THE term ‘opposition to inequality’ has re-emerged with striking political significance in the wake of the August student-popular uprising led by the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement. But this resurgence raises a pressing question: Is opposition to inequality merely a slogan to mobilise mass sentiment, or does it hold practical significance in dismantling the deeply entrenched structures of inequality in society?
During the July movement, the term appeared prominently on banners and graffiti. However, the core demands of the movement centred around reforming the quota system in government jobs, rather than tackling broader systemic injustices. During the movement, it wasn’t possible to develop a comprehensive anti-inequality agenda overnight — but later on, it simply never came up.
In the aftermath, the leaders of the July movement established a political party. However, they have yet to articulate a coherent programme for achieving equality; the issue remains conspicuously neglected. Rather than presenting a comprehensive, clear objective, the party issued an ambiguous eight-point to-do list, failing to communicate its ideological orientation to the public. The party committed to abolishing the established fascist political system. Worse still, following the July victory, the public has witnessed a disturbing escalation of bullying, harassment, and discrimination, particularly against women. The new leadership has failed to respond to this injustice. Ìý
One of the defining features of the August uprising was the bold participation of women, yet not a single female student leader has been appointed to the interim government. Instead, patriarchal structures, reinforced by right-wing religio-fascism, continue to push women back into domestic confinement through systemic harassment and exclusion. The women of July have suddenly disappeared from the political scene.
In parallel, certain Muslim sects with ties to shrine culture have come under violent attack, their places of worship vandalised. Neither the leadership of the uprising nor the state has offered a meaningful response. Meanwhile, garment workers struggling for their earned wages face repression from state machinery. Once again, the newly formed party has remained largely indifferent.
Despite promises of change, the system remains intact. This raises an unsettling question: Was the opposition to inequality merely a tactical slogan — a means to an end — rather than a genuine commitment to social justice? Will our sacrifices go in vain once again? Or will they finally bring about real change, rather than serving another power-hungry game?
Inequality manifests in numerous forms: economic disparity, class division, wage gaps, ethnic and religious discrimination, gender-based injustice, and age-related exclusion. In Bangladesh, class and income inequality are particularly pronounced. Even the Constitution institutionalises exclusion by declaring that ‘the people of Bangladesh are a Bengali nation’, erasing the identities of ethnic minorities. Moreover, the recognition of a state religion enshrines religious inequality. Women in Bangladesh continue to face layered discrimination — in property rights, in the workplace, and in society at large. These are not isolated injustices but deeply rooted systemic illness.
Inequality is a socio-historical and political construct. Since the late 18th century, humanity has been striving for equality. Under feudalism, people were bound to land as serfs; under slavery, enslaved individuals did not even own their own bodies. The French Revolution championed the ideals of equality, but it remained an abstract legal equality. While the revolution abolished feudal and religious rule, it failed to achieve real social equality. As capitalism exacerbated inequality, waves of revolutions and uprisings emerged. In response, post-World War II liberal capitalism and the welfare state offered temporary solutions, ensuring access to education and healthcare for the poor and introducing progressive taxation to redistribute wealth. However, despite these measures, wealth concentration and inequality persisted. The Russian Revolution was a significant step toward equality but ultimately did not survive.
Notable movements against inequality include the American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and ’60s, the end of apartheid in South Africa in 1994, and more recent movements such as Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and Occupy Wall Street protests against racial, gender, and income inequality. On a global scale, capitalism has deepened the divide between the Global North and South. The international division of labour has turned southern nations into sources of cheap labour for northern exploitation.
A major limitation of past movements for equality is that they largely focused on formal legal equality without achieving real or substantial equality. Constitutional provisions against inequality remain mere words; in practice, little has changed. The ruling class treats the constitution as a disposable document, to be discarded when necessary. There is a fundamental divide between leftist and rightist conceptions of equality.
Bourgeois equality is a legal abstraction — everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, but not in lived reality. For instance, while everyone is theoretically entitled to own property, vast segments of the population remain destitute. The legal right to property is meaningless when most people lack the material means to exercise it. Such notions of equality amount to little more than rhetorical gestures. Capitalism continuously reproduces inequality; therefore, achieving genuine equality necessitates dismantling the system itself.
There is a common misconception that equality means uniformity or sameness. However, equality does not imply that everyone must be identical; rather, it means that the same standards of rights and justice should apply to all. People differ in needs, abilities, and talents — a fact recognised by Hegel as difference. The French Revolution and the Enlightenment promoted an abstract concept of equality that often overlooked these differences. Some people are poets, others are scientists, and some are musicians. We should celebrate human diversity, not inequality.
A truly egalitarian society can be built by integrating the ethics of shared responsibility with the principles of contribution and need. Liberals advocate for legal equality but ultimately accept existing inequalities. One of their most influential theorists, John Rawls, acknowledged social and class inequalities within capitalism and proposed the difference principle — the idea that disadvantaged groups should receive special provisions. However, he did not seek to dismantle capitalism but merely to mitigate its excesses, offering little more so that the poor can physically survive.
The concept of the working class has evolved, expanding to include new types of labour. Traditional manual labourers are no longer the sole members of the proletariat. The rise of the gig economy has given birth to new categories of workers — digital labourers, freelancers, ride-share drivers, and delivery personnel — who contribute to intangible forms of production and economic value. Alongside the traditional proletariat, a new group has emerged: the precariat —precarious and informal workers. In Bangladesh, 85 per cent of workers belong to the informal sector. Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt describe this expanded spectrum of the working class as the multitude: a diverse collective capable of resisting the system while embracing internal difference. The July uprising in Bangladesh reflects this kind of broad-based resistance. Achieving real equality requires not only the redistribution of wealth but also democratic participation and power-sharing for workers.
Amartya Sen argues that equality is not just about wealth distribution but also about expanding individual capabilities and freedoms. Regardless of the different theories and approaches to equality, there is no alternative to ensuring real equality, worker empowerment and power sharing.
The recent anti-fascist student uprisings have opened a new window for rethinking equality, power, and constitutional reform in Bangladesh. The elite have accumulated vast wealth through corruption and exploitation. Confiscating assets gained through corruption, redistributing resources, and redefining power must be the first steps toward building a truly egalitarian society.
History teaches us that no meaningful equality has ever been achieved without resistance, rebellion, and revolution. If we do not change the current exploitative system, we may witness cosmetic regime changes, but inequality will persist. To emancipate ourselves, we must resist the rule of capital and its governing structures. Late fascism is intertwined with capitalism and inherently produces a structure of fascist domination and control.
The time has come to move beyond slogans. If we are to honour the sacrifices made, we must reject the power games and build a system rooted in real equality and justice.
Ìý
ÌýDr Akhtar Sobhan Masroor is a writer and key student leader of the 1990 mass uprising in Bangladesh.
