Professor
Humayun Azad Professor Humayun Azad Attacked by assassins
It is deplorable that it is not widely known in India that Hinduism is totally inconsistent.
Its existence highlights a key design failure of the Hindu law givers (they did
not realise the huge moral hazard that lies within such systems t with the socialist ideology.
Some wishy-washy attempts to link Hinduism with socialist have been attempted
(such as Vedic socialism), but these are ALL wrong. There is simply no way that
Hinduism operates a socialist regime.While I had thought that I'd temporarily
close this topic for now, I had a moment and browsed just a bit more. Google
has a way of springing up new and interesting material. While I outline these
bits here, let me also add that that the most important capitalist concept – of
the social contract for the defence of
individual liberty – which underpins the modern
capitalist state, was first articulated in human history in the Mahabharata. I've dealt with that
elsewhere.Therefore an analysis of Hindu capitalism would begin with the social
contract and role of the state; then the role of individual, and thereafter
consider other institutions. I can already see a book emerging clearly in my
mind! After I finish The Discovery of
Freedom. Note that the original design of the NON-HEREDITARY caste system was
not as pernicious as it
turned out to be). Had the original law makers realised what was going to
happen 1000 years later, they would have backed off from the idea of varna, and
talked about occupational expertise and division of labour, instead (both of
which underpin the caste system, along with issues of "race", etc.). Hinduism
therefore is not suitable for a political ideology that would strive to
establish a socialist society based upon forcible restriction of the freedom of
individuals and sharing of wealth. India tried unsuccessfully to inculcate the
ideals of socialism among Hindus. Those who tried to rub it on the Indian
masses over looked the fact that socialism and communism contradicted with the fundamentals of karma
and maya and therefore would never succeed in the country so long as
the roots of Hinduism were intact in the soil. The idea of free enterprise goes well with
Hinduism because it is very much in harmony with the theory of karma. Free
enterprise is natural to Hinduism. So also the theory of survival of the
fittest. The Capitalist Structures of Hinduism We must keep in mind two
characteristics of Indian culture. First, the typical Western split between the
religious and the socio-economic realms is very limited in Hinduism, as it is
indeed for most Oriental mentalities; practical social morality is supposed to
agree with religious and philosophical precepts. Thus, codes of law which
presumably derive from the latter can be regarded as part of Hinduism. Second,
as there is no central religious authority to establish orthodoxy, the
teachings of recognized spiritual masters are usually incorporated into
Hinduism. In addition, let us state that we will refer here mainly to
traditional doctrines and practices. In
order to identify if Hinduism fits into a capitalist or socialist framework, we
will look at three basic issues: the
caste, or Varna, system, theologico-philosophical
issues regarding property (outside the sacred texts), and some socio-historical facts or events. An understanding of the caste system is
crucial to understanding Indian social and economic structures and practices.
It is first mentioned in the Rig-Veda, in the famous hymn to Purusha, and then
elaborated exegetically in the Upanishads. This system divides men into five
catagories: Brahmins (philosophers, priests, and others who perform the
function of illuminating the higher truths), Ksatriyas (warriors and rulers,
entrusted with safeguarding the truth and with leadership), Vaisyas (traders,
farmers, and all who have the role of creating wealth and increasing welfare),
and Sudras (workers, charged with supporting all of the above and with
performing services). In addition to the Vedic sacred literature, the Varna
system is also endorsed in the Bhagavad-Gita, the most influential Hindu
religious text, considered by some a direct revelation from God. Besides, the
Dharma-Sastras–of Vedic inspiration and devoted to regulating social life in
the context of justice and righteousness–center heavily on the Varna system. Such a system does not merely reflect a
division of labor; it is rooted in the notion that man attains fulfillment only by performing his duties, which
consist in developing his natural potentialities.
In truth, the system only entailed a
ranking or hierarchy of labors resulting from different capacities, not a
distinction in the context of human dignity or worth, which was the outcome of
vested interests and human shortcomings. Buddhism
actually did not oppose the Varna system itself, only the belittlement of those
considered inferior, averring that anyone, including Sudras, could reach
enlightenment. [Sanjeev: the original
caste system might not have discriminated, being merit based, but moral hazard
overcame its intent. It was bad design.]
The Varna system was considered–and still is, although in a way more
akin to its original design–a pre-requisite for every good society, and the
axis of social life. For example, in the laws of Manu, the most important
Dharma-Sastra, the duties and functions of the castes are listed and their
corresponding right and wrong practices pointed out. In one of the most
important passages, it is said that the Vaisya must exert himself to the utmost
in order to increase his property in a righteous manner, which includes
providing others with food. Manu’s
code endorses market practices, although it provides regulations above all for
the market of labor. As it is true for all the great
religions, Hinduism warns human beings about the dangers of accumulating
wealth, and at times demands them to renounce it. But in all cases, wealth is
attacked because it is likely to subject man to dependency, fostering egoism,
greed, and avarice, and not for being an evil in itself. In fact, wealth is considered a good to be pursued within
the spheres of worldly affairs, trying at the same time to remain detached from
it,
which is the way to spiritual evolution. In Hinduism, this aspect is commonly
referred to as renouncing the fruit of labor. It is made with the provision
that renunciation must be a voluntary act, because it is acknowledged that only
a few are prepared to follow the path to perfection in a strict manner.
Literature on this is vast, so I will limit myself to sample what Sai Baba and
Prabhupada (the first considered by many as the Avatar of our time, the second
the founder of the International Society for the Conscience of Krishna) have to
say about this. To quote Sai Baba: “When a man has a right to engage in Karma,
he has a right also for the fruit; no one can deny this or refuse his
right". On his part, Prabhupada states that, according to the Law of
Karma, wealth is the result of a good previous labor, and that the Lord leaves
man independent to engage in the activities proper to the material world. Ideologically,
most of the relevant socio-historical facts can be grouped within a few
categories, the most important ones being the role of the state of the economy,
its bearing on individuals, and the economic relations between people. In fact,
though the state in India
throughout the centuries was the equivalent of a big entrepreneur, it never did
away with private enterprise. [Sanjeev:
The state was not an entrepreneur. Kings in their PERSONAL capacity were
free to trade/produce, and did so, but the state did not direct private
production.] That was the case, for example, with land, where although
the king was to be its ultimate owner, private parcels were deemed a necessary
entitlement. Regulations affected above
all the macro-economic aspects, but the play of particular economic forces was not over regulated and, more
significantly, the individual was considered to have rights before the state.
The limitation of the state’s power can be illustrated in the matter of
tributes. As a rule, these amounted between
one-third and one-sixth of production, were only levied in emergencies, and
for only once taxes could reach as much as fifty percent of income. Of course,
favoritism in assigning land, tricks to increase state revenues, and so on,
were not unheard of. With respect to the micro-economy, the artisans,
merchants, amusers, and many more contracted their products or services freely, although there
were guilds and legal mechanisms to ensure that contracts were fulfilled.
Many had their own workshops in their dwelling, but there were also state-run
manufacturing mills, such as those which employed women with no relatives. [Sanjeev: the idea of state-run manufacturing needs to be
examined very closely. It was extremely expensive for a king to devote time to
manufacturing. His task was defence, and he ruled through a standing army. He
could easily get taxes. So there were very few such factories, and wherever
these existed, I'm almost certain these were personal investments of the king;
not state-directed production.] The above points to several
conclusions that reveal capitalist structures in Hinduism: The socialist concepts of equality and a classless society are
completely rejected by the Varna system. All too rigid as it was (at least
theoretically), it would appear at first sight as a statist construct–so common
under any socialist scheme. However, such a system constitutes an ontological
need of a society rooted in the cosmogonical myth mentioned in note 1. The way
it was implemented, the system limited many freedoms, but it also allowed each
caste not to be fused within a general standard and to be free to live its own
way. Of course, endogamy and other features of a caste
system do not exist in capitalism. Nevertheless, with the allowance of
greater social mobility and the recognition of equal human dignity for all,
capitalism has indeed modernized the Varna system. Central planning and regulations were
implemented according to higher parameters set by Hinduism’s worldview, which
were accepted by the collective conscience as traditional goods, with the state
being, at least ideally, an instrument. [Sanjeev:
this is based on the social contract idea, very clearly known in Hinduism! but
which is apparently not know to the writer of this article].
Big bureaucracies resulted from the desire to control and maintain power, and
other statist measures arose from the need to face external threats. Worldviews
(religious, political or humanistic) limiting free will are to be found in
every human group. In India, some over-regulation resulted from the greater
interpenetration of what, according to Western thought, is to be legally
enforced and what belongs to personal choice. [Sanjeev: I agree that there was some over-regulation in some
areas, but there was under-regulation in others.]
But here the state was never a
mechanism to subordinate the individual good to that of the society, which in
short defines a socialist worldview. Hinduism never denies the right to property;
calls to renunciation fall outside the legal sphere. The attainment of wealth, although embodied with a
social function, is considered a praiseworthy personal achievement.
In fact, there is also a need in capitalism that economic activities project to
the common good. Except in a utopian and ideal capitalist society–where all the
property would be privately owned and we can even contemplate a voluntary
financing of the government–public enterprises and subsidizing policies do not necessarily
contradict capitalist tenets. They may be deemed to be supported by a
legitimate social patrimony if they represent instances of epoch-related common
goals of society, which originate specific secular functions of the state. The
difference here, and so in Hinduism, is that the right to property is not
subordinated to the above, that is it is not left at the stage of a functional
need, and that the individual good is the highest aim of society. Although
subjected to regulations, man always enjoyed in
India enough freedom over what he had created. Following what we
had said in the last two paragraphs, for the time being capitalism does not
propose absolutely unregulated free trading practices. Basically in reference
to the labor market, free trade must still abide by certain directives which
relate to the general framework of right upon which our social orders have been
constructed. But as long as such directives do not interfere with any rational
pursuit of fulfillment according to each one’s merit and to making one’s own
talents count, as was indeed the ideal aim in Hinduism, we can say that we are
witnessing at least an instance of pre-capitalist praxis. In conclusion, we cannot say that traditional Hinduism thoroughly shares
capitalist precepts, but we can assert that it pre-figures capitalism much
closer than socialism. What characterizes socialism above all
is that it takes the person as a means, while the recognition of the individual
as an end, and thus as subject of inalienable rights, is the most distinctive
juridico-economic structure of both capitalism and Hinduism.
No comments:
Post a Comment