Illusive Equality

The forty-second amendment of the Indian Constitution saw India embracing a couple of new objectives for her nationhood. On 2nd of November, 1976, India became a Socialist and Secular Republic. For this article, we shall not bother ourselves with much of what a 'Socialist republic' means (I wonder how many know what that Socialist actually means in the constitution). However, the 'Socialist' adjective does signify a socialist inclination of the state, thereby indicating a commitment to economic equality. The constitution's firm faith in equality is further enhanced a few lines later in the preamble, it unequivocally states Equality as an objective.

The concept of equality is curious indeed. The modern society, at least the western tradition, owes a lot to Pericles and Athenian equality. Intellectuals love to advocate it. The idealist communist thinkers would go to any lengths to establish what it calls, class equality.

In this regard, it may be interesting to note the workings of nature. Does equality find space in nature? Does the weed spare the herb? Do the floods not rampage the crops? Does the lion make friends with the antelope? Nowhere in the designs of nature does equality exist. Not even within a single pride of lions, nor a hive of bees. It may be harsh, but, equality, like communism, is an utopian concept - that which can tell inspiring stories but, never be a reality.

To the above examples, it may be argued that the participants are either not evolved enough or not living at all. To the former, my response is evolution only develops an entity to survive odds. It has nothing to do with emotions or ideals. If humans are to outlive lions, it is not because humans have emotions but rather because humans are a million times more cunning and clever than lions are. To the latter, I would say, you are right. But the example of the non-living gives a more definite answer to why equality is impractical. If a stone were to be thrown in a tumbler full of water, it will invariably expel an equal volume of water. This has nothing to do with emotions or ideals. This is pure physics. It is not as if the stone has a distaste for water; Rather it is simply that the water happens to occupy something that the stone wants to. The stone needs the space; it will expel the water if it has to.

What we see in the human society is exactly what is described above; Only forms are changed. But, conflicts for space are eternal. The conflicts are multifarious in nature, but, underlying them all, it is actually the quest for the same space that the stone was seeking. These conflicts are not optional. People do not necessarily opt for these conflicts. And, rarely are these conflicts of physical origin. For most cases in the human world, except the for un-evolved, the major conflicts have origins in the mind - it is the fight for sustenance and proliferation of a thought system. In its manifestation it may seem to be a hunger for physical ambitions. But, what the physical acts conceal only the thoughts of one or a small group of strong thinkers.

When Aurangzeb or Hitler set out to annex more territories than ever, inflicting more and more atrocities on people, it was the same hunger of the lion. Only now, since there were little physical necessities, the hunger turned into subtle mental tendencies. Like the lion, they pursued actions that would have quelled their desire for propagation of what they believed in. Strictly speaking, there is not anything wrong with it. This is only a natural human tendency to sustain and grow. This nature of growth may be repugnant - but, it is actually the same story of the stone and the water.

Coming to the modern times, we have strong democratic systems advocating equality like never before. There are elaborate systems to make the democracies work. There is a head of the state, there are Ministers and several other Legislative offices. There are senior Executive offices and revered Judiciary offices - and then subdued in an elaborate hierarchical system, somewhere there lies the common man. A judge, by virtue of his office, may pronounce a sentence on a person a hundred times more learned, wise, honest and clean: Is this equality? A 600 strong group of people creating laws that many don't like. Is this equality? This, however, is the brilliant irony of democracy. Even democracy, in-spite of its commitment, needs to uphold this unequal system to create, what it believes, an egalitarian society. 'Inequality preserving equality'. Funny.

It must be conceded here again that equality is a beautiful concept. A person rejecting it can only be a heartless brute. However, looking at anything objectively can bring shortcomings to light. For example, Equality is stagnant. If the river were not to cut its way through the mountains mercilessly, it would only be a stagnant body. If the inspiring artist does not occupy the stage in preference to the random rogue, there would be no art. If the articulate orator does not snatch the platform of speech, then there would be no inspirational speeches.

In conclusion, Equality is a beautiful, romantic concept. And, if the world were ideal it would be most welcome. However, this world is too far from being good, let alone being ideal. The form of equality that humanity has been striving to pursue for so long is only an illusion; It shall never be achieved - for it does not exist. However, there is one form of equality that does exist. And, it has existed for as long as the living world has. It does not need to be achieved for it is already with us, as it was thousands of years ago. It is the equality in making a choice. The lion has the right to choose to prey on the antelope and the antelope has an equal right to choose to flee .. or perhaps, fight back.