NOTE :- This article was written over 35 years back. It is for the readers to opine whether it is workable, especially in today's cicumstances.
During the twenties, thirties and forties, Mahatma Gandhi prepared the human infrastructure in the country for taking over the rule when independence came. During the fifties and sixties, Nehru prepared the physical industrial infrastructure and induced a scientific temper in his countrymen who till then had been an obscurantist lot. Unfortunately, the industrial culture was not developed simultaneously, with its concommitant industrial infrastructure.
The fabian socialism with its heavy dependence on materialistic outlook created the condition of rising expectations as against limited resources and limited capabilities. The latter half of the sixties therefore saw an upheaval in the country which is continuing.
While not discarding socialism, we have to look at the rewards system in a slightly different angle. The rewards to a person are to be seen in the light of total happiness to a person. A man with a lot of money but with no job satisfaction or an unhappy family or sex life or with uncongenial social surroundings is not likely to be a happy man. A minister with a lot of pomp and prestige may, in a democracy, have only nominal power and freedom of movement. He just can not saunter out like an ordinary citizen in the evening to buy himself a paan (betel leaf). The glamorous film stars need able bodied escorts to take them around. They hardly have any privacy.
This is not to suggest that film stars or the ministers are an unhappy lot. May be their condition suits their temperaments. What we have to find therefore the temperament of each person engaged in any field and give rewards to him/her in such a manner as to increase his/ger total happiness rather than harping on monetary rewards alone. This is not to suggest that monetary rewards do not count or that money is not important. It only means that the marginal utility of money as a reward decreases after a stage and other factors become more important to a person. Once the role of money is devalued, it should be possible to lay the foundation of an egalitarian society.
Both communism and capitalism are trying to reach the goal of an egalitarian society. Communism is getting more liberal and the old fears of infiltration of other ideas or cultures are going away as witnessed by the introduction of the fiat car or the Pepsi Cola into the Soviet Union. On the other hand, moreand more statism is being resorted to in the free market economy countries as witnessed by the recent disclosure about C.I.A. operations within U.S.A. itself.
India and other similar uncommitted countries have an excellent opportunity of taking directly to plutocracy or anarchy as suggested by Marx. Skipping the intermediate steps of a two party democracy or a single party democracy professing socialism, we can take the road of plutocracy straight away After all, pursuit of happiness is the professed goal of the U.S. A.'s constitution. How much happiness has been achieved by them despite their wealth ? Communism has changed the face of Russia in material terms. Why then did Solzhenitsyn leave the country ? Something is obviously lacking there too.
Every system creates its own vested interests and very often, the original purpose of creating the system is lost sight of in pandering to the vested interests. it is extremely difficult to crush these vested interests. It can be done either by a continuing revolution as advocated by Mao-tse-tung or by so cleverly manipulating these vested interests that they destry each other. Another alternative is to create new vested interests which could help in furthering the original aims. In developing countries, where the scope for everyone exists on account of lack of saturation, this last alternative appears to be feasible.
It is important however to have a self regulating machinery which would oversee the whole process. It should ensure that the aims are not lost sight of and that the pawns do not become masters. This machinery should consist of faceless people who are at the top in various fields. They would constitute the ruling establishment. These persons, apart from having specialised knowledge and experience, should also have a general picture of other fields as well. It goes without saying that total happiness should be ensured for them.
Of course, these persons, even without help from others, would be capable of becoming totally happy. To the others, the rewards would be to a lesser degree. Persons who do this are found to become useless in the worldly sense and have to undergo considerable suffering at the hands of the society. They are therefore forced to become thinkers. Some of their work could be taken over by computers.
The rewards system would be in accordance with our Varnashram. Shudras had more physical work. They were comparatively speaking, recent converts to the human form from the animal one. They led more or less a physical life. Vaishyas produced greater wealth and enjoyed a greater part of it than others. Kshatriyas protected the people and to rouse the protective feeling in them, their ego was massaged. Brahmins, teachers and upholders of Dharma, led a spartan, meditative life, doing only as much physical work as necessary to provide a diversion and balance their exertions by physical exercise. Research and development work was done by them. Today's perception of the Brahmin is one of a conservative and outdatedness, which is largely true. The original Brahmin was a continuously evolving being.
I know that hackles will be raised when I say that our rewards should be based on an Indian model such as the Varnashram rather than an impoted model. The major difference in the old and new Varnashram will be that Varna will not depend on birth. It will depend on temperament - aptitude. Left to themselves, people will migrate to professions that they enjoy. The society's job is to create enough opportunities rather than the rationing culture fotered nowadays.
There is nothing better than our own indigenous ideology. What went wrong was that we harped too much on the rituals rather than the spirit and pandered too much to the vested interests created by the system. In the process, substance was forgotten. As a result, the baby had to be thrown out with the bathwater. Let us not repeat this mistake in every system that we create.
No comments:
Post a Comment