do this we can build perfect system

I have no problems with your project. In similar vein, nor do I have problems with a secularist program of the betterment of India or of humanity.

You need to play with a toy example. Any company is in marketplace to increase their capital. You have to read Marxian economics, and do some critical thinking of how the capital works.

What is money? The best answer that can be had is Marxian: his theory of labor value and money. But there are problems with the formulation that a commodity is an emobodiment of labor. This embodiment is loaded term, which smacks of a particular conception of human, a conception that can't be defended on rational grounds.

There are problems with true communist system: in which sense are we equal? Equal access? or Equal salary or equal status: if every one wants to be a manager, who will be the worker? And so on. In other words, for the sake of communism, everybody has to accomodate himself in such a way that such a system works: but this accomodating oneself is indefensible on both empirical and theoretical grounds.

Can humans work without the existence of money. Sure, they can. Herein lies the problem of intentionality. Is intentionality illusory the way stick appearing bent when immersed in water? If so, why are we all succumbed to this illusion? Why such illusion is necessary. Most importantly, how to get rid of this illusion. The day we have answers for these questions, that day a perfect system can be built. Herein lies the strength of Indian traditions. There was a discussion abt this on the board. Most of the discussants on that board have no clues abt the mechanism of the capital. The thread has died out, anyway.

Here my having said that I am useless to many projects put forward by great many indians makes great sense. Not that I am envious of those projects. But because you can't lure people by things like "do this, we can build perfect system"

That, for every human seeks happiness in different ways, sees it in different things. This happiness and its contra are related to this intentionality problem as well.

the issue of equality

Then there is an issue of equality. To grant what is natural of the world, or about humans, one needs an evidential warrant; an example might be of good help. In Aristotelian physics, an external force is required in order for bodies to move in non-vertical rectilinear motion: that is, the natural state of bodies is that they stay in rest. Galileo provided the evidence that bodies move, without an external cause, on an inclined plane. In Newtonian physics, the natural state of bodies that they are in a state of uniform motion, unless external objects perturb them. In the same way, as modern Indians claim, that we have all become deviant from the normal, and natural, position that all humans are equal has no evidential warrant.

We have also known of humans—-that some are male, some others female; that some are rich, some others poor; that some are handsome (depends on the beholder, anyway), some others not; that some are farmers, others engineers, yet some others robbers; etc. It is unscientific to claim that we all should strive for equality, whatever the latter is. I am not saying that we shouldn't help one another; neither am I against those who help others. To what extent, considering that we don't have infinite resources, infinite supply, infinite supply? Assume that you have an IT company, in order to wipe tears—-however short--of fellow human beings; then you need to hire every guy so that we don't see the tears swelling up in their eyes. Even if you are benevolent, and your company has become a modern IT satram, you have no control over external constraints, which are not of human, so that you can keep all guys happy! Then the normative ideal that all humans ought to be equal is fatuous and unscientific as well: science (or any knowledge) doesn't condone such or any normative claims.