9

Principle of Equality

Introduction: Equity, Equality and Egalitarianism

In the last two chapters, we have discussed principles of liberty and rights. Individuals require rights and liberties for self-realization, development of human faculties or for self-mastery and carrying out their actions rationally and freely. Rights guarantee liberties and set limits of intervention by public authorities in the actions of the individuals and groups. For example, freedom of speech also means freedom of press and this puts limits on public authorities in regulating press. Liberty and rights, however, necessarily lead to a third principle in political theory, which is of equality. Equality determines how rights are to be distributed amongst the individuals as citizens and groups, whether equally or unequally. If unequally, then what are the grounds for unequal treatment? An answer to this makes equality an important factor in distributive justice.

Principle of equality also provides a framework of how the state or public authority defines its relationship with the individuals, citizens and groups. On what grounds the State or the public authority relate with citizens, individuals and groups unequally. When we talk of equality, we imply different meanings at different times. The important aspect is that different dimensions of equality (economic, legal, social, political, natural and gender) affect each other and insistence on one dimension or the other depends upon the perspective one adopts. In the liberal perspective, legal and political equality may be emphasized more than, for example, economic equality. On the other hand, in a socialist and Marxian framework emphasis is more on economic equality. A feminist would argue that gender equality is vital while in a caste divided society like India, it could be argued that social equality is more essential, if other dimensions are to be meaningful.

Equality, which means state of being equal, is derived from the Latin word, aequus/aequalis, meaning fair. It signifies ‘having the same rights, privileges, treatments, status and opportunities’. Equality is treated as something that relates to distributive principle because of which rights, treatments and opportunities are distributed amongst the beneficiaries in a fair manner. ‘Fairness’ however does not mean all to be treated equally in all circumstances. In fact, it very well means unequal treatment for those who are unequal. Essentially, it relates to the principle of justice because justice requires fair distributive principle. However, justice also demands that those who are equal should not be treated as unequal and the unequal as equal. This means distributive justice requires a principle of equality in which unequal distribution is effected to ensure the principle of equality. For example, the state should not tax a poor and a rich equally or it should not have the same policy of entry criteria for public employment for a normal and a physically challenged person.

Equality is also at times compared with equity, which has its origin in the same Latin word, aequus meaning fair. However, equity has come to signify fairness of actions, treatments, or general conditions characterized by impartiality, fairness and justice. Generally, equality is considered as a substantive principle while equity as procedural; equality is understood in terms of result, equity in terms of process. For example, equity requires that everyone should have equal opportunity of employment or education or being represented while seeking justice or defending one's right in the court of law. However, this in itself may not translate into equal employment or equal education or equal representation. This may happen because of the absence of or lack of conditions that otherwise would have enabled equal opportunity being translated into a substantive result. For example, as a landless poor person, I have neither adequate education nor certain employment. But as a citizen of India, I have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and also to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India [Article 19 (d) and (e)]. I decide to exercise my right as a citizen and migrate to Delhi for employment. After all, I have to survive, as I cannot commit suicide, which is a crime in law. Imagine the fate, an uneducated, unemployed individual not entitled to commit suicide has reached the capital! Since I do not have enough money to buy a ticket, I decide to travel ticketless; since I have no place to reside I start staying under an over bridge and since I cannot feed myself but by stealing bread from a shop, I do that frequently. These are all crimes punishable by exemplary grace of the law. How, otherwise, am I suppose to exercise my right provided by the Constitution of India? What Constitution provides is procedural equality, that you will not be obstructed from exercising your right provided you have means to do that. However, if means are lacking—money to buy a ticket, place to reside in Delhi or money to buy food, equality of opportunity is mere procedural not substantive. In this context, we can say that there is no equality of right between a poor individual travelling ticketless, sleeping under a bridge and stealing bread from a shop and a rich individual who stays in a farm house, moves in a big car (though he does not pay tax because he is a farmer and we respect farmers as they are the backbone of the food security) and eats in a five or may be seven star hotel. It was this dilemma that the French novelist, Anatole France ridiculed in his The Red Lily. He ridiculed the ‘equality of the law which forbids the rich and poor alike to steal bread and to sleep under bridges.’¹

Egalitarianism, derived from French égalite or égalitaire, i.e., equal, is the belief that all people should enjoy equal social, political and economic rights and opportunities. Egalitarianism believes that equality is the primary political value and it encompasses a variety of positions that argue for equality. However, neither equality nor equity nor egalitarianism advocates uniformity. Uniformity derived from the French word uniformes, means ‘having one form’ or being the same as one another, identical or of similar quality, characteristic, etc. Equality is about distribution or apportionment of rights, opportunities or outcomes and not about sameness or uniformity. Equality as a political principle is related to distribution of political, economic and social values and is linked with the conception of justice.

Formal Equality, Procedural Equality and Substantive Equality

Equality is fairness in distribution or apportionment of political, economic, social and legal values such as rights (e.g. right to information or right to vote), opportunities (e.g. opportunity to education, employment, etc.), or outcomes (e.g. equal wage for equal work). Equality can be procedural or substantive. Procedurally, equality stands for equality of opportunity irrespective of the outcome, for example, equality in getting employment or education. Substantive equality stands for equality of outcomes, for example, equality of wage between male and female for equal hours of work. Equality may also be understood in terms of ‘equality before law’ or ‘equal protection of law’, i.e., law treats everyone equally irrespective of caste, class, religion or race. This is formal equality. As such, we have three types of equality—formal equality, i.e., ‘equality before law’, procedural equality, i.e., ‘equality of opportunity’ and substantive equality, i.e., ‘equality of outcome’.

Formal Equality

Equality has meant different things to different people in history. Its meaning has changed accordingly. For example, as Emile Burns says, ‘In the Greek city states, the idea of the equal rights of men did not apply to slaves.’² Similarly, the slogan of ‘equality’ contained in the French Declaration appropriately meant equality of the rising capitalist class with the lords and the landed gentry. Equality as a principle found its place in the French and American Declarations. This is in the sense that ‘men are created equal’ or ‘are equal in rights’. This equality is based on natural rights theory where inalienable rights and their equal availability to all men are supported. Equality is supported because the rights available naturally are to be equally available to all. Equality is treated here as an endowed value and is supported based on very essence of human beings. Equality is equality of endowed natural rights. Heywood terms this as ‘foundational equality’, which he says, means ‘people are equal by virtue of shared human essence.’³ In other words, each person must be treated equally because of their essence as human beings and as carrier of natural rights. Initially, foundational equality was not understood in terms of equal opportunities. Thus, natural rights assumptions imply that they are available equally to all human beings.

A second meaning of equality in the formal sense, relates to ‘equality before law’. Legal equality of persons/individuals is based on the conception of juristic personality. Bentham used the Utilitarian principle to argue for legal equality—’everyone is to count as one and nobody as more than one’.⁴ He sought to subject the principle of equality to the criterion of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Moreover, to judge the greatest number, it requires each individual being treated as having equal worth in terms of utility. Bentham supported legal equality for the purpose of legislation that should be based on the principle of utility. Bentham and other jurists who gave primacy to law as the source of rights and liberty advocated equality in legal terms.

If this were the case, we can also infer that each being counted as one implies that gender or any other social differentiation is immaterial for consideration of equality. Utilitarian principle is easily a ground for gender equality, but probably it was not so vocal. In fact, J. S. Mill in his essay, The Subjection of Women, argued for gender equality and provided a statement of liberal feminism. Mill argued that ‘male and female endowments or natures are uniform, and observed differences between the genders altogether (are) cultural in origin.’⁵ He gives a clear statement of the need for gender equality. He says, ‘the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes—the legal subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.’⁶ In Mill, we find a principle of equality, which admits legal equality irrespective of gender. If we take into account the argument of natural rights as equally available to all irrespective of gender, Bentham's argument of equal worth of each individual and Mill's argument of gender equality, there is no ambiguity as to why equality amongst genders in terms of voting rights, equal wages, etc. should have taken so long to be realized. Natural rights theory, Utilitarian doctrine and Mill's liberal feminism, all provide sufficient philosophical and moral foundation for gender equality.

Equality before the law as a principle of formal equality is a legal concept. It admits no distinction amongst individuals on cultural, gender, linguistic, natural, racial, religious, social, other such grounds. Utilitarian, Bentham and analytical jurist, Austin provided a strong ground for legal equality as a concept. The juristic concept of sovereignty as a source of law, rights, liberty and legislation involve that legal equality of individuals should be admitted as the principle for defining the relationship between the state and the individual. In fact, equality before the law provides a legal framework through which equality in distribution of rights (as Charter or Bill of Rights) or Fundamental Rights amongst individuals is ensured. It also helps regulate the conduct of individuals as well as the state and its officials. Rule of law is closely associated with legal equality and it means law should rule. Under rule of law, ‘law establishes a framework to which all conduct and behaviour conform, applying equally to all members of the society, be they private citizens or government officials.’⁷ Law secures equality of all while dealing with an individual.

The Indian Constitution under Article 14 provides for ‘equality before the law’ or the ‘equal protection of the laws’ to all persons. This is a statement of formal equality and gives meaning to what Preamble seeks to ensure in terms of ‘equality of status and of opportunity’.⁸ This also means that laws of the land will apply to all equally and there should not be discrimination on grounds of birth, caste, colour, gender, language, race, religion, etc. In fact, Article 15 of the Constitution substantiates Article 14 further by prohibiting any such discrimination. Equality before the law and equal protection of the law have been further strengthened in the Indian Constitution under Article 21. It ensures that ‘No person shall be deprived of his (her) life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law’. This means that a ‘reasonable, fair and just’ procedure should be followed for depriving a person of his/her personal liberty and life. It admits no arbitrariness, discriminatory procedure or unequal treatment for different individuals.

However, formal equality, though important, does not necessarily translate into either equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes. This may happen due to two main factors. One, many socially, psychologically, behaviourally and culturally institutionalised customs or attitudes would continue to deny such equality, and second, in the absence of economic and material conditions, formal equality may never be translated in outcomes. Despite formal equality in terms of equality before the law, culturally determined attitudes of men towards women in many parts of India, or for that of persons of one religion or language or caste towards that of the other still could be different than desirable. Secondly, lack of material and enabling conditions hampers enjoyment of formal equality, as one cannot translate the opportunities in reality.

Procedural Equality

Equality of opportunity relates to initial conditions or circumstances with which people start and seek various facilities, rights and outcomes. Equality before law or equal protection of law provides legal conditions of enjoying equal access to various facilities and means. Formal equality implies equality of human beings as possessor of rights and liberties or equality before law as juristic personality. On the other hand, equality of opportunity relates to level playing field in initial conditions or circumstances. In this way, it is not merely a matter of equality before the law, but also provision of such initial conditions, which help start on equal footing. For example, if education is important for employment, equality of opportunity of employment necessarily requires that there is corresponding equality of education. If there is no equal access to education, the equality of opportunity to employment is no equality.

At times, equality of opportunity may lead to the opposite of what formal equality requires. Formal equality requires equality before the law or equality of human beings. However, equality of opportunity requires that everyone should have an equal starting point, irrespective of results. In this, it is not enough to say that a child who has money to get admission in a school and a child, who does not have, enjoy the same equality of education. To the extent that there is no explicit prohibition on a particular ground, equality of the law gives equality of access. This may be formal equality. On the other hand, equality of opportunity demands that both the children at least should start on equal footings in terms of admission in school. If one does not have money to get admission, a level playing field requires that assistance of the State should be given. Advocates of equality of opportunity maintain that this is required primarily because social, economic and other existential circumstances facilitate some to start much ahead of others. Many lag behind not because of their natural talents and intelligence but because of their initial conditions.

Equality of opportunity, in essence, requires that there should be state intervention to mitigate certain initial inequalities which arise due to various factors: (i) social inequality such as caste and other forms of discrimination, (ii) economic inequality including inheritance and property rights, (iii) geographical location such as urban or rural location, (iv) family background such as educated or uneducated, etc. Without any prejudice and only as an illustration, let us take an example. Is there equality of opportunity between the son of a rich person having inherited his father's property, employed with a multinational corporation and settled in Delhi with the son of a landless poor person, seasonally employed and settled in a remote rural corner of India? Have the two equal opportunity to get education or employment unless there is external assistance for the second?

It is generally recognized that a liberal constitution will neither abolish inequality of property nor inheritance. In such a condition, the option available to ensure equality of opportunity is to adopt a policy of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination is also known as reverse discrimination or affirmative action. This means discrimination amongst those who are unequal to ensure equality of opportunity. It implies that if those, who are unequal, are treated equally as formal equality requires, it will lead to inequality. Here, equality of opportunity implies compensating for initial inequalities. In India, Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds such as race, caste, sex, etc. and Article 16 provides equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. However, both these Articles have exceptions to their general provisions and ensure positive discrimination for women, children, socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in education, employment, public offices, etc. Apparently, this is in recognition of the social injustice that prevailed historically in caste terms. In USA, positive discrimination or affirmative action has been adopted against the racial discrimination of blacks. Equality of opportunity relates to compensating for inequality arising either due to social, historical or economic disadvantages. It seeks to ensure that initial starting point provides equality and level playing field. However, it is not concerned with equality of outcomes.

Substantive Equality

Substantive equality or equality of outcomes may be treated as a very radical end of egalitarianism. While formal equality seeks legal equality and procedural equality seeks equality of initial circumstances, substantive equality looks for equality of outcomes. While equality of opportunities is concerned with initial conditions, equality of outcomes is concerned with results. Equality of outcomes may be of resources such as education, employment or equality in material and welfare terms such as wages, living conditions and other welfare outcomes. Most of the welfare measures and redistributive policies of the governments in terms of social and welfare policies are intended either to provide equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes. For example, equal wage for equal work seeks equality of outcome for both male and female; reservation in employment and education for socially and educationally backward sections in society is aimed at providing equality of opportunity.

Many have argued that desire for equality of outcome is ill-founded. This is because equality of outcomes is against basic human differences in talent, skill, aspirations and desires. This is also undesirable as it would be travesty to treat equal, unequally and unequal, equally, as Aristotle would say. The Marxian perspective would argue that substantive equality can only be achieved based on economic equality and that can be achieved only in a socialist society.

A Brief History of Equality and Inequality

Historically speaking, concept of equality or inequality has been always debated. While Plato thought of and advocated inequality originating in the form of three classes—representing the philosophic mind, the courageous spirit and the acquisitive stomach, Aristotle emphatically argued for slavery as representing accumulated wisdom of generations. Equality, as we understand today, was not the same during the Greek, Roman or the medieval times. As Emile Burns says, equal rights of men did not apply to slaves in Greek times.

Sabine is of the view that it was the idea of harmony or proportion, which was fundamental in the Greek idea of the state. The idea of harmony or proportion was a measure of civil quality and equality might not have been the concern. As we know, even Aristotle, who defended slavery, argued for balanced city-state and extolled the virtue of middle class as one of balancing factor between extremes of richness and poverty. However, this was more due to the concern for proportion or harmony than equality. On the other hand, Greek society had no dearth of those who supported equality amongst men. Significant amongst them were statesmen and literary persons such as Pericles and Euripides and schools of the Sophists including Antiphon and the Stoics. Euripides (Greek tragic dramatist, 480–406 BC) in his Phoenician Maidens makes Jocasta say, ‘Man's law of nature is equality’.⁹ Sophists denied the assumptions that slavery and nobility of birth were natural. Orator, Alcidamas protested against slavery and inequality and stressed that ‘God made all men free; nature has made no man a slave.’¹⁰ In the third century BC, Stoics led by Zeno and Seneca argued that human beings possess reason and are united without any difference. On this basis, they advocated natural equality of all men and opposed slavery.

Rome's famous statesman and political thinker, Marcus Cicero (106–43 BC), who was a senator, advocated a composite state consisting of the three elements—the monarchical element represented in the consuls, the aristocratic element or patricians represented in the senate and the plebeians or the common people represented in the tribunes. Like Aristotle's polity with a predominant middle class as a balancing factor, Cicero's composite state is also aimed at providing a balanced Roman state as a solution to class differences.¹¹ Instead of equality, balancing different class elements was the focus of both Aristotle and Cicero. As such, idea of proportion was given more importance than the concept of equality. However, equal participation by free men in public life was considered a virtue. The Greek extolled it and the Romans struggled for it. In 212 AD, the famous Edict of Roman Emperor, Caracalla conferred Roman citizenship on all non-slave or free inhabitants of the empire.¹² This was a significant concept in terms of political equality in an empire, though by no stretch of imagination like what we understand of political equality today in a democratic state.

During the Roman period, slavery was the important source of labour. Slavery manifested in many forms including the gladiatorial activities and its promise of liberation. Spartacus, a Roman slave and a gladiator in Capua before being suppressed in 71 BC and his thousands of men killed, had rebelled and headed a slave insurrection in 73 BC in southern Italy. He advocated equality based on the colour of blood of all men. In fact, Spartacus's revolt, which is known as the Third Servile War, was the third in the series of revolts of slaves. In 134 BC, the leader of slaves, Eunus, led the First Servile War in Sicily, which was suppressed in 132 BC. Two other leaders of slaves, Tryphon and Athenion, led the Second Servile War in Sicily in 104 BC, which was suppressed in 101 BC.¹³

After the end of the Roman period, Christianity in Europe and Islam in Asia particularly, raised the voice for equality. However, this was mainly equality in terms of the religious affiliation and spiritual identity. As St. Paul said, ‘thou all one in Jesus Christ’ meaning that before God all are equal. This is like what Hobbes would say that the unity of the people consisted in the unity of the Sovereign or Leviathan. The unity of identity of the religious or spiritual community was the basis of equality. In Islam, the concept of universal Ummah based on equality of members promised a new perspective on equality. Nevertheless, equality in terms of the moral and spiritual consideration could not somehow suppress or root out economic and material inequalities that continued. Today, neither Christianity nor Islam can claim to have dealt with inequalities of its members. Variety of inequalities and differentiations continue. As such, religion as a moral and spiritual framework has not been able to provide a framework of material redistribution and hence equality as well. In fact, the very emergence of a movement in mid-eighteenth century in Europe and especially in Britain, in the name of Christian Socialism is a pointer to this. Christian socialism sought to commit the church to a programme of social reform and to help better the wretched condition of the working class. This was a pointer to the inadequacy of a mere religious-spiritual framework of equality. Christian Socialism acknowledges the importance of material factors as having ‘bearing on the ability to lead a truly religious life’.¹⁴

In India, inequality has historically manifested in terms of caste-based social hierarchy. caste-based social organization consists of Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. They have been arranged in vertical hierarchy. There can be two sets of interpretations regarding caste-based social organization in India. One may tend to treat these castes as classes based on occupational categories. Brahmans or priests or wise men leading a life of teaching, study and devotion, spirituality and ethical and moral guidance to the society could be one class. Kshatriyas or those, who are assigned the task of protecting others, leading a life of courage and valour, make another class. Vaishyas who are mainly agriculturalists, artisans, cultivators and those who are engaged in trade and merchandise constitute yet another class. Shudras who are labourers and unskilled workers, other than agriculturalists, constitute the lowest class. Jawaharlal Nehru in his, The Discovery of India interprets castes in terms of occupational or functional classes.¹⁵ However, there can be a different interpretation of the caste-based social organization, which may treat these castes not by their occupation but primarily by the way they are conceived to have originated. Abu Raihan Muhammad ibn Ahmad, popularly known as Al-Biruni, in his book, Tarikhu’l Hind (Enquiry into India) mentions that Scriptures treat castes by their origin. ‘Brahmana has been treated as originating from the head of Brahman, Kshatriya created from the shoulders and hands of the Brahman, Vaishyas created from the thigh of the Brahman and Shudras created from his feet.’¹⁶ Manu's Dharmashastra (The Laws of Manu) also known as Manusmrti, does provide an elaborate description of all.

Notwithstanding different interpretations about the caste system, at the bottom of this caste hierarchy, there is convergence in terms of economic and social deprivation. A member of an underprivileged caste invariably, also had been a member of the underprivileged class. Caste and class inequalities have coincided in such situations. Shudras in India represent a convergence of caste and class inequalities. Of particular attention is the practice of untouchability within the caste system, which prescribes rules of interaction, distance, pollution and social intercourse between the members of the upper castes and the section of Shudras categorized as untouchables. The practice of untouchability can be termed as a novel innovation of human mind in the history of inequality. It treats even casting of a shadow or touch of one human being to another as polluting, leave alone any meaningful social interaction. Untouchability has been a practice of not only social inequality but also of social exclusion.

In Europe and in India also, the medieval period is associated with feudalism. Feudalism is characterized by privilege and status-based social and economic order. Hierarchical order based on privilege, status and chain of obligations resulted in sub-infeudation and unequal socio-economic order. Feudal lords and serfs in Europe and zamindars and peasants and landless workers in India became the opposite classes. In Europe, clergy, nobility and aristocracy were the privileged classes and the rest of the people were treated as commoners and labourers. Privileges and status were based on birth and inheritance. In Europe, privileges to one group or class were against the interests of the other. The nobility, the vassal and the clergy had their respective privileges. In fact, political power and affairs of the state were also a matter of privileges. There was no concept of citizenship in either medieval Europe or in India. However, amidst the celebration of privileges, there were various uprisings by the oppressed peasants. It is reported by Braudel that there were various peasants’ uprisings in France (Jacquerie in 1358, Paris in 1633, Rouen, north-western France in 1634–9, Lyon, eastern-central France in 1623, 1629, 1633 and 1642) and in Germany (in 1524–5). The conditions of peasants in Europe during feudalism could be understood when we look at the plight in Bohemia where they were allowed to work on their own land only one day in a week, in Slovenia where they could work only 10 days in a year. The feudal system and its system of bonded-service had no place for equality for all.¹⁷

Post-Renaissance Europe witnessed a demand for various forms of equality—social, political, legal and economic. One can argue that emergence of liberal-democratic ideas of individual liberty and rights and the concept of contract have contributed to the conception of equality—legal and political. This provided a break from the medieval privilege and status-based socio-economic order. Emergence of the commercial and mainly the industrial class challenged the power and privileges of the feudal classes in Europe. However, the American Declarations of Independence and the French Declaration of Rights were declarations of equality of the rising bourgeois class with the landed and aristocratic class. The 1789 French Declaration which declared that ‘Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights’, though landmark in the history, only promised the equality of liberty of the emerging capitalists with that of the landed bourgeoisie. The peasants at land and the working class of the emerging industrial economy were still to fight for their equality. Socialist movements in Europe in the nineteenth century brought to forefront the demands for economic equality that the liberal-capitalist framework had so far ignored. The socialist movements were declarations of the equality of the working class with the rest.

During the eighteenth century in Europe, various thinkers and writers advocated and argued for equality. Jean Jacques Rousseau, for example, in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality maintained that rise of property ownership and possession led to the conception of ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ and contributed to the emergence of inequality. He drew a distinction between natural and conventional inequalities. While natural inequality (or natural differences) being physical is beyond one's choice, conventional inequality arises out of inequality of wealth, power, resources and privileges in civil society. Conventional inequality being a product of social arrangements should be dealt with. Rousseau feared that ‘material inequality would lead, in effect, to the enslavement of the poor and deprive them of both moral and intellectual autonomy.’¹⁸ Rousseau celebrated the genius of man and his innate goodness and protested against slavery. He said that to decide that a son of a slave is born a slave is to decide that he is not born a man. Though Rousseau and others such as Condorcet supported equality amongst humankind, equality as a principle of economic organization did not have its firm root at that point of time. Condorcet as a philosopher of ‘progress’ believed that progress would follow such a line in which ‘the elimination of class-differences’ would also occur. Explaining further, Sabine opines that Condorcet expected that ‘within each nation it is possible to remove the disadvantages of education, opportunity, and wealth which inequalities of social class have imposed on the less fortunate.’¹⁹ Comparing Rousseau and Condorcet, we can say that while Rousseau gave a critique of progress to oppose inequality, Condorcet used progress as an argument for bringing equality.

Seventeenth-eighteenth century doctrine of natural rights and social contract had given a concept of civil and political equality of men. Social contract implied equality of all to enter into contract and enjoy equal political rights. The concepts of natural rights, contract, consent, limited and representative government, citizenship, etc. laid the foundation for political equality. However, this was limited to the emerging capitalist class, and that too, to the men. It was J. S, Mill, in the nineteenth century, who introduced an element of caution. He pointed out the danger of majoritarian tyranny standing in the way of smooth operation of political equality where majority suppressed the minority's political view. Alex de Tocqueville, whose famous work Democracy in America (1835–40) focused on development of democracy, was of the view that ‘its (democracy) main tendency was to produce social equality, by abolishing hereditary distinctions of rank, and by making all occupations, rewards and honours accessible to every member of society.’²⁰ However, Tocqueville felt that at times passion of democracy with social equality might be harmful to liberty of individual. In this context, he found equality and individual liberty in conflict.

The nineteenth century is particularly significant for two reasons. On the one hand, analytical jurists and legal theorists, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, provided arguments for legal equality, on the other hand, socialist thought led by Karl Marx pitched for economic equality. Bentham's utilitarian principle of each as one (in counting the greatest happiness of the greatest number) provided the legal basis for social legislation. The need for legal equality was given primacy because the rising bourgeois class needed legal protection for securing parity with the nobility and landed aristocracy. Economic equality was never a requirement of this class, as industrial and commercial ownership provided economic power. Socialist thought, in the shape of the Marxian doctrine, provided unequivocal demand for economic equality, as it was needed for securing the rights of the working class. It may be appropriate to mention here that the nineteenth century demand for economic equality could trace its link to what FranÇois Babeuf, the French revolutionary, is identified with—’Conspiracy of Equals’. Babeuf raised his voice for economic equality for the working men and planned insurrectionary activities²¹ before he was killed in 1797.

R. H. Tawney, a British social philosopher, in his book, Equality (1931), has discussed the primacy given to legal equality over economic equality during the nineteenth century in Europe. He has also argued that equality and liberty are compatible. Eighteenth-century Europe was mainly concerned with legal and political equality. This was important because demand for legal equality enabled the rising capitalist class to fight privileges enjoyed by the aristocracy and nobility. Demand for political equality helped them seize the power of the state. As Tawney points out, the class system in France and Germany was characterized not only by disparity of wealth and income but also legal status.²² Wealth, in any case, was available to both the classes, it was legal sanction to the privileges that the feudal aristocracy enjoyed that made the difference. Tawney mentions that legal privileges of the feudal class were attacked first and demand for ‘uniformity of legal rights’ was raised.

However, it was only in mid-ninteenth century that revolution in France demanded economic equality. Formation of communes in the 1870s and the influence of the socialist thought triggered widespread voice for equality. The Marxian thought raised the issue of economic equality and the associated question of abolition of private property. Other movements—Syndicalism and Guild Socialism, did favour and fight for economic equality. The ninteenth century also witnessed demand for political equality for those who were hitherto excluded from voting rights. Prominently, demand for equality in terms of extension of right to vote for women came up. In July 1848, Elizabeth Cady Stanton organized a women rights’ convention in New York, which demanded equality of right to vote for women. The convention also demanded property rights, admission to higher education and church offices, on equal terms.²³ Political equality in terms of voting rights to all, equal right of all to hold public offices, and equality of citizenship evolved in three stages. Firstly, the bourgeois class secured political equality vis-á-vis landed aristocracy; secondly, the working class demanded political equality against the privileges of the capitalist classes and thirdly, women demanded political equality. An important event in the ninteenth century was the abolition of slavery in America through the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1965. The question of economic equality witnessed its stronger voice in communist revolutions in the early twentieth century.

In the colonial relations with the British Empire during the ninteenth and the first half of twentieth century, Indian people did not have political rights and the question of political equality did not attract much attention. Demand and struggle for self-government and political rights for Indians was a long drawn and gradual process. The concept of citizenship was absent and Indians were in a colonial relation with the British power. However, with measures in the field of social legislation and workers’ related legislations, the British introduced a framework of legal equality amongst the Indians. Uniform legal codes (CrPC, IPC, etc.), social legislations and other such measures introduced a framework of legal equality. It was only after the introduction of the Constitution of the Republic of India in 1949 that the concept of political, legal, social and to some extent, economic equality could be enshrined.

In the twentieth century, struggle for equality has manifested in different forms. Demand for civil, economic, political and social equality has been raised all over the world. Socialist revolutions in Russia, China and many other countries in the early part of the twentieth century were the culmination of the concept of economic equality. The Constitution of India abolished the practice of untouchability and made it a punishable crime. This is a measure of social equality. In Africa, the white-dominated National Party enforced a state policy of racial segregation and discrimination against the black inhabitants. This policy of racial segregation and discrimination between the white and the black is known as apartheid (Afrikaans word meaning ‘apartness’). It was based on racial purity and white supremacy. Led by Nelson Mandela, black resistance to apartheid regime continued until the 1990s. After the African National Congress (ANC) took over the government in 1990s, apartheid was abolished. Abolition of untouchability in India and apartheid in Africa has provided equality in terms of human dignity and access to other social and material resources. In the post-Second World War, Martin Luther King, the black civil rights activist, led the struggle for civil rights to blacks. They fought against what he says ‘manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination’.²⁴ The twentieth century has also witnessed struggle for gender equality. Gender equality in terms of equal rights to vote, empowerment in terms of inheritance, employment and public offices, sexual freedom, etc. has been sought. In India, the Constitution provides gender equality in all aspects of social, political and public life. Various measures have been initiated for empowerment, such as certain level of ensured representation in public offices in local level governments, tax-related exemptions, coparcener in inheritance, protection in terms of civil rights, etc.

Meaning of Equality

Our survey above helps us: (i) differentiate between equality and other similar concepts such as equity or identity of treatment, proportion or balance, uniformity, etc. (ii) make a distinction between formal, procedural and substantive equality; and (iii) locate different dimensions of equality such as civil, economic, gender, legal, natural, political, racial, social, etc. Equality is an important political ideal that has been used to determine how rights, liberties and various publicly available resources such as welfare and social benefits would be distributed amongst the people. Equality is principle of such a distribution, both for individuals and groups. However, equality does not mean merely equity or uniformity of treatment or similarity in appearance or being identical. Both Laski and Tawney recognized complexity of the issue involved in defining equality in a precise manner, as it contains more than one meaning. Rousseau's differentiation between natural and conventional inequalities meant that certain forms of inequalities are beyond human regulation but some others are a creation of civil society. Equality has been demanded at different stages of history involving a variety of justifications. Stoics argued for natural equality of human beings; Spartacus raised a voiced for equality based on colour of blood; equality of birth has been argued for seeking parity with those who claimed superior birth; anti-slavery, anti-apartheid, anti-untouchability movements invoked the criteria of human dignity; the socialist and communist movements demanded ownership of means of production as measure of equality; and in contemporary times, we have active demand for gender equality irrespective of naturally and biologically conditioned differences.

There can be differences in the emphasis on the ideal of equality. This could be due to the socio-political and economic organization. For example, in a liberal-capitalist society, equality would mean equality before law and at most equality of opportunity. It concentrates more on equity in the sense of fairness of action and procedures, chances and opportunity. It is not concerned with equality of outcomes or results but only equality of opportunity. R. H. Tawney was critical of the concept of equality of opportunity and termed it as ‘tadpole philosophy’. According to this, ‘all may start out from the same position but then left to the vagaries of the market; some will succeed but many will fail.’²⁵ Slightly different from the equity-based idea of equality could be welfare-based arguments. Welfare state would generally address the issues related to redistribution of not only initial chances but also the outcome or results. It is observed that equality of initial conditions or a fair play or level playing field in the beginning, may also lead to inequality of results. A welfare state seeks to take care of those who are left behind due to variety of factors such as the operation of free and private players, difference in skills and talent or may be physical and mental challenges. A welfare state seeks to employ equality of outcome arguments or at least redistributive arguments to avoid extreme inequality of results. On the other hand, in a socialist society, social ownership of means of production seeks to remove economic inequality by the means of social ownership of resources, chances and offices. Here, equality is not sought as a matter of procedure and opportunities, but by social ownership of means of production. However, some may argue that socialist countries seek economic equality at the cost of other ideals or principles such as political rights, civic freedoms, etc.

Within the liberal fold, there is a pluralist position, which argues for autonomy of and equality amongst various groups, the State not being an exception. It argues for group autonomy and accordingly for recognition of individuals as members of these autonomous groups. This means individuals affiliated to different organizations, associations and groups could be treated differently if parity amongst various groups is to be maintained. For example, an individual as a mosque or temple or church-goer requires different rights and liberty than he or she requires as a lawyer, doctor or as painter or dancer. For a pluralist, State and other social, religious, political, cultural and professional associations should be treated at par for the purpose of their control and regulation over individuals. Another school supporting the multicultural perspective argues that there may not be need for the State to relate to all its citizens based on equality of treatment. This is because, it argues, to bring individuals belonging to or having affiliations with different cultural, social and religious backgrounds into the mainstream of political and social processes and the public domain, all must be treated as having different identities.

An important consideration for the concept of equality in modern times has been treating individuals as citizens in a democratic set-up. The State and public authority treats individuals as equals and applies all laws and rules of the state equally to them. Extension of franchise to all eligible adult citizens, application of rule of law to all, equality before law, equality of opportunity to all eligible candidates in the field of education, employment and holding public offices, absence of discrimination based on any socio-cultural identity in public places, etc. are a result of individuals identified as citizens and not as particular X, Y, Z. However, this does not exclude exceptions based on socio-cultural considerations. The basic thread of individual–state relationship is defined in terms of equality-based conception of citizenship.

Given different meanings attached to the concept of equality, it is difficult to define it precisely. Laski treats equality as a means to bring parity amongst the citizens so that no one's basic rights as citizens are denied. He says, ‘It (equality) means that my realization of my best-self must involve as its logical result the realization of others of their best selves.’ Laski speaks in terms of equality of conditions that citizens should enjoy for their self-realization. The same concern Rousseau also had voiced when he said that ‘no citizen shall be rich enough to buy another and none so poor as to be forced to sell himself’. In a utilitarian context Bentham's idea, that ‘every one is to count as one and nobody as more than one’ in deciding the worth of each and happiness of the greatest number, relates to equality amongst individuals. Equality is a conception, ideal or principle in political theory that also helps us decide how the relationship of each individual is to be defined in terms of the sharing of resources—economic and material, rights, or happiness. These resources are vital for either self-realization or human dignity or what Amartya Sen would call, ‘expansion of freedom’. This may involve equality before law, equal protection of law, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, positive discrimination for ensuring parity, etc. Equality also means absence of special privileges to few.

R. H. Tawney holds that equality and liberty are compatible and argues that equality requires that liberty of others should be regulated because ‘freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.’ In this sense, equality means coordinated freedom for all and not complete freedom to few and absence of it to others. Tawney also echoes the view of Rousseau and Laski that equality means absence of extremes of capacity and incapacity.

To clarify the meaning assigned to equality as a concept, we may summarize the characteristics of equality as follows:

• Equality can be understood in positive as well as in negative sense: In a positive sense, equality means presence of enabling conditions, opportunities, and benefits that help equal enjoyment of rights by all. While equality in a positive sense envisages legal, political, economic and civil equality and the welfare state, equality in negative sense requires primacy of democratic values and social equality. Harold Joseph Laski, considering equality in negative and positive sense, describes equality as involving:²⁶
  1. End of special privileges
  2. Absence of social and economic exploitation
  3. Adequate opportunities open to all
  4. Equal access to social benefits irrespective of birth and heredity

  While conditions at (a) and (b) above are examples of equality in negative sense, (c) and (d) are examples of equality in positive sense. Equality, as such requires that whatever resources, rights and liberties the state makes available to citizens must be conferred in an equal manner. It does not admit conferring special privilege on some or discriminating against others. In other words, it implies absence of privileges to few and presence of opportunities for all. Further, to ensure that adequate opportunities are available to all including those who are impaired due to lack of material and economic resources or any other disability or incapacity, there could be provision for a level-playing field in the initial period.

• Equality neither means identical/niform treatment nor absolute equality: Equality does not mean absolute equality of each in all aspects. It also does not mean identical treatment to all. In fact, equal treatment of all would be the very negation of the conception of equality. It requires that equals must be treated equally and unequal unequally. Justice requires that those who are unequal should be treated accordingly for the purpose of distribution of rights and public resources. Tawney elucidates this aspects when he says ‘…the sentiment of justice is satisfied, not by offering to everyman identical treatment, but by treating different individuals in the same way insofar as, being human, they have requirements which are same, and in different ways insofar as, being concerned with different services, they have requirements which differ.’²⁷

  It would result in inequality if, say a person earning one lakh rupees per month and another earning Rs 20,000/- per month are taxed equally. Taxation in India, for example, is aimed at redistributive justice besides being a source of revenue to the government. In short, as Heywood says, for social democrats, equality is understood in terms of distributive equality rather than absolute equality. Generally, in liberal and welfare states, equality is advocated as a goal for equality before law or at the most, equality of opportunity. This means equality in terms of distribution of rights and access to various opportunities. In the Marxian framework, inequality is understood in class terms, which arises from private ownership of means of production. Abolition of private property, class conflict and bourgeois state could be the only basis for achieving meaningful equality. So search for legal, civil and political equality without social ownership of means of production is irrelevant.

  A related aspect to the idea, that equality is not about being treated in identical or uniform manner, is the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable or morally or functionally acceptable and unacceptable inequality. We should not confuse the issue of equality as a principle of distributive justice with that of functionally useful differentiations and division of labour. There cannot be an argument on the fact that everyone is neither capable nor required to do the same thing nor does one need similar things. What is being insisted here is that despite all differentiations—inequality of merit, skill and talent and division of labour—political and social process in the end should not result in extreme of inequalities. As such, though reasonable distinction and inequality is accepted and in fact would be useful for society, justice requires redistribution to ensure extreme of inequalities do not occur. As history has taught, extreme of inequalities have always propelled revolutions and widespread social cleavages and disturbances.

  Further, though absolute equality may not be the end, there are certain aspects of social and political life that in fact require concept of absolute equality to be adopted. For example, equality, which aims against racial and caste discriminations, or against gender bias could be pursued in terms of absolute equality.

• Equality as a principle of distributive justice: Equality is generally treated as an important aspect of justice. Further, equality is derived from the principle of rights. This is because if a set of rights have been provided to the citizens, principle of equality requires that they should be distributed in such a way that it does not result in advantage to few at the cost of disadvantage to some others. Equality before the law requires that when law or legislation provides rights or imposes duties, these rights and duties should be equally applicable to all. Unequal application is admitted when it serve the purpose of equality.
• Equality as a derivative value of the development of personality: Equality is thought as a desirable value and is prescriptive in nature. Prescription for treating all human beings equal, for example, comes on various grounds. One of the important grounds invoked is the dignity of human beings. All human beings possess reason and are rational beings. This means they all should be treated equally as far as distribution of rights is concerned. Ernest Barker in his Principles of Social and Political Theory treats equality as a derivative value, which, he says, is derived from the value of the development of personality. Development of personality implies that there is capacity inherent in an individual that needs to be provided with conditions for realization. According to Barker, each person is recognized as a legal personality and each legal personality is treated equal to every other legal personality. Thus, in law all legal persons are to be treated equal. The state seeks to ensure equal condition for making best of oneself by providing legal equality. It seems Barker suggests that by recognizing legal equality, the state in fact provides an equal chance to all individuals as moral persons for their self-realization. However, the outcome may eventually differ because of difference in what we make of ourselves. Barker feels that in a liberal sense, equality as a principle is concerned with equality of opportunity in the beginning and not equality of results. For example, all rights and conditions should be allocated equally, though it may happen that some using these rights and conditions can travel much ahead than others.

  However, Barker recognizes that legal equality in itself is not sufficient and social and economic inequalities distort realization of equality in a legal sense. He mentions that legal equality has been followed by demand for political and economic equality. Political equality in terms of expansion of suffrage, right to hold public offices, etc. to a wide section of society including women has come true due to the spread of democratic ideals. Economic equality is sought to be achieved through, what Barker says, welfarism. He further opines that the welfarist principle relies on two economic methods to achieve economic equality: one, limiting accumulation of wealth by differential taxation of income, and second, by regulating and raising the wages of poor and workers and public expenditure. However, Barker acknowledges that economic equality in this sense is based on the policy of progressive correction of economic inequality to suit the cause of legal equality. As such, economic equality is not aimed at bring substantive economic redistribution through social ownership of means of production, as the Marxian position seeks.

• Equality as a principle of social engineering and revolutionary change: Historically, demand for equality, either legal or political or economic, has been associated with certain revolutionary changes. The rising capitalist class raised their voice for legal and political equality against the powerful landed and aristocratic elements. The Declaration of Rights of Man as culmination of the French Revolution and its slogan for ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ declared that ‘Men are born and always continue free and equal in their rights.’ It was the idea of equality—equality of the rising capitalist class with the nobility and aristocracy that propelled the revolution. Similarly, the voice of those who sought economic equality through social ownership of means of production and abolition of class conflict culminated in socialist revolutions. Equal rights to suffrage to women have also resulted in social change. Further, the idea of equality of outcome or equality of results means that the state would be required to interfere in social and political process, without which equality of outcomes would be difficult to achieve. This requires, what some reject as ‘social engineering’.²⁸

  Many thinkers support liberty and reject the claim of equality as inimical to liberty. Prominent amongst them are Hayek, Friedman, Nozick, etc., and they insist that search for equality of outcomes or results is inimical to liberty. They reject any social engineering for redistribution of resources and wealth that has been produced in a market situation based on individual talents, skills and abilities. On the other hand, positive liberals, advocates of welfare state and social democrats, such as Laski, Tawney, Barker and others support the idea of social engineering for achieving meaningful equality.

Dimensions of Equality

In our brief survey of history of equality and inequality, we have located various dimensions of equality such as civil, economic, gender, legal, political, racial, social, etc. One may also add natural equality as one more dimension as it appeared in the declarations after the American and the French Revolutions. By dimension of equality, we mean the aspects or spheres in which equality could be possible or is demanded for. No one demands or agitates for equality of physical appearance or equality of religious dispensation that all religions must worship the same God or in the same manner, etc. This means there are reasonable expectations for equality in certain aspects and reasonable acceptance of inequality in certain others. We will discuss briefly various dimensions of equality, their justification, evolution and relevance for political ideal of equality.

Civil Equality

The word civil is derived from the Latin word civilis or civis, which stands for citizen. This relates to each citizen as individual rather than as member of a community. Historically, the Romans had the concept of civitas. This means the community of people who enjoyed rights and performed duties and is akin to the concept of citizenship of today. We have hinted earlier that the conception of citizenship links the members of a society with the public authority, the state and the law in a manner where each is treated as a juristic personality and equal. This provides basis for political community in which citizens and public authorities are linked with certain rights and duties. Civil equality stands for equality in which each citizen is provided with equal civil rights and liberties.

Equality in the ‘civil’ sense applies the secular criteria of citizenship to relate individuals with rights. It excludes any other criteria of identifying individuals for the purpose of distribution of rights. Further, civil equality also implies equality of all citizens to have their conscience. This means equality of religious rights such as the right to believe and profess a religion. While equality of right to contract provides basis of economic transactions and economic relations on equal terms, equality to have a conscience results in equality to have religion or not to have a religion. Civil equality in the Indian context may require that a uniform civil code should be formulated for all citizens. However, the multi-religious context and need for respecting the practices of all religions, requires respecting a variety of practices that are civil in nature. For example, one can argue that civil equality does not mean that all members have equality to marry in a particular way or wear clothess in similar way or give divorce in the same manner. The argument for any such parity must go beyond the civil equality argument and invokes bases such as human rights, gender equality, human dignity, etc.

Nevertheless, civil equality is the basis of equality of citizens and a political community, which is based on equality of its members in terms of rights and liberties. It is important for the success of democracy and operation of the principle of political majority. Principle of political majority requires that it should consist of equal citizens and not a permanent or fixed majority based on religious identity or majority based on caste or race. Equal citizens, not their social, religious or any other identity, are basis of political majority. Civil equality is also important in sustaining a nation-state based on secular identity. Citizens are members of a political community irrespective of their social affiliations. Civil equality helps create citizens out of social affiliations. For example, in a court of law or in terms of voting rights, one is not differentiated because of their origin or social affiliations. The basic assumption of civil equality is citizenship.

Legal Equality

Civil equality means equality as citizens. Nevertheless, civil equality is based on legally available rights and liberties. Legal equality is a juristic concept and implies equality before law. Hobbes, Bentham and Austin advocated a concept of legally defined rights and duties of those who are members of a political community. This means that law treats all members of the political community as equal juristic personality. For example, two members of a family when they go to a court of law for a decision on an issue relating to inheritance, the court of law treats them as equal juristic personality or claimants to begin with. This means both are recognized as having equal claim, have equal right to represent and defend and equal right to property. Thus basic assumptions in legal equality are: (i) equality before the law, (ii) rule of law, (iii) each person as juristic personality, i.e., individuals as legal entity not as X, Y, Z.

Equality before the law means law treats everybody as equal and neither discriminates against nor confers special privileges. It is, as the Indian Constitution vide Article 14 provides, equality before the law and equal protection of law. However, this does not mean that reasonable distinction will not be made. Law make exceptions to the general rule of legal equality but that too to make reasonable distinction on behalf of women, infants, minors, mentally and physically impaired, etc. In extraordinary situations, law also admits reasonable restrictions on legal equality and may treat individuals differently. For example, in India, under a particular Act, equality before the law and equal protection of law has not been available as it deals with national security, terrorism, law and order.

Historically, the Romans had the concept of lex, i.e., law, as the basis of defining public affairs and the state. Law was considered as the basis of Roman rule and state power.²⁹ However, it was in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, during the English and the French Revolutions in Europe that the voice for legal equality arose. The emerging capitalist class asserted their claim for legal equality against the aristocratic class and the nobility. Legal equality demanded by the emerging classes was aimed at abolition of special privileges and benefits enjoyed by the aristocracy and the nobility. Particularly, the American and the French Declarations extolled the virtue of equality of men. The American Declaration mentioned that ‘all men are created equal’ and the French Declaration announced that ‘men are born and remain free and equal in rights’. This assertion of equality could be interpreted in two ways: firstly, as a laudable normative assertion that all human beings are equal in their dignity and worth, and secondly, as assertion of the rising class against the already dominant and well-entrenched aristocracy and nobility. In either case, it was an assertion for equality in the formal sense that became the basis for legal equality. Legal equality asserted that no special privilege should exist.

Rousseau in his Social Contract identified legal equality as the main characteristic of civil society. Jeremy Bentham, the Utilitarian philosopher who is also known as the father of modern legislation, advocated legal equality. ‘Each to count as one’ was the principle for both legal equality and utilitarian calculation of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. It does not admit special privilege for some or discrimination against others. Barker in his Principles of Social and Political Theory states that each legal personality is equal to every other in terms of legal capacity. He treats legal equality as main principle of allocation of rights as guaranteed conditions. Rights are to be guaranteed to each and all in the same measure. He points out that legal equality connotes the condition and not the end product. Equality as a principle means equality of opportunity and not equality of results. However, Barker is of the view that legal equality is always conditioned by social and economic criteria. He feels that divergence between legal equality and social and economic equality is inimical to the realization of legal equality. In fact, socio-economic factors had influenced extension of legal equality to the poor, the slaves, and even women. Women have been denied equality under the law regulating suffrage for a long time even in England. In India, we find women have not been provided with the right to inherit property and it is only recently that coparcener rights have been introduced.

Legal equality does not guarantee equality of treatment by the law. Even equal access to law is also arguably in doubt due to monetary implications. It cannot be true that a rich and a poor person have equal access to law. What we mean here is that to defend and represent one's case, one has to employ a lawyer. It is understood that everybody cannot boast of equal access to law if there is no equal access to the persons through which you reach the law. Capacity to employ a lawyer is an important consideration as far as the ‘equal access to law’ principle is concerned. Economic inequality cannot be ignored and equal access to law assumed. Even the provision of a public lawyer or public prosecutor and legal aid does not provide much help to the poor. Further, legal equality by no means guarantees that socially and culturally entrenched discriminations will be over. In fact, Karl Marx in his On the Jewish Question pointed to the limitations of legal and civil equality to ensure absence of racial discriminations.

However, this is not to deny the importance of legal equality. Firstly, legal equality makes the rule of law possible. This means law rules and everybody is subjected to the dictates of the law. This is a significant concept for the dealing of public officials and the state as legal entity with the citizens as legal entities. It makes it possible for a citizen to seek remedy against the unlawful activities of the state or public officials. Rule of law is also considered as an important factor in the development of constitutionalism. Secondly, legal equality abolishes special privileges and discriminations based on caste, birth, religion, race and such other factors. To this extent, it brings equality of persons as legal entity. It provides a secular basis for the state to relate to the members of the society as citizens. Thirdly, concept of legal equality also provides basis for contract and contractual rights and obligations. The hallmark of feudal or ancient social and economic relations was status-based rights and obligations. This means there were hierarchical rights and obligations and not equal rights and obligations. Legal equality provides the basis for contract-based relations. Contractual rights and obligations are useful for the operation of commercial, economic and market transactions, property rights and protection of intellectual rights.

In brief, we can say that legal equality provided a break from the status-based relations of feudalism by replacing it with a contractual relation. It provides a basis for rule of law, abolishes discriminations and special privileges and provides a concept of legal personality to each person. However, legal equality is not sufficient and requires social and economic equality. It is important to note that Tawney, Barker and many others recognize that equality was first demanded in its legal dimension followed by political and economic equality.

Political Equality

When Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg address on 19 November 1863 in the thick of the American civil war, he expressed his anguish and pain, apprehending whether the nation could endure such a long such a civil war. Optimistically, he ended his address saying a few words that have come to be closely identified as the principle of democracy and political equality. He said ‘that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people’, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from earth.’³⁰ The ‘government of the people’, by the people and for the people’, suggests that citizens constitute the government and government exists for them. It implies principle of political equality. However, if Leslie Lipson (The Great Issues of Politics) has to be believed, ‘normally and customarily the many have been governed by the few for the benefit of the few’. Political equality is an ideal to be pursued if a government has to be based on equality of political rights of the citizens and is representative of people's aspirations.

Political equality generally means two things: (i) equality in terms of political relations as citizens having equal political rights irrespective of birth, caste, gender, religion, gender, etc.; and (ii) equal distribution of political power and influence. In the first, we do not seek political equality as father and son, or doctor and patient but as two citizens. This necessarily involves concept of citizens having equal political rights and equal political rights become the basis of political equality. In the second, a democratic government is envisaged. Political equality includes:

• Equality of voting rights—’one person, one vote’ and extension of suffrage to all eligible citizens irrespective of their social, economic, gender and other affiliations—universal suffrage.
• Equality in terms of forming political associations and expressing political views.
• Equal rights to get represented.
• Equality in contesting elections and holding public offices (of course, there can be positive discrimination in favour of underprivileged to compensate for previous deprivations such reservation of seats for women in Panchayati Raj Institutions in India).
• No special privilege to a few to rule, e.g. democratic government.

It is understood that demand for legal equality was followed by demand for political equality or the two emerged simultaneously. R. D. Raphael, for example, has suggested that demand for equality during the French Revolution was also for ‘removal of arbitrary privileges, such as that which confined political equality to the rich and the well-born.’³¹ R. H. Tawney (Equality) and Ernest Barker (Principles of Social and Political Theory), amongst others, suggest that demand for legal equality preceded political equality. Historically, Greeks and Romans though may not have the idea of citizenship that we understand at present, people were equally participative in political life. Barring, slaves Greeks enjoyed civic freedom for political participation. All Greeks, except slaves, were equal participants in the matters of the city-states. During the Roman period, participation and representation from the three elements of the Roman society—’the monarchical element, the aristocratic element (patricians) and the democratic element (plebeians), were embodied in the Consuls, Senate and the Tribunes’.³² During the medieval period, there was no concept of political equality as feudalism was based on status and privileges. Further, political equality could not be expected when divine rights of kings to rule were invoked.

Development of the concept of political equality in modern times has been influenced by many factors:

• Firstly, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the English, the American and the French Revolutions contributed to the development of the concept of political equality by espousing equality of rights of individuals. In this, the natural rights doctrine also played important role as it talked about equality of rights;
• Secondly, the social contract theory by assuming equality of all to enter into contract, as Locke said, to institute a government as a trust, contained the seed of the concept of political equality. It discredited the divine rights doctrine, which used to invoke hereditary right to rule;
• Thirdly, emergence of democracy as a form of government provided an over all sense of political equality. Alex de Tocqueville, in his book, Democracy in America observed about the consequences of democracy. He says, ‘its (democracy) main tendency was to produce social equality’,³³ social equality in terms of abolition of hereditary distinctions of ranks, privileges etc. Political rights and privileges were also based on social privileges and demand for social equality implicitly contained the seed of political equality as well;
• Fourthly, the concept of citizenship provides the basis for political equality. While legal equality means equality of individuals as juristic personality, political equality means equality of individuals as citizens. A citizen is a politically determined individual who possesses political rights. A layman or laywoman may pronounce that he or she is not interested in politics, interpreting politics in terms of pettifogging and skulduggery or alleged manipulation by politicians or corruption. However, for a student of political studies it is intriguing to reconcile how can one be disinterested in politics and be a citizen? Some may say that this is a puritanical view of citizenship and to enjoy political rights one need not be interested in politics. To say the least, the latter view is at best a view of citizenship with political apathy. One cannot be a member of the political society or modern nation-state without being a citizen of that nation-state. By virtue of being a citizen, one enjoys equal political rights. To be a citizen with equal political rights, one should be a politically motivated citizen. To be a politically motivated citizen is not only equal to indulging in politics as we understand, but to even be sensitive to one's voting rights, choosing the leader consciously through whom one is represented in the legislature, being participative in the public issues, etc.

Concept of universal citizenship is a modern democratic concept. However, selective endowment of political affiliation upon inhabitants had been witnessed in empires and sultanates also. In AD 212, Roman Emperor, Caracalla conferred Roman citizenship on all non-slave or free inhabitants of the empire. However, in a few sultanates and kingdoms ruled by Muslim rulers, people belonging to religions other than the religion of the ruler had to pay a compulsory toll tax called Jaziya. Those inhabitants who professed religion other than that of the emperor or the king paid this tax to maintain political affiliation with the state. However, this practice was based on political inequality of inhabitants on the consideration of different religions. Hitler stands out as a rare example who, in 1935, deprived the Jews of German citizenship. In short, universal citizenship as a modern democratic concept is manifestation of political equality.

While, factors such as doctrine of individual and natural rights, democracy, citizenship, etc. led to demand for equality, this demand has been raised in phases by different sections of society. Three phases or waves of demands for political equality could be identified. Firstly, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the rising capitalist class made demands for political equality. They sought political equality with the entrenched aristocratic class and the nobility. For example, the Reform Act, which was introduced by Lord John Russell in 1831 in the British Parliament and passed in 1832, resulted in redistribution of the existing parliamentary seats to give representation to new urban areas, which developed through the industrial changes. C. F. Strong is of the view that ‘in doing this it enfranchised the new capitalists.’³⁴ However, politically, equality early on was not political equality for all. There were certain property and even religious conditions for voting rights and office holding.³⁵ Secondly, the capitalist and industrial economy also produced a large working class, though without political rights. If this sounds cliche, let us see what Chartism stood for. In England, between 1837–48, the working class led a movement for social and political reforms known as Chartism based on People's Charter. This aimed at securing improvements not only in living and educational conditions of the working class but also adult suffrage and franchise reforms, payment for Members of Parliament, equal electoral districts and voting by ballot.³⁶ However, it was through Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 in England that lodgers in the towns and agricultural labourers were enfranchised.³⁷ The second wave of political equality relates to extension of voting and other political rights to the industrial working class and the agricultural labourers. Thirdly, political equality could not become a reality for women even until the dawn of the twentieth century. Adult franchise could be extended to women in Britain only during the First World War. In fact, the focus of the feminist movement during the mid-ninteenth century had been emergence of women's suffrage movement.³⁸ Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an anti-slavery and women rights activist had organized a women's rights convention in July 1848 in New York. The convention declared equality of men and women and demanded the right to vote, property rights and right to higher education and church offices.³⁹ Elizabeth declared that ‘the voice of women has been silenced in the state, the church, and the home …’ In the first half of the twentieth century, female suffrage was achieved in most Western countries. Thus, we can say that in practice political equality emerged in three phases.

Theorists, who uphold the elitist view of democracy, criticize the assumption of political equality that political power or influence should be equally distributed. Pareto, Mosca and Michels have shown political power as generally shared by elites and criticized the assumptions of equal dispersal of political power to masses/people. In the first half of the twentieth century, Schumpeter had shown that democracy is not about the rule of the people and in second half of the twentieth century, Robert Dahl in his books, Who Governs? and Polyarchy showed that democracy is nothing but elite rule. Harold Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan in their book, Power and Society have argued that power is never distributed equally. They say ‘if political equality were defined so as to exclude the existence of an elite, the concept would be vacuus.’⁴⁰ It is also alleged that in a democracy even consent and opinion is manufactured, as Schumpeter says. As per the elitist view, political equality in terms of dispersal of power could at most be achieved as circulation of elite and democracy as periodic elections for choosing from amongst the competing elites.

Most of Western countries under the liberal–capitalist system passing through the three phases or waves of demands for political equality (for bourgeoisie, working class and women) achieved universal suffrage, democratic governments, open public office, etc. by the first half of the twentieth century. However, for two groups of countries such as those, which came under socialist or communist rule and those, which were under colonial domination, political equality had different interpretations. In socialist countries, political equality was automatically assumed due to economic equality and more so due to the affiliation of each to the communist party. Here, political equality was not envisaged due to their citizenship but due to their being comrade and member of the communist party. The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot provide political equality to all, necessarily not to the remnants of the bourgeois past, ‘capitalist roaders’ and reactionaries. Question of political equality is also problematic in colonial relations. For example, Indians did not enjoy equality of political rights vis-á-vis, the British rulers. It was only in the twentieth century, some concessions were granted to Indians with respect to political equality. Indians were not citizens but subjects of the British Empire, they had no voting rights and later, when granted, these were limited. There was no democratic rule or dispersal of power. As such, colonial rule was not conducive to the conception of political equality. In fact, if we can recall, the slogan raised during the American independence war that no taxation without representation, was also a slogan for achieving political equality. In India, the demand for Swaraj was also a demand for political equality. In short, we can say that the conception of political equality has its limitations in colonial relations. After independence, the Constitution of India provides for universal adult suffrage, freedom to contest and hold public office or get represented, democratically elected governments,

The conception of political equality is important, as it is a condition for successful operation of a democracy. By putting equal worth—’one person one vote’, in each citizen, it helps in the operation of the concept of political majority and political minority. However, in certain conditions, adoption of a separate electorate, which gives dual voting rights, e.g. as a general citizen and as a member of a particular community, the concept of political equality is compromised. It is also argued that political equality in itself is not a sufficient condition of dispersal of political power unless socio-economic equality is also achieved.

Social Equality

As the term suggests, social equality signifies equal chance or opportunity to all for self-development as a human personality. It also envisages the absence of special privileges to anyone. Social equality means no one should be discriminated in the distribution of rights, privileges and opportunities based on birth, caste, religion, language, race, colour, gender or social status or similar social differentiations. Thus, social equality is a condition for meaningful enjoyment of civil, legal and political equality.

Demand for social equality can manifest in different ways. Demand for equality raised by the rising capitalist and industrial class in the eighteenth century Europe was aimed at rejecting special privileges enjoyed by the nobility and the aristocratic elements. Social equality could also manifest in the demand for provision of equal opportunity for acquiring capabilities and skills. Thus, social equality implies three main aspects: (i) removal of discrimination based on social status, (ii) absence of special privileges to few, and (iii) ensuring equality of opportunity in terms of acquiring education, etc. Social equality could be associated with ideas that developed under positive liberalism, social democracy and socialist thought in Europe. If we apply the doctrine of natural rights and human rights, the case for social equality becomes clear. The three famous declarations of rights have announced equality of rights to all human beings. The American Declaration announces that ‘all men are created equal’. The French Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizens speaks that ‘Men are born and always continue free and equal in their rights’. The UN Universal Declaration asserts for ‘inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family’. Their declaration of equality implies social equality as well. The basic premise of social equality proposed by such declarations is human dignity and equality as human beings.

However, different grounds for social inequality exist or have existed in history. Let us consider the following forms of social inequality which have been rejected and the demand for social equality raised:

• Slavery in Africa, West Asia, Europe and America
• Untouchability in India
• Racial discrimination against the Blacks particularly in the USA
• Apartheid in Africa
• White man's burden and colonial rule
• Social Darwinism as practised by Hitler against the Jews
• Gender-related inequalities and discriminations

Historically, slavery has been a time-tested means of labour. From the classical age to the twenty-first century, slavery has been used as a means to employ a section of humanity for extraction of surplus without remuneration. Aristotle justified slavery as not only a reflection of collective wisdom of generations, but also useful means for leisure of the master. On the other hand, Rousseau criticized slavery and argued against it because he felt that slavery is against the basic premise of being a human being. The Kantian philosophy that every individual should be treated not merely as means but also as an end would reject slavery as against humanity. Abraham Lincoln in the mid-nineteenth century became instrumental in abolishing slavery in the US.

Writing about development of slave trade, Braudel says, ‘The major phenomenon of the fifteenth century, and still more of the sixteenth, was the development of the trade in Black slaves.’⁴¹ He suggests that Black slave trade was prevalent between Africa and America in large scale and nearly 50,000 slaves reached America in the nineteenth century just before it was banned. Braudel further mentions that in 1830, the Sultan of Zanzibar claimed dues on 37,000 slaves a year. Most of slaves went to Cairo and Arabia. Looking at the scale of slave trade in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in both West Asia and Europe/America, as hinted by Braudel, one wonders at the history of human helplessness amidst the dawn of modernity and claims of doctrinal equality advocated by religions. It is agonizing that while liberal order and capitalist economy was rising in Europe and America, in the nineteenth century, claiming the stewardship of modernity and progress, it was not without usefully tolerating slavery. On the other hand, both Islam and Christianity, the two religions, which advocated equality, barely did anything than tolerating slavery in the land where they were being practised. Slavery, in whatever form or wherever it exists and has existed in the past, is the ultimate form of social inequality. This is not only because it is predatory means of extracting economic gains out of somebody but also primarily, to treat a human being merely as a means.

Historically, in India the extreme form of social inequality expressed was untouchability. Untouchability refers to a practice as part of the caste system, which defines the rules and codes of segregation and social intercourse between those who claim twice-born high caste status and those who are at the bottom of the caste system. It is a concept of purity and impurity. At times, the concept of impurity was taken to absurdity and it was argued that not only physical contact, even touch of the shadow of someone who is untouchable would be enough to make the high caste impure. This doctrine has its scriptural supports and many attribute this to Manusmrti or Dharmashastra (The Laws of Manu) written by Manu considered as an ancient sage and lawgiver. The practice of untouchability can be considered as an extreme manifestation of social inequality. India has now abolished untouchability and has made it punishable.

Manu in his Dharmashastra and Kautilaya in his Arthasastra have mentioned about slaves also. Manu mentions seven kinds of slaves and says that the property or earnings a slave has belongs to the master. Kautilaya however, provides certain protection to slaves against certain mistreatments such as deceiving, rape of female slaves, etc.⁴²

Black slavery and discrimination against Black people in USA has its own history. America took almost 90 years after its independence in 1776 to even abolish slavery on paper on 14 April 1865. After almost hundred years, on 28 August 1963, we see Martin Luther King speaking at Lincoln Memorial about the dream of fulfilment of the creed ‘…that all men are created equal.’⁴³ Fight against racial discrimination and social inequality against the black people led to civil rights movement under the leadership of Martin Luther King which resulted in the Civil Right Acts of 1964–5. While Martin Luther King was leading the black civil rights movement in America, of Africa, Nelson Mandela led a resistance movement against apartheid. He and his party, the African National Congress (ANC) opposed the policy of racial segregation and discrimination between the white and the black known as apartheid. Mandela was charged under Suppression of Communism Act in 1963 and was imprisoned for 27 years though he denied that he was a communist and described himself as ‘African patriot’. After his release, the ANC under his leadership abolished apartheid and established social equality that racial discrimination had damaged.

Colonial rule by design promoted social inequality and discriminated between not only the natives and the rules, but also within the groups of natives. Colonial rule conferred special privileges on a few and created social inequality or at times promoted the existing social inequality to their own benefit. During the colonial rule, a doctrine of supposed morally and religiously high position of the white Europeans was advocated in the form of white man’s burden. The doctrine of white man's burden implies ‘supposed responsibility of the Europeans and their descendants to impose their allegedly advanced civilization on the non-white original inhabitants of the territory they colonized.’⁴⁴ This was a doctrine of arrogated cultural, moral, spiritual and scientific superiority of white people. While colonial rule was the political arm of this doctrine, Christian missionary activities in those days provided the religious justification for its implementation. Besides the superior–inferior relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, the natives were designated differently to create social inequality, for example, designating a group of castes or communities as ‘martial communities’ and others, as ‘brigandage’. Anti-colonial movements rejected the arrogated civilizational burden of the white people and argued for self-rule and regeneration of national culture.

Racial discriminations and slavery of Black people has been a historical fact. A new form of racial hatred manifested in the form of Nazism practised by Adolph Hitler. Hitler advocated the idea of racial purity and superiority of the German race. Using this idea, he alleged that the Jews were corrupting the German nation. He even vehemently opposed communism by charging it as a Jewish conspiracy led by Marx. Racial hatred of Hitler was manifested in a very organized form and the Jews were tortured, suffocated and killed in concentration camps. The political culmination of his policy of racial hatred against Jews was the implementation of the Nuremberg Law, 1935, which amongst others, deprived Jews of German citizenship. Hitler advocated racial superiority of the German race and believed that Jews being inferior and corrupting must be wiped out. He was a practitioner of social Darwinism and held that the German race, being the fittest, must survive.

Gender Inequality as a Special Form of Social Inequality

One of the social inequalities is found in the form of gender-based inequalities. Initially, demand for gender equality was expressed for equal voting rights. Presently, opportunities in the field of education, employment, public offices, etc. and the economic process have led to a greater role of women in all aspects of society. It is argued that biological differences should not be made the basis of social and material differences and discriminations. Feminist movements have demanded equality in all aspects of life. Initially, demand for women's voting rights was raised in the mid-ninteenth century. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in America had organized women's rights convention in July 1848 and demanded the right to vote along with other rights such as property rights, and admission to higher education and church offices. Demand for equal political rights may be treated as the first phase of women's equality and rights movements or Women's Liberation Movements (WLM). In fact, the convention rephrased the American Declaration of Independence to read, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal.’⁴⁵ By the first half of twentieth century, political equality in terms of universal suffrage in most of the Western world and in many newly independent countries such as India had been achieved. In fact, the first phase of women's movement focused on demand for political equality and rights.

After the Second World War, the second phase of women's movement can be said to have begun. Women's equality and rights movement tend to understand ‘female subordination in terms of the unequal distribution of rights and opportunities in society.’⁴⁶ As we have mentioned earlier, Mill's liberal feminism as expressed in his essay, The Subjection of Women found its expression in liberal feminism. Liberal feminism treats gender inequality as a problem of redistribution of rights and opportunities. Betty Friedan, a liberal feminist in her book The Feminine Mystique examined the problem of frustration, despair and hopelessness afflicting suburban American women. This book is considered to have stimulated the second phase of feminism.⁴⁷ She ‘contented that deeply entrenched attitudes and social barriers imprison women in a “house trap".’⁴⁸ She argued against the myth of the ‘happy housewife’ and in a powerful speech in 1969, she proclaimed ‘abortion as women's civil right.

However, while women's equality and rights movement within liberal feminists’ framework is reformist, seeking reform in the public domain, the other variety of feminism is socialist feminism. According to Heywood, socialist feminism relates female subordination with the capitalist mode of production. It holds that any female's economic significance is confined to household and tending to male workers needs so that productive workforce for capitalist economy is made ready. Most influential writer on socialist feminism has been Juliet Mitchell, a New Zealand born British writer ‘who adopted modern Marxist perspective that allows interplay of economic, social, political and cultural forces in society.’ Her Women Estate is important work on feminism. Another writer within the socialist feminist fold is Shulamith Firestone, a Canadian author and political activist. She has used the Marxian perspective to argue that sexual differences stem not from conditioning but from a ‘natural division of labour’ and emancipation of women is possible if they transcend their biological nature. This means ‘use of modern technology such as test tube babies and artificial wombs.’⁴⁹

A third type of feminism is found in the form of radical feminism. Radical feminism goes beyond the two other perspectives and treats gender difference as the most significant division in society. It seeks restructuring in all aspects, personal, domestic, family and treats patriarchy as the most crucial culprit and proclaims sexual revolution. However, an extreme form of radical feminism also argues for countering male as enemy which at times gets expression in justification for lesbianism. Simone de Beauvoir, French writer of the famous book, The Second Sex and Kate Millett, US writer, who wrote Sexual Politics are supporters of radical feminism. They highlighted how masculine and patriarchy are treated as normal and taken for granted, while the opposite as women are treated as the ‘other’ and negative. Heywood, however, has argued that division of the feminist movement into liberal, socialist and radical, has become redundant due to emergence of more diverse trends after the 1970s such as black feminism, eco-feminism, post-modern feminism, etc.⁵⁰

Social equality is generally understood in terms of reduction of inequalities arising out of caste, class, gender, race, or such social differentiations. It has been argued that economic and urban development and state intervention have led to mitigation of extreme of inequalities and has resulted in social mobility. Many theorists have argued that many forms of social inequalities such as caste, class, gender and even racial, are subsiding due to industrial economy, increasing employment opportunity in service sector and urban lifestyle. However, it may be pointed out that culturally and attitudinally institutionalized behaviour and discriminations could not be easily rooted out from society.

Economic Equality

Economic equality may have different interpretations based on different perspectives. Primarily, economic equality is closely identified with socialist and Marxian thoughts. In the Marxian perspective, economic-based class inequality is the primary form of inequality that informs all other dimensions. Economic equality demands change in the basic structure of society as it seeks social ownership of the means of production. Thus, social ownership of the means of production, abolition of classes and abolition of private property are the main aspects of economic equality as per the Marxian perspective.

However, to completely identify economic equality with the Marxian perspective alone may not be appropriate. There is an alternative interpretation of economic equality, which draws from the liberal–capitalist perspective in which economic equality implies equality in choosing economic activity, trade or profession. There are two basic assumptions in liberal–capitalist notion of economic equality: (i) equal right to private property, and (ii) equal liberty of contract. Equality of private property is the basis of entrepreneurial activity and economic freedom. Liberty of contract is considered as the basic factor that provides equality in contractual obligations and rights. Even, relationship between the capitalist and industry owner and the wage earner and worker is considered as contractual relations based on equality of choice. The one who has the capital and means of production and the one who has labour come together. They contract with each other capitalist to provide wage and worker to provide labour. This constitutes economic transaction based on free choice and equality of contract. The assumption behind equality based on liberty of contract is that there is no fixed capitalist and/or wager earner. They all are subject to social mobility and circulation. Thus, there is no permanent economic inequality. One can move from the labour class to become a capitalist. However, the opposite is not generally emphasized much.

A third perspective on economic equality is of welfare-based measures. The positive liberal and welfare perspective takes a position, which moderates the Marxian, and the liberal–capitalist positions. While accepting that equal right to private property is retained and without establishing social ownership of means of productions, the Welfare perspective seeks to provide economic equality through a variety of redistribution mechanisms. It includes: (i) redistribution of income and wealth in society through the means of differential or progressive taxation (more you earn, more tax you pay as tax rates are as per income slabs), (ii) transfer payments to those who are unemployed or unemployable (e.g., in India, age-old pension scheme, guaranteed employment to unemployed under Rural Employment Guarantee Programme, etc.), (iii) support to needy in providing a level-playing field in education, employment, etc. (iv) regulation of industrial relations and working conditions, etc.

Thus, economic equality has been understood differently which includes equality of economic transactions at the one end and social ownership at the other. Criteria that could be applied to present economic equality in the two perspectives may be what Nozick at the one end and Marx on the other end say. Nozick presents a libertarian perspective and would like economic equality to be based on the criteria of ‘from each according to what he chooses, to each according to what he makes for himself (with the contracted aid of others)’. This means one is entitled to get what one creates after choosing the means. However, the Marxian dictum of distribution in communist system invokes a somewhat different criteria, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’. These are, of course, criteria of ideal distribution from libertarian and communist perspective, respectively. In reality, these are still to be applied and tested. What we get as economic equality is predominantly welfare-based initiatives and redistribution of income and other material benefits. It goes without saying that economic equality, or at least absence of extreme economic inequality, is very much required for successful operation of democracy. Aristotle had rightly desired that a predominant middle class, who makes a balanced state, is important for polity.

The Marxian diagnosis of economic inequality and class conflict in the liberal–capitalist society has been debated to test direction of his prediction. It has been argued that in the Western countries, a variety of social changes have occurred in class structure. The line of argument, that in Western industrial economies class inequalities as predicted by Marx and other Marxian theorists do not exist anymore, has been widely debated. James Burnham in his The Managerial Revolution argues that the ownership of means of production is no more with the capitalist class. This is because those who are managing the affairs of the industry and capital are not the same who have invested the capital. The separation of the owner and the manager of the capital have mitigated the Marxist rigour of conflict between the capitalist and the workers. Further, Raymond Aron, a political sociologist, while discussing Karl Marx in his book, Main Currents of Sociological Thoughts has argued that ownership of capital has become public. It means that shareholding of the companies and enterprises has become public and, in this way, industrial economies are no more based on the ownership of the capitalists in the sense Marx understood. German sociologist, Ralph Dahrendorf in his book, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society argues that working class is no more a class, as Marx understood. This is primarily because of what Dahrendorf says, ‘decomposition of labour’.⁵¹ By ‘decomposition of labour’, Dahrendorf draws attention to the differentiation of proletariat between manual, semi-skilled and skilled workers. This, in fact, is opposite to what Marx had predicted as proletrianization, that the capitalist economy would result in sharp class conflict and all members of lower middle class, lumpen proletariat; petty bourgeois would progressively join the rank of the proletariat. Dahrendorf argues that what is happening is contrary to what Marx pointed out. Two other sociologists, Clark Kerr and Jessie Bernard have argued that advanced industrialism requires skilled and highly educated workforce and such a workforce lives an affluent lifestyle. Contrary to proletrianization of the lower middle class, petty bourgeoisie and lumpen proletariat as predicted by Marx, is now argued, embourgeoisement of the labour class is taking place. This implies ‘the affluent worker adopt middle-class norms, values and attitudes … and life styles.’⁵² These arguments have further prompted sociologists like Jessie Bernard to state that ‘Marx was correct in emphasizing the importance of economic factors but wrong in his prediction of the direction of social change.’⁵³

To some extent, it is true that economic and urban development and state intervention have led to mitigation of extreme of inequalities and social mobility. However, culturally and attitudinally institutionalized behaviour and discriminations could not be easily rooted out from society. Many theorists have argued that many forms of social inequalities such as caste, class, gender and even racial, are subsiding due to industrial economy, increasing employment opportunity in the service sector and urban lifestyle. In fact, in India also, we can see expansion of the service sector such as banking, insurance, share market, credit rating, investment, etc., which employ skilled and educated workforce. Additionally, emergence of areas such as Information Technology (IT) for example, has altogether a different workforce requirement. Even in an industrial set-up, mechanization and automation reduces the manual workforce repquirement. In such a scenario, class based social inequality needs to be understood from a new perspective involving a subtle way of exploitation, for example, condition of employees in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) sector, consumption and representation-based alienation (consumer driven entertainment, mass advertising as if market is a democratic haven) and progressive exclusion of a vast majority from any type of choice in education, employment and living (urban slums) etc.

Grounds for Unequal Treatment and Principle of Reverse Discrimination

We have noted that equality does not mean equal treatment to all. In fact, at times to fulfil the condition of equality, individuals are required to be treated unequally. This means, there is scope for reasonable and rational grounds for discrimination. Discrimination stands for ‘making an adverse distinction with regard to or distinguishing unfavourably from others.’⁵⁴ Discrimination on reasonable grounds is admitted. If discrimination is for compensating for certain inabilities, weakness, or incapacities and is positive measure, it is called positive discrimination or reverse discrimination. This means, one is being discriminated to reverse an unfavourable condition or positively rectify the existing discrimination. It is through this method of reasonable and rational discrimination that various policy options such as positive or reverse discrimination, affirmative action, social engineering and social and distributive justice are pursued (see Fig. 9.1).

 

 

In general, equality before the law and equal protection of law, equality of opportunity and equality of results are taken as three aspects of equality. What are the exceptions that can be made under these three aspects? Equality before the law is to treat each individual as legal entity and extend equal treatment and rights to all. It is equal treatment to all in similar circumstances. However, there may be a case where due to certain deprivations, equality before the law may lead to or result in misrepresentation or injustice to the individual. For example, to protect married women against dowry related violence in matrimony, law provides that the primary responsibility of defence rests with the husband. This means as soon as a charge has been labelled of dowry violence, the husband is assumed as a culprit. However, otherwise the law provides that one is not guilty until proved. Similarly, a person when taken in custody by police has to be informed of the charge and arrest warrant has to be produced. However, if one is being arrested under terrorism related activities, reason for arrest may not be necessary. What we should note is that there are certain conditions in which equality of treatment may not prevail. Reasonable grounds for inequality before the law include: (i) protection of rights of weaker and vulnerable sections of society such as women, children, challenged persons, socially deprived, (ii) national security and integrity.

The Indian Constitution, for example, under Article 15, prohibits discrimination based on religion, caste, race, sex or place of birth. However, at the same time it talks about special provisions for women and children and socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 talks of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. It also provides for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes. The court has upheld ‘reservation of seats for women in local bodies or in education institutions valid.⁵⁵ Reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) based on Mandal Commission report in employment has been implemented.

In India, grounds for unequal treatment have generally been identified with the view to secure:

• Welfare benefits
• Social and educational advancements
• Gender equality
• Compensating for historical and social deprivations

In Figure 9.1, positive or favourable distinction is suggested as a means of compensating historical and social wrongs. The principle of equality before the law and equality of opportunity is interfered with to reverse the discrimination that otherwise would occur if not interfered with. Here, discrimination is made to provide enabling conditions positively.

Principle of positive or reverse discrimination is applied for ensuring social justice, which aims at correcting historical wrongs or discrimination. In USA, such a policy is known as policy of affirmative action. This aims at dealing with the racial discrimination suffered by the Black people. Policy of affirmative action is a policy of preferential treatment and has been followed for giving special opportunity to Black people in the field of education, health care, housing etc. India, public policy of positive discrimination has been followed to provide preferential treatment in educational and technical institutions, employment, local bodies’ election for women. It is argued that the public policy of positive discrimination in India is an integral part of the social justice platform. Social justice in India relates to the issue of correcting social discrimination, which has historically prevailed against a section of society.

However, two factors may distort the intended objective of the public policy based on positive discrimination. Firstly, it has been pointed out that the operation of this public policy would necessarily lead to making the beneficiaries better off. This means the next generation may not claim the same treatment that the first generation needed. In this process, a section of the beneficiaries will be better off and they have been termed as the ‘creamy layer’ amongst the beneficiaries. It has been argued that the creamy layer should be excluded from getting the benefit of this public policy, as this would impair the more needy getting the benefits. The Supreme Court has excluded the creamy layer from benefits. Secondly, it has been argued that there is problem in identifying the actual beneficiaries as a variety of distortion occur in identification of beneficiaries such as presence of bogus and proxy beneficiaries, etc. Another aspect related with operation of this policy is what the Supreme Court pointed out in various pronouncements. The Supreme Court has mentioned that the special provisions mentioned under Article 16(4) relating to reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward class ‘should be consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration’ mentioned under Article 335 of the Constitution of India.⁵⁶

Principle of equality and inequality of treatment, as the case may be, are related to concept of justice. Concept of reverse discrimination provides the basis for social justice in India and affirmative action in USA. Social justice, many may argue, is based on the notion of social engineering where state and public policy intervention is sought to correct the past social distortions and reverse the discrimination in such a way that it is compensated. This compensation is in the form of giving a level-playing field, initial equality of opportunity, etc. However, a more detailed treatment will be given to the subject of justice—distributive justice or egalitarian conception of justice advocated by Rawls, libertarian conception of justice advocated by Nozick, conception of social justice as espoused by the Indian Constitution and persons like Ambedkar and others, Marxian conception of justice, etc.

Equality and Liberty

Liberty as a principle in political theory has been closely identified with the liberal–capitalist tradition. It primarily stands for liberty of contract and private property and follows the policy of laissez faire. Equality in its legal and political form was demanded by the rising capitalist class to seek equality with aristocratic elements and the nobility. This was meant to abolish privileges and special opportunities they enjoyed. It was also argued that equality was significant if democracy was to be successful. Legal and political equality were invoked to bring rule of law, citizenship, voting rights, etc., considered essential for democracy. However, when demands for equality in other dimensions, namely, social and economic, were raised in the nineteenth century by the workers, it was argued that liberty must get priority over equality. Lord Acton, Alex de Tocqueville, Walter Bagehot and others argued against equality and considered it inimical to liberty. The Socialist and Marxian thoughts in Europe in nineteenth century influenced demand for economic and social equality. Positive liberals, social democrats and state welfare thinkers have advocated compatibility between equality and liberty. They include R. H. Tawney, L. T. Hobhouse, J. A. Hobson, Ernest Barker, H. J. Laski and C. B. Macpherson.

Some political sociologists and political theorists such as Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Roberto Michels, Giovanni Sartori, J. A. Schumpeter, Robert Dahl, Harold Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan felt that the notion of democracy as the rule of the people, by the people for the people is misplaced. They argue that the elite manage and run the political process on behalf of the people. Without elites, democracy could not be managed and liberty will be jeopardized. Dahl gave a concept of polyarchy as the operational form of what we call democracy. The upshot of this argument is that democracy based on the elite does not require equality as a crucial factor and to argue for equality is opposed to operational mechanism of democratic process.

In the twentieth century, libertarian theorists, F. A. Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick have given primacy to liberty and treated equality and liberty as incompatible. Relationship between equality and liberty is understood differently and primacy to one or the other is based on the perspective adopted. The one inclined to positive liberalism or social democratic ideas, supports compatibility of liberty and equality but the one who adopts the laissez faire or libertarian or elite theory perspective, treats equality and liberty incompatible with each other.

Liberty and Equality Are Incompatible and in Conflict

The argument of incompatibility of liberty and equality is primarily based on the assumptions that search for social and economic equality is against individual liberty and economic freedom. This is because, they argue:

• Democracy gives premium to equality. With operation of public opinion and majority rule in democracy, individual liberty may not be given primacy. Both J. S. Mill (On Liberty) and Alex de Tocqueville (Democracy in America) argued on this line.
• Liberty in negative sense is understood as absence of external restraint or intervention. Equality, on the other hand, seeks the state's intervention to acquire either a level-playing field or economic redistribution. Liberty seeks a negative state and equality seeks a positive state. Hence, the two are incompatible. This position is reflected in laissez faire, negative liberal and libertarian positions.
• Any measure of correcting market produced inequality to ensure social and economic equality, requires intervention by authority of the state for welfare, planning and redistribution. To this extent, the state imposes external criteria of redistribution and justice. This constitutes curtailment of individual liberty and economic freedom. F. A. Hayek (The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty) and Milton Friedman have argued on this line.
• Economic freedom, in the sense of private property, contract and free market, is an important component of individual liberty. Economic freedom promotes political freedom by separating economic power and political power and thus enabling the one to offset the other. Equality will curtail economic freedom and as a result individual liberty and political freedom also. Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom) holds such a view.
• Freedom in a negative sense stands for not being coerced or interfered by others. This should be distinguished from conditions of freedom, e.g., freedom to swim from inability to swim, as the two are different things. One is freedom per se and the other condition of freedom. Search for socio-economic equality is based on search for providing conditions of freedom. This may result in intervention, coercion and curtailment of individual liberty. Isaiah Berlin (‘Two Concepts of Liberty’) has argued on this line and says ‘paternalism can provide condition of freedom, yet withhold freedom itself’.

Alex de Tocqueville in his Democracy in America treats development of democracy as a sign of ‘the formation of a “modern society” (by contrast with the ancien regime) in France, England and America.’⁵⁷ For Tocqueville, consequences of democratic revolution or development of democracy were clear—and to quote Bottomore, it was to ‘produce social equality, by abolishing hereditary distinctions of rank and by making all occupations, rewards and honours accessible to every member of society.’ Tocqueville perceived that this tendency has both desirable and undesirable aspects. While he was hopeful of the positive effect in terms of well-being of the greatest number, he felt that pursuit of social equality might become ‘an insatiable passion’ in democratic communities leading to loss of individual liberty. Tocqueville was apprehensive of two consequences: one, tyranny of majority (as Mill was), and two, loss of liberty due to equality coming into conflict with the liberty of individuals. He felt that in the extreme case, passion for equality might lead to, what Tocqueville called, ‘equality in slavery’. Tocqueville was apprehensive that public opinion and views of majority, being treated supreme in democracy, might be inimical to development of individual liberty. This was the same conclusion that Mill has also drawn and cautioned against loss of individual liberty. Tocqueville was equally apprehensive of the conflict between liberty and equality though he also found a desirable aspect of equality in democracy.

John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, popularly known as, Lord Acton, an English historian, who planned the Cambridge Modern History, argued that the doctrine of equality was incompatible with liberty. He says, ‘… the passion for equality makes vain the hope of freedom! His main concern was the perceived conflict between the two in the political sphere, which means erosion of the independent authority, and increase in the authority of the state. He favoured ‘vesting adequate power in the intermediate voluntary associations’⁵⁸ as a solution to this incompatibility.

In the twentieth century, neo-liberal or libertarian writers have found conflict between liberty and equality. Hayek, Berlin, Friedman and Nozick are the main exponents.

F. A. Hayek defines individual freedom in a negative sense as ‘freedom from subjection of coercion of arbitrary will of others.’ As it appears, he treats liberty in a negative sense and rejects positive or developmental view of liberty. He considers liberty in positive sense as inimical to individual liberty. This is because he apprehends that any form of intervention of the state in the name of securing sources of liberty, as the conception of positive liberty does, may lead to collectivist justification of state interference. On this ground, Hayek opposes planned economy and distributive justice. He feels that conception of distributive justice imposes some other's conception of merit and requires allocation of resources through central intervention. Further, he justifies that in the market, there is equality of opportunity. However, since individuals differ in their talent and skill, it results in inequality of outcome, which should not be tampered with. For Hayek, equality and liberty are incompatible because equality necessarily leads to the concept of distributive justice, equality of outcome and state intervention. In the name of equality or justice, there should not be enactment of rules that specify how people should use the means at their disposal. Interference with people's own capacity to determine their objective becomes coercive and hence incompatible with individual liberty.

Another neo-liberal, Isaiah Berlin looks at liberty in a new way (‘Two Concepts of Liberty’), and portrays that in its negative and positive sense, liberty means the same thing. Liberty in the negative sense is defined as an area within which a man can act unobstructed by others. Liberty in this sense, is principally concerned with the area of control and not with its source (whether the individual himself is the source of liberty or it emanates from being not interfered from outside). In a positive sense, liberty is ‘being one’s own master. In both the cases, freedom to act is the essence of liberty. However, what is important is to differentiate between freedom or liberty per se and the condition of freedom. Mere absence of condition of freedom does not mean there is no freedom. However, concern with condition of freedom invariably is related with conception of equality, justice and interference. To this extent, in pursuit of provision for condition of freedom, the very area of freedom gets restricted. For example, liberty to buy a packet of bread is not the same thing as the capacity to buy. When capacity to buy becomes important, equality becomes the main deriving concern. As a result, in pursuit of the condition of freedom, freedom per se is either overlooked or lost. As such, Berlin finds equality and liberty in conflict. In fact, he also argues that forms of government, either autocracy or democracy, have no direct relationship with negative liberty. Democracy may deprive individuals of many liberties, while a liberal-minded despot may allow a large measure of personal freedom. Hayek also held Berlin's view that there is no necessary connection between individual liberty and democratic rule. Berlin is categorical when he says, the connection between democracy and individual liberty is a good deal more tenuous than it seemed to many advocates of both.

Milton Friedman defines freedom as ‘absence of coercion of a man by his fellow men.’ He equates liberty or freedom with economic freedom. Economic freedom means freedom of choice in the market place—freedom of the producer what to produce and whom to employ, freedom of the consumer what to buy, freedom of the worker to choose a job or profession. It is easy for him to conclude that the market must have a larger sphere of activity so that sphere of freedom is enlarged because freedom means freedom of free market. This is also a check on the power of the state. On the other hand, concept of equality leads to redistributive aspects and necessarily to the intervention of the state. To this extent, equality leads to restriction on free market and as a result on liberty.

Robert Nozick seeks to protect the realm of individual liberty so much that he warns against governments coercing citizens even for their own good or protection. Nozick asserts that the state may not be justified in compelling people to help others. This implies that the state should not tax people or take away their earned property in the name of welfare redistribution or justice or equality. Nozick's libertarian position and minimalist state perspective leads him to find equality in conflict with liberty.

Liberty and Equality Are Compatible and Complementary

While laissez-faire, liberal-capitalist, negative liberal and libertarian perspectives reject any complementary relationship between liberty and equality, positive liberal, social-democratic and state welfare perspectives treat the two as compatible and complementary. The argument follows the following lines:

• Liberty of individual cannot be conceived in isolation and it has to be a concept of, what L. T. Hobhouse (Elements of Social Justice) calls, ‘harmonized liberties’, or Ernest Barker (Principles of Social and Political Theory) says, ‘regulated liberty’ or Dorothy Pickles (Introduction to Politics) calls, ‘equal liberty’. This means liberty in a society or democracy means equal liberty for all without which it may be a society with special privileges.
• Equality is required to make liberty substantive. Liberty should not be liberty in terms of legal and political rights, but should also include liberty in terms of economic and material security. This means equality in liberty is essential. Tawney argues on this line. Laski also attaches importance to economic equality as a precondition to political liberty. Macpherson argues that ‘developmental power’ being positive conditions of the realization of power of an individual in the developmental sense must be equally available.
• Equality is essential for democracy and democracy for liberty. Political equality in democracy is essential and there cannot be political equality without social and economic equality. Without equality, liberty will be in danger. If liberty is an end of democracy, equality is its means and the two cannot be divorced from each other. Coker however feels that those who attack democracy even go to the extent of saying that ‘equality is not only democracy's initial hypothesis but also its constant objective.’⁵⁹
• Equality and liberty are complementary because they operate towards the same end. ‘Development of personality’ of the individual is the supreme value and liberty aims at realization of potentialities. Equality is derived from this supreme value and aims at equal realization of potentialities. Thus, both liberty and equality are working towards the same end. Hobhouse and Barker argue on this line.

Tawney in his book Equality maintains that equality is necessary to make liberty substantive. For him, liberty should imply not only civil and political rights, but also security for economically weak. Tawney is of the view that ‘a large measure of equality, so far from being inimical to liberty, is essential to it.’ L. T. Hobhouse in his book Elements of Social Justice treats system of rights as system of harmonized liberties. It means maximum degree of freedom to each, compatible with the same degree of freedom to others. An Individual's personal liberties and restraints should be harmonized, which means rights and duties should be equally enforced.

Barker is of the view that enjoyment of liberty by all requires adjustments and adjustment of liberty of one with others requires regulation. The greatest common possible measure of liberty can be determined and defined by the need of each to enjoy similar and equal liberty with others. Thus, liberty of each is to be adjusted to others and it has to be regulated. Regulated liberty means it has to be equal liberty for all. Barker holds that both liberty and equality are required to serve the supreme value of development of personality. As such, they are derivative values coming out of the requirement of development of personality. This requires liberty for realization of potentialities and equality for equal realization of potentialities and development of personality. Both liberty and equality are working towards the same end. If this interpretation is to be followed, liberty and equality are compatible.

Laski criticizes Tocqueville and Acton for holding equality and liberty as contradictory. He gives equal importance to both equality and liberty and ‘considers economic equality as precondition to political liberty.’⁶⁰ By equality, Laski means equal opportunity for all to develop their capacities. He exhorts that if liberty is to be made a universal category, a certain levelling process in the economic sphere must be accepted. For him, political freedom and economic equality are complementary concepts.

Some of the earlier writers such as Maitland, Hume and Harrington also supported complementariness of liberty and equality.⁶¹ Hume said, when we depart from equality we rob the poor of more satisfaction and liberty than we add to the rich.’ Harrington established a relationship between the two in this manner, ‘equality of estates caused equality of power and equality of power is liberty.’ Another writer, A. F. Pollard has said, ‘There is only one solution to of the problem of liberty and it lies in equality.’

Thus, we find enough support for both the schools that treat equality as compatible with each other and incompatible with each other. The Marxian perspective gives primacy to equality and that to economic equality and treats liberty primarily in economic terms. However, this is not in terms of private property, contract and free market but social ownership of the means of production. Liberty in socialist society is not divorced from the social ownership of means of production. Equality and liberty are basis of democracy, just social order, and as Barker says, development of personality. The two must be treated as complementary and reconciled with each other. A welfare democratic state presents a practical approximation for reconciling equality and liberty.

Marxian Views on Equality

Concepts such as equality before the law (legal equality), equality of opportunity, equality of results or outcomes, etc., are related to either liberal or welfare or social democratic perspectives. They suggest that equality can be or should be sought while private ownership of property remains intact. In fact, the very search for equality is based on the realization that private ownership of means of production and private property would not in itself be an adequate mechanism to ensure equality or parity. Further, slogan of equality has been raised as per class interests. As we have mentioned earlier quoting Emile Burns, equality as a slogan was strongly demanded by the rising capitalist class against the entrenched power of the landed aristocracy and nobility during the French Revolution. However, the slogan for equality was for legal equality and not economic equality. Subsequently, demand for political and economic equality was largely a reflection of demands by the working class and women for extension of political and economic rights to them. However, economic rights within the liberal, welfare and social democratic perspectives meant either equality in terms of wages or right to work and employment or redistribution without disturbing private property or private ownership of means of production.

Legal equality or equality by securing civil and political rights has both positive and negative aspects. Marxian perspective, as Heywood opines, accepts the contribution of market and capitalism in bringing ‘equality in that marketplace judges people not according to social rank or any other individual peculiarities, but solely in terms of their market value.’⁶² At least, capitalism combined with the democratic principles has helped remove social inequalities in the marketplace based on birth, inheritance, etc., which were prevalent in feudal times. Lenin acknowledges that ‘democracy is of enormous importance to the working class in its struggle against the capitalist class … but democracy means only formal equality.’ However, two problems remain unanswered as Heywood poses. Firstly, despite democratic principle and legal equality, ‘culturally institutionalised’ discriminations in terms of race, castes and social distinctions remain prevalent. Secondly, capitalism generates class differences that lead to either a disadvantaged position for workers or ‘starkly different market values’ for different individuals based on their class. In a situation of different market values based on classes, equality is not genuine. It is inequality under the garb of legal and market equality. The Marxian perspective treats this as ‘bourgeois equality’ and is critical of bourgeois equality. Equality based on equality of civil and political rights is meaningless while economic inequality continues. Capitalist system based on class differences and private ownership of means of production is based on exploitation of workers and economic inequality. Unless, social ownership of means of production is achieved, equality will remain bourgeois equality and meaningless.

Karl Marx in his On the Jewish Question dealt with the issues related to economic and social inequalities suffered by racial minorities such as Jews. As Heywood maintains, Marx was critical of securing ‘Jewish “political emancipation” through the acquisition of equal civil rights and liberties.’⁶³ Mere provision of civil and political rights and liberties are not adequate to counter culturally rooted discriminations or attitudinal aspects of it. In India also, despite civil rights and legal equality, caste-and gender-based cultural attitudes and discriminations are not rare.

In the Marxian framework, inequalities emerge primarily from economic system and class difference. Demands for legal, political, civil and social rights and liberties are demands for concession in realm of the superstructure. However, unless the class difference in the infrastructure/base is resolved, equality based on concessions of superstructure will not be meaningful. Economic equality is treated as the most crucial equality, which is the basis of other forms of equality. Equality based on the resolution of class differences will automatically lead to other forms of equality that emerge from concessions of the superstructure in liberal–capitalist system. Marx and Engels in Communist Manifesto, Marx in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscript of 1844, Engels in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Lenin in The State and Revolution have adequately explained that origin of inequality is to be identified with origin of private property. Private property, private ownership of means of production and classes with antagonist relationship characterize liberal–capitalist system. In such a system, equality is neither possible nor meaningful.

The Marxian perspective seeks to bring equality based on a classless society and social ownership of means of production. The principle of equality or justice in a classless society is proposed to be ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’.⁶⁴ Elucidating further, Lenin says, according to his ability means everyone will work without calculating ‘with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has worked half an hour more than somebody else.’ According to needs means ‘each will take freely’ as per needs without quantity being regulated. For Lenin, equality seemed an empty phrase if it did not imply abolition of classes. In short, we can say that the Marxian view on equality is primarily related to economic equality, which is to be achieved by abolition of classes. It is important to note that liberal, welfare and social democratic conceptions of equality are based on the assumption that class differences are reconcilable and equality can be negotiated within the existing political process. This can be achieved through legal equality, equality of opportunity and redistribution of chances and resources. The Marxian perspective refutes this assumption and maintains that the private property, the state and classes are manifestations of irreconcilability of differences and antagonism. Lenin says, ‘the great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning abolition of classes.’⁶⁵

Abolition of classes is possible through a proletarian revolution, which will lead to establishment of dictatorship of the proletariat. During the phase of dictatorship of the proletariat, complete equality is not possible, as it would still be society with class differences remaining. Dictatorship of the proletariat is a class rule, this time, rule of the majority. Here the principle of equality would be ‘from each according to ability, to each according to work’. This revision in the principle of equality that should prevail in a communist society is necessitated due to the incomplete nature of transition and existence of the state, which has still to ‘wither away’. Lenin was also critical of those who sought concessions of economic and political nature through agitation. He termed this as ‘economism’, which he considered as inimical to revolutionary potential.

Marx in Economic and Philosophical Manuscript has discussed about the ‘power of money’ and showed how money-based inequalities could overcome or camouflage natural and physical defects. Marx terms ‘distorting power’ of money … since money, as the existing concept of value, confounds and confuses all things …⁶⁶ If we recall, Rousseau terms as natural inequalities (differentiated from conventional inequalities), which are natural and unalterable. Marx's discussion shows that the power of money can compensate those unalterable problems. While discussing the alienating effect of money as something external to the qualities of the individual, Marx suggests that properties of money are considered as the properties and powers of the possessor. ‘The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power.’ This is complete identification with money of an individual's own powers and capabilities. An individual has no humanity, no capability, no powers and no individuality except the power of money. Money nullifies the deterrent power of any physical or natural disability such as ugliness, brainlessness, or even dishonesty. Thus, natural inequalities are nullified by the power of money.

The Marxian perspective, as stated by Lenin, seeks equality ‘for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labour and wages…’⁶⁷ Primacy is given to economic equality and other forms of equality are made a function of economic equality. Economic equality is to be realized in two stages—socialist stage where distribution of result of labour is as per work and communist stage where distribution of result of labour is as per needs. However, as reported by several thinkers such as Milovan Djilas, R. M. Medvedev, S. Stojanovic of the former communist countries, these countries could not provide equality in many respects. It is alleged that there were inequalities in terms of workers at large and the party apparatchik (Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government) in securing various privileges including special coupons. Djilas has reported that the new ruling elite belonging to the communist party had emerged.

A theoretical question arises with respect to distribution according to the criteria of work. If work is the basis of distribution of product of labour, does the state collect a portion as surplus, which is not given to the worker? If there is no surplus produced by the worker and each gets what one works for, then where does the state get resources to sustain? It would be difficult to accept that everyone gets what he or she work for and there also remains a surplus for the state to function and for those who are incapable of working at all. If the last requirements are to be admitted, then it is also possible that at the socialist stage, everyone gets as per work but also leaves a share of it for the state and those who cannot work. It is possible then, this gap itself, leads to inequalities.

Review Questions

1. What is egalitarianism? How are the concepts of equality and equity related to it?
2. How has the principle of equality been understood in different periods of history?
3. How do we differentiate between formal, substantive and procedural equality?
4. What are the different dimensions of equality?
5. What are the different phases of development of dimensions of equality?
6. Does a democratic form of government that invokes the conception of political equality (each individual as possessor of one vote) also means that it ensures economic, legal and social equality?
7. Are economic and social equality preconditions for legal and political equality?
8. ‘Equality of opportunity is a tadpole philosophy’ (Tawney). Elucidate/Critically evaluate the statement.
9. What are the grounds of unequal treatment in a democratic society?
10. ‘Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows’ (Tawney). In the light of the statement, critically examine whether equality and liberty are incompatible with each other?
11. A welfare democratic state is suitable for reconciling equality and liberty. Discuss.
12. ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his work’. Does this principle provide adequate criteria for Marxian conception of equality?