Equality versus Genorisity

Part Two.  I share the second part first.  To understand this clarification one should read Part One.  In Part Three, I further share some of the comments that I received.

Dr. Sudha Murthy, the author and wife of Sri Narayana Murthy the founder of Infosys, well respected by so many shared a wonderful thought about ‘equality’ in a video message which was forwarded to me.  Not knowing that it was Dr. Sudha I wrote a long critique about the ‘equality’ which I often hear that we try to practice, particularly among those who serve us in UNORGANIZED sector like driver, cooks, helpers in domestic work, gardener etc.  Then I am back fired that not knowing her or about her generosity which she along with her husband and children practice in their life I should not make such comments.  One person wrote that ‘His (Sri Narayana Murthy) lowest level employees (in Infosys) are not only paid well but have been freely given company shares making them increase their wealth.  Learn to respect honourable people and learn to address them properly. You must be the only person in India to speak against such couple venerated by all’.

Well I take this criticism against me with right spirit and humbleness.  But my critique is not against her teaching about ‘generosity’ among the children from the young age, but about the ‘equality’ which we try to uphold in our home and working place, towards those who are our subordinates.

I too have high respect and regard for them as they remain a model for many to imitate.  But the question here is not about them as individual but the concept of ‘equality’ which not only she but so many of us try to preach and practice.  According to my understanding and knowledge there is no ‘equality’ in any society or any home.  In fact we cannot practice it not because we don’t want to do that but we cannot do that because of other’s response towards it.

Again with much humility I want to point one factor.  Though Dr. Sudha helped her driver’s children through her son, she cannot put the driver’s son in the same school in which her son studied.  Even if she wants to send them to the same school with a promise to take care of their education till the end, I am not sure whether that driver can sustain it till the end in case if he has to leave the job for some reason.  She might pay the school fee. But what about other expenses related to education in such schools where only children from wealthy family can study.  When she gave the money to the driver’s children’s education it was ‘charity’ or even party of ‘duty and responsibility’ but not ‘equality’?

Now to the question: how can we remain blind to the need of those who work for us (in Unorganized Sector)?  When we want to help our drivers and cooks in their emergency and need we never attach any string with it.

Well we all really help to such people in their emergency need. But according to me I won’t consider it as ‘charity’ but our ‘DUTY OR RESPONSIBILITY’ as we are under an obligation to help them within our LIMIT.  I too helped several such people when they were in need in the ashram. But I always consider it as ‘incentive’ or part of their salary which I should increase (in future) but never as ‘charity’ or doing it with a spirit of ‘equality’.

All the workers in Infosys are under organized sector. So when they leave that company their PF (Provident Fund), insurance, pension etc. will be transferred to another company in which they will join and they can also take the free share with them.  But those who work in unorganized sector are more vulnerable people.  This we should keep in our mind when we talk about ‘equality’ in our treatment.

Again my critique is not against Dr. Sudha Murthy but about the so called ‘equality’ which we all try to uphold in our life.

Dayanand Bharati

Note: I forwarded some comments by another person about such ‘equality’ as I want to share other’s response.  I am responsible only in forwarding them and not for the comments he made in them.  However I think he is not attacking any individuals but only the hypocrisy in upholding equality in our society.

23-08-2020

Equality versus Generosity..Part Two

I received a video message in which one senior woman talks about the importance of teaching ‘equality’ to our children from the early age. Giving the example from her personal life, she shared that when her son was in the school (back some 25 years before) he went to a birth day party of one of his friends which was arranged in a Five Star Hotel. When he came back he demanded the same kind of party for his birth day also. But her mother refused to arrange such costly celebration on birth day which comes every year.  Then she imparted the valuable teaching of EQUALITY by telling her son that if she arranges taking minimum 50 of his friends she might end up paying around 50, 000/- for it. Whereas they can arrange a simple birth day party at home and that money can be given in charity. Finally she convinced her son to agree for that.  Then she gave ten thousand rupees for the two children of her driver by the hand of her son.  She continued to say that when the question came of treating those help us in our home (whom we call wrongly servants) as our equals she insisted her cook to sit and eat with them in the dining table.  When the cook refused, she told her that if she was unwilling to eat with them, at least she can eat later after they finished eating by sitting on the dining table.

This is a valuable teaching.  When the same question of treating those who serve us (or under us) one time in our discussion in the ashram, I told that several times I told the person who is helping in the garden to eat with us. But as he does not feel comfort with it, I allowed him to take his food which he prefers to eat by sitting under the huge banyan tree.  Then I told (which I already shared in another article which I cannot immediately trace) that though we want to treat those who serves as our equal practically this is not possible in real life. Particularly those who help us in our home (as cook, gardener, driver etc.) only come to ‘work’ for us to earn money. They don’t have any moral commitment as we have for each other in a family.  When they get better salary they will leave us (even desert us) and when they don’t ‘work’ as per our expectation then we will terminate them.  So this so called ‘equality’ showing to our helpers at home is merely remain an ideology.  How many of you give provident fund, medical insurance etc., pension etc. to your helpers at home?

Above all I have doubt in such idealistic teaching.  Actually what I see as the main teaching in that woman’s talk is not ‘equality’ but ‘generosity’ (or charity) which we should cultivate in the mind of our children from the young age.  At the same time this generosity should be done without any string attached.  Let me explain what I mean. I really appreciate that woman’s help to her driver’s children’s education. But by showing such (extra) generosity to those who help us (in our home) we put them under an OBLIGATION to remain more faithful for us.¹  Even if we never mention about it to them in future, still it will remain in our mind.  Someone well said that, ‘throwing a bone to the dog is not charity but sharing in the same bone when you are as hungry as the dog’.  So when we share from our abundance to the needy, then it is not charity but our duty (dharma) and responsibility.  About this Freeman says:

Is meeting the needs of people out of an excess of funds or supplies really admirable when it costs us nothing but the giving up of superfluous comforts? I believe the answer is no. Why? Because in giving under such conditions, one has not personally/existentially identified with another’s situation in addition to possibly avoiding an honest engagement of selfishness in his or her own soul….

As my brother has put it “for compassion to matter, it has to bleed!” ….

To give in a way that challenges one’s own basic security is not only to meet a need, but to also (and perhaps more importantly) attempt to understand it. Without understanding on an existential level what poverty is, can one’s giving really be done out of an authentic spirit of concern and humility? For, it frightfully says much when a person only gives what he or she does not need. What if everyone played by such rules? Tragic indeed…..— Chris Freeman, The Cosmic Neighbor.

What we give some extra help to them (our helpers at home) is neither showing equality nor charity but some kind of business like transaction. Will we allow them to use our bath room or rest rooms?  Our children will come and lay down on our beds without any hesitation. But will we all them to do the same or to their children?

SO EVEN IN SUCH CHARITY BETTER LET US TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO GIVE TO STRANGERS WHO CANNOT PAY BACK TO US IN ANY FORM.

But I appreciate her valuable teaching which inspired her son later in his life. So when he went to USA for studies and got some scholarship he sent back part of it to her mother with a request to spend that money for those soldiers who were killed in the Parliament Attack.

By saying this I am not criticizing that woman. She gave a wonderful talk and taught (actually I don’t know who she is, as her name was not mentioned. But it seems that she is a well known personality).  But when we listen such teaching and share it with others, we should keep in mind that mere ideology won’t work in life.  According to me showing equality always remains merely an ideal.  So what I take from her talk and teaching is about the importance of giving some teaching to our children which will be more practical while upholding certain values like ‘equality’ is nothing but mere idealism.

I know that my view will be also criticised by others.  I welcome it as we need to not only learn from each other but also correction.

Dayanand Bharati

22-08-2020

Though written in the context of ‘Christian charity’ what Allen says is applicable to any situation.

1 I cannot help thinking that this is a principle which we cannot be too careful to observe.  There was a day in India when our missionaries paid a regular fee to scholars to attend our schools in order that they might receive Christian instruction.  The result was not good, and that plan has been universally abandoned.  But we still sometimes offer secular education, or medical treatment, as an inducement to people to submit themselves, or to place their children under our religious instruction or influence.  This is, in principle, precisely the same thing as paying them, though in a far less vicious form.  I cannot help thinking that the day is not far distant when we shall consider the offering of any material inducement as contrary to sound doctrine as we now consider the money payments of former days. (p. 43)….           It is often said that these financial bonds help to maintain unity.  Native congregations have before now been held to their allegiance by threats of the withdrawal of pecuniary support.  But unity so maintained, by an external bond, is not Christian unity at all.  It is simply submission to bondage for the sake of secular advantage and it will fail the moment that any other and stronger motive urges in the direction of separation.

There is all the difference in the world between gifts freely made by members of the one body one to another, as manifestations of the spirit of mutual charity which moves in them, and gifts or subsidies made with the intention of checking freedom of action on the part of the recipients.  Spiritual forces are more powerful than external bonds, and external bonds never have preserved, and never will preserve, unity.  The only unity which is worth preserving is the unity of the Spirit. (p.57)— Roland Allen,   Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? Foreword by Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, Michigan, [1962] 1989 p. 43

Though the context of this remark by Fallon is in comparison between Christian charity and Hindu detachment, still what he says that ‘those who practice it {charity} are yet not poor enough in their liver or the means they use’ is applicable to all:

…Holiness of life, for a Hindu seems impossible without poverty and austerity… (p.129) If detachment is the most distinctive Hindu precept, charity is the greatest of all commandments for a faithful Christian. Detachment of course is not foreign to Christianity; charity is not a Christian monopoly! Yet, there seems to be a much greater emphasis on detachment among Hindus, on charity among Christians… Hindus often find Christian charity too possessive and interfering, aggressive at times, not sufficiently detached and disinterested; those who practice it are yet not poor enough in their liver or the means they use;….— ‘FOR A TRUE DIALOGUE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND HINDUS’, P.Fallon, S.J., in Cyril B. Papali, o.c.d., FOR A DIALOGUE WITH HINDUISM, pp.129-30

Equality versus generosity Some responses.  Part Three

[23/08, 11:13 a.m.] Joshi: Dr Sudha Murthy is a highly respectable lady, who has donated for poor children education, probably more than any other She comes from a low middle class family, daughter of a teacher. Her husband Narayan Murthy also is the son of a teacher, who founded the Infosys, one of the prestigious and ethical company and is known for his integrity and honesty. What you are proposing is communism. Learn to respect honourable people and learn to address them properly. You must be the only person in India to speak against such couple venerated by all. [23/08, 11:16 a.m.] Joshi: His lowest level employees are not only paid well bur have been freely given company shares making them increase their wealth . [23/08, 11:18 a.m.] Joshi: Do not hate people who have come up from humble beginnings to this level by hard work and integrity.

[23/08, 7:36 a.m.] Rakesh: After hearing the woman I appreciated her love for the poor workers. So called critiques they are worth nothing and they do nothing but find faults only. Something is better than nothing I like this saying.

Have a Blessed Sunday swami Ji

[23/08, 11:09 a.m.] Dayanand Bharati: Every critique is the unpaid guardian if our atman.  Critiquing is different from fault finding.  The question here is not about charity but equality.

[23/08, 5.04 p.m.] I see now I stand with you Swami Ji I agree with you that equality can’t be brought up materially but respect and generosity can’t be denied in the state of being in one humanity and one family