The Rediff Special /Ashwin Mahesh

What kind of equality puts the narrow economic interests of the already wealthy ahead of the survival of a person?

All men are created equal. This is the most illustrious notion of the modern age. The doctrine of equality has been the cornerstone of civilisation in this century. By its guiding light, nations have risen to majestic heights and are recognised as world-leaders. Over the years, this doctrine has been expanded to include numerous problems that pervade our societies and has been rewritten to address them. As a result, it is now more inclusive, with a sense of tolerance and compassion for the lives of women, minorities, the handicapped, and groups of every other kind. Such is its value to democratic societies that I can offer only one criticism of it -- it's not true.

There is not an iota of evidence to suggest that anyone else in this world is or was at the moment of birth my equal. My superior in many ways? Yes. Inferior in others? Yes. But equal? Couldn't be farther from the truth. It would be quite a coincidence to find anyone who is in every way my equal, the same is true of you. Nevertheless, this unsupported notion is enshrined in the constitutions of most democracies; the heads of those states will sacrifice an arm and a leg before they will admit that their citizens are born unequal and for the most part, remain so throughout their lives. Yet, it is plain as light.

Make a list of the things we could use to rate ourselves at birth. We all need a minimum level of health care to survive the first couple of years when we are most susceptible to dozens of illnesses. We require nutritious food that we may grow to adulthood. A clean home, safe air and water, and some access to primary education would do nicely as well. An environment that nourishes our intelligence would help too.

Now consider the availability of these things. There isn't the slightest reason to believe that all children born in our societies, be they developed or developing, have all these needs fulfilled in equal measure. The economic hierarchy in which our parents fit clearly defines the limits of our position in the hierarchy of children who will have these needs fulfilled and those who will be abandoned. More money, more the chance that you'll be alive and well a few years after birth.

Some measure of inequality is inescapable simply because of the way the marketplace works. Skills, ideas, knowledge, these exist to different degrees in different people. This contributes to disparities in income, and consequently, to unequal opportunities for the future. But the enormous differences in the lifestyles of income groups at the two ends of the economic spectrum suggests that what we have is more than an acceptable level of stratification, one which can be measured in mere degrees. Certainly not -- socio-economic differences in most societies are best measured in orders of magnitude.

As children grow to be adults, the inequalities inherent at birth are often enhanced, so that by the time they are able to accept the social and moral obligations of franchised citizens, they are even more economically fragmented. There are many facets of this hierarchy that we can all relate to in one form or another. Money is a good example, because it is deeply related to many others.

Rich folks can hire smart lawyers and tax consultants to serve their interests, they can go to saunas, salons, health clubs, doctors, plastic surgeons and dentists, and stay fit and attractive. Their children can go to good schools and learn useful skills that propel them further up the economic ladder. They get to participate in the softer things in life -- art, music and literature. Poor folks experience none of these.

The possession or lack of money largely determines the inequalities with which we are born, but is in no way the only factor. Race, religion, gender, class, caste, physical and mental afflictions, these are other apples from the same basket of troubles. These co-born and sometimes acquired identities are hard to overcome, and more often than not, are never fully shrugged off.

If you're the wrong one of any of these, you might easily find yourself in a mud-walled shanty that passes for a school learning from a half-literate teacher and fending off the need to quit the charade and earn money for the family before you are knee high to a chihuahua. And you would get no help from the government, which despite its constitutional obligation, has little intention, let alone the backbone, to see you get your "equal" share. And once at the bottom of the economic hierarchy, the lack of money helps to ensure that you stay there.

Of course, you might get lucky. You might be born the heir to the next Maharaja of Mysore, and be so good looking, talented, successful and intelligent that one would be hard pressed to find your equal in any walk of life. But that's the point, really. If the things we cherish are the things that make inequality what it is, why pretend that we are such comparable sons of the same soil? By what measure are we equal, and is such a measure of any value?

Ah, but you say, that's not quite what the constitutions refer to as equality. Wealth, education, physical abilities, appearance, these are not the basis for comparison, there are other things, far more important, that form the core of our societies; they count for more, and I shouldn't forget them. The phrase "created equal" simply means that we are born with equal rights and responsibilities, not that we are actually equal in any tangible sense. The equality that the laws refer to is not intended to be a guarantor of the things we want. Equality of opportunities is the only thing that the constitution can offer, not equality of outcomes.

Perhaps. But without the buttress of the things we long for, can the shackles of the things we hate really be broken? What good is a guarantee that can't be cashed? If you are swindled by a rich and large corporation, can you really fight them in court on equal terms? Can you afford the attorney's fees, the time off from work, the risk of losing in court and endless appeals? Probably not. Even under the law, equality is mostly a myth. Can you really get the cops to help you gain access to a temple or mosque that won't admit you because you're the wrong caste or sex? The promised equal opportunity and treatment have to wade through the muddy waters of a thousand social and economic barriers to reach you.

How many governments are actually interested in helping their citizens become more equal? How committed are governments to providing a comparable platform to all citizens at birth? In some remote corner of our country, there are people who put their children to death because they cannot bear the burden of raising them and paying their dowries in marriage. The same government that guaranteed equality to such desperately poor people also let our largest companies pay no taxes for years on end. This sort of shameless servitude to the interests of a few is not particularly a third-world problem either.

The rush of government programmes that are being discontinued everywhere in the developed world is almost always a burden that is borne by the weaker sections of society. Welfare programs that help octogenarian women care for their abandoned grandchildren are being discontinued in the name of reform. At the same time, public lands and property are sold or leased to private interests for pennies. What is a life worth? What kind of equality puts the narrow economic interests of the already wealthy ahead of the survival of a person?

Perhaps it is not entirely fair to blame governments. Even when governments attempt to create some measure of equality in society, things can go badly wrong. That's because the things we want are usually things that others have to some degree, such as money, fame, attention, praise, etc. And since many of these things are available in limited quantities (we can't all be famous or rich), the only way to equalize citizens is by taking away from those who have more and giving to those who have less. But this has its own problems.

Ask the Soviets. Their experiment in forcing everyone to be equal ended miserably because they completely failed to understand that people are motivated by the desire to be better than their peers in tangible ways. Once equalised, their citizens felt the constrictive force of the government holding them back from their aspirations, and cared little for the fact that the same force held their friends and neighbors back as well.

The sad truth is that while equality, in absence, is cherished, it can also be hated when present. Merely acquiring some measure of sameness in not enough if we are not willing or able to keep it so. A spender and a saver can't really be expected to have the same degree of financial security about the future, even if they had the same amount of money to begin with. The ant is an ant, the grasshopper is a grasshopper. Fame is not much different from fortune. Today's sports hero is tomorrow's spent force.

What a mess. A notional thing for which no evidence of any sort exists, and which would probably lose its appeal once obtained, and which governments have neither intention nor ability to achieve, has been gloriously installed as a pillar of democratic society. It's no wonder that even in societies that loudly proclaim the equality of all persons, the single most important problem remains the unending effort to realize it in good measure.

Democracies thrive on the promise of equality. It is assumed that this promise is sufficient reason to ask people to wait for their share of increased opportunities and incomes. Trickle-down economics will eventually reach the poor, we are told, they just need to be patient. As long as a few people at least are in fact moving up the economic ladder, the masses can be asked to believe that they too might one day join the ranks of the ascendant. But if the experience of the former Soviet nations is any indication, this patience hangs by a short and thin thread. Large numbers of the same people who rebelled in droves against forced equality now look back with nostalgia at the security that it provided. Better bad bread served by the KGB or the Stasi than no bread, they say.

I'm not asking for Robin Hood-style redistribution of wealth, we know from the Soviet experiment that forcing all members of society to live at the same level provides no incentive for innovation and entrepreneurship, and things disintegrate sooner or later. But how can we actually create even some small measure of equality, enough so that most members of society are contented with their particular position in the socio-economic hierarchy?

Can the social and economic problems of today be traced to flawed assumptions about humanity? We have tried to address these problems by stating without evidence that we are all equal and therefore deserving of the same treatment in all walks of life. This effort has only partly succeeded. Even when we attempted to define some differences, we mostly got it wrong. We stated, again without evidence, that all Muslims are alike and all Thakurs are the same, and all Vokkaligas and so on. On that basis, we created massive government programmes tailored to result in a more equitable society. To no surprise, most of the benefits of such programs went to those within each group that were already economically advanced.

Most of the schedule caste folks in my college were richer than we were -- so much for being a forward caste -- the affirmative action programme served only to make them even more unlike their so-called brothers. Economic indicators reflect our aspirations much more than caste or religion does. Hardly anyone aspires to be of a different religion or caste, whereas a fair number of people aspire to be of a different economic class. This suggests that the real differences are inherent in ways that we are unwilling to recognise.

Perhaps it would be better to say that we are inherently unequal and therefore need different levels of support from government and society. By doing so, we will be forced to consider the nature of our inequalities more seriously. The difference may seem pedantic and trivial, but it can make a significant difference to the lives of those who need such help. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: If we were to say that poor people need help to lift themselves up the layers of our economically stratified society, and therefore we shall give all those who live below the poverty line two votes instead of one, do you think poverty will disappear faster?

In the least, do you not agree that this will give their voices a better chance of being heard? Do you think that such a law can help the poor more than any hand-waving ideas of equality we now have or the supercharged models of economics professors?

We've come a long way down the road we have chosen, but there is no indication that it leads to the promised opportunities. It is time to wonder if we took a wrong turn somewhere back in time. Without the willingness, indeed desire, to constantly re-examine our plans, we cannot hope to make any progress towards the objectives. If that sounds like a cliche, it's time to heed it.

Ashwin Mahesh is an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, in Seattle. His contributions examine and challenge the status quo in a range of social and economic issues.

Tell us what you think of this opinion