, karma, and others. Following the same line of inquiry, this review article investigates Professor K. Satchidananda Murty’s distinctive discourse on Vedānta and his engagement with Śaṅkarācārya’s philosophy, as portrayed in a recent edition of some of his works, titled Vedānta and Bhagavadgītā: The Unpublished Writings of K. Satchidananda Murty, proficiently compiled by Professor Ashok Vohra and Kotta Ramesh.

Every powerful thing holds many incentives of attractiveness which also create the scope for corruption. As the famous saying advocates"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". So whether it is social media or a bureaucratic post, among others, the same applies to ancient Indian Yogic philosophy and practice. While people are aware of the misuse of material world pursuits, very few pay attention to the fact that the spiritual world can be just as destructive if not practiced as prescribed by well-trained practitioners and teachers. Ethics must be present. Following this aspect, the current review article critically examines the rise and fall of psuedoyogic cults. Subsequently, we aim to cite some of the dos and don'ts as prescribed by tradition while transitioning into the vast ocean of yogic wisdom.

Despite the fact that certain individuals elicit intense emotions of aversion or admiration, their influence is undeniable. Gandhi is a prime example of this proposition, as he captivates intellectuals and global leaders. Gandhi is renowned for his advocacy for Swaraj and Satyagraha, his dedication to truth and nonviolence, and his regard for all religions. Following the same sentiment, the book Gandhi and the Idea of Swaraj (Jahanbegloo, 2023), currently under review, is an exceptional starting point for individuals interested in researching Gandhi’s philosophy and the concept of Swaraj. This critical analysis evaluates the author’s narrative in this book, throws light on the misconceptions about Gandhi, and highlights the book’s significance in understanding Gandhi’s philosophy and its contemporary relevance.

A young British seeker, driven by a profound intellectual and spiritual curiosity, embarked on a journey to India at the age of 18, drawn by the philosophical and spiritual traditions he had encountered through the works of Vivekananda, Yogananda, and Ramakrishna, as well as sacred texts like the Bhagavad Gītā and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. Although the decision to travel may, in retrospect, seem unconventional, it appeared entirely natural at the time. However, he was unprepared for the stark realities of his experience. Amid the oppressive heat and the train's rhythmic motion, he found himself momentarily disoriented when, during a brief stop to get water, the belt securing his passport and money broke. By the time he turned back, the train had already departed, leaving him stranded with only a ticket and a few rupees. Seeking assistance from the local authorities, he was met with an impassive response: “Do not worry. So many poor people in India.” The gravity of his situation became evident as he boarded another train, resigned to his circumstances, and slept on the floor. The following morning, a passerby inquired about his origins, and upon learning that he was from England, remarked with irony, “Oh, so after the British left, you have returned?” Given the geopolitical context of the late 1960 s, when Western travelers to India remained a rarity, the young man’s presence was met with both curiosity and skepticism. Nonetheless, an act of unexpected generosity followed, as the stranger provided him with enough money for temporary accommodation. The following day, others intervened, saying, “Whoever helped you, this is enough,” and guided him to an ashram (a spiritual or religious retreat) in Rishikesh. Over the next six months, his immersion in the ashram provided a transformative intellectual and spiritual engagement, deepening his study of Indian knowledge system. This life event just narrated belongs to Mark Dyczkowski, in his own words (Cran, 2017; Dyczkowski, 2025). He was one of the pioneering thinkers and Indologists who played a crucial role in introducing the Āgama tradition of Kashmir Śaivism and Tantra to the English-speaking world and made significant contributions to its study.

No oppressive ideologies, such as racism, sexism, and imperialism, disappear easily; they require strong antitheses from external forces or through self-reflection. Embracing this premise, this paper explores anti-colonial solidarity in light of the reflective philosophy of Swaraj, emphasizing the importance of reflective ideas over brute force and discarding the assumption that violence is necessary for change. To accomplish this task, we examine into the profound historical and philosophical underpinnings of Swaraj (self-governance) as a potent reflective strength of anti-colonial cohesion within the framework and expressions of selected modern Indian philosophers. To be precise, this paper aims to enhance comprehension of the inclusive and normative significance of Swaraj in the anti-colonial and post-colonial struggle for liberation, pacifism, and solidarity.

It is with profound sorrow that we share the passing of Prof. Jaysankar Lal Shaw, who left us on 29 August 2025 at the age of 84, surrounded by his closest family. Born in the bustling city of Kolkata, India, his remarkable intellectual journey began with a BA (Hons, 1959) and MA (1961), both in philosophy, from Calcutta University. His pursuit of knowledge then carried him across continents to Rice University in Texas, where he earned his PhD as a Fulbright and Rice University Fellow. His entry into academia was as unexpected as it was memorable—a story he often recounted with a quiet laugh and a twinkle in his eye. The tale, well-known among his students and colleagues, was once shared with me by Purushottama Bilimoria, who, along with other scholars, has honored him through a number of dedicated volumes and collaborative works (Hemmingsen & Bilimoria, 2015; Vaidya et al., 2024). When he was first offered a position at the University of Wellington in New Zealand, a curious mix-up set the stage for one of his most cherished anecdotes. His initials, J.L. Shaw, matched those of other prominent philosophers such as J.L. Mehta and J.N. Mohanty, leading the department to believe they were hiring an American scholar from Rice. On his arrival, a staff member was sent to meet him at the airport, but returned empty-handed, claiming there was no “Dr. J.L. Shaw” on the flight—only an Indian gentleman in an oversized colored suit, with a worn suitcase, smoking by the baggage area(Bilimoria & Singh, 2025).

The open-ended future of philosophy, including Indian philosophy, is tied to the boundless nature of human consciousness and creativity. It also implies that the trajectory of Indian philosophy remains uncertain, as it can either witness growth and innovation or fall into a state of stagnant clichés and historical research. This becomes problematic if the latter dominates the academic discourse, reinforcing the belief that philosophy does not progress at all and collapses in historicism. Considering this issue firsthand, this composition investigates some of the normative imperatives proposed by J.N. Mohanty to sustain and strengthen Indian philosophy amidst these uncertainties. It emphasizes the need to acknowledge socio-cultural and global changes since the times of key figures like Ācārya Śaṅkara and Lord Buddha. By examining selected imperatives from Mohanty’s philosophy, this paper highlights their significance for the future of Indian philosophy. Finally, it pays tribute to Mohanty’s contributions, inspiring global thinkers to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western philosophies in line with his vision.

This review brings into conversation two distinctive thinkers—realists and traditionalists in their own right—Pradeep Gokhale and Sachchidanand Mishra, along with some classical and modern philosophical questions. Both scholars have recently undertaken the task of reviving the Indian materialist tradition of Cārvāka. Following a critical appraisal of their efforts, we argue that while their attempts are philosophically significant—indeed, amounting to a kind of renaissance—they remain incomplete in addressing certain cultural and contemporary challenges. These include not only the critiques posed by spiritual Indian traditions but also pressing issues from modern Western philosophy of mind, such as the nature of qualia and first-person experience, as well as axiological concerns that arise from the implicit ontology of the Cārvāka tradition. These unresolved issues, which resonate deeply with classical traditions such as Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism, reveal significant gaps in their reconstructions. In this light, we propose that if the Lokāyata tradition is to be meaningfully reinvented, it must engage with modern cosmopolitan philosophical and methodological concerns. This is not a colonial imposition, but a recognition of the universality of philosophical inquiry across cultures and historical epochs.

Owen Ware’s latest work, Indian Philosophy and Yoga in Germany, the focus of this review, is a decent collection on how German scholars acknowledged the Indian philosophy in general and yoga, including the Bhagavad Gītā in particular. Ware’s study is more specific, focusing on 19th-century German thinkers, including Schlegel, Hegel, and Schelling, who engaged with Indian philosophy through concepts such as pantheism, nihilism, and freedom. Altogether, Ware also investigates how early-20th-century Indian scholars, including Dasgupta, K.C Bhattachraya, and Radhakrishnan, reinterpreted Yoga in response to colonial criticisms.

In recent years, Sri Aurobindo—a twentieth-century Indian thinker and visionary—has attracted renewed interest across diverse fields, including spirituality, nationalism, aesthetics and the philosophy of mind. Among his many contributions, it is his metaphysical and spiritual vision, particularly articulated in The Life Divine, that continues to inspire deep engagement. Building briefly on some of his other works as well, this study traces the philosophical journey from the aspirational hypothesis of The Life Divine to the realization of a Divine Life, offering a narratological exploration of Sri Aurobindo’s transformative vision. It reflects on his holistic philosophy in relation to the complexities of everyday life, critically analysing his integrated view of man, world and ultimate reality. Dialectically, the study addresses a range of concerns—including Sri Aurobindo’s Advaitic stance, his approach to the hard problem of consciousness and the enduring significance of his concept of the Superman. At its core, this work asks—perhaps more urgently than ever—why Sri Aurobindo still speaks to us with the same spiritual depth and philosophical clarity as the ancient Indian sages.

The epistemology of modality is a specialized branch of philosophy that explores how we gain knowledge and justified beliefs about modal truths--claims about what is possible, necessary, contingent, or impossible. Unlike empirical knowledge, which is based on observable facts, modal knowledge deals with abstract possibilities such as “Water must be H₂O” or “Humans could have evolved differently.” This field raises key questions about how we access modal facts that are not empirically verifiable and how we avoid errors in judging what is genuinely possible or necessary. Central concerns include the access question (how we form justified modal beliefs) and the ‘navigation question’ (how we move between different... Read More.

This review critically examines Sanatan Gandhi: Bapu Se Vaishwik Samvād by Ambika Dutt Sharma and Vishwanath Mishra. The review will assess the authors’ contribution to the discourse on peace, violence, and Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy, while exploring intersections with selected modern thinkers. It highlights the book’s strengths in critiquing modernity and presenting Gandhi as a relevant guide in today’s world, including as a cultural analyst. It suggests potential challenges regarding cultural bias and oversimplification, urging a more inclusive exploration of Gandhi's philosophy and ideals rather than limiting him to Advaitin persona.

What does it truly mean to turn inward, and what do we find when we do? Jonardon Ganeri’s Inwardness: An Outsider’s Guide undertakes a cosmopolitan exploration of the inner self, drawing on diverse traditions—Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Christian, and Western philosophical thought. This review traces the book’s guiding claim that inwardness is the “presence of yourself to yourself,” and examines the philosophical challenges it raises: Does introspection require agency? Does Pessoa’s heteronymy deepen our understanding of inwardness, or does it blur it into confusion, aporia, and fragmentation? Can we study the self without metaphysical bias? Should inwardness be nurtured—or left behind? If these questions speak to you—about the self, memory, awareness, and the life of the mind—this book is well worth your close attention. And to address all such questions, Ganeri’s reflections move across philosophy, literature, film, and ethics, asking what it means to live with attention turned inward. Following this line of thought, we shall see that while the book is richly suggestive, it also opens up tensions between competing traditions and between different ways of understanding selfhood, inviting further reflection from the author and readers alike.

For centuries, philosophical inquiry into theology and religion was confined to a narrow range of questions about a singular God, the nature of divinity, the origins of creation, and the tension between good and evil, free will and determinism. In our times, it would seem, the conversation has struggled to expand beyond these erstwhile boundaries to embrace diverse traditions, subaltern voices, and even issues that do, or arguably should, concern the proper work of the philosophy of religion. The present review essay appraises this undertaking in Engaging Philosophies of Religion: Thinking Across Boundaries, edited by Gereon Kopf, Purushottama Bilimoria, and Nathan Loewen—a landmark in the global and critical reorientation of the field. The essay discusses the volume’s “multi-entry approach,” which fosters dialogue among eighteen paradigms, from Sikhi somatophilia and Lakota relationalism to Nyāya argumentation, critical theory hand-in-hand with feminist critique. While recognizing its achievement in decolonizing and pluralizing the discipline, the essay also cautions that, in pursuing inclusivity, the volume risks overlooking the substantive, capital- ‘T’ Truth claims (i.e. absolute, universal truth as distinct from conventional, subjective, relative, parochial, small-t truths), that arguably are central to many traditions. It concludes that the philosophy of religion must not only widen its scope but also sustain its commitment to the transformative pursuit of Truth and spirituality.

This review article critically studies Krishna Chandra Bhattacharyya’s (KCB) Bhagavadgītā Vicāra using D. K. Mohanta’s English translation from Bengali, published by the Indian Council of Philosophical Research. The article can be considered a metareflection, as it researches into the KCB’s reflections and interpretation of the Bhagavadgītā thematically rather than chronologically. Utilizing Mohanta’s translation, the article scrutinizes the gradations of Bhattacharyya’s interpretation. It explores the philosophical, cultural and textual aspects, highlighting how this analysis can open up new avenues for further research. Principally, we aim to address the issue of ontic value-preference and dilemma in the Bhagavadgītā and Bhattacharyya’s assertion that jñāna [knowledge] is superior to karma [action] and bhakti [devotion]. Likewise, following the humility of the translator who accepted that the original manuscript was received incomplete for unknown reasons, we shall create the hermeneutic scope to interpret its full version or at least to make sense of the same.

Swami Vivekananda is often remembered as a defining figure of modern Indian thought. His Chicago address, his universalist reading of religion, and his humanistically oriented presentation of Vedānta have together shaped his global reputation and secured his place in popular culture memory. These features have also led many to regard him as a philosophical representative of Indian culture and nationalism. This paper revisits this narrative through the critical lens of Acharya P. K. Mukhopadhyay. It asks whether Vivekananda’s philosophy reflects a sustained civilizational embeddedness or whether it was largely fashioned for a modern, international audience, thereby situating him closer to an internationalist than a nationalist in Mukhopadhyay’s sense. By contrasting Vivekananda with figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and K. C. Bhattacharya, the study further examines how intellectual and cultural figures ought to be assessed—through their writings and public influence alone, or through their deeper cultural and philosophical location as well. Altogether, we also critically assess Mukhopadhyay’s standpoint, which raises the preceding questions.

This review engages with Bhāratīyatā kī Ātmagaveṣaṇā: Ādhunik Bhārat kī Nirmiti par Nyāyaśāstrīya Dṛṣṭi (Introspection into Indianness: A Nyāya-based Perspective on the Making of Modern India), a dialogical work by Acharya Pradyot Kumar Mukhopadhyay and Dr. Udayan Vajpeyi. Eschewing the structure of a conventional treatise, the book unfolds as a reflective conversation on India’s civilizational and intellectual challenges. Mukhopadhyay critiques reformist and reductionist tendencies, the flattening pressures of modernity, and dominant views on culture, aesthetics, nationalism, and religion. He resists the portrayal of Indian culture as merely spiritual or reducible to systems like Advaita Vedānta, proposing instead a rational, Nyāya-grounded alternative. While his critique is both rich and provocative, his marked preference for Nyāya over more integrative traditions like Advaita invites scrutiny. Our objective in this review is not to dismiss his position but to raise concerns about how inclusive and accessible a reason-centred framework can be, particularly when situated within the narratives, claims, and contexts of India’s philosophically humble yet spiritually layered and embedded traditions.

The attributes and representative spirit of a culture, era, or community, as manifested in its attitude and aspiration, hold the concept of ethos. Likewise, every civilization has its own unique ethos; however, at present, it is shared through multiple globalized dynamics such as—media, technology, and other connectivities. The communication gaps have been filled with unique mediums; people are more open to new things, and comforts have increased dramatically. Nevertheless, despite such liberal and contemporary facts, we have encountered several problems and value degradation in every aspect of human life. Service and leadership, art and aesthetics, ethics and morality, politics and society, science and law, and many other realms of human endeavour have been filled with much more complexity and crisis than before. It provokes intellectuals to rethink contemporary civilization and inspires the present critical research on top. Practically surrounded by all such challenges and selecting a few of them, this paper aims to address the complexities and stepping stones in the path of leadership, holistic ethics, and human well-being from philosophical perspectives while presenting a dystopian picture of contemporary reality and continuously following the critical method. Additionally, the conclusion and uniqueness of this paper locate within the fundamental questions raised in the present composition regarding the above-selected themes and an emphasis on the renaissance of inclusive ethics and virtuous leadership.

Indian philosophy, particularly the Vedānta tradition, has long engaged in hermeneutic and exegetical practices, especially in interpreting the prasthānatrayī texts—the Upaniṣads, Bhagavad Gītā, and Brahmasūtra—which are central to Vedāntic schools of thought. These interpretations have produced diverse readings highlighting knowledge, action, devotion, Advaitism, Dvaitism, Viśiṣṭādvaitism, and other perspectives, often marked by exclusivity and intense internal critique among the different traditions. However, similar interpretative engagement with Śramaṇa traditions, including Jainism, has largely been limited. Addressing this probable gap, this paper re-examines the central philosophy of Jainism by foregrounding its ethical foundation of ahiṃsā, viewing doctrines like anekāntavāda and syādvāda as extensions or expressions of this core principle. Accordingly, it argues that Jainism, as both a religious and philosophical system, offers a profound model of pacifism and a framework for non-violence that remains deeply relevant to contemporary moral and cultural challenges.

One of the legacies of Western philosophical thought has been its evolution through movements and slogans such as modernism, postmodernism, existentialism and analyticism. These popular intellectual standpoints have contributed to making Western culture more dialogical and progressive. However, in contrast, exploration of socio-philosophical movements within the Indian philosophical tradition, except for ancient times, remains relatively uncharted territory. Acknowledging this variance, the present article investigates the evolution of contemporary Indian philosophy during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It examines the core unifying principle that bound together eminent figures such as Swami Vivekananda, Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, K. C. Bhattacharyya and numerous others of their category, all classified as Neo-Vedantists. Precisely, the philosophy or movement under scrutiny is Swaraj, illuminated through the lens of Neo-Vedanta, presenting a distinctive perspective on human values and change.