In an age of instant information, hot takes, and algorithmically fuelled outrage, the premium on speed has overtaken the premium on thought.
Today, business leaders, investors, and policy makers are expected to have views on everything – from geopolitical conflicts to corporate governance scandals – often within hours, if not minutes. But we must ask ourselves: Are we responding with insight, or simply reacting with emotion? Are we contributing clarity – or adding to the noise?
As public trust shifts from institutions to individuals, the burden on leaders to offer opinions grows. However, opinion alone does not equate to leadership. An ill-informed or prematurely expressed view – especially in complex or emotionally charged contexts – can do real harm to credibility, policy outcomes, investor confidence, and social cohesion.
Every responsible leader must periodically ask if they understand this issue deeply enough to speak with conviction, if they can articulate both the position for and against the argument they are leaning toward, and whether they are relying on verified data or on headlines and emotion. If the answer to any of these is “no,” then silence isn’t a weakness – it is strategic maturity. Great leadership, especially in volatile environments, requires resisting the temptation to fill every silence with a stance. It requires the courage to say, “I’m still evaluating. Let’s wait for more clarity.”
For centuries, Indian philosophical traditions have grappled with questions of how to determine truth, engage in discourse, and test knowledge claims. One of the most powerful frameworks to emerge from this is tarkashastra – the science of reasoning, debate, and inquiry. Tarkashastra (tarka meaning logic or debate, and shastra meaning science) is not about cleverness in argument – it is about disciplined thinking. It outlines how to distinguish valid from invalid knowledge, use hypothetical reasoning (tarka) to test claims, engage in structured, truth-seeking debate (vada), and avoid fallacies, emotional manipulation, and intellectual dishonesty. These have deep relevance in the boardroom, Parliament, and policy desk.
Closely linked to this tradition is the Jain philosophical doctrine of anekantwad – the doctrine of many-sidedness. It rests on a simple yet profound idea: Truth is multifaceted, and no single perspective has a monopoly on it. This principle is not about relativism – it is about strategic humility. Anekantwad teaches us to hold space for multiple viewpoints (even conflicting ones), recognise the limits of our own perception, and remain open to refining our views as new information emerges. For today’s decision-makers, anekantwad is a useful filter — a reminder that opposing views may not be wrong, they may simply be incomplete.
In a world of polarisation and binary narratives, this is not just philosophical elegance – it is practical wisdom. Why does this matter for business and policy? Let’s step back and look at the cost of opinion formed in haste and delivered with certainty. In moments of controversy, the rush to comment often backfires. Public trust erodes when leaders walk back positions or appear reactive. Deliberate, well-informed silence builds long-term credibility.
Hasty opinions often oversimplify complex issues. Most real-world challenges require nuanced, multi-dimensional thinking. Binary opinions do little to improve decisions. They can, however, derail consensus and long-term vision.
Public conversations suffer when every view is either praised or attacked. Anekantwad encourages us to listen with curiosity, not with a rebuttal prepared in advance. This is a crucial skill for negotiating in high-stakes, multi-stakeholder environments. Leaders shape the narratives around them. In times of uncertainty, measured words (or intentional silence) set the tone for how others react – be it investors, employees, regulators, or citizens. Before offering a public view, a simple checklist can be considered: Is this issue within one’s domain of responsibility or influence? Has one examined it from multiple sides, including those one disagrees with? Is the information verified from credible sources? Is one reacting with emotion or responding from analysis? Thought leadership is not about being first. It’s about being right – and being wise.
In an age where speed is often mistaken for relevance, we must reclaim the value of disciplined thinking and deliberate speech. Ancient frameworks like tarkashastra and anekantwad remind us that clarity comes not from certainty, but from inquiry – and that truth often hides in the nuance. As business leaders, investors, and policy shapers, our responsibility is not to have an opinion on everything. Our responsibility is to ensure that when we do speak, we do so from a place of context, competence, and credibility: In business – as in life – clarity beats speed, and wisdom beats noise.