Introduction

“The Idea of Justice” by Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen is a path breaking work on the concept of justice. His book is not only an extension but also a critique of John Rawls work – Theory of Justice. He talks about niti and nyaya, former relates to just rules, whereas, the latter refers to realisation. Niti is an abstract exercise, if implemented completely, would result in maximum public welfare and justice. Nyaya, on the other hand, relates to the enforcement of laws and regulations. The concept of justice has been discussed in a very broad manner; to quote Prof. Sen “…aim is to clarify how we can proceed to address questions of enhancing justice and removing injustice, rather than to offer resolutions of questions about the nature of perfect justice”. According to Professor Sen, Rawls’s emphasis on the importance of ‘ideal theory’, which is universal and applies everywhere, is doubtful. Through the story of Ann, Bob and Carla he beautifully exemplifies the problem of scarcity of resources and conflicting demands of valid claim.

Background

The concept of justice has been one of the most complex concepts, consuming a lot of scholarly ink, yet remaining enigmatic, cryptic and imprecise. Justice is a word of ambiguous import. Even in the Bible, justice is regarded as a general virtue, but there, the concept is ambivalent because one can observe that all the values are rejected in favour of rather vague and general standards. Plato’s conception of justice gave more emphasis on the substantive portion rather than the procedural aspect. As per the utilitarians, justice lies in the greatest good of the greatest number, but the inherent fault lies in the fact that justice is not done to minorities who do not constitute the greatest number. Marx considered justice as a sham, a mask facilitating capitalist exploitation. Some believe justice is equality, but equality itself is a nebulous and relative concept. What may be a notion of equality for one may not be equal for a wage labourer; therefore, it would not be appropriate to set uniform standards of justice for others.

But this type of comparative approach is very necessary when it comes to the advancement of justice, as the process of comparison creates room for debate, thereby admitting multiple opinions and preventing unilateral and unipolar interpretations of justice.

The social contract theory as propounded by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau mainly concentrated on institutional arrangements for society. This approach, termed transcendental institutionalism, has two distinct features. Firstly, it focuses on perfect justice rather than relative comparisons of justice and injustice. Secondly, in the quest for perfection, it prioritizes getting institutions right rather than examining the actual societies that emerge from them.

The central question remains—what is justice? To understand it, it is essential to understand injustice and ways to mitigate it. Human beings often turn to the meaning of justice only after experiencing injustice themselves. History is replete with such instances. Even Mahatma Gandhi began his quest for justice and independence after personally experiencing humiliation and injustice. Thus, injustice becomes the most potent tool through which individuals comprehend the importance of justice. By associating themselves with injustice suffered by others, individuals prepare to resist injustice.

Justice, therefore, is an active and decisional process, one that enables individuals to prevent wrong courses of action. Through experiencing injustice, people seek to rectify injustice or devise preventive mechanisms. This idea lies at the heart of the arguments made by Professor Amartya Sen.

Sen critiques the Rawlsian concept of justice. John Rawls, through a new social contract theory, conceptualized justice as fairness, emphasizing the maximisation of liberty, equality, and opportunity. Sen argues that Rawls’s theory still relies on pre-requisites of perfect arrangements, similar to earlier social contract theories. Such perfect arrangements are impossible due to plurality of opinions, which prevents any arrangement from achieving perfection. Consequently, in the absence of perfection, the concept of justice may never materialize.

Sen therefore emphasizes understanding the “idea of justice” before arriving at the “concept of justice.” The primary goal should be to mitigate injustice, and through this process, justice will advance, unfurl, and bloom. The present paper deals with these theoretical frameworks, examining the Rawlsian approach in light of Amartya Sen’s book The Idea of Justice. It further demonstrates how Sen’s idea of justice complements and completes Rawls’s concept of justice.