There is perhaps a certain conflict always between the idea
of progress and that of security and stability. The two do not fit in; the
former wants change, the latter a safe unchanging haven and continuation of
things as they are.
The idea of progress is modern and relatively new even in
the west; the ancient and medieval civilization thought far more in terms of a
golden past and of subsequent decay. In India also the past has always been
glorified. The civilization that was built up here was essentially based on
stability and security and from this point of view; it was far more successful
than any that arose in the west. The social structure based on the caste system
and joint families, served this purpose and was successful in providing social
security for the group and a kind of insurance for the individual who by reason
of age, infirmity, or any other
incapacity, was unable to provide for himself. Such an arrangement, while
favouring the weak, hinders, to some extent, the strong.
It encourages the
average type at the cost of the abnormal, the bad or the gifted. It levels up
or down and individualism has less play in it. It is interesting to note that
while Indian philosophy is highly individualistic and deals almost entirely
with the individual’s growth to some kind of inner perfection, the Indian
social structure was communal and paid attention to groups only. The individual
was allowed perfect freedom to think and believe what he liked, but he had to conform
strictly to social and communal usage.
Comments
Post a Comment