POLITICAL SCIENCE

(PROJECT REPORT)

TOPIC- DEFINE EQUALITY. DISCUSS RELATION

BETWEEN LIBERTY AND EQUALITY

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Rajnish Saryal Harshit Joshi
UIL BALLB 1st Year
PURC LUDHIANA Roll No- 59/23F
UIL, PURC LUDHIANA
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project report entitled: Define Equality. Discuss
Relation between Liberty and Equality, is outcome of our own efforts under the
guidance of Dr. Rajnish Saryal. The project is submitted to University Institute of
Law, Panjab University Regional Centre, Ludhiana for the partial fulfilment of the
course curriculum of the degree of BALLB for session 2023-24. I also declare that
this is an authentic piece of work and this project report has not been previously
submitted to any other university.

Harshit Joshi

BALLB 1st Year

Roll No- 59/23F

UIL, PURC LUDHIANA

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success and final outcome of this project required a lot of guidance and assistance
from many people and I am extremely fortunate to have got this all along the completion of my
project report. Whatever I have done is only due to such guidance and I would never forget to
thank them.

I take this opportunity to record deep sense of gratitude to my teacher, Dr. Rajnish Saryal
Sir, University Institute of Law, Ludhiana for his incontestably perfect unmatched guidance,
encouragement, valuable suggestions and efforts made during the preparation of this project
and during her lectures which enabled me to complete this project successfully on the topic:

DEFINE EQUALITY. DISCUSS RELATION BETWEEN LIBERTY AND

EQUALITY.

I owe my regards to the entire faculty of the University Institute of Law, from where
I have learnt the basics of Law and whose informal discussions, intellectual support helped me
in the entire duration of this work. As without their invaluable support and guidance, the
completion of this project would not have been possible.

Harshit Joshi
Roll No. 59/23F
BA.LLB 1st Year
UIL,PURC Ludhiana
INDEX
 INTRODUCTION
Of all the basic concepts of social, economic, moral and political philosophy, none is
more confusing and baffling than the concept of equality because it figures in all other concepts
like justice, liberty, rights, property, etc. During the last two thousand years, many dimensions
of equality have been elaborated by Greeks, Stoics, Christian fathers who separately and
collectively stressed on its one or the other aspect. Under the impact of liberalism and
Marxism, equality acquired an altogether different connotation. Contemporary social
movements like feminism, environmentalism are trying to give a new meaning to this concept.

Basically, equality is a value and a principle essentially modern and progressive.

Though the debate about equality has been going on for centuries, the special feature of modern
societies is that we no longer take inequality for granted or something natural. Equality is also
used as a measure of what is modern and the whole process of modernisation in the form of
political egalitarianism1. Modern politics and modern political institutions are constantly
subjected to social pressures to expand opportunities equally irrespective of ethnicity, sexual
identity or age. Equality is a modern value in the sense that universalistic citizenship has
become a central feature of all political ideologies in modern industrial democracies. Again,
equality can also be taken as a criteria for radical social change. It is related to the development
of democratic politics. Modern societies are committed to the principle of equality and they no
longer require inequality as automatically justifiable. The principle of equality enunciated by
the American and French revolutions has become the central plank of all modern forms of
social change and the social movements for the reorganisation of societies.

1
People who believe in political egalitarianism espouse democracy, demanding that every person has equal
standing concerning governmental power.
 CONCEPT OF EQUALITY

While equality is one of the many concepts (others being rights, liberty, justice etc.) it
is a crucial one in a world in which so many differences exist among men. Every modern
political constitution has some notion of human equality inscribed as a fundamental law and
every political theory of any importance has contributed to the nature and feasibility of socio-
economic equality However, it is as difficult to define it clearly as it is to achieve it politically.
As mentioned earlier, the concept of equality is relative and it can be understood only in a
concrete context. Equality is not identity of treatment or reward. There can be no ultimate
identity of treatment so long as men are different in wants, capacities and needs.

As Laski wrote, ''the purpose of society would be frustrated at the outset if the
nature of a mathematician met with identical response with that of a bricklayer''. Also
inequalities gifted by nature are an inescapable fact and it has to be accepted in society.
Injustice arises as much from treating unequal’s equally as from treating equals unequally. And
most importantly, apart from the natural inequalities, there are inequalities created by the
society - inequalities based upon birth, wealth, knowledge, religion, etc. Claims for equality
have always been negative denying the propriety of certain existing socio-economic
inequalities. When liberalism urged that all men are equal by birth, it meant to challenge the
property owning franchise.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man2 explicitly recognised that superior talent and
qualities of character are a proper ground for distinction of wealth, honour and power. During
the twentieth century, we have been dismantling an educational and social system in which
opportunities for advancement depended on the family means and replacing it with one that
makes skill in examination one of the principal criteria. Thus, what we have to keep in mind is
that out of context, equality is an empty framework for a social ideal. It is concrete only when

2
(1789) Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen Adopted by the National Assembly during its
Sessions on August 20, 21, 25 and 26, and Approved by the King . Paris: Mondharre & Jean. Retrieved from the
Library of Congress,
particularised. The movement of history is not towards greater equality because as fast we
eliminate one inequality, we create another one: the difference being that the one we discard is
unjustifiable while the one we create seems reasonable. Social, political, educational and other
equalities are always in need of re-enforcement and reinterpretation by each new generation.
Thus, the idea of equality constantly erodes the foundations of every status quo.

Like liberty, equality can also be understood in its negative and positive aspects. Ever
since the rise of the idea of equality, it has been engaged in dismantling certain privileges
whether they were feudal, social, economic, etc. Thus negatively, equality was associated with
'the end of such privileges'. Positively, it meant 'the availability of opportunity' so that
everybody could have equal chance to develop his personality.

 Explaining the meaning of equality in this context Laski writes that equality means

i) Absence of special privileges: It means that the will of one is equal to the will of any other.
It means equality of rights.

ii) That adequate opportunities are laid open to all: It depends upon the training that is
offered to the citizens. For the power that ultimately counts in society is the power to utilise
knowledge; that disparities of education result above all in disparities in the ability to use that
power. Opportunity should be given to everyone to realise the implications of his personality.
iii) All must have access to social benefits and no one should be restricted on any ground. The
inequalities by birth or because of parentage and hereditary causes are unreasonable.

iv) Absence of economic and social exploitation.

Similarly, Barker writes that the idea of equality is a derivative value - derivative
from the supreme value of the development of personality- in each alike and equally, but
in each along its own different line and of its own separate motion.
According to him, 'The principle of equality, accordingly means that whatever conditions are
guaranteed to me in the form of rights shall also and in the same measure be guaranteed to
others and that whatever rights are given to others shall also be given to me'.
According to Raphael, 'The right to equality proper.. is a right to the equal satisfaction of
basic human needs, including the need to develop and use capacities which are specifically
human'.

According to E.F. Carritt, 'Equality is just to treat men as equal until some reason other
than preference such as need, capacity or desert has been shown to the contrary'.

Recently, Bryan Turner in his book Equality3 has given a comprehensive meaning of equality
relevant to the contemporary world.
According to him, the concept of equality should include the following:

i) Fundamental equality of persons

ii) Equality of opportunity
iii) Equality of conditions where there is an attempt to make the conditions of life equal
iv) Equality of outcome of results

The first kind of equality i.e., equality of persons, is common to cultural, religious and
moral traditions typically expressed in statements such as 'all are equal in the eyes of God'.
This is concerned with the equality of men as men; something called 'human nature', 'human
dignity', 'personality' or "soul' by virtue of which they must be treated as fundamentally equal.
A modern notion of this form of equality is found in Marxism when it talks about the 'human
essence'. In the Marxist tradition, it is claimed that all human beings are defined by praxis, that
is all human beings are knowledgeable, conscious and practical agents. It asserts that 'man is
by his essence a universal free being who forms himself through his own self activity in the
direction of an ever widening mastery of nature and an ever more universal intercourse,
autonomy and consciousness'. Also, writers like R.H. Tawney often combined socialism and
Christianity to provide a religious foundation for a commitment to social equality. However,
this form of equality is not given importance in the contemporary welfare state based upon the
notion of socio-economic equality.

3
Turner, B. S. (1986). Types of equality. In Equality (pp. 34-55). Ellis Horwood/Tarvistock Publication UNDP
Human Development Report, 2007.
 The second meaning of equality is associated with the most common argument for
equality as ‘equality of opportunity'. This means that the access to important social institutions
should be open to all on universalistic grounds, especially by achievement and talent. The
debate about equality of opportunity has been especially important in the development of
modern educational institutions where promotion and attainment are in theory based upon
intelligence, skill and talent regardless of parental and class background. This type of equality
believes in meritocracy where the occupational structure of a society is filled on the basis of
merit in terms of universal criteria of achievement and not on the basis of age, sex, wealth,
caste, religion, etc.

Thirdly, the concept of equality of opportunity is closely related to and somewhat

inseparable from the notion of equality of conditions. Equality of opportunity regards those
who have ability and who are prepared to exercise their skills in the interest of personal
achievement in a competitive situation. However, where parents can pass on advantage to their
children, then the starting point for achievement is unequal, since, for example, working class
children will start with disadvantages which they have inherited from their parents. In order for
equality of opportunity to have any significant content, it is essential to guarantee equality of
condition, that is, all competitors in the race should start at the same point with appropriate
handicaps.

Fourthly, the most radical notion of equality is equality of results or outcome. In short,
it means that through legislation and other political means, equalities of results are achieved
regardless of the starting point or natural ability. A programme of equality of results would
seek to transform inequalities at the beginning into social equalities as a conclusion. Social
programmes of positive discrimination in favour of the disadvantaged (i.e. scheduled castes,
scheduled tribes, women, children, handicapped etc.) are meant to compensate for a significant
inequality of conditions in order to bring about a meaningful equality of opportunity to secure
equality of results.

Thus, in order to understand the meaning of equality, we have to keep the different
notions of equality in mind. Historically, while the liberal democratic tradition has favoured
the idea of equality of opportunity and conditions, the equality of outcome has been a part of
the platform of socialist policies aimed at redressing the inequalities generated by competition
and the market place.
  DIMENSIONS OF EQUALITY

Equality is a multi-dimensional concept. The need for equality is felt in different fields
of social life. Historically also, the demand for different dimensions of equality was neither
raised simultaneously nor with the same intensity. While liberalism laid more emphasis on
legal-political dimensions of equality, the socialists preferred socio-economic equality. The
different dimensions of equality are:

 Legal Equality
 Political Equality
 Economic Equality
 Social Equality

Legal Equality

Classical liberalism, when it was fighting against feudal and religious privileges, held
that equal distribution of opportunities required merely equal allocation of basic rights of life,
liberty and property. If legal privileges are abolished and legal rights are protected, no obstacles
will stand in the way of one's pursuit of happiness. It means two things: Rule of law and
Equality before law. Rule of law means that the law is sovereign and no person, no matter how
great he is or thinks he is, can declare himself above the law because that would be tantamount
to arbitrary rule. Equality before law means that law guarantees freedom to each citizen.
This is popularly explained as
i) Equality before Law
ii) Equal Protection of Law.

(a) Equality before Law: consists in 'equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law of the
land administered by the ordinary law courts'. It means that amongst equals, the law
should be equal and should be equally administered and that the 'like should be treated
alike'. In other words, the law is not to make any distinction between rich and poor,
feudal lord or peasant, capitalist or workers. In the eyes of law, all are equal. It also
 implies equality of rights and duties in law i.e., equal protection of life and limb of
everyone under the law and equal penalties on everyone violating them. However, since
law creates classes with special rights and duties such as landlord vs. tenant, police vs.
people, member of parliament vs. judges etc., in such circumstances, differences in
rights are inevitable. And last not but the least, equality before law also implies equality
in the actual administration of laws. Inspite of the fact that people may be equal before
law, the judges may be corrupt or biased. Equality before law must ensure that the
judges are free from political pressures, free from corruption, bias etc. The inequality
in the application of law may also arise if poor men are kept from the cost of a legal
action ie. if a rich man can force a settlement on less favourable terms than a poor
opponent would get in court by threatening to carry the cause of appeal.

(b)Equal Protection of Law: Equality before law does not mean absolute equality. While
the law will not make any distinction between the people, equal protection means that on
grounds of reasonable circumstances, certain discriminations can be made. The law, in certain
special circumstances, can make rational discriminations. It means 'equal laws for equals and
unequal laws for unequals'. This can be understood very well in the context of the Indian
constitution where the law, while not recognising any distinction based upon birth, caste, creed
or religion, does accept certain rational discriminations like reservation of seats or special
queues for ladies, concessions given to students in railway journeys etc. Such discrimination
based upon backwardness, sex, ability etc. are considered rational discriminations. In such
cases, law protects the people by unequal rather than equal application.

Talking about legal equality, J.R. Lucas4 writes that equality before law does not
necessarily mean that the law will treat all alike, but rather it determines that the law will be
within the reachof everybody. In other words, nobody will be small enough that he will be
unable to take the shelter of law and nobody will be big enough that he will not be accountable
to law. It means that anybody can ask for the help of courts, everybody is bound to obey its
orders, and the courts will also take decisions impartially. Equality before law means equal
subjection to law and equal protection of law.

4
Turner, B. S. (1986). Types of equality. In Equality (pp. 34-55). Ellis Horwood/Tarvistock Publication UNDP
Human Development Report, 2007.
 However, legal equality becomes meaningless in the absence of equal opportunities to get
justice. In liberal societies, people need both time and money to have justice to protect their
equality. All may possess equal rights, but all do not have an equal power to vindicate those
rights, so long as the vindication demands expenditure and so long as some are more able than
others to meet the expenditure demanded. Thus, in actual practice and operation of the courts,
as distinct from the rule of law of the land, inequality still prevails though it is being steadily
diminished by reforms in their operations.

Political Equality

As Lipson writes, normally and customarily, many had always been governed by few
for the benefits of the few. Humanity as a general rule has lived under the regimen of
inequalities and privileges.
The basis of inequality in political matters has been knowledge (Plato), religion and God
(monarchy), birth (aristocracy), money (plutocracy), colour (South Africa), race (Hitler), elite
(Pareto, Mosca) etc. Against all these, political equality is associated with democratic
institutions and the right to participate in the political process. The demand for political equality
is summarised in 'one-man-one-vote'. This is the basic principle of political equality which has
now found unqualified support in almost all the countries of the world. The principle is
expressed in the right to vote, the right to stand for elections, to hold public office with no
distinction (made) on the basis of caste, colour, sex, religion, language etc.

According to Laski, political equality means the authority which exerts that power must
be subject to rules of democratic governance.

However, in recent years, it is being realised that the principle of political equality is
not as simple as the liberal meaning conveys. If the word politics means the ability and the skill
to influence others which an individual exercises in controlling, managing and arranging things
according to his will or to the will of the party to which he may belong, obviously we cannot
say that the people are politically equal. In modern times, functioning of the government has
become very complex and real political power vests in the bureaucracy, the police and the army
over which people have no control. In fact, political power and political equality are distinct
categories. There are many constraints put upon the common man and the multiplicity of
factors which include different abilities, the ability to assert oneself and above all the
differentiation imposed by the maladjusted property system. However, the merit of political
equality lies in recognising the basic truth that if men are equal in law, then there should be
equality amongst them regarding the right to governance.

Economic Equality

The twentieth century has witnessed a sharpening of concern for the economic aspect
of equality and the means of securing it, either within the framework of the liberal system or
by establishing a socialist society. Rapid industrialisation brought about an increasing
awareness that equality of opportunity cannot be achieved by the equality of law which forbids
the rich and the poor alike to steal bread or to sleep under the bridges. Equality of opportunity
does not only pre-suppose the equal allotment of certain rights, but also requires application of
another rule of distribution: equality of the satisfaction of certain basic needs. It means
privileges for the economically underprivileged. As Tawney wrote, 'Equality of opportunity is
not simply a matter of legal equality. Its evidence depends not merely on the absence of
disabilities, but the presence of abilities. It obtains in so far as, and only in so far as, each
member of the community. whatever his birth or occupation or social position, possess in fact
and not merely in form equal chances of using to the full his natural endowments of physique
of character and of intelligence'
Early liberals meant by economic equality an equality of choosing one's trade or
profession irrespective of his caste, creed or economic status. It was also understood as freedom
of contract or that everybody is equal in so far as the contractual obligations are concerned.
Many a time, it was also understood as equalisation of wealth and income. However, all these
measures were considered insufficient.

Explaining economic equality, Rousseau wrote, 'By equality we should understand that
not the degree of power and riches be absolutely identical for everybody, but that no citizen be
wealthy enough to buy another and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself. Economic
equality is concerned with the apportionment of goods. To bring the poor to the general starting
line, law must compensate them for those initial disadvantages by means of social legislation
and social services such as minimum wages, tax exemption, unemployment benefits, free
public schooling, scholarship etc.
 According to Laski, economic equality is largely a problem of proportion. It means that
the things without which life is meaningless must be accessible to all without distinction in
degree or kind. All men must eat and drink or obtain shelter. Equality involves, up to the margin
of sufficiency, identity of response for primary needs. The equal satisfaction of basic needs as
a precondition for equality of opportunity does require economic equality i.e. reduction of
extreme inequalities in the distribution of commodities.

Economic equality is two fold:

 it is a matter of status
 it is a matter of property and income.

The matter of status raises the issue whether the state should seek to turn industrial
production into something like a 'partnership of equals' and should introduce a system under
which the directing and managing elements stand on an equal footing. With regard to property
and income the issue is what methods the state should seek to correct inequality in their
distribution. The liberal state through its policy of mixed economy, methods of differential
taxation, regulation and raising the wages by methods of social expenditure and other welfare
services has been making corrections in the wide disparities of wealth. The state taxes the rich
to provide welfare to the poor.
While liberal sociologists like Dahrendorf, Raymond Aron, Lipset feel that through the
extension of welfare services to all strata of society and redistribution of income and wealth
through progressive taxation, the state has been able to lessen economic disparity and assure
satisfaction of basic needs of all.
Galbraith has gone to the extent of declaring that economic inequality has ceased to be an issue
in men's mind in Western democracies.
However, the liberal socialists feel that inspite of the fact that state action has resulted
in greater diffusion of property, the permanent ownership of capital resources and the disparity
between rich and poor continues and is still greater. State action 'only touches the fringe of the
problem of finding a general system of its more equitable distribution'. The state is yet to
grapple with the problem of finding a general system of profit sharing.
Social Equality

Social equality is concerned with equality of opportunity for every individual for the
development of his personality. It means abolition of all kinds of discrimination based upon
caste, creed. religion, language, race, sex, education, etc. The cardinal question which confronts
us today is how the state and its law should go to promote equality of different castes, classes
and races, emancipation of women so far as equality in property and voting rights is concerned,
andequality of rights in the admission to educational institutions. Equality of races and colour
denies that the class whose cause it champions is not inferior to any.

Inferiority implies two considerations:

i) the refusal to extend the principle of equal considerations to the class in question
such as the Negroes, Blacks in South Africa, Jews etc
ii) ii) to prove the inferiority by means of dubious biological evidence that some races
are superior to others.

The case of equality of sexes can be understood as

(i) that inspite of physical and psychological difference between men and women,
there is no evidence that women are in general inferior to men in intelligence,
business capacity, soundness of judgements etc., and that discrimination resting on
such assumed inferiorities is misplaced, and
(ii) (ii) the admitted differences will not support discrimination between the sexes in
respect of voting rights, entry to profession, educational opportunities, level of
remuneration etc. T

Thus 'equal pay for equal work' 5 means that men and women should be paid equally
if they do the same type of work; and there are admitted biological and psychological
differences in the functions within the family. A mother is expected to occupy herself with
house and children, a father with earning the family living. But this does not justify
elevating the husband to the position of a lord and a master, nor the complete sacrifice of

5
In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights started to recognize equal pay for equal work. The Equal
Remuneration Convention was released in 1951 by the International Labour Organization
 women's personality to the demands of the family. The emancipation of women has to be
expressed itself not only in law and economics, but also in changes in conventional marital
relations. For example, many husbands now recognise that the domestic burden carried by
mothers of families in previous generations was out of all proportions to the difference in
function implied by the difference in sex. Their readiness to share household functions and
baby minding is a sign of practical extension of the principle of equal consideration.

Social equality also depends upon the openness of educational institutions on an equal
basis to facilitate social mobility. This is a field where extreme inequalities prevail. In almost
all the liberal countries, education has been very much organised on the lines of social classes
and educational opportunities are very much associated with wealth and position. There are
different kinds of schools, serving different social strata of society such as the elite, the middle
classes, the lower middle class and the poor masses. In prestigious schools where children of
the affluent section of society receive their education, the boys are encouraged to regard
themselves as one of the ruling classes, whether in the field of politics, administration or
business. On the other hand, an elementary school education, mostly run by the government,
is always and still remains a cheap education. An elementary book is a cheap book adapted to
the needs and powers of the children of a certain section of society, who are supposed not to
require the same kind of education as the children of parents who have money. Even if the
elementary school boy, in today's changed circumstances, is not taught that the world is divided
by God into the rich who are to rule and the poor who are to be ruled, the circumstances in
which he is put provide ample proof of it. He is taught in an atmosphere of unhealthy buildings,
deficiency of playing fields, lack of school libraries and laboratory facilities for practical work,
shortage of books, non-availability of teachers, lack of funds etc. The opportunities for the
children of the poor masses are rationed like bread.
Moreover, public opinion is so much convinced by the influence of the long standing traditions
of educational equality that they have accepted it as a social fact. Equality of educational
opportunity is still largely only a paper realisation. The inequality in educational opportunity
could only be eliminated if the society becomes unstratified or the school system is totally
differentiated. Neither outcome appears likely in liberal countries and the present inequality in
education and occupations will persist.
RELATION OF EQUALITY WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE

The relation between equality and liberty has been one of the interesting controversies
of liberalism. The root of the controversy is:

 Are liberty and equality opposed to each other or are they complimentary to each
other?

In the modern constitutions, we find a frequent association of both liberty and equality in
the list of fundamental rights. But they have not always been the same. The English liberal
tradition seemed to place more emphasis on liberty while the French tradition had always
sought to secure recognition of the principle of equality.
Historically speaking, early Negative Liberalism6 preferred liberty to equality. It held
preservation of liberty in the sense of 'absence of restraints' as the principle function of the state
and any concession to equality beyond 'equality before law' was deemed as exceeding the
proper scope of the functions of state.
Positive liberalisation 7 as developed in the twentieth century takes the opposite view. It
considers equality as something good and basic to liberty. It holds both the attainment of liberty
and equality as complementary to each other.

 Liberty and Equality As Opposed to Each Other

That liberty and equality are opposed to each other has been an important current of
early liberalism. Classical liberalism gave so much importance to liberty that equality became
a slave of it. It believed that liberty is natural and so is equality. So by nature liberty and equality
are opposed to each other. Early liberal thinkers like Locke, Adam Smith, Bentham, James

6
Isaiah Berlin in his 1958 lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty".
7
Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill
Mill, and Tocqueville felt that there should be minimum restrictions on the liberty of the
individual. For example, Locke did not include equality in the list of three natural rights.

Similarly, men like Lord Acton and Alexis de Tocqueville insisted that equality and
liberty were anti-thetical. They argued that the desire for equality has destroyed the possibility
of having liberty. Liberalism, during this era was based upon the concept of free market and
open competition among the egoistic rational individuals and it believed that the outcome of
economic competition, though unequal, is benevolent and progressive. This legitimisation of
inequality had a strong emphasis on and commitment to the doctrine of individualism. At the
political level, it asserted that there is a necessary contradiction between liberty and equality.
Just as liberty is associated with the individual, equality is concerned with social intervention.
Thus, any attempt to remove inequality involves considerable social and political intervention
to equalise conditions and to remove existing privileges. However, this intervention must
interfere with the individual and his private exercise of freedom. Early liberals believed that no
individual will voluntarily give up wealth and privileges in an unequal society and as a result,
programmes of social equalisation must interfere with the democratic rights of the individual.
Only the individual is fully able to know and express his peculiar needs and interests; it is
inappropriate for the state or some other body to interfere in the life and liberty of private
citizens. Liberty, choice and money were closely related in early liberalism. The wealth of the
rich also constituted their liberty and being coerced to part away with their wealth meant a
double encroachment on their freedom.

In the twentieth century, the theory has been supported by Bagehot, May, Stephen,
Hayek, Milton Friedman, Mosca, Pareto etc. They believe that given the financial and social
inequalities. a political programme to secure social equality of conditions or equality of
outcome would require massive social and political regulation by the state resulting in a
totalitarian and authoritarian regime. 'The pursuit of equality has in practice led to inequality
and tyranny. This is not a mere accident. It is the direct result of the conditions which are
inherent in the very concept of equality. Egalitarianism relies on the achievement of its
objective on the coercive power of the state as they are bound to do by the nature of human
material with which they deal. A society in which the choices fundamental to the human
existence are determined by coercion is not a free society. It follows irresistibly that egalitarians
must choose between liberty and equality.
 Similarly, according to Hayek, 'From the fact that people are very different, it
follows that if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position
and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them
differently. The equality before law which freedom requires leads to material inequality. The
desire of making people more like in their conditions cannot be accepted in a free society and
is a justification for further and discriminatory coercion'.

In other words, the price of significant equality would be political despotism which
would subordinate individual talent and achievement. In the name of equality, the state
unnecessarily increases its powers and restricts the rights and liberties of the people.
Radical equality of persons and outcome requires a totalitarian system of regulation. However,
even this is no guarantee to equality. In practice, the so-called authoritarian regimes have never
achieved total regulation. Since human beings are averse to absolute regimentation, some
degree of inequality of outcome appears inevitable despite all social and political attempts to
eradicate such inequalities. Hence regardless of ideology, the achievement of equality is a
problem.

The supporters of the elite theory of democracy believe that people are politically
unequal and to save democracy and liberty from monocracy, it is essential that only elites (i.e.
individuals and groups who are superior and hence unequal) should participate in the political
process. In other words, to retain political liberty, inequality and not equality is the basis of
liberty.

In short, liberty and equality are incompatible, liberalism stands for liberty, equality is
desirable only before law, political equality should be limited to the right to vote and elections
of the elite; social and economic equality in so far as it increases the powers of the state is a
threat to liberty.

 Equality and Liberty Are Complimentary To Each Other

The early liberal argument that equality and liberty are mutually exclusive assumed an
inevitable conflict between personal interests and social requirements. But this dichotomy of
individual versus society proved false historically. The demand for economic and social
equality raised in the 19 century by the socialists and positive liberals made equality the prime
requirement of liberty. Positive liberals maintained that liberty and equality are complementary
to each other and the state was assigned the task of correcting the social and economic
imbalances through legislation and regulation. The supporters of this viewpoint are Rousseau,
Maitland, T.H. Green, Hobhouse, Lindsay, R.H. Tawney, Barker, Laski, Macpherson, etc.

Positive liberalism saw the individual as a social being whose personal desires could be
satisfied in the context of a cooperative social relationship within a social environment. It
interpreted liberty as 'equality of opportunity' which means that opportunity should be given to
everyone to realise the "implication of his personality'. To provide such opportunity, deliberate
social restraints need to be placed upon individual freedom. As Tawney wrote,
"The liberty of the weak depends upon the restraint of the strong and that of the poor upon the
restraint of the rich. Everyman should have this liberty and no more to do upon others as he
would that they should to do him'. Liberty demands that none should be placed at the mercy of
others. By securing opportunities for all to be their best selves, liberty makes equality real.
Without liberty, equality lapses into dull uniformity.

Without the satisfaction of economic needs, liberty cannot be realised. In a society of

economic unequals, gross inequalities make liberty the privilege of a few. As Laski wrote, an
interest in liberty begins when men have ceased to be overwhelmed by the problem of sheer
existence; it is when they have a chance of leisure, economic sufficiency and leisure for
thought, these are primary conditions of free man. Equality, which aims to put an end to gross
inequalities of wealth and power, is the true basis of liberty. Whenever there is inequality,
liberty is thwarted To quote Tawney again, 'A large measure of equality far from inimical to
liberty, is essential to it. A society, which permits gross inequalities, cannot secure political or
civil liberty. Where there are rich and poor, educated and uneducated, we find masters and
servants'. Inequality of wealth results in the division of society between rich and poor where
the rich use their wealth to capture power and use it for their selfish ends. Likewise, if there is
a social inequality, people cannot enjoy liberty. For example, the untouchables, scheduled
castes and tribes who are both socially and economically unequal cannot enjoy liberty.
Similarly, equality in justice is a primary condition for the attainment of civil freedom, but the
inability of the poor to employ skillful lawyers becomes a fatal bar to get justice. Thus, as
Pollard writes, 'There is only one solution of liberty and it lies in equality. Liberty without
equality can degenerate into a license of the few.'
 Positive liberals did not agree with the view that state regulations in the economic and
social spheres will lead to authoritarianism8. On the other hand, as Hobhouse 9 wrote, the state
has been driven by the manifest teachings of experience that liberty without equality is a name
of 'noble sound and squalid results'. Rightly understood, the welfare legislation appears not as
an infringement of the two distinct ideals of liberty and equality, but a necessary means of their
fulfillment. The social legislation in the field of unemployment, health, insurance, old age
pension. free education, increase in the general amenities etc. have gone a long way to reduce
the inequalities in society. Rather, the limits of improvement in this direction of greater
equalisation is yet to be reached. Both equality and liberty are complementary and one is not
complete without the other. Both have a common end; the promotion of individual personality
and the spontaneous development of his personality. In this context, both liberty and equality
complement and supplement each other. Without liberty, there can be no equality and without
equality, there can be no liberty. Both have to be reconciled. As Dean writes, 'Liberty and
equality are not in conflict or even separate but are different facets of the same ideal... indeed
since they are identical, there can be no problem of law or to what extent they are or can be
related: this is surely the nearest; if not the most satisfactory solution ever devised for a
perennial problem of political philosophy'. Similarly, Gans writes, 'there is no inherent conflict
between liberty and equality. The society we must create should provide enough equality to
permit everyone the liberty to control his or her own life as much as possible without inflicting
undue inequality on other'.

However, inspite of reconciliation between liberty and equality, even positive

liberalism prefers liberty to equality. For example, Barker writes that whatever claims be made
in the name of equality, it cannot be viewed in isolation, for the principle stands by the
principles of liberty and fraternity. But still there are reasons for thinking that liberty matters
even more than equality.It is greater because it is more closely connected with the supreme
value of the personality than the spontaneous development of its capacities. It is greater because
the cause of liberty unites men together in something which each and all can possess, while the
cause of equality, exclusively pressed, may make them sink into jealousy of supposed forms
of invidious differences and produce division rather than unity'. Equality, if pressed to the point

8
a way of governing that values order and control over personal freedom.
9
Hobhouse: Liberalism and Other Writings , pp. 56 - 66
of uniformity, would defeat its own purpose, 'the subject will become the master and the word
is turned topsy-turvy'.

CONCLUSION

We live amidst distinctions between human beings on the ground of race and color,
knowing well it is unacceptable. In fact such distinctions violate our intuitive understanding of
equality which tells us that all human beings are entitled to similar respect and consideration
because of their common humanity. No society treats all its members in exactly the same way
under all circumstances. There can be no identity of treatment so long as men are different in
wants, capacities, and needs. Injustice arises much from treating unequal’s equally as from
treating equals unequally. And most importantly apart from the natural inequalities, there are
inequalities created by the society- inequality based upon birth, wealth, knowledge and
religion.

The movement of history is not towards greater equality because as fast as we eliminate
one inequality, we create another one: the difference being that the one we discard is
unjustifiable while the one we create seems reasonable. Hence the social political, educational
equalities are always in need of reinforcement and reinterpretation by every new generation.
Like liberty, equality can also be understood in its negative and positive aspects. Negative
equality was associated with the end of such privileges and positively it meant the availability
of opportunity.

Equality means that no one is disadvantaged or discriminated against in any way. The
Preamble guarantees all citizens of the country equal status and opportunity. All forms of
inequity, whether based on the concept of rulers and ruled, caste, or gender, were to be
eradicated. Political scientists use the term equality differently from the terms uniformity,
identity, and sameness. Diversity is not eliminated in the name of equality.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Gauba, O.P., An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi, Macmillan, 7th edition,
2018)
 Berlin, Isaih, Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford, O.U.P., Reprint, 1996)
 Tawney, R.H. Equality (London, George, Allen and Unwin, 3rd edition, 1938)
 Mill, J.S., On Liberty (London, Watts and Co., 1948)