 The title of the talk is very very intriguing. Normally we have anarchy of equality, but I'm talking about anarchy of inequality. So what do I mean by this? I'm aware about the experts who are sitting in the hall and the experts chairing the session. Therefore I do not want to really commit any silly mistake and I would like to read my presentation. So please bear with me. My intention to select this theme for discussion is evident in the very title I have chosen for this particular talk. I intend to question the liberal's defense of inequality and indeed I plan to show the limits of theoretical justification that is internal to liberal political theory of inequality as propounded by a battery of theorists led by John Rawls. You may not agree with this but I think John Rawls is leading the battery of political theorists who have thought about the theme of inequality. And should I mention the names? The names are very obvious. You have Ronald Dawkins, you have Thomas Nagel, you have Professor Amartya Sen. So how these names as the ones we have worked on the concept of inequality. Let me risk putting forth an argument which might look quite unpleasant to many. The argument is in liberal sense inequality simply means reasonable departure from equality. This is the important point, important line I would like you to take into consideration. Interestingly liberal political theory does not talk about arrival but departure, departure from equality. It seeks to justify such a departure on normative grounds in that it intends to neutralize in some degree harsh condition of those who are worst off. Obviously John Rawls is the quotation. Inequality is the justification that is provided by the theorist to arrest the arrival of the worst off to complete equality. Now the job of liberal political theory is to arrest the arrival of the worst off to equality. Such theory thus assigns a restorative role to inequality. In this liberal sense inequality is justified on the ground that it seeks to prevent the system from collapsing into complete chaos or anarchy. This delay is sought by putting barricades such as equality of opportunity, fair equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equality of risk. So these are all names, these are positions associated with names as I mentioned and incentive inequality. And of course inequality based on entitlement of course Robert Nosek. This is roughly the argument that justifies inequality. In this particular presentation I would like to propose at least a couple of arguments that I hope would successfully counter the argument that the liberal theorist have put forward in favor of inequality. I am making a very big claim now, please save me from this now. My argument runs as follows. Inequality which in liberal sense finds its relevance and essence in its reasonable departure from equality but ultimately tends to acquire anarchy character. Particularly on account of its seeking radical departure from equality. To put differently it acquires anarchy dimension when it becomes self-defining without any reference to equality. This is the epistemic ambition of inequality to actually define itself without any reference to equality. And therefore I think this is the real problem with inequality. Our inequality slips into anarchy, anarchy mode in the condition when it becomes an independent norm, independent norm that shifts only handicap ambitions and which offers subsidized satisfaction to people. Now inequality acquires its independent epistemic status, it gets defined without any reference to equality. Unlike liberal, unlike liberal theorist. And I would like to remind you of this. How do we define, how does inequality get independent strength to define itself without any association with equality? And I would like to draw your attention to this very interesting line in the last scene in Laguero Munna Bhai. Laguero Munna Bhai. That's it. You do not require anything positive to really define yourself. You are already inside, how much can you get into this? That's it. This is my first problem with the theorist. Second problem. I also argue against the liberal political theory on the ground that it seeks to successfully disguise in its very theoretical mode of justification the danger of inequality becoming gross or becoming uncontrollable. The point that we have learned through our political theory books is that inequality is a very nice thing to have a restorative function, preventive function to prevent system collapsing into anarchy. But my argument is that this is a deception. In the very justification, theoretical justification of inequality, you disguise the limits of inequality. That is the problem. And we are asking this question to all these political theorists. The new liberal economic, and actually I am charged by Samuat's very very revolutionary tradition. I can't make any other presentation except the one I am intending to do. The new liberal economic order, however, seems to have stripped the liberal political theory of its discursive capacity. I don't like this word discursive, but I have no other better words to, but please forgive me for this. Samuat won't allow this discursive word, but I am just using just because I don't get any other word. The new liberal economic order, however, seems to have stripped the liberal political theory of its discursive capacity, even to disguise the limits of inequality in its theoretical justification. And that is the problem. This is clear from the statement made by those who have been the supporters of the new liberal economic order. The language is brazen, and that it is spoken even in the condition where inequality is completely intensified. Therefore, it is necessary for me to delineate in brief what are the justificatory grounds of inequality. When I say inequality is disguising its own limits, I am actually hinting at the way inequality in modern times and new liberal times intensified, and I will dwell upon it later in some detail. I have got the liberal justification of inequality, which I am actually arguing against. So please allow me to dwell on in some details on the theoretical positions as taken by these theorists from time to time. The liberal political theories seek justification for inequality on both. And grounds of individual rationality as well as normative moral grounds. On the grounds of individual rationality, political theories treat inequality as the baseline, like Eru Munna Bhai, from where the aspirants can then compete with each other in order to reach their desired goal. And this is very interesting by the revolutionary poet Narayan Suryaway in Marathi A.K. Gurd Sarkar. There are different possibilities to achieve your goal. Since market-based inequality is aspirational and sustained by the pragmatic logic of incentives, it necessarily involves competition and confidence on the part of the aspirants. Competition in turn involves strong and continuous self-evaluation. Competitive mode driven by individual rationality and not by community is at the stake. For example, members from the SCs and STs, I am just making a special reference to SCs and STs, compete against each other without any moral consideration for caste solidarity. So that is rational, is already there at play. In the second sense, morality works at the individual level at which a person who faces failures in competition tends to adopt evaluative mode. As a part of the strong evaluation, individual begins to locate reasons for his or her failure, not in the limits of the system, not in the limits of the system, but in the sphere of self-reflection of agency. Now post-structuralists are at their own operation table now. For them, agency is important, not the structure. If I am similar, I would always put my faith in structure, not in agency. We can debate on this. To put differently, moral capacity for self-evaluation creates a socially balancing attitude among the failed aspirants who then balance themselves from failing into balancing, from failing into the state of complete despair and frustration. This is the liberal position. Second, will to aspire for and capacity to exercise liberty to compete, makes inequality as an acceptable baseline. I am sorry, I think it is going to be boring for many of you because it is a bit theoretical, but can I go ahead with this? Is it okay? I thought it was important to really lay out the theoretical position. Quickly, let me finish this. Individuals are supposed to exercise the liberty to make continuous choices that in turn becomes valid in the availability of the opportunity structures. Individuals should enjoy their liberty to make further choices and this is considered necessary to enhance their ability or capacity. At the same time, it also eliminates the possibility of any frustration creeping on them. What I am suggesting here is that you have to make choices and you have to keep making continuous choices. If you don't make choices, frustration will creep on you. In the market logic, you must not be ideally always desire for making choices. This is the liberal. Now this is the second justification. The third and the last one. Moral inequalities are defensible on the Rawlsian principle and you know the very famous principle. Inequality are acceptable in as much as they actually attain to the needs of the worst of. This is the second difference principle. Then Rawls will say, you must give more incentive to the people so that they can actually share their surplus which is actually gained through the incentives. There is a hierarchy already, there is inequality in place and Rawls is not disturbing inequality anyway. Now these are all three positions which are taken by liberal political theorists. Now should we really throw them out of window? No, we can't do it because we have been studying them for a very long time. We however cannot ignore the theoretical justification offered by the liberal political theorists particularly when we are confronted with Nietzsche and his followers. I am just asking are there Nietzsche followers in India? There are many I think in the neoliberal. For Nietzsche and his followers today, where are they? Who are they? In Indian context. Language of equality for Nietzsche, the language of equality is absurd and hence meaningless. It is needless to mention that Nietzsche's metaphysics of Superman and man only and his cute love for aristocracy would always lead his supporters to condemn equality as anarchic. You can see in newspapers, you can see on television debates how stupid it is to talk about equality and inequality is the order which is even less severe. However thinkers including Nietzsche live their ideas and thought to be theoretically processed by the well-known or well-known political theories in the present context where already mentioned some names. Now why inequality is a problem even though we have some good opinion about these political theories in the context of the very very anarchic position that Nietzsche is taking vis-à-vis equality. But still we have problem and let me then discuss this problem, my problem with the theorist. I would like to argue that inequality cannot disguise itself in theoretical justification as offered by the theorist. Now the theoretical justification as offered by the theorist is so weak that even it cannot, it cannot disguise the limits of inequality. That is how I mean it has become so frail. Today in the age of disunification, accompanied by the language of jobless growth, inequality does not have to disguise itself in the theoretically sophisticated justification. In fact the vacuous character of inequality has been conveyed to us with stunning clarity and frank acknowledgement by the rulers of today. Some ministers are reported have said that they endorse the jobless growth and unemployment resulting from demonetization. I think as somebody said this and here that, I mean I know, is it not? I am just, my boss is there, I am just confirming it with him. Such frank acceptance of meaningless, meaninglessness of inequality, such that the, that inequality has lost its performative power even to disube people. Inequality cannot disube you. Thus inequality has become so fragile that it cannot take the load even of false promises as well. There are promises, there are some promises which are potentially achievable but there are false promises. Members of the ruling party in fact find it absurd to overuse the language of vacuous promises and that is, and therefore false promises which are internal to mass deception are, they don't bother the ruling class, ruling elite in this country. Now unwieldy aspirations have brought enormous pressure on restrictive capacity of inequality to the extent that the latter looks utterly absurd and anarchic. The aspirations have become so enormous that the very claim of inequality cannot really sustain these aspirations. And that's the problem and let me actually explain this to you in some detail. Marathon, and there is a word used by somebody, Operation Olympic, I mean using marathon. Marathon is the manifestation of inequality becoming anarchic. It has become absurd and meaningless put differently when formal equality of opportunity becomes unfair it gives rise to anarchy. Whenever increasing size of inequality brings enormous pressure on aspirations on the formal equality of opportunity it is bound to give rise to anarchy. Inequality with anarchic possibilities in Indian case find its expression in the pressure that social groups seems to be bringing on the claims of inequality. We can explain this by starting enormity of aspirations. For example, more than 7 lakh, more than 7 lakh or maybe 10 lakh applicants apply for 700 positions in IIS. What an enormous pressure of aspirations on inequality. It can't take that burden. About 23 lakh, and this is Ravish, NDTV Ravish who is giving all these details. 23 lakhs people applying for 300 posts, lower division clerks in UP. Upper caste, demonic reservations, anarchy. Lower caste participating in marathon of inequality. All these developments are symptomatic of anarchy, anarchic nature of inequality. I am leaving it to you whether they are anarchic or not. Several lakhs of Dalits who are incarcerated in obnoxious labour such as scavenging and rack peaking only suggest the limits of inequality. There is no incentive. Is there incentive in scavenging? So that is the problem. So enormous. So this is anarchic. Dalit aspiring to become capitalist does amount to moral anarchy. I have not heard this language Dalit aspiring to become capitalist some 20, 30 years back. Today it has become an anthem for the Dalit emancipation. Dalit aspirations to become capitalist put emphasis on what is rationally good rather than what is morally right. What is rationally good and what is morally right? There is a qualitative difference between two expressions. Those Dalits who are asking for share in the exploitation of resources and natural resources are rational in as much as they are actually trying to become rich. They find it perfectly rational to ask for share in exploiting the environmental resources and this is what they did some 2 years ago. And I was attacked by this when I said this is nonsensical to ask for exploitation of natural resources. A quota in exploitation of natural resources that is the demand. Is it not an absurd demand? You have to guide me on this. But is it morally right to ask for the share in exploitation of environmental resources? Therefore the difference between what is rational and what is morally right. What is rationally good can be morally absurd and anarchy as the Dalit case shows. Now the most difficult part. How do scholars respond to such anarchy as I choose to see it? Is it intelligible to them? The answer is no. Those who are actually endorsing the case of Dalit or anybody becoming capitalist do not see this marathon or the pressure of aspirations that is brought on the claims of inequality. And I have only one name which is a very obvious name. A very lengthy article that person wrote support arguing that Dalits are now arrived at equality. You can guess it. I am not going to divulge the name. They seek to make it intelligible to themselves and to some interested parties, maybe World Bank, through making a fictional claim on inequality. They think that inequality has become fictional. Actually they are actually fictionalizing inequality that is there, starkly present in the life conditions of women, adivasi, denotified type and Dalit. So they actually seek to fictionalize inequality. Inequality in its core form, social and economic material is made to look absurd through its fictionalization by some commentators who are supposed to be the friends of Dalit. Prominem among such commentators are those who have invented millions of entrepreneurs and thousands of million years from among the Dalits. This is there in the article. And Dickey, Dalit industry chambers and commas is one obvious example. These commentators however attribute the rise of Dalit entrepreneurs to the dynamics of neoliberal economic system. However, such a rosy reading of Dalit, I argue, tends to fictionalize the question of inequality in Dalit's situation. Such reading does not follow any methodological protocols. That's a different thing. For example, if they fail to provide any matching counter-example in order to substantiate their claim. Put differently, these commentators only assert their claims without any analytical argument that can go in explaining the rise of Dalit million years. Who on their own, the commentators do not actually assert their claims by the force of argument. This is just the anecdotal celebration of Dalit arrival to capitalism. Why there is a methodological problem? Because they are not providing any data. Thousands of million years from among the Dalits. Where are they? Millions of entrepreneurs among the children. Where are they? It is simply anecdotal celebration of Dalit arrival. This is actually Dalit capitalism is actually writing on the oral history. And there is no written history of capitalism. But this is something actually methodological blasphemy to say the least. So they base Dalit capitalism on oral history of anecdotal celebration of success stories. Such scholars highlight only a few cases of success as against the failures of the millions. They put premium on the agency aspect of successful Dalit but ignores the structure that underlie and renew new forms of inequality. In fact they endorse the role played by new liberal economy in order to celebrate this individual success. In concrete terms however it may be true a few hundred Dalits or maybe few Dalits are vandals to have acquired personal wealth. And such concrete outcome may be rationally good for the individual. But such outcome may not be morally right. In the context of the vast majority of the Dalits continue to remain vulnerable to worst of conditions. Or denied access to what is morally minimum for them. One needs to underline the normative difference between the conception of good and conception of the rights. I have mentioned this point. Now it would be morally anarchic or absurd to suggest that the rise of some multimillionaire from among the Dalits have made inequality. So it would be morally anarchic or absurd to suggest that the rise of some multimillionaire from among the Dalits who are actually 19 crores. And make this inequality disappear from the 19 crores is simply a big problem. Millions of the Dalits in fact are millions miles away from even the threshold realization of inequality. What these commenters don't understand is that millions of Dalits are millions miles away from the threshold of equality. They do not know what is equality and yet you are making these claims. Now you have many scholars right from Popola to Jayathi Ghosh to Chippichandrasekhar to KP Khan. Everybody is showing that look here there is inequality growing. But these people do not really take into consideration the gross inequality that is prevalent among the Dalits. Only a few darling figures are brandished through televisions and through writings to World Bank. Now what is my problem with them? My problem with these people is that they do not see what is in front of them. They look at paradise of capitalism. What is in front of them? Dalit people getting killed in manhole. Thousands of them, lakhs of them are scavengers, lakhs of them are rat pickers. Most of them are footloose labor. All this is there in front of them. But they don't look at this. But they look at this beyond the existential. And this is the problem. This is actually a moral problem with these commentators who want to see Dalit becoming capitalist. Now this is one story. And in marathon, we will see a marathon of course they don't see even the marathon. And the marathon is writ large. In marathon, of course there is no discipline. In Olympic, I am just using athletic metaphor. In marathon, I mean you have this goal but you don't have discipline. People run. And that's why internal reservation is marathon. Subcast asking for reservation is a marathon. Some kind of a marathon. Now, so this is one problem of the commentators who are fictionalizing inequality. And there is no inequality in Dalit case or in tribal case. Everything is fine. If people are there to become capitalist entrepreneurs. Actually there are writings, bulk of writings happening. Some of the exclusion studies people want them to become capitalists. That is the desire. So, what is important in this narrative of the commentator is the individual success rather than the collective appointment. My question is, is it in line with what Ambedkar was thinking? It is against Ambedkar. Fundamentally against Ambedkar. And he would say and I am just quoting him that individual success may be great and you can respect. But it is not worthy of imitation. You can't imitate it. And that is the complain of Dr. Bauer-Sambedkar against the individual success. So would you suggest that you become capitalist? The answer is no. Now the last section. I do have some few minutes. It is about now Satish. There is another problem. That is with the concept of intersectionality. Now intersectionality does not really locate inequality in its structural foundation, structural location, materiality and you can say mode of production. It tries to locate problems of inequality. Is it in its agency? Let me look at it. Intersectionality may be useful in terms of analytical take on complex nature of inequality. Those who are actually pursuing this idea of intersectionality tend to believe that inequality is not simple and pure. It is complex. You can prove that. Intersectionality seeks to look at inequality not as a basic challenge emanating from the shrinking opportunity structures but as something which gets disaggregated into discrete challenges facing different groups. I mean there are challenges which are not one. There are different challenges and those challenges are coming up from people who are differently located. Women, Dalit, Adivasi, Third Sex, all these are sections on which have their own specific problem. Similarly the language of intersectionality which has become so important these days. Even at the level of some of the international agencies deflect our attention from the structures of inequality and restrict inequality to its subjective expression of social groups. So it is inequality is nothing material but it is simply the subject to expression. I may be wrong, so please correct me if I am misreading. The language of intersectionality therefore seeks to separate inequality from its structural foundation and which actually produce different and worst possible experience for different social groups. For examples, meal workers in Mumbai after the closure of textile mills becoming vendors, becoming rag pickers. One example and Rudy might know this because we have seen this after they were displaced from textile mills they became vendors. Some of them became scammers say the least. Now this is because of the structural constraint not because of the subject to expression. Let us take this into consideration. Intersectionality seeks to identify inequality with multiple sociological locations that seems to house in them what could be seen as fragmented claims about inequality. The claims are not unitary but fragmented. Intersectionality suggests that inequality has its basis in fragmented social reality and hence it is further suggested that inequality has to be assessed and analysed in terms of its irreducible complexity. In irreducible complexity has to be underlined. I mean complexities cannot be reduced to explain into simplicity. Inequality has to remain very very complex all the time therefore you have to find out complex solutions to complex reality. Put differently inequality in its fragmented form tends to produce plurality of experience which in turn is shaped by different social identities. Intersectionality as the framework then seeks to suggest the following. It is not equality for which social groups are competing. Intersectionality is suggesting the following. It is not equality for which social groups are competing. But it is inequality that is becoming competitive. I am confusing myself now. I am saying if you look at intersectionality what follows from this framework that the social groups are not competing for equality. But it is inequality for which they are competing. Reservation within reservation for example. That is it. And therefore you have a hierarchy. You know you have then there are people who would say oh Malas are better than Madigas. Madigas are better than somebody else. Madigas may be. So that kind of competition for inequality is in order. And it is no problem for the intersectionality people. Inequality hence becomes a positive reference point and not equality. One could understand these intersectional assertions that are associated with intra-group social conflict in almost all in almost all the regions of India. And I have listed them in Jumbayan Kashmir for example may not know. The Bhagats who are SCs are there is a lot of envy about by the Mahishas and the Bhagats. Bhagats are the higher caste among the Dalits and Mahishas are down. So there is a symmetry. Unlike why there are there are binaries that are conflicting pairs in each state. For example in Haryana, Punjab, UP, BR particularly three the Valmiki's and the Chamars. So this is the problem. So all these are social goods fighting for some kind of a claim. This reading on equality however radically it radically undermines Ambedkar's conception of inequality. Now this is very important as far as I can see. In his conception, now since we are in Samath and left world is actually interested in bringing Mahish and Ambedkar together. Not mechanically but very very dialectically. Let me submit your kind consideration, revolutionary consideration. What does Ambedkar think about inequality? Does it go very close to Mahish's understanding of inequality? That is my plea. So intersectionality directly militates against the revolutionary conception of Ambedkar. Revolutionary conception of inequality as propounded by Ambedkar. In his conception, inequality has been comprehended as a pure and simple form of reality emanating from material deprivation of the people. This conception runs counter to graded inequality as has been coined by Ambedkar himself. So what he is suggesting to us is graded inequality which might find some salience with the language of intersectionality is of real culprit in terms of achieving pure and simple inequality of all the exploited. For him, bringing discrete forms of inequality, intersectionality as I mentioned, at one level of political articulation is possible. Once we convert graded caste based inequality into its simple and pure form, graded inequality is a problem. As again, this material inequality is the solution, is a pure and simple form that inequality has to acquire in order for it to become politically articulated. According to Ambedkar's radical conception of inequality, it is politically urgent for those to move away from the graded nature of inequality to its pure and simple form. Now, is it a subjective expression or subjective desire? Now, that people actually are pushed to one level of inequality, that is material. Then what will happen to gender inequality? What will happen to social inequality? What will happen to other forms of inequality? I mean, those who are actually interested in producing multiple forms of inequality, I don't think are interested in making these social groups advance towards equality. You should actually move further away and away from equality, remain stuck to different forms of inequalities which are not dynamic. Inequality has to be dynamic and I would like to submit to your consideration. First two decades, I think there was some kind of dynamism in inequality. What was the employment rate then? Two percent, I mean, this is the data. First two decades, I think it was two percent employment rate and the anomaly was 2.5. So very closely following. So there was some dynamism. For example, people had three jobs at the same time and there was a choice to select one. Now, is there a choice? When you actually are pushed into different sectional forms of inequality, you will lose this unification of one simple pure inequality. You are always reduced to your irreducible complexities and I don't think it is really good for transcending inequality. You will actually accentuate perpetuate inequality and then organize your struggle for your specific inequality. And this is a politically unviable project and we must think about it seriously. This is not an Ambedkar project. Ambedkar project and mass project would say, look here, you have to bring them at same level of the feeling of or intense feeling of inequality. But how do you do it? Is it a subject to desire? You have to objectively look at what are the structures and how they are producing inequality in different forms, not in terms of only income, not in terms of wealth, not in terms of pure status elevation. But you have to really get that sense of equality of feeling relevant with some quality of life. And quality of life is not my word. There has to be a moral minimum quality of life. If you go from one equality to another equality and the Dalits are actually going from Dalit water and landing up into very very disgraceful degraded slums in Mumbai or any other part. So your journey is from inequality to inequality, from bad quality of life to bad quality of life. You might say they are now getting electricity, they are getting water, but is that the only purpose of your life? What kind of life do you really have in slums? Who are these people? So this is the real, so is there a suggestion that you must reduce everybody to slums? No, it is not the suggestion. You have to work out different forms of inequality and organize people around that. But you have to actually transcend this, cross these barricades of intersectionality, of the commentators, all this. This is just a wishful thinking. I must stop here. Thank you very much.