Both Mahatma Gandhi and John Rawls, the leading philosopher of justice in the Western tradition, emphasized that for justice to prevail any personal and policy decision should first pay attention to the interest and welfare of the last or the weakest person. In Gandhian philosophy it is called “antoday” or the welfare of the last. All cultures and religious traditions say this: behave towards others as you would like others to behave towards you. Amartya Sen calls for Human Development, where the state provides the right conditions, in which all have the capacity to choose and lead a valuable life that is worth living.

The Idea of Social Justice

Mahatma Gandhi provided a simple maxim for making decisions both in personal life as well as at the level of public policy. He said; whenever in doubt think of the poorest and the weakest, whether your decision is going to help him or her. In the same way John Rawls (1) has suggested that to be a just society any change in the system or policy should first aim at improving the situation of the worst off. The ethical principle is based on what Rawls calls the ‘veil of ignorance’ principle, which should favor the interests of the worst off first because, for all we know or don’t know, any one of us could be in that worst off situation.

John Rawls provides a comprehensive principle of justice. The two principles of justice are: firstly, each person has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with similar liberties for all others. Secondly, social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both (a) reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage, especially first to the advantage of the most disadvantaged and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant advocated the categorical imperative that one should act in such a way that one’s behavior becomes a universal maxim for all in similar circumstances. (1) “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. One should act only on rules that you would be willing to see everyone follow. (2) So act to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end and never merely as a means. Each person has dignity and moral worth and should never be exploited or manipulated as a means to another end.

The Principle of Rights can face a major problem in utilitarianism that might violate
another person’s right to the greatest good for the greatest number. The rights principle
expresses morality from the point of view of the individual or group of individuals,
whereas the utilitarian principle expresses morality in terms of the group or society as a
whole. This principle is founded on a movement throughout history to overcome basic
social injustices and/or constraints on personal freedom. The Principle of Justice involves the fair treatment of each person, i.e., employees, consumers and other stakeholders. This principle uses universal principles, such as reciprocity, equality of human rights and respect for the dignity of all human beings as individual persons. 

A universal principle of justice can be interpreted in terms of the golden rule: do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. The golden rule with local variations can be found in all cultures and traditions. (2) In Jainism, it is stated as: A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.” In Buddhism: “A state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must also be so to him; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” In Hinduism in the Bhagvad Gita : “One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality”.

Traditionally, social justice has been defined in terms of liberty, equality and fraternity. Equality of opportunity and distributive justice through redistribution of the wealth and reducing inequalities are also important indicators of justice. Recently, the need for the poor and deprived people’s social inclusion, empowerment, human security and participation in the decision-making and implementation process has been proposed. For a society to be just, it should be caring, compassionate and uphold the dignity of all its members. Justice can be distributive, retributive and compensatory.

The United Nations Charter of Human Rights contains both civil and political rights, as well as social and economic rights, and sometimes there may be a tension between the two. Western liberal democracies lay more emphasis on civil and political rights, which include the freedoms of expression, belief, association and so on. The developing and poor countries are more concerned with social and economic rights and the more recent right to development without which, they say, civil and political human rights would be meaningless for the poor. Communist countries like China also support the primacy of social and economic rights, while civil and political rights are considered an integral part of capitalist and bourgeois societies.

Amartya Sen has suggested that, in fact, in a true democracy civil, political, social and economic rights can support and reinforce each other. He maintains that the reason there have been no famines in independent India, unlike in China, is because in India the media as well as questions and debates in parliament would expose and embarrass the government if it allowed starvation deaths to happen large scale. (3) 

India and Social Justice

Article 41 of the Directive Principles of the Constitution calls on the governments to secure the right to work, education and public assistance, in case of undeserved want. According to Justice Krishna Iyer, the rule of law in the Indian context comes to the aid of the rule of life, which in conditions of poverty means the right to livelihood and employment. (4)

It is on this basis that the people's movement for the right to work and food lead to the rural employment guarantee act. Without work there can be no food and without food there is no life and sustaining human life is a fundamental right. In a country with the highest incidents of child labor and infant mortality, the rights of the children should be a high priority. When these rights are enacted, they can be enforced legally and they also provide dignity to the poor and deprived because they are not dependent on the mercy of the government but can demand their rights

India has been recording the second highest economic growth rate but is ranked way down at number 128 in the Human Development Index, which combines income, health and life expectancy and education. We have some of the richest people in the world and one of the fastest growing numbers of billionaires. We have the third largest military force, a huge nuclear and space program. We are more or less self sufficient in food production. Yet India has the largest number of hungry people in the world, The highest number of children doing labor and the highest infant mortality rate or children dying below the age of five due to disease and malnutrition. (5)

Amartya Sen has been suggesting that economic growth and gross domestic product had little to do with human development and with progress in health, education, infant mortality, life expectancy, equity, particularly gender equity and people’s capabilities. (6) He calculated that there were a hundred million women missing in India because of abortion, female infant mortality and the early death of women due to unequal treatment in comparison to men (except in Kerala). Although India has avoided famines, mass hunger persists. Deliberate policies and huge investment in the social sector combined with greater democracy and public action instead of total reliance on the market is the key according to Sen.

The justice system of courts and enforcement of legal provisions in India is expensive, at times corrupt, long and drawn out, which puts the poor and those without influence at an unjust disadvantage. The call for reforming the judicial system remains unheeded. Justice delayed is justice denied, and justice which the poor cannot afford is justice only for the rich. When justice itself becomes unjust what hope can one have?

Reservations can be an instrument for social justice but the experience in India has shown that to begin with, reservations are used mainly to gain electoral support of castes and communities by political parties. Furthermore, continuing reservations for so long becomes an excuse for not raising the educational, health and income standards of the backward castes, which would enable them to compete equally with the progressive castes. Anyway, the main beneficiary of reservations is the creamy layer of the backward castes. Professor Dipankar Gupta has pointed out that the constitution emphasizes the need for predominantly economic criteria for reservations. (7)

One criterion for assessing if a society is just is to find out how that society treats its most vulnerable sections like Women, Children, Tribals and Minorities. The plight of children in India is especially alarming with the highest infant mortality and incidence of child labor in the world. India is signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and yet no systematic and time-bound steps have been taken to achieve true welfare for children in terms of the targets set by the Millennium Development Goals. A Children’s Rights Commission has been appointed but its recommendations need to be binding.

Tribals, who have been facing the uprooting of their lives from the forest and its resources, are looked down upon by society and, unlike scheduled and other castes, have very little representation in the parliament and the administration. It is not surprising that they have been loosing faith in democracy and the tribal areas have become the breeding ground for the violent Maoist movement. 

Globalization and Social Justice 

 In an age of globalization and interdependent economies, poverty, inequality and injustice is apart from local causes is also an outcome of the unfair and unjust aspects of the international economic system which is dominated by the rich developed countries. It has been estimated that the amount of economic worth contributed by all the skilled people who have migrated from the developing countries to the developed is more than the total economic aid received by the developing countries. The system of unjust trade, where the farmers in the USA and Europe are given huge subsidies in agriculture (against all ethics of free and fair trade), thereby making it very difficult for poor farmers in developing countries to export their produce and get a decent income to support their families.

Only few rich countries of Scandinavia and the Netherlands offer aid to poor countries to the extent of 0.5 percent of their gross domestic product, as recommended by the United Nations. Many times, the aid is used to buy expensive goods and equipment from corporations belonging to the donor countries. The principle of distributive justice in a globalized world should not stop at national borders but ought to be extended to the international domain just as the division of labor for producing goods extends internationally

The problem of global warming and climate change which is threatening the livelihoods and survival of millions of mostly poor people is largely due to the rich, developed countries, although China and India are not far behind. There is a huge injustice in the affects of climate change, where the problem is created by the developed countries and increasingly by the rich in poor countries while those most likely to suffer are some of the poorest like the peasants and fisherman in Bangladesh and coastal West Bengal. Those most responsible for climate change ought to contribute the most to alleviate the harm done if social justice is to prevail. Those people in the coastal area, who are loosing their land to the rising sea, need to by declared as climate change refugees and rehabilitated or taken in as refugees by rich countries

Sustainability is being defined as just sustainability or sustainability with justice. All, especially the poor and tribals, who depend on common resources for their survival and livelihood, should have equal access to those natural resources. Those who consume and pollute more have more responsibility to pay more to clean the environment and change to a sustainable lifestyle

The French philosopher, Michel Serres (8) has proposed the idea of a Natural Contract, akin to the Social Contract of Rousseau, so that humanity as a whole can do justice to Nature, including water sources, air, soil, forests and sentient beings, all of whom should have the legal right not to be exploited in order to preserve the health and balance of nature and the planet, as well as the survival of the human species. A charter of rights and responsibilities between Humans and Nature has to be written. The social part of social justice should include Nature, its bounties and all sentient beings (the lower animals) because we are all interdependent and need each other’s support in a world where everything is inter-related.

Concluding Remarks

Scandinavia generally and Denmark and Sweden particularly are considered the most just societies. They also rank at the top in terms of their human development index. Denmark is also the most equal society and according to the study of European well-being, it is also considered the happiest country. Norway is the best in terms of gender equity according to the recent Human Development Report. The level of trust is considered very high in these societies. What makes them so just and good is not only high economic standards, and the fact that they are homogeneous societies, but also because they have charted out a third, caring way that tries to overcome the ills of both capitalism and socialism.

Poverty and inequality is unjust not only because of physical deprivation but also because of a possible loss of faith in fairness, decency and in humanity itself, because of shame and loss of dignity and because psychological damage, lack of self-esteem and self-worth among the poor. The hopelessness of not being able to have one's voice heard and not being able to change the situation is so unjust. The anguish and despair that poor parents feel, when they are unable to feed their starving children or provide medical care when children are sick or dying, cannot be described. What is particularly disturbing is that in a society where there is plenty of food and wealth and economic growth the hunger and deprivation that prevails on a large scale does not lead to moral outrage or a violation of our sense of justice. This deficit of a social conscience is as alarming as the injustice itself.

A nation's power to influence and its status in the world are measured by military power, economic power and soft power—the latter signifies the quality of ideas and cultural legacy associated with a particular country. Finally, there is the moral power (which Mahatma Gandhi symbolized through his ideals and struggle) a nation commands: a power based on the extent of social justice, care and compassion in its society.

1. Rawls John (1999) , Theory of Justice, Oxford University Press, New York.
2. The Golden Rule Quoted from Globalization of Ethics, Hans Kung, Project Syndicate.  
3. Sen Amartya (2000) Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press. Delhi .
4. Iyer K, Right to Work. In: Mainstream, 21.3.1995.
5. ‘Unicef Not Happy With Results’ The Times of India, April 12, 2008, New Delhi.
6. ‘How is India Doing’ Amartya Sen, New York Review of Books,  July 23, 1995.
7. Gupta, Dipankar (2001) Mistaken Modernity; India between Worlds, HarperCollins.
8. Serres Michel, Interview in Unesco Courier, No 9, January 15, 1999, Paris.

TOP