Table of Contents Abstract 2 Introduction 2 1. Amartya Sen’s Critique on Rawlsian Theory of Justice 2 2. Analysis of Sen’s Idea of Justice 3 2.1. Theoretical Versus Practical Approach 3 2.2. Niti and Nyaya’s Model in Sen’s Framework of Justice 4 2.3 Capability Approach in Sen’s Theory of Justice 4 Conclusion 6 Bibliography 7

Abstract
Amartya Kumar Sen’s thought on justice are groundbreaking in our pluralistic society. The question could be why? To my mind, Sen constructs theory of justice basing on the social injustices encountered due to structural and cultural backgrounds. He concentrates on the practical application of transcendental theories of justice in building a more just society based on enhancement of capabilities (real opportunities and freedoms). We can say a society that focuses on promotion of people’s freedom in the Sen’s framework moves towards achieving justice.
Introduction
Amartya Kumar Sen is a renown Indian economist, philosopher, developmental ethicist and a first Asian to receive a Nobel Prize in Economics. His book Idea of Justice and Development as Freedom have made a new paradigm shifting as regards welfare and wellbeing of individuals in the society. Sen propounds for a practical approach of justice that is concerned with eliminating forms of injustices in the society. It is here that Sen develops capability approach as an evaluative tool in the just society, whereby social justice addresses structural forms of discrimination. His thoughts on justice tend towards positive consequences of the theories of justice in enhancing real opportunities among individuals in the society. This paper will present in nutshell the main thesis Sen argues for more applicable idea of justice in our pluralistic society. The paper shall present Sen’s critique on John Rawl’s theory of justice, and then shall investigate into key concepts Sen develops such as theoretical versus practical approach, more-so, niti versus nyaya and finally capability approach. 1. Amartya Sen’s Critique on Rawlsian Theory of Justice
Sen critically evaluates the Rawls’ notion of ‘justice as fairness’ as an illustration of a political conception of justice. This notion affirms two principles: First, each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all; second, social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity and the second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of the society.
For Sen, Rawlsian notions of justice are means to freedom, means to justice and means to equality. Sen argues for capabilities as embedding actualized freedom based on functionings where people choose activities which are valued and are useful for them. Rawlsian theory concentrates on the means to freedom rather than on the extent of freedom. Sen’s skepticism on Rawlsian inequality theory is that ‘a person’ capability may be reduced in exactly two cases i.e., (1) through a violation of his liberty by someone violating her freedom over a personal domain and (2) through some internal debilitation that she suffers. Here Sen’s argument is that “equality of freedom to pursue our ends can’t be generated by equality in the distribution of primary goods. We have to examine interpersonal variations in the transformation of primary goods and resources more generally into respective capabilities to pursue our ends and objectives”.At this point, Sen takes a direction which goes beyond Equality of Something to freedom and capability that has substantive elements for measuring equality. 2. Analysis of Sen’s Idea of Justice 3.1. Theoretical Versus Practical Approach
Amartya Sen as a trained economics and developmental studies. He tries to develop his theory of justice through a philosophical underpinning. Sen’s interest in philosophy as a foundation for his theory of justice resonates on practical approach than theoretical. For Sen dismisses theoretical discussion on justice by arguing that it would not yield any practical result. He says:
Despite its own intellectual interest, the question ‘what is a just society?’ is not, I have argued, a good starting point for a useful theory of justice. To that has to be added the further conclusion that it may not be a plausible end point either. A systematic theory of comparative justice does not need, nor does it necessarily yield, an answer to the question ‘what is a just society.’

Sen’s preference for practical application of philosophy into a discussion of justice enables him to bridge together ethics and economics. He argues that that the role of philosophy, especially ethics, is to ensure that its theoretical basis must have a bearing upon the actual problems that human beings face in their living context. Towards the end of Idea of Justice Sen contends that “philosophy can also play a part in bringing more discipline and greater reach to reflections on values and priorities as well as on the denials, subjugations and humiliations from which human beings suffer across the world. Sen’s preference for practical approach goes in line with given theories of justice. But his theory focuses on the practical usefulness of justice in the society. To give an example, we can think of dalits or people of low caste in Indian society. So as to realize justice for them, Sen’s practical approach proves to be authentic to deal with their problems. 3.2. Niti and Nyaya’s Model in Sen’s Framework of Justice
In developing theory of justice Sen adopts two technical terms from Indian Classical literature. Nyaya is presented as more argumentative that niti that emphasizes on a definitive and consequence independent reasoning. In argumentative form, Sen prefers the former (Nyaya), that takes up a comparative weighing of the positions and looks for better and more acceptable consequences or realizations in personal and social life than merely worrying about any transcendental view of justice. On this ground Sen rejects the niti-oriented practice of justice as more institutional and authoritarian in character. Here, Sen dismisses niti by giving an example of Ferdinand I, the Holy Roman emperor of the sixteenth century, who famously claimed: “Fiat Justitia, et pereat mundus (Let justice be done, though the world perish). In making a distinction between the meaning and implication of niti and nyaya, Sen is opinion that Ferdinand was insisting on establishing niti, which would be done even if the whole world were to perish. Basing on this Sen concludes that nyaya is broader in its implication. Sen insists on nyaya because it deals with practical problems in our societies and is applicable in eliminating forms of structural injustices like discrimination based on social stratification or social background. 2.3 Capability Approach in Sen’s Theory of Justice
Sen introduces capability approach in his theory of justice as an evaluative tool for social realization in the society. Ultimately, capability approach becomes a crux of understanding and realizing what is justice based on capabilities which he refers as freedom that people actually have. This centrality is accorded to capabilities. The distinguishing characteristic of capability is its focus on what people are effectively able to do and to be, that is, on their ‘capabilities. For Sen, “a capability is the power to do something.” Under capability approach Sen discusses two technical terms that constitute his framework of justice based on realization of wellbeing in the society.
First constitute element is capability, which Sen defines as “a person’s ability to do valuable acts or to reach valuable states of being,” it “represents the alternative combinations of things a person is able to do or be.” Thus, capabilities represent various “combinations of functionings” (beings and doings) that a person can achieve. Capability is a set of vectors of functionings, reflecting a person’s freedom to lead one type of life or another. These basic capabilities refer to the freedom to do some of the basic things necessary for one’s survival or to keep one out of poverty. Sen considers capabilities as person’s abilities to do certain basic things, such as meeting one’s nutritional requirements, the ability to move and ability to appear in the public without shame. So much so, capabilities represent real opportunities and freedoms against formalistic opportunities. Sen would go beyond formal opportunities offered under mainstream developmental model. For example, the millennium development goal introduced universal free education in developing countries mainly sub-Saharan African countries, though it is an opportunity to reduce ignorance and illiteracy, but institutions are poorly funded with poor quality. Thus, such formal opportunities cannot become capabilities. Besides, capabilities are valuable choices to individuals so as to lead a good life and respected life.
Second is functioning, which is defined as “an achievement of people, that is, what they manage or succeed to be or to do.” The definition explicates very clearly that functionings, in fact, refer to the person’s achievement in the effort to do something or to be somebody. Functionings range from the elementary physical ones such as being well-nourished, being in good health, being clothed and sheltered, avoiding escapable morbidity and premature mortality, being literate, to the most complex social achievements such as being happy, taking part in the life of the community, having self-respect or being able to appear in the public without shame, participation in social and political life. These beings and doings, which he calls ‘achieved functionings,’ together constitute what makes a life valuable.
Sen gives an example of a starving person and fasting person in order to connect capability and functioning. He says a starving person lacks a capability and thus is not free as regards the choice not to eat, yet a fasting person foregoes food due to religious obligation, and he/she does it freely. Though both a starving and fasting person carry out the same functioning of not eating, the starved person is not free as regards this choice yet the fasting person is free. Thus, Sen expounds a capability approach as a way forward to promote wellbeing of individuals in society. Thereby, a just society is that which promotes capabilities and functionings of individuals in the society.
Conclusion
Throughout this paper the researcher has tried to present Sen’s framework for justice. Sen’s ideas on justice are concrete and practical to curb social injustices like gender inequalities, discrimination based on caste or social stratifications. Thereby, Sen’s ideas are worthwhile in the societies still undergoing structural injustices especially among the third world societies such as Sub-Saharan African and some parts of Asia. Also, Sen conceives ideas of justice without denying the political participation of people in the society. Therefore, to realize a more just society there is a need to promote more political freedom, deal with socio-cultural forms of injustices and enhance economic opportunities to the entire society.

Bibliography
Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Sen, Amartya. “Capability and Wellbeing.” (30-55). eds. Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen. The Quality of Life. Toronto: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Sen, Amartya. Commodities and Capabilities. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Sen, Amartya. Inequality Reexamined. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2009.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Rawls, Political Liberalism, 291.
[ 2 ]. Sen, Inequality Reexamined, 86.
[ 3 ]. Sen, Inequality Reexamined, 86
[ 4 ]. Sen, Inequality Reexamined, 87.
[ 5 ]. Sen, The Idea of Justice, 105.
[ 6 ]. Sen, The Idea of Justice, 413.
[ 7 ]. Sen, The Idea of Justice, 210-214.
[ 8 ]. Sen, The Idea of Justice, 326.
[ 9 ]. Sen, The Idea of Justice, 21.
[ 10 ]. Sen, The Idea of Justice, 19.
[ 11 ]. Sen, The Idea of Justice, 19.
[ 12 ]. Sen, “Capability and Well-being,” 30.
[ 13 ]. Sen, Commodities and Capabilities, 14.
[ 14 ]. Sen, Inequality Reexamined, 40.
[ 15 ]. Sen, Inequality Reexamined, 39.
[ 16 ]. Sen, Inequality Reexamined, 39, 110.