Opinion
-
News Analysis
Questions about merit and social justice
By C.V. Gopalakrishnan
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, JAN. 5. The denunciation by the Nobel Laureate, Amartya Sen, in Kolkata, of the moves made by the Centre to impart religious values as part of primary education is prompted by the emphasis he _ along with a number of other liberal political scientists _ had earlier laid on the vital importance of ensuring social justice which will have to be religiously neutral to the underprivileged sections of society.
They have all recently drawn attention to the dismal prospects for ushering in an egalitarian social order for ameliorating the plight of the disadvantaged groups by leaving this task to the ``open logic of inter-group equality''. They have called for the induction of a ``specific component of rights and opportunities'' slanted in favour of the deprived for their ``capacity endowment which would actualise the principle of equal opportunity''. This would not neglect the ``capability approach'' which Prof. Sen has repeatedly emphasised. The other members of the distinguished liberal scientists who share this view with him and have been listed in a research paper published by the Centre for Federal Studies, New Delhi, are Will Kymlicka, Ronald Dworkin, I.M. Young and Nancy Fraser.
The papers include Prof. Sen's praise for Kerala's record in initiating ``public action in promoting a range of social opportunities relating inter alia to elementary education, land opportunities, the role of women in society and the widespread and equitable provision of health care and other public services''. He contrasts this with ``Uttar Pradesh's failures which can be plausibly attributed to the neglect of the same opportunities''.
The paper takes note of the ``diametrically opposite approaches to equality and justice in the Indian context'' and the grievances expressed by the existing privileged sections of society about the inequity which it has imposed on them. But it points out that the idealist commitment for ensuring social justice to the deprived actually ``follows the meritorian and the compensatory principles of equality''.
The paper reminds the critics that ``the meritorian principle is based on the idea of equality of opportunity. According to this, the most meritorious gets the best position in society in the dispensation of functionally-important position. It is justified on the ground that it provides equal opportunity to all irrespective of primordial affinity of individual''. Rejecting ``such a simple notion of equal opportunity,'' the compensatory principle, on the other hand, bases its arguments on the existential conditions of individuals and groups ``which have been the victims of socially-imposed inequality over a very long period''. Its acknowledgment of the ``greater possibility of unequal placement of individuals and groups in real situation of social life'' is presumably intended to take note of the fears of the existing privileged groups about the elevation of the hitherto underprivileged groups to such a placement. The paper dwells at some length about how such fears could be allayed and says that ``the principle of compensation derives its strength from the idea of social democracy''. The compensatory principle could provide for the levelling up of the skills of the hitherto disadvantaged though this is not so specifically stated.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Opinion
|
