Essays from the past : If a society is to thrive, it must place its overall success before the well being of its individual citizens

Suppose your father is dying of cancer and your neighbor’s wife is expecting her first born child on the same day. And by the stroke of chance, the timing of the death of your father and the birth of a newborn in your neighbor’s family coincide. Will you be mourning the death of your old aged father who had nothing more to contribute to the society or will you hail the birth of your neighbor’s child, the future of the society? The obvious answer is that you will mourn your father’s death. This is because there is something in each and everyone of us that is close to our hearts, that is private to us, that which we cannot share with anybody. 'That' is what defines us and we in turn define the society. This 'that' varies from individual to individual and the fact is the defining something or a set of things that satisfies the need of society as a whole is a task that in the true sense fits the definition of the term impossible. On the other hand if we adopt a procrustean attitude and try to forcefully fit in everybody in a given frame( who defines that frame is another topic of debate) then there is bound to be dissent in certain individuals and this in turn can cause destabilization of society.
If on the other hand if certain individuals try to fulfill all their wanton desires, then poverty and widespread discontent would result and in the resultant paranoia and agitation, social fabric would face severe and irreparable damage.
So what options de we have to make society thrive? The answer lies in adopting an approach of moderation. In establishing small groups of people having the most similar features and needs and then taking care of most of their needs so that no or very little dissent results.
This model has been adopted in post independence India and so far the integrity of this geographically and culturally diverse nation has suffered little damage whereas socialist giants like USSR have collapsed without trace.
In India there is a practice of awarding economic subsidies to poorer and underdeveloped sections of society. The working class is not overburdened by taxes and the businessmen and capitalists have to pay up taxes proportionate to their income. Newer industrial ventures are encouraged and educational institutes are given land and other facilities at subsidized rates on a condition that they reserve certain seats for students from economically weaker section of the society. The success has not been exemplary, but still there has been almost no damage to the integrity of this country.
I am not saying that this model is an ideal one and everybody should follow it. The principle behind it is essentially correct, i.e. to allow everybody to flourish according to their means and ability but only to a point where they do not start interfering with the lives and destinies of others. But imperfections in its implementation in India have made the model look imperfect. There is a huge scope of improvement in the implementation of this principle and other countries can look to adopt this model with changes that suit their ways.
To conclude I would like to say that the principle of moderation towards the needs of both individual and society as defined above is the best way for the society to thrive. Its implementation however has to done carefully with right attitude in mind