Distributive Justice: An Alternative Thought | Opinion

This year’s festival of Indian democracy has just concluded. The new governments in the five states that went to the polls have been sworn in, and the high-pitched political fever has receded. ‘Promises to Keep’ Manifestos of political parties of all hues were populated by ‘freebies’ smelling of ‘competitive populism.’

Currently, the chasm between the affluent and the marginalised has reached an inflexion point, with the potential to incite social disquiet. The World Bank reports (2026) that approximately 826 million people continue to live below the poverty line, with a daily income of less than US $3. Though Global wealth has been rising steadily, including in 2024 and 2025, the gulf between the poor and the rich has been widening. India is no exception to the global setting.

The ‘Distributive Justice’ is not just an economic redistribution but a moral and political framework governing society’s opportunities, risks, and resource allocation. It is essential for a stable and inclusive society. The Archbishop Desmond Tutu once poignantly observed, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse… the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

ALSO READ: Twisha Case: Failure Of System | Opinion

In deeply unequal societies, Distributive Justice is an important measure to assuage the wounds of the deprived. Hence, the underpinnings of Indian political thinking of launching schemes to compensate the least advantaged are well merited. The moot question is the form and affordability-cumulative impact of all schemes on the state's financial capacity. And whether the intended outcomes are shaping.

"Unconditional transfers have grown at the rate of 28.8% between 2018-19 and 2025-26 BE (para 14-30)”. And, “……unconditional transfers are also witnessing a rapid geographical expansion, with an increasing number of states embracing them as a preferred instrument of transfer BE (para 14-32)."

Unconditional transfers become a pure consumption subsidy. Such transfers distort incentives, reduce investment capacity, and strain government finances, ultimately undermining the principles and purpose of distributive justice. In many cases, the unintended fallout leads to laziness and a decline in the urge to earn a living. The famous proverb, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime,” inspires an alternative thought.

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum suggest the “Capability Approach,” arguing that justice should not focus on income but on ensuring individuals have the “real opportunities” to function and flourish, such as access to health care, education, dignity, and meaningful work (Valentini, 2021).

The new approach is “Predistribution”. Most economists talk of redistribution after inequality has occurred, but modern thinking focuses on restructuring society and on effective governance to prevent inequality. Amartya Sen & Martha Nussbaum’s suggestions fit into the new philosophy of ‘equality of opportunity’, aimed at prevention.

Post-war South Korea was poorer than many African countries. The government could not afford massive welfare transfers. Instead, it focused on universal schooling, technical education, rural electrification, land reforms, and cheap credit for industrialisation.

ALSO READ: The Challenge Of Restoring Bengal's Lost Glory | Opinion

Post-World War II, Germany focused on vocational education, the apprenticeship system, and public health. In effect, capacity building.

India also has some very constructive schemes, such as the Green Revolution (cheaper seeds), rural electrification, free education, mid-day meals, free electricity and gas connection, and medical assistance. But free education and health care assistance are not serving their intended purpose due to inadequate investment in school infrastructure, teaching quality, and hospital facilities and management. Private schools and Private hospitals are preferred, which are beyond the reach of the poor.

Bolsa Familia (Brazil Conditional Cash Transfers) is an example of distributive justice that works better because it links with future human development. Poor families receive cash only if their children attend school, complete vaccinations, and have health checkups, eventually preventing the next generation from falling into poverty.

Ironically, three of the five states, West Bengal, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, where the elections were held in April and May 26, have been fiscally stressed for a considerable period. The revenue deficit ratio of their respective gross domestic product (GDP) is currently 2.4% in West Bengal, 2.1% in Kerala, and 1.5% in Tamil Nadu, accounting for 60%, 77%, and 47%, respectively, of the fiscal deficit. In effect, borrowed money is used to pay for freebies, reducing the state’s capacity to invest in physical and social infrastructure. The situation of most other states of India is no different. Sources for raising higher revenue are few and far between.

The macroeconomic situation warrants a transformation in the approach to Distributive Justice. It can happen only if there is an opinion-building culminating in a nationwide debate aimed at consensus across party lines. The purpose of freebies should not be winning elections but efficacious distributive justice. Effective implementation without leakages and seepages will transform the social order and eventually win elections too.

ALSO READ: From Symbolism to Strategy: The Meaning Of Operation Sindoor | Opinion

Deliver justice of equal access to education, health care, employment, and democratic participation, leading to dignity, freedom, including from deprivation, and opportunity.

(Disclaimer: The author, GN Bajpai, is the former Chairman of SEBI & LIC Author and a Columnist)