Readers’ comments: Guru-shishya tradition encouraged questions, article selectively misreads texts

This critique of the guru-shishya system it seems to confuse the profound, time-tested tradition with its modern distortions and misinterpretations (“How the traditional guru-shishya system undermined critical thinking in India”). The foundational principle of the authentic guru-shishya relationship is trust, openness and dialogue, not blind submission.

The scripture which is the cornerstone of the philosophy, the Bhagavad Gita, is structured as a disciple’s sincere questioning and the guru’s compassionate clarification. Krishna never silences Arjuna; instead, he encourages dialogue, saying, “Now listen, O Arjuna, how with the mind absorbed in Me... you will know Me completely, free from doubt.” The system is built on removing doubt, or samsaya, not instilling fear.

The example of Karna from the Mahabharata is profoundly misunderstood. Parashurama’s curse was not about “caste supremacy”, but the fundamental breach of truthfulness, or satya, which is the bedrock of the relationship. Karna, by lying about his identity, broke that trust. The curse that knowledge would fail him at a critical moment symbolises a deep spiritual principle: knowledge acquired through deceit is unstable. To reduce this to “guru dominance” is to miss its ethical and narrative depth.

You are correct that the abuses witnessed in recent decades – where gurus, perhaps due to misplaced authority, institutional power, or social hierarchy, suppress questioning – are deviations from the tradition. They are symptoms of ego and institutional decay, not features of the system itself.

The article’s selective reading and forced framing seem less like a sincere analysis and more like an attempt to discredit a core civilisational educational and spiritual methodology by conflating its essence with its occasional corruptions. I request the editor to give enough attention in detail before publishing such articles henceforth. – Jayachandran Elumalai

***

I appreciate the concerns you raise about power imbalance, exclusion and abuse within certain historical and contemporary manifestations of the tradition.

At the same time, I would like to offer a nuance that may complicate the central claim that the guru – shishya system, as a whole, did not permit questioning or critical thought.

Classical Indian intellectual traditions – particularly in philosophy, grammar, logic and theology – were deeply rooted in structured debate (vāda), counter-argument (prativāda), and rigorous reasoning (tarka). Systems such as Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā, and Vedānta evolved precisely through sustained teacher – student disputation, where questioning the guru’s position was not only permitted but methodologically necessary. Texts were taught through pūrvapakṣa-siddhānta frameworks, training students to first argue against a position before establishing one.

It is undeniable that social hierarchies, caste exclusion, and authoritarian misuse distorted educational spaces – and these distortions deserve critique – the ideal paedagogic model embedded in many traditional systems was not passive obedience but intellectual sharpening through dialogue, memorisation followed by interpretation, and debate conducted within ethical bounds.

In this sense, the problem may lie less with the epistemological foundations of the guru-shishya model and more with its social capture and institutional degeneration over time. Acknowledging this distinction, I believe, allows for a more historically balanced understanding – one that critiques injustice without dismissing indigenous traditions of reasoning that contributed to India’s long scholarly legacy. Thank you for provoking an important discussion. I hope this perspective adds another layer to the conversation. – Yeshaswini Pavankumar

‘Hindupohobic’, ‘bias’

This is unfortunately a biased, anti-Hindu outlook. The Dronacharya Award is named for the relationship between Dronacharya and Arjuna. Complete obedience is expected during the time of tutelage under the guru. Once guru dakshina has been paid, the disciple is independent and is supposed to follow his dharma.

The reason for imposing trials by guru before imparting knowledge is to test the worthiness, the mental strength and acumen. The casteist remarks are unfair, especially towards Dronacharya, who taught Arjuna the multiple usage of Bramhastra and taught only dispersal to his own son to prevent misuse.

Sanatana Dharma itself has a long history of philosophical debates conducted and encouraged by kings. I realise that Scroll is highly biased against Hindus and their philosophy, but I am sending this in the hope that there may be at least one person who may look at the philosophy with an unbiased view. – Vijaya Swati G

***

The disciple should have the shraddha to listen to the teacher. The right of questioning has never been denied. In reality, there were raging debates between the teacher and disciples on each issue! This type of writing only serves to catch the interest of the neoliberals. This is why people try to denigrate their own traditional knowledge systems. – Bratati Mukherjee

***

I challenge you to a public debate on this topic where all of India can see. – Arjun

***

This article is inspired by Hinduphobic intentions. I am not aware of any ancient text in which any shishya was punished or frowned upon for questioning his guru. Hindu philosophy is full of stories where established beliefs were questioned even challenged. Social reformer Basavanna protested against the established ritualistic Hindu culture.

Hindus have been inculcated by centuries of liberal thoughts and are open to reformation. How else was the Hindu Code Bill by BR Ambedkar be passed in Hindu-majority India? Scroll is an agent of the western deep-state and intolerant of the rising Hindu nationalist spirit which has been making Bharat strong and a force to reckon with. Your sabotage will not work. – Virupaksh Reddy Patel