The Debate of Equality vs Equality

No society is built equal, so equal treatment without an equal society is essentially worthless. In India, a large section of the population is poor hence there is some inequality that exists economically. Equitable distribution of resources is extremely important in a country like India where equality only exists in terms of equality before the law, hence the system of food grain rationing, free medical services, reservation for certain communities in government jobs and educational institutions, etc have been put in place by the government to deal with the unjust distribution of resources. An unequal society cannot be based on equality because when there is an equal distribution of resources between the rich and the poor, the gap between the rich and the poor will keep increasing or remain unchanged causing the society to stay unequal and unjust. Equity on the other hand would make sure that the rich don't go on to become richer and the financial and social gap eventually narrows down leading to the creation of an equal society, where equality can thrive in terms of resources, education, opportunities, law, etc. Without financial equality India will never be able to eliminate the system of caste and religious injustices as well as the heavyweight of poverty, hence it is extremely important to uplift certain communities and groups out of the condition of poverty they've been ghettoed in; in order to achieve equality.

This is also one of those debates, in which people look for the answer on the left or the right, but the answer is present somewhere in the middle (that is if it does exist).

In India equity in terms of economy (if we talk about progressive taxing) does not make any sense for various reasons. Firstly, it is only the top 1 percent that pays about 50 percent of the entire tax of the nation, so implementing such a policy for sure will lead to heavy tax evasion and possibly an exodus of the rich to another country (that’s too farfetched, but stretch your imagination a little). Secondly, the variables to account for are not indicative of anything conclusive: the divisions can be on the basis of geopolitics, caste, religion, race, or gender, or can they really?

In advocating equity for a certain caste are we assuming that every citizen of that caste needs support?

To make a parallel let's take for example the Reservation system, has it uplifted the needy, or has it uplifted the already uplifted….?

Let us leave equity aside for a moment and come to equality - this is the most absurd idea on the planet – yes, saying that everyone should be treated equally makes sense. But economically speaking, the idea of a doctor and sweeper earning the same money would not make an iota of sense. To anyone who is in favor of the communist ideas, watching documentaries about Cuba or just reading George Orwell will definitely show you the side-effects of these ideas.

In conclusion, corruption is rampant, power is lethal, people are stupid. There are no solutions to some things; Rome did rise and Rome did fall. Equality in its basic form is worthless because without equity it is impossible to create a just and egalitarian society. An equitable society is the means to an end, the end being equality in all aspects. Without equity coming first, equality will never prevail in society.