For nearly a quarter century, there has not been much talk on equality. It had to do with the end of socialism as many knew it till the 1990s. It did not mean that equality did not matter. It meant that equality was seen as a natural outcome of economic growth. One of the familiar similes used to make the point was that if the water level rose, all the boats rose as well. In India, economists like Arvind Panagariya, now the deputy chairman of the National Institute for Transforming India (NITI), argued that poverty alleviation or its elimination should not be confused with removal of inequality. Economic inequality is not bad as long as there is no depravity of poverty. And people would have a good chance of improving their livelihoods as well as their lives. But that is a limited and limiting argument. It sounds plausible but it is not. Equality is an essential goal and there is need for clarity in the debate about how to achieve it.

Like it or not, equality has become a burning issue again. Economic inequality has re-emerged as a problem in Europe and in North America especially since the market meltdown of 2007-08. It is not surprising then that French economist Thomas Piketty, who has become a popular hero because of his magnum opus, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, was emboldened to bring out the English translation of his 1997 book, The Economics of Inequality, translated into English by Arthur Goldhammer and published by The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, in 2015. And the January-February 2016 issue of Foreign Affairs, the bimonthly journal of the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, focused on the theme, “Inequality What Causes It, Why It Matters, What Can Be Done”.

In India, the debate on equality has exploded on the social front. Discrimination against the Dalits, symbolised in the suicide of the University of Hyderabad doctoral student Rohith Vemula, and the denial of entry of women into Hindu and Muslim shrines, has become the rallying call for equality. There is as yet not much talk of economic inequality because the belief persists that economic growth will be a great leveller. But sooner or later, economic inequality will be an issue because growth is stuttering. It will be easier to debate caste and gender inequality but it will not help unless the basic concept of equality and its problems are not grasped.

It is time then to squarely face the question of equality. There are many persuasive, beguiling arguments against equality, which were whispered for more than a century but which have become louder now. It is easy to dismiss the arguments against equality as the views of unreformed and unrepentant people of privilege from the dead and discredited past. There is no reason to disbelieve the bad faith of the reactionaries. They can be refuted and laughed out of court. One of the ironies of those who argue against equality is that these are the very people who are the beneficiaries of the principle of equality, which can be traced back to 17th century England.

But it is the advocates of equality who are turning out to be the obfuscators in the debate. Their rhetorical flourishes try to hide the problems involved in promoting equality. In theory, liberty and equality are unqualified and unlimited. But in practise, reasonable restrictions are placed on liberty, and equality is hedged with the qualifier, equality of opportunity. It is not the case that those who preach liberty and equality do not practise their ideals.

There are inherent problems in turning theory into practise, and it is necessary to understand this rather than ignore them.

So, the argument for equality has to be made afresh, in a more sensible and a realistic fashion. One of the points that Piketty makes in his 1997 book is important. He says that the market economy was a better success in China than it is in India because of the egalitarian element in the communist country. He writes, “The miraculous growth formula (based on high and relatively egalitarian investment in human capital on the one hand and economic liberalisation and openness to foreign markets on the other) appears to have spread in the 1980s and 1990s to larger Asian countries. The fact that liberalisation has been less successful in India than in China reminds us, however, of the crucial importance of the egalitarian element, without which liberalisation cannot lead to lasting growth (Dreze and Sen, 1995). Egalitarian educational policies are probably the most basic example of efficient redistribution.” Piketty argues in the book about income redistribution and the disparities between capital and labour, which is his main thesis.

It might seem a contradiction in terms that capitalism prospers on the basis of egalitarianism. But that is indeed the logic of capitalism, as well as that of democracy. If one removes the empty rhetorical phrases surrounding equality, it becomes clear that human progress — social, political and economic — is rooted in the principle of equality. Even ardent reactionaries have to concede that unless all people are better educated, well employed and are able to lead a dignified life, it would not be possible to keep the engine of economic growth chugging.

The Modi government and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) may not subscribe to the socialist and secular credo as do the leftish political parties in the country, but they know the imperatives of providing education and skills to all. In their own uneducated way, they are moving towards the egalitarian ideal. There is an egalitarian imperative in the growth model. So it would be useless to use the stick of the equality principle to beat Modi and BJP with. The opponents of the government can hope to gain political advantage from it, but it is not likely to help the cause of equality or give a clear idea as to what equality is all about.

All that can be said with certainty about equality is that it means opening up as many doors as possible to as many people as possible. Any space that is cordoned off will fall into desuetude rather than gain in importance. So shrines that keep women out will wither away. Educational institutions which discriminate against people will lose out on talent and as a consequence they will get marginalised. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge would have had to close shop if they did not admit students from working class backgrounds in England, Wales and Scotland. The universities of Harvard and Yale would not be premier institutions if they do not accommodate scholarship students. The Protestant churches would have faced a crisis without women priests. Other religions have no alternative but to anoint women as the custodians of faith. Access is the key word of the idea of equality.