Equality and social justice
--> Posted on 2009-08-06 09:43:52 ByEquality and social justice are highly cherished values in all societies of the world. Their significance is all the greater in a country like India which has a hierarchical caste structure not only among the Hindus but in some other religious communities as well. One major consequence of caste hierarchies has been exploitation and oppression of large segments of our society which has been going on since the times immemorial. It is only during the last few centuries that social movements against equality and injustice have gained momentum. The most significant milestone in this regard has been the French Revolution (1789) whose clarion call was Equality, Liberty and Fraternity. During the nineteenth and the twentieth century several social reformers in India Including Mahatma Phule, Pandita Ramabai, Ramaswamy Niecker and later Baba Saheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi took up the issue of equality and social justice. A few centuries earlier the issue of social justice and equality was also taken up by Guru Nanak Dev and some sufi saints. The issue also attracted the active attention of the Constituent Assembly and several provisions to bring about greater equality and to ensure justice were incorporated in the Constitution of free India. Most notable among them is the provision for reservation of seats in the Union Parliament and State legislatures for the SCs and the STs. Due to political mobilisation of these disadvantaged segments of our society newer demands continued surfacing in the country. Consequently in the last decade some constitutional amendments were made (Amendments 73rd and 74th) which have extended the benefits of reservation at the grass-root level in rural and urban local bodies. Pressure is still mounting for similar reservations for women in the parliament which is now under the active consideration of the union parliament. In the meanwhile the provision of reservation has been extended to the OBCs. Thus, the struggles for equality and social justice have met considerable success and further advances are on the anvil. However, along with these positive developments there have also been a few setbacks and occasionally counter movements against the preferential policies of the Indian state have also surfaced. Anti-Mandal agitation has been the most concerted effort in this direction.
Keeping in view the above developments it is worthwhile to analyse the philosophical basis of this whole controversy. Why is it that there are demands for preferential treatment by some segments of society? Why is it that there is opposition to such preferential policies by some other segments? The issues involved are very complex. While it is true that equality and social justice is a cherished value, it is equally true that every society cherishes other values as well. For example, individual freedom or liberty is also a cherished value. In fact different societies have different hierarchical ordering of these values. Generally speaking, the western liberal capitalist societies give higher priority to liberty as compared to equality and social justice. On the other hand, the socialist societies accord higher priority to equality and social justice than to liberty. In every society some groups prefer liberty while some others prefer equality and social justice. Whether a social group subscribes to liberty or to equality and social justice depends on one's class position and the general character of a given social formation. For instance, the rich and upper strata of a society generally favour liberty but poor and disadvantaged usually prefer equality and social justice. Which social arrangement is more fair is difficult to say.
It is true that majority in any society would favour the age-old Aristotelian maxim that justice lies in treating equals equally and treating unequal unequally. Put it differently, justice lies in treating all human beings in a like manner except when there are relevant differences between them which warrant a reasonably different treatment. It needs to be realised that an attempt to identify relevant differences among people and give differential treatment to them on the basis of such differences is not a negation of rule of law or equality before law, rather it is its affirmation. This is so because rule of law or equality before law does not prescribe that all human beings be treated in a like manner rather it is a presumption against treating them differently in any respect until grounds for treating them differently have been identified and agreed to.
So far so good. But a couple of other problems are there. The first problem is: how to decide which differences are relevant and which differences are not relevant in giving differential treatment. Moreover, some differences which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another situation. For example, marks scored by different people in their BA examination may be relevant criteria to differentiate among them for admission to MA but the colour of their eyes may not be a relevant criteria. However, the colour of eyes may be relevant criteria for differentiation if people are being considered for a career in the films. Similarly height and weight may be a relevant criteria for recruitment to the army but not equally relevant for admission to MA. So the criteria which is relevant in one situation may not be of relevancy in other situations.
About CQ - Editorial Board - Be Our Partners - Terms Of Use - Privacy Policy - Contact Us
