Constructive Equality

 

Many people in the world speak about equality nowadays. Groups of activists are busy organising protests and hunger strikes to bring about equality. There have been radical changes all over the world in past couple of centuries. Are they all healthy changes? It does not seem to be. The world does not seem to be more happy or peaceful than before. In my view, our march towards equality lacks clarity in vision. Hence there is a need to introspect and correct our orientation.

Equality can be either constructive or destructive. The Hindu scripture speak of a constructive equality – samatva. One can accomplish equality by destroying all that is rich and great. It is destructive. It is equality without quality.

There are people who speak against caste system in India. Caste system according to them encourages inequality. Hence the advocate removal of caste system. There are four varnas and each varna has its own subcommunities. Each group has its own unique cultural refinements, skills and abilities. The diversity among these communities has been enriching to the social and economic life of our country. If one is good at business, another is good at agriculture and so on. If we try to dismantle the uniqueness of these groups, we will definitely bring out equality. Yet, it is at the cost of all enriching features of each group.

Hence, what we need is to keep the uniqueness of each group intact and uplift each group in such a way that it improves their lives. Let a Brahmana maintain his unique spiritual and cultural practices. In the meantime, let his cultural refinement and scholarship help the other varnas as well. A brahmana is more culturally and spiritually refined than a Shudra. Equality, in spiritual realm cannot be brought about if a Brahmana becomes a shudra. A shudra should try to absorb the spiritual and cultural refinement of a brahmana. It is constructive. A Brahmana giving up his own spiritual observances and study of shastra to be at par with his shudra friend is nothing other than degradation.

Likewise, a Shudra has his own uniqueness. He does many works that a brahmana cannot do. He has his own dharma. If he tries to give up his skills and refinements and tries to be like someone else, he is leading himself and the society towards degradation, because the unique role that he played to enrich the society is lost for good. Hence a shudra should remain a shudra, contribute his part of duty to the society. Meanwhile he should continue to uplift himself culturally, spieitually and economically.

Varna vyavastha is not feudalism. Feudalism in medieval Europe was a social hierarchy. Being a linear power structure, it facilitated the exploitation and oppression of the lowly. A Eurocentric and superficial interpretation of varnas has led to the misconception that varna vyavastha is like feudalism in nature. Varna-vyavastha is not a power structure. Also, it is not linear. Many people think Brahmanas were most powerful and rich in Indian society. It is not true. Kshatriyas were the rulers. It was the duty of Kshatriyas to protect the people and punish the guilty. Vaishyas were generally the richest, as they were mostly merchants. Brahmanas were generally poor and led a simple life devoted to study and spiritual practices. Yet, Brahmanas were most respected because of their learning and simple lifestyle. It is the scholar and teacher who commands highest respect in our culture and not the powerful or rich.