"Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity) is more than just a motto. It captured the spirit of the French Revolution, one of the most transformative moments in human history. These ideals echoed across the world. Our own founding fathers were deeply inspired by them, which is why Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity found their place in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution.
There is ‘Equality’ in this motto and yet there is a drastic inequality in this very motto. Liberty and Equality hog all the limelight. They have their fans: Liberals for Liberty, and Progressives, Socialists, Wokes for equality. Nobody remembers the guy who came third. I have written about how fraternity aka social capital is essential for better economic outcomes. In this essay I argue that fraternity is essential to the words it is often prefixed with: Liberty and Equality. Fraternity is the sense of brotherhood, trust and solidarity that binds a society together.
A. Liberty
Liberal values have 2 foundations-
Individualism: The individual is the primary unit of moral and political concern. Each person is autonomous and possesses inherent worth.
Freedom: Individuals should be free to pursue their own choices as long as they don't infringe on others’ rights.
There is no individualism without fraternity
We must recognize that many of our instincts are inherited from our evolutionary past as hunter-gatherers. In those times, survival depended on close-knit tribes-groups in which members looked out for one another and trusted only their own. Consider the concept of Dunbar’s number-the theory that human beings can comfortably maintain meaningful social relationships with only about 150-200 people. Our evolution has restricted our ability to cooperate across groups. This tribal mindset militates against individualism, since belonging to a tribe is essential to survive. But today, we live in an era of surplus(at least when it comes to basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, and off course-reels). The tribal mindset has outlived its utility. In a modern society cooperation across groups is essential(people call this ‘bridge capital’ in more formal words). For example, a city functions not because of any one group, but because people across castes, religions, and classes(different tribes basically) work together: collecting garbage, maintaining power grids, treating patients, driving buses- each trusting that others will do their part. This interdependence demands a new kind of glue: fraternity. It helps us rise above tribalism and trust others in a world where survival depends not on belonging to a tribe, but on cooperation with individuals beyond it.
More importantly, true brotherhood means treating the other person as a brother, with genuine love and respect. But love and respect are never directed at categories; they are felt for persons. To truly see someone as a brother, I must first see him as a full human being, not merely as a member of a group, caste, or tribe, but as an individual in his own right. This is the heart of individualism. From that recognition flows trust- the trust that he can, and should, live life on his own terms. And when such trust becomes mutual, it creates a sense of security. I feel safe in society, and I help make it safe for others.
Without fraternity, there is insecurity-
The individual feels that it is imperative to join a group to survive. There is no mutual trust. Individualism breaks down.
The tribe feels that-
a) individual must be ‘protected’ from other tribes by joining them.
b) individual has to follow rules of the tribe for the sake of all members. These rules are designed in a way to circumvent freedom. Let me put it this way: these rules have to be designed in a way to curb freedom. Because freedom for individuals is antithetical to the existence of a tribe.
Take caste as an example. We often overlook how deeply casteism fuels the oppression of women. Think of caste as a tribe. To preserve this tribal solidarity, the group must control who enters it. Since only women can bear children and thus introduce new members, they become the gatekeepers of caste purity. This leads to strict control over their choices - whom they meet, befriend, or marry. Rules emerge to prevent caste exogamy(marrying outside the caste), and suddenly, restrictions on women’s education, mobility, and work are justified. After all, women’s freedom threatens the very idea of caste purity.
Freedom
Every person has freedom as long as he doesn’t harm others. While we celebrate this, the idea quietly rests on a deeper assumption: that granting freedom to others won’t endanger me. This assumption requires trust and that trust flows from fraternity. I must feel a sense of solidarity with society to believe that others acting freely won’t become a threat. Yes, the state exists to protect me but:
a) The state itself is a trade-off: we surrender some freedoms to gain protection.
b) The state’s capacity is limited; it cannot monitor everything.
Without fraternity, we lose this foundational trust. We start believing that others’ freedom is a risk and that belief naturally fuels a desire to control.
The case of markets
The Indian suspicion of markets, in my view, reflects a deeper lack of fraternity. After all markets are nothing but people freely interacting with one another to make each other better off. Behind the apparent chaos of the market lie thousands of quiet “double thank you” moments- a buyer thanks the seller, and the seller thanks the buyer. It is, at its core, a system of mutual benefit. Friedrich Hayek called this Spontaneous Order: the natural, self-organizing harmony that emerges when individuals pursue their own interests without central control.
If a society doesn’t trust and lacks a sense of brotherhood, 2 things happen-
We have an instinctive tendency to control. “Command and control” sounds safe, even comforting, while spontaneous order is mistaken for spontaneous disorder. “Those people” are seen as unruly, and “these capitalists” as selfish profiteers despite clear evidence that markets, when allowed to function, make everyone better off. Any proposal for market reform in India is quickly met with suspicion: “But businesses will exploit people.” This deep distrust is one reason why agriculture remains heavily regulated and constrained in India. It is not merely about policy reform, we need fraternity to take steps towards building markets in agriculture. As a side note have you observed that caste groups historically engaged in trade are spoken of with casual disdain in popular discourse? This further feeds into our cultural discomfort with markets.
The very benefits that markets promise often fail to materialize- not because markets don’t work, but because we don’t let them. We confine our transactions within our own tribes. We hire, trade, and trust only those who belong to our caste, community, or kin. This tribal instinct shrinks the pool of talent and ideas, hurting both efficiency and outcomes. For example I don’t hire the most capable person, I hire the most familiar. In doing so, I trade competence for tribal comfort.
Equality
This is tricky business. Some inequality is intrinsic to the human condition. We are all different. The attempt to impose total equality, regardless of context, has been one of communism’s many flaws. As a biologist once quipped, “Great theory but for ants.”
But what a just society can and must ensure is this: that everyone starts the race from the same line, and no one falls through the cracks of basic dignity.
Fraternity helps a society strive for equality in 2 ways-
1. It evokes empathy in the face of inequality.For me to care about equality, I must first feel that inequality is a problem. But most people are too caught up in their own lives to worry about what’s happening to others. This is where fraternity makes a difference. A sense of brotherhood triggers a chain of uncomfortable biological and psychological responses when we see injustice. For instance, the sight of poor children doing menial jobs is common in urban India. With fraternity, that sight unsettles me. It churns something inside because that child feels like a fellow human- a brother or sister to whom life has been deeply unfair. That discomfort is the first step toward change. Fraternity not only makes us recognise the problem, it also gives us a sense of moral purpose: that we must act. Because those we share this society with deserve, at the very least, the basic comforts and opportunities that we were lucky to receive.
Now, you could argue that one doesn’t need to rely on fraternity to arrive at equality. John Rawls offers a rational route through his “veil of ignorance” thought experiment. Strip away all knowledge of your identity : your class, caste, gender, family and ask yourself: what kind of society would you design if you didn’t know where you'd land in it? Most people, thinking rationally, would choose a system where at least a basic standard of living and equal opportunities are guaranteed for all. Because it’s the safest bet.
But fraternity enriches this thought experiment. It transforms the question I ask myself from “Where might I end up?” to “Where might others end up?” It evokes a deeper sense of empathy. In this version, I don’t just advocate for equality out of self-interest or mere fear of landing up in a bad position. I advocate for it because I care, because the imagined suffering of others moves me. It feels morally fuller, more human. I strive for equality not merely because I fear ending up at the bottom. I strive for it because I’m being asked to imagine society from a blank slate and it would crush my soul to envision fellow brothers and sisters condemned to a life of misery and deprivation. I would want them to have a dignified life, where they can live with their heads held high. With fraternity, the minimum standards I envision behind the veil are guided not just by logic/rationality as Rawls would argue, but by compassion making them far more dignified.
2.Fraternity makes it easier for society to accept the trade-offs that inevitably accompany efforts to achieve equality: Any serious attempt to level the playing field requires some degree of coercion — a curtailment of liberty or privilege in the interest of justice. Here are a few examples
Progressive taxation requires individuals to part with their hard-earned income to support those who are worse off. This is not just a financial sacrifice — it is also, in a sense, a compromise of liberty. Your property rights are being curtailed for a collective moral purpose. Philosophically, this is a profound trade-off. And a society's willingness to accept such a trade-off depends heavily on fraternity. Fraternity transforms the experience of loss into one of solidarity. Yes, I am giving up a portion of my income but it is for my fellow brothers and sisters, who deserve to be uplifted. Without this sense of shared belonging, such policies would feel merely extractive rather than ethical.
Affirmative action policies often involve withholding opportunities from the more privileged (at least in theory) so that historically disadvantaged groups can be given a fair chance. This isn’t just a sacrifice of individual opportunity it also amounts to a compromise of one’s formal right to equality. Such a policy can only gain legitimacy in a society where fraternity is strong. Fraternity allows people to see this not as an injustice, but as a moral correction. Gandhiji understood this well: his anti-untouchability campaigns were not only about changing laws but about cultivating a sense of shared humanity. That moral groundwork, I believe, played a role in helping the privileged castes accept the idea of reservations when the Constitution was enacted.
It’s important to note that such policies can be implemented even in the absence of fraternity. A society can be coerced into accepting these trade-offs either through top-down state action or intense social mobilisation. But without fraternity:
a) The coercive element of the bargain feels heavier than the egalitarian one.
b) Those who bear the cost are more likely to mobilise in opposition, reducing the long-term viability of such policies.
Consider the example of DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) policies in the West. These initiatives were intended to make workplaces more inclusive and ensure equal opportunities across different social groups. They were strongly championed by “woke” ideology - a movement that, at least in principle, places social justice at its core. But there were issues. American society was already polarised, and social media amplified these divisions. DEI efforts often came across as imposed rather than embraced. Instead of building an inclusive narrative around equality, they were enforced in a way that alienated many. Those who were perceived to benefit from historical privilege were vilified rather than engaged. Ultimately equality was pursued by damaging fraternity instead of cultivating it. This proved fragile. It only took a wave of counter-mobilisation : political backlash, legal challenges, and cultural pushback for many firms to quietly roll back their DEI commitments. Fraternity was not added just because it made the French Revolution motto catchy. It has deeper meaning and impacts everything we care about in a prosperous society.
The national motto of Kenya says ‘Harambee’ which roughly means "uplifting each other" or "to pull together". Now it doesn’t exactly have high-fi nobles and great ambitions like other constitutions, but the simplicity does sound good doesn’t it?
My last post on this topic will be on how do we build fraternity in India.
Till then, Harambee!