Partiality of judgement and the impossibility of justice seem to remain like a reality in those societies where equality and justice fail to reach the marginalised sections due to socio-cultural differences. In case of India, such differences seem to be institutionlised at two levels--institutionalisation of consciousness within the 'fraternity' and its institutionalisation 'outside' the fraternity. The former can be equated with the caste-based differences within one religious community whereas the latter signifies differences between religious communities. But it is also important to mention that despite structural inequalities difference-based caste and communities have also examples of some commonalities and cooperations. Under the feudal system lower castes and upper castes supplemented each other's interests despite the fact that lower castes were vulnerable to the higher castes. Similarly the ganga-jamuni tehzeeb (composite culture) regarded both religious communities as two eyes of a beautiful bride and their long history witnessed 'give-and-take', at many levels.

The introduction of modern political structures and modern market system began to transform historical pattern of relationships. It did not dismantle identities based on ascriptive characteristics but rather established strong bond between dominant identities and modern polity. On the contrary, the liberal democracy was a revolutionary package against this unholy alliance which has developed in this country. Such an alliance can be traced in the rise and perpetuation of those political forces which have strengthened their foundations in the roots of caste and communal consciousness. Nirja says that "(T)he superimposition of democracy on these structures was expected to dissolve older ascriptive identities, and create in their stead the new overarching identity of the Indian citizen, equal before law and equal in political voice."21

The Indian Establishment, from the Union to the block levels, has failed to be an impartial institution in ethnic conflict or inter-religious feuds. Nandy says that all too frequently, the ruling party, the bureaucracy, and to an extent the judiciary get involved in ethnic violence as partisans, a hazard common to states the world over. These factions also, reluctantly but surely, try to take political advantage of such involvement.22 Therefore, consolidation of an alliance of modern power structures with the difference-based country of communities provided an opportunity for the strong and the majority community to exploit the sources of modern political authority particularly in the absence of any safeguards or precautionary measures to ensure equality and justice for the minorities.