Class | Subject | Book | Chapter | Session | Questions covered |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XI | Political Science | Political Theory (NCERT) | 4 – Social Justice | 2026-27 | 6 of 6 |
Chapter at a glance
Topic | Key points |
|---|---|
Justice | Giving each person their due; Plato’s Republic, Confucius, Kautilya |
Three principles | Equal treatment for equals; proportionate justice (reward by effort and skill); recognition of special needs |
Just distribution | Reducing social and economic inequality, e.g. land reforms, reservations |
John Rawls | Veil of ignorance: choosing rules without knowing one’s own position leads to fair rules that protect the worst-off |
Basic minimum | Food, health, housing, education, minimum wages |
Approaches | Free market vs state intervention to ensure minimum needs |
Exercise Questions
What does it mean to give each person his/her due? How has the meaning of “giving each his due” changed over time?
Answer
Answer
Giving each person their due means treating people justly, according to what they deserve or are entitled to.
Changing meaning
- In ancient societies (Plato, Confucius, Hindu traditions), justice meant that each person performed duties according to their position or role in society, and received what that station deserved. Justice was linked with a hierarchical social order.
- Over time, especially in modern democratic thought, “due” came to be linked with the equal dignity of every human being. Kant argued that every person is an end in themselves and must be given equal respect.
- Today “giving each their due” includes:
- equal treatment for equals (equal rights);
- proportionate rewards for effort and skill;
- consideration of special needs of disadvantaged people;
- a fair distribution of resources so that everyone has a decent minimum.
It means giving people what they justly deserve; earlier this was tied to one’s place in a social hierarchy, while today it rests on equal dignity, equal rights, fair rewards and attention to special needs.
Briefly discuss the three principles of justice outlined in the chapter? Explain each with examples.
Answer
Answer
- Equal treatment for equals. People who are alike in relevant respects (as human beings and citizens) should be treated equally: equal rights to life, liberty, property, voting and freedom of speech. People should not be discriminated against on the basis of class, caste, race or gender. Example: equal pay for equal work for men and women; a teacher and a doctor have the same vote.
- Proportionate justice. In some cases equal treatment is unfair; people should be rewarded in proportion to their effort, skill, risk and the kind of work. Example: a person who works longer hours or does more dangerous work gets more pay; students are given marks according to their performance.
- Recognition of special needs. People who are disadvantaged — by disability, poverty or historical discrimination — need special consideration to achieve real equality. Example: ramps and reserved jobs for the disabled; reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
A just society balances all three principles.
Equal treatment for equals (equal rights, e.g. voting), proportionate justice (rewards by effort and skill, e.g. higher pay for harder work), and special needs (support for the disadvantaged, e.g. reservations, ramps).
Does the principle of considering the special needs of people conflict with the principle of equal treatment for all?
Answer
Answer
Not necessarily. At first sight special treatment seems to violate equal treatment, but:
- Equal treatment assumes that people start from similar positions. When some people are disadvantaged by disability, poverty or past discrimination, treating everyone identically only preserves inequality.
- Special provisions (reservations, scholarships, facilities for the disabled) help them reach a level playing field, so that they can actually enjoy equal rights and opportunities.
- Thus the principle of special needs extends and completes the principle of equal treatment rather than contradicting it.
Conflict can arise if special treatment is given to groups that are no longer disadvantaged or if it becomes a permanent privilege, so such measures must be carefully targeted.
No; considering special needs removes disadvantages so that people can really enjoy equal treatment, though such measures must be well targeted.
How does Rawls use the idea of a veil of ignorance to argue that fair and just distribution can be defended on rational grounds?
Answer
Answer
- John Rawls asks us to imagine choosing the rules of society behind a “veil of ignorance”: we do not know what position we will occupy — rich or poor, healthy or disabled, of which caste, religion or gender.
- Since anyone could end up in the worst-off position, a rational, self-interested person would choose rules that ensure that even the most disadvantaged members are protected and have fair opportunities.
- Thus fairness does not require people to be generous or altruistic; it follows from rational self-interest. People would agree on principles such as equal basic liberties and arrangements that benefit the least advantaged.
- This shows that fair and just distribution can be defended on rational grounds, not only on moral or religious grounds.
Behind a veil of ignorance about one’s own position, rational people would choose rules protecting the worst-off, since they could be among them; so justice follows from rational self-interest.
What are generally considered to be the basic minimum requirements of people for living a healthy and productive life? What is the responsibility of governments in trying to ensure this minimum to all?
Answer
Answer
Basic minimum requirements
- Adequate nutrition (food).
- Housing and safe drinking water and sanitation.
- Health care.
- Education.
- A minimum wage or livelihood that allows a decent life.
Responsibility of governments
- In a democratic society, governments must ensure that all citizens can meet these basic needs. Where markets fail to provide them for the poor, the state should intervene.
- This is done through free or subsidised public schools and health centres, public distribution of food, housing schemes, employment programmes (such as MGNREGA), minimum wage laws and social security.
- Governments should also create equal opportunities so that people can earn their own livelihood.
Food, shelter, water and sanitation, health care, education and a minimum wage; governments must ensure these through public services, subsidies, employment schemes and social security.
Which of the following arguments could be used to justify state action to provide basic minimum conditions of life to all citizens?
Answer
- Providing free services to the poor and needy can be justified as an act of charity.
- Providing all citizens with a basic minimum standard of living is one way of ensuring equality of opportunity.
- Some people are naturally lazy and we should be kind to them.
- Ensuring basic facilities and a minimum standard of living to all is a recognition of our shared humanity and a human right.
Answer
- Not a good justification: charity depends on the goodwill of the giver; it does not treat the basic minimum as a right.
- Valid: a basic minimum enables everyone to compete fairly and develop their abilities — equality of opportunity.
- Not valid: it rests on a prejudiced assumption that poverty is due to laziness.
- Valid: it treats basic needs as a matter of human dignity and rights.
- and (d) justify state action, because they rest on equal opportunity and human rights; (a) and (c) do not, since they rest on charity and prejudice.
Topic checklist
- Meaning of justice: giving each their due
- Three principles of justice
- Just distribution
- Rawls and the veil of ignorance
- Basic minimum needs; free market vs state intervention