The Five Levels of Respect

The word "Respect" is used by us many times, each day. Everyone wants to be respected. No human being wants to be disrespected or humiliated. What is "Respect"? "Give respect and take respect" is a saying that is often quoted. Does respect come your way automatically when you give respect to another? Are there any preconditions for earning respect? What are the reasons behind someone being respected? Are all people to be respected equally? Are there some gradings in the levels of respect that is to be given and received? These questions are worth pondering and beg for an answer.

There are many definitions of the word "Respect". One of the definitions is "esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability". It also means "deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgement to be held in respect etc". How does this privileged position come? There can be many theories and explanations as to why someone should be respected and the extent of respect to be given.

One commonly and widely accepted belief in our society is that age and knowledge are to be respected. The community holds the aged and knowledgeable people in deference and courtesy. There is also a latent feeling that some wisdom automatically comes with age, though this may not always be true. Ancient Indian literature provides many dimensions of giving and receiving respect. It mandates that respect should be given to some. It also directs that some are to be respected irrespective of their apparent or perceived deficiencies. It also gives five clear cut levels of respect to be given and also calibrates their relative inter se levels. There are possibilities that some people may be worthy of being respected for more than one of these reasons.

What are these five levels and what is their inter se relativity? The five levels are due to Money or Wealth possessed, One's relatives, Age, Achievements made, and Knowledge gained by the person. How is this classification justified? What is the logic for such a calibration? 

It is common knowledge that people with lot of money or wealth (वित्तं) are respected in society. As already mentioned above, such wealthy people might deserve respect due to other four parameters as well. Even if they are not entitled to any respect due to other parameters, mere possession of wealth alone makes them entitled to some respect. Such money or wealth might have come to them from some other source and not due to their own efforts. This is the lowest of the five levels of respect given by the society. If the wealth has been accumulated by their own hard earning efforts, then they would be respected due to the fourth level as well. Respect for such people stays as long as the wealth remains with them. Once wealth is gone, the respect given by the society also goes away. As ancient literature mentions in various places, wealth makes people find many virtues in them!

The second level of respect comes from one's relatives (बन्धुः). This type of respect is due to a position held in relativity. It is not uncommon to see people respecting someone because he is someone's son or son-in-law. If the relation between the two were not there, the respect would also not be there. A minister's PA is respected as long as he stays as a PA. Why only the PA, it is true of the ministers as well. If he loses that job, the respect also gets extinguished. If the person has done some sincere service while enjoying the position, or discharged his duties sincerely, he may still be given some respect even after losing the position. That would be the respect earned due to one's achievement.

The third level of respect comes from one's age (वयः). Mere age is respected often as we can see from the growing awareness and deference shown to senior citizen nowadays. the assumption is that these people have contributed to the general welfare of the society. This level of respect remains till the end of one's life and is expected to grow each day, unless the person squanders the same due to some bad deeds. 

The fourth level of respect is due to one's own achievements (कर्म or साधन). This is solely due to one's own achievements in the chosen field or fields. This comes due to lot of efforts and is accumulated over time. It stays with the person and does not go away for any reason. The ones who have achieved distinctions in diverse fields are respected irrespective of age and wealth. Some of the achievements may be at a young age itself whereas some others may be fructifying at ripe old age. This is indeed a higher level of respect.

The fifth and highest level of respect is earned due to knowledge and wisdom (विद्या). Here the word Vidya does no denote the mere bookish knowledge or the number of degrees one earns by studies. It is much more than bookish knowledge and expectation is that it is blended with practical applications. Knowledge and wisdom that is selfish and does not benefit the society is not acceptable here for respect. This is the highest form of respect and a learned and wise man will be respected wherever he goes. The adage विद्वान् सर्वत्र पूज्यते is indeed applicable to such people. 

The five levels of respect and their grading has been beautifully summed up in this ancient verse:

वित्तं बन्धुः वयः कर्म विद्याचैवतु पञ्चमी |

एतानि मान्य स्थानानि गरॆयोयद्यदुत्तरम् ||

Vittam Banhduhu Vayah Karma Vidyachaivatu Panchami,

Etani manya sthaanaani gareeyoyadyaduttaram.

*****

While the grading of the five levels of respect are indeed codified above, present day tendency of giving highest respect to wealth is sometimes disturbing. The pressures and pleasures of modren day life is driving the younger generation primarily towards accumulation of wealth. The opinions on this issue may be divided as well. Whatever may be one's opinion, even today we can see that achievements and wisdom have their own pride of place and always attract respect.

The Four Equal Shareholders

The village was adjoining the big forest near the boundary of the state. Many villagers depended on the forest for their livelihood. Collecting and selling firewood, honey, and other forest produce gave them income to supplement earning from raising crops in their lands. One of the tigers in the forest started venturing into the village and lifting animals. In time, it started lifting children and became a menace to the population. Villagers decided to approach the King for sending a hunting party to the forest to kill the tiger to enable them to live in peace.

The delegation of villagers reached the capital under the leadership of the village headman. When they reached the capital the King was away on official duties. They were now constrained to wait in the capital till the King returned. They were standing in front of the palace and discussing the future course of action.

The Queen was observing the surroundings from the terrace of the palace. She saw the group of villagers standing near the palace. A servant was sent to find out the purpose of their arrival in the capital and waiting there. The servant made enquiries and reported the matter to her. The Queen knew that the King would be back only after three days. She instructed the palace officials to provide accommodation to the villagers in the royal guest rooms till the King returned. She instructed the Royal kitchen head to ensure that food was supplied to them three times a day. Her orders were duly carried out and the villagers waited for the King to return.

Food was being carried from the palace kitchen to the royal guest rooms on the morning of third day. An eagle had caught a poisonous snake and flying in the air above the palace area. The snake was struggling in the eagle's hold and drops of poison came out of its mouth. One of the vessels carrying the food was not covered and the poison fell in the food in it. Unaware of this happening, the servants distributed the food to the villagers. The villagers fell ill and two of them died in the evening.

The King returned and the matter was reported to him. The issue of tiger had now taken back seat and death of villagers came to the forefront. The King held a detailed enquiry to find the reasons for the event and punished the guilty. The queen was also sentenced to prison along with the cook and the servants.

The Queen protested and submitted that she had only helped the villagers by providing them lodging and boarding facilities in the King's absence. The King held that while her actions were indeed laudable, she cannot escape the consequences of wrong implementation of her orders. When giving the orders she also had the responsibility for their proper implementation. Mere good intention is not enough. Giving orders is not the end. The responsibility for proper compliance of the order also rests with the authority giving the orders. Otherwise, there is no accountability at all and all superiors are scot-free. The King stuck to his judgement and it was implemented strictly.

*****

The above story offers a good example of the principle of "Vicarious Liability". Vicarious liability is the strict and often secondary liability arising out of the responsibility of the superior authority or the master. It is different from contributory infringement. In contributory infringement, the superior or the master has some knowledge of the actions of the servant or the subordinate. Vicarious liability is different from contributory infringement as knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The master or the superior authority is held responsible even if he did not have knowledge of the action or wrongful implementation of the order by the subordinate.

*****

Who are the responsible parties for any action? What are their characteristics? Who is responsible for the results of the actions, whether good or bad? What is the role of a person who does the act and others who are directly or indirectly connected with it? What is the ratio or proportion in which they share the consequences? These are interesting questions and jurisprudence deals with them in various dimensions.

Ancient Indian jurisprudence identifies four persons as responsible for any act. The first is the person who actually does something or indulges in an action. He is the Karta (कर्ता) or the Doer. The second is the one who gets it done, advises or counsels in the action. He is the Kaarayita (कारयिता) or the Advisor. The third is the Proposer who motivates or inspires the action. He is the Preraka (प्रेरक) or the Proposer. Then there is the fourth one who supports the proposer. He is the Anumodaka (अनुमोदक) or Seconder/supporter.

What is the share of responsibility of these four people in the actions? The considered view is that the four are equal shareholders in all actions. There is no distinguishing between the one who does and others who take indirect part in it like the motivator and supporter. Is it only for the bad things that they have their shares? What about good deeds and actions that benefit the mankind? Ancient Indian jurisprudence does not differentiate between the good deeds or bad deeds. It stipulates that these four shall be equal shareholders in good as well as bad deeds. This holds good even if the action is done by one who is incapable of judgement like a child or idiot. 

All this is beautifully summed up in the following verse:

कर्ता कारयिता चैव प्रेरकस्चनुमोदकः |

सुकृते दुष्क्रुतेचैव चत्वारः समभागिनः ||

Karta karayitaashchaiva prerakascha anumodakah |

sukrute dushkrutechaiva chatvarah samabhaginah ||

The Doer, The Advisor, The Proposer (Motivator) and the Seconder, these four are equal shareholders in all good as well as bad deeds.

Indian Penal Code also follows the same line of thinking while prescribing punishment for those abetting or instigating by either action or inaction. Section 107 of the IPC defines abetment of a crime. Section 120-B of the IPC prescribes the same punishment for criminal conspirators as the ones prescribed for those committing the crime.

*****

What is the lesson to be drawn from this discussion? One simple action point for raising our share value is to motivate, propose or second all good actions. Thus the share value goes up even if one does not actually or physically participate in the actual work of implementation. Similarly, refraining from motivating or seconding any action that is harmful to the community prevents from the share value going down!

Can we build a good portfolio of shares using these two golden rules?

The Wise Man and The Fool

Three brothers were bestowed with the capacity of walking in the air, by the Lord, after performing a lot of good deeds. The boon was received by them with glee and they enjoyed their new power for sometime. Now they did not need the support of earth below their feet for moving around. They could go wherever they desired by just walking in the air. Days were wonderful for them.

They were walking in the sky and enjoying the sight on the ground on a sunny morning. The greenery on the earth was enchanting. Freshly bloomed colourful flowers added to the beautiful sight. They suddenly saw an eagle flying fast below their feet. They also saw a snake moving on the ground. The eagle flew down and lifted the snake. The eldest brother felt he should save the life of the snake as otherwise the eagle would eat it. "Leave the snake", he shouted at the eagle. The eagle was startled and left the snake. He got the benefaction of saving the snake's life, but also got the curse of snatching eagle's food. He immediately lost his capacity to walk in the air and fell down on the ground.

The middle brother realised the folly of his elder brother. He did the wrong of snatching the eagle's food, the middle brother reasoned. To correct that mistake he shouted at the eagle. "Don't leave the snake. Catch it", he said. Eagle was pleased to catch the snake and soared into the sky with the snake now firmly clasped in its feet. The middle brother got the benefaction of giving food to the eagle, but also got the curse of taking the snake's life! He too immediately lost his capacity to walk in the air and fell down on the ground.

The youngest brother saw the plight of his two elder brothers. He decided not to interfere with things not connected with him. He continued to walk in the air and moved away.

*****

The concept of "Reasonable or Prudent Man" is often used in tort and criminal law. Tort itself is defined as a wrongful act, other than breach of trust or contract, that results in injury (legal injury included) to another's person, property or reputation etc. A reasonable or prudent man is a hypothetical person used as a legal standard in deciding issues, as to whether someone's actions are proper or with negligence. 

People living in civilised societies are expected to interact with other people in community in various capacities. While dealing with others and their properties, any person is expected to display a certain level of care and standard of behaviour. A "Reasonable or Prudent Man (or man of ordinary prudence)" exercises average care, skill and conduct that the society expects from its members. The conduct of such a person in the given circumstances serves as a standard for deciding the actions of an accused before a court of law.

This concept of "Man of Ordinary Prudence" is especially used frequently in teaching as well as examining the conduct and actions of Bankers, while dealing with their customers and their properties entrusted to bankers during the course of business.

*****

In this background, all people in the society can be classified into three groups:

• The first group comprises persons who fall short of the standards expected of a "Man of ordinary prudence". They are "Fools". A Fool is a silly or stupid person who lacks judgement or sense. His level of behaviour always falls well short of the level exhibited by a man of ordinary prudence. Hence he is much less than a reasonable man. 
• The second group comprises persons who display behaviour matching with the hypothetical "Man of ordinary prudence". They are the common people with average level of judgement and behaviour.
• The third group consists of "Wise People". A wise man has the power of discerning and judging properly as to what is just or right. He always displays a level of behaviour that is much above the level exhibited by a man of ordinary prudence. His wisdom is evident in the type of decisions he takes and in his actions.

Learning levels are directly linked to the above classification:

• A fool does not learn even from his own mistakes. He keeps repeating the same mistakes and suffers their consequences.
• A man of ordinary prudence learns from his mistakes. He does not repeat his mistakes.
• A wise man learns from the mistakes of others. He observes his environment and avoids committing mistakes done by others, thereby benefiting from the experiences of others around him.

***** 

The youngest brother in the story above belonged to the third category. He was indeed wise. He learnt from the mistakes of his brothers and avoided the effects of their follies!