Equality
Part 1: Introduction - The Personal Awakening
Yesterday morning, I stood in line at a government hospital in my city. A woman beside me had travelled three hours by bus, carrying her sick child. She had been waiting since 5 AM for a doctor who might see her by noon. Meanwhile, across the street at a private hospital, patients walked in and received immediate care if they could pay. This moment crystallised everything philosophers have debated for millennia about equality. I have spent years reading political theory, but nothing prepared me for understanding inequality quite like standing in that hospital queue.
Books teach you concepts. Life teaches you consequences. Aristotle wrote about justice in comfortable Athens. Karl Marx theorized in the British Library. But the woman beside me, unable to read or write, understood inequality more deeply than any philosopher. She lived it. Growing up in a middle-class household, I witnessed inequality constantly but did not always recognize it. My father, a school teacher, often brought home stories of brilliant students who dropped out because their families needed them to work. I remember Raju, exceptional at mathematics, who left school at fourteen to work in his uncle's shop. His younger sister never attended school at all. Her parents said education was wasted on girls.
These experiences confused my young mind. Why did birth
circumstances determine life outcomes? My parents explained it as "the way
things are." But I could not accept that explanation. If things are
unjust, should they not change? This question led me to philosophy and
ultimately to a lifetime of grappling with equality.
Part 2: Ancient Foundations and Their Modern Echoes
Aristotle's Dangerous Logic
When I first encountered Aristotle (384-322 BCE) in college, his definition of justice seemed reasonable: "treating equals equally and unequals unequally" (Aristotle, 1999). In a philosophy seminar, a classmate argued that it would be unjust to treat a doctor and patient equally during surgery. The doctor has knowledge and authority the patient lacks. Inequality here serves a purpose. I agreed then, and I agree now. Some functional inequalities are necessary. When I visit a doctor, I want them to have authority based on expertise. But Aristotle extended this reasonable observation to justify slavery, patriarchy, and ethnic superiority. He argued that some people were "natural slaves" lacking capacity for rational deliberation (Aristotle, 1999).
This horrified me. How could one of history's greatest minds
believe something so monstrous? Yet Aristotle's error remains common today.
People observe existing inequalities and conclude they must be natural or
deserved. Consider how we discuss poverty in modern India. How often do you
hear: "Poor people are lazy" or "They do not value
education"? These statements assume poverty results from personal
deficiencies rather than unjust social structures.
I once believed some of this myself. Families seemed trapped
in poverty across generations through their own bad decisions. Why spend on
elaborate weddings instead of saving? Why have four children when you can
barely feed two? But studying economics taught me about poverty traps. When you
earn barely enough to survive, you cannot save. When you lack education, you
cannot access better jobs. Poverty is not a personal failing but a structural
condition (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011).
Rousseau's Revolutionary Insight
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin of
Inequality" (1755) fundamentally changed my understanding. Rousseau
distinguished between natural inequality (differences in age, health, strength,
intelligence) and conventional inequality (differences in wealth, power, social
status). Natural inequality is unavoidable and often insignificant.
Conventional inequality is created by society and can be changed (Rousseau,
1992).
This distinction seems simple but has profound implications.
When my Brahmin grandfather justified caste hierarchy as natural, he conflated
these types. Yes, people have different natural abilities. But those
differences do not justify vast social inequalities. I am shorter than my
friend - that is natural inequality. But this does not mean I should have fewer
rights or lower wages.
Rousseau argued that in the state of nature, humans were
relatively equal. Inequality emerged with private property and social
hierarchy. He famously wrote: "The first man who, having enclosed a piece
of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple
enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society" (Rousseau,
1992, p. 84).
This made me think about land ownership in India. Most
agricultural land is owned by upper castes. Dalits and Adivasis, about 25% of
the population, own less than 10% of land. How did this happen? Not through
natural processes but through historical dispossession - upper castes claimed
land and used violence and law to maintain ownership across generations.
My own family owns agricultural land inherited through
generations. We did nothing to earn it. We were simply born into the right
family. Meanwhile, landless laborers work our fields for daily wages, unable to
buy land because prices are beyond their reach. Is this just? Rousseau would
say no. This realization made me uncomfortable because it implicated me
personally in inequality.
Part 3: Modern Political Theory and Indian Reality
Karl Marx and the Critique That Persists
Reading Karl Marx (1818-1883) during university transformed
my political consciousness. Marx argued that all history is history of class
struggle between oppressor and oppressed, exploiter and exploited. In
capitalism, this manifests as conflict between bourgeoisie (capital owners) and
proletariat (workers) (Marx & Engels, 1998).
The key insight is exploitation. Capitalists own means of
production. Workers own only labor power. Workers must sell labor to survive.
Capitalists pay workers less than the value workers create, keeping surplus as
profit. This is not theft legally - contracts are followed. But it is
exploitation structurally - workers have no real choice (Marx, 1976).
I visited a garment factory where women worked twelve-hour
shifts sewing clothes for export. They earned perhaps 8,000 rupees monthly. The
clothes they made sold for 3,000 rupees each in foreign stores. A single
garment represented nearly half their monthly wages, yet they sewed dozens
daily. Where did the value go? Mostly to the factory owner, international
brands, and retailers. The workers who created value received a tiny fraction.
Marx's critique of capitalism remains powerful. Inequality
has grown dramatically in recent decades as he predicted. In India, the richest
1% own 40% of wealth while the bottom 50% own just 3%. During the COVID
pandemic, billionaires increased their wealth by 35% while millions fell into
poverty (Oxfam India, 2021).
However, Marx's solution - revolutionary overthrow and
centralised planning - failed in practice. Socialist experiments in Russia,
China, and elsewhere created authoritarian regimes that suppressed freedom
while failing to achieve prosperity or equality. Party bureaucrats became the new
ruling class.
These failures led many to conclude Marx was entirely wrong.
But I think the truth is more complex. Marx's critique remains valid even if
his solution failed. The alternative is democratic socialism: strong labor
rights, progressive taxation, public services, and welfare systems within
democratic frameworks protecting freedom (Wright, 2010).
R.H. Tawney and Democratic Equality
R.H. Tawney (1880-1962) deeply influenced my thinking
through "Equality" (1931). Tawney distinguished between functional
inequalities and privilege inequalities. Functional inequalities reflect
different social roles - doctors and patients, teachers and students. These are
necessary and acceptable. Privilege inequalities are based on property
ownership, inheritance, or social status. These are unjustified and harmful
(Tawney, 1964).
This clarified my confusion about merit and reward. Is it
wrong to pay doctors more than clerks? Tawney would say: It depends. If the pay
difference reflects training costs, responsibility, and work difficulty, it may
be functional. But if it becomes so extreme that doctors live in luxury while
clerks struggle, it crosses into privilege inequality.
Consider CEO pay in India. Top CEOs earn 300-400 times the
median employee salary. Is this functional? Do they contribute 300 times more
value? Obviously not. This extreme inequality reflects power, not function.
What struck me most in Tawney was his moral seriousness
about equality. He did not treat it as one policy preference among others, but
as a fundamental requirement of human dignity. A society that tolerates extreme
inequality treats some people as worth less than others. This is morally
intolerable regardless of economic efficiency arguments (Tawney, 1964).
B.R. Ambedkar and the Caste Question
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1891-1956) is the Indian thinker who
influenced me most profoundly. Reading "Annihilation of Caste"
changed not just my understanding of equality but my entire worldview
(Ambedkar, 2014).
Ambedkar was born into an "untouchable" Mahar
family. Despite extraordinary intelligence and earning doctorates from Columbia
University and the London School of Economics, he faced constant caste
humiliation in India. Teachers refused to touch his papers. Classmates would
not sit near him. Even success could not escape caste (Jaffrelot, 2005).
These experiences shaped Ambedkar's understanding of
inequality as not just economic but also social and spiritual. Caste created a
hierarchy of human worth that no economic reform could address without directly
confronting caste itself (Ambedkar, 2014).
He distinguished three types of equality: legal, political, and social. India's Constitution, which he primarily drafted, guaranteed legal and political equality. Article 14 promised equality before the law. Article 17 abolished untouchability. But Ambedkar knew this was insufficient. He wrote: "Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy" (Ambedkar, 1949). Social democracy meant breaking caste barriers in daily life - in dining, marriage, worship, and social interaction. Without this, legal equality would remain formal, not real.
I grew up in a Brahmin household that claimed to be progressive and caste-blind. We quoted Ambedkar and praised the Constitution. But we did not practice what we preached. We would not eat food cooked by Dalits. We discouraged friendships with Dalit families. Inter-caste marriage was unthinkable. This hypocrisy troubled me increasingly as I understood Ambedkar's critique. Ambedkar exposed how the upper castes claim to oppose caste while maintaining caste practices. We support reservations in principle, but resent actual beneficiaries. We praise legal equality while practising social discrimination.
In 2016, Rohith Vemula, a brilliant Dalit PhD student at the
University of Hyderabad, committed suicide after facing casteist
discrimination. His suicide note read: "My birth is my fatal
accident" (Vemula, 2016). Despite seventy years of constitutional
equality, a talented young man felt his Dalit birth was fatal. This showed the
limits of legal reform without social transformation.
Part 4: Liberty, Equality, and Their Tensions
Isaiah Berlin's False Choice
Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997) distinguished between negative
liberty (freedom from interference) and positive liberty (freedom to achieve
self-mastery). Berlin worried that positive liberty could justify oppression.
Governments might claim to know people's "true" interests better than
people themselves (Berlin, 1969).
This happened in communist countries. The state claimed to free workers from capitalist exploitation while denying them freedom to speak, travel, or choose work. Berlin concluded we should focus on protecting negative liberty and let individuals pursue their own conception of a good life (Berlin, 1969). Reading this, I initially agreed. The government claiming to know my true interests seems patronising. But Berlin's position increasingly bothered me. He acknowledged poverty limits liberty but insisted this is not a political problem. The state only needs to ensure that no one actively prevents poor people from acting. It need not provide resources enabling them to actually act.
This seemed absurd. If I am starving, telling me I am
politically free because no law prevents me from eating provides cold comfort.
I need food, not formal freedom. Berlin's position serves the wealthy. They
have the resources to exercise negative liberty effectively. The poor lack these
resources. Focusing only on negative liberty tells the poor: "You are free
in principle. Your inability to exercise freedom is your personal
problem."
Charles Taylor (1985) critiqued Berlin powerfully, arguing
that negative and positive liberty cannot be separated. Real freedom requires
both absence of interference and presence of capacity. I agree with Taylor. The
state should prevent interference and enable capabilities.
T.H. Green and Positive Freedom
Thomas Hill Green (1836-1882) developed positive freedom
concepts that transformed my understanding. Negative freedom means the absence of
interference - I am free if no one stops me. Positive freedom means the presence of
capacity - I am free if I can actually do what I value (Green, 1986).
Consider education. Negative freedom means no law prevents
anyone from attending school. India has this - education is legally open to
all. But positive freedom asks: Can people actually access education? Do poor
families afford school fees, books, and uniforms? Can Dalit children attend without
facing discrimination? Can girls attend if safety and social norms constrain
them?
Millions of Indian children have negative freedom for
education but lack positive freedom. Laws do not bar them, but poverty,
discrimination, and social barriers do.
Green argued that the state has a responsibility to create
conditions for positive freedom. This means not just protecting rights but
actively enabling people to exercise them. The state should provide education,
healthcare, regulate working conditions, prevent exploitation, and ensure basic
welfare (Green, 1986).
During the COVID lockdowns, millions of migrant workers lost
employment instantly. They had negative freedom - no one prevented them from
working. But they lacked positive freedom - there were no jobs available. They
walked hundreds of kilometres to their home villages, some dying on the way. The
government's responsibility was to provide support, which it did inadequately.
This showed both the necessity of state intervention and the
difficulty of implementing it well. Green helps me see that real freedom
requires both negative and positive dimensions.
Part 5: Contemporary Challenges and Future Directions
John Rawls and the Veil of Ignorance
John Rawls (1921-2002) revolutionised political philosophy
with "A Theory of Justice" (1971). Rawls asked: What principles would
rational people choose if they did not know their position in society? Behind
this "veil of ignorance," not knowing whether you would be rich or
poor, talented or disabled, what would you choose? (Rawls, 1971).
This thought experiment transformed my thinking. I initially
thought: "I support policies benefiting educated, middle-class people like
me." But Rawls asked: What if you did not know you would be born into
these advantages? What if you might be born poor or disabled?
Behind the veil of ignorance, rational people would choose
principles ensuring decent lives regardless of circumstances. You would not
risk severe deprivation just to allow unlimited wealth accumulation by the
fortunate (Rawls, 1971).
Rawls proposed two principles. First, equal basic liberties
for all. Second, social and economic inequalities are just only if they benefit
the least advantaged (the difference principle) and attach to positions open to
all under fair equality of opportunity (Rawls, 1971).
The difference principle especially intrigued me. Inequality
is acceptable if it improves the position of the worst-off. If paying doctors
more attracts talented people to medicine, benefiting patients, including poor
ones, this inequality is justified. But inequality that merely enriches the
wealthy without benefiting the poor fails the difference principle.
This framework helped me evaluate policies. Do reservations
for backward castes benefit the least advantaged? Yes, they improve
opportunities for historically oppressed groups. Therefore justified. Do tax
cuts for the wealthy benefit the least advantaged? No, they concentrate wealth
while cutting social programs. Therefore unjustified.
Amartya Sen and the Capabilities Approach
Amartya Sen (born 1933) transformed how we understand
equality and development through his capabilities approach. Sen observed that
equality debates typically focus on equality of what - income, wealth,
resources, opportunities? Different answers lead to different conclusions (Sen,
1992).
Sen proposed focusing on capabilities - what people can do and be. Equality means equal capability to achieve valuable functionings
like being healthy, educated, politically active, and socially respected.
Resources are means to capabilities, not ends themselves (Sen, 1999).
Consider disability. A disabled person might need more
resources than an able-bodied person to achieve the same mobility. Income equality would be insufficient. Capability equality requires
addressing specific needs (Sen, 1980).
Sen collaborated with economist Jean Drèze to study India's
development failures. Despite decades of GDP growth, India lagged behind much
poorer countries in health and education. Bangladesh, with half of India's per
capita income, had better health outcomes. Kerala achieved near-universal
literacy and high life expectancy through public services despite being poor
(Drèze & Sen, 2013).
This showed that capability development depends on
deliberate public policy, not just economic growth. Countries and states that
invested in universal education, healthcare, and social security achieved
better human development regardless of income levels.
I saw this in my city during economic liberalisation. New
shopping malls, luxury apartments, and expensive cars appeared. But slums
expanded, child malnutrition persisted, and government schools deteriorated.
GDP growth coexisted with capability deprivation for millions.
Part 6: Practical Pathways Forward
Learning from Scandinavia
Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark
demonstrate that substantial equality is achievable without sacrificing freedom
or prosperity. They combine strong unions, progressive taxation, comprehensive
welfare, and active labor market policies (Pontusson, 2005).
The results are impressive. These countries have low poverty
rates (under 10%), small inequality (Gini coefficients around 0.25-0.27), high
social mobility, excellent health and education outcomes, and high happiness
levels. They show that Hayek's choice between freedom and equality is false -
with proper institutions, we can have both.
Critics note these countries are small, ethnically
homogeneous, and wealthy. Their model may not scale to large, diverse countries
like India. They face challenges from immigration, globalisation, and ageing
populations. But their success demonstrates that democratic socialism works
better than either pure capitalism or authoritarian communism.
What India Can Learn
India faces unique challenges - extreme diversity, massive
population, colonial legacy, and deep-rooted caste and gender hierarchies. But
we can draw lessons from successful approaches:
First, invest in basic capabilities. Kerala achieved
remarkable human development through universal public education and healthcare
despite limited resources. Other states can replicate this by prioritising
capability development over GDP growth.
Second, strengthen labour rights. Most Indian workers
lack basic protections. Strong unions and labour laws in Scandinavia ensure
decent wages and conditions. India needs similar protections while avoiding
bureaucratic rigidity that stifles employment.
Third, implement progressive taxation effectively.
India's tax-to-GDP ratio is low, and tax evasion is widespread. Effective
progressive taxation can fund public services and reduce inequality. This
requires political will and administrative capacity.
Fourth, reform reservations thoughtfully.
Reservations have helped millions, but face legitimate criticisms. Excluding the
creamy layer, providing support beyond quotas, and improving basic education
can make affirmative action more effective and legitimate.
Fifth, address social inequalities directly. Legal
equality is insufficient without social transformation. This requires
challenging caste practices, gender discrimination, and religious prejudice
through education, enforcement, and cultural change.
My Personal Journey Forward
Understanding equality intellectually is one thing. Living
according to that understanding is another. I struggle daily with this gap.
I benefit from inherited advantages - upper-caste status,
family wealth, quality education, and social networks. These advantages were not
earned but inherited. What is my responsibility?
I try to use advantages for social benefit - teaching,
writing, volunteering. But this is insufficient. Charity does not address
structural injustice. I need to support systemic changes that reduce my
relative advantages - progressive taxation, reservation policies, labour rights,and public services.
This is uncomfortable. It means accepting policies that
benefit others at some cost to people like me. Higher taxes, increased
competition for opportunities, and social transformation are challenging my community's
practices.
But discomfort is necessary. Equality requires those with
advantages to give up some relative privilege. Not out of guilt but out of
justice. We did not earn our advantages, and others did not deserve their
disadvantages. Creating fair conditions requires rebalancing.
I also try to examine and challenge my own prejudices.
Despite progressive beliefs, I carry caste and gender biases absorbed from
family and society. Becoming aware of these and working to overcome them is an ongoing struggle.
Finally, I try to remember the woman at the government
hospital. Philosophy and policy debates can become abstract. But inequality has
real faces - the sick child, the desperate mother, the student who drops out,
the worker who goes hungry. Keeping these human realities central grounds
theoretical discussions in what matters: reducing suffering and expanding human
flourishing.
Conclusion: Equality as Ongoing Struggle
Equality is not a destination but a journey. No society has
achieved complete equality, nor should we expect to. Some inequalities reflect
natural differences and individual choices. Others serve beneficial purposes by
rewarding merit and effort.
The goal is to eliminate unjust inequalities that prevent
people from living decent lives and developing their potential. This requires
constant vigilance because new forms of inequality emerge even as old ones are
addressed.
The great thinkers discussed in this essay offer valuable
insights, but none provides complete answers. Plato and Aristotle remind us
that difference and hierarchy exist, but their acceptance of existing
inequalities as natural was wrong. Rousseau and Marx showed how social
structures create inequality, but their solutions had serious flaws. Mill and
Berlin emphasised liberty's importance, but they underestimated how inequality
destroys freedom for the disadvantaged. Ambedkar and Gandhi highlighted different
aspects of equality's moral imperative.
We must draw on these insights while recognising that
equality must be pursued through democratic deliberation, not imposed by
intellectuals or rulers claiming to know best.
In India today, we face massive inequalities of caste,
class, gender, religion, and region. Our Constitution promises equality, but
reality falls short. We have made progress - untouchability is illegal, women
can vote and own property, reservations provide opportunities, and welfare programs
help the poor.
Yet challenges remain enormous. Dalits still face
discrimination and violence. Women still face patriarchy and harassment. The
poor still lack basic necessities while the rich live in luxury. Digital
divides exclude millions. Climate change threatens to create new inequalities
as the poor suffer most from environmental damage they did not cause.
Addressing these challenges requires sustained effort from the government, civil society, and individual citizens. It requires balancing
competing values like liberty, efficiency, and stability while prioritising
justice. It requires evidence-based policies that actually work rather than
feel-good gestures. It requires honesty about tradeoffs and limitations rather
than utopian promises.
Most importantly, it requires commitment to the fundamental
principle that every human life has equal worth and deserves equal respect,
regardless of birth, achievements, or circumstances. This principle, recognised
by every major religion and philosophy, remains our best guide as we work
toward a more equal world.
The struggle for equality continues. Each generation must
take it up anew, addressing the inequalities of their time while building on
past progress. We are the current generation in this long struggle. The
question is whether we will rise to meet it.
References
- Ambedkar, B. R. (1949). Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume 11. Retrieved from https://www.constitutionofindia.net
- Ambedkar, B. R. (2014). Annihilation of caste: The annotated critical edition (S. Anand, Ed.). Navayana. (Original work published 1936)
- Aristotle. (1999). Politics (B. Jowett, Trans.). Batoche Books.
- Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. PublicAffairs.
- Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In Four essays on liberty (pp. 118-172). Oxford University Press.
- Drèze, J., & Sen, A. (2013). An uncertain glory: India and its contradictions. Princeton University Press.
- Green, T. H. (1986). Lectures on the principles of political obligation and other writings. Cambridge University Press.
- Jaffrelot, C. (2005). Dr. Ambedkar and untouchability: Fighting the Indian caste system. Columbia University Press.
- Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy, Volume 1. Penguin Books.
- Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998). The Communist Manifesto. Oxford University Press.
- Oxfam India. (2021). The inequality virus: India supplement. Oxfam India.
- Pontusson, J. (2005). Inequality and prosperity: Social Europe vs. liberal America. Cornell University Press.
- Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
- Rousseau, J. J. (1992). Discourse on the origin of inequality. Hackett Publishing.
- Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In Tanner lectures on human values, Volume 1 (pp. 195-220). Cambridge University Press.
- Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Harvard University Press.
- Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
- Tawney, R. H. (1964). Equality. Unwin Books.
- Taylor, C. (1985). What's wrong with negative liberty. In Philosophy and the human sciences: Philosophical papers 2 (pp. 211-229). Cambridge University Press.
- Vemula, R. (2016, January 17). Suicide note. The Indian Express.
- Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias. Verso.