On Equity (Social)
Equity, or Social equity, is the idea that people should have a fair opportunity to participate in society and access its resources, rights and institutions, while recognising that people do not necessarily begin from the same circumstances. Unlike equality, which generally focuses on treating people the same, equity takes differences in circumstances and barriers into account. It asks not only whether people are being treated equally, but whether existing conditions create disadvantages for some people and what might be necessary to address them.
Equity is a great idea and ideology. But unfortunately, I have seen some rather bad applications of equity. So, in general, I may or may not be fond of equity or Social equity, but I am definitely not fond of the way it is applied or used in many situations. In this essay, I write about equity based on some of my own experiences, learnings and observations.
Talking about equity
Institutions, individuals and community leaders often talk extensively about equity and claim to be working towards it. But genuine practice seems much less common. Some of the loudest advocates of equity can also be among those least willing to apply the same principle to themselves.
Equity can become something demanded from others rather than something practised personally. It can become a language for lecturing people, conducting training programmes and explaining how others should behave, without examining one’s own decisions by the same standard.
That gap between talking about equity and practising it is what has made me uncomfortable with the way the word, or the ideology behind it, is sometimes used.
Merit, position and equity
I remember being part of an organisation or movement where the word “equity” was used repeatedly in meetings, lectures and training programmes. At the same time, I wondered what practising equity actually meant in the everyday functioning of the organisation.
Consider a simple example. Imagine an organisation where a director receives a salary running into lakhs of rupees, while the lowest-paid member of staff, perhaps an office help, receives Rs. 10,000 or Rs. 12,000 a month. The lower-paid worker may have greater financial responsibilities and less security, while the director may already have accommodation, savings and other benefits.
So the question arises: if we are talking about equity, why not practise equity here?
The usual answer is reasonable. Salaries are determined by position, responsibility, qualifications, experience, merit and other factors connected to the role.
I do not disagree with that. A director and an office help do not have the same responsibilities, qualifications or accountability, and there is no obvious reason why they must receive the same salary.
But this also tells us which principles are actually being applied. In this case, they are merit, qualifications, role, responsibility, experience and the rules governing the organisation. The decision is not being made on the basis of equity alone.
I am not arguing that everyone should receive the same salary. I am pointing out the difference between the principle being talked about and the principles actually being used to make decisions.
When the principle is applied to others
There is a more troubling situation.
People can speak extensively about equity, train others on equity and lecture others about fair access to opportunities. Yet when opportunities or perks become available, those same principles may become less visible in their own choices.
Take an opportunity to travel abroad for a conference or training programme. When people who regularly speak about equitable access to opportunities repeatedly receive or take such opportunities without seriously considering who else might have benefited from them, the contradiction becomes difficult to ignore.
The same question can arise in smaller personal choices. There is nothing wrong with buying an expensive watch with one’s own money. But when someone spends a great deal of time talking about equity and inequality without asking whether the same principles should influence their own choices, the contradiction is worth examining.
The issue is not the watch, the foreign trip or the salary by itself. It is whether the principle being preached to others is also being applied to oneself.
Equity can become an earning tool
There is another possibility that concerns me even more. Equity can become an earning tool.
People can build careers around equity training, programmes, consultancy and advocacy. There is nothing inherently wrong with earning a living through this kind of work. But if equity becomes a professional vocabulary used to generate income while the underlying principle is not seriously practised, the word itself can start losing its meaning.
I am not saying that everyone who earns money through equity-related work is insincere. The concern is about the possibility of equity becoming more useful as a professional language than as a principle to be practised.
Equity requires sacrifice
Practising equity is much harder than talking about it.
Genuine equity requires selflessness and sacrifice. It may require giving up an advantage, sharing an opportunity, accepting less for oneself, or making room for someone who has fewer resources or opportunities.
It is easy to demand fairness when we believe we are the disadvantaged person. It is much harder when practising fairness requires us to give up something that we already have.
In my own experience, I have not seen many people practising Social equity consistently, effectively and honestly. What appears much more often is equity being used as a language, a training subject, a lecture topic, a professional tool or simply a means of preaching to others.
Why I have become sceptical
These experiences have made me somewhat sceptical whenever the word “equity” is used repeatedly.
My first reaction is not necessarily to reject what is being said. Instead, I find myself wondering: is this actually being practised, or is equity once again being preached to others?
I may or may not be fond of the idea of Social equity itself. But I am definitely not fond of the way I have seen it applied so far.
📄 This page was created on 19 September 2026. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .