I like the religion that teaches liberty, equality, and fraternity. - B. R. Ambedkar
B. R. Ambedkar's Vision Of A Society Based On Liberty, Equality, And Fraternity
I wouldn't be shocked if some of you became tired of listening to this dreary account of the tragic consequences that caste has brought about. It contains nothing novel. So I'll focus on the solution-oriented aspect of the issue. If you don't desire caste, someone will inevitably ask you what kind of society you see. My ideal society, if you ask me, would be one that values liberty, equality, and fraternity. Why not, then?
What could possibly be against fraternity? I can't think of any. An ideal society would be mobile and have plenty of outlets for sharing information about changes in one area with another. Many hobbies should be openly expressed and shared in a perfect society. The sites of contact with different types of associations should be numerous and unrestricted. In other words, social endosmosis is required. The term fraternity here simply refers to democracy. Democracy is more than just an administrative system. It is basically a way of shared, communicative experience and linked life. It mainly entails having reverence and respect for one's fellow humans.
Any criticism of Liberty? Few people oppose liberty in the sense of a right to life and limb as well as a right to freedom of movement. There is no opposition to liberty in the sense of a right to property, equipment, and materials that are required for generating a living and maintaining a decent level of physical health. Why not give someone the freedom to profit from a competent and successful use of their authority? Inasmuch as it involves the freedom to choose one's vocation, those who maintain caste and would grant liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb, and property would not readily accept liberty in this meaning.
But to oppose this form of freedom is to keep slavery alive. Because slavery is more than just a legalized form of servitude. It refers to a social situation in which some males are compelled to accept the motives that guide their behavior from others. Even in cases where there isn't actual, legal slavery, this condition nevertheless holds true. It occurs when people are forced to engage in specifically prescribed callings against their will, such as in the Caste System.
Exists a criticism of equality? Undoubtedly, this is the phrase from the French Revolution slogan that has generated the greatest controversy. All men are not created equal, and one may have to concede that the arguments against equality are valid. What, then, is that? Even though equality is only fiction, it must be recognized as the guiding concept. The three factors that determine a man's strength are: (1) his physical heredity; (2) his social heritage or endowment, such as parental care, education, and the accumulation of scientific knowledge, all of which make him more effective than a savage; and (3) his own efforts. Men are unquestionably unequal in all three of these areas. But should we treat them unequally simply because they are unequal? The opponents of equality must respond to this query.
Individualists may argue that treating men differently inasmuch as their efforts are different is justifiable. Giving everyone the greatest incentive to develop their abilities may be desirable. However, what would happen if males were regarded in the same way as they are in the first two categories? It stands to reason that people who had advantages such as birth, education, family name, business ties, and inherited riches would also be chosen for the race. However, such a selection would not be made from among the competition. It would be a fortunate choice. Therefore, the same justification that calls for treating men differently in the third of the three respects mentioned above also calls for treating them similarly in the first two.
On the other hand, if the social body wants to get the best out of its members, it can be argued that the only way to do so is to make everyone as equal as possible at the beginning of the race. We cannot avoid equality because of this. However, there is still another justification for accepting equality. A statesman cares about a large population. He lacks the knowledge and the time to make precise distinctions and treat each person fairly, that is, according to need or capacity. No matter how desirable or sensible it may be to treat men fairly, humanity is incapable of sorting and categorization.
The politician must, therefore, abide by some arbitrary norm, and that arbitrary rule is to treat all people equally, not because they are alike but rather because categorization and assortment are impractical. The idea of equality is obviously false, but overall, it is the only way a statesman can engage in politics, which is a highly practical endeavor and necessitates a highly practical examination.
source - readersdigest(dot)in
