Home / / SPEAK JUSTICE WITH SIMRAN

SPEAK JUSTICE WITH SIMRAN

JUSTICE – IT MOVES, IT SHAKES

Most of us come across daily examples of injustice.  Some of us pause, feel bad, maybe feel guilty and then many times, the feeling passes.  Some of us go out and do something about it, and some don’t feel anything at all.  This is an oversimplification, but at the very least it tells us that all these categories of people (and all shades of such people in between) have a different sense of what ‘Justice’ means to them.

How is it then that we all live in a system where the rule of law demands that standards of justice be the same for you and your neighbor and someone sitting in the farthest corner of the country? Nowadays, with the increasing globalisation of law and standards, one could even argue that there is a global standard of Justice – of human rights, economic norms and freedoms that apply from Alaska to Aligarh.

Yet, you only have to visit a country with a different legal system to feel the stark contrasts between ideas of justice in this ‘globalised world’, for example, the Netherlands, where the laws are extremely liberal and you could do anything under the sun so long as you don’t hurt anyone else, or Saudi Arabia, where there are strict laws restricting freedoms, for example, the freedom of women to drive, to dress and to move. We could judge the systems and say one is too liberal and one to conservative, but against which yardstick?  How do we know where our system (individual or national) stands in the spectrum of ideas of justice?

Along with space, ideas of justice change with time. Where hundred years ago it may have taken a special sense of justice to educate a girl child, today, it is (or should be) the norm.  Where just twenty years ago it was common in many schools to be given a caning, this is considered unjust today. Until just a year ago, homosexuality was a criminal offence in India.

Just how does one system of justice keep track with this forever-changing notion of justice? While at a technical level it may be provided for through flexible legal concepts that allow for change, it is people and their changing ideas that fuel changes in ideas of justice. Our individual and collective experiences, ideas and environment seem to come together to condition an individual’s sense of justice – it could harden it, it could blunt it. This sense also builds into others around us and we could find ourselves in a majority or a minority.  But the fact that our sense of justice must be open and subject to change whether we like it or not, that is a humbling thought.

Let us know what you think about this– do you think there is a fundamental structure to justice beyond which it cannot be flexible?  If so, how do you think we could decide what that structure is? And what of those who disagree – how would you convince them?

This entry was posted in Blog and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
Posted on August 29, 2011 by Subhadra
  • Jagmohun Jani

    I wouldn’t say that there is a ‘particular’ ideal/structure to justice: so long as there are opposing world-views, there shall be many ideas of justice, sometimes just as justified as the other. However, I do believe that there indeed is a particular moral universe to which codes of justice should more or less correspond.

    For instance, I do not know if freedom of speech is completely justified, no matter what the circumstances. So, I think there can be some opposing groups that might have a conflict of how much of ‘free’ speech can be freely condoned and is just. However, the particular moral universe that would come into play here would be this: that taking away freedom to speech is definitely an unjust thing to happen.

    • Simran

      Jagmohun,
      The idea of a moral universe is very interesting – I would imagine that this moral universe also changes with space and time, raising the question of whether this is a fluid concept itself. I agree that in practical terms we do ultimately anchor ourselves to certain basic standards (in legal terms, our constitution is unchangeable in its “basic structure”) which reflects the lowest common factor of a society’s sense of justice.

  • Hejang Misao

    Change is the law of nature, he who looks to the past and present only will surely miss the future. Justice is when laws are applied to all and sundry equally that means without any bias and prejudices. But there cannot be one and for all fit laws. Because laws are made in accordance with the ground situation, it derived its source from the custom, tradition and faith/belief of that particular nation or country. Globalisation inspite of its numerous merits is not without danger. Indegenous people’s identity is on the brink of total wane/petering out. However, certain enduring enslaving elements in one’s custom or culture needs overhaul and modification with the standard that is acceptable in terms of global human growth index. Western culture as a result of globalisation do more harm to the oriental people than good, speaking from the perspective of indegenous identity. Therefore the yardstick for justice should be the modified custom or culture of a respective indegenous people that takes into account the global standard of human Rights. But the fact is what we deem justice today may not be tomorrow. Human advancement with the changing dynamism will twist the systems that will give another structure of justice.

  • Simran

    Hejang,
    Your perspective on this issue is very relevant – particularly, your concern in relation to the differences between western standards of justice and, as you put it, oriental standards. We cannot deny that every people is a product of its history and that includes its culture, religion, politics, even climate! There is an argument therefore that it is not only improbable but impossible for us to reach a global standard of justice. And the difficulty that then arises is, how do we determine what is the area/population/region for which we can define such a standard – as we see, even within nation states and even smaller units of territory, there are often differences.
    However, even if it is difficult to reach a universal understanding of justice, it should be possible for us to learn from other cultures and imbibe their positive attributes, and that is one reason to keep open minds towards other peoples and systems.

  • kuovi

    i am very much impressed with the article and the comments that you guys are dicussing. I agree with what you guys are saying. Hejang is very true i guess in saying that Human advancement with the changing dynamism will twist the systems that will give another structure of justice. I guess Simran was also right in sayins about the difficulties to determine justice according to area/population/region. But what i feel is about the cause of injustice. Take for an example the normal people and what we called the Specially able people. I see the that Specially able people were to some extend denied of their rights. Be there in any occasion these people are hardly invited to share their views. These people are not aliens to us the are part of us. So what i found from this instance is that this shows some form of favoritism.
    So do you guys think that without favoritism can justice be provide to all?

  • Hejang Misao

    Kuovi,
    Favoritism implication can be both – good and bad. It depend on how and to whom it is apply. would you deem injustice giving favor to the physically challenge or differently able persons. When I said law should be equally applied to all and sundry I meant to say “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” or “give to the person what belongs to that person”. When a person forfeited what he/she deserves – may be under duress or lack of awareness we called that injustice.