Part Two: I am sharing the second part first. To understand this clarification, one should read Part One. In Part Three, I will share some of the comments I received.
Dr. Sudha Murthy, the author and wife of Sri Narayana Murthy, now the member of Parliament, the founder of Infosys and respected by many, shared a wonderful thought about ‘equality’ in a video message that was forwarded to me. Not knowing it was Dr. Sudha, I wrote a long critique about the ‘equality’ that we often try to practice, particularly among those who serve us in the unorganized sector, like drivers, cooks, domestic helpers, gardeners, etc. Then, I was criticized for not knowing about her or the generosity that she and her family practice. One person wrote that, “His (Sri Narayana Murthy’s) lowest-level employees (in Infosys) are not only paid well but have also been freely given company shares, increasing their wealth. Learn to respect honorable people and address them properly. You must be the only person in India speaking against such a couple venerated by all.”
I take this criticism with the right spirit and humility. However, my critique is not against her teaching about ‘generosity’ among children from a young age, but about the ‘equality’ we try to uphold in our homes and workplaces toward those who are our subordinates.
I, too, have high respect and regard for them, as they remain models for many to imitate. But the question here is not about them as individuals, but the concept of ‘equality’ that not only she but many of us try to preach and practice. According to my understanding and knowledge, there is no ‘equality’ in any society or home. In fact, we cannot practice it—not because we don’t want to, but because we can’t, due to others’ responses.
Again, with much humility, I want to point out one factor. Though Dr. Sudha helped her driver’s children through her son, she could not put the driver’s son in the same school as her son. Even if she wanted to send them to the same school with a promise to take care of their education until the end, I am not sure whether that driver could sustain it until the end, in case he had to leave the job for some reason. She might pay the school fees, but what about other expenses related to education in such schools, where only children from wealthy families can study? When she gave money for the driver’s children’s education, it was ‘charity’ or even part of her ‘duty and responsibility,’ but not ‘equality.’
Now, to the question: How can we remain blind to the needs of those who work for us (in the unorganized sector)? When we help our drivers and cooks in emergencies, we never attach any strings to it.
Well, we all help such people in their emergencies. But, according to me, I wouldn’t consider it ‘charity’ but our ‘duty or responsibility,’ as we are under an obligation to help them within our limits. I, too, helped several such people when they were in need in the ashram. But I always considered it as an ‘incentive’ or part of their salary, which I should increase (in the future), but never as ‘charity’ or with a spirit of ‘equality.’
All workers in Infosys are in the organized sector. So when they leave the company, their Provident Fund (PF), insurance, pension, etc., will be transferred to another company they join, and they can also take the free shares with them. But those who work in the unorganized sector are more vulnerable. This should be kept in mind when we talk about ‘equality’ in our treatment.
Again, my critique is not against Dr. Sudha Murthy but against the so-called ‘equality’ that we all try to uphold in our lives.
Dayanand Bharati
Note: I forwarded some comments by another person about such ‘equality’ because I wanted to share others’ responses. I am only responsible for forwarding them, not for the comments made in them. However, I believe he is not attacking individuals but the hypocrisy of upholding equality in our society.
Equality versus Generosity – Part Two
I received a video message in which a senior woman talks about the importance of teaching ‘equality’ to our children from a young age. She shared an example from her personal life, recounting when her son attended a birthday party at a Five Star Hotel about 25 years ago. When he returned, he demanded a similar celebration for his birthday. However, she refused, explaining the high cost and instead imparted a valuable lesson on equality. She convinced her son to agree to a simple birthday party at home and donated the money saved to charity. She even gave ten thousand rupees to the children of her driver through her son. She continued by mentioning that she insisted her cook sit and eat with them at the dining table, and when the cook refused, she at least encouraged her to eat at the table after they had finished.
This is a valuable lesson. When the same topic of treating those who serve us as equals arose in the ashram, I shared that I, too, had invited the gardener to eat with us. But, as he felt uncomfortable, I allowed him to take his food and eat under a large banyan tree, where he preferred. I shared (as I have in another article) that though we may want to treat those who serve us as equals, this is not possible in real life. Particularly those who help us at home (as cooks, gardeners, drivers, etc.) come to ‘work’ for us to earn money. They don’t have the moral commitment that we have for each other in a family. When they find a better-paying job, they may leave us, and if they don’t work as expected, we may terminate them. So this so-called ‘equality’ we show to our helpers at home remains merely an ideology. How many of you provide provident funds, medical insurance, pensions, etc., to your helpers at home?
Above all, I doubt such idealistic teachings. What I see as the main lesson in that woman’s talk is not ‘equality’ but ‘generosity’ (or charity), which we should cultivate in our children from a young age. At the same time, this generosity should be done without any strings attached. Let me explain what I mean. I really appreciate that woman’s help in supporting her driver’s children’s education. But by showing such (extra) generosity to those who help us at home, we put them under an obligation to remain more faithful to us.1 Even if we never mention it in the future, it will still linger in our minds. As someone wisely said, “Throwing a bone to a dog is not charity, but sharing that same bone when you are as hungry as the dog.” So, when we share from our abundance with the needy, it is not charity but our duty (dharma) and responsibility. Freeman also emphasizes:
“Is meeting the needs of people out of an excess of funds or supplies really admirable when it costs us nothing but giving up superfluous comforts? I believe the answer is no. Why? Because giving under such conditions does not involve personally or existentially identifying with another’s situation and possibly avoiding an honest engagement with selfishness in one’s 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 also (and perhaps more importantly) to 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? It frightfully says much when a person only gives what they do not need. What if everyone played by such rules? Tragic indeed.”—Chris Freeman, The Cosmic Neighbor.
What we give as extra help to our helpers at home is neither showing equality nor charity but a business-like transaction. Would we allow them to use our bathroom or restrooms? Our children might lay down on our beds without hesitation, but would we allow them to do the same or extend that privilege to their children?
SO EVEN IN SUCH CHARITY, BETTER TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO GIVE TO STRANGERS WHO CANNOT PAY US BACK IN ANY FORM.
But I appreciate her valuable teaching, which inspired her son later in his life. When he went to the USA for studies and received a scholarship, he sent part of it back to his mother, asking her to spend it on the families of soldiers killed in the Parliament Attack.
By saying this, I am not criticizing that woman. She gave a wonderful talk and teaching (I actually don’t know who she is, as her name was not mentioned, but it seems she is a well-known personality). However, when we listen to such teachings and share them with others, we should remember that mere ideology won’t work in life. To me, showing equality always remains just an ideal. So what I take from her talk is the importance of giving practical teachings to our children, while understanding that upholding certain values like ‘equality’ is merely idealism.
I know that my views will also be criticized by others. I welcome it, as we need not only to learn from each other but also to be corrected.
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 likely donated more for the education of poor children than anyone else. She comes from a low middle-class family, the daughter of a teacher. Her husband, Narayan Murthy, is also the son of a teacher and the founder of Infosys, one of the most prestigious and ethical companies, known for his integrity and honesty. What you are proposing is communism. Learn to respect honorable people and address them properly. You must be the only person in India to speak against such a couple venerated by all.
[23/08, 11:16 a.m.] Joshi: His lowest-level employees are not only paid well but have also been freely given company shares, increasing their wealth.
[23/08, 11:18 a.m.] Joshi: Do not hate people who have risen from humble beginnings to this level through hard work and integrity.
[23/08, 2:47 p.m.] Dayanand Bharati: I didn’t know who she was. I never hate any person, particularly those like her. My critique is about equality, not charity.
[22/08, 10:30 p.m.] SKA: Equality is nonsense, Swamiji. What is needed is equity. Equity is the real equality. That old woman said her son wrote a letter saying his mother took care of other people’s children. If she understood what equity is, she would have ensured that her helper’s child went to a foreign university to study and create wealth, instead of her son. Her son will inherit his parents’ and grandparents’ wealth, but the helper’s child will need to create his own wealth from scratch because his parents lack privilege. In the end, these rich people will tell such stories to get applause, but the poor will remain poor and continue working as helpers for the rich. The rich will use their privilege to become even richer. And she claims she is “an ordinary person just like anybody else.” What nonsense! How can ordinary people send their children to study in the U.S.? There is no magic that makes this happen—ancestral wealth does the trick. People like this old woman think others are fools who can’t see where her privilege comes from.
When the state doesn’t seem to care about equity and welfare, unless the rich sacrifice their privilege, their self-boasting of charity is nothing but shameless bigotry. There is neither equality nor equity in charity. Charity is nothing but a legalized scam of the high class/caste.
[23/08, 2:47 p.m.] SKA: Haha, he is right about his “communism” remark! They are scared of communism because they would lose ownership of their private properties and be forced to share public housing facilities with their former slaves/servants. All employees of Infosys get PF? Nice joke! Most of today’s hire-and-fire jobs in the private sector are on a contract basis. Looks like he wants to ignore the enormous number of job losses due to COVID. The rich are always ready to pat each other’s backs to ensure the status quo remains. They just don’t care about the poor.
[23/08, 2:47 p.m.] SKA: Narayan Murthy is still relevant and rich today because he is a Brahmin. If he were a Dalit or an OBC, Baniya Mukesh Ambani would have already grabbed and renamed his company to JioSys.
[23/08, 7:36 a.m.] Rakesh: After hearing the woman, I appreciated her love for the poor workers. So-called critics are worth nothing and do nothing but find faults. Something is better than nothing—I like this saying. Have a blessed Sunday, Swamiji.
[23/08, 11:09 a.m.] Dayanand Bharati: Every critique is the unpaid guardian of our atman. Critiquing is different from fault-finding. The question here is not about charity but about equality.
[23/08, 5:04 p.m.] I see now, I stand with you, Swamiji. I agree with you that equality can’t be achieved materially, but respect and generosity can’t be denied in the state of being one humanity and one family.
Part Two: I am sharing the second part first. To understand this clarification, one should read Part One. In Part Three, I will share some of the comments I received.
Dr. Sudha Murthy, the author and wife of Sri Narayana Murthy, now the member of Parliament, the founder of Infosys and respected by many, shared a wonderful thought about ‘equality’ in a video message that was forwarded to me. Not knowing it was Dr. Sudha, I wrote a long critique about the ‘equality’ that we often try to practice, particularly among those who serve us in the unorganized sector, like drivers, cooks, domestic helpers, gardeners, etc. Then, I was criticized for not knowing about her or the generosity that she and her family practice. One person wrote that, “His (Sri Narayana Murthy’s) lowest-level employees (in Infosys) are not only paid well but have also been freely given company shares, increasing their wealth. Learn to respect honorable people and address them properly. You must be the only person in India speaking against such a couple venerated by all.”
I take this criticism with the right spirit and humility. However, my critique is not against her teaching about ‘generosity’ among children from a young age, but about the ‘equality’ we try to uphold in our homes and workplaces toward those who are our subordinates.
I, too, have high respect and regard for them, as they remain models for many to imitate. But the question here is not about them as individuals, but the concept of ‘equality’ that not only she but many of us try to preach and practice. According to my understanding and knowledge, there is no ‘equality’ in any society or home. In fact, we cannot practice it—not because we don’t want to, but because we can’t, due to others’ responses.
Again, with much humility, I want to point out one factor. Though Dr. Sudha helped her driver’s children through her son, she could not put the driver’s son in the same school as her son. Even if she wanted to send them to the same school with a promise to take care of their education until the end, I am not sure whether that driver could sustain it until the end, in case he had to leave the job for some reason. She might pay the school fees, but what about other expenses related to education in such schools, where only children from wealthy families can study? When she gave money for the driver’s children’s education, it was ‘charity’ or even part of her ‘duty and responsibility,’ but not ‘equality.’
Now, to the question: How can we remain blind to the needs of those who work for us (in the unorganized sector)? When we help our drivers and cooks in emergencies, we never attach any strings to it.
Well, we all help such people in their emergencies. But, according to me, I wouldn’t consider it ‘charity’ but our ‘duty or responsibility,’ as we are under an obligation to help them within our limits. I, too, helped several such people when they were in need in the ashram. But I always considered it as an ‘incentive’ or part of their salary, which I should increase (in the future), but never as ‘charity’ or with a spirit of ‘equality.’
All workers in Infosys are in the organized sector. So when they leave the company, their Provident Fund (PF), insurance, pension, etc., will be transferred to another company they join, and they can also take the free shares with them. But those who work in the unorganized sector are more vulnerable. This should be kept in mind when we talk about ‘equality’ in our treatment.
Again, my critique is not against Dr. Sudha Murthy but against the so-called ‘equality’ that we all try to uphold in our lives.
Dayanand Bharati
Note: I forwarded some comments by another person about such ‘equality’ because I wanted to share others’ responses. I am only responsible for forwarding them, not for the comments made in them. However, I believe he is not attacking individuals but the hypocrisy of upholding equality in our society.
Equality versus Generosity – Part Two
I received a video message in which a senior woman talks about the importance of teaching ‘equality’ to our children from a young age. She shared an example from her personal life, recounting when her son attended a birthday party at a Five Star Hotel about 25 years ago. When he returned, he demanded a similar celebration for his birthday. However, she refused, explaining the high cost and instead imparted a valuable lesson on equality. She convinced her son to agree to a simple birthday party at home and donated the money saved to charity. She even gave ten thousand rupees to the children of her driver through her son. She continued by mentioning that she insisted her cook sit and eat with them at the dining table, and when the cook refused, she at least encouraged her to eat at the table after they had finished.
This is a valuable lesson. When the same topic of treating those who serve us as equals arose in the ashram, I shared that I, too, had invited the gardener to eat with us. But, as he felt uncomfortable, I allowed him to take his food and eat under a large banyan tree, where he preferred. I shared (as I have in another article) that though we may want to treat those who serve us as equals, this is not possible in real life. Particularly those who help us at home (as cooks, gardeners, drivers, etc.) come to ‘work’ for us to earn money. They don’t have the moral commitment that we have for each other in a family. When they find a better-paying job, they may leave us, and if they don’t work as expected, we may terminate them. So this so-called ‘equality’ we show to our helpers at home remains merely an ideology. How many of you provide provident funds, medical insurance, pensions, etc., to your helpers at home?
Above all, I doubt such idealistic teachings. What I see as the main lesson in that woman’s talk is not ‘equality’ but ‘generosity’ (or charity), which we should cultivate in our children from a young age. At the same time, this generosity should be done without any strings attached. Let me explain what I mean. I really appreciate that woman’s help in supporting her driver’s children’s education. But by showing such (extra) generosity to those who help us at home, we put them under an obligation to remain more faithful to us.1 Even if we never mention it in the future, it will still linger in our minds. As someone wisely said, “Throwing a bone to a dog is not charity, but sharing that same bone when you are as hungry as the dog.” So, when we share from our abundance with the needy, it is not charity but our duty (dharma) and responsibility. Freeman also emphasizes:
“Is meeting the needs of people out of an excess of funds or supplies really admirable when it costs us nothing but giving up superfluous comforts? I believe the answer is no. Why? Because giving under such conditions does not involve personally or existentially identifying with another’s situation and possibly avoiding an honest engagement with selfishness in one’s 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 also (and perhaps more importantly) to 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? It frightfully says much when a person only gives what they do not need. What if everyone played by such rules? Tragic indeed.”—Chris Freeman, The Cosmic Neighbor.
What we give as extra help to our helpers at home is neither showing equality nor charity but a business-like transaction. Would we allow them to use our bathroom or restrooms? Our children might lay down on our beds without hesitation, but would we allow them to do the same or extend that privilege to their children?
SO EVEN IN SUCH CHARITY, BETTER TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN TO GIVE TO STRANGERS WHO CANNOT PAY US BACK IN ANY FORM.
But I appreciate her valuable teaching, which inspired her son later in his life. When he went to the USA for studies and received a scholarship, he sent part of it back to his mother, asking her to spend it on the families of soldiers killed in the Parliament Attack.
By saying this, I am not criticizing that woman. She gave a wonderful talk and teaching (I actually don’t know who she is, as her name was not mentioned, but it seems she is a well-known personality). However, when we listen to such teachings and share them with others, we should remember that mere ideology won’t work in life. To me, showing equality always remains just an ideal. So what I take from her talk is the importance of giving practical teachings to our children, while understanding that upholding certain values like ‘equality’ is merely idealism.
I know that my views will also be criticized by others. I welcome it, as we need not only to learn from each other but also to be corrected.
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 likely donated more for the education of poor children than anyone else. She comes from a low middle-class family, the daughter of a teacher. Her husband, Narayan Murthy, is also the son of a teacher and the founder of Infosys, one of the most prestigious and ethical companies, known for his integrity and honesty. What you are proposing is communism. Learn to respect honorable people and address them properly. You must be the only person in India to speak against such a couple venerated by all.
[23/08, 11:16 a.m.] Joshi: His lowest-level employees are not only paid well but have also been freely given company shares, increasing their wealth.
[23/08, 11:18 a.m.] Joshi: Do not hate people who have risen from humble beginnings to this level through hard work and integrity.
[23/08, 2:47 p.m.] Dayanand Bharati: I didn’t know who she was. I never hate any person, particularly those like her. My critique is about equality, not charity.
[22/08, 10:30 p.m.] SKA: Equality is nonsense, Swamiji. What is needed is equity. Equity is the real equality. That old woman said her son wrote a letter saying his mother took care of other people’s children. If she understood what equity is, she would have ensured that her helper’s child went to a foreign university to study and create wealth, instead of her son. Her son will inherit his parents’ and grandparents’ wealth, but the helper’s child will need to create his own wealth from scratch because his parents lack privilege. In the end, these rich people will tell such stories to get applause, but the poor will remain poor and continue working as helpers for the rich. The rich will use their privilege to become even richer. And she claims she is “an ordinary person just like anybody else.” What nonsense! How can ordinary people send their children to study in the U.S.? There is no magic that makes this happen—ancestral wealth does the trick. People like this old woman think others are fools who can’t see where her privilege comes from.
When the state doesn’t seem to care about equity and welfare, unless the rich sacrifice their privilege, their self-boasting of charity is nothing but shameless bigotry. There is neither equality nor equity in charity. Charity is nothing but a legalized scam of the high class/caste.
[23/08, 2:47 p.m.] SKA: Haha, he is right about his “communism” remark! They are scared of communism because they would lose ownership of their private properties and be forced to share public housing facilities with their former slaves/servants. All employees of Infosys get PF? Nice joke! Most of today’s hire-and-fire jobs in the private sector are on a contract basis. Looks like he wants to ignore the enormous number of job losses due to COVID. The rich are always ready to pat each other’s backs to ensure the status quo remains. They just don’t care about the poor.
[23/08, 2:47 p.m.] SKA: Narayan Murthy is still relevant and rich today because he is a Brahmin. If he were a Dalit or an OBC, Baniya Mukesh Ambani would have already grabbed and renamed his company to JioSys.
[23/08, 7:36 a.m.] Rakesh: After hearing the woman, I appreciated her love for the poor workers. So-called critics are worth nothing and do nothing but find faults. Something is better than nothing—I like this saying. Have a blessed Sunday, Swamiji.
[23/08, 11:09 a.m.] Dayanand Bharati: Every critique is the unpaid guardian of our atman. Critiquing is different from fault-finding. The question here is not about charity but about equality.
[23/08, 5:04 p.m.] I see now, I stand with you, Swamiji. I agree with you that equality can’t be achieved materially, but respect and generosity can’t be denied in the state of being one humanity and one family.
Leave a Reply