Revision summary
Rawls rebuilt liberalism as justice as fairness, against utilitarianism and a night-watchman state. The original position and veil of ignorance give a public contract without Locke’s historical myth. Equal basic liberties are lexically prior to social and economic inequalities. The difference principle allows inequality only if it helps the least advantaged. Indian Part III, Part IV, Kesavananda, and Minerva Mills can be read in this enriched liberal grammar.
Model answer
Introduction
John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971) rebuilt liberalism as a public theory of fairness, not only as a market of rights and a night-watchman state. He gave justice lexical principles, a contract without historical myth, and a reply to utilitarianism.
Body
What liberalism had, and lacked
- Locke secured life, liberty, and estate through trust and revolution, but left large inequality of holdings outside a thick theory of fairness.
- J. S. Mill added liberty of thought and representative government, yet could still weigh utility in ways that risk the few.
- Utilitarianism, which Mill partly shared, could sacrifice a minority if the sum of happiness rose. That was the gap Rawls named.
- Classical liberalism had rights. It did not have a systematic answer to “which inequalities are allowed among free equals?”
The original position as enrichment
- Parties behind a veil of ignorance do not know class, caste, talent, or creed. They choose terms they can live with in any social place.
- This is a hypothetical contract, cleaner than Locke’s tacit consent and less historicist than a founding generation’s bargain.
- Granville Austin’s Indian “seamless web” of unity, democracy, and social revolution is not Rawls, but it is a cousin: public terms of cooperation written as law.
- The method treats justice as the first virtue of institutions, which raises liberalism from a doctrine of non-interference to a doctrine of fair structure.
Two principles
- Equal basic liberties come first: speech, conscience, vote, and the rule of law. They are not traded for growth.
- Fair equality of opportunity plus the difference principle: inequalities must be attached to offices open to all and must help the least advantaged.
- Lexical order is the enrichment. Utility and GDP cannot buy a smaller liberty.
- The fair value of liberties requires some regulation of political money and of education, so the liberal state is not minimal.
Enrichment against rivals
- Against Hayek, Rawls keeps markets inside a just basic structure, not as the definition of justice.
- Against Marx, he keeps private association and equal liberties, while admitting that class can destroy the fair value of those liberties.
- Against Nozick, patterned principles are allowed because goods are not only private histories; they are socially produced.
- Ambedkar still goes further on caste: Rawls’s persons are already moral equals. Indian reservation after Mandal is a non-ideal tool Rawls can allow but did not design.
Indian liberal use
- Part III’s basic liberties and Kesavananda Bharati (1973) echo lexical rights against an amending majority.
- Part IV and Article 38 ask the state to reduce inequality, which is closer to the difference principle than to Nozick.
- Minerva Mills (1980) refused to let Directive Principles swallow fundamental rights, a Rawlsian-looking lexical hint in Indian doctrine.
- Enrichment, then, is not American textbook only. It is a way to read why Indian liberalism is rights-first and still redistributive.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD RW[Rawls] --> V[Veil of ignorance] V --> P1[Equal basic liberties] V --> P2[Fair opportunity and difference principle] U[Utilitarianism] --> X[Rejected as first virtue] P1 --> IN[India Part III Kesavananda]
Conclusion
Rawls enriched liberal justice by replacing utility and a thin property-trust with two lexical principles chosen in an original position. Liberties first, then fair opportunity and the difference principle. Hayek is narrowed; Locke is completed; Marx is partly answered. Indian Parts III and IV and Kesavananda show the same architecture in constitutional form.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Examine the importance of behavioural approach in political theory. What led to its decline?
Next question in the 2021 paper (Q2). View answer →
-
Did Rawls invent social justice?
No. He gave liberalism a systematic theory of fair shares. Ambedkar and socialist thought already had egalitarian aims.
-
Is the difference principle socialism?
No. It can work with property-owning democracy or liberal socialism. It is not Marx’s abolition of class.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q2(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Explain how Rawls used the liberal and egalitarian perspective to develop his theory of justice -
2023 · Q2(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Rawls' idea of the 'liberal self' is too individualistic. Explain, in this context, the communitarian critique of Rawls' theory of justice -
2022 · Q4(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Ambedkar's idea of social justice leads to 'egalitarian justice' as compared to Rawls' 'justice as fairness' which aims at the notion of 'pure procedural justice'. Comment -
2022 · Q4(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
Examine the entitlement theory of justice
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Feminist critique of the State.
Theories of the State
Feminists treat the state as gendered, not as a neutral referee. Pateman locates a sexual contract beneath the social contract. MacKinnon reads law as organised around male power. The public–private split hid household domination from liberal theory. Indian Article 15, Vishaka, and the 73rd Amendment are incomplete replies.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Affirmative action.
Equality
Affirmative action gives extra access to historically excluded groups. Ambedkar treated it as necessary for equal citizenship in a caste order. Champakam Dorairajan forced the First Amendment and Article 15(4). Mandal and Indra Sawhney framed OBC policy and the creamy layer. Jaffrelot shows the same tool as a political identity, not only a welfare device.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2021 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Equality of outcome as a political idea.
Equality
Equality of outcome is a political test of actual conditions, not of legal form alone. Marx’s classless society is a strong version; Ambedkar’s status equality is a civic version. Rawls allows unequal outcomes under the difference principle. Hayek and Nozick reject patterned end-states as unfreedom. Indian Parts III and IV mix rights with a drive toward less unequal results.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.