Justice in Catholic and Hindu Traditions With a special reference to Indian Context

1.IntroductionCase 1:

A teenager, Chintu Kumar, fighting to get justice for his mother, who was gangraped, was burnt alive by nine people in Garabigha village of Nawada district,Bihar on 13th May, 2012 because he was the main witness in his mother’s rapecase in 2006. Chintu’s mother said, “The accused repeatedly threatened to burnhim alive and finally they did it. Where is the rule of law in Bihar? There is noplace for the poor seeking justice.”

Case 2:

Neelam Katara’s son Nitish was murdered for honour killing on 17 February,2002 by Vikas Yadav, the son of a former Rajya Sabha MP D P Yadav for havingfallen in love with Bharti Yadav, sister of Vikas. As a result of Katara’s fight theguilty awarded life sentence on 30 May, 2008 by the trial Court. Setting anexample of fighting against the high and the mighty she says it is tough to getjustice in India. She further points out that our laws need to be amended andthe complete process needs an overhaul. She hopes that although there are lotsof loopholes, the system can still work.

Case 3:

Harvard Professor Michael J Sandel, whose course on justice is so engaging thatstudents are often turned away for lack of space in his classroom, states thatjustice promises to take the citizens on an exhilarating journey to confronttoday’s political and moral controversies in a fresh and enlightening way.1

The concept of justice voiced by these three persons – twoordinary Indian women and another Harvard Professor and experton justice – invite us to reflect deeply on justice in theIndian context where the majority continue to pin their hopesin the existing justice delivery system. It is against thebackdrop of a current political and economic landscape ofIndia, that is marred by so many pressing issues like -corruption, mining, land-grapping, terror attacks, differentscams, price hike, etc., we try to reflect on justice, ofcourse, the current Indian context warrants a serious public

1 Read Michael J Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right thing to do? (New York: Farrar,Straus and Giroux, 2009).

2

debate about ethics, justice, and the common good.Understanding of justice is culture-specific, although manycultures usually share a common history, mythology andreligion. Though we can find some justice principles common tomost of the cultures, these are insufficient to create aunitary justice apprehension.

The choices, that we face both in public and our personallives, often raise ethical questions, for example: Is fightingagainst the high and the mighty a must to get justice? How farcan we reach in our fight against the political pressure andpowerful? Will justice be done to the victim? At the end,what’s the right thing to do? These are a few in a series ofquestions asked by everyone who wants to create a just societyin our land of Ahimsa. The first part of this paper outlinesin brief the context and the development of concept of justicein Western Philosophy since it has received the major impulsefrom Christianity and then elucidates justice in Catholictradition with the special emphasis on Catholic socialteaching. The second part expounds justice in Hindu traditionby providing the background to the interrelation betweenjustice and society and outlining justice in the Constitutionof India. At the end we ask how to get justice and propose theneeds of the hour to get justice in India.

2.The Concept of Justice in Western Philosophy

In Western philosophical traditions, justice means ‘treat similarcases similarly’ or ‘give to each what is due.’2 “Treat similar cases similarly”does not specify which cases are to be considered similar.Similarly, “give to each what is due” does not specify the criterion

2 See Joel Feinberg, ‘Non comparative justice’, 55 and William K. Frankena,‘Some beliefs about justice,’ 46, in Joel Feinberg and Hyman Gross (eds.),Justice: Selected Readings (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1977).

3

for distribution. Hence approaches to distributive justicewill thus differ widely.

The major impetus for the development of the concept ofjustice came from Christianity. According to Thomas Aquinas,justice is a certain rectitude of mind whereby a man does whathe ought to do in the circumstances confronting him /her. As atheologian, he believed that justice is a form of natural dutyowed by one person to another. In his dialogue Republic, Platodefines justice as the having and doing of what is one’s own.For him, justice is a harmonious relationship between the warringparts of the person or city.3 Aristotle also defines justicein two parts, general justice and particular justice in theNicomachean Ethics.4 For him, General justice is a kind ofuniversal justice that can only exist in a perfect society.Particular justice is where punishment is given out for aparticular crime or act of injustice. Hence he argues that aneducated judge is needed to apply just decisions regarding anyparticular case. This is where we get the concept of thescales of justice, the blindfolded judge symbolizing blindjustice, balancing the scales, weighing all the evidence anddeliberating each particular case individually.

The concept of Social Justice has largely been associated withthe political philosopher John Rawls who in his A Theory of Justiceuses a social contract argument to show that justice is a formof fairness and proposes two principles of justice:

1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensivetotal system of equal basic liberties compatible with asimilar system of liberty for all.

3 Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1984).4 Read Roger Crisp, Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2000). 

4

2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so thatthey are both: to the greatest benefit of the leastadvantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, andattached to offices and positions open to all underconditions of fair equality of opportunity.5

Thus he has adopted a more modest agenda for his theory ofjustice and claims it as a political rather than a moraltheory of justice.

Since justice in reality is a meeting ground of many ideas,situations, concepts, expectations, mechanisms, and practices,its exact meaning and implications have been vague. We witnessvarious forms of social justice in reality – social claim asjustice, attainment and restoration of dignity as justice, endto discrimination as justice, retribution as justice,protection of the vulnerable sections of society as justice,autonomy as justice, etc. Situations of marginality alsoproduce ideas of justice. Hence in generic terms we definejustice as the act of being just and/or fair.

3.Justice in Catholic Tradition

The injunction to ‘do justice’ (Mic 6:8) has been a constantin Catholic traditions which ground the requirements ofjustice in natural law that is accessible to all human beings.The sight of the structural dimensions of injustices has urgedChristians to rethink the classical attitudes to poverty.Traditional responses of the churches to poverty, such aspersonal and corporate charity, self-help policies, organisinglocal communities, etc. have become inadequate. Today theChurch is aware that her social message will gain credibilityimmediately from the witness of actions.6 The Second VaticanCouncil also reminds us that the “split between the faith

5 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised edition, Oxford University Press,1999) 266.6 John Paul II, CA, no. 57.

5

which many profess and their daily lives deserves to becounted among the more serious errors of our age.”7 ThereforeChristian tradition invites the people become agents forbringing about a kingdom of love and justice.

3.1. Justice in Hebrew Scriptures

Catholic approaches to justice have roots in the HebrewScriptures. The Hebrew words, mishpat and sedakah, aretranslated as ‘justice.’ While Mishpat refers to particularduties and responsibilities of an individual, Sedakah refers toGod’s righteousness and hence brings judgment not onparticular acts. Mishpat may bear some resonances with ‘give toeach what is due’ while sedakah requires a far more expansiveunderstanding of justice. Best example would be Prophet Amos’sdenunciation of those who trample the heads of the poor intothe ground. Though Catholic tradition has sometimes adoptedthe narrow view of justice formally as ‘giving to each whatis due,’8 contemporary Catholics tend to follow the call ofAmos in seeing justice as an ever flowing stream that willsweep away iniquities (Amos 5:24). Prophets were of theopinion that we cannot worship God without justice. (Is 1:11-17, Jer 22:16, Amos 5:21-24).

The Torah prescribes unconditional justice in the court: ‘Youshall not render an unjust judgment’ (Lev 19:15); ProphetIsaiah lashes out unrelentingly against unjust laws and judges– “You who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressivestatutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob thepoor of my people of their right, that widows may be yourspoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey” (Isa10:1f). Proverbs (28:15-16; 29:14; 30:11-13) highlight therole of the King and political elites in maintaining justice7 Vatican II, GS, no. 43. 8 Emil Brunner, Justice and the Social Order (London: Lutterworth Press, 1945) 19.

6

for the poor. Therefore Barrera states that proverbs help tomaintain at least some minimum standards of social justice.9 Inshort, the Biblical concept of justice is holistic andembraces all aspects (Ps 85:11-12).

3.2. Sin and Structure

One of the primary manifestations of sin is injustice. Sincethe world is permeated with injustice, justice is correctiveor reparative. It is dominated by the principle of redress orsetting things right. To speak of justice is to focus on waysof restoring right relationship. As discussed earlier,Catholic approach to justice begins with recognition ofstructural problems and of oppression and the poor become thelitmus test of justice. Hence we argue for the epistemologicalprivilege of the oppressed. Justice is both measured by theplight of the poor and by the poor themselves. They know betterthan the rich what justice requires. Therefore particulartheologies reflecting ethnic and racial communities (e.g.,Black theology, Dalit theology, Womanist theology, ‘Han’theology from Korea) do not accept any notion of justice whenthe poor are neglected. Liberation theologians and feministtheologians also stress on how individual suffering and painreflects structural injustices of the larger political,economic and social systems.

4.Catholic Social Teaching on Justice

It is important to know what Catholic Social Teaching (CST)has to say about justice because CST does judge political andeconomic systems in terms of the way they treat and affecthuman beings. CST holds that the concern for social justice isthe core to the life of the Church. It presents justice as

9 Albino Barrera, Modern Catholic Social Documents & Political Economy (Washington,D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001), 251-252.

7

something that moves beyond the kind of justice that thesecular humanism is seeking in this life. Our faith needs toprove its fruitfulness by permeating our entire life,including its secular dimensions and by activating ourselvestowards justice and love, especially with regards to theneedy.10 Pope Benedict XVI stresses the importance of notdetaching justice from its transcendent roots. “Justice,indeed, is not simply a human convention, since what is justis ultimately determined not by positive law, but by theprofound identity of the human being.”11 He links ‘thirstingfor justice’ to the Beatitudes and to the notion of justice asbeing in ‘right relationship’ with all people and with all ofcreation. For him, the right use of freedom is central to thepromotion of justice and peace.12

4.1. The Principle of Social Justice

The principle of social justice underscores the social natureof all human life.13 From the social nature of human life comessocial justice. CST distinguishes three dimensions of basicjustice.14 They are commutative justice, distributive justice, and socialjustice. Commutative justice calls for fundamental fairness in allagreements and exchanges between individuals or private socialgroups, while distributive justice requires that the allocation ofincome, wealth, and power in society be evaluated in the lightof its effects on persons whose basic material needs are notmet. Whereas social justice implies that persons have an obligationto be active and productive participants in the life ofsociety and that society has a duty to enable them to10 Vatican II, GS, no. 21.11 Benedict XVI, “Message for the World Day of Peace 2012,” no. 412 Benedict XVI, “Message for the World Day of Peace 2012,” no. 313 John XXIII, MM, no. 219. 14 US Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All, nos. 69-71.

8

participate in this way. The document Economic Justice for Allconnects social justice with contributive justice, which imposes oncitizens the obligation to make a contribution to society.15

Paul VI had equated ‘the norm of social justice’ with ‘therequirements of the common good.’16 The Medellín documents alsosharpen the question of “social justice and an option for thepoor.”17 For Gustavo Gutiérrez, to know God, as liberator, isto liberate and to do justice.18 For the bishops in Asia,dialogue of life communicates a strong, persistent, andgenuine effort for social transformation in the Asian contextof injustice, fundamentalist revival, and oppressivesituation. They also assert that their commitment to justiceis not politically motivated but comes solely from a desire tofollow Christ’s radical teaching.19 Thus the meaning of socialjustice includes a duty to organise economic and socialinstitutions in order that people contribute to society.20

Social justice refers not only to a redistribution of thegoods according to the demands of the common good but also tothe duty of each one to contribute to the common good.21 HenceCatholic social thought has understood social justice as aprecondition of participation.

15 Johan Verstraeten, “Debt Forgiveness, Social Justice, and Solidarity: ATheological and Ethical Reflection,” Ethical Perspectives 8 (2001) 18-28, 20. 16 Paul VI, QA, no. 110. 17 Donal Dorr, Option for the Poor: A Hundred Years of Vatican Social Teaching (Maryknoll,NY: Orbis Books, 1983) 162.18 Gustavo Gutiérrez, The Power of the Poor in History, trans. R. R. Barr (London:SCM, 1983), 8.19 Read Bishops’ Institute of Social Action (BISA), BISA III, no. 4; BISAV, nos. 14 & 26. 20 US Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All, no. 72. 21 Johan Verstraeten, “Solidarity and Subsidiarity,” in David A. Boileau,ed., Principles of Catholic Social Teaching, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press,1998) 135.

9

4.2. Justice as Participation

The bishops of the United States used the phrase ‘justice asparticipation’ to show that justice enables the person toparticipate in the life of the community. They state:

Justice demands that social institutions be ordered in away that guarantees all persons the ability to participateactively in the economic, political, and cultural life ofsociety. The level of participation may legitimately begreater for some persons than for others, but there is abasic level of access that must be made available for all.Such participation is an essential expression of the socialnature of human beings and of their communitarianvocation.22

The principle of participation is rooted in the dignity of thehuman person, because the Church holds that being created withfree will he or she is charged with self-determination.Hollenbach sees social justice as a ‘political virtue’ thathas something to do with the ‘creation of patterns of societalorganization and activity’ whereby human rights are respectedand each one is able to participate in social life.23 John PaulII stressed both the right to civil or political participationand the right to meaningful work, i.e., economicparticipation.24 The principle of participation empowers aperson to have a voice in matters that affect them.

4.3. Justice and Charity

Justice and charity are important responses to the challengeof the Gospel message. Charity is the greatest socialcommandment because it respects others and their rights. Itrequires the practice of justice and inspires a life of self-22 US Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All, no. 78. 23 Read David Hollenbach, “Modern Catholic Teachings Concerning Justice,”in John C. Haughey, ed., The Faith That Does Justice (New York, NY: Paulist,1977).24 John Paul II, CA, nos. 46-48 and US Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice for All,no. 77.

10

giving.25 CST recognises the importance of both justice andcharity for building a world where human beings can live withdignity.

A common distinction made between charity and justice is tosee the former as addressing immediate need through directaid while the latter looks at longer-term solutions throughsocial analysis and change. Another way of putting it is tosee charity as a response to the effects of personal andsocial ills while justice aims at remedying the causes ofsuch ills.26

Paul VI clearly states that charity cannot be proclaimedwithout promoting justice.27 The Church teaches that givingalms to the poor is also a work of justice pleasing to God.28

In her teaching, the Church constantly returns to thisrelationship between charity and justice: “When we attend tothe needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, notours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying adebt of justice.”29 The Council Fathers strongly recommendedthat this duty be fulfilled correctly, remembering, “What isalready due in justice is not to be offered as a gift ofcharity.”30

4.4. Justice and Human Rights

The Church’s defence of human rights is an inescapablerequirement of her mission of justice and love in the spirit

25 CCC, no. 1889.26 Himes, Responses to 101 Questions on Catholic Social Teaching, 45.27 Paul VI, EN, no. 31.28 CCC, no. 2447.29 St. Gregory the Great, Regula Pastoralis, 3, 21: PL 77, 87: “Nam cum qualibetnecessaria indigentibus ministramus, sua illis reddimus, non mostralargimur; iustitiae potius debitum soluimus, quam misereicordiae operaimplemus.” 30 CCC, no. 2446.

11

of the Gospel message.31 Leo XIII placed particular emphasis onthe social context of human rights, emphasizing theresponsibility of public authority to insure that justice beobserved in all labour relations. In its attempt to promotejustice and give hope to the victims of violations, theCatholic Church insists that “reconciliation is impossiblewithout justice.”32 The 1971 Synod of Bishops affirms thatChurch’s mission involves defending and promoting the dignityand fundamental rights of the human person.33 The Church hasthe right, indeed the duty, to proclaim justice on the social,national and international level, and to denounce instances ofinjustice, when the fundamental rights of human and his / hervery salvation demand it.34

4.5. Justice and Peace

John Paul II in his World Day of Peace Message 2002 said thatthere would be no peace without justice. An African proverbstates, “Peace is costly but it is worth the expense.” Themany experience in Africa and around the world show that peacehas been restored through political negotiations andreconciliation efforts, but not through the imposition ofinternational justice. In places where there is no functioninggovernment, or the government is hostage to one section ofsociety, or where there is no viable reconciliation process,the international community has a duty to ensure that thecourt is the guardian of justice.35 The wheels of justice mustbe allowed to turn at their own pace, but that they must not31 Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace, The Church and Human Rights, no.44.32 Message of the 1974 Synod of Bishops, “Human Rights and Reconciliation,”no. 45. 33 The Synod of Bishops, Justice in the World, no. 15.34 Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace, The Church and Human Rights, no.70.

12

impede the peace process. Proponents of the ICC say therecannot be peace without justice. But the experiences ofNorthern Ireland and South Africa show that there is nothingmore important than peace. Now we examine the reflections ofIndian theologians on justice.

4.6. Indian Theologians on Justice

George Lobo encourages Asians to design a new vision ofsociety based on the Indonesian Pansacila36 that was accepted bythe leaders of a large number of Afro-Asian countries atBandung in 1955. Pancasila means five principles. They are: (1)belief in the Supreme Being; (2) a just civilized humanity;(3) nationalism as working for the unity of the country; (4)democracy guided by the wisdom of unanimity resulting fromcommon deliberation; and (5) social justice for all citizens.Asserting the importance of grassroots movements he states,“Leadership must ultimately come from the local people.”37 Healso insists on legal aid for the poor who lack legal protectionof their basic rights and urges the dedicated lawyers,including the clergy and the religious,38 to render services tothe poor in their disputes. While blaming the legal system asa remnant of the colonial system, like Neelam Katara in Casetwo, he calls for modification of the system itself to caterfor the just rights of the poor.39

35 Ian Paisley- the writer is a British MP from Northern Ireland, The AsianAge-News Paper, Sunday 18 March 2012.36 FABC-OHD, Colloquium on the Social Doctrine of the Church in the Context of Asia, 24.37 FABC-OHD, Colloquium on the Social Doctrine of the Church in the Context of Asia, 29.38 Here I must mention the tremendous legal service provided by the clergyand religious in Tamilnadu, India. They mainly take up the cases comingfrom the downtrodden and marginalized section of the society.39 FABC-OHD, Colloquium on the Social Doctrine of the Church in the Context of Asia, 30.

13

Another Indian theologian, Amaladoss also speaks of theimportance of exterior freedom for the poor and the interiorfreedom both for the poor and for the rich and insists onself-discipline in a struggle for justice.40 He agrees withPieris while stating “one point on which all Asian religionsagree is that one cannot promote justice without controllingone’s egoism and desires. In order to do away with imposedpoverty, one must choose to be poor, to control desire, reduceone’s needs, limit consumption, and share with others what onehas.”41

5.Justice in Hindu Tradition

Justice, in Hindu tradition, is a human expression of theprinciple of nature. If a person is true to nature, his/heractions would be spontaneously just. It has been Indians’strong belief for many centuries that nature is the ultimateand final arbiter of justice. Ultimately, justice is cosmicjustice. Justice is experienced by individuals in three majorguises: as moral justice, social justice and legal justice. InHindu tradition, the universe is essentially a moral universe.Nature is guided by principles translated into ethical termsin the individual and social lives of people. Hence we brieflyexamine the concept and role of justice as it applies in thethree areas of individual morality, society and the state, andthe functions of law.42 Our basis is Indian Scriptures likeUpanisads, Bhagavad Gita and Paali scriptures of earlyBuddhism.

40 Amaladoss, Life in Freedom: Liberation Theologies from Asia (Maryknoll, NY: OrbisBooks, 1997) 137. 41 Amaladoss, Life in Freedom, 144.42 For this section, we depend on the writing of Frederic B. Underwood,“Aspects of Justice in Ancient India,” Journal of Chinese Philosophy (1978) 271-285.

14

5.1. Justice and Individual Morality

The status, dignity and autonomy of the individual person arealways held in high value from the time of the early Upanisads(c. 600 B. C.). An individual being is a temporary embodimentof the highest spiritual principle and is regarded as thelocus of the highest spiritual value. Every individual is onthe path to the highest goal. It is this fundamental notionthat becomes the matrix of the Indian sense of justice. Thedestiny of the individual is determined by the quality of onesactions (karma). Indian doctrine of karma is usedsimultaneously to demonstrate the complete moral equity orjustice of the status quo as well as to supply incentive forethical behaviour in hopes of self-advancement.43

According to Hindu tradition, Bhagvad Gita is the firstdictation of God to the humankind through Lord Krishna whogives the preaching of Bhagavad Gita to Arjun who refuses tofight the enemy in the battlefield because all in the oppositeparty are his kith and kin.44 He is ignorant of the fact thatbalance in the Creation is God’s act. We are but puppets doingGod’s bidding. The people revolt whenever adharma (forces ofdestruction) tries to takeover dharma (righteousness). Thisrevolution leads to a Dharma Yuddha (fight for justice) andultimately the Divine forces succeed. Those not inclined tofight have to fight for the justice to humankind. A surgicaloperation is not meant to kill the patient, but to cure him.Therefore the fighting to be executed by Arjuna at theinstruction of Krishna is with full knowledge, so there is nopossibility of sinful reaction.

5.2. Justice in Society and State

43 Frederic B. Underwood, “Aspects of Justice in Ancient India”, 273.44 Refer Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 21.

15

The ideal society envisioned by Indian sages is an associationin which individuals respect and help one another to work outtheir respective spiritual destinies. The sources for Indianideas concerning the origins of society and the state are asold as Indian literature itself. The establishment of thestate emanates from a social need for self-defence. Paaliscriptures of early Buddhism offer a direct view of the idealof practical justice in the formation of the principalinstitutions of society and the state.45

The Buddha states that the Braahmans have forgotten the originof things and are born from their mothers’ wombs like everyoneelse.46 He goes on to state that the claims of the Braahmansshould not be taken seriously because according to the realteleological norm (dharma) of life, only those who haveachieved spiritual liberation are “chief.” Beings were countedas beings only. The social status is also a reflection ofindividual karmic justice. All people protected one another,by means of righteous conduct (dharma).47 In the Buddhistlegend, the original condition of human being is seen as astateless and spontaneously just society. “Society …transcended the state and was independent of it.”48 Theeconomic, political and legal organizations of society aredeemed necessary to protect and help individuals for spiritualrealisation. It is the duty of the ideal state to create such

45 The principal Paali text, dating from c. 300 B.C., is the AggannaSuttanta, number 27 of the Diigha Nikaaya.46 Frederic B. Underwood, “Aspects of Justice in Ancient India”, 276.47 Mahaabharata 12.59.5., 13-30. 93-94 as translated in William Theodore deBary (ed.) Sources of Indian Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958)242-244.48 A. L. Basham, The Wonder That Was India (New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1959)88.

16

conditions and opportunities for individuals to advancetowards spiritual freedom.49

5.3. Justice and the Role of Law

Being aware that the official world-view and the actual ethosof the individuals do not always correspond with each other,Indians hold that even if justice and harmony are spontaneousin the Krta Yuga, they would not remain so in the Kali Yuga,the present age of decadence.50 Therefore the state performsits duty of protection of society and the individual throughcoercive enforcement of the standards of justice. Early codesof law are preserved in the voluminous Dharmasuutra andDharma`saastra literature, of which perhaps the Laws of Manuis the most well-known. The administration of legal justiceand redress punishment was not performed mechanically orindiscriminately without respect for persons. People did notstand as equals before the law. The idea that people wereequal before the law would most likely have been dismissed asunjust. Justice was not blind in ancient India.51

The underlying idea that reflected in the legal administrationof Indian justice is that the more elevated a person is interms of varna, the more responsibility one should bear forones misdeeds. If varna is determined karmically, then thebehaviour of those at the top of the hierarchy should reflecttheir higher varna status. This is reflected in law as therequirement of a greater penalty for those of higher stationand a milder punishment for the more lowly.

49 Dhirendra Mohan Datta, “Some Philosophical Aspects of Indian Political,Legal and Economic Thought,” in Charles A. Moore, (ed.) The Indian Mind(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1967) 271 and 275.50 Frederic B. Underwood, “Aspects of Justice in Ancient India,” 281.51 Frederic B. Underwood, “Aspects of Justice in Ancient India,” 282.

17

In short, we have seen that the varnaasrama dharma system isofficially regarded as an instrument of both socialcooperation and individual emancipation. By following the duty(svadharma) of one’s varna, one actually attains the necessaryliberty to engage in the universal spiritual quest. Though wedon’t accept varna system today, in Hindu tradition varna andthe state are considered necessary aids to the achievement ofthe final goal of life. The ethical, social, and legaldistinctions of ancient India are firmly based on an ideal ofequity and justice expressed in terms of natural hierarchyrather than of equality.

6.Justice in the Constitution of India

The Constitution declares India to bea sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuringits citizens of justice, equality, liberty, and endeavouringto promote fraternity among them. Having a sense of socialequality and social justice, the constitution makers insertedthe words, “secular”, “democratic” and “republic” in thepreamble.52 The term ‘justice’ in the preamble embraces threedistinct forms-: social, economic and political,53 safeguardedthrough various provisions of Fundamental Rights and DirectivePrinciples. Social justice denotes the equal treatment of allcitizens while economic justice denotes on the non-discrimination between people on the basis of economicfactors. Political justice implies that all citizens shouldhave equal political rights and equal voice in the government.

Social justice, the cornerstone of the Constitution of India,is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. Since socialjustice is a relative concept, it is changeable by the time,52 By the 42nd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 1976.53 The ideal of justice- social, economic and political- has been takenfrom the Russian Revaluation (1917).

18

circumstances, culture and ambitions of the people.54 “Thestate shall not deny to any person equality before the law orthe equal protection of the laws within the territory ofIndia.”55 The system of special provision for backward classesof society is to try to make the principle of equality moreeffective56 because the poor are vulnerable to injustice andpoverty fosters frustration, ill feeling, insecurity and abrooding sense of injustice. The concept of social justice isfounded on the basic ideal of socio-economic equality and itsaim is to assist the removal of socio-economic disparities andinequalities.

7.How to Ensure Justice?

In today’s Indian context we need to struggle for justice asdepicted in those three cases mentioned in the beginning ofthis paper. Dr. Ambedkar, the chairperson of the draftingcommittee of our Constitution, said that political freedom isincomplete without social and economic freedom. Acquiringsocial and economic freedom demands both individual andsocietal commitment and vigour. It requires sustained andmulti-pronged efforts. First, education for justice is a must.Second, a proper and balanced implementation of policies is tobe ensured to make social justice an effective vehicle ofsocial progress.57 Third, Religious and political partiesshould be involved in identifying instances of injustices andlistening to the affected people and harnessing theirpotential to influence change.54 V.R. Krishna Iyear, Social Justice- Sunset or Dawn (Lucknow: Eastern Book Co.,1987) 53.55 Art 14 of the Indian Constitution.56 Articles 15(4), 16(4), 17, 19, 23, 24, 31, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, etc.,of the Indian Constitution.57 Prasad, Dr. Anirudh, Outlines of legal language in India (Central LawPublications, 2007) 414 .

19

7.1. Education for Justice

I present here only the teaching of Justice in the World that speaksof education for justice and proposes a five-fold approach tobe adopted.58 They are: (1) the people must be awakened fromtheir passive submission to the system of injustice andexploitation; (2) there should be non-formal education, includingawareness of their rights and means of defending them; (3)they must be organised for common and determined struggle; (4)they must be ready with the help of dedicated activists toengage in concrete action; (5) there must be coordination ofspontaneous activities.

7.2. Affirmative Action Policy

Affirmative action increases opportunity for thosedisadvantaged in the past and, thus, can serve the commongood.59 Measures of affirmative action aimed at social,economic and educational empowerment of backward sections ofsociety are only a partial, albeit necessary, step forwardtowards the goal of an egalitarian and just society. A lot ofsustained effort is required in the social, economic fields toliberate millions of marginalized people. As mentioned earlierin our paper, reservation is a step towards social justice.The biggest hurdle to the policies related to reservation inIndia is the opposition from communal parties who propagateaffirmative action in a twisted way and keep on harping thatthese actions tantamount to either appeasement of minoritiesor practicing communalism.

In our Indian context, we must unhesitatingly and untiringlystruggle against every sign of discrimination based onreligion or caste in the social field. In the economic field,58 The Synod of Bishops, Justice in the World, no. 49.59 Michael J Sandel, “There’s Great Hunger for Debate on Ethics andJustice,” Sunday Times of India, 11 March, 2012, 20.

20

we must vastly enhance opportunities for gainful employment,focus on rejuvenation of agriculture and other traditionalvocations. It must be also stated that education is quitesimply the key to unlock the doors of progress for allsections of society, but especially for those who have laggedbehind. These objectives in the social, economic andeducational fields cannot be achieved without Good Governanceand Good Politics.

7.3. Role of Religion

There is no intermediary more powerful than religion indrawing the rich and the working class together, by remindingeach of its duties to the other, and especially of theobligation of justice.60 Social responsibility should be a partof any religious credo. Swami Dayananda, founder of the AryaSamaj, a Hindu reform movement of the 19th century, laid downsocial action as part of his 10 principles that he wantedevery Hindu to follow. He argued that no one should be contentwith one’s own well-being, but rather should strive for commongood. He advised every Hindu to perform five types ofsacrifices every day: two for self-fulfilment and self-realization and three for others - for parents, guests, andother people, livestock, and the environment.61

Albeit being secular, it is the responsibility of the state topromote social justice, while the religion provides moral andspiritual teaching for its members as it may be true indeveloped countries where civic and social institutions arewell-established. But in developing countries like India wheresocial and civic institutions are still inefficient, religionplays a major role even in their struggle for social justice.

60 Leo XIII, RN, no. 19.61 Read on Social Justice in Hindu Tradition.http://www3.sympatico.ca/truegrowth/society5.html

21

Religious leaders could create awareness of the issues andcreate the right climate for social action. They can have animpact on the religious convictions of the politicians andtheir constituents and animate the people toward a concreteactivity in promotion and defence of human rights.

8.Conclusion

The strength of Catholic approaches lies in their substantivevision of the demands of justice and in their attention to thevoices of the oppressed, while the ethical, social, and legaldistinctions of ancient India are firmly based on an ideal ofequity and justice expressed in terms of natural hierarchyrather than of equality. Catholic interpretation of justice isvery much anthropocentric while Hindu tradition focuses muchon cosmic dimension of justice. Hebrew Scriptures ground therequirements of justice in natural law and speak about thestructural dimensions of justice whereas the Hindu Scripturesfocus on karmic justice and dharma yuddha (fight for justice)through revolution where divine forces always succeed. Toestablish justice, God’s righteousness and the duties andresponsibilities of the individuals are stressed in both thetraditions. Both Catholic social teaching and the Constitutionof India prohibit unequal treatment on the grounds ofreligion, race, caste, and sex. They insist on social,economic and political justice for all through participation,charity and human rights.

Is there no place for the poor seeking justice (Case 1)? Is ittough to get justice in India (case 2)? Apparently the answeris: YES. But it is this affirmative answer that validates thethird question raised by Case 3 – Can justice take thecitizens on a journey to confront today’s unjust situation?And the answer to this question has to be necessarily YES. Theneed of the hour is that our laws need to be amended and

22

sentences need to be enhanced. The hope of the Indian massesdoes not lie in the legal system alone, but in their consciousawakening and fight for social and economic justice. Knowledgeof their legal rights can be an important motivating force tofight against the political and money powers. The path of ajust society has to be laid down through social initiativesand support of the democratic government. I am also convincedof what Benjamin Franklin said, “Justice will not be serveduntil those who are unaffected are as outraged as those whoare.” As this paper has exposed our strength lies in ourlargest working democracy, especially in the Constitution ofIndia.

-----------

Rev. Dr Charles IrudayamSecretary, CBCI Office for Justice, Peace and Development, 1Ashok PlaceNew Delhi – 110 001, icharlie69@hotmail.com, Mob: 09868103400