Does plutocracy alone propel meritocracy?
Let us rethink privilege and revisit the truth about wealth, access, and the exploitation of struggles. This theme, though seemingly paradoxical, can be a suitable lens to examine both the admiration of success and the moral imperative of social responsibility.
In contemporary discourse, a popular narrative has emerged where wealthy individuals are seen as having unfair advantages in every facet of life—be it education, employment, or social status. They are accused of “buying their way” into elite universities, landing in high-paying jobs through connections, and enjoying a level playing field that is tilted in their favor. While it is undeniable that wealth can provide access and opportunity, the stereotype that all rich people have life handed to them is not only exaggerated but also unfair. At the same time, there is an emerging counter-trend in which being underprivileged is increasingly seen as a credential in itself—used to gain sympathy, opportunity, or even unearned praise. These generalizations harm both the genuinely affluent who work hard and the truly disadvantaged whose stories get diluted by the exploitation of victimhood.
The perception that wealth automatically translates to success overlooks a key factor and that is individual merit. Not every affluent person is coasting on their parents’ wealth. Many are entrepreneurs, professionals, creative, and leaders who have worked long hours, taken risks, and made sacrifices to achieve their success. Those born into wealth often face immense pressure to prove themselves, uphold legacies, and navigate public scrutiny. Being wealthy doesn’t shield one from personal failures, mental health struggles, or the demand for competence in competitive environments. I remember one of my friends during university days would often tell me how I go unnoticed for being the daughter of a commoner and how she would get unnerved by the excess expectations from her for being the daughter of a high ranking official. Therefore, during examinations, though she would have nice preparations but no peace and this would quite often rot her result. This was so undue, so unwanted and so untoward for her or any one like her.
Moreover, elite universities and top-tier companies have become increasingly conscious of social optics. As a result, many affluent candidates find themselves under heightened scrutiny. They are assumed to have had every possible advantage, and any achievement is sometimes met with skepticism or discredited altogether. This creates a paradox where wealth is both envied and vilified, often stripping individuals of the right to be recognized for their personal merits.
On the other hand, financial struggle, while a genuine hardship for millions, is increasingly being used by some as a form of leverage. About college admissions and job interviews, social media platforms are filled with stories of adversity and underprivileged. And while many of these stories are authentic and deserve attention, the system has also opened the door for strategic exploitation. When “coming from nothing” is turned into a golden ticket, it raises concerns about whether we are truly rewarding merit or simply replacing one form of favoritism with another.
Scholarships, diversity initiatives, and inclusion policies though noble in intention, sometimes inadvertently reward struggle more than skill. A student from a wealthy background who has top grades, exceptional extracurriculars, and clear ambition may lose out to someone who checks more of the “disadvantage” boxes but is otherwise less qualified. In such a climate, the system that was designed to level the playing field can sometimes create new forms of imbalance.
What is missing from the current conversation is nuance. Wealth does provide a buffer against many hardships, but it does not guarantee success or happiness. Similarly if poverty is a slight barrier, but it doesn’t always equate to virtue or potential. Not all poor are pure, not all rich, ditch. We can always find a God-fearing goldsmith as well as a corrupt cobbler. In that context a popular Kashmiri proverb is, “Khodai chhu banan shehran,” meaning that God bestows the well-deserved. Therefore both sides of the spectrum have individuals who are hardworking, lazy, resilient, entitled, bold or brilliant.
Society needs to stop painting people with broad strokes. Success should be measured by a mix of character, effort, and achievement—not by background alone. We should value stories of resilience from the underprivileged, but not at the cost of vilifying those who happen to come from wealth. Similarly, we must recognize that while being poor is not a choice, neither is being born into affluence.
In our quest for a more just and inclusive world, it is important not to replace one set of prejudices with another. Wealth should not be a scarlet letter, just as poverty should not be a golden badge. Real equality means evaluating people based on their actions, values, and potential—regardless of where they start in life. To do otherwise is to trade fairness for performative justice, and in doing so, we lose sight of what progress truly means.
There can be no universalisation of vilification of wealth or a romanticization of poverty. Instead, let us recognize where admiration is due, while simultaneously working to lift those who have been left behind. In this dual approach, we reject both uncritical glorification and passive neglect
We do not idolize rich for their wealth, but for their achievements—be they innovation, leadership, or resilience. In many cases, the affluent have shaped economies, driven progress, and created opportunities for others. Examples of great philanthropists in India include Shiv Nadar, Azim Premji, Ratan Tata, Kumar Mangalam Birla, and Nandan Nilekani among others, who have made substantial donations, primarily focused on education, healthcare and other social causes. Entrepreneurs who build companies, inventors who change how we live, and philanthropists who give generously, all contribute to societal advancement in more than one way. There are also illustrious examples from the fields of knowledge and spirituality such as Imam Bukhari. He was born into a wealthy family and inherited a substantial amount of money from his father. However, he chose to live a very simple and ascetic life, living on a very simple diet and giving most of his wealth to the poor and using the rest for his knowledge-seeking activities, such as traveling across many countries to find and record Hadiths. His contribution in that sense is truly immense. Some other notable examples include Rufayda al-Aslamiya who established the first field hospital, and Imam Abu Hanifa who supported struggling students. Among the earliest luminaries was Khadija Khwalid, an accomplished merchant who spent a substantial amount of her wealth to support the call of prophet Muhammad [S.A.W] for social reform.
When we revere such individuals, we honor not only their material success but also their contributions to human potential, progress and prospects.
For those in positions of privilege, the true measure of their riches should not be what they possess, but what they empower others to become. The best of the affluent do not merely accumulate; they invest in society’s progress, becoming active agents in the growth of others. So do, the poor have to be co-creators in their own transformation while being given the means and respect to do so. It demands humility from those who have, and dignity for those who have not.
Therefore, sympathising with the poor is not about pity or charity—it is again about investment. Education, access to healthcare, fair wages, and equitable opportunities are the tools of refinement that society must offer. The financially underprivileged are at no loss if they discover their inherent potential and nurture it. Poverty is too often viewed as a personal failing rather than a systemic condition. That is why even twins can have different life trajectories.
Yet in the same breath, one does agree that within impoverished communities lie untapped talents, suppressed dreams, and unrealized potential. Let the rich man be rich and the poor man be poor. But the gray matter is more or less uniformly distributed. If it goes unused, a lot is going to waste in the life of any rich and any poor.
Dr. Qudsia Gani , Assistant Professor and Head Dept. of Physics, Govt. Degree College, Pattan
