....Previous

The second apostle of equality is Jesus Christ. When Rome was a city, the differences between the patricians and the plebeians were eliminated through the political sagacity of its statesman. When Rome became an empire, the system of slavery brought about its decline and downfall. The yawning gulf between the master race and the slaves ate into the vitals of the Roman society. The autocracy of the emperors and his subordinate provincial rulers reinforced the economic and social inequality. The great message of Christ came as a boon to the oppressed common people of the Roman empire; Christ preached that all men are brothers. All men are equal in the eyes of God. Rather the sick, the poor and the suffering are dearer to God than the rich and the prosperous. The pride of the rich was shown to be hollow as a result of this great word. The organ less beggar became greater than the emperor. The spiritual wealth was more important than the material wealth—the Kingdom on the earth was no match for the Kingdom of God. Christ said, "Do unto others as you want others to do unto you". Only one other utterance has a moral significance equal to this principle; viz., the utterance of the ancient Brahmin on the Ganga, "Only he is wise who considers everything else as himself'. These two utterances form the basis of the principle of equality.

When Christianity came to be widely accepted in Europe, the cultured Romans of Southern Europe blended with the powerful and spirited barbarians of the North and in course of time Christian morals and the Greek literature, science and philosophy combined to produce the unprecedented economic and social development of this continent in modern times.

It is, however, not true that Christianity had only beneficial effects on the subsequent course of European history. Though egalitarian in doctrine, Christianity promoted in practice enormous ecclesiastical, economic and social inequalities in the succeeding centuries, specially in Spain and France. Economic oppression of the poor by the rich reached its peak in France in Europe in the eighteenth century during the reign of Louis XV. The King and his henchmen lived in incomparable luxury but the taxes to sustain this extravagance were paid not by the nobles who were patronised by the king, nor by the clergy, nor by the high officials, but solely by the poor peasantry. This oppressive tyrannical regime was brought to its ruin through the mighty blows dealt to it by Jeane Jacques Rousseau.

The Buddha and Jesus Christ preached unblemished truths to mankind. They are deservedly worshipped as Gods. Rousseau did not, however, propagate unvarnished truth. His magical words combined uplifting and beneficial moral truths with harmful falsehoods. Nevertheless his writings succeeded in inspiring the French Revolution.

According to Rousseau, men are naturally equal. It is civilization which introduces inequality. In the state of nature prior to the development of civilization, men were not addicted to luxury, sin or inhibiting customs and conventions. In the disease-free bodies dwelt healthy wholesome minds. At this stage there was no question of private owne ship of land and other natural or human resources.
Gradually the stronger began to deprive the weaker and appropriate the natural resources as his own. That is why his disciple Proudhon declared that all property is theft.

In his mature work, Le Contract Social, Rousseau slightly moderated his position. His denunciation of religion became less strident. The inborn ability to distinguish between the right and the wrong is replaced by a reflective insight into moral truths which he considered to be a sign of progress. He also recognized the right to private property under certain stringent conditions. The first man to appropriate a piece of unoccupied land is its rightful owner provided he tills it himself and it is just sufficient for his upkeep. The revolutionary import of the book lies, however, in its doctrine that the royal power is the product of contract and the King is bound by contract to ensure the rights and well-being of the citizens. The moments the King fails to discharge his obligations, the subject has the moral right to dethrone him. The doctrine of Rousseau provided the moral basis of the French Revolution and the blood- bath which followed it swept away the august and hallowed institutions of monarchy feudalism and organized religion. True, some of these institutions were resuscitated later on, but they came back thoroughly transformed and transmuted.

The French Revolution succeeded in its aims and seeds shown. by Rousseau continued till this day to bear new fruits. One fruit of this truth is the theory of Communism which Bankim Chandra begins to expound. He even mentions the First Communist International founded by Marx in 1864.

It was Rousseau who succeeded in popularising the doctrine that the earth and its resources do not naturally belong to a few; all human beings have equal right to them. Various theories of Socialism and Communism have arisen on the basis of this doctrine.

Ordinary Communist: like Robert Owen (1771-1858) and Etienne Cabet (1786-1856) preach the doctrine that land and capital which produce wealth should be held in common by all and all that is produced by society should be equally distributed.

Everybody is to labour equally with others and would have equal right to society's wealth. This, in the opinion of Bankim Chandra, is Communism in the true sense of the term. Louis Blanc (1811-1882) held the view that each would work according to her ability and would be rewarded in accordance with the importance and quality of the work. The importance and quality would be determined by an impartial authority. Fourierism favours ownership of property and inheritance of it. Propounded by Francis Fourier (1772-1837) the theory advocated a systematic cooperative communities, each composed of a group of workers and technicians assured of a minimum income and sharing the surplus on an equitable basis.

John Stuart Mill recognized the right to own private property earned through the labour and merit of an individual and also the right to bequeath the property to her offsprings - the legitimate having no greater right than the illegitimate. However, the offsprings should get whatever is sufficient for her maintenance and whatever is in excess of this should be appropriated by the society.

Next..