Equitist Is So 1947. Embrace Equalism for 2047

8 min read

Just now

Listen

We’re at peak 1947 right now in India. That effectively means that all the political and constitutional decisions made in the year we got Independence (along with the time spent a little before and after) have come home to roost. For the sake of argumentation, I’m going to call this equitism, from the favored buzzword of the progressive left, “equity”. It’s the idea that this country is divided among many lines and intersections. And once you align everything in a grid, the most disadvantaged groups add up to the true majority. Since we are an electoral democracy, that translates into their votes and aspirations being the most important. Also, since we formed the republic to fight social evils, it additionally means those disadvantaged by caste, gender and religion have their concerns at the forefront. What this effectively creates is the caricature of the “woke”: a hierarchy pyramid where the oppressors in India are the Hindu savarna, cis-heterosexual urban Hindi-speaking male. Try to beat that, America or the UK. When India plays the progressive game, ain’t none surpassing our intersectionality.

To be fair and frank, none of this was written into our Constitution or our IPC or our legal codes in 1947–1951. But the seeds were laid. And for good reason. The Constituent Assembly, though being as diverse as the country, were united in the single biggest epiphany that made this republic a reality: we let colonization happen. Our disunity and backstabbing allowed the British to dominate us. Never again. For that end, we instituted affirmative action to amend historical injustices and course a future path of equal-opportunity progress.

But we forget that our country is made by politicians who seized upon this fissure, to interesting, debilitating and now worthless means. It even went beyond the bounds of the Assembly members’ imaginations. That’s how good intentions and flawed executions go hand in hand to get us where we are. My proposal is to go back to another dominant spirit in the constitution, might I say “equally” so. I’ll call this equalism, defined by the idea that we’re all the same. “One vote, one person" could be the conscience and basis for this thinking. When stretched out and spun with care, it has the conservative but revolutionary capacity to get us to the next level in our social, economic and political journey.

Get Bharath Madhusoodanan’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

When writing fictional worlds and stories, equitism can serve as a perfect playground. It can provide empathy for disadvantaged minorities or serve as a revolutionary war cry for change. Yet there’s also the dark side that it brings once it’s in the seat of power, like it is in India since our Independence. This is how that can look like:

Use the frame of India’s independence as a worthy prequel. The fight for equality can be sexy. Not the fake kind of equality that says merit is a good justification for hiring people of my caste and class. But the kind that says I support equality in access and opportunity for all. This can be the plot for the first part of a series exploring a hero bringing together disparate groups versus an enemy playing each against the other. The prequel can be even more fascinating. Visualize this appearance of equitism as well-meaning and well-intentioned. A way to bring together groups otherwise disadvantaged by a small but powerful minority. But when that never ends and instead spirals and splits into never-ending demands, then it can serve as a tragic setting for the issue we have now where groups fight for ever-decreasing scraps.
Going back to humanism as a plank against equitism. It’s hard to forget, in today’s ever-polarized debates, that the other side are people too. With similar desires, pains, relationships and pressures. Humanism can easily veer into internationalist as we strive to care about all humans. But even limiting it to the nation-state has many advantages. For one, it helps us avoid violence and discrimination. For another, it provides the possibility to conceive of alternate identities. To me, Hindutva, minusing its hatred for non-Indic religions (I know that’s a huge caveat; but bear with me here), tried to find a new glue to unite groups otherwise disparate till then. The LGBTQIA2S+ movement tries to do the same, consolidating those groups previously miniscule in overall percentage of the population. All this starts with the core idea that since the other side is composed of people, they can be diverse and contain multitudes. Any strand from that can be used to tie a new thread among a new group. One against equitism is by breaking the idea of set divisions and groups, which were decided by powers then and maintained now by their intellectual inheritors benefiting from this capital.
Desirable outcomes exist only when there’s no option left but that. Take what I mentioned above. Both points. Take the noble first cause and then add to it ever-increasing splintering and fragility of any one group. What will be the most likely end outcome? Civil war? Not likely given there ain’t ever gonna be two solid sides, due to all that constant splitting. Impasse and stagnation? Not likely since the creation of new groups allows for new ideas and avenues. Then what has the highest probability? A reversion to first principles. If there are too many groups and too much instability, then the only option is to relook at the social contract. It used to be communities and the state: religion, gender, caste, occupation, geography, ethnicity, etc. Each had a stake here and fought as a united whole. But the state can dissolve this by considering us as individuals first. No more special treatment, no more privileges. Just equality all the way through.

If going from equitist to equalist philosophy in your writing can be refreshing and empowering, wait till you read this section. Living an equalist life is harder but more fruitful. Not just in the pursuit of an ideal but in the clarity and parsimony of your life. No more juggling multiple contradictions or relying on external guidance. You have a north star holding your decisions to the light and to account. Which is the idea of equal treatment as the predominant course of action. Here are a few ways to get started on that path:

Think about the consequences, not just the intention. A lot of equitist thinking comes from empathy taken to an irrational level. “Oh no, ‘X’ group is suffering. Let’s do ‘Y’ special privilege for them.” It sounds perfect until you ask tougher questions: how is one measuring success? What are plans ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ to achieve your preferred outcome? Is anyone sure these are the best plans and not ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’? Then we go to higher-order questions: what if other groups ask the same thing? How to justify this to a broader public? Can we separate a creamy layer and bad faith actors from this? And on it goes. The complexity is that asking these questions can label you as an “anti X group”. You might actually be from that group. Or care about it. Then all these efforts made descend into a purity mud-slinging contest. However, even if you secretly dislike the group, you still have the right to ask questions. It’s our collective tax rupees going into it. Everyone has the right to feel reservations against any centralising mechanism. Accountability can be open to all without shaming. The crux of the matter is to start thinking about everything done in the name of a group by its described and anticipated outcomes.
Embrace a constitutional way of living. By constitution, I mean the Indian one, of course. And by that I specifically mean our Fundamental Rights. The other stuff in the Constitution quickly reveals the inner equitist nature of our society. But the Fundamental Rights reflect a sense of equalism that is perhaps revolutionary for a multi-millennial civilization such as ours. The main reason is the inherent freedom and recognition it provides us as citizens. We’re all equal under it. None of the hierarchies that our past has enshrined in our families and bloodlines. Think about standing in that line when voting, shoulder by shoulder with a fellow voter. Who comes first, votes first. No special treatment if you’re rich, famous or powerful. It’s why the Supreme Court guards the Fundamental Rights under the Basic Structure doctrine, refusing amendments proposed by the Parliament. It keeps us in that ideal progress towards equalism, where we see each other as citizens first and then everything else after, if at all.
Build up that fraternity. Have you thought back to the groups you belong to? How many of its members are truly diverse, i.e., different from you? By class, religion, caste, education, city, language etc.? If so, does their diversity diminish your affection for them? You forged a new cross identity from both of you being part of that group. You feel connected and close. The corollary is that your existing immutable identities take a step back from assuming prime importance in your lives. They can be negotiated. That’s what fraternity is all about. Ambedkar wrote a lot about this, emphasizing fraternity as the missing link to our nation overcoming many evils. It’s the ability to enjoy a glass of tea from anyone when offered without wondering who cleaned the glass from or who made the tea. It’s the ease with which you play cricket or football with strangers just because it looks fun, bonding over sportsmanship. It reaches its peak when you allow marriages between children of drastically different life journeys, simply because they love one another. Fraternity is something the state can never build but only us as a society, a samaj or rashtra, can. And it’s happening everywhere you turn around. Being a part of it is easy, worthwhile and meaningful.

I hate being a doomer here and in life in general. It’s not fun and more so, a useless predilection. But staying down the equitist path will only provide a diminishing return on investment. It’s part of the past, of the crucible journey a nascent India made. It’s our legacy, belonging to the famous “adjust maadi” ethos that held our country together. The longer we pursue it, the more likely that the divisions become ossified, with lesser and lesser room for maneuvering or compromising. We can already see new cleavages emerge every other day as political opportunists seek anything to gain or regain power. Even the current ruling coalition isn’t innocent of this. But there are silver shoots as well, like the recent Bihar state election results and even the Kerala and Maharashtra local assembly elections. The victories don’t follow the usual caste or religion or linguistic divisions and faultlines. Instead, they manifest more complex political behaviors by voters aware of a new compact. They focus on compensations (via freebies and cash transfers). But, they also showcase the victory of an aspirational story of change and/or the desire to balance overwhelming power by any group. In a way, it’s reaching the promise of transactionalism that serves as a proxy for equalism. After all, you only transact with those you deem your equal, with no favors or doubts coming in the way.

To further consolidate this, one needs a movement. Similar to the RSS, more focused on the rashtra than the rajya. One that cares not about winning power or forming a government but making us realize our common humanity and fraternity. Perhaps it could be a collaboration with the RSS if one needs that mass reach. It may take decades to build momentum but can be faster if it eschews political power for social solidarity. We need it more than ever to recognize that since our Constitution came into effect in 1951, we are all Indians first and everything else second. In fact, it’s the former that allows the latter divisions to thrive, not the other way around.