Abstract
Liberal arts are widely recognized to be more critical, reflexive and emancipatory, and so do its students, whereas technical knowledge caters only to the demands of the market, thus blinding itself to graver social concerns, such as equality and justice. Taking into account that liberal arts students possess greater ‘sociological/narrative imagination’ to look into these issues, this paper tries to understand the perception of equality among the Social Science and the Engineering undergraduate students across four academic institutions in north India. Broadly, focusing on their views on equality and exploring the role of disciplinary background in shaping the idea of equality. Narrative analysis of students’ in-depth interviews suggests significant difference in conceptualization of equality depending upon students’ disciplinary background and college location.
Introduction
‘The spirit of the age is in favour of equality, though practice denies it almost everywhere…’
The pursuit of equality is the most aspirational political goal of all modern societies which is aptly reflected by Nehru’s statement. It is not just a political goal, also a moral quest. All human societies have cherished this ideal in some form or another, while difference remains a basic fact of life, too. Modern societies reflect this basic tension through their policies or Ideological State Apparatuses (Althusser, 1971). All educational institutions inculcate these values amongst students through their course curricula and pedagogy. But the question arises whether any significant difference can be found in these discipline-wise specialized institutions regarding their students’ conceptions of equality? This article through narrative analysis examines the concept of equality across four academic institutions in north India, based on a survey conducted by the author to understand the extent to which these values have trickled down to the students. This paper aims to identify to what extent a different academic or disciplinary training may have an impact on the understanding of this core democratic value. Specifically, it asks whether liberal arts students have an edge in understanding or analysing these concepts because of their inculcated ‘narrative imagination’ (Nussbaum, 2007).
Political thinkers and social theorists have different takes on the value of equality as a concept. In general, Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) have pointed out, through extensive empirical cases studies that societies with wider gaps between the rich and the poor and where highly unequal conditions are noticed pay the price of inequality in the form of different social malaises, such as- mental illness, drug abuse, reduced life expectancy, obesity, teenage pregnancy, rape, and violence. However, such social problems appear to arise in all human societies, albeit to different extents. Hence, it is important to understand the value of equality for the larger benefit of democracy. Amartya Sen (2009) asserts that justice is based on equality and liberty. When these ideas are propagated, we are actually trying to seek democracy, and this should be seen as a government by discussion, that is, true democracy. Jürgen Habermas (1996: 7) conception of ‘discursive’ democracy is also rooted in the abstract ideal of ‘a self-organizing community of free and equal citizens’.
Béteille (2005: 281) points out that the ‘two principal political ideologies of the present age – democracy and socialism, either singly or in various combinations – are built on the premise of equality for all human beings'.
This article increases our understanding of the worldview of students from liberal arts and technical backgrounds. It details their interpretations of equality; testing to what extent they see equality through the lens of a social scientist, much differently from the students of technical subjects. Social category of students in the four chosen sample educational institutions. Household income distribution of students in the four sample educational institutions.
Research design
The research area for the study was metropolitan city of Delhi and industrial town Kanpur of Uttar Pradesh. Delhi’s two premier elite institutes, the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IITD) and University of Delhi (DU) were selected for conducting in-depth interview of students. In Kanpur, Harcourt Butler Technological Institute (HBTI) and Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University (CSJM) students were interviewed. 100 students from liberal arts backgrounds and 100 students from technical backgrounds were set to give equal representation of liberal arts and technology students. Choosing the entire sample only from a single institution would not consider regional variations in the socio-economic profiles of the students, though many students may not be from the place where the respective educational institution is located. Therefore, these 100 students from each of the groups were further divided into 50 students from Delhi as a metropolitan city, and 50 students from Kanpur, a regional, non-metropolitan city. Hence, this distribution of the sample ensured 50 students with liberal arts backgrounds from Kanpur and Delhi each, and the same number of respondents from technical studies backgrounds from the beginning, only those students who were in their third year of college education were taken into the sample. The reason behind this was to ensure that they had spent enough time at their respective college campuses and socialized themselves sufficiently according to the respective campus academic cultures. Normally, the Bachelor of Arts programme (BA) is a 3-year undergraduate programme, while the Bachelor of Technology (BTech) is a 4-year undergraduate programme in the Indian higher education system. Therefore, third year BA students were selected for comparison with third year BTech students. Within each group of students, snowball sampling was used for the comprehensive accumulation of data at various locations like hostel rooms, mess, playground and canteen, etc. The interviews were conducted within a 6-month time span. Caste and class-wise distribution of students in each institution has been presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.
Overall, a comparative perspective was employed to understand how different groups of students were different in terms of interpreting the concept of equality. Through a semi-structured interview schedule, each student was asked a set of open-ended questions about equality. A couple of questions were asked related to the different dimensions of equality, which were meant to trigger responses which could be backed by sufficient examples. Interviews were carried out face-to-face and documented by audio recording (with the students’ consent). Students’ recorded responses were later on transcribed and analysed through AtlasTi software by assigning codes to different themes which were emerging from their narratives about the concept of equality.
Origin of the concept of equality and its debates
Equality as a notion is variably defined, contested and related to the political, philosophical and social spheres down the centuries. As a political concept or ideal, it has evolved very late in human history. However, it had been practiced unconsciously in abstract forms without any social contract in several hunting and gathering societies like the Ju/’hoansi San people of the Kalahari Desert, the Eskimos and the Shoshone, among whom we do not find any exclusive rights to territory (Durning, 1992). It means people have equal access/rights to/over natural resources leading towards an egalitarian society. Territorial control needs complex political organizations to protect one’s natural resources and lands from outside invasions with the help of collected taxes. This was probably one of the reasons why no complex political system evolved among these band societies (Scupin and DeCorse, 2008: 373). The band is considered the oldest and primary form of a political system in which members enjoyed equal status in terms of practicing rights or in sharing economic resources amongst each other.
In India, after the Vedic period, around 600 BC–300 BC, substantive discourses on equality can be traced during the ages of the Janapadas and Mahajanapadas. During this period, certain heterodox sects like Jainism and Buddhism emerged out of the Vedic lifestyle, which was believed to be highly stratified and unequal in nature. Although these kingdoms were fairly organized polity-wise, yet certain groups were dissatisfied and marginalized. These marginalized groups came together and formed chiefdoms called gana-sanghas 2 at the periphery of kingdoms. Gana means ‘people’ who claim to be of equal status, and sangha means ‘assembly’, or rajya, referring to governance. These gana-sanghas are often referred to as ‘democracies’ because the clan chiefs of these gana-sanghas governed the territory through an assembly. Later on, this notion was rejected on the grounds that power was vested in the small ruling families and that they governed the assembly. Moreover, these gana-sanghas, sometimes referred to as ‘oligarchies’, emphasized the power of ruling families, but behaved like ‘republics’ by conceding social stratification in the society (Thapar, 2002: p. 147). On the whole, these ‘chiefdoms’ were the first sites in Indian history of political equality, which was ensured through assembly decisions without any religious or social stratification amongst the group members.
The concept of equality was a matter of great concern in Aristotle’s thoughts on justice. Previously, in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the equal perception of all people in the eyes of God contributed to a notion of equality, though in a much more abstract sense. However, this notion was subsequently concretized and given a social form by the Jewish Law. Here, equality was ensured in the sense that teachings were not confined to the elite group but were available to the masses as well. This proved to be a major step in the formulation of equality as a definite notion.
Interestingly, in the Greek tradition, Aristotle believed in some of the natural inequalities of men and women. These are disregarded in today’s context. Nonetheless, he played a crucial role in founding a political critique of economic inequalities. In Nicomachean Ethics, 3 Aristotle uses the Greek word isos for ‘equal’, which has its meaning somewhat akin to ‘fairness’ (Ethics 1132 al-19). Significantly, Athenian political practice, which included the reforms of isonomia (equality before the law), isogoria (equality before speech), and the power of the people to participate in the agenda-setting of politics rather than only expressing their preferences, also gave a strong impetus to the idea of equality, which later found its philosophical articulation in the Greek tradition (Kogl & Moore, 2005).
Considering human beings as the creations of God, mediaeval thinking proclaimed the preservation of some natural rights for the masses. St. Thomas Aquinas 4 can be cited as a major proponent towards affirming the need for a certain basic set of protectionist laws for the masses, solely on the basis of their humanity. Secondly, during the mediaeval age, the Church also played an instrumental role in allowing people from the lower classes to join the royal/elite circle of advisors (de Tocqueville, 1969: pp. 9–10), thereby associating the idea of mobility with the concept of equality.
This was against the backdrop of the feudal system existing in mediaeval Europe, where society was highly stratified on the basis of bloodlines into royals and commoners. In between, there were several classes like lords, knights and serfs. Serfs constituted the bottom of the hierarchy, much like manual labourers in farms. Analogous to this system, India had the ancient varna system, comprising of caste-based inequalities divided into four varnas – Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Shudras. These institutions were formed in the larger interests of political and economic stability. But overall, these were highly unequal societies with limited social mobility.
Rawls viewed equality in his theory of ‘justice as fairness’ as comprising of two principles. The first principle, as a principle of liberty, emphasizes that individuals should possess equal rights to certain basic liberties. The second principle, termed as the ‘equality principle’, argued that ‘Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the “just savings principle”, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity’. Rawls’ major contribution lies in his nuanced argument that some form of inequality is justifiable only if it proves beneficial to the least well-off section of society (Rawls, 1999: p. 302).
The concept of equality seems to be an almost protean entity, changing its notions down the centuries. More or less hovering between economic and political dimensions, equality is now being questioned in a larger context focused on human rights and international legal principles. With the gradual cultural shifts and political fluctuations from the colonial era to today’s globalized world, inequalities between advanced countries and lesser privileged ones are now a matter of major debate. More significantly, the emergence of the question of LGBT rights has brought equality under the purview of gender politics of inclusion and exclusion (Kakoti Borah, 2018). The Supreme Court of India’s 2018 judgement on decriminalization of consensual same-sex acts can be seen in this light. The question of the legitimization of identity and the granting of equal status to various ethnic communities who have been undergoing suppression, exploitation and abuse also form an important part of intellectual discussions on equality in today’s world.
Pursuit of equality under the British Raj
The roots of social equality existed in mediaeval Islam as well as in mediaeval Hinduism in the form of Bhakti, or the devotional tradition, which stressed the notion of equality before God. But this concept became nationally influential only with the appearance of the anti-caste movement in the 19th century. It cannot be denied that the influence of Christianity and the rise of nationalism in India were two other influential factors which aided in the gradual development of the notion of equality (Weiner, 1962). Krishna Kumar (1991: 97) points out that during the freedom struggle, equality was one of the three categories (equality, self-identity and progress) for value orientations expressed in the context of education. He opines that due to the dissemination of education under the colonial rule, two kinds of elite groups were formed, namely, the older elites, comprising of the traditional Brahmins and the upper castes, and the new elites, comprising of the upwardly mobile lower castes. The traditional elites were more concerned with the ideas of liberty, freedom and equality in the larger political contexts (more precisely, autonomy) under the domain of nationalism. On the contrary, the new elites from the lower castes were more concerned with gaining social equality within a caste-ridden social structure. These new elites found the British patronage as a favourable audience and agency to fight back against the age-old Brahmanical oppression in Indian society (Kumar, 1991).
In pre-Independence India, the concept of equality was associated with social reforms and the process of modernization propagated by social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Mahadev Govind Ranade and Jyotiba Phule. It is essential to note that the gradual process of modernization and the germination of the concept of equality took place along with the infiltration of Western ideals in the late eighteenth century.
The foundation of different reformist organizations like the Brahmo Samaj and the Satya Shodhak Samaj attacked the profound caste rigidities of the Indian social structure, thereby intervening in the social structure to question its ingrained inequalities. Other organizations like the Arya Samaj and the Theosophical Society also stressed the idea of equality through their renewed interests in Vedanta philosophy. Emphasizing the love of all humanity, irrespective of caste and creed, these institutional endeavours aided in awakening the inequities deeply embedded in the dogmatic Hindu-dominated Indian social system.
Up to the end of the nineteenth century, the Indian debate on equality had been initiated with the purpose of social reformation, in terms of erasing the caste, creed and gender disparities. Unlike Western society, wherein the struggle for equality was for the purpose of diminishing the differences between the rich and the poor, in India, equality was yearned for to mitigate ascribed social hierarchies of caste. Later on, as the Indian freedom movement advanced, this reformist outlook changed into the fight for political equality and reconstructing the nation by throwing off the shackles of the British Raj. Bal Gangadhar Tilak stated that swaraj implied complete political autonomy from the British Raj. He propagated the idea of political equality as a human right.
During the Indian freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas of gram swaraj, sarvodaya and the upliftment of the socially backward harijans were three significant ideals which developed the concept of equality. Through gram swaraj, Gandhi wanted to develop the small-scale cottage industries for the economic equality of the masses. By sarvodaya, he meant a state in which (i) the worth of the labour of all is considered to be the same, (ii) greater value is placed on the simple life of labourers and peasants, and (iii) there exists a belief that one’s welfare lies in the welfare of all. By renaming the untouchables as harijans, etymologically meaning the children of God, Gandhi addressed the age-old subjugation of socially backward peoples along caste lines and fought for providing them with social equality.
Equality after post-independence
After Independence, the Indian Constitution accorded political equality in terms of granting voting rights to all citizens of India. More crucial was the role played by B. R. Ambedkar, who insisted on the social and economic equality of the suppressed classes by ensuring certain special constitutional rights through reservation in employment and academic institutions. Their constitutional rights were ensured by grouping them under the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) categories.
The policy of reservation, as analysed by Krishna Kumar (1991), treats the unjust social order as a market fostering the idea of competition, where individuals can face upward mobility through education. This is what he points out as the fallacy of the policy of reservation in India (Kumar, 1991, p. 108). Following the same line of thought, the National Knowledge Commission portrays the unjust Indian social order as a market where any individual can improve his/her circumstances through competition, and therefore, speaks of providing more accessibility of resources while neglecting the underlying social injustices. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act (2006) is a further move in providing social and educational equality to the Other Backward Classes by ensuring them reserved seats in central educational institutions like the IITs and IIMs.
In spite of a growth rate of 7.7% per year in the Tenth Five Year Plan period, the Eleventh Plan (2007–2012) acknowledged that too many people still lack the basic requirements for a decent living in terms of nutrition standards, access to education and basic health, and other public services. Here now equality is measured by access to resources and goods. Several disadvantaged groups, especially the SCs, STs and the minorities, have benefitted less than they should have. So, these groups should be provided with pre-examination coaching for engineering, medical and civil services by sponsoring the students to both public and private institutions. Several other groups which may be discriminated against, like persons with disabilities, older persons, street children, beggars and victims of substance abuse, would then have to be included in the development process. Therefore, the Eleventh Plan talks about more inclusive development for social justice so that all social groups have equal access to the services provided by the State and equal opportunities for upward economic and social mobility by several initiatives.
The whole point of the above discussion on the tracing of systemic equalities in different time and space was to give an essence of social consciousness on the concept of equality. We can infer from the above discussions that the social consciousness on the concept of equality is very much context-dependent and only arose in post-colonial India. In India, predominately after independence, legal/political equality, with the intention of providing social equality in the hierarchical structure, is the dominant social agenda. One of the major fundamental rights granted by the Indian Constitution (Part III) and entitled Fundamental Rights includes individual equality before the law. Here, the individual is important, but when it comes to the policy level, social groups are given due respect in the form of affirmative action as guaranteed in Part IV of the Constitution, which is entitled Directive Principles of State Policy.
Perception of equality among college students
The above discussion on Equality was focused on historical debates. In doing so, the main objective was to provide an inclusive overview of the concept as it developed down the ages. But a sociological examination of this moral notion is necessary, and this section is an attempt towards that. Building upon Roland Dworkin’s distinction, Béteille (2005) argues that equality as a concept can be looked at in two ways: ‘equality as a right’ and ‘equality as a policy’. When we talk about ‘equality as a right’, it basically deals with how every individual of the state would be ensured equal treatment. These rights have been assured in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy of the Indian Constitution. If the right to being treated equally is somehow compromised or violated, an individual can go to the court for the protection of his/her fundamental rights. But ‘equality as a policy’ is sociologically a more important concept to explore, as groups do not have the same rights to equality as individuals do.
There is no well-accepted conception about equality in any society. But, for a just society, philosophically, morally and politically we find several discourses dealing with the question of equality along humanist lines. In these discourses, just what could be the building blocks for making an egalitarian society has been discussed at length from many different perspectives. How can we analyse or carry over any notions of equality from theory to action? This is investigated here through the responses of the four institutions’ students.
Broadly speaking, when we look at the question What is equality? we immediately start with Amartya Sen’s pioneering liberal-egalitarian question, the equality of what? 5 After reflecting upon this expression, we move to the second expression, that is, Equality among whom? and finally, at any particular system where this equality should be practiced, that is, Equality where? These three groups of expressions are by and large used in the non- academic world, in particular, and also in the academic world, in general, for studying equality. 6
Using the above framework, students’ responses were deciphered from their narratives regarding Equality of what? It was found that most students believe that every individual should be given equal opportunities for their growth. Equality of opportunity was the primary concern for Delhi-based college students and Kanpur-based college students. However, a higher number of Delhi-based college students believed that equality could be achieved by providing ample opportunities in life, whereas, just the opposite pattern can be observed in the case of ‘equality of resources.’ Here, a higher number of technical students, as compared to liberal arts students, believed that an equal distribution of resources is necessary for an egalitarian or equal society. While 16% of the Delhi University students talked about the possibility of the furthering of self-development as an important criterion for an equal society, in the same institution, the largest percentage of students believed in building individual capabilities, as when compared to other institutions.
Responses regarding different kinds of equality across the institutions (in percentages).
(Source: Compiled by the researcher).
The different categories in Table 1 were chosen from the themes which came out from the discussions with the students on equality. In all the five categories, excepting the response ‘equality of resources’, we find significant differences in the responses across the institutions. Overall, the students’ perceptions about equality of what? were found to be varying across all the institutions, and this difference is statistically quite significant. If we carefully observe Table 1, it is apparent that the University of Delhi students’ perspectives are most scattered and wide regarding this concept. This is possibly because their exposure to these kinds of issues is greater as compared to those from the other institutes. Although CSJM Kanpur is also a Liberal Arts college, yet, its dysfunctional state of affairs is reflected in the students’ responses.
Most of the students in IIT Delhi were in favour of equality of opportunity. It was interesting to note that students felt that girls are not given equal opportunities as compared to boys. A third year B.Tech. student from IIT Delhi, when asked what he understood by the concept of equality, responded: ‘Equal opportunity for everyone, e.g., gender equality. Like in any company, we find all the top positions are occupied by males. Only if we find this position filled by some females can we call it equality. I see equality in terms of gender relations’.
This disagreement arose from their college experience. They had seen very few girl students making it into the IITs. This was also evident in the class demographic profile. Out of 60 students in the B.Tech. third year class of the Computer Science Department, only 6 were girl students.
Delhi University students also pointed out the equality of opportunity as the most important form of equality. But their understanding about the concept was more comprehensive than other institutions’ students. This can be seen by the statement of a B.A. English Honours third year student from St. Stephen’s College: ‘I would understand by equality the equality of opportunity, so that everyone has an equal chance to perform and do what they want in their lives, not necessarily the equality of returns. We could probably have more standardized...I don't know...educational opportunities. There are huge disparities in the Indian educational system. I don't think I see equality anywhere...Like the medical education system in Cuba…It’s fantastic...free of cost education, but after you finish your education, you have to serve your country for some time, maybe 5 or 10 years, which is absolutely valid, and after that, you go anywhere you want to. They have brilliantly trained doctors and are reputed throughout the world, so you cannot say that that is bad quality. It’s very good quality, and also, its free of cost, so everyone has an equal opportunity to be a very good doctor. You get the equal opportunity, work and become a good doctor’.
The maximum number of students from HBTI Kanpur opted for equality of resources. They talked about equality in purely economic terms, that is, terms in which everyone should get equal quality of education, food and shelter along with good health-care facilities. One student points out: ‘An absolutely fair and equal level in shared resources’.
Almost 50% of the students in CSJM Kanpur were not able to articulate their notions of equality. The rest of those who somehow managed to respond gave responses that were mostly one-liners, without giving too much thought to the concept. They just randomly pointed out that equality means equal chances to do anything in life, to be free to go in for any job or educational pursuit. This state of affairs is reflecting on dysfunctional social science teaching levels in the college.
The next important question deciphered from the students’ narratives on equality was equality among whom? Most liberal-egalitarian theories put forward the case for equality amongst individuals. But Young (2001) says that by addressing this question at the individual level, we ignore several group dynamics which operate within the social structure. Advocating Young’s argument, Baker et al. (2004) points out that, at the most fundamental level, if we pursue the case of equality at the ‘individual’ level, we should not keep our eyes closed to relations between groups. Society is structured by several unequal social divisions, like gender, sexuality, disability, race, ethnicity, caste, class, religion and age. Amongst these social groups, some groups are privileged by the way that the social structures operate. Hence, in Table 2, students’ responses were looked at from this perspective, that is, whether students see equality at the individual level or are also able to see the structural inequalities in different social groups. Here again, we found that the Delhi University students’ responses were mostly concerned with the inequalities operating at the different group levels, and they pursued the case for ‘equality among social groups.’ Across the institutions, it was found that girl students and students from North-East India argued for equality at the group level. This question can also be seen as an understanding of the term equality by students as either a flat term or a more pluralistic/multi-faceted term. So, as is clearly visible in Table 2, amongst the institutions, Delhi University has the highest number of students who view the concept of equality from a more multi-faceted perspective, while the least number of such students are from CSJM Kanpur. As one female student from Hindu College pointed out: ‘Equality should be based on gender, in terms of living standards and work opportunities. In the Hindu scriptures, like the Manu code, it is written that girls are inferior and men are superior. Then, there is a difference between upper and lower castes, as is also mentioned in the Manu code. We are culturally oriented this way…This has been passed on through the generations. Since it was originally there, so the Hindu scriptures follow it. These things are already mentioned, so we practice them every day. You imbibe these values; you learn them through your family. “He” is superior to “she”.’ Responses to ‘Equality among whom?’ across the institutions (in percentages). (Source: Compiled by the researcher).
It is evident from her statement that she is not happy with the way women used to be discriminated against in religious texts in the past and even in today’s world. She is concerned about equality in which group divisions like gender, caste and discipline should be given the same privileges, so that those who are disadvantaged can move up in life.
The difference is also very statistically significant across the institutes. The technical institutes’ students favoured individualism; this is also evident in Table 2. Almost 70% or more students supported the idea that equality should be assured at the individual level.
The next question asked was equality where? This is the most important question because one cannot complete one’s argument about equality of what and among whom? unless one can visualize it in a particular system. Sociologically also, it is very important to understand exactly where we can put these ideas into operation for an egalitarian society. In Marxist sociology, the economic system is the driving force for everything. But Weberian 7 sociology goes beyond the economic system and gives importance to the political and cultural systems as well. Talcott Parsons 8 has also identified these systems in his structural-functionalist theory. To make things more inclusive in the study of equality, John Baker et al. (2004) have added another system, called an affective system. This system also adds the human urges for love, care and solidarity in their relationships, apart from the equality of material resources in an economic system, the equality of power/rights in a political system, and the equality of status in a cultural system.
Responses to ‘Equality where?’ across the institutions (in percentages).
(Source: Compiled by the researcher).
IIT Delhi students believed that, in the first place, equality should be guaranteed in our economic system. This was based on their assumption that only the economic system can be quantified and judged properly. An IIT Delhi student pointed it out this way: ‘Equality of money, I would say. At least everyone should have money to fulfill his minimum necessities of food, clothes and housing. If these three things are available to everyone, then I would say that society can be called equal. If a person is living in a huge bungalow, it should be made as such so that thousands of people can stay in it. For me, equality is solely in terms of money and education’.
HBTI Kanpur students were mostly worried about political equality. They believed that in today’s society, generally, people’s rights, even fundamental rights, are not assured by the state. Freedom of expression, equal voting rights and the right to education are not assured, and only a few enjoy power and authority in the system, although according to the Constitution, everyone is equal before the law. Emphasizing on this point, one student from HBTI Kanpur claimed that equality can be formulated in action only, with an interesting analogy from a student perspective: ‘Ensure equal rights to every citizen without discrimination as mentioned in our Constitution, and like in an examination, where merit prevails’.
Delhi University students primarily talked about equality in the cultural system, but as is mentioned above, their responses were more comprehensive and more ideological. For instance, in the following excerpt, we find that the student is looking at the concept in broader social-structural contexts, as problems attached to caste and class in his society. ‘I used to think of equality on the basis of caste and class, so if I look at it from that point of view, there is not really much of a difference. There really isn’t any problem of inequality of caste where I come from, West Bengal, at least because people from everywhere meet together…There are no real hang-ups regarding who eats what and people from different castes eat together, but class is definitely a problem because there is a large section of people in West Bengal who are dominated by a smaller group consistently and persistently, at least for the last 150 years, and it is very difficult to see those people come out of their cells. I would believe that equality is something where there would be no hang- ups about caste, which should be and is quite a reality thanks to radio, television and modern inventions. If we can safely eliminate class distinctions, we would achieve some resemblance of equality’.
Importantly, here a young person observes a shift of focus in marking inequality from the older indicator of caste to the more recent one of class. The marker of difference has changed, difference is still present, absolute equality is not even on the radar in some kind of philosophical of humanistic sense.
Most of the students across all institutions believed that equality in the political system is the most aspirational aim for an egalitarian society. Here, the difference is statistically insignificant across the four institutions, which depicts the almost identical responses in spite of the differing college backgrounds amongst the students. In other responses, we find statistically significant differences across the institutions.
Conclusions
While examining the concept of equality from its historical perspective, we found that in pre- -Independence India, the Indian psyche, or the Indian social consciousness, has not always favoured or supported equalities in the political or social system. Adding to this historical interpretation, it has been found that across the four academic institutions, most of the students favoured the principle of equality in the political and social systems. This is important in the sense that at the present time, the Indian educational system is driven by a liberal economy, wherein we find huge income disparities between several groups, but still the students had an orientation towards egalitarianism.
To sum up the results of this article, we can see clear differences across different academic streams and between elite and non-elite institutions. The students’ different disciplinary trainings have significant impact upon their views, especially for equality in this case per se. It is clear from the above analysis that in the institution where the social sciences and cultural studies are being sustained as functional subjects, its students show remarkably different attitudes and world-views, which tend to be more elaborate and refined, and which the young people were better able to express. In all the four institutions, it was found that, except in the University of Delhi students, all others gave more or less the same responses. It was also assumed that CSJM Kanpur, being a liberal arts college, would have its students expressing wider perspectives in this regard. But it’s almost dysfunctional status gets reflected in its students’ views. In most of the cases, the students were not even able to answer the questions or were not able to articulate their opinions.
The most diverse and informed opinions were noted in the University of Delhi students. They looked at the concept of equality in a more holistic and modern globalized sense. The two technical institutions’ students possessed more or less the same opinions. However, IIT Delhi students were a bit more expressive on several issues. But their way of looking at things was more or less the same, mechanical and based on general observations, like the HBTI Kanpur students.
Overall, then, the students from Delhi University’s two colleges could be seen to have a more distinctive understanding of issues related to equality, amongst all the other institutions. A clear difference could also be seen between them and the two engineering institutions. In DU, there was a more comprehensive understanding of the meaning of equality and also of the factors which lead to it. The DU students were able to point to more factors contributing to equality and may be said to have a more balanced approach to finding solutions for inequality. Sad to report, CSJM’s students of social science were also markedly different from the rest, but in a negative manner. Teaching was largely dysfunctional there, and they were students of social science in name only. They had the least comprehensive understanding and were not able to make meaningful replies to many questions.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Indian Council of Medical Research New Delhi (3/1/JRF/2005-MPD).
