March 23 marks the 115th birth anniversary (1910-1967) of socialist thinker Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia. Despite his significant contributions—uniting the opposition, fighting for civil liberties, and laying the foundation for social justice politics—Lohia was treated almost as an outcast by the dominant political and intellectual class throughout his life. Yet, to borrow the words of Mastram Kapoor, the editor of Dr. Lohia’s collected writings, he shines like a “burning star of Indian politics.”
The strength of Lohia’s legacy lies in his commitment to active politics, which went beyond mere lip service to the cause of the downtrodden. He believed in, and worked towards, achieving equality in a concrete form. He was of the opinion that talk of equality without concrete action is nothing but an act of “hypocrisy.” His critique of India’s political system was rooted in the idea that the dominant political parties were in the habit of relegating the principle of equality to the future. For Lohia, such a strategy was a way to bypass the core question of equality, a cause he championed throughout his life.
The socialist movement, under Lohia’s leadership, fiercely criticized elite upper-caste politics and actively worked on the ground to uplift lower-caste leaders. This is why his harshest critics were the upper-caste elites from both the Left and the Right, while his supporters and admirers mostly came from the lower castes and other marginalized communities. Although Lohia remained dedicated to the socialist cause and was deeply influenced by Marxism, he also understood the limitations of Marxist ideology as imported by the elite theoreticians. Unlike many of his contemporary Parliamentary Left parties, Lohia was ready to adapt Marxism to India’s ground realities and groom leaders from marginalized social groups.
Lohia understood that there is no shortcut to achieving equality. For him, equality could not be attained by adhering to a rigid formula or by being confined to a deterministic ideology. Instead, he believed in tackling the root causes of inequality on multiple fronts, both nationally and internationally. He was willing to appreciate and learn from the experiences of different political systems. He also called for fighting inequality at the top and extending the struggle to those below.
This essay does not argue that Lohia’s views on equality are free from criticism. Rather, attempts have been made to examine them critically. Needless to say, the socialist leader often sparked controversy during his life. While his admirers appreciated his courage for going beyond the rigid boundaries of “political correctness” and speaking the truth, his detractors criticized him for his eclectic approach.
Here, I will exclusively discuss Lohia’s important essay titled “The Meaning of Equality” published in 1957 and later included in the first volume of Mastram Kapoor’s edited collected works. At the beginning of the article, Lohia called equality a “high aim of life,” yet he expressed disappointment that the concept had not been “looked at comprehensively,” nor had it been “investigated with sincerity.” Afterward, he raised two fundamental questions related to equality: why is equality considered the “high aim of life,” and if it is, why should it be achieved? In simple terms, he delved into investigating the importance of the ideal of equality and the best way to achieve it.
As a proponent of equality, Lohia gave the example of the “indestructible unity of the universe” as an ideal to be imitated in human society. The principle of equality, according to Lohia, is also supported by the fact that “the universe is all of one piece, and therefore every part is the equal of another,” and that “every part of the universe could sense the joy of being co-extensive with all of it.”
Lohia also claimed that “equality is perhaps as high an aim of life as truth or beauty.” He strongly believed that a life of “bliss” and “happiness” cannot be lived “without the supreme principle of equality.” However, the caste-based social order is unique in the sense that it considers inequality as an ideal rather than protesting against it. That is why a person practicing caste cannot consider equality as “the high aim of life,” a point that comes out more prominently in Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s writings than in Lohia’s.
In his defence of the idea of equality, Lohia used multiple sources. For example, just as the German sociologist Max Weber gave his thesis on the rise of capitalism in the West by connecting it to Protestant ethics, Lohia seems to borrow some insights from Weber to argue that the quest for salvation after death has, in turn, sparked off a similar movement for achieving equality in the material world. Weber, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), argued that Protestantism, particularly Calvinism, believed that success in one’s profession was a sign of God’s favour. Since human beings do not know if they are going to achieve salvation, Calvinists worked hard to succeed in life as a sign of God’s favour and reassurance of salvation.
Put simply, the quest for achieving salvation after death has been linked to success in the material world. A similar logic is proposed by Lohia when he says that the desire for salvation after death is connected to salvation in life through achieving equality. As Lohia put it: “The concept of salvation after death has given birth to the complementary notion of salvation in life. Only he shall be saved after death who is already saved in life.” However, in the Indian context, where a caste-based hierarchical social order is in place and is sanctioned by religious texts, the idea of salvation after death does not seem to have much connection with the movement for equality on the ground. Rather, the state of servitude of the Shudra is justified on the basis of caste-based occupation.
Lohia also offered a spiritual dimension to equality. He claimed that “spiritual” and “emotional kinship” are the “main qualities of equality” and “a high aim of life.” The idea of emotional kinship led him to the family system, where he argued that the family is a space where the bond of kinship is strong, and there is material equality among its members, irrespective of their earnings. As he stated, “In a family, this kinship obtains.”
However, Lohia’s attempt to locate equality within the family would be strongly objected to by feminist scholars. While the family has been glorified by many, the reality is that the family is not an egalitarian space. Women, the elderly, and non-earning members of the family are often highly discriminated against. Reactionary ideas are bred within the family, which later infect other institutions. Several feminist autobiographies heartbreakingly narrate how women are killed before birth in the womb of their mothers. If they are fortunate enough to be born, they face discrimination at every stage, and they are often not given proper food. Their education is a secondary concern, while the education of boys is of utmost importance.
It is strange that Lohia, who was well-read in Marxist literature, idealized the family when Friedrich Engels had written The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884), almost a quarter of a century before Lohia’s birth. Another issue with Lohia’s approach is that he attempted to essentialize human nature by treating the feeling of equality as inherent within the family. He failed to recognize that the family is often a source of conflict and violence.
Lohia then turned to the larger question of why the goal of equality has not yet been realized. Why has humanity failed to forge brotherhood? He thus began to reflect on the reasons why the quest for equality had not taken concrete form in the material domain. According to Lohia, the explanation lies in the unequal economic order at the international level. He asserted that income disparity among nations must be eliminated to achieve equality within a nation. Lohia argued that achieving material equality among nations was more difficult than achieving equality within a nation. He further contended that, to achieve equality within a nation, a country must first achieve equality at the international level. In other words, equality among nations is almost a prerequisite for achieving equality within a nation, as he argued, “Material equality among nations appears more difficult to achieve than material equality within the nation. It is true that the one is dependent on the other. No nation can long remain equal within its frontiers if it is unequal against those outside”.
Much before the popularity of dependency theory in the 1960s and 1970s, Lohia pointed out that inequality among nations was one of the key factors for the persistence of inequality within nations. He argued that the notion of equality is yet to be achieved and is “at best an ethical appeal.” This is due to the stark “material inequality among nations and within a nation,” which, according to him, has become “so gross as to be outside the competence of the individual.” He was also pained by “the widespread poverty and misery of the backward countries,” which he considered a significant hurdle in achieving “universal kinship.”
Lohia illustrated the vast gap between the average yearly income of an individual in America (Rs 5,500) and a person in India (Rs 200). Additionally, he pointed out the capital per head in America (Rs 15,000) and compared it with that in India (Rs 200 to Rs 300). He also highlighted the gulf between the white and coloured populations, which he seems to have drawn from his experiences in Europe.
Lohia drew attention to the prosperity within advanced industrial countries and the persistent poverty in backward countries. He was pained by the fact that the misery and poverty of the people in backward countries were being ignored, while the rich in advanced countries had become insensitive to their plight. However, Lohia’s discussion of rich and poor nations needs to be approached with more nuance. The rich among so-called developing countries are also going beyond their borders, investing elsewhere, and reproducing the same cycle of inequality. Similarly, Western countries have their own poor, just as backward countries have a section of the super-rich. This is why emancipatory politics should seek to forge solidarity between the labouring classes of the world, rather than dividing them based on nationality, race and income.
While Lohia critiqued aspects of official Western Marxism, he never abandoned class analysis in his thinking and politics. Throughout his life, Lohia emphasized the importance of achieving equality in concrete and material terms. That is why he was clear in stating that solidarity and fraternity can only flourish if material inequality is eradicated. He was certain that there can be no brotherhood between oppressors and the oppressed. As he pointed out, “In the midst of the widespread poverty and misery of backward countries, it would not know how to survive the strains of universal kinship… In like manner, disparities between the white peoples and the coloured peoples are so gross that it is ridiculous to talk of human brotherhood.” Although Lohia used the terms “white” and “coloured” in this essay, he would not deny its applicability to the analysis of the bourgeoisie and proletariat, as well as the upper and lower castes.
As mentioned earlier, Lohia was in favour of achieving equality from the international level down to smaller social groups. While he expressed deep concern over the existence of inequality among and within nations, he was not willing to ignore the existence of inequality within a group. He believed that without achieving equality at every level, from the bottom up, the brotherhood of man could not be realized. While he was never shy about fighting for the rights of marginalized social groups, he also advocated avoiding narrow identities. Lohia was a strong advocate of a universal concept of humanism, and any restriction on it was unacceptable to him.
Although Lohia has been criticized by many as a strong nationalist for his opposition to English and advocacy of Hindi, the above-mentioned lines reflect his cosmopolitan thinking. However, his argument, which transcended class, caste, and tribal identity, could be appropriated by those in power to weaken the struggle for equality. While the rich and dominant sections of society often demonize class, caste, tribal, and gender-based identities as “narrow” and call for embracing national identity, the so-called large identity is often coded in favour of the privileged classes. Privileged classes, in the name of universalism, have often delegitimized the solidarity of the oppressed. Therefore, one should be careful not to outright reject the identity of oppressed classes.
In his historical analysis, Lohia expressed disappointment that previous eras did not give sufficient importance to achieving material equality. He categorically stated that without material equality, there can be no sense of solidarity or fraternity among people. He underscored the importance of material equality by adding that merely having a feeling of kinship is not enough. As he argued, “In any event, emotional kinship with one’s fellow men is impossible unless it is rooted in material equality.”
Lohia’s conception of equality is not one-dimensional. Going beyond deterministic thinking, Lohia stresses achieving equality in all areas such as “political,” “social,” and “economic” forms. However, the central point in his thinking is to achieve equality in the material domain, rather than merely paying lip service to it. In other words, he advocated for achieving equality in a “concrete” form; otherwise, it remains merely “an emotion, a wish, or a dream.”
The importance of Lohia in Indian politics lies in the fact that he did not merely give lofty speeches but worked hard to achieve social change on the ground. The Indian Parliamentary Left often points out where Lohia deviated from Marxism and on which occasions he aligned with Right-wing forces, but they seldom reflect on their own actions. While Lohia gave strong support to opposition forces and groomed hundreds of leaders from marginalized social groups, the leadership of the Parliamentary Left remained largely in the hands of upper castes. While the cadres and voters were largely drawn from subaltern classes, the privileged members in the politburo and central committees were mostly Brahmins and other twice-born castes.
Much before the popularity of postcolonial studies in academia, Lohia criticized the Eurocentrism of European history and critiqued the teleological conception of historical writing. He realized that the imposition of the Western mode of history writing on other cultures, or its imitation elsewhere, resulted from Europe’s dominance over the last 400 years. In other words, Lohia drew a connection between dominant ideology and dominance in the economic and political fields.
Lohia also warned against viewing equality at a superficial level. He gave examples of scientific inventions such as the revolver, steam engine, and electric engine, critiquing the dominant narrative of plenty and prosperity associated with them. He argued that these inventions were soon used to deepen social inequality. Lohia pointed out that inequality persists because skills continue to develop in an unequal way.
Here, Lohia carefully distinguishes between equality that appears to be achieved temporarily and equality that is enduring. He also notes that a mere change in form is not a sign of real equality. By using the example of the development of skills and the monopolization of scientific inventions, which are coupled with so much propaganda, Lohia urges people to look at equality in a concrete and substantive way. This argument leads Lohia to observe elsewhere that the spread of education is not a guarantee that society has become egalitarian or less caste-driven. He showed that even educated upper castes continue to practice casteism and maintain social inequality.
Lohia’s concept remains relevant today because, despite the many scientific inventions and advances in mechanization, human beings are still forced to work under conditions worse than animals.
For Lohia, equality is not just a dream or empty talk; it is, for him, a concrete reality. He says that without concrete reality, the talk of equality is nothing but hypocrisy. Lohia was also in favour of waging multiple struggles to achieve equality. He did not have any easy formula to achieve it, as he believed that one formula for equality is nothing more than the maintenance of the status quo. As he argued, “All talk of equality as a general concept without a concrete meaning that accompanies it is either hypocrisy or lethargy of the mind. Similarly, all talk that restricts itself to just one formula of equality is the establishment of the status quo.”
Lohia has put forward his multiple formulas for achieving equality. He suggested that the lowest and highest income ranges should not go beyond a ratio of 1 to 10. However, for Lohia, equality is a dynamic concept. He did not believe that the gap of 1 to 10 should be fixed permanently and advocated for reducing the income gap further in the future. He emphasized the need to remain vigilant about stagnation in the struggle for equality. Lohia provided the example of religions, which often begin with great ideas of equality but, over time, become frozen in customs and manners, causing their egalitarian principles to be forgotten. He cautioned against treating equality as a static idea, insisting that we must continually struggle to make the world more and more egalitarian.
Lohia believed in connecting the abstract notion of equality with its concrete manifestation. He was against becoming trapped in concrete reality while forgetting the abstract ideals, and vice versa. He argued that the concrete should not be so detached from the abstract that it loses its meaning. Similarly, the abstract should not be so high that it loses its relevance. That is why Lohia advocated for balancing maximum and immediate attainability with the ideal. He warned that confining oneself solely to immediate concerns leads to conservatism, while becoming lost in ideals and abstraction can render one irrelevant. In this way, too much practicality makes one reactionary, while excessive idealism can lead to “insanity”. It appears that Lohia was being critical of both the Right and Left forces here. He believed that the struggle for equality should be waged by keeping both the concrete and the ideal in mind. He opposed both insanity disguised as idealism and “reactionary” politics in the name of practicality, which he associated with right-wing politics.
Lohia was critical of both the Communist and Liberal-Capitalist models in Europe. He accused both systems of equating the abstract with the concrete. He argued that identifying the abstract with the concrete creates a danger where people become “slavishly loyal, and the mind refuses to understand. It can either justify or accuse, but cannot understand.”
Lohia was also critical of Indian reality because, in India, the abstract and concrete forms of equality are separated. He was especially critical of religion for contributing to this separation, possibly referring to religions that sanction the caste system and uphold inequality. Lohia cited the example of political parties where principles and ideologies are set aside to be achieved in the future, while the policies and programs of the day are presented as immediate principles. He observed that in India, this divorce of the abstract from the concrete is almost universal. Lohia was likely critical of the Congress Party for abandoning the promises made during the Freedom Struggles. He was also disheartened by the dilution of ideology within the socialist camp.
Lohia, using the example of Europe, pointed out that the separation between the abstract and the concrete does not exist there, as Europe has demolished the wall between the two. In contrast, India has created a divide between them. According to Lohia, there should be a continual back-and-forth movement between the abstract and the concrete, much like the functioning of the heart.
When it comes to understanding equality, Lohia argued that there is a fundamental error in how the concept is perceived. Equality, he explained, does not mean sameness in all aspects, such as food distribution. For example, giving an equal share of food to everyone would resemble a prison, where a fixed ration is provided regardless of individual needs. Lohia contended that there should not be a single path to achieving equality, but rather “a combination of several ways,” as equality has “various aspects.”
Lohia also gave examples from different countries to demonstrate how they have excelled in specific fields. For instance, Russia succeeded in primary education and mass media, Germany and America in specialized instruction and medicine, and Western Europe and America in food and clothing. He advocated for learning from the diverse experiences of different parts of the world.
Lohia was against inequality based on birth and wealth, but he was also opposed to systems of inequality based on eloquence and talent. He gave the example that a good leader in socialist circles in India is often required to have the ability to give eloquent speeches.
Here, Lohia critiques meritocracy. He cited the example of Gandhi, who, according to Lohia, did not possess eloquence yet had a tremendous influence. Lohia was disappointed to see that good speakers are often elevated in politics, despite their shortcomings. For him, the true quality of a leader is not their ability to give an eloquent speech but their ability to fight against unjust government policies and endure difficult situations. His critique is especially relevant today, as Indian politics increasingly revolves around the creation of cult figures who do little to bring about meaningful change in people’s lives but seize every opportunity to deliver mesmerizing speeches, creating the impression that no one is more committed to the welfare of the people than they are. The rise of populist leaders in contemporary politics can be better understood through Lohia’s insights.
Lohia also warns that achieving equality does not mean imitating others or trying to be like them. According to Lohia, to be equal does not mean to copy others or desire to be alike. One must understand that their capacity and qualities are very different from another’s. Therefore, why imitate someone else? If someone has a car, one should not think that achieving equality means possessing a car as well.
Lohia argued that it is irrational to believe that scientific inventions alone would bring prosperity across the globe. Instead of relying solely on scientific innovations or imitating the industrial or capitalist models of the West, Lohia advocated for transforming the political and economic structures in non-Western countries. He pointed out that the conditions that existed in the West—such as abundant capital, vast lands, and a global market for Western products—are absent in non-Western societies. This is why Lohia opposed duplicating the Western industrial or capitalist model and emphasized redesigning political and economic systems to achieve equality. His critique of the dominant political economy alienated him from India’s capitalist classes, who were eager to mimic the Western industrial model without considering the country’s material realities and needs.
In the pursuit of equality in India, Lohia identified several challenges. For instance, it is easier for individuals to practice equality against those positioned above them, but much more difficult to do so with those below them in the social hierarchy. Here, Lohia refers to the graded inequalities within Indian society, which make it challenging to build a large-scale front against exploitation.
Lohia’s words of wisdom have been largely ignored, which is why we witness today the rise of right-wing forces that successfully pit sections of marginalized castes against one another. It has been observed that Dalit and Backward caste movements have been weakened by Hindutva forces through social engineering, mobilizing sections of non-dominant Dalit and backward castes against the dominant castes within their own groups. For instance, the Hindu Right has effectively mobilized sections of non-Jatav and non-Yadav castes in Uttar Pradesh against the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and the Samajwadi Party (SP). The inability of social justice parties to maintain the unity of the oppressed lies in the fact that a significant portion of the dominant castes within the Dalit-Bahujan groups have been reluctant to treat those below them as equals.
Lohia was critical of the fact that oppressed castes often produce leadership that specializes in a rhetoric of jealousy to achieve equality with the classes of power and wealth. He believed this approach was detrimental to society. According to Lohia, those who fight for equality must challenge the oppressors, but they should also cultivate positive values and talents within the oppressed. He acknowledged that the oppressors of inequality often possess certain virtues, particularly “efficiency” and “manners”, and he believed that “crusaders of equality must ever breed their virtues in their own ranks”.
However, Lohia seems to overlook the fact that the anger of the oppressed classes is rooted in their lived experiences, and the “virtues” he praised in the oppressors may be nothing more than manipulative tactics. It is disheartening that Lohia suggested training the oppressed instead of standing in solidarity with them. How could Lohia praise the virtues of the oppressors?
Lohia argued that equality cannot be achieved through violence, emphasizing that “equality can never be achieved through the spilling of blood Lohia also advocated for opposing exploiters without resorting to violence. In other words, his method was one of non-violence, clearly influenced by Gandhi. He emphasized that those who oppose injustice should be ready to suffer rather than use weapons. Lohia believed in setting a personal example in the pursuit of equality, as “his personal example would be infectious,” encouraging more people to take action.
Lohia also asserted that equality can only be achieved on a global level when humanity acts collectively, inspired by the idea of equality. He maintained that without worldwide solidarity for equality, progress would be thwarted. Lohia believed that achieving equality required individuals of exceptional moral and ethical quality, akin to figures such as Prahlad, Socrates, and Gandhi. However, it is important to note that figures like Prahlad and Gandhi have been interpreted differently by Dalit-Bahujan communities, with Gandhi also facing criticism from Ambedkarites. By referencing Prahlad a mythical character in Hindu religious texts and Gandhi, Lohia risks alienating himself from Dalit-Bahujan perspectives.
Lohia further argued that modern humanity has forgotten the “inward” meaning of equality. He claimed that “the ancients in India seemed to have sensed that inward equanimity and outward equality were two sides of the same coin, for, alone in India’s languages, does a single word stand for both meanings: Samata or Samatvam is the word.” However, in making this claim, Lohia did not present any historical evidence and overlooked the well-established historical fact that caste-based inequality was prevalent in ancient India, effectively turning a blind eye to this reality. By glorifying India’s past and creating a binary between modern and ancient societies, he tended to praise the ancient while criticizing the modern. This stance can be seen as problematic because it neglects historical realities, particularly regarding caste oppression.
Lohia defined equality as both inward and outward, spiritual as well as material. He believed that equality must be understood in all its dimensions. Lohia saw equality as an integrated concept, encompassing all these aspects. He was hopeful that a time would come when humanity would feel remorse for past inequalities, and that material equality would be achieved, leading to a broader sense of kinship extending beyond individual families to encompass all of humanity.
Lohia acknowledged that complete equality may never be fully realized, or perhaps only in the distant future. However, he believed the pursuit of equality should always remain a guiding aspiration for humanity. Lohia advocated for narrowing income gaps and reducing disparities both among and within nations, emphasizing that these goals should continue to inspire mankind. On Dr. Lohia’s birth anniversary, we should pledge to continue waging the struggles to create a more egalitarian world amid the rapidly rising inequality. Perhaps this is the best tribute we can offer him.
Dr. Abhay Kumar holds a PhD in Modern History from the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. His book on Muslim Personal Law is forthcoming. Email: [email protected]
