Concept of Equality

The problem of equality and inequality has figured in political thought since earliest
times. Aristotle, for instance, discovered that 'inequality' was a cause of rebellion
in many a state. He defined justice as treating equals equally and unequals unequally.
This was a typical statement in that it insisted on recognition and maintenance of
existing inequalities in society—between master and slave, between rich and
poor, between morally superior and morally inferior, and so on. The modern idea
of equality, on the contrary, seeks the reduction in inequalities insofar as they can
be proved to be unjust according to the prevailing social consciousness.
EQUALITY AS A STATEMENT OF RIGHT, NOT OF FACT
At the outset, it is essential to note that the modern idea of equality is derived
from the theory of rights. Equality is a prescriptive term, not a descriptive one.
We argue that men must be treated as equal, not that they are in fact equal. We, of
course, advance some logic in support of our claim to human equality. For instance,
we postulate that man as such is a rational being; he is endowed with the faculty
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
Concept of Equality 373
of 'reason'; all men are created equal by God. Or we argue that the physicial,
emotional and intellectual needs of all men are similar; hence all are entitled to
equal rights. We do not say that all men are equal in their physical or mental
capacities, beauty and talents, etc. Sometimes we dwell on physical attributes to
press our claim, such as, when we argue that men may differ in the colour of
their skin, but they are all similar in the colour of their blood, hence they should
be treated equally. Nature has not made different persons with different elements.
A drug does not discriminate between the jew and the gentile while showing its
effect. Blood group of the black may match with that of the white whereas it
may not match in the case of two whites or blacks. The black may donate his eye
or kidney to the white to restore his lost vision or to give him a new lease of life.
In short, the distinction between different races is not ordained by nature. Thus
we tend to establish some fundamental equality among men—equality as a fact—
to press their claim of equality as a right.
Sometimes, it is argued that the idea of equality does not derive its support
from nature, as the idea of liberty does, hence it is not based on reason.. For
instance, it is stated that nature has created all things .unequal, right from the sun
and moon, sky and earth, mountains and oceans, plants and trees, birds and
animals to men and women, older and younger, stronger and weaker, wiser and
stupid, and so on. Hence the principle of equality nowhere holds good. Why
should it be imposed against the scheme of the nature itself? Such arguments
come in very handy to those who wish to preserve their privileged position. They
are quite apprehensive of the idea of equality because they believe that liberty
enables men to acquire unlimited wealth, power and prestige while equality seeks
to diminish their achievements. They even try to demonstrate that any measure
to limit their liberty, in the interest of equality, will rob society of its valuable
assets, and that the idea of equality should be thoroughly abandoned in the interest
of society!

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 1/26
 This line of argument is, however, based on a distorted concept of liberty.
Freedom in society can serve as a valid rule only when it is interpreted as 'equal
freedom' of all, not otherwise. Absolute liberty will only result in the liberty of
the strong and the clever to oppress the weak and the simple. If liberty is not to
degenerate into license, it must be qualified by equality. In other words, I can
enjoy my freedom only to the extent that it does not infringe on the similar and
equal freedom of others. Now, this principle cannot be restricted to the legal
sphere; it must be extended to the political, social and economic spheres also. As
R.H. Tawney, in his classic work Equality (1938), has observed:
If liberty means . . . that every individual shall be free, according to his
opportunities, to indulge without limit his appetite ... it is clearly
incompatible, not only with economic and social, but with civil and political,
equality, which also prevent the strong exploiting to the full the advantages
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
374 An Introduction to Political Theory
of their strength . .. But freedom for the pike is death for the minnows. It
is possible that equality is contrasted, not with liberty, but only with a
particular interpretation of it.
Accordingly, the introduction of equality is not intended to dilute the content
of liberty but to make it more relevant and substantive. If the principle of equality
is invoked to prevent some section of society from acquiring unlimited money,
power or prestige, it is only intended to restrict the element of 'exploitation' so
that other sections of society are not deprived of their due share in these
advantages. Equality aims at widening the base of social benefits lest these benefits
are cornered by a small and vocal minority impoverishing the rest of the
community.
It is, therefore, evident that liberty and equality, as human rights, do not emanate
from very different sources. On the contrary, they are based on the same logic,
and they are intended to serve the same social purpose. write an detailed article with
subheadings, keep names of scholars, give quotes, highlight keywords

The Concept of Equality and Inequality in Political Thought

Introduction

The issue of equality and inequality has been a central theme in political thought since ancient
times. Philosophers and scholars have long debated the implications and justifications of treating
individuals equally or unequally. Aristotle was among the early thinkers to discuss this, recognizing
that inequality often leads to rebellion. His definition of justice as treating "equals equally and
unequals unequally" highlighted the recognition and maintenance of societal inequalities. However,
the modern idea of equality seeks to reduce inequalities deemed unjust according to prevailing
social consciousness.

Equality as a Statement of Right, Not of Fact

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 2/26
 At the heart of the modern concept of equality lies the theory of rights. Equality is a prescriptive
term, meaning it suggests how individuals ought to be treated, rather than describing how they are in
reality. The argument is not that all people are equal in their abilities or circumstances, but that they
must be treated as equals in terms of their rights.

Fundamental Basis of Equality

To support the claim of human equality, several logical and philosophical justifications are advanced:

1. Rational Being: Man is considered a rational being, endowed with reason.

2. Creation by God: All men are believed to be created equal by God.
3. Similar Needs: Physical, emotional, and intellectual needs of all men are similar, entitling them
to equal rights.

Physical attributes are often used to emphasize equality, such as stating that while people may differ
in skin color, they share the same color of blood, which should necessitate equal treatment.

Natural Inequality Argument

Some argue that the idea of equality is not naturally supported, unlike the concept of liberty. Nature
has created all things unequal, from celestial bodies to humans and animals. This argument is often
used by those wishing to preserve their privileged positions, suggesting that imposing equality goes
against nature's scheme.

Liberty and Equality: Interconnected Concepts

The argument against equality based on natural inequality is often used to justify the preservation of
privilege. However, this is based on a distorted concept of liberty. True liberty, as noted by R.H.
Tawney in his classic work "Equality" (1938), must mean equal freedom for all, not absolute freedom
for the privileged few.
Tawney argues:

"If liberty means . . . that every individual shall be free, according to his opportunities, to
indulge without limit his appetite ... it is clearly incompatible, not only with economic and
social, but with civil and political, equality, which also prevent the strong exploiting to the
full the advantages of their strength ... But freedom for the pike is death for the minnows."

The Interplay Between Liberty and Equality

The introduction of equality is not intended to dilute liberty but to make it more relevant and
substantive. Equality ensures that the freedom of some does not infringe upon the equal freedom of
others. This principle must extend beyond the legal sphere into political, social, and economic realms.

Equality and Social Benefits

The principle of equality seeks to prevent the monopolization of social benefits by a small minority,
ensuring a wider distribution of advantages across society. This helps prevent exploitation and
ensures that all sections of society receive their fair share of resources and opportunities.

Conclusion
Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 3/26
 In conclusion, liberty and equality as human rights are derived from the same fundamental logic and
aim to serve the same social purpose. They are not inherently contradictory but complementary, each
reinforcing the other to create a just and equitable society.

This detailed article covers the concept of equality, its historical context, and its modern implications,
with references to significant scholars and their contributions to the debate.

write an detailed article with subheadings, keep names of scholars, give quotes, highlight
keywords.EQUALITY AS A MODERN IDEA
Equality in the present sense, i.e. as a principle of correcting the unjust inequalities
in society, is a typically modern idea. There is no doubt that large inequalities of
wealth, prestige and power have always remained a prominent and almost universal
feature of social structure throughout human history. But as Tom Bottomore, in
his Classes in Modern Society (1965), has demonstrated:
During the greater part of human history this inequality among men has
been generally accepted as an unalterable fact. Ancient and medieval writers,
when they touch upon the subject of the social hierarchy, always tended
to provide a rationalization and justification of the established order, very
often in terms of a religious doctrine concerning the origin of social ranks...
Only in modern times and particularly since the American and French
Revolutions, has social class, as a stark embodiment of the principle of
inequality, become an object of scientific study, and at the same time of
widespread condemnation in terms of new social doctrines.
In other words, traditional thinkers took the phenomenon of social inequality
as something divinely ordained. They sought to demonstrate that man could lead
an ideal life according to his predetermined status. This mode of thought was
quite natural to slave-owning society, feudal society and caste-based society
which were not used to scientific reasoning. They took social order, like natural
order, as something not capable of change by human design or effort.
However, with the dawn of the scientific age when men learned to control
natural phenomena by rational and empirical knowledge of nature, they also tended
to evolve a rational knowledge of social structures. Many a thinker sought to
discover the real foundations of social inequalities, and subjected them to a rational
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
Concept of
Equality
375
analysis. In other words, social thinkers of the modern age were led to inquire:
(a) how far the existing inequalities in society were the product of the social
arrangement and, could therefore be altered by making corresponding changes in
the social structure; and (b) how far those social inequalities, which were thus
alterable, could be upheld by reason. The main thrust of this line of thinking was
to pave the way for removing such social inequalities as were not 'reasonable',
and which were also 'removable' by human effort

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 4/26
 Equality as a Modern Idea
Introduction

Equality, in its modern sense as a principle aimed at correcting unjust inequalities in society, is a
relatively new concept. Historically, significant inequalities in wealth, prestige, and power have been a
nearly universal aspect of social structures. However, the modern idea of equality seeks to address
and rectify these disparities, viewing them as alterable and unjust.

Historical Context of Inequality

Tom Bottomore, in his work Classes in Modern Society (1965), emphasizes that for much of human
history, inequality was accepted as an unchangeable fact. He states:

"During the greater part of human history this inequality among men has been generally
accepted as an unalterable fact. Ancient and medieval writers, when they touch upon the
subject of the social hierarchy, always tended to provide a rationalization and justification of
the established order, very often in terms of a religious doctrine concerning the origin of
social ranks."

Traditional Justifications of Inequality

Traditional thinkers often viewed social inequality as divinely ordained, suggesting that individuals
could lead ideal lives within their predetermined statuses. This perspective was natural in slave-
owning, feudal, and caste-based societies, which lacked scientific reasoning. These societies viewed
social order as fixed and unchangeable, akin to the natural order.

The Dawn of the Scientific Age

With the advent of the scientific age, individuals began to understand and control natural phenomena
through rational and empirical knowledge. This shift in thinking extended to social structures as well.
Thinkers began to investigate the foundations of social inequalities and subjected them to rational
analysis. This marked a significant shift from accepting inequality as divinely ordained to viewing it as
potentially alterable.

Rational Inquiry into Social Inequality

Modern social thinkers pursued two main lines of inquiry regarding social inequality:

1. Source of Inequality: They examined how much of the existing inequalities in society were
products of social arrangements and thus could be changed by altering these structures.
2. Reasonableness of Inequality: They assessed how reasonable these inequalities were and
whether they could be justified by rational arguments.

The Modern Thrust Towards Equality

The primary goal of modern thought on equality has been to remove social inequalities that are
deemed unreasonable and removable through human effort. This new approach challenges
traditional justifications and seeks to create a more equitable society.

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 5/26
 Conclusion

In conclusion, the modern idea of equality is fundamentally different from historical views that
accepted inequality as unchangeable. By applying rational and empirical methods to social structures,
modern thinkers have paved the way for addressing and correcting unjust inequalities, thereby
promoting a more equitable society.

This detailed article explores the evolution of the concept of equality, highlighting the shift from
traditional acceptance of inequality to modern efforts to correct unjust disparities. It includes
references to significant scholars and their contributions to this transformative change in social
thought.

EQUALITY AS AN IDEA OF SOCIAL CHANGE

Scientific thinking about the social structure led to the demand for social change.
J.J. Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755), drew an
important distinction between the two types of inequalities found in social life:
natural inequality and conventional inequality. Natural or physical inequality, as a
statement of fact, consists in the differences of age, health, bodily strength and
qualities of mind and soul. Conventional inequality, on the other hand, consists in
the different privileges that some men enjoy to the exclusion of others, such as
inequalities of wealth, prestige and power. It follows that one form of inequality
is not dependent upon human choice, being more or less ordained by nature. The
other form of inequality is largely man-made; it emanates from the social order
more or less deliberately designed by men themselves. Recognition of conventional
inequality provides for ample scope to review the basis of social distinctions and
to restructure social relations according to new concepts of social justice. Thus,
the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), which was
inspired by Rousseau's revolutionary ideas, recorded: "Men are born and remain
free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only upon public utility."
It is significant that with the advance of scientific knowledge and technology,
more and more areas of natural inequality are coming within the 'alterable' sphere.
We know that health and bodily strength can be considerably improved by proper
nutrition, and mental make-up can be considerably developed by proper education
and training. Even physical deformities and mental handicaps can be prevented
by timely care, protection and treatment, so much so that an individual's
appearance is amenable to plastic surgery and the skill of the beautician! The
availability of these benefits to any individual is again dependent on his socioeconomic status and
the technological development of the society in which he
lives. It is becoming increasingly clear that a large part of humanity is being
deprived of the benefits of modern civilization largely because of the prevailing
social distinctions and inequalities, not because of some divinely ordained system.
Thus, the demand for equality is always raised as a demand for social change,
that is changes in that part of the social structure which is found to be 'alterable'
as well as unjust. As John Rees in his Equality (1971) has elucidated:
It is when men, or some of them, see certain ... inequalities as unjust and
alterable that equality as an ideal becomes a potent force in political life...
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 6/26
 376 An Introduction to Political Theory
Before an inequality can become the object of criticism and regarded as
unjust it would seem to be a necessary condition that it should be alterable...
But by no means all alterable inequalities are thought to be unjust for,
making due allowance for the variety of standpoints as to what constitutes
injustice, there are some inequalities which are accepted as socially useful,
not to say beneficial.
If nature has imposed the burden of child-bearing on women, some may
consider it unjust but nobody would make it a political issue because this aspect
of natural inequality between the sexes is unalterable. If some are more beautiful,
talented or energetic than others, and thus enjoy more importance, this would not
be resented in society unless the more gifted persons employ their natural qualities
to exploit others. So long as authority and division of labour are based on rational
grounds, inequality of status and position does not become objectionable. The
relation between teacher and student, doctor and patient, traffic-controller and
road-user, etc. may involve some sort of dominance and subordination, but so
long as authority is exercised in the general interest, inequality is not at issue. do same as before

Equality as an Idea of Social Change

Introduction

The modern concept of equality as a driver for social change emerged from scientific thinking about
social structures. This shift led to a re-evaluation of the basis of social distinctions and the deliberate
design of social orders by humans, promoting a more equitable society.

Natural and Conventional Inequality

J.J. Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755), differentiated between two types of
inequalities in social life:

1. Natural Inequality: This consists of differences in age, health, bodily strength, and qualities of
mind and soul. These differences are a statement of fact and are considered to be ordained by
nature.
2. Conventional Inequality: This consists of privileges enjoyed by some individuals to the
exclusion of others, such as inequalities of wealth, prestige, and power. These inequalities are
man-made and stem from social orders deliberately designed by humans.

Rousseau's recognition of conventional inequality provided the scope to review and restructure
social relations based on new concepts of social justice. Inspired by Rousseau's revolutionary ideas,
the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) declared:

"Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be based only
upon public utility."

The Role of Scientific Knowledge and Technology

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 7/26
 With the advancement of scientific knowledge and technology, more areas of natural inequality are
becoming alterable. Health and bodily strength can be improved through proper nutrition, and mental
capabilities can be enhanced through education and training. Even physical deformities and mental
handicaps can be mitigated with timely care, protection, and treatment.
However, the availability of these benefits is dependent on an individual's socio-economic status and
the technological development of the society in which they live. A significant portion of humanity is
deprived of the benefits of modern civilization due to prevailing social distinctions and inequalities,
not a divinely ordained system.

The Demand for Equality as Social Change

The demand for equality is inherently a demand for social change. This involves changes in the social
structure found to be alterable and unjust. As John Rees elucidated in his work Equality (1971):

"It is when men, or some of them, see certain ... inequalities as unjust and alterable that
equality as an ideal becomes a potent force in political life... Before an inequality can
become the object of criticism and regarded as unjust it would seem to be a necessary
condition that it should be alterable... But by no means all alterable inequalities are thought
to be unjust for, making due allowance for the variety of standpoints as to what constitutes
injustice, there are some inequalities which are accepted as socially useful, not to say
beneficial."

Rational Grounds for Inequality

Certain inequalities are accepted in society as long as they serve a rational purpose and are exercised
in the general interest. For example, the relationship between teacher and student, doctor and
patient, or traffic-controller and road-user involves some form of dominance and subordination, but
these are not resented as they are based on rational grounds and serve the public good.
However, if natural qualities such as beauty, talent, or energy are used to exploit others, inequality
becomes objectionable. The key is that authority and division of labor must be justified on rational
grounds to prevent inequality from being resented.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the modern idea of equality as a force for social change challenges traditional
justifications of inequality and seeks to promote a more equitable society through rational and
scientific approaches. It recognizes the distinction between natural and conventional inequalities and
emphasizes the need to address and rectify unjust and alterable disparities.

This detailed article examines the concept of equality as an idea of social change, highlighting the
influence of scientific thinking and rational inquiry. It includes references to significant scholars and
their contributions to this transformative perspective on social structures.

EQUALITY DOES NOT IMPLY LITERAL EQUALITY

Inequality becomes a ground of complaint and resentment only when it is thought
to be unjust. To be sure, equality demands a progressive reduction of inequalities
where they are thought to be unreasonable; it does not imply literal equalization.

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 8/26
 In other words, inequality in society may be thought to be 'reasonable' or
'unreasonable', according to the prevalent idea of social justice. According to the
prevalent view of ancient slave-owning society, medieval feudal society and early
capitalist society, inequality between master and slave, lord and serf, capitalist
and worker was regarded reasonable. But with the development of the socialist
view of justice, especially the Marxian view, this inequality was regarded unjust
and unreasonable, and hence challenged. Marx (1818-83) and Engels (1820-95)
have amply demonstrated that the division of society into classes—capitalists
and workers, bourgeoisie and proletariat, haves and have-nots—involves
'exploitation' and that this is prejudicial to the development of conditions of
human happiness.
The ideal of equality does not contemplate that all material goods, entire national
income or all educational opportunities available in society should be equally
distributed among all members of society. It rather means that men, who are
different in their physical and mental capacities, aptitudes and skills, talents and
energies, should be given equal opportunities for the development of their personal
qualities and capacities, in the shape of material goods, comforts, education,
training, etc. As R.H. Tawney in his Equality (1938) elucidated:
Different kinds of energy need different conditions to evoke them, and
the sentiment of justice is satisfied, not by offering to every man identical
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
Concept of
Equality
377
treatment, but by treating different individuals in the same way insofar as,
being human, they have requirements which are the same, and in different
ways insofar as, being concerned with different services, they have
requirements which differ. do same as before

Equality Does Not Imply Literal Equality

Introduction

The concept of equality is often misunderstood as demanding literal equalization of all individuals in
every aspect of life. However, equality primarily seeks the progressive reduction of unreasonable
inequalities while recognizing the inherent differences among individuals. Inequality becomes a
ground for complaint and resentment only when it is perceived as unjust.

Reasonable vs. Unreasonable Inequality

Inequality in society can be seen as either reasonable or unreasonable based on the prevailing idea
of social justice. For instance, in ancient slave-owning societies, medieval feudal societies, and early
capitalist societies, inequality between master and slave, lord and serf, and capitalist and worker was
considered reasonable. This view was challenged with the development of the socialist perspective,
especially the Marxian view.

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 9/26
 Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) demonstrated that the division of society
into classes—capitalists and workers, bourgeoisie and proletariat, haves and have-nots—involves
exploitation. This exploitation, they argued, is detrimental to the development of conditions for
human happiness. Marx and Engels asserted:

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

The Marxian Challenge to Inequality

According to Marx and Engels, the class division inherent in capitalist societies is unjust and
unreasonable. They believed that the exploitation of workers by capitalists leads to significant social
and economic inequalities, which hinder human progress and happiness. This Marxian critique has
been a fundamental challenge to traditional views of inequality.

Equality of Opportunities

The modern ideal of equality does not advocate for the equal distribution of all material goods,
national income, or educational opportunities. Instead, it emphasizes equal opportunities for
individuals to develop their personal qualities and capacities. This perspective acknowledges that
people differ in their physical and mental capacities, aptitudes, skills, talents, and energies.

R.H. Tawney on Equality

R.H. Tawney, in his work Equality (1938), elaborates on this nuanced understanding of equality:

"Different kinds of energy need different conditions to evoke them, and the sentiment of
justice is satisfied, not by offering to every man identical treatment, but by treating
different individuals in the same way insofar as, being human, they have requirements
which are the same, and in different ways insofar as, being concerned with different
services, they have requirements which differ."

Tawney's view highlights the importance of contextual fairness. Justice is achieved not by identical
treatment for all but by addressing individual needs and circumstances to ensure equal opportunities
for development.

Practical Implications

In practical terms, this approach means that society should provide the necessary material goods,
comforts, education, training, and other resources to all individuals. However, the distribution of
these resources should consider individual differences and specific needs. The goal is to create a fair
and just society where everyone has the opportunity to realize their potential.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the concept of equality does not imply literal equalization of all individuals. Instead, it
focuses on reducing unreasonable inequalities and providing equal opportunities for personal
development. By recognizing the inherent differences among individuals and addressing their specific
needs, society can achieve a more just and equitable distribution of resources and opportunities.

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 10/26
 This detailed article explores the nuanced understanding of equality, emphasizing the difference
between reasonable and unreasonable inequalities. It includes references to significant scholars and
their contributions to this perspective, highlighting the importance of contextual fairness in achieving
social justice.

If equality does not imply literal equality in distribution of rights and advantages,
it is bound to accept discrimination on certain grounds. What are those grounds?
Since we defend the principle of equality on the basis of 'reason', or 'logic', we
can safely say that equality allows discrimination on 'reasonable', 'rational',
'logical', or 'relevant' grounds. What is reasonable and what is not so depends
on the level of social consciousness of a given society For our purpose, rational
grounds of discrimination could be determined according to the modern
consciousness. Broadly speaking, we can identify two area for making special
provision, that is making discrimination in favour of certain cases, on rational
grounds: (a) Special provision in the case of need; and (b) Special rewards for
excellence. These are by no means simple formulae. Each case would need a
thorough scrutiny before any discrimination is actually made.
SPECIAL PROVISION IN THE CASE OF NEED
This may apply both to apportionment of liabilities and concessions. Thus a
progressive taxation system would spare the lower income slabs while tax would
go on increasing on the higher slabs. Those in the lower slabs are exempted
because they are unable to pay tax; they are supposed to be already living at
subsistence level. Similarly, provision of social services has to be made according
to needs of various sections, not according to the amount of taxes that they pay
for the financing of these services. Thus the benefit of cheap transport, postal
services (e.g. ordinary post card), schools, hospitals, libraries, places of
entertainment, etc. may largely be availed by those who pay very little towards
their financing. Scholarships may be given on merit-cum-means basis (in fact,
merit would be secondary criterion; means would be the first consideration).
Public finds would be kept readily available to rush aid to victims of fire,
flood, famine, earthquake, epidemic, war or crime, etc. The state is obliged to
provide for uneconomic roads, and other essential supplies and services, such as
transport services, water, electricity and fuel, foodgrains, milk, vegetables, etc.
at subsidized rates in order to meet the genuine needs of the community.
Reservation of jobs and other advantages for the disadvantaged and weaker
sections, such as women, the handicapped, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes, etc. largely conforms to this criterion.
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
378 An Introduction to Political Theory
SPECIAL REWARD FOR EXCELLENCE
The doctrine of equality is sometimes dubbed 'philosophy of poverty', not only
because it tends to serve the cause of the poor but also because it tends to
impoverish society in its standards of excellence. Thus David Hume (1711-76)
had argued that equality would endanger the virtues of 'art, care and industry'
and instead of preventing want in a few, it would lead to the impoverishment of
the entire community. Such a view is based either on a misunderstanding or
misrepresentation of the principle of equality. Such apprehensions about the impact

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 11/26
 of equality stem from its interpretation as literal equalization of rewards irrespective
of talents, efforts and even needs of various individuals. A rational view of equality
does not accept this position. In fact faith in equality neither implies equalization
of results nor disrespect of excellence.
Special provision for excellence is itself a basic tenet of the principle of equality.
It comes into play when basic 'needs' have been largely met, and special talents
and efforts are to be given special rewards provided they are beneficial to society.
Let us take example of an orchestra group. It is quite possible that we may get an
'equal' or 'near equal' performance of each artist by giving finest instruments to
the less skilled and very ordinary instruments to the finest players. A similar
equality may be obtained by giving very good books to the students of low
calibre and ordinary books to the most brilliant; or by giving excellent clothes to
the plain-featured girls, and ordinary clothes to the most beautiful girls! But is
such equality desirable, not to speak of reasonable? Such a ridiculous interpretation
of equality can be expected only from its opponents, not from its supporters.
Equality is meant to create conditions where talents would not rot, where special
efforts would not go waste. A rational interpretation of equality would insist that,
after making necessary provision for the basic needs, best musical instruments
should be given to the best players, best books to the best students, and best
clothes to the best girls. This criterion should not be taken as unconditional
acceptance of the 'market society model'. We have made an important proviso
that such excellence should be beneficial to society. A market society eulogizes
'private profit' as the highest virtue, and allows 'manipulators' to earn largest
profits for their private consumption, at the expense of the vulnerable sections of
society. The principle of excellence, on the contrary, postulates a situation in
which the service rendered to society becomes the sole criterion of distinction
and special reward which is conducive to promoting the spirit of fraternity. do same as before

Discrimination on Reasonable Grounds: Special Provisions and

Rewards
Introduction

The principle of equality does not imply literal equalization in the distribution of rights and
advantages. Instead, it allows for discrimination on reasonable, rational, logical, or relevant grounds.
The determination of what constitutes reasonable grounds for discrimination depends on the level of
social consciousness of a given society. In modern contexts, rational grounds for discrimination can
be broadly identified in two areas: special provision in the case of need and special rewards for
excellence. Each case requires thorough scrutiny before any discrimination is actually made.

Special Provision in the Case of Need

Special provisions based on need involve the apportionment of liabilities and concessions to ensure
fairness and support for those in disadvantaged positions.

Progressive Taxation System

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 12/26
 A progressive taxation system is an example where lower income slabs are spared from heavy taxes
while higher slabs are taxed more. Those in the lower income slabs are exempted because they are
already living at a subsistence level.

Provision of Social Services

Provision of social services is made according to the needs of various sections, not based on the
amount of taxes paid. Benefits like cheap transport, postal services, schools, hospitals, libraries,
and entertainment places are often availed by those who pay little towards their financing.
Scholarships, for example, may be awarded on a merit-cum-means basis, where means take
precedence over merit.

Public Aid and Subsidies

Public funds are made available to provide aid during emergencies like fire, flood, famine,
earthquake, epidemic, war, or crime. The state is also obligated to provide essential services such as
transport, water, electricity, and food at subsidized rates to meet the community's genuine needs.

Reservations for Disadvantaged Sections

Reservation of jobs and other advantages for disadvantaged and weaker sections, such as women,
the handicapped, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, conforms to this criterion of need-based
discrimination.

Special Rewards for Excellence

The doctrine of equality is sometimes criticized as a 'philosophy of poverty' because it is believed to

impoverish society by diminishing standards of excellence. Critics like David Hume (1711-1776)
argued that equality would endanger virtues like 'art, care, and industry' and lead to the
impoverishment of the community:

"Equality would endanger the virtues of 'art, care, and industry' and instead of preventing
want in a few, it would lead to the impoverishment of the entire community."

However, such criticisms stem from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the principle of

equality. Rational equality does not imply the equalization of rewards irrespective of talents, efforts,
or needs. Instead, it supports the idea that special talents and efforts should be given special
rewards, provided they benefit society.

Provision for Talents and Efforts

Once basic needs are met, it is rational to provide the best resources to those with special talents and
efforts. For example, in an orchestra, the finest instruments should be given to the best players.
Similarly, the best books should be provided to the best students, and the best clothes to the most
deserving individuals.

Promoting Social Benefits

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 13/26
 This rational interpretation of equality ensures that talents are nurtured, and special efforts are not
wasted. It emphasizes that special provisions for excellence should benefit society. Unlike the market
society model which promotes private profit, this principle encourages a system where service to
society becomes the sole criterion for distinction and reward, promoting the spirit of fraternity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the principle of equality does not imply literal equalization but allows for discrimination
on rational and relevant grounds. Special provisions based on need and special rewards for excellence
are essential components of a fair and just society. These measures ensure that disadvantaged
sections receive the support they need while recognizing and nurturing talents that contribute to the
overall benefit of society.

If the principle of equality is interpreted to concede discrimination in favour of

some deprived sections, this would not go unchallenged. In the United States this
issue has given rise to a debate on 'reverse discrimination'. It means that when
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
Concept of
Equality
379
favoured treatment is accorded to the 'hitherto deprived sections', particularly to
blacks and women, others have a ground to complain that they are being deprived
of equality of opportunity. In other words, discrimination in favour of the deprived
sections results in discrimination against the general category. When some sections
are entitled to a privileged access to job opportunities and higher education or
professional training, it involves reverse discrimination toward other sections. It is
argued that if equality means 'removal of discrimination', there is no justification
for turning the existing discriminatory practice on the basis of race and sex in the
reverse direction.
Some of the champions of'affirmative action' for the deprived sections argue that
since blacks and women were deprived of adequate opportunities of their
development in the past, they should now be compensated for the loss. Others
contend that preferential treatment for these sections will help in fulfilling the
objective of equality. For instance, an increase in the number of black doctors and
lawyers would establish their real equality with the whites. Still others claim that
since the opportunities of advancement in social life are so scarce, these should be
allocated not merely on the grounds of 'merit' but also on the basis of 'need'. The
need of the deprived sections is so pressing that if they have the minimum required
qualifications, they should be given preferential treatment in the allocation of jobs
and educational opportunities to enable them to escape the tough competition.
Affirmative Action
Public policy which accords special concession in matters of admission to sought-after
courses of education and training, appointments, promotions, he using, health-care,
etc. to those who were deprived of adequate opportunities in an open competition,
particularly due to some discriminatory practices of the past. It is meant to compensate
the relevant sections (e.g. women, blacks, backward communities) for the injustice
meted out to them in the past.

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 14/26
 Among the opponents of 'affirmative action', the champions of neo-conservatism
hold that the principle of equality in society can only be applied in the sphere of
'equality of opportunity'. An attempt to establish literal equality by affirmative
action would be disastrous because it would erode the spontaneous respect for merit
and authority which is the foundation of social stability and progress. Others argue
that such affirmative action is inimical to procedural justice. If blacks and women
collectively get favoured treatment over whites and men, rather than individually as
deprived persons, it is quite likely that rich and socially advantaged blacks and
women—who happen to be the opinion leaders of these categories of persons—get
preference over poor and underprivileged whites and men. It is also argued that
whites and men of the present generation are not responsible for the injustice meted
out to the older generation of blacks and
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
380 An Introduction to Political Theory
women. To penalize them for no fault of theirs is tantamount to departure from
substantive justice. Finally some opponents of affirmative action contend that
personal dignity and self-respect are the cornerstone of the philosophy of equality.
If a person knows that his or her position is the reward of preferential treatment
rather than his or her merit, it will hurt his or her self-respect and give rise to a
feeling of inferiority.
In India the issue of 'reverse discrimination' is not raised as loudly as in
America, because Indian society is particularly sympathetic towards the deprived
sections. But here, too, the problem of identification of deserving cases is quite
serious. In a country afflicted by widespread poverty and acute scarcity, there is
always the danger that the more alert and vocal sections of the so-called backward
classes might corner all the benefits meant for the deprived sections. In order to
remedy this situation the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the 'creamy
layers' among the backward classes should be excluded from the benefits of
reservation meant for these classes so that they accrue to the genuine and deserving
cases only. The Supreme Court also ruled that total reservation for all eligible
categories should not exceed 50 per cent, otherwise it would result in 'reverse
discrimination'. Again, in order to save the new generation from utter frustration
and lack of incentive, it is strongly felt that the backward classes should be
provided with adequate opportunities of educational and professional development
whereafter they should be obliged to compete with the general category. Indeed
the question of reverse discrimination demands a very cautious solution.
Creamy Layer
That part of a backward community which is relatively advanced and well-off. This part
is sought to be excluded from the concessions meant for the backward community in
question. do same as before

Reverse Discrimination and Affirmative Action

Introduction

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 15/26
 The principle of equality is often interpreted to allow discrimination in favor of deprived sections of
society. However, this approach has sparked significant debate, particularly in the United States,
where the concept of reverse discrimination has emerged. This refers to the idea that providing
favored treatment to historically disadvantaged groups, such as blacks and women, results in
discrimination against other groups.

The Debate on Reverse Discrimination

Reverse discrimination arises when favored treatment for previously deprived sections, such as
blacks and women, leads to a perceived deprivation of equality of opportunity for the general
category. This means that when certain sections are given privileged access to jobs, higher education,
or professional training, it involves reverse discrimination towards other sections. Critics argue that if
equality means the removal of discrimination, there is no justification for reversing discriminatory
practices based on race and sex.

Arguments for Affirmative Action

Proponents of affirmative action argue that since blacks and women were deprived of adequate
opportunities in the past, they should now be compensated for their loss. This preferential treatment
is seen as a way to fulfill the objective of equality. Increasing the number of black doctors and lawyers,
for instance, would establish real equality with whites. Additionally, some contend that since
opportunities for advancement are scarce, they should be allocated not merely on the grounds of
merit but also based on need. The pressing needs of deprived sections justify preferential treatment
to enable them to compete effectively.

Definition of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action refers to public policies that provide special concessions in areas such as
education, training, employment, promotions, housing, and healthcare to those who were previously
deprived of adequate opportunities due to discriminatory practices. These measures aim to
compensate disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, blacks, backward communities) for past injustices.

Opposition to Affirmative Action

Opponents of affirmative action, particularly neo-conservatives, argue that equality should only be
applied in the sphere of equality of opportunity. They claim that attempting to establish literal
equality through affirmative action would erode the respect for merit and authority, which are
foundations of social stability and progress. Additionally, they argue that affirmative action is inimical
to procedural justice. If blacks and women collectively receive favored treatment, it is likely that rich
and socially advantaged individuals within these groups will benefit more than poor and
underprivileged whites and men.

Critique of Historical Responsibility

Another argument against affirmative action is that whites and men of the present generation are not
responsible for the injustices meted out to older generations of blacks and women. Penalizing them
for past injustices is seen as a departure from substantive justice. Furthermore, opponents contend
that personal dignity and self-respect are cornerstones of the philosophy of equality. If individuals

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 16/26
 know their position is due to preferential treatment rather than merit, it may hurt their self-respect
and create a feeling of inferiority.

Reverse Discrimination in India

In India, the issue of reverse discrimination is not as vocally debated as in America, partly due to a
societal sympathy towards deprived sections. However, the problem of identifying deserving cases is
serious. In a country with widespread poverty and acute scarcity, there is a danger that more alert and
vocal sections of so-called backward classes might corner all the benefits meant for the deprived
sections.

Creamy Layer Exclusion

To remedy this situation, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the 'creamy layer' among
backward classes should be excluded from the benefits of reservation. This ensures that the benefits
accrue to the genuine and deserving cases. The Supreme Court also ruled that total reservation for all
eligible categories should not exceed 50 percent to avoid reverse discrimination.

Providing Opportunities for Backward Classes

To prevent frustration and lack of incentive among the new generation, it is strongly felt that
backward classes should be provided with adequate opportunities for educational and professional
development. After this initial support, they should compete with the general category on an equal
footing. The question of reverse discrimination requires a very cautious solution.

Creamy Layer

The creamy layer refers to the relatively advanced and well-off segment of a backward community.
This group is excluded from concessions meant for the backward community to ensure that benefits
reach the genuinely deprived.

Conclusion

The issue of reverse discrimination is complex and multifaceted. While affirmative action aims to
rectify historical injustices and promote equality, it must be implemented carefully to avoid new forms
of discrimination and ensure that benefits reach the truly disadvantaged. The goal is to create a
society where opportunities are based on merit and need, fostering a spirit of fraternity and social
justice.

The principle of equality may be applied in different spheres of social life. We

may thus distinguish between legal, political and socio-economic dimensions of
equality in order to appreciate the significance of this principle from different
angles.
LEGAL EQUALITY
The principle of equality was first put forward as the demand for legal equality,
that is, grant of equal legal status to all individuals in society irrespective of their
birth, physical and mental capacities, or other differences. J.J. Rousseau, in his

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 17/26
 https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
Concept of
Equality
381
Social Contract (1762), observed that extension of legal equality to all citizens was
the primary characteristic of civil society. As he wrote:
It is that instead of destroying natural equality, the fundamental pact
substitutes a moral and lawful equality for the physical inequality which
nature imposed upon men, so that, although unequal in strength or intellect,
they all become equal by convention and legal right.
The idea of legal equality thus emanates from moral considerations and serves
as the basis of equal rights of men. Ernest Barker, in his Principles of Social and
Political Theory (1951), has argued:
The state which vests us with legal personalities,... or 'masks', vests us all
with equal masks, partly because it simply cannot distinguish our
differences even if it would . . . but ultimately for the far deeper reason that
we all matter equally before the law, whatever our differences may be ...
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.
Legal equality, which is taken for granted today, was in fact won after a
prolonged struggle in human history. Ancient societies usually did not even entertain
the idea of legal equality. For instance, Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu scripture and
statute-book, prescribed different grades of punishment for the same offence
according to the caste of the offender; the lower the caste, the harsher the
punishment. On the civil side, it prescribed different rates of interest chargeable
from borrowers: the higher the caste, the lower the rate of interest. Similarly,
Aristotle, an illustrious ancient Greek philosopher, recommended differential
punishments for the same offence for freemen and slaves, on the alleged ground
that the slave was less sensitive to punishment! Barker has given an elaborate
description of the struggle for legal equality, with instances from recent history. He
has observed:
There was a long reign of legal inequality. Down to 1772 the slave was
denied any legal capacity on English soil; he was not a person in the eye of
the law, and he had no share in the enjoyment of rights ... Under the laws
regulating the suffrage down to the year 1918 a person in receipt of poor
relief was similarly condemned to an inferior degree of legal capacity by
being denied the right of voting along with and on the same terms as others .
. . Under the common law relating to property, married women down to
1870 were destitute of legal capacity for ownership; . . . under the laws
regulating the suffrage all women, down to 1918, were without any legal
capacity for exercising a vote. (Principles of Social and Political Theory;
1951)
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
382 An Introduction to Political Theory
The principle of legal equality, or equality before the law, comprises the
foundation of legal justice in the present-day world. J.R. Lucas, in his Principles
of Politics (1976), has observed:
Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 18/26
 Equality before the law does not guarantee equal treatment by the law but
equal access to the law, and consideration only of those factors laid down
by the law as relevant. Nobody is so lowly as not to have recourse to the
courts, nobody is so mighty as not to have to answer to the courts:
anybody can invoke the courts' aid, everybody must render them
obedience: and the courts will decide disputes, after hearing arguments on
both sides, fairly and impartially, without fear or favour.
In short, legal equality implies equal subjection of all citizens to the law and
equal protection of the laws for all citizens.
However, legal equality by itself is no guarantee of justice in a society
characterized by extremes of wealth and poverty, as in India. Equality before the
law can secure equal benefit of the law for all citizens only when all citizens can
equally afford to approach the courts of law for restoration of their rights or
recompense of any injury inflicted on them. So long as legal costs remain exorbitant,
legal procedures remain too intricate and economic disparities among various
sections of the population remain too wide, it is doubtful whether formal equality
before the law is going to secure justice for all citizens. Harold J. Laski, in his
State in Theory and Practice (1935), has significantly observed:
Nor must we forget the fact that wealth is a decisive factor in the power
to take advantage of the opportunities the law affords its citizens to protect
their rights. The ability to undertake an action in the cqurts, even with the
provision made for legal aid to the poor, remains a grim financial question,
and, on the civil side of the law, with its massive hierarchy of appeals, the
advantage is solidly with the rich ... as a general rule, the ablest lawyers
will be at the service of those only who are able to afford them.
We in India are quite familiar with this drawback of legal equality. The irony of
the situation is that, whereas an innocent poor is hardly able to defend himself in
a court of law, smugglers, black-marketeers, profiteers, adulterators and other
anti-social elements manage to engage the best brains to defend them in the lawcourts!
Lucas has also warned: "Justice is not served if the case of one party is
incompetently presented and that of the other, superbly well by the best barrister
that money can buy." (The Principles of Politics; 1976) Under the circumstances,
a great responsibility devolves on the judges who must view the cases in their
proper socio-economic perspective. Provision of legal aid can also be somewhat
helpful, within certain limitations. As Lucas has further observed:
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
Concept of Equality 383
We rely heavily on our judges to discover the real merits of the case in
spite of the differing abilities of counsel. But we rightly ensure by means
of Legal Aid that equal access to the courts is at least not an empty Equality,
and that nobody is denied a hearing through inarticulateness or poverty.
The matter does not end here. The judges are guided by their own social
philosophy, which is again a product of socio-economic conditions. It is true that
the rich are able to hire the services of the most competent lawyers, and that the
most successful lawyers, and judges too, usually come from the upper strata of
society who are likely to apply their energies to safeguard the interests of the rich
out of their conviction. Here, again, what Laski has observed in the context of
England applies to India as well. In his Parliamentary Government in England
(1938) Laski observed:
Our judges are recruited from the ranks of successful lawyers; and,
Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 19/26
 overwhelmingly, our system makes the successful lawyer a man who has
spent the major part of his life in serving the interests of property. He
comes, therefore, almost unconsciously, to accept the assumptions of the
economic system in being, and to adopt, without examination, the legal
doctrines evolved for the protection of those interests.
It is, therefore, evident that although legal equality represents an important
achievement of the modern state, it is not adequate without suitable changes in
our socio-economic structure. do same as before but use short quotes

Dimensions of Equality
Introduction

The principle of equality can be applied across various spheres of social life, encompassing legal,
political, and socio-economic dimensions. Understanding these different angles highlights the
comprehensive significance of equality.

Legal Equality

The demand for legal equality was the earliest expression of the equality principle, seeking equal
legal status for all individuals regardless of birth, physical, and mental capacities, or other differences.
J.J. Rousseau, in his Social Contract (1762), emphasized that legal equality substitutes a "moral and
lawful equality for the physical inequality" imposed by nature.
Ernest Barker, in his Principles of Social and Political Theory (1951), argued that the state vests all
individuals with equal legal masks because "we all matter equally before the law." This principle
ensures that the rights guaranteed to one individual are equally guaranteed to others.
Legal equality, now taken for granted, was historically a hard-won achievement. Ancient societies
often ignored this concept. For instance, the Manusmriti prescribed different punishments based on
caste, while Aristotle recommended different punishments for freemen and slaves. Barker
highlighted the struggle for legal equality by noting that "down to 1772 the slave was denied any legal
capacity on English soil."
J.R. Lucas, in his Principles of Politics (1976), explained that "equality before the law does not guarantee
equal treatment by the law but equal access to the law." Legal equality means equal subjection of all
citizens to the law and equal protection of the laws for all.
However, legal equality alone does not guarantee justice in societies with extreme wealth and poverty
disparities, like India. Harold J. Laski, in his State in Theory and Practice (1935), observed that "wealth is
a decisive factor in the power to take advantage of the opportunities the law affords its citizens to
protect their rights."

Challenges of Legal Equality

In practice, legal costs and economic disparities hinder the equal benefit of the law for all citizens.
As Laski noted, the ability to undertake legal action remains "a grim financial question." The poor
struggle to defend themselves in court, while the rich can hire the best lawyers. Lucas warned that

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 20/26
 "justice is not served if the case of one party is incompetently presented and that of the other,
superbly well by the best barrister that money can buy."
Judges must view cases in their proper socio-economic perspective. Provision of legal aid can be
helpful but has limitations. As Lucas further noted, "We rely heavily on our judges to discover the real
merits of the case in spite of the differing abilities of counsel."

Social Philosophy of Judges

Judges are influenced by their own social philosophy, often shaped by their socio-economic
backgrounds. Successful lawyers and judges usually come from upper strata of society, leading them
to unconsciously adopt the "assumptions of the economic system" that favors property interests, as
Laski pointed out in his Parliamentary Government in England (1938).

Conclusion

While legal equality represents a significant achievement of the modern state, it is insufficient without
addressing socio-economic inequalities. Effective justice requires changes in the socio-economic
structure to ensure that all citizens can genuinely benefit from legal equality.

POLITICAL EQUALITY
Political equality denotes the equality of political rights of citizens. It implies the
right to be represented in decision-making bodies on an equal footing, i.e. on 'one
man, one vote' basis. It also postulates that nobody will be barred from holding
political office on grounds of birth, religion, sex, etc. This in turn means that
there will be no privileged classes in society entitled to rule, and that the rulers
will not accord any special consideration to the will or interests of any particular
individual or group in society. The doctrine of political equality is derived from
the general belief that man, as such, is a rational being, capable of political judgment
irrespective of his physical and mental capacities, education and wealth, etc. It
also proceeds from the assumption that when equal political rights are extended
to all men, they will be able to give best expression to the common good and to
prevail upon policy-makers to adjust public policy to the requirements of the
common good.
The demand for political equality originated along with that of legal equality—
they were undifferentiated in the beginning. As D.D. Raphael has observed:
"The French Revolutionaries, in demanding equality, were demanding a removal
of arbitrary privilege, such as that which confined political rights to the rich and
the well-born." (Problems of Political Philosophy: 1976) In a later phase of
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
384 An Introduction to Political Theory
development of liberal theory, political equality came to be identified more and
more with the democratic rights of the people and universalization of franchise,
equal freedom to hold and express political opinions without fear or favour, and
equal right to form associations to influence political decisions.
Political equality started as a progressive idea. It led to the establishment of
democracy in the Western world. This was, however, found to be inadequate by
the masses whose hopes and aspirations were belied by the prevailing socioeconomic

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 21/26
 inequalities. The achievement of political equality was, therefore,
followed by the demand for socio-economic equality. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-
59), the French author of Democracy in America (1835^0), postulated that the
discrepancy between political equality and economic inequality would not be
indefinitely accepted by the democratic people. He, therefore, held that the first
phase of the democratic world revolution, political in nature, would inevitably
lead to the second phase, which would be primarily social and economic. He
foresaw that the political struggle would be followed, before long, by a struggle
between the haves and the have-nots. He noted that the working class had turned
from political to social questions, and that they were forming ideas and opinions
destined to eliminate economic inequality from society. Thus Tocqueville anticipated
the growth of socialist theory which chiefly concerned itself with the problem of
socio-economic equality. do same as before

Political Equality

Political equality refers to the equal political rights of all citizens, ensuring equal representation in
decision-making bodies based on the principle of "one man, one vote." This principle asserts that no
one should be barred from holding political office due to birth, religion, sex, or other discriminatory
factors. It ensures no privileged classes in society and mandates that rulers do not favor any particular
individual or group.
Political equality stems from the belief that humans are rational beings capable of political judgment,
irrespective of their physical and mental capacities, education, or wealth. It is based on the
assumption that equal political rights enable the best expression of the common good, influencing
policymakers to adjust public policy accordingly.
The demand for political equality emerged alongside legal equality. D.D. Raphael noted that "The
French Revolutionaries, in demanding equality, were demanding a removal of arbitrary privilege, such
as that which confined political rights to the rich and the well-born" (Problems of Political Philosophy,
1976). As liberal theory evolved, political equality became synonymous with democratic rights,
universal suffrage, freedom to hold and express political opinions, and the right to form associations
to influence political decisions.
Political equality began as a progressive idea, leading to the establishment of democracy in the
Western world. However, it was deemed inadequate by the masses, whose hopes and aspirations
were unmet due to prevailing socio-economic inequalities. This led to the demand for socio-economic
equality following the achievement of political equality.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59), in his Democracy in America (1835-40), observed that the discrepancy
between political equality and economic inequality would not be indefinitely accepted. He believed the
first phase of the democratic revolution, which was political, would inevitably lead to a second phase
focused on social and economic issues. Tocqueville anticipated that the political struggle would be
followed by a struggle between the haves and the have-nots, noting that the working class had shifted
focus from political to social questions, forming ideas to eliminate economic inequality from society.
Thus, he foresaw the rise of socialist theory, which primarily addresses socio-economic equality.

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 22/26
 SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUALITY
The term socio-economic equality embraces both social equality and economic
equality. In fact, these two aspects of equality are so closely related that they
should properly be considered together. It is significant that while legal and political
equality may be given a formal interpretation as the 'absence of discrimination'
with little impact on the socio-economic structure of society, social and economic
equality demands a substantive interpretation, as the force behind social change.
While the idea of legal-political equality arose as the cry of early liberalism, the
concept of socio-economic equality was articulated as a goal of socialism. Socioeconomic equality
signified a further development of the concept of equality. It
was, therefore, a more progressive idea which was later adopted by positive
liberal theory.
Regarding the genesis of socio-economic equality, S.I. Benn and R.S. Peters,
in their Social Principles and the Democratic State (1975), have significantly
observed:
The term 'social equality' has been adopted by socialists largely to
distinguish their objective from the earlier egalitarian ideals of the French
Revolution. The men of 1789 sought 'equality before the law', which for
them meant eliminating aristocratic legal privileges and feudal obligations.
The Jacobins, and the nineteenth century Republicans on whom their
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
Concept of Equality 385
mantle descended, sought 'political equality' or universal suffrage. To
socialists these ends by themselves seem inadequate; they are, at best ways
of achieving 'real' equality—social equality. Without that, 'political equality'
is an illusion.
Jacobins
Members of a political club of the French Revolution, founded in 1789, taking its name
from the former monastry in Paris where it met. The club became increasingly radical
and instituted the Terror. It was closed in 1794.
Republicans
Those who supported the republican form of government, i.e. the form of government
where head of state is an elected president rather than a monarch, and sovereign
power is vested in the people either directly or through their elected representatives.
So long as the principle of equality is not extended to the economic sphere, the
operation of legal-political equality will continue to serve the interests of the richer
class without substantial benefit for the masses:
A wealthy elite would continue to exercise effectiye political power; judges
and legislators would still be drawn from its ranks, and predisposed to
favour it. Legal costs would put justice beyond the poor man's reach.
Without social equality, 'equality before the law' would remain an empty
form, (ibid.)
Thus while the demand for legal-political equality was raised to press the claims
of the new middle class—the merchant-industrialist class or the bourgeoisie—to
political power, the demand for socio-economic equality was put forward to assert
the rights of the working class or the proletariat—to enable them to shape their
destiny. In other words, the ideal of legal-political equality was advanced in order
to replace feudalism by capitalism, while that of socioeconomic equality was meant
to promote socialism in order to rectify the faults of capitalism. Marxian socialism,

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 23/26
 which made socio-economic equality its supreme goal, advocates replacing the
capitalist system itself by a socialist system with a view to securing a classless
society in the process. In any case, it is evident that while the slogan of legal and
political equality was raised as a progressive idea, in order to secure liberty,
equality and justice for humanity itself, it was reduced to the philosophy of the
status quo—maintenance of the existing order—as soon as it had won political
power for the capitalist class. The slogan of socio-economic equality was then
raised in order to carry on the mission of 'progress' to its logical conclusion.
The exponents of socio-economic equality argued that the capitalist system had
only won formal liberty for the people in the legal and political sphere, while
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
386 An Introduction to Political Theory
a handful of property-owners continued to control the lives of the masses, because
the masses had to yield to the whims and designs of the capitalist class for their
livelihood. As R.H. Tawney, in his Equality (1938), has noted:
There are certain natural resources, certain kinds of property, certain
types of economic organization, on the use of which the mass of mankind
depend for their well-being. The masters of these resources, therefore,
are in a position, in the absence of countervailing measures, to secure
exceptionally favourable terms for themselves, and to exercise an unusual
degree of control over lives of their fellows.
Socio-economic equality may be distinguished from legal-political equality in
respect of its scale of measurement also. Thus, legal equality implies the recognition
of the 'equal legal personality' in each individual, and political equality asserts the
'one man, one vote' principle, but socio-economic equality does not insist on
'equal shares for all'. In other words, whereas legal-political equality postulates
literal or near literal equality, socio-economic equality only demands the reduction
of inequality, according to the prevalent concept of social justice. In the absence
of an absolute standard, such as perfect equality in the socio-economic sphere,
socio-economic equality insists on a progressive extension of social benefits to
the weaker and underprivileged sections. This leads us to the transition from
formal to substantive equality, from negative to positive equality, from static to
dynamic equality. For instance, equality of opportunity in the legal-formal sense
may be interpreted to mean that opportunities of education, employment, travel,
entertainment, etc. shall be open to everybody without discrimination, but this
does not ensure that such opportunities will be actually available to all sections of
society. Formal equality may not seek to make any effective dent in the existing
socio-economic structure; it may reduce attractive opportunities to a mere piece
of decoration, which are open to everybody but available only to the chosen few.
Socio-economic equality, on the contrary, insists on the progressive equalization
of opportunities.
An ideal condition of socio-economic equality was expressed in Louis Blanc's
classic formula: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need.' This was adopted by Marx as a principle of the projected communist
society which is characterized by the highest technological development, universal
labour and a classless society so that there is abundant production to meet social
needs, ensuring satisfaction of everybody's needs—a condition of perfect
happiness. However, for the interim stage of socialist society, this formula was
modified as 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work'.
Lenin (1870-1924) described it as a 'bourgeois right' which was to be retained
Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 24/26
 in socialist society for practical reasons. This, at least, ensures the 'right to
work' and the 'right to maintenance', which implies the satisfaction of basic
needs, if not comforts and luxuries, for each citizen.
https://telegram.me/UPSCMaterials https://telegram.me/FreeUPSCMaterials
https://telegram.me/MaterialforExam
Concept of
Equality
387
Socio-economic equality, therefore, postulates the right to equal satisfaction
of basic needs, which implies state provision of education, employment as also
of essential social services, such as cheap transport, fair price shops, hospitals,
community centres, public parks, health resorts, etc. State regulation of industrial
conditions of work, minimum wages, workman compensation, pensions, etc.
are also intended to serve the cause of socio-economic equality.
It is important to note that for the provision of essential social services, the
modern state resorts to the policy of progressive taxation which means, the
larger the income or property, the higher the tax. This policy, usually associated
with the 'welfare state', ensures that social services will be financed according
to the citizens' capacity to pay while these would be availed of according to
citizens' needs. W. Friedmann, in his Law in a Changing Society (1959), has
significantly observed:
Taxation is one of the most important weapons by which the State can mitigate
the two objectionable aspects of unrestricted private property: first, the
inequalities of wealth, and secondly, the power to use property for private
profit, and without regard to community purposes .... By graded taxation and
surtax on high incomes, gross inequalities of wealth are evened out more easily
than by the equalization of incomes or the abolition of private property . . .
Taxation is a cheap means by which the State finances its costly social service
schemes.
Welfare State
The state that takes care of satisfying basic needs of its citizens, e.g. food, clothing,
shelter, health care, elementary education and recreation, etc.—particularly of those
who cannot afford these things from their own income or other resources. It makes
use of public resources and taxation of the relatively rich to provide for a vast network
of social services and social security.
In short, while Marxian ideology seeks to secure socio-economic equality by
the wholesale replacement of the capitalist system by the socialist system, through
socialization of the major means of production and making work compulsory for
all citizens, liberal theory seeks to promote socio-economic equality by small and
piecemeal adjustments within the capitalist system itself. do same as before

Socio-Economic Equality

Socio-economic equality encompasses both social and economic dimensions of equality, highlighting
their interconnection. Unlike legal and political equality, which may be formally defined as the
'absence of discrimination,' socio-economic equality demands a substantive interpretation that drives
social change. While legal-political equality was a hallmark of early liberalism, socio-economic equality
emerged as a socialist goal, later embraced by positive liberal theory.
Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 25/26
 S.I. Benn and R.S. Peters noted, "The term 'social equality' has been adopted by socialists largely to
distinguish their objective from the earlier egalitarian ideals of the French Revolution" (Social Principles
and the Democratic State, 1975). They observed that while the French Revolution sought 'equality
before the law' and 'political equality,' socialists viewed these as inadequate without social equality.
As long as economic equality is absent, legal-political equality primarily serves the richer class. A
wealthy elite would continue to wield effective political power, with judges and legislators favoring
their ranks. Legal costs would make justice inaccessible to the poor. Benn and Peters argue, "Without
social equality, 'equality before the law' would remain an empty form" (ibid.).
The demand for legal-political equality was raised to secure political power for the bourgeoisie,
replacing feudalism with capitalism. In contrast, the call for socio-economic equality asserted the
working class's rights, aiming to address capitalism's flaws and promote socialism. R.H. Tawney
emphasized, "The masters of these resources... are in a position, in the absence of countervailing
measures, to secure exceptionally favourable terms for themselves, and to exercise an unusual degree
of control over lives of their fellows" (Equality, 1938).
Socio-economic equality differs from legal-political equality in its scale of measurement. Legal equality
recognizes 'equal legal personality' for individuals, and political equality adheres to the 'one man, one
vote' principle. However, socio-economic equality demands reducing inequality according to social
justice. It seeks the progressive extension of social benefits to weaker sections, transitioning from
formal to substantive equality, and from negative to positive equality.
For instance, legal-formal equality might ensure open opportunities for education, employment, and
travel, but these are often accessible only to a select few. Socio-economic equality insists on
progressively equalizing opportunities. Louis Blanc's formula, 'From each according to his ability, to
each according to his need,' adopted by Marx, epitomizes this ideal. In a communist society
characterized by advanced technological development and universal labor, this ensures abundant
production to meet social needs, achieving perfect happiness. During the interim socialist stage, the
formula modifies to 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work,' ensuring basic
needs are met.
Socio-economic equality advocates for equal satisfaction of basic needs, necessitating state provision
of education, employment, and essential social services like affordable transport, healthcare, and
public amenities. State regulation of industrial conditions, minimum wages, and pensions also
support this cause. The modern state employs progressive taxation to finance social services
according to citizens' capacity to pay, ensuring equitable distribution of resources.
W. Friedmann observed, "Taxation is one of the most important weapons by which the State can
mitigate the two objectionable aspects of unrestricted private property: first, the inequalities of
wealth, and secondly, the power to use property for private profit, and without regard to community
purposes" (Law in a Changing Society, 1959). This policy, associated with the welfare state, finances
costly social services through graded taxation and surtax on high incomes.
In summary, while Marxian ideology seeks to achieve socio-economic equality by replacing capitalism
with socialism, liberal theory promotes it through incremental adjustments within the capitalist
system.

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Printed using Save ChatGPT as PDF, powered by PDFCrowd HTML to PDF API. 26/26