Abhinandan Granth (English Article)

The establishment of equality in communist coun­tries is achieved with the help of coercive measures. In a democratic country, however, legislation is utilized for this purpose. It is true that an element of compulsion is present in legislation also, but it is not to the same extent as in the case of totalitarian countries. For, in a democratic country social re­forms are to be brought about with the help of means which are consistent with the dignity of the individual.

The problem of social equality is a delicate pro­blem in our country. The establishment of social equality is the primary need of the day. The Consti­tution has given it the first place and the Govern­ment have been doing their best to establish social equality with the help of all available democratic means. For, establishment of social equality is a problem of human values. It aims at restoring man to his rightful position with a slew to enabling him to develop all that is best in him. Social equality is the step in the direction of human progress and human perfection. Hence, its achievement is most essential.

Law has been used as a means of bringing about great social changes. It has been found as a very useful weapon for creating a new society, at various stages of human history. However, it must be remembered that the utility of law in this behalf is not unlimited. There are at least two important aspects of social equality—the material and the psychological. Law can be successful in the former but not in the latter. Anti-untouchability legisla­tion or anti-caste legislation will, in theory and for all outward purposes, abolish untouchability and caste distinctions. However, such legislation is not able to bring about the desired psychological change. Education is necessary in addition to legislation in such cases. Another point about social legislation is the problem of its compatibility with public opin­ion. It is urged that legislation in order to be effective should not be far ahead of the public opinion; otherwise its very purpose is defeated and a kind of discord between law and public opinion is created. Such a discord is not desirable for a smooth social change. This argument has attractive simplicity But it fails to convince. If social re­formers like Raja Rammohan Roy had awaited for the creation of favourable opinion for the abolition of Sati, one does not know, whether Sati-abolition could have been achieved during the lifetime of Raja Rammohan Roy. Anti-slavery legislation would have probably experienced the same fate. Public opinion is generally rooted in the past. Hence, breaking the old chains and burying the inherited legacies of superstitions becomes ex­tremely difficult. Therefore, social reformers have to ignore what is generally known as public opinion in order to establish human values. This disrespect shown to the public opinion is not inconsistent with democratic traditions. No doubt democracy means respect for the views of the majority. However, democracy does not rest there. Democracy is a way of life based on human values.