Educationology

Perhaps the most critical component of civilised life figures least proportionately in our philosophical speculation and scientific studies: education, particularly its content and purpose.

The great masters of the past reflected deeply on education and wisely embedded it within larger moral, social, and political questions. Today, we face a widening lag and gap in our thinking about education itself.

In post-independence India, higher education was, to a considerable extent, turned into an instrument of ideological indoctrination, particularly into leftist thought. The resulting economic backwardness ironically weakened the system’s very capacity to absorb even the graduates produced by the technical education it offered.

We need to think about education, philosophise about it, and study it scientifically. Education is too vital to be left merely to educational practices, the fashioning of pedagogical nitty-gritty, or ideological preferences. We also need to weed out from the frameworks of education what may be called pseudo-education or anti-education.
We need Educationology: a systematic body of philosophical and scientific inquiry into education, its contents, purposes, methods, institutions, and consequences. A distinct discipline and dedicated schools of Educationology are critically needed to understand and strengthen this most vital component of civilised life.

Niraj Kumar Jha

The Public, the Private, and the Personal

The distinction between the public, the private, and the personal is vital to human good, dignity, and excellence, both in their recognition and in their proper roles. The public agency is meant to serve private entities so that they operate free of friction or coercion, and to protect the personal from external interference, so long as that does not harm others.

A civilisation distinguishes itself from barbarity by maintaining the sanctity of the private in terms of ownership, autonomy, safety, and ease. A civilisation that forgets this human principle invites either decadence and chaos or a lifeless solidity. The past and the present, history and politics, speak to no other conclusion.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Democratic Epistemology

Democracy nests in its own epistemology; it cannot be otherwise. Its foundation lies in the individual, the security of the person and their possessions, the autonomy of their agency, and the dignity of their being. What appears to be the simple basis of democracy requires a complex institutional and social mechanism to give it substance and sustain it. Such a mechanism, in turn, requires an evolved social order capable of creating, maintaining, and renewing it. This is why democracy has historically found it difficult to gain substantive roots in societies where the requisite social and institutional conditions have not evolved. In India, however, it could take root because of its deep civilizational legacies.

Worldwide, the epistemological foundations necessary to sustain democracy have eroded in both depth and commitment. One of the first major manifestations of this erosion was the defeat of the neoliberal order popularly associated with LPG, or liberalisation, privatisation, and globalisation. Secondly, across continents and civilisations, many popular movements, from Occupy Wall Street to the Arab Spring, either came to nought or produced outcomes that left societies no better, and in some cases considerably worse, than before.
Now, the rise of ICE and AI poses an even more profound challenge to the desired democratic way of life, whose crux remains humanism and human dignity. The central issue is not merely technological disruption but the growing redundancy of human agency and faculties for a large section of humanity. When people increasingly lose the capacity, opportunity, or relevance to act as autonomous agents, the very epistemological foundations of democracy begin to weaken.

This calls for a deeper systemthink. We need to understand democracy not merely as a form of government or a set of institutions, but as a way of knowing, valuing, and organising human existence. Its survival will ultimately depend on whether we can preserve the human being as an agent, not merely as a subject of governance, a consumer, or a replaceable component of increasingly autonomous systems.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Vikasdharma: A Dharmic Theory of Development

The only sustainable path to national development is to allow people the greatest possible opportunities to participate in economic activities, subject only to such collective mediation as is necessary and justifiable. When individuals are able to engage in enterprise in a hassle-free environment, they create wealth, generate employment, and foster innovation, all of which contribute to national development.

Indeed, what is commonly described as negative liberalism I regard as positive liberalism. I view it from another, and arguably more realistic, perspective. By leaving initiative in the hands of individuals, particularly the entrepreneurial class, it expanded the scope of voluntary cooperation, enterprise, and civil society. While it is often criticised for producing economic inequality and exploitation, such criticism captures only one part of the historical experience. It is commonly argued that democracy evolved in opposition to exploitation and inequalities. which capitalism engendered. Yet the more substantive historical fact is that capitalism created the economic and social conditions that enabled people to organise themselves, demand a more humane life, and press for political rights. Prosperity generated resources, education, and an increasingly independent middle class, all of which strengthened the capacity for collective action.

The French Revolution of 1789 illustrates this dynamic. Although its causes were multiple, it occurred in one of Europe's most economically dynamic societies, where a commercially prosperous bourgeoisie had acquired sufficient economic strength to challenge the privileges of the ancien régime. More broadly, many institutions of civil society, voluntary associations, professional organisations, trade unions, and democratic movements flourished in societies where individuals enjoyed substantial economic freedom. Thus, rather than viewing liberal capitalism merely as the object of democratic opposition, it may also be understood as one of the principal conditions that made democratic mobilisation and civic advancement possible.

One must also keep in mind what capitalism replaced. It displaced a ruthless feudal order in which ordinary people were often treated little better than the property of their masters. Equally important is the fact that modern imperialism extended the capitalist model to the colonies in exploitative ways, and many of those societies eventually evolved into democratic political orders. This does not absolve imperialism of its sins, but it does suggest that some of the institutional and economic transformations associated with capitalism, most notably the emergence of a capitalist class and a market-based middle class, later provided conditions conducive to democratic development. These social groups acquired sufficient economic independence and organisational capacity to demand political representation, civil liberties, and constitutional government.

This is not to deny that regulations are necessary to prevent crimes, fraud, manipulation, breaches of trust, and other vile tendencies found among people. Nevertheless, the expansion of individual economic liberty has historically been one of the principal forces behind civic mobilisation, institutional development, and national progress. The challenge, therefore, is not to abandon laissez-faire but to optimise it by preserving economic freedom while ensuring that the state performs its essential functions of maintaining the rule of law, protecting competition, enforcing contracts, and preventing coercion, monopoly, and privilege.

The development school, in fact, confused the outcomes of capitalism with the conditions necessary for economic take-off in backward economies. Its emphasis on institutions, governance, property rights, infrastructure, education, and other structural prerequisites mistook the products of a successful developmental process for its primary causes. These institutions are undoubtedly important, but they are themselves the historical outcomes of a society in which informed human agency, entrepreneurship, voluntary cooperation, and economic freedom have been allowed to flourish. Development does not begin with institutions alone; rather, enduring institutions emerge from the cumulative exercise of responsible and productive human agency. It is this agency, more than the institutions it eventually creates, that constitutes the true foundation of development.

The concept of Dharma, in fact, predates the doctrine of laissez-faire by millennia. At its core lies a fundamental principle: the recognition of the proper sphere of individual action and the limits of external interference. Laissez-faire is but one modern economic articulation of this much older civilisational insight. I have invoked it only to explain the dynamics of development in the contemporary world. If we embrace the free-market principle, we are not merely borrowing a lesson from elsewhere; we are, in an important sense, rediscovering an insight long embedded in our own civilisational wisdom.

At its core, dharma enjoins each person to pursue one's legitimate pursuits without encroaching upon the legitimate sphere of others. Correspondingly, rajdharma requires the state not to direct or usurp the legitimate pursuits of individuals, but to ensure that no one interferes with others, violates justice, or undermines the common good. Its role is not to substitute individual initiative with bureaucratic control, but to preserve the conditions in which freedom, justice, and social harmony can coexist. Economic freedom, therefore, is not antithetical to the Indian conception of governance; rather, it is entirely consistent with a dharmic order in which individual initiative flourishes within a framework of justice, public responsibility, and the rule of law.

Viewed in this light, laissez-faire is neither a foreign prescription nor an imported ideology. It is a modern economic expression of a principle that Indian civilisation recognised long ago: individuals should be free to pursue their legitimate ends, while the state ensures that such freedom is exercised without injustice, coercion, or harm to others.

Niraj Kumar Jha

गणधर्म (Gaṇadharma)

The origins of republicanism can be traced to antiquity, yet it remains surprisingly underdeveloped as a conceptual category. Even today, there has been little sustained effort to distinguish it meaningfully from democracy. Republicanism is conventionally defined in opposition to monarchy, emphasising the absence of hereditary rule. Yet this negative definition leaves much unexplored. It says little about imperialism, even though the American republic emerged as much in opposition to imperial domination as to monarchical authority.

This conceptual limitation is reflected in the constitutional imagination of modern republics. One may consider the language of the earliest formal constitutions of the modern age. It is fundamentally a language of checks and restraints. Institutions are first created, powers are assigned to them, and then elaborate mechanisms are devised to regulate and balance those very powers. The assumption underlying this design is that power is inherently prone to abuse and must therefore be constrained through constitutional architecture. Constitutionalism, in this sense, is less a philosophy of public life than a technology of political management.

A striking contrast may be found in the concept of dharma. Rather than beginning with institutions, dharma begins with the individual as a duty-bound moral being. It conceives society as an organic moral order in which each person is connected to others through the conscientious performance of appropriate duties. The emphasis is not upon external restraints but upon the ethical formation of citizens and the cultivation of character. The primary safeguard of public life is therefore internal rather than institutional. Institutions certainly remain necessary, but they become secondary supports for a moral order rather than substitutes for one.

Modern republics have largely retained inherited institutional structures, adding little more than a democratic icing. Such cosmetic democratisation has not necessarily fostered a genuinely public ethos. Even the United States, arguably the most influential modern republic, exhibits significant tensions between republican ideals and the increasingly opaque and complex dynamics of contemporary politics. Constitutional checks, however sophisticated, cannot by themselves generate civic virtue, public responsibility, or a shared moral purpose.

The problem, therefore, is not merely institutional but conceptual. Republicanism has too often been reduced to a constitutional form of government rather than developed as a comprehensive philosophy of public life. If it is to remain relevant in the twenty-first century, it requires a fresh infusion of imagination and agency. It must move beyond defining itself by what it rejects, whether monarchy or imperial rule, and articulate a positive vision of civic virtue, public responsibility, dispersed power, and collective self-government. Such a reconstruction may also require republicanism to recover what constitutional design alone cannot provide: an ethical foundation that treats citizenship not merely as a bundle of rights and institutional relationships, but as a disciplined way of life grounded in duty, responsibility, and the pursuit of the common good.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Constitutional Devolution

What explains America's constitutional devolution? I do not know. One possible explanation is that, in a long period of material stability and prosperity, the need to remain entertained gradually becomes society's primary preoccupation. Entertainment begins to displace education, spectacle replaces civic formation, and, as a result, the constitutional culture slowly weakens. A constitution ultimately depends not only on legal institutions but also on citizens who possess the knowledge, habits, and discipline necessary to sustain it. When education yields to entertainment as the dominant cultural force, constitutional decline may follow.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Home and Neighbourhood

Two institutions require thorough reconstruction, both in their functionality and their dignity: the home and the neighbourhood community. The demands of economic mobility have hollowed out even the communal life of villages. Families have fragmented; even conjugal relationships are under severe strain, while community life has become shallow and largely superficial. In their isolation and insecurity, people are losing their sense of worth, and with it not only the quality of social life but, more importantly, their sense of purpose in life. The restoration of these foundations calls for thoughtful and patient work of social reconstruction.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Whither Liberalism?

Strangely, when totalitarian regimes were writing their own obituaries in the late twentieth century, liberalism, instead of spreading and deepening, began to shrink and lose its substance. The picture is now all too clear. How and why did this happen?

I have shared my thoughts on this and received only a single response. I do not expect anyone else to answer. That very absence of expectation is, in itself, an explanation.

Niraj Kumar Jha

On Social Media Again

Social media has emerged as a colossal phenomenon. The way it is taking society along is a phenomenon in itself. It gives a voice to those who never had one before. Most surprisingly, it is now challenging the handiwork of intellectuals and ideologues who divided commoners into their fiefdoms of thought to secure their positions as high priests.
Commoners are not only speaking for themselves but are also seeing through these designs. Strangely, the intellectuals did not do so intentionally but instinctively. They themselves now need to re-educate themselves and learn to speak for the commoners in a true democratic spirit.

Niraj Kumar Jha

The Unrecognised State of Molecular Dissonance

One way to describe the contemporary world is through the phrase "molecular dissonance". Wars continue to inflict colossal human tragedies. Internal instability has surfaced even in developed countries such as Great Britain. Institutions across societies appear increasingly strained, reactive, and uncertain in their purposes.

As I see it, a political system needs system-imaging minds capable of philosophising, reviewing, calibrating, and aligning its institutions and practices. Such minds must be able to anticipate, reckon with, and assume responsibility for the effects, aftereffects, and long-term consequences of actions. Otherwise, despite the best intentions of those at the helm, what emerges may be called molecular dissonance. What the world faces today is not merely a shortage of resources or technical expertise, but a dearth of such minds, coupled with an insufficient willingness to act upon their understanding. Let me reiterate by my coinage, system-imaging minds; I mean minds capable of mentally mapping the architecture of a system, visualising the interplay between its constituent parts and purposes, and distinguishing the functional from the dysfunctional before the latter matures into crisis. Such minds can anticipate how actions reverberate through interconnected structures and align interventions with the larger ends the system is meant to serve.

I define molecular dissonance as a condition in which the constituent elements of a complex system act without coherence with the larger purposes they are meant to serve. It manifests when decisions are taken in isolation, immediate incentives override systemic considerations, and institutions lose sight of the ends for which they exist. The result is an accumulation of small misalignments—between intention and outcome, rules and purposes, actions and consequences, individual interests and institutional responsibilities. Each act may appear rational or harmless in itself, yet together they generate dysfunction, erode trust, and weaken the integrity of the whole.

Molecular dissonance is therefore not the breakdown of a system through dramatic collapse, but its gradual corrosion through innumerable uncoordinated acts and inverted priorities among the very units that compose it. It is the pathology of systems that continue to function outwardly while progressively losing their internal coherence and fidelity to purpose.

Right now, this constitutes an acute crisis in the international system, in addition to the deliberate acts of domination and extraction pursued by some nations. The condition of the international order reflects the wider condition of the nation-states that compose it, most of which are themselves afflicted by this syndrome internally. They not only suffer its consequences but also feed and amplify the wider malady. The resulting international environment becomes increasingly fragile, less capable of pursuing common purposes, and more prone to reactive conduct, mistrust, and systemic drift.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Who Loves Democracy?

The 1990s marked the zenith of democracy's ascent in its relatively short modern history. Through liberalisation, privatisation, and globalisation (LPG), democracy appeared to be moving toward its substantive realisation. It promised greater space for individuals and their enterprises, while deepening mutual exchange and interdependence across the world. Democracy seemed to be growing into its fullest expression.

But who truly loves democracy?

Entrenched powers organised a massive global hue and cry against this expanding order. For a time, neoliberalism was invoked as the explanation for virtually every conceivable problem. The world that emerged from that reaction is the one we inhabit today. Few realised then that if the age of LPG was to be reversed, geopolitics would inevitably fill the vacuum. The retreat from openness and interdependence would not usher in a better order; it would restore the older logic of power, rivalry, spheres of influence, and strategic competition, creating conditions conducive to authoritarianism and democratic decline. The return of geopolitics was not an aberration but the consequence of abandoning the trajectory that LPG had set in motion.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Thinking Justice

Justice, as an idea, a norm, or an enforceable principle, flourishes only in a culture of excellence. Such a culture values competence, responsibility, self-restraint, and the realisation of individual potential. Justice is both a product and a guardian of this culture.

At its most basic level, justice requires that wrongdoing be recognised as wrong, that the wrongdoer be held accountable, and that the victim receive restitution or redress. Yet where poverty, deprivation, disorder, and dependency become pervasive, injustice often ceases to appear exceptional. It comes to be accepted as the normal state of affairs, a fait accompli. In such circumstances, the delivery of justice is perceived not as a matter of right but as an act of benevolence, charity, generosity, or, worse still, chivalry.

What, then, is excellence? It is not merely exceptional achievement, nor is it simply the possession of wealth, status, or skill. Excellence is a state in which individuals and societies remain mindful of the potential of the human mind and consciously cultivate it. It is a social condition in which individuals are encouraged to realise their capacities while remaining bound by the obligation not to dominate, coerce, exploit, or harm others. Such a condition rests upon a deep respect for individuality, not merely as a matter of rights but as a recognition that each human being possesses a unique potential for thought, judgment, creativity, and self-realisation. The acceptance and appreciation of individuality are nurtured by literature, art, philosophy, and the broader life of the mind. These deepen human awareness, enlarge the moral imagination, and cultivate the capacity to recognise other persons as distinct centres of experience rather than as instruments, abstractions, or members of a category.

The consciousness of excellence and the level of prosperity go hand in hand. They sustain and reinforce one another. It is the cultivation of the mind that gives rise to prosperity, just as prosperity creates conditions conducive to the further cultivation of the mind. Conversely, a society that neglects the cultivation of the mind breeds poverty, while pervasive poverty leaves little room for such cultivation. The two thus stand in a reciprocal relationship, each strengthening or weakening the other.

Literature, art, and intellectual pursuits do not merely require patronage; they require a society that can afford, both materially and mentally, to look beyond the demands of immediate survival. A civilisation preoccupied entirely with subsistence struggles cannot readily make excellence a shared aspiration. Where the horizon of life is confined to mere survival, the higher cultivation of the mind becomes difficult to sustain, and with it the consciousness from which justice, responsibility, and individuality derive their strength.
Excellence may be understood most clearly when contrasted with decadence, which is the state of general poverty, squalor, disorder, indifference, and the erosion of duty and accountability. It is a condition in which a society ceases to value and reproduce excellence. Wrongdoing loses its moral distinctiveness and comes to be regarded as an inevitable feature of life. Under such conditions, the moral and institutional foundations of justice weaken, and public life gradually descends into cynicism and arbitrariness.

Ultimately, justice is sustained by a collective state of mind. It depends upon habits of thought and conduct that generate stability, predictability, trust, and accountability. These habits are neither automatic nor self-perpetuating. They require constant cultivation. Excellence is precisely this condition of cultivated awareness: a state in which people remain mindful of the potential of the mind, both in themselves and in others. When such awareness weakens, society drifts toward mindlessness. The ideas, norms, and practices that sustain justice are then gradually absorbed into that vast swamp of mindlessness, where neither excellence nor justice can long survive.

Historically, ideas of justice have often been formulated from the perspective of those who imagined society as requiring supervision from above. Justice was therefore conceived as a mechanism administered by a superior authority rather than as a culture cultivated by society itself. Yet a society not subjected to aggression or tyranny tends to develop norms, customs, and expectations that sustain cooperation, accountability, and mutual respect. In such circumstances, justice emerges less as an external imposition than as an internal achievement. Laws and institutions may preserve and articulate it, but its true source lies in the culture of excellence from which it arises.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Commoners Speak Now

Before social media, a relatively small number of people spoke in the name of commoners, often usurping their voices and even their sense of being. Post-colonialism examined how international power cliques, through their intellectual and institutional machinery, claimed to speak on behalf of the world's marginalised while simultaneously casting them in their own image. Yet many of the protagonists of post-colonial discourse were themselves carving out niches within Western academia, speaking in the name of the very people from whom they had become socially and materially distant.

The phenomenon is not confined to international politics or academia. It operated at every level of society, descending through institutions, communities, and even families. Someone would speak for another, define another, and gradually appropriate another's being. The power to represent often became the power to replace.

The social media landscape has opened the means of public expression to ordinary people. Millions now speak for themselves rather than through designated intermediaries. It is perhaps not surprising that, as direct voices proliferate, the lords of abstraction redouble their efforts at distraction.

Niraj Kumar Jha

For the Sake of True Vision

Let me suggest another way of distinguishing education from indoctrination, a theme I often return to. Education enables individuals to see reality as it is; indoctrination trains them to see doctrine as reality. The former cultivates the capacity to question, investigate, and revise one's beliefs in light of evidence. The latter demands conformity to predetermined truths and discourages independent judgment.

Many twentieth-century communist regimes resorted to what theocratic regimes have long attempted: a comprehensive capture of the human mind or the generation of a cognitive fog that obscures independent judgment. The aim was to absorb individuals into a grand order, subsuming their individuality while elevating a select few to a status approaching reverence or unquestionable authority.
What I have written is an abstraction—a pure type. Reality is rarely so neat. Even the most liberal order may carry traces of the same affliction; it is often a matter of extent rather than kind.

Let me reiterate here the Gayatri Mantra, an eternal prayer for true knowledge and the illumination of the human intellect:

ॐ भूर्भुवः स्वः ।
तत्सवितुर्वरेण्यं
भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि ।
धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात् ॥

"We meditate upon the adorable radiance of the divine Source. May that divine light illuminate and inspire our intellects."

The prayer does not ask for conformity, certainty, or submission. It asks for enlightened judgment. In that sense, it captures the spirit of education at its highest: not the acceptance of doctrine as reality, but the cultivation of the intellectual and moral faculties necessary to perceive reality with clarity.

Niraj Kumar Jha

On Realism and Idealism

Realism and idealism are often seen as binaries. The fact is that neither is sufficient on its own, and both can become counterproductive when pursued in isolation. The practical and the possible must inform those seeking to realise idealistic aspirations. Such judgment emerges from careful historical and comparative study, from observing realities and mending one's ways accordingly; it does not arise from forcing historical events into preconceived imaginative constructs, reducing history to neat patterns, or adhering rigidly to predetermined outcomes and methods. Equally, crass realism erodes the trust, solidarity, and shared meaning that make collective life possible, culminating in a desolation that negates the very purpose it sought to serve.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Responsibility as Power

There is a famous Hollywood movie line: "With great power comes great responsibility." As it is often delivered, it appears to be a law of life, but it is, in fact, a moral dictum. Let me place it in proper perspective. Power is about owning responsibility; otherwise, it becomes merely a position of domination for personal aggrandisement.

Similarly, any privilege enjoyed at public cost must be justified by a commensurate contribution to the public good. Amidst general deprivation and squalor, any privilege derived from public resources or based on public property is an abominably undeserved entitlement. The passage of time often corrects such excesses.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Neo-imperialism

Let me clarify at the outset that what I am noting here about neo-imperialism is only my impression. I studied neo-imperialism as a Political Science student at a leading university in our country. The lessons on the subject were overwhelming to me at the time, but later I realised that the entire exercise was teleological. The most bizarre aspect was that Vladimir Lenin’s theory of imperialism, adapted from John A. Hobson, was taught almost as an axiomatic framework for understanding international affairs, even though it explained a pre-existing phenomenon as the outcome of a later-occurring development. Secondly, what it offered as a way out was the advocacy of an order that was feudal at its core, rooted in patronage and clientelism, though presented under the garb of modernity and in the name of liberation. Those who understood the rules of the game eventually defeated the erstwhile bosses of the world at their own game, and now those very bosses appear to be entreating the emergent powers for favour and accommodation. The lingering folly once again leaves us, if not at the receiving end, certainly not at the winning end.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Of Imperialism Without Garb

This is the failure of our times: naked imperialism has returned with vehemence. That it scarcely cares anymore for moral or ideological garb only deepens the irony and the misery of the age. Such phenomena are not natural calamities like outbreaks of viral disease, but consequences of human folly. At its first level, domination succeeds through the effective use of intellect without regard for those who bear the cost of its exercise. The deeper question, however, is why the rest fail to apply their minds to the affairs of the world and to their own lot. Human folly becomes more dangerous when the wicked command greater strategic intellect than the good command civic courage or moral clarity. The task, then, is not merely to condemn tyranny, but to overcome the mental and physical weaknesses among us commoners who seek neither unearned gain nor prosperity built upon the suffering of others.

Niraj Kumar Jha

Of Tyranny

 If a single person can disrupt and destabilise the whole world, it speaks not of the person but of the world.

Niraj Kumar Jha

For Prosperity and Power

The US delegation to the People's Republic of China affirms the obvious: the interest of big business is the national interest. The United States understands this and deploys its imperial might to promote its corporations. Here, it has come to negotiate with its greatest challenger in order to secure a smoother field of operation for them. I do not intend to criticise this reality, but to highlight what prudence demands.

A nation must ease the conditions of doing business at home to the optimum extent and promote its corporations' operations abroad. That is the path towards the intertwined goals of prosperity and power. At the next level, it must ensure that power and wealth remain fairly distributed within the country. The national ecosystem should enable widely held shareholder companies and cooperatives to rise into global corporations. It is fundamentally about the rule of law and fair, facilitative rules of the game.

Simultaneously, insofar as their rules permit, Indians must raise, and be allowed to raise, their stake in the shareholding of global companies to feasible and safe limits, and benefit from the operations of multinational giants.

Niraj Kumar Jha