Bharatiya Harmonization of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity

As discussed in the first part of how Western civilization is unable to harmonize the core concepts of ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’. This part of the article treads into the complex issue but with the Indic background. This essay will also discuss the examples and the answers from Indic perspective. What are the things which make it different and how, in different ways, Bharat is able to tackle the different issue where West couldn’t?

Superficiality of Western Thoughts

First comes the superficiality of western society and its political philosophy. In the ‘grand’ construct of cultural evolution of the West, Friedrich Nietzsche discerned a pivotal conflict. He traced that the modern political philosophy is divergent to ancient Greece or other civilizations which they have ended, where art and myth held importance to teach society the necessary traits to be social animals. In that epoch, creativity and morality had flourished, and myth wove the fabric of morality, ethics and existence of the society. The yearning for the past to return in the psyche of the west and also the criticism from Nietzsche is that modernity has unfolded science as the dominant force overpowering facts and empirical studies over other dynamics of the society. Can we harmonize science’s empirical rigor with moral social beauty?

In this sense, Western world has turned empirical and very crude, causing society to only believe in the facts. The same is felt in the ideas of the West where philosophers are trying their best to bring harmony but, created jargons and mansplaining over it. The whole discussion and debate have far flexed to superficiality and are getting over the head of the common people. This has been over-empowered ‘academicians’ from Harvard, Yale, Oxford and other institutions to generate their utopian ideas over society without having the local understanding and ground reality. This cut-off from the reality has caused western civilization transforming reality into superficiality.

The terms liberty, equality and fraternity along with justice have long gone when French raised the trumpets and unleashed the voice actually against real social ills but in superficial context and it failed when the same people cheered for ‘charismatic’ leadership of Napoleon when he showered wealth and against him when he became autocratic supporter of the kings. So much confusion! French failed to understand what the basis of the society they want should be! If it would have been Bharat, for example, during the times of King Ven, when he became autocratic and people suffered, they revolted, killed the king and then stabilized the state based upon Dharma, the core concept of Indic tradition.

The Extremities of Noble Thoughts

In the evolution of human thought, certain ideals do stand as pillars—noble, timeless, and universal. Among these, liberty, equality, and fraternity have shaped societies, revolutions, and the very essence of our existence. Yet, as you astutely observe, there lies a paradox: the very virtues that elevate humanity can also lead to excesses and unintended consequences. This we discussed in the first part. Here, we need to understand that the West failed on two fronts.

First is to understand the essence of those noble thoughts. The beginning of Western thought, rooted in ancient Greece and Rome, laid the groundwork for these ideals. Philosophers like Aristotle, Cicero, and Seneca grappled with questions of justice, governance, and human flourishing. The Enlightenment era (17th to 18th centuries) witnessed a renaissance of these ideas. Thinkers like John Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau championed liberty, reason, and social contract theory. The American and French Revolutions crystallized these ideals into political movements, shaping modern democracies.  But, this pursuit of absolute freedom lead to chaos. When liberty becomes license, society fractures. English grammar exemplifies this: liberally bending rules based upon individual right to use ‘pronouns’ based upon self-proposed gender dysphoria. Second, striving for absolute equality stifled individuality and meritocracy. The quest for uniformity overlooked diverse talents and contributions. And, third, fraternity, when taken to extremes, fostered tribalism. In-group solidarity may inadvertently exclude others, leading to intolerance.

Actually, the noble ideas thrive when tempered by wisdom and discernment. Also, it is important to understand the ‘contextuality’. The application of these ideals must consider cultural context, historical legacies, and evolving norms and there is a need for Dynamic Equilibrium because society's progress lies in maintaining equilibrium—where liberty, equality, and fraternity coexist harmoniously. The task is not to discard these ideals or oppose them as also happening in the West, but to refine and harmonize them– to recognize their limits and guard against their excesses. Opposite to this ‘extremism’ is the basis of Dharma in the Indic perspective. In the tradition of thoughts in Bharat, thoughts have been calibrated and harmonized in their contexts and pretexts. Rishis and the thought torchbearers understood the intermingling and the complexity of those thoughts. They also not focused on specific thoughts but the conditions in which those thought needed to be studied and applied.

The Managerial Elites

            In the hallowed voices of academia, where ideas are processed and given to the society, a subtle shift has occurred in the West. A shift from roots to branches. The top-down approach, once a ladder to enlightenment, now risks distancing scholars from the soil of lived experience. The ‘Top-Down Paradigm’ is when the academia, with its ivory towers and labyrinthine corridors, often gazes from lofty heights. The managerial elites, ensconced in their cerebral citadels, wield influence. The theories have been descended like celestial decrees and breed detachment. The pulse of reality, the rhythm of everyday lives, have faded into abstraction. The West faces a missing link. The intelligentsia, those torchbearers of thought, must bridge the chasm. They are the weavers of narratives, the translators of esoteric wisdom. Yet, the ‘jargonism’ have crept in. Words become veils, obscuring rather than revealing. Concepts morph into cryptic glyphs. The thoughts are far from the reality.

Opposite to this is what Indic perspective has given to the world. The Rishis and the thoughts provider were themselves part of the society. They followed ‘chaturvarnashram vyavastha’ and all other social responsibilities. They live not in ivory towers but within the society connected to the socio-political, economic and cultural part of the society.

The Dharma

Thus, we come to the second distinguished feature where Bharat has a background of Dharma, more than religion, morality and ethics, it is intuitively established self-righteousness based upon the individual-social relationship. Bharat has long paved the way to bring Dharma in our lives. It is not just the philosophical mechanism but socio-political and economic mechanism of Indic nature of state where it has been efforted to imbibe the concept of ‘inclusivity’ among Bharatiyas to live practically on the Vedic echoes: “let noble thoughts come to us from all the sides”. We have a constant continuity of Rishis, monks, social reformers and guiding Gurus who took efforts to imbibe dharma in us.

This idea of Dharma distinguishes Bharat from the Western world. All the terms, real and superficial, actually can be tested on Dharma. For example, the political concept of liberty if tested upon the terms of Dharma would mean individual freedom but also putting society before him. If his actions go beyond the social construct and practices, his liberties can be tested on the terms of Dharma. For example, the arms act and the Hindu marriage system in modern times, curtails the liberty to keep arms or to keep more than one wife. It is evolving but this could only happen if the social construct is based upon Dharma. The result, very less cases of children going on shooting spree or the family structure of Bharat where parents take care of children and less aborted or fractured families in Bharat. Here, it is also important to discuss that, we aren’t perfect, no one is! But the way towards perfection is often paved on the well-structured base which is dharma and Inclusive nature!

There are other examples as well. The present condition of India distorted because the society (de)evolved through medieval dark and modern cunning ages. But, today too, any reforms can be made upon the concept of Dharma, the righteous path. Thus, it is necessary to understand that the triad, liberty-equality and fraternity, is not treated separately in Bharat. Here, even kings and monarchs are under the control of Dharma and couldn’t live for self-pleasure. It has also helped to stop the cravings of qualities of crude human being – the (dis)qualities of human in ‘state of nature’.

The Liberty in the Liberal Way of Life

            The liberty of Bharatiya people is not on the basis of superficial or natural social construct. But, everyone has a major role to play in which he is in. The male and female have to work accordingly to the role they have in the society. What does liberty mean then? Liberty is not unbounded free will, but rationally bounded boundaries of self-control for the sake of society. Liberty means individual being of the universal cosmos playing a major part.

The Equality before Dharma

At such crossroads of how haves and have-nots will continue their living without disturbing the balance, is through Dharma. There are also many inbuilt practices that gave a broader area of liberty to individuals, families and social institutions. First being, the form of democratic setup in the society. This type of democracy is, not what Western civilization promotes, but inclusive attitude that people have. The local social construct is democratic from the beginning in the form of decentralization. This setup disabled to interfere into the affairs of guilds, social constructs, panchayats or local governance, private property and the way of worship of the people. They could also not interfere in the knowledge system and scientific and technological constructs. For example, no king or rich in Bharat named random month of the year in his name. Yes! West does have Julius Caesar and Augustus! This non-interference was followed only because of the belief in written texts and the Vedic morality seeded into the way of life of the people— the equality of everyone before Dharma. This has been observed in the empathy among the people and the social understanding among the society. Yet, it is also important to know that there had been wars, quarrels and struggles among the society but for the Dharma to sustain. It is also important to criticize the failures in Bharatiya civilization for taking it down to the level of Western culture. It is what that makes Bharatiya civilization different. The knowledge is not only theoretically based. It is important to understand that there are many imbibed practices which are practical in nature, confirming the harmony between ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’. Some important practices include-- daana; daily practices of keeping food aside for others; and varna system making all to follow rules of society based upon scientific and psychological studies. The concept of Gotra and Yagnya helps society to come together, have philosophical and moral discussions and debates and learn from that. It also allows to keep the ethos in continuity.

It is crucial to recognize that the ongoing social evolution of Bharat transcends mere decades or centuries. It is a profound and enduring endeavour. However, there have been deliberate efforts to marginalize Indic perspectives. The side-lining and maligning on this Dharma, which brings forth ‘inclusive ideas,’ poses a genuine threat to our civilizational ethos. Western culture, in its emphasis on individualism over communitarianism, prioritizes rights over duties and often favours artificial constructs over realism. Their academic discourse sometimes devolves into what I would term ‘Academic Polarity,’ where methodologies are shaped by social and political agendas rather than objective inquiry. To engage with the West, we must grapple with essential questions and critically examine western thought. To engage with the West, we must critically examine prevailing Western paradigms.

Conclusion

The important take from the discussion can be many but one is that Western academia should come out of the artificial bubble of self-righteousness. But, we must also think about Indian academia at the same time. Indian academia should introspect and learn from the Indic wisdom and not blindly follow the West. Indic political thought must inculcate Indianization of the political science studies!

• 20 min read
• 2
• 0