The Marginalisation of Justice in Public Discourse

Context: Distributive justice demands that development must be shared equally by all; however, the pursuit of narrow self-interest and national glory leads to inequalities in society and unequal division of social benefits.

Understanding the idea of distributive justice:

• Prerequisites of distributive justice:

• A social condition marked by an absence of love: Justice presupposes we should have a sense of sharing and not grabbing things; instead, we share with those we don’t know or love.
• Existence of Moderate Scarcity: In times of abundance, the need for justice remains redundant.

• For E.g. Each of us will have as much of everything we want, reducing the need for sharing
• Equally, in a society with massive scarcity, justice is impossible.

• A balance between public-interest and self-interest: Justice also presupposes that people are neither totally alone nor organically united with others. For E.g.

• If one was Robinson Crusoe, there would be no one with who to share. 
• And, if one was totally fused with others, then again, sharing will be unnecessary.

• The basic idea of distributive justice: Each person gets what is properly due to him or her. 
• Distinctions between a type Person’s Due: 
• Hierarchical notions: what is due to a person is established by her or his place within a hierarchical system.

• For, E.g. Certain groups are born privileged (in caste system), hence, are entitled to a disproportionately large share of benefits, and a disproportionately small share of burdens.
• Historically, this notion has been temporarily opposed by Buddha’s teachings, the Bhakti Movement, etc. 
• Today, these notions are opposed through constitutional egalitarian norms.

• Egalitarian notions: Each person, regardless of caste, class, colour, creed or gender, is equal and hence, all social benefits and burdens should be distributed equally (mentioned in our Preamble)
• Defining the Person’s Due: Two main parameters exist for interpreting what is due to persons of equal moral worth.

• Need-based justice: what is due to a person is what are his/her basic and specific needs.
• Since our basic needs are identical, justice requires their ful?lment in every single person.
• Beyond this basic threshold, our needs usually vary, and therefore justice further requires the ful?lment of different needs like the specific needs of the scholar.
• Desert-based justice: what is due to a person is what he or she deserves as per his/her talent or effort
• For, E.g. those who are talented or work hard should be re­ warded with more bene?ts and be less burdened.
• Conversely, those contributing unequally to the creation of wealth or cultural as­ sets, don’t deserve the same bene?ts.
• Most reasonable egalitarian notion: find a balance between need and desert
• Ensure distribution of benefits as per needs.
• Rewards are permissible to those who by virtue of natural gift, social learning and personal e?orts deserve more.

Conclusion: Our society is afflicted by deep inequalities. Putting justice back into public discourse should be our priority. Or else, the dreams of our nation will never turn into reality.