If we look at any kind of national, international or local inequality in distribution of any aspect, it will always lead to imbalance. It sort of relates to the law of nature as well. This imbalance will always lead to disturbance and depending on the magnitude things will fall apart, eventually, if not sooner than later. Be it America claiming its supremacy over the world or Raj Thackarey claiming his ownership over Maharashtra hence Mumbai, racism, suppression of genders, wealth & slavery. The list is long! If there is uneven distribution of resources, wealth or well being, it is bound to collapse the system. This talk by P.Sainath resurfaced again and he is so right about the disparity which is flourishing.
His point of how the generic notion of charity is perceived is remarkable. He says, charity, generally is a thing perceived as a favor towards underprivileged and its not identified something fundamentally wrong in the system which led to this inequality. Till people accept that I am hoarding more than I need, it will never lead to harmony. And unless we share things as a "right" to everyone rather than rich or strong providing it as a favor to less mighty, we can keep fighting!
His point of how the generic notion of charity is perceived is remarkable. He says, charity, generally is a thing perceived as a favor towards underprivileged and its not identified something fundamentally wrong in the system which led to this inequality. Till people accept that I am hoarding more than I need, it will never lead to harmony. And unless we share things as a "right" to everyone rather than rich or strong providing it as a favor to less mighty, we can keep fighting!
3 comments:
Socio-ecomomic equality is always tough to achieve. Modern day society treats wealth as a sign of progress, and hence everyone strives to improve in that count. I don't disagree with you, but it will need a big attitudinal shift in the way we lead our lives today.
Right there you said it, Parth! We keep building our world around wealth, it being the prime focus. Although, I think that its marching towards a paradigm shift now, there is a movement thats picking up. There was a quote in the article that I had posted previously...
"This is going to happen anyway in the wake of a currency collapse, as people lose their jobs or become too poor to buy things. People will help each other and real communities will reemerge."
Interesting and informative talk - the one by P. Sainath. Thanks for the video.
I agree with Parth that socio-economic equality is a well-meaning but hard to achieve ideal. The argument for socio-economic equality is perhaps close to one for a communist or socialist state, and we know where that has led.
I think good governance - one that strives to raise the general standard of living for everyone, is the key. Governance hinges on taxation to redistribute a portion of the wealth of the rich toward a common good. IMO, the need for charity as a means of assuaging this inequality arises more due to the government not doing its job well enough.
In principle, I agree there is a problem. However, I believe that there's more to be gained from ensuring competent and empathic governance than charity alone, or through not hoarding wealth. I'd argue (for the sake of argument ;-)), that an increase in individual wealth leads to higher taxes which ideally should contribute to the greater good.
I wonder if charity is a way of ridding ourselves of responsibility and ease our conscience. It's easier done that to strive for more fundamental (read political) change. End of polemic.
Post a Comment