Open Forum
New Delhi, 29
November 2017
Understanding Equality
INDIA’S KEY CHALLENGE
By Dr. Oishee Mukherjee
Over a period of time
there has been renewed interest on inequality, specially after the publication
of renowned French economist Thomas Piketty’s book ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’. Obviously those involved in
understanding inequality rightly feel the effect of rapid increase in wealth
and income occurring in societies may be inimical to democracy. An interesting
debate has also started over the roots of increase in equality.
Most economists
foresee this as an imminent tendency under capitalism that had earlier been
held in check in the exceptional situation in the post-war period. However,
there is another school of thought headed by economists like Joseph Stiglitz
who attribute inequality not to any “economic laws of capitalism”, whose very existence
they are not prepared to accept, but to government policies driven by politics.
Growing inequality, they hold, is not inevitable under capitalism.
As the debate goes on
at the global level, politicians and many others in Third World countries like
India talk of equality quite frequently without understanding that, actually
our society is totally unequal and the disparity is widening. Whether one
compares poor and the rich, the urban and rural population, the incomes of
industrial and the agricultural sector or even the attitude towards men
vis-à-vis the opposite sex, inequality has been the order of the day. There has
been no endeavour by successive governments to breach the inequality but, on
the other hand, inequality has been widening in the country while the poorest
23 per cent languish.
There has recently
been some academic interest on the subject of income distribution as the fruits
of economic growth have been captured almost entirely by those at the top of
the economic ladder. Not surprisingly rising inequality levels created a lot of
social unrest and political upheavals. Recent studies by IMF staff economists, in examining trade-offs
between sustained growth and inequality levels, found lower inequality may
actually drive faster and more durable growth for a given level of
redistribution. In fact, the combined direct and indirect effects of
redistribution are, on average, pro growth.
Recently, Piketty and
much earlier Nicholas Kaldor had highlighted that an equal distribution of
incomes can generate additional demand precisely because low income earners
spend virtually all their incomes. This may well be a principal cause of the
recent slowdown in India and many other countries. These are quite well known
to economists the world over and also to those of our country but the influence
and power of the rich allow them to amass wealth, even depriving the lower
income segments of society.
The situation in our
country is best demonstrated by the recent controversy of the Paradise Papers
and earlier the Panama Papers. It is being debated in the media and most
speakers have suggested that the ultra rich are so powerful and close to the
corridors of powers that no action has yet been taken against any of them.
Moreover, the changes that have been brought about in various laws that such
people can easily escape punishment.
Thus, reducing
economic inequality is a major challenge for our country. But for this to
become a reality there is need for changing the course of capital and power
centralisation that is, the formation of larger and larger blocks of capital.
Simultaneously, economic decentralisation i.e. delegation of powers to
institutions, specially panchayats at the grass-root level have to become a
reality. The policy of making government top heavy and giving bureaucrats a
very high salary has resulted in this situation.
Moreover, the
incentives given to the industrial class – directly or indirectly – need to be
controlled as there is no rule in the country to return the subsidies they get
when companies start making profit. Also formal sector employees get quite high
salaries whereas their counterparts in the non formal sector do not enjoy the
same.
Another aspect of
this inequality syndrome in the social arena is the unequal status of the
opposite sex. As is well known, the country does not have equality of
opportunity in various areas and here again the powerful manipulate things to
their advantage. The cry of equality for women has been raised by activists who
want the patriarchal structure to be demolished. These demands are just made in
conferences and sometimes in political meetings but not taken seriously by
those in authority who are mostly men.
The opposite sex is
destined to be a mother even if she is a professional and working. The
motherhood imagery of women is embedded in our minds. She has to look after
household work after her work in the office but her husband has the liberty to
go to clubs and parties.
The unequal status of
men and women is clearly discernible. It needs to be pointed out that women
feel dependent and cannot think of herself as an independent woman. However,
recently we find scattered cases of single women who think of themselves not
being dependent and asserting themselves in a patriarchal world.
If we take the case
of poor families, more attention is being given to the male child whether in
matters of education and health. It is still thought that the boy of the family
has to be given better food and all facility to continue his education even if
the girl child fares better in school. Even with spread of education and
awareness, this discrepancy and unequal behaviour is quite distressing.
There are people who
believe that the term equality is a misnomer and can never be achieved in this
country and most others of the Third World. This is a reality and with every
passing year, economic inequality is deemed to widen, specially in countries
like India where political elites at the national and State levels are in the
forefront of formulating and controlling policies. Moreover, black money which
has a deep connection with inequality cannot be brought to book as such money
is cornered by those who fund election expenses of major political parties in
the country.
At this juncture, one
may refer to Gandhi’s message of simple living as the only ethical way to live
in a world of finite resources and extreme inequality that is increasing every
day. It is indeed distressing to note that what Gandhi talked of commercial
expansion has led to growing wealth gap, increasing number of starvation and
malnourished people alongside shopping malls, the exhaustion of natural
resources, agricultural collapse and the misery of small and marginal farmers
increasing to around two lakhs having committed suicide in the first decade of
this millennium.
India now boasts one
of the world’s largest billionaires but Gandhi admonished that “the test of
orderliness in a country is not the millionaires (and billionaires) it owns but
the absence of starvation of the masses”. One may mention here a very pertinent
observation of Mira Kamdar that “harmony and its perpetuity, its
sustainability, that ethical living based on equitable consumption seeks to
achieve Gandhi’s lesson” in a world of finite resources equitable consumption
can only lead to limited consumption. The unequal society that is manifest in
our country cannot be considered just. Thus, it is time that politicians,
planners, economists and sociologists have to evolve an action plan aimed at
reducing inequality and ensuring that the suffering millions get their due
justice to live a dignified existence. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|