We use words that embody profound concepts often without comprehending their nuances. So words remain simply words without producing the intended impact. If this is the state of inter-personal conversation, which becomes empty and ritualistic, what can one say about conversations that are of national importance and implications? A cluttered understanding of the operative meaning of a word contributes to tensions and conflicts at interpersonal, institutional and public domains. Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, had said, “If you want peace in the kingdom, be clear about your definitions”. Hence, for the sake of clear communication that leads to desired action towards fulfilment of our objectives, knowing the word is critically important.

In Indian literary traditions, a word has three meanings. Among others, Kaviraj Vishwanath Goswami has explained them in Sahitya Darpan. They are: shabdarth (literal meaning), bhavarth (figurative and contextual meaning), guddharth (deeper and philosophical meaning). Usually, the last one is imbibed by an individual who knows the earlier two meanings of the word.
Interestingly, I have encountered the confusion and gross misuse of words/concepts in all sectors – government, business, development, and academia, and so on. The development sector is the biggest victim of such confusions as it operates on a greater number of concepts than the other sectors. There is a litany of development jargons – need-based assessment, participatory development, livelihood generation, gender equity, sustainability, social mobilisation, inclusion, ownership, and so on. In politics, we see concepts like democracy, secularism, socialism, pluralism, equality, social justice, federalism, devolution, decentralisation, deprivation, discrimination and displacement, and so on.
Likewise in business, we come across words like growth, inflation, stagflation, recession, debt, fiscal deficit, private borrowing, globalisation, crony capitalism, demand, supply, demographic dividend, interest rate, price fluctuation, bitcoin, direct and indirect tax, GST, demonitisation and so on. When it is political economy, the confusion is even greater. People come across these words in everyday life in newspapers, political manifestos, budget etc. But, usually, they let the challenge of the word pass and consequently, cannot effectively engage in economic policies or activities.
Let me share one interesting and instructive anecdote that prompted me to come up with this column. A European development agency had invited their partner NGOs in India working on gender projects to a training-workshop run by a noted gender expert of our country. There were about 21 heads of NGOs attending it in a farmhouse in Delhi. I was one of them. Before the start of the training, the resource person (gender expert) asked all of us to write in a piece of paper, in a few words, the meaning of gender as we knew it. To everyone’s surprise, only one and a half answers were correct. The correct answer was given by a young lady who had attended a previous training programme conducted by the same gender expert. The half-correct answer was mine!

Today’s Concept is Dignity

Dignity essentially means mutual respect. It was believed that one could not think in terms of legislating on dignity. One cannot have a law that states that you must give respect to somebody. For example, the constitution talks about fraternity. But, one cannot say that if you are not fraternal you will be punished. The difference between other political values and dignity is that it goes beyond discrimination and stigmatization. Suppose one does not discriminate or one does not stigmatise, that does not mean one is showing dignity or the other is getting dignity. So, accepting pluralism is the prerequisite for bestowing dignity just as recognizing identity is a prerequisite for pluralism. So, they are all interlinked, one cannot have one without the other. The only technical difference is that dignity cannot be bestowed through a process of legislation; it is a matter of mutual understanding.
People feel degraded when denied dignity. Lack of dignity is a social and cultural evil. Many from lower social strata feel frustrated when they denied dignity despite their professional and material success. The story of former President K.R. Narayanan is instructive. During his Presidency, he was the first citizen of India, head of all the armed forces, he was one of the most qualified persons to assume that office. Having studied under Harold J. Laski, in the London School of Economics, he was diplomat, India’s ambassador to the United States and the Vice Chancellor of the Central University, JNU, New Delhi. After demitting the office of President, he was asked by a journalist if he had any regret in life having reached the pinnacle in whatever vocation he did. Narayanan mournfully answered, “I achieved almost everything in life but sadly, could not shed the tag of being a Dalit. To my deep disappointment, I was referred to as a ‘Dalit President’. This is crass denial of dignity to a professionally highly deserving person because of his birth in a Dalit family. Therefore, we need a dignitarian perspective that abjures such scurrilous perspectives.
The problem of dignity exists in all societies. We may not discriminate or stigmatise a group, but we do not always bestow on them their human worth: we can treat somebody as equal, recognize their identity but that does not mean we really give them dignity. The groups or communities which are denied dignity are many in our country. How do the urban people look upon the rural people, how do men treat women, how white collar workers deal with manual workers, how the physically and mentally differently-abled people or aged are denied dignity. Also, the traditionally disadvantaged groups suffer from indignity - dalits, adivasis, fisher folks, OBCs and similar groups.
So, every human being wants to be treated with dignity irrespective of his / her class. One might not be earning much money but that does not mean that their dignity can be compromised; the manner in which we deal with our domestic servants for example or our drivers. There is no equality in terms of their wages but yet we have to treat them as human beings, i.e. treat them with dignity. So, we have to think in terms of extending the idea of dignity to all contexts, which is a lot more than the concept of equality.
It may be useful to introduce another concept called rankism to understand dignity. Robert W. Fuller, who taught in a Black-majority school, enunciated this concept while experiencing rankism in his career. The book, ‘All Rise – Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity’ posits denial of dignity as a consequence of rankism. Recognising rankism makes you more conscious of your dignity. Rankism means that you misuse your rank assigned to you in any institution on the basis of position and power. In other words, the term rankism describes abuse of power associated in the rank. Rankism is like racism, sexism, ageism and so on. Rankism is so ingrained, so common that it is hard to even notice it. Our conscious or inadvertent use of Rankism degrades the dignity of others. Rankism is the ism that, once eradicated, would pretty much eliminate the rest of them.
Vartan Gregorian, an Armenian-American academic thinker, profoundly said that, “Dignity is not negotiable”. According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNUDHR), “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. It follows from this declaration that each human being has the same inherent worth as anyone else regardless of their status or any other characteristics. Almost all religions teach us so. Human beings treat this almost as a birthright. That is why any ill-treatment by the powerful towards the weak provokes strong resentment whether it occurs between individuals or groups. It is experienced at the deepest level as an affront to dignity.
Dignity is often discerned in its breach. We know at once when we are treated with contempt or disregard. An intimation or overt gesture of disrespect may a feeler put out by someone to determine the degree of victims’ resistance to subordination or to ‘show one’s place’. For example, an insult is often a signal of intent to exclude an individual from the group, to make him or her an outcast. Likewise an assertion of one’s position – even a subtle one – can signal an intent to dominate.
The need for dignity is more than a desire for courtesy. Dignity anchors us, nurtures and protects us. To be treated with dignity confirms our presence as a valued member of a group. At the same time, dignity and self-respect go hand-in-hand. Dignity given to us enhances our self-respect and a self-respecting person is inclined to treat others with dignity. The rights provided in Constitutions of many democratic countries will be meaningless in the absence of the dignity inherent in full and equal citizenship. Many countries have not enshrined the right to dignity as a fundamental right. They should. The Constitution of Canada, Germany and South Africa explicitly grant this right to all citizens. For example, Article 1 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany reads, “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.”
Assault on dignity has serious repercussions – expressed or suppressed. More dangerously, continuous disrespect can set in motion a psychological chain of reaction whose end point may be violence and destruction. Remember, the poignant words of Shylock in Shakespearian play, The Merchant of Venice, “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” His last sentence signals a threat of escalation.
From the above, it is clear that, by protecting the dignity of others as if it were our own, we not only give them their legitimate due but we also save ourselves from possible retaliation. Thomas Paine, the English-American revolutionary writer, recognised this dynamic when he wrote, “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself”.
Despite moral injunctions implied in Paine’s admonition and Shakespear’s lines (pleadings of Shylock), ethical and just behaviour is not normal in many societies. Had it been so, there would have been no racial discrimination or caste oppression in the West and the East. This is where politics as an instrument for ensuring justice and dignity comes into play. It enacts relevant laws to enforce political principles of liberty, equality and dignity etc. So, protection of dignity could be maintained through laws. For instance, in India, the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 covers offences that undermine the dignity of SCs and STs.
We have seen the success of identity-based liberation movements across the world. Hence, it is possible to imagine a day when everyone’s dignity is secure and self-evident as everyone’s right to free speech, right to vote and right to own property etc. As people’s right to dignity becomes a truism legally and ethically, it calls upon everyone not to violate their dignity.
The movement for dignity is in an inchoate stage. Yet the movement has to be initiated wherever it does not exist and taken forward. Fredrick Douglas, the noted American social reformer and abolitionist had said, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will”. Perhaps, the best place to stand up for dignity is right where you are.

Email:-------------------dr.dkgiri@gmail.co