Exam-useful questions from this chapter, grouped by marks, each with a full model answer. Try writing the answer yourself first, then check it against this one.
1 1-Mark Questions
Q. Name any one of the three principles of justice.
Answer: Equal treatment, proportionate justice, or recognition of special needs, any one.
Q. According to Confucius, how should a king maintain justice?
Answer: By punishing wrongdoers and rewarding the virtuous.
Q. What is Rawls’ imagined situation called?
Answer: The veil of ignorance.
Q. In which book did Plato discuss justice?
Answer: The Republic.
Q. According to Immanuel Kant, what does every human being possess?
Answer: Dignity.
Q. Which practice did the Constitution abolish to promote social equality?
Answer: The practice of untouchability.
Q. What percentage of seats in Parliament is proposed to be reserved for women?
Answer: 33 per cent (one third). (The book presents this as a proposal; a law reserving one-third of the seats in the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies for women was passed in 2023.)
Q. Name one international organisation, per the chapter, that calculates basic needs.
Answer: The World Health Organisation (WHO).
2 2-Mark Questions
Q. Suresh and Geeta were both given three hours and thirty minutes for their mathematics paper. Is this just in each case?
Answer: For Suresh it is just: his visual impairment is a special need that affects writing the paper, so the extra time (recognition of special needs) only brings him level with the class. For Geeta it is not just as it stands: a limp does not slow down writing a paper, so in the respect that matters she is equal to the others, and the principle of equal treatment for equals applies.
Q. Why does the chapter say a balance between equal treatment and proportionate justice is necessary?
Answer: Equal treatment alone would give the same reward for every kind of work and overlook the different effort, skill and danger involved, for example in the work of miners, skilled craftsmen or policemen. So the chapter says that, for justice in society, the principle of equal treatment needs to be balanced with the principle of proportionality.
Q. Why do supporters of free markets consider the market to be just?
Answer: They argue that the market does not see a person’s caste, religion or gender, only their talent and skill, so whatever the outcome of market distribution, it would be just.
Q. What arguments are made in criticism of free markets?
Answer: Private business tends to go where profit is greatest, so free markets often end up working in the interest of the strong and wealthy, leaving weaker and remote areas without good services.
Q. What is the message of the cartoon about the blindfolded statue of justice?
Answer: The blindfold represents the statue’s impartiality, but it also raises the question of how she can see people’s special needs while blindfolded, that is, balancing impartiality with recognising special needs is difficult.
Q. Why does a person reason from the position of the worst-off, behind the veil of ignorance?
Answer: Because they do not know where they themselves will end up in future society, so out of rational self-interest they assume they might be born into the most disadvantaged section, and therefore choose rules that would protect even the weakest group.
Q. Why can ensuring basic needs become a heavy burden on the government in India?
Answer: India has a very large number of poor people, so providing every citizen with nutrition, housing, clean water, education and a minimum wage can place a heavy economic burden on the government.
Q. What does proportionate justice argue about the wages of miners and policemen?
Answer: People in sometimes dangerous but socially useful professions, such as miners, skilled craftsmen and policemen, often do not get a reward that is just when compared to what some others in society earn for less risky work.
3 4-Mark Questions
Q. Explain the three principles of justice with examples.
Answer: 1. Equal treatment: no discrimination on grounds of class, caste, race or gender, such as equal pay for equal work. 2. Proportionate justice: different rewards in proportion to effort and skill, such as marks by the quality of the answer paper. 3. Recognition of special needs: extra support for disability or disadvantage, such as extra time for Suresh or reservation for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. All three work together, no single one is sufficient on its own.
Q. Explain Rawls’ argument about the veil of ignorance.
Answer: Rawls argues that fair rules can only emerge if a person imagines themselves in a situation where they do not know their own future social position, caste or economic status. Behind this ignorance, everyone will reason out of rational self-interest, thinking ‘what if I am the one born into the most disadvantaged section?’ So they will choose rules that protect the weakest, while also not making the better-off worse off. In this way, fairness comes from reason, not from benevolence.
Q. Give the arguments on both sides of the free markets versus state intervention debate.
Answer: In favour of free markets: the market does not see caste, religion or gender, only merit, and it gives consumers more choice. In favour of state intervention: private business goes to the most profitable areas, so remote or poor areas are left without good services, and free markets often end up favouring those already privileged, so the state should take responsibility for basic minimum facilities.
Q. Discuss the steps taken in India to promote social justice, as described in the chapter.
Answer: The Constitution abolished the practice of untouchability so that people from ‘lower’ castes could not be denied access to temples, jobs and basic necessities like water. Reservation of government jobs and educational admissions was provided for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Various state governments carried out land reforms for a fairer distribution of land. All these steps go beyond mere legal equality to bring about real socio-economic equality.
Q. Explain with an example how recognition of special needs extends, rather than contradicts, the principle of equal treatment.
Answer: The principle of equal treatment already implies that people who are not equal in some important respect should be treated differently. For example, giving Suresh, a visually impaired student, extra time is meant to bring him level with the rest of the class, not to give him a special advantage. Similarly, reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes compensates for inequality caused by historical discrimination. So this principle does not weaken equal treatment, it helps apply it in reality.
Q. What does the cartoon dialogue about the blindfolded statue of justice try to show?
Answer: In the cartoon, one speaker asks why the statue of justice is blindfolded, and is told that she is blindfolded because she needs to be impartial. The first speaker agrees, but wonders how then she can see the special needs of people. This exchange shows the chapter’s central problem: impartiality (equal treatment for all) and recognition of special needs are hard to hold together at the same time, which is why governments have to harmonise the different principles of justice.
Q. Why is there debate over the government’s role in ensuring basic minimum needs?
Answer: Even if everyone agrees the state should help society’s most disadvantaged members, there can be disagreement on how. Free-market supporters want private agencies to provide services like health and education, with the state limited to a legal framework, while the other side argues private agencies avoid low-profit or remote areas, so the state should intervene directly.
4 6-Mark Questions
Q. Explain in detail why it is difficult for governments to harmonise the three principles of justice: equal treatment, proportionate justice and recognition of special needs.
Answer: Leaning too heavily on equal treatment can work against giving merit and effort their due reward, since treating everyone as exactly alike gives no extra credit for greater effort. On the other hand, treating merit as the sole principle of justice leaves marginalised groups disadvantaged in many areas, because they have not had access to good nourishment, education and healthcare, so they cannot compete on ‘equal terms’ to begin with. Applying the recognition of special needs is difficult too, since it is not always easy to agree which inequalities deserve to be recognised. Different groups in the country favour different principles depending on their own interests, so it becomes the government’s responsibility to balance all three principles to promote a just society.
Q. Explain John Rawls’ theory of justice, and why it grounds fairness in rational self-interest rather than morality.
Answer: Rawls argues that the only way to arrive at fair and just rules is to imagine ourselves behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, not knowing what position, caste, wealth or standard of living we will have in future society. Behind this ignorance, each person reasons in their own way, that is, out of self-interest, but since no one knows who they will be, they will envisage society from the position of the worst-off and want rules that guarantee reasonable opportunities to the weaker sections. Rawls does not ground this in benevolence or morality, because extraordinary self-sacrifice or generosity is difficult for most people. Instead, it is simply the outcome of each person’s own rational self-interest, so it requires no exceptional moral virtue, only ordinary rational thinking, which is exactly what makes it such a practical and compelling theory.
Q. Analyse the debate between free markets and state intervention in detail. In your opinion, which approach is more just?
Answer: Supporters of free markets believe individuals should be free to own property and freely negotiate prices, wages and profits, and that the market, being blind to caste, religion and gender and concerned only with talent and skill, should be trusted to produce a just outcome. Critics argue that private business goes where profit is greatest, so free markets often end up working in favour of the already strong, wealthy and powerful, and remote or low-profit areas rarely get good private services. Not all free-market supporters today want absolutely unregulated markets, and many now accept some restrictions, such as a guaranteed basic minimum standard of living and special help for the old and sick. Arguments exist on both sides, so a balanced approach seems most just: keep markets open for competition and efficiency, while the state ensures that everyone has access to basic facilities like health, education and a minimum standard of living, so the poor and disadvantaged are not shut out of the competition entirely.
Q. Using the chapter’s Let’s Think situations (Suresh, Geeta, grace marks for weaker students, the professor’s differing question papers, the proposal to reserve seats for women in Parliament), say whether each is just and name the principle of justice you would use to defend your answer.
Answer: (1) Suresh’s extra time is just, by the recognition of special needs: his visual impairment puts him at a disadvantage in writing the paper, and the extra time only brings him level with the class. (2) Geeta’s extra time is not just as it stands: a limp does not slow down writing a mathematics paper, so in the respect that matters she is equal to the rest of the class and equal treatment for equals applies; special help is due only for inequalities that actually affect the task. (3) Grace marks to weaker students are not just: marks should reflect the quality of the answer paper and the effort put in, which is proportionate justice; weaker students may deserve special help, such as extra classes, but not marks they did not earn. (4) Different question papers for different students are not just: students taking the same examination must be judged on the same paper, by equal treatment for equals, or the marks cannot be compared. (5) Reserving 33 per cent of the seats in Parliament for women can be defended as just by the recognition of special needs, since women have been under-represented in Parliament, though opponents see it as a departure from equal treatment, which is why it is debated. The situations show that the three principles can pull in different directions, which is why governments have to harmonise them.
5 Case Studies
(A) 1 mark According to the passage, what is a sign that social justice is lacking?
Answer: A deep and persistent divide between those who enjoy wealth and power and those who are excluded and deprived.
(B) 2 marks Why, according to the passage, is complete equality not necessary for justice?
Answer: Because the passage makes clear that justice does not require complete equality or sameness in how people live, different people can live different lifestyles, provided everyone retains a genuine chance to improve their own condition.
(C) 3 marks Based on the passage, explain when a society would be considered unjust, and discuss in detail which steps could be taken in India’s context to prevent this.
Answer: According to the passage, a society is considered unjust when the gap between rich and poor becomes so wide that they seem to live in entirely different worlds, and the relatively deprived have no real chance of improving their condition however hard they may work. In the Indian context, the steps discussed in the chapter are relevant: the constitutional abolition of untouchability, reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in government jobs and education, land reforms by state governments, and ensuring basic minimum facilities such as nutrition, housing, clean water, education and a minimum wage for everyone, so that the deprived also get a level playing field to start from.
(A) 1 mark According to the passage, what name is given to this idea of Rawls?
Answer: The veil of ignorance.
(B) 2 marks According to the passage, what does a person not know in this situation?
Answer: A person does not know what family they will be born into, an upper caste family or a lower caste one, and whether they will be rich or poor.
(C) 3 marks Based on the passage, explain how Rawls uses this imagined state of ignorance to argue for fair and just rules.
Answer: Rawls argues that when a person does not know what their own social, economic or caste position will be in future society, they will, out of rational self-interest, assume when deciding the rules of society that they might themselves be born into the least privileged position. Because of this possibility, they will prefer to choose rules and policies that protect the interests of the weakest sections of society, while also making sure that better-off members are not harmed. In this way, fairness follows naturally from rational self-interest rather than from moral preaching or benevolence, and this is exactly what makes Rawls’ argument so compelling.