Hinduism and Business Ethics
S. Prakash Sethi and Paul Steidlmeier
India and Hinduism – the dominant religion of a majority of its people – meet both the criteria of a strong culture and a history of highly developed civilization, and a deeply felt sense of morality based on religious tenets. Therefore, while on the surface India’s people in general, and its business people in particular, may appear to be highly rational in their business and economic activities, and may even seem to make similar decisions to those made by business people in industrially advanced and Judeo Christian societies of the West, it would be extremely misleading to conclude that they are similar, at least to the extent of decision making in the economic arena, either at the macro or micro levels. The thought processes and the underlying sets of moral values in the two systems are quite dis similar. For the same reason, two apparently inconsistent decisions, from the Western point of view, would appear quite consistent in the Indian framework because they conform to a common underlying moral rationale.
Basic Tenets of Hinduism
Hinduism, as it is practiced today, has evolved over a period of 3,000 years. In the process, it has assimilated a variety of religions and moral beliefs, as successive waves of invaders from the North, East, and West occupied the land and eventually became part of the landscape. This is why Hinduism can accommodate a wide variety of behaviors and moral rationales which, on the surface, may appear to be intern ally inconsistent.
Notwithstanding the bewildering varieties of religious rituals, multitudes of gods, sects, cults, and holy persons of allilks and persuasions, most scholars of Hindu religion recognize that the doctrines of samsara, karma, and moksha lie at the core of Hindu philosophy (Milner, 1993). The description of the basic tenets of Hindu philosophy, in the present instance, is of necessity selectively confined to those concepts that are of particular relevance to the economic arena. Samsara pertains to the rebirth or the transmigration of self and has a great impact on the mode of thinking and way of life of people of the Hindu faith. Karma denotes fate or manifest destiny in common parlance. It literally means ‘‘actions’’ or ‘‘deeds.’’ The law of karma operates like a chain of causation, whereby the life of the individual self is determined by actions – the present life is the result of actions in the past life, and actions in the present life will determine the pattern for future lives. Moksha (Nirvana) refers to the liberation from the constant cycle of birth and death to become part of the ultimate infinite universe (i.e., union with God) (Uppal, 1977: 122–35).
Other concepts of Hindu religion are import ant in terms of their impact on the economic life and business conduct of the Indian people. These are: (a) Dharma – the notion of one’s duty and obligation to others and to oneself, and the practice of virtue, in the discharge of life’s day to day functions; (b) Artha – the acquisition of wealth for use; and (c) Kama – the enjoyments of the pleasures of life (Anand, 1963: 18–24).
The Hindu notions of heaven and hell are quite different to those prevailing in other religions, notably Christianity and Islam. There is no rainbow or pleasure dome at the end of the current life’s journey. All actions – good and bad – are rewarded and punished in one incarnation or another; it is the soul that is everlasting, and it is the soul that seeks liberation from being trapped in the constant cycle of earthly forms. One’s station in life is largely predetermined by one’s actions in previous lives. Karma operates like an iron law of inescapable retribution. This notion acts as a coping mechanism where life’s injustices and miseries, as well as possession and enjoyment of worldly goods, are accepted as part of one’s fate. It provides a rational justification, propels people toward good deeds because they determine one’s fate in the next life, and puts brakes on one’s unbridled self interest, for fear of retribution for bad deeds. The concept of dharma adds another dimension to karma, in that it defines one’s duties and obligations to others (i.e., social hierarchy of kinship) and also suggests means for choosing among different moral values and alternative courses of action. Dharma is a set of moral guidelines for an individual to follow in everyday life in various spiritual aspects. Some important virtues that are stressed are truth, non violence, sacrifice, purity, and renunciation or detachment. Great emphasis is placed on detachment from all associations with the material world (Uppal, 1977: 126–9).
Artha (wealth) and kama (enjoyment of life) are treated as important values that must be actively sought. They provide the vigor of the Indian entrepreneur, and the relative absence of guilt that accompanies enjoyment of life’s munificence. Wealth and enjoyment of life, how ever, have to have a purpose, reaching toward liberation of soul or nirvana. Artha guides all acquisition and use of material means for sustain ing life. The two holy books, Mahabharata and Panchatantra, illustrate Hindu philosophy toward material means and their enjoyment.
What is here regarded as Dharma depends entirely upon wealth (Artha). One who robs another of wealth robs him of his Dharma as well. Poverty is a state of sinfulness. All kinds of meritorious acts flow from the possession of great wealth, as from wealth spring all religious acts, all pleasures and heaven itself . . . He that has no wealth has neither this world nor the next . . . Poverty is a curse worse than death. Virtue without wealth is of no consequence. The lack of money is the root of all evil. But material wealth is to be sought in ways consistent with the requirements of detachment or renunciation required under Dharma as explained above. Kama is the enjoyment of the appropriate objects of the five senses of hearing, feeling, seeing, tasting, and smelling, assisted by mind together with the soul. (Uppal, 1977: 129; see also Koller, 1970: 42 3)
The significance of actions raises some important questions for the sake of achieving ‘‘real self’’ or atman: (1) Should we cease to perform actions, or in other words, is renunciation from all worldly activities the answer? (2) Is there any ordering of good actions versus bad actions? (3) Can an individual be guided to per form good actions? The answer to the first question is found in the sacred book, the Bhagavad Gita. It is maintained that action is necessary, ‘‘for no one can remain even for a moment with out doing work; every one is made to act helplessly by the impulses born of nature.’’ The crucial thing is to engage in worldly activities without becoming attached to them. ‘‘To action alone hast thou a right and never at all to its fruits; let not the fruits of action be thy motive; neither let there be any attachment to inaction. Therefore, without attachment, perform always the work that has to be done, for man attains to the highest by doing work without attachment’’ (Radhakrishnan, 1948: 119–38; see also Uppal, 1977: 128; Weber, 1958: 4).
Hinduism and Contemporary (Western) Business Practices and Ethical Norms
In a perfect world, Hindu religion and its followers would provide an ideal combination of attributes conducive to business development in general and ethical business conduct in particular. Dharma would indicate a heightened sense of duty and self responsibility which could be counted upon as a basic value promoting people to meet their obligations, operate in a highly principled manner, and pursue the acquisition of wealth in a virtuous (fair) manner. Karma would suggest an acceptance of one’s position in life, encourage one to regard work as a moral duty, and suggest that excellence be pursued for its own sake and not necessarily as a means to bigger financial rewards or higher status.
Wealth creation and enjoyment of means of life (artha and kama) are seen as having divine approval and should be enjoyed without any guilt or fear of opprobrium. In business conduct, especially dealing with Western types of businesses, the two concepts would imply a greater scope of cooperation and trust under conditions where the local partners visualize their gains in terms of wealth accumulation and control of productive assets, rather than being doled out as mere rewards, no matter how munificent.
While there may be common agreement as to the principles of dharma and karma, artha and kama, their interpretation takes place with a far wider latitude than is prevalent in Western work. Even more important, the degree to which different individuals would emphasize one value over the other under the Hindu philosophy is based to a greater extent on intuitive, or spiritually felt, emotions. Thus, one might find an Indian less compromising on a vaguely defined ‘‘principle’’ than otherwise reasonable people would consider plausible. It is not uncommon for Indians to take offense, and act almost irrationally, when they believe that a principle is at stake, or that a person has not acted in a morally responsible manner consistent with his status in life and in accordance with his stature in the social and transactional context of a given situation. Similarly, a devotion to work and separation of work from reward would make many an Indian work and excel to the extent that they might be perceived, from the point of view of a ‘‘non Indian’’ socioeconomic framework, to be undermining a common level of expectations and skewing the relationship between supply and demand for services. Thus, contracts are likely to be honored; a full day’s wage buys more than a full day’s work; and business is conducted in a highly ethical manner. Consequently, norms of business conduct and behavior appear – at least to the uninitiated – to be inconsistent and illogical because they seem to be applied in different situations in such a manner that their rationale is not easily explained.
The other negative side effects of Hindu philosophy are inherent in their very nature. Karma creates a sense of fatalism and pessimism and thus contributes to risk avoidance. It also rationalizes the inequities of a caste system which allows for exploitation of the less fortunate as a matter of divine right and the sufferers’ inherent misfortune. While in times past the caste system was somewhat akin to a craft guild, with flexibility created for expertise, work specialization, and productivity gains, it also created a social order which was acceptable to the feudal system of political governance. Over time, it has become rigid and ossified, and inimical to individual growth. At the state level, it has created an ever increasing class of ‘‘suffering minorities’’ seeking to codify social entitlement for an indefinite period (Dehejia and Dehejia, 1993; Milner, 1993; Mishra, 1962; Uppal, 1977).
In a business context it is not unusual for high caste Hindus to exploit those of lower caste status with relatively little guilt or remorse. The classification also extends to social relation ships. Thus, while modern businesses may easily integrate the workplace, the real integration is sometimes not easily achieved. At the social levels, groups do not seek integration or even intermingling. Where economic stakes are high, each caste is likely to create all types of subterfuges to favor its own group to the detriment of others. This phenomenon is all too apparent in any sociopolitical and economic arrangement involving power sharing or allocation of eco nomic entitlement – jobs, for example. Only the truly uninitiated are oblivious to the subtle machinations of individuals and groups as they vie for power and influence.
Detachment of work from its reward has a number of implications for business behavior. Since work is revered for its own sake, there is often a tendency to disregard its adverse effects. Thus, poor work conditions, low pay, and other inequities may be condoned by the social system as the lot of the poor, the nature of work itself, and not the responsibility of the owner. Where responsibility is assumed, it is deemed to be a matter of conscience or good business practice rather than a moral imperative. The poor are poor because it is their fate. The rich have been chosen by the gods to accumulate wealth and do good deeds for their ultimate salvation – as it is their wont to do. One should not be surprised to find echoes of robber barons and the era of exploitative capitalism in America, where workers were ruthlessly suppressed so that capitalists could maximize surplus value and build bigger monuments to the glory of God and supremacy of Western civilization. The Taj Mahal and other monuments may inspire awe for their grand design and superb execution, but they also tell a story of untold suffering on the part of millions of craftsmen who worked and died in literal bondage to their feudal lords to glorify the latter’s conquests and appeasement of gods.
Another stark example of differences between Western and Hindu notions of good works and the bearing of karma shows up in the domain of charitable activities. Wealthy Hindu business people would more likely spend a far bigger portion of their fortunes in building temples for their favorite gods to seek favors for the next life, rather than devote resources to helping the poor and building social institutions to help them. Socially responsible corporate behavior on the part of indigenous Indian businesses is primarily in the form of acts of charity on holy days, rather than treating the poor and disadvantaged as stakeholders deserving of help and entitled to dignity. Indian businesses, except for the Parsees (members of the Zoroastrian religious sect in India descended from Persians), are less prone to acts of civic philanthropy unless they have a religious tint.
The sense of duty or dharma manifests itself in a variety of ways in business conduct. At one level, it is the concept of devotion to principle, defined as one’s primary obligation to one’s values and social (i.e., group or kinship) responsibilities. A principle, for its own sake, is import ant and has propelled many a Hindu to make extreme sacrifices because to do otherwise would be a violation of dharma, a divine sin, and, there fore, morally repugnant. From the Western perspective, a person acting under the belief of his dharma is more likely to act irrationally, and is likely to make compromises to achieve a ‘‘win– win’’ solution. Thus an understanding of dharma and its situational and personal context is very important in determining the applicable norms of social behavior in a particular situation and given the particular set of people involved.
Dharma is also a fluid concept, specific to situation and person. In one case it may justify fighting and even killing one’s own kin, while in another case it may justify fighting and even killing another person to protect one’s own kin. The Western mind, not attuned to Indian thought processes and often applying a Western sense of cost benefit rational analysis, could easily violate an Indian’s concept of dharma and principle and thereby provoke a major confrontation. By the same token, dharma may force a person to act in ways which might violate the Western sense of social or commercial contact, although the Indian mind would feel absolved of responsibility because it was his duty to do so.
Hinduism also manifests itself in contradictory behavior of tolerance/intolerance when dealing with people of other cultures and religions. Although the Hindu religion is extremely tolerant of other religions and people’s right to worship their own gods, this tolerance does not extend to according them the same privileges and rights as one accords to one’s own in social or commercial dealings. One has a lesser duty or dharma to treat a business transaction or a person from another religion/community fairly when this treatment is likely to impair benefits or advantages to one’s own self or one’s kin. While such behavior may manifest itself just as easily in Western societies in terms of race or color bias, the system in India is likely to be more egregiously tolerant of discriminating behavior.
Artha and kama (i.e., acquisition of wealth and the means of its enjoyment) have a positive influence on business behavior in that they favor savings and consumption, thus contributing to economic growth. They also manifest them selves often in conspicuous consumption and wealth hoarding in non productive assets. In part, these actions also arise out of a desire to avoid paying confiscatory taxes to a national government – a concept that is not central to the Hindu culture. Historically, the state has been seen primarily as the king’s domain, known for its extortion of other people’s labor rather than protection of its subjects. Thus, while India has all the trappings of a modern democracy, its foundations are still based on bribery and corruption, the coin of the realm of a feudal mindset. The corruption and buying of elections are endemic to India’s democratic system. The bureaucracy’s indifference to the plight of the masses is pervasive. Like most other developing countries of Asia and Latin America, nothing moves without paying a bribe, and this includes virtually all levels of government.
Summary and Conclusions
Hinduism as a religion exerts a strong influence on its followers. It accommodates a wide variety of behaviors and is quite flexible in applying various religious tenets to real life situations. At the same time, it is highly spiritualistic, and seeks virtuous behavior and adherence to principle and social obligation. It creates conditions that rationalize the sanctity of work even when work is unpalatable and unrewarding. The accumulation of wealth and enjoyment of the means of life are stripped of their guilt connotations and Hindus are encouraged to pursue such activities provided they are undertaken within the framework of one’s dharma. The system provides a built in mode for coping with adversity. However, when carried to extremes, it engenders pessimism, risk avoidance, and a rationale for exploitation by the haves of the have nots.
Bibliography
Anand, M. R. (1963). Is There A Contemporary Indian Civilization? Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Dehejia, R. H. and Dehejia, V. H. (1993). Religion and economic activity in India: An historical perspective. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52, 145 54.
Kapp, W. P. (1963). Hindu Culture, Economic Development and Economic Planning in India. New York: Asia Publishing House.
Koller, J. (1970). Oriental Philosophies. New York: Scribner.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1948). The Bhagavad Gita. London: Allen and Unwin.
Milner, M., Jr.. (1993). Hindu eschatology and the Indian caste system: An example of structural reversal. Journal of Asian Studies, 52 (2), 298 319.
Mishra, V. (1962). Hinduism and Economic Growth. Bombay: Oxford University Press.
Uppal, J. S. (1977). Economic Development in South Asia. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Weber, M. (1946). The social psychology of the world religions. In H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.), From Max Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
Welty, P. T. (1973). The Asians: Their Heritage and Their Destiny. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.