INTRODUCTION
John Rawls was one of the best American political scientists. He was born in 1921 and passed away in 2002. His most renowned work was A Theory of Justice which was first published in 1970 and later it was revised and again published in 1990. In his revised edition, Rawls insisted that some important point and views have been revised, which is essential for our society. which subsequently was agreed by quite a few political scientists. they claim that it is one of the most prominent work in the English speaking world post world war II. Rawls advocated the cause of liberalism and challenged the inherent thought of equality and attainment of justice. In his another important work Political Liberalism, which was published in 1993, he constituted his thought system which is modern liberalism. Even the social democrats and opponents of liberalism could not keep themselves away from its influence. According to him equality, inequality and other related ideas are to be judged in the background of social justice and social progress.
The concept of Veil of Ignorance Rawls theory of justice is parallel to Kant theory of justice in two ways. Firstly, Rawls, like Kant is also a critique of Utilitarianism. And secondly, like Kant, Rawls also follows the principle of a hypothetical social contract to achieve justice. Rawls, to explain his idea of a hypothetical social contract introduces a device called the “Veil of Ignorance.”
Rawls says that imagine a situation where people have gathered to decide collective principles of justice to govern themselves. There would be different ideas and suggestions. The idea and suggestion would be affected by the kind of people in the discussion. There would be people who are rich, poor, strong, weak etc. All of them would have different interests which would reflect in their ideas. This discussion would give rise to a situation where a compromising idea of justice would be chosen and which would not necessarily serve the purpose. Therefore, Rawls says instead of this, imagine we gather together in an “original position” of equality, where everybody is equal. This equality is assured through the veil of ignorance. The basic idea of the veil of ignorance is that people are behind a kind of veil and without knowing certain particular facts about each other. So, the decision maker will be unaware about the position he will occupy And by this, nobody would have superior bargaining power in the collective idea of justice. Hence, Rawls idea of justice is “a hypothetical social contract, made behind the veil of ignorance in the original position of equality.” The Principles of Justice Rawls does not give a clear account of what principle of justice should be chosen, but he did talk about the principles which shouldn’t be chosen. Rawls argues that we would not choose the principle of utilitarianism. He says, that we must support individual rights and should not seek the majority to tyrannize the minority. We should have a system of equal rights and hence would choose a principle of equal basic liberty. What principle would be chosen to govern social and economic inequality? Rawls says, to answer this, we need to first agree for equal distribution of wealth and income. This, Rawls says, can be done by agreeing to the qualified principle of equality. Rawls called this principle as the “difference principle”. Difference principle is based on the idea of distribution. It says that only those inequalities would be considered which are for the benefit of the least well-off. Therefore, all inequalities would not be rejected. If inequality works for the benefit of those who are at the bottom of society then, it should be accepted.
In order to understand Rawls idea of justice, we need to have a pretext of the idea of another famous political thinker, Emanuel Kant. Kant says that just laws arise out of the contract. These contracts are not the usual and actual contracts which people make when they come together. These contracts are exceptional in nature. The question is why are they different. Kant says that when different people gather together to make constitutional conventions, then all of them have different interests and demands. Also, people have different bargaining power so, the one with good bargaining power would have heavier say in the contract. Therefore, the actual social contracts do not necessarily be just laws. These contracts will only highlight differences and would be special to them who have more knowledge of law and politics. So, this concludes that though Kant is a contractarian he doesn’t trace the origin of any social contract that gives rise to just laws. Which means that Kant’s exceptional contract is a hypothetical contract since it never happened. And therefore, an obvious question arises, “What is the force of a hypothetical contract?” The answer to this question lies in the theory of John Rawls. How john rawls principle of justice applied in indian society —- According to Rawls under original position and ignorance of the veil people will choose two principles of justice .
THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE— Rawl state that inequality in society are just if they attach to the position open to all and benefit to all (10).This can be understood by dividing this definition into two parts——- 1.The equal opportunity 2.Difference Principle According to rawls if there is inequality in society then it can be justified when if there given two things are there in the society.ie if every citizen is given equal opportunity. furthermore, the equality is utilizing for benefit for all.
THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE IN INDIAN CONTEXT
1. The equal opportunity. Let us understand this principle with the Indian context by example. For instance, A and B are a citizen of India. Where A is a cardiologist and B is a rickshaw driver. These two citizens represent two opposite section of our society. A’s Per Annum is 20 lakh rupees whereas B’s Per Annum is 80,000 rupees. There is a 19.2 lakh rupees Gap between these two per annum. Which symbolizes inequality in our society. How this gap can be justified? This gap can be justified When A and B both got equal opportunity to become a cardiologist. There are three factors which we need to remember when we are talking about inequality in our society. These are:- ● Any law ● Birth status ● Talent and efforts When A become cardiologist because of his hard-working nature and whereas B was lazy to study hard hence he ends up being a rikshaw diver. But here both had to get the equal opportunity to become cardiologist then only is said to be justified. However, in India two problems are often faced by society when it comes to inequality, that is social law and birth status. In incurred this problem there are many provision in the Indian constitution. Few examples are Article 17 reads- “Abolition of Untouchability Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law”1 Which will help is removing any social practices which is been coming Article 21A reads -“ The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine.”2 These are the provision which is inserted in our constitution which will deal with inequality and it will justify any such inequality. 2. Difference principle According to the second part of Rawls principle of justice says that inequality can be justified when because such inequality in society, benefits all. Let us take the same cardiologist example. Here the per annum income gap between A and B is 19.2 lakh rupees. So when the Indian government will take the tax or impose a tax on A. and these revenues are used by the Indian government to make policies for the welfare of society. Also, these revenues are used for the indigent population of the society. Article 15 says, “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of race, religion, caste, sex, and place of birth”. Here, any discrimination made only on the grounds mentioned would be held unconstitutional. Article 16 talks about equal opportunity to all citizens in matters related to employment in the public sector and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, birthplace, residence, or any of them. It also talks about the reservation in services for certain backward classes. This perfectly establishes Rawls' concept as he talks about elevating the people who belong to the lowest level in society so that their needs are fulfilled first.
LIBERTY PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE: This principle says that everyone shall get equal political liberty, so my liberty shall be the same as any other citizen. The second principle of justice in the Indian context If we look at this principle in the Indian context, then India follows a similar kind of liberty principle. Article 14 provides “Equality before the law, The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”3. In other words, no person can be denied equal treatment on given criteria. which is what Rawls trying to say in his principle of justice, where people shall get equal opportunity, immaterial what background they belong from. Article 21 provides “Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”4This again is one of the most widespread as well as interpreted provisions of the constitutional law. This article has persistently been altered when it comes to the right to life and liberty.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Hullabaloo in the Quota Orchard" Affirmative Action: The Contentious Case of India, FLAX, last visited (Oct. 17, 2021, 12:41 PM), http://flax.nzdl.org/greenstone3/flax;jsessionid=3BA49DAAED13B5C7DD194644B6 3A7FAE?a=d&c=BAWESS&d=D483&dt=simple&p.a=b&p.s=ClassifierBrowse.
2. Adv. Shreelakshmi Sayajirao Raje Bhonsle, Justice For All: John Rawls’ Theory Of Justice And Its Relevance In Indian Judicial System, 9(3) Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science 64, 64-68, (2021).
3. Ira Chadha-Sridhar et al Sachi Shah, Caste and Justice in the Rawlsian Theoretical Framework: Dilemma as on the ‘Creamy Layer’ and Reservations in Promotions, 10(2) NUJS L. Rev. 171, 171-176 (Apr.-Jun. 2017).
4. Janhavi Rajkumar, System of Distributive Justice in India with Reference to Theories of Justice, JSLSR, (Jun. 12, 2020), https://jslsr.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/4/5/124513060/article_jslsr_2.pdf.
5. Kaushik Deka, Everything You Wanted to Know About the CAA and NRC, INDIA TODAY, (Dec. 23, 2019, 03:04 PM), https://www.indiatoday.in/india-todayinsight/story/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-caa-and-nrc-1630771-2019- 12-23. 6. Priya O., Moulding a Just Society: Re-examining Rawlsian approach in Indian Context, 8(2) IRJET 675, 675-677, (Feb. 2021).
No comments:
Post a Comment