You are on page 1of 5

Andre Béteille - Introduction to Equality and Inequality

Professor Béteille is one of the most distinguished sociologists and a prominent architect who had
given a new perspective for the understanding of society in India. His writings on inequality are
unique for its balanced approach devoid of taking extreme philosophical positions. In his book
“Equality and Inequality: Theory and Practise”, despite the challenge of complexities in defining the
terms in discussion, he attempted to show how inequalities are inherent in the makeup of all human
societies and what are the various elements that it constitutes.

The matter of equality and inequality extends beyond the confines of scholarly interest into the
realm of everyday concern. There lies a disagreement among people regarding the importance and
existence of this social concept, arising from differences in ideological positions and inadequate
information. While its proponents argue about the apparent differences among human beings based
on genetic and biological makeup of individuals such as differences in mental and physical capacity,
efficiency, aptitude, skill and talent; the opponents advocate a rather humanistic approach arguing
that all men and women are equal.

Among the different forms or aspects of inequality, Béteille marks the distinction between relational
and distributional inequalities. Relational inequalities are inherent inequalities in relations among
people. Sociologists are particularly concerned with relational inequalities are they are seen as a part
of the social structure. However, it is impossible to fully understand the relations among people
independently of the distribution of materials and other resources among them. Therefore, the
economist attends to distributional inequalities - the patterns of distribution among people.

In studying and conceptualising inequalities, whether relational or distributional, we can’t proceed


without acknowledging and employing the many and diverse facts. The study of facts emphasizes
the distinction between different aspects of inequality and the difference in their respective degree.
Although the laymen concede the different forms of inequality, they’ve failed to cognise the
different meanings of equality. The distinction between the different conceptions of equality have
had a profound impact on the debate on equality and inequality among scholars. It is impossible to
make sense of contemporary Indian political thought, the Indian Constitution and laws today in
isolation from this debate. The Indian Constitution stands on the coexistence of both, the liberal and
socialist conception of equality, which advocates equality of status and opportunity.

The five contributors of the advancement of expert knowledge on the subject of inequality -
sociologists, political scientists, lawyers, educationists, and economists - are specialists in their
respective branch of study. Therefore, each discipline has explored the topic in consideration from
an aspect of familiarity with their specialisation. However, not all social sciences have paid the same
attention to the issue of inequality, nor have they all approached it in the same way. There is a
theoretical as well as empirical part to the study of inequality, both of which are found in varying
proportions across all the disciplines. Therefore, the meaning and concept of equality and inequality
will be determined to some extend by the consistency and consensus among the diverse
interpretations of these respective scholarly divisions.
It would be a mistake to believe that scholarly opinion on the nature and significance of quality an
inequality is united, whereas popular opinion is divided. Sociology, politics, economics, law and
education are moral science rather than natural sciences, and moral choices are not easy to justify
solely by an appeal to acts. However, it is not the objective of the morals sciences to eliminate moral
judgments from scholarly discourse, but only to sharpen scholar’s awareness of the nature and basis
of his own moral judgement. Moral judgements need to be consistent with each other and also
consistent with the facts of the case. The facts with which economists, educationists, political
scientists, sociologists and lawyers deal are many and diverse.

The study of inequality cannot confine itself to the distribution of things or even to the distribution
of rights; it must extend to collective ideas about the proper or desirable distribution of these, hence
it has to take into account facts of many kinds. The five studies presented in his book cover a wide
range of facts. In each case an attempt is made to show how facts are related to an argument.
However, the relationship between fact, technical argument and moral judgement is a complex one.

1. Law

Within the legal framework, Dr. Sivaramayya draws particular attention to the inequalities based on
disabilities from the traditional legal order which were supported by both the Shastras and the
custom. The substantive issues dealt with by Dr. Sivaramayya are those relating to (i) the backward
classes, (ii) the status of women, and (iii) the right to property. The strategy of equality requires not
merely the abolition of disabilities but also the creation of abilities.

The backward classes comprise of 20% of the Indian population, yet job reservation, which is an
important aspect of protective discrimination can be a “double-edged” weapon: while trying to
ensure greater equality among communities, it might in fact lead to greater inequality among
individuals.

The status of women is largely governed by “personal law”, which differs from on religious
community to another. Although legislation has removed much of this discrimination, it still persists.

The right to property is central in contemporary legal and political theory. India’s legal system has
pared the right to property, particularly in land, during the 30 years since the Constitution came into
effect. Although it is no longer a fundamental right as it then was, it continues to be a legal right.

2. Economics

Professor Tendukar explains why economic planning has been viewed as a major instrument for the
creation of equality. The greater part of his study is devoted to economic inequality within the
framework established by the Indian Constitution. The uneven success of economic planning is
discussed with special reference to its distributional objectives. Professor Tendulkar shows how the
objective of growth was given priority over the distribution in certain phases of planning, whereas in
others the emphasis was reversed.

Increasingly economic planners are realising that the objective of reducing inequality might have to
do with the objective of reducing, if not eliminating, poverty.

3. Sociology

Dr. Chakravarti examines inequality in rural India from the sociological point of view. Sociologists
have drawn attention to the divergence between ideal and reality in contemporary Indian society.
The strong emphasis on equality in the Constitution of India stands in marked contrast to the
uniquely Indian form of social stratification. Sociologists have dwelt on three aspects or forms of
stratification in Indian society: (i) the structure of caste, (ii) system of classes and (iii) distribution of
power.

The caste system has been described as a uniquely Indian phenomenon. No system of stratification
has developed such elaborate gradations or such a rigid hierarchy of ranks.

Dr. Chakarvati devotes much attention to economic inequalities, focusing on inequalities in the
ownership, control and use of land. He uses both land and labor as bases for differentiating the
agricultural population into sociologically meaningful classes, such as landlords, owner-cultivators,
wage labourers and the rest. These classes and their mutual relations are examined in the context of
market forces, technological changes and agrarian legislation.

The limits to the success of agrarian legislation have to be seen in regard with the distribution of
power in rural society. In the traditional order there was a close relationship between caste, class
and power. This relationship has altered, but not substantially.

4. Education

Dr. Karlekar’s study addresses some of the most fundamental issues in the study of inequality in the
modern world - does the spread of education lead to a dissolution of barriers between the strata or
does it lead to the strengthening of the existing barriers?

Education has brought about a little change in the pattern of inequality in Indian society. Dr. Karlekar
examines some of the reasons behind it. He stresses upon the uneven development of education. A
great deal of effort has gone into the development of the sectors of education which benefit a small
and privileged minority, and less than a proportionate amount it into those sectors which might
benefit the large masses.

Dr. Karlekar discusses the opportunities and attainments in education of two particular sections of
Indian society - (i) Scheduled Castes, and (ii) women. In the case of Scheduled Castes, the very
process which benefits only a few individual members of a disadvantaged community leads also to
stratification within that community. On the other hand, disparities between men and women
continue to exist in every sector of education.

5. Political Science

Professor Mohanty considers the problem of inequality in the context of the principal political
ideologies of the day. He sees inequality as being rooted in the distribution of power, a point of view
not only common among political theorists but also shared by some philosophers and sociologists.

In conclusion, the contributors to the study of inequality have ranged over many important and
inter-connected issues. There is no specific issue to which all of them have given equal attention not
has an issue considered central by any one contributor been left untouched by all the others.

However, Betéille presents observations on two issues raised from the discussions mentioned in the
book. The first relates to the distinctively Indian characteristics of inequality on both its existential
and normative aspects. The second relates to equality of opportunity which many have argued to be
the only form of equality that is possible or even desirable in the modern world.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, Betéille presents observations on two issues raised from the discussions mentioned in the
book. The first relates to the distinctively Indian characteristics of inequality on both its existential
and normative aspects. The second relates to equality of opportunity which many have argued to be
the only form of equality that is possible or even desirable in the modern world.

First, the author underlines the extreme manifestation of inequality in India. He examines the
characteristics of inequality in India through time - from the traditional Indian societies based on
social order and hierarchy to striking expressions of inequality in the metropolitan cities of
contemporary India. Such inequality in the income distribution is closely linked to material
constraints on growth. Any comprehensive understanding of inequality in India has concluded the
distinctive system of ideal and material factors characteristic of its society today.

Second, the principle of equality of opportunity stresses the individual’s inborn ability as against the
social circumstances of his birth. One can hardly exaggerate the revolutionary significance of the
shift of attention from ascribed identity to individual achievements. India has been described as the
land of “the most inviolable organisation by birth.” The individual has been from time immemorial
stamped with the identity of his caste or subcaste with very little scope to move out of the niche
assigned in the social order of his ancestors. Moreover, the disabilities imposed on certain sections
of society were unconditional in their binding force. The new legal order has brought a great change
in by providing open positions of respect and responsibility to all sections of society, including
Harijans and women.

Although a principle which seeks to redress the bias of contingencies in the direction of equality is
admirable; the real difficulty lies in creating an agency for applying the principle without fear or
favour, and applying it effectively. The more widely we extend the scope of the principle, the more
apparent these difficulties become.

The need for redress or for compensation might restrict or often the claims of merit, but it cannot
cancel them out.

You might also like