Anyayena Arjita Vittam: Why Wealth Earned Through Unfair Means Never Lasts
The concept of Anyayena Arjita Vittam warns that wealth earned through unfair means ultimately perishes. Drawing from ethical tradition and economic history, the essay underscores that sustainability and social balance depend on fairness, restraint and moral conduct in transactions.
Ethical conduct in earning and transactions remains central to sustainability, even in a monetised modern economy | Representational Image
“Anyayena” means by unfair means, and “arjita vittam” means earned money. The world is full of transactions. For physical survival, sustenance and assurance, the worldly transactions are many. In earlier times of local self-governance and interdependencies, bartering was a common practice. For seamless transitions across bounds and cross-exchanges, third-party assured “coin”-based transactions began, especially where city-based civilisations flourished. Physical bounds got solved with money.
From barter to currency
As local trade practices were happening, supply and demand were managing efficiencies. Fair practices bound by locational constraints and production limitations were in vogue. Hoarding of goods had limitations of space and time, as too much hoarding in any local area could be easily found out, and decay of food grains, etc., limited the timeframe for which one could keep grains out of circulation. Once the currency system started, these limitations went away. Information asymmetry, leveraging and cheating increased.
Fairness and ethical boundaries
Ethical reasoning of fair and unfair may be contextual in terms of region and times. However, in absolute terms, we may expect what can stretch and pass as “fair”. If a trader would like to charge ten per cent as a margin beyond covering costs and overheads, it may find acceptance. On the other hand, people hoarding emergency medicines, baby food and other lifesaving items, like oxygen, for excess returns may not go down well with people.
Unjust earnings and consequences
It is said that the “vittam”, or earnings, have to be through fair means. If earning is done when the other party is weak or constrained, then it may not be “nyaya” or fairly earned. Raja and chora, or rulers and thieves, are the two quoted sources of such unfair earnings. The ruler may confiscate earnings or levy high taxes so that fair distribution of wealth happens, which is one method. The chora may take away earnings; that is another possibility of losing unfair earnings.
The rich often used to distribute their earnings beyond a limit as charity for community betterment or shared them with the needy. In other words, the inequality curve was moderated by such spending by the super-rich within their means.
The moral warning
The warning was: “anyayena arjita vittam” shall go as “anyayena vinashyati” and get wasted, looted or confiscated. Thus, ethical conduct in transactions and earnings is indicated as a must. Sustainability gets assured.
Dr S. Ainavolu is a Mumbai-based teacher of Management and Tradition.
RECENT STORIES
-
-
-
-
-