interview I Prefer To Fight Todays Battles The Amartya Sen you didn't know on niti and nyaya!

the "eft! #anmohan! $ahul! Sikh riots! #odi %inod #ehta ! An&ali Puri Interview Amartya Sen P$I'T S(A$) *+##)'TS

Also In This Story ,-oing .usti/e.usti/e /ant ignore lives we are /a0a1le of leading! argues Amartya Sen

There are many argumentative Indians! 1ut very few who /an hold your attention in 2uite the way Amartya Sen /an3if you /at/h him! as +utlook did last week! at his e40ansive 1est5 (e da66les you 1y moving fluidly 1etween welfare e/onomi/s and history! 0hiloso0hy and international 0oliti/s! the laws of #anu and Arti/le 788! the 0ronoun/ements of 9autama Buddha and the 0oli/ies of #anmohan Singh5 In 0rovo/ative arguments linked /losely to the theme of his magisterial new 1ook! The Idea of .usti/e! he asks you to /onsider whether :rishna was right to make Ar&una fight a war that left women wee0ing for their lost men and funeral 0yres 1urning in unison and if non;violent 9andhi should have 1een on :rishnas side< and then! /rossing /enturies with his /hara/teristi/ agility! whether the Indian "eft should worry a1out Ameri/an im0erialism rather than the /onse2uen/e of living in the kind of world we live in5

+ne reason the "eft /ant li1erate itself from the *old =ar is its gut anti;Ameri/anism5 It made sense at some stage5 But now the gut anti;Ameri/anism is 0ulling it down5 In a trait rare in Indian 0u1li/ intelle/tuals! Sen laughs often and makes you laugh with him! regaling you with ane/dotes that are never mali/ious! 1ut infused! rather! with gentle delight in the ironies of human e4isten/e5 9iven the grand swee0 of his arguments! his attention to detail /an 1e almost dis/on/erting5 =hen we entered his suite at -elhis Ta& #ahal (otel to interview him! he greeted us with a laughing /om0laint So I am told I have 1een atta/ked in +utlook5 The ,atta/k! it turned out! was a stray referen/e in our gossi0 /olumn on 1ooks! Bi1liofile! to Sens turgid 0rose style5 An admirer had e;mailed it to Sen! who had /learly stored it for future referen/e> ?The same gossi0 item also mentioned a /omment on Sen 1y his former wife! 'a1aneeta -ev! 0u1lished re/ently in a British news0a0er< she was 2uoted as saying that when she was wooed 1y him in the mid;@As she felt like a dwarf who was 1eing a00roa/hed 1y the #oon5 =hen we 2ui66ed him a1out it! Sen res0onded with a0lom1 She is a very generous 0erson! she may have said it out of generosity rather than 1elief5B +utlooks ,atta/k on him notwithstanding! the 'o1el laureate was remarka1ly generous with 1oth his time and his refle/tions in an interview that stret/hed to over an hour< sharing! among other things! his o0inions on su/h leading figures of the Indian 0oliti/al s/ene as #anmohan Singh! $ahul 9andhi and 'arendra #odi5 'ot everyone will agree with his 0ositions! for instan/e! on dynasti/ 0oliti/s! on whi/h he takes a /arefully neutral stan/e< or on the "eft! of whi/h he is /learly a tren/hant /riti/ these days< 1ut as always! his words leave you with mu/h to think a1out5 )4/er0ts from an interview555 In the C7rd year of Inde0enden/e! how many /heers would you give Indian demo/ra/yD

(ow 0e/uliar that 9andhi should 1e on the side of :rishna! who made Ar&una fight and kill 0eo0le5 +ut of a total of three ?laughsBD That was a s/ale invented 1y )5#5 Forster in Two *heers for -emo/ra/y5 I think I will give it a 1it more than two 1ut somewhat less than three5 If you take the view! is demo/ra/y fun/tioning as well as it /ould! it may even 1e one5 But given the adversities we have had3a very 0oor /ountry! largely illiterate! 1order wars with *hina and Pakistan! with Pakistan going its 0e/uliarly diffi/ult way! the relationshi0 0ro1lems that we have had with the Enited States and the glo1al 0owers3have we done as well as e40e/tedD Fes5 )4/e0t in one 1ig res0e/t! namely that I had e40e/ted that non;dramati/ de0rivations would re/eive more attention than they ended u0 getting5 Famines did go away with demo/ra/y! as I had e40e/ted! 1ut I thought other things like gender ine2uality and the huge undernourishment of /hildren would get more attention! 1ut they did not get enough5 Thats the disa00ointment5

+f all the in&usti/es that haunt India today! the de0rivations you have &ust s0oken of! what disa00oints you the mostD They are all /om0lementary5 +ne of the reasons that /hild undernourishment is so hard to remove in India is that /hildren are 1orn mu/h more de0rived here than in mu/h of the world! 1e/ause women are very de0rived when they are 0regnant5 +ne 1asi/ issue is gender ine2uality5 But I dont want to say it is the only im0ortant one5 I would rather s0eak of a /luster of de0rivations5 And we should address all of them together5 A0art from develo0ment issues! youve 1een s0eaking on a range of national issues! in/luding! of late! the Indo;ES nu/lear deal5 =as it a good dealD 'ow! I am on re/ord as having said I dont know whether the Indo;ES nu/lear deal was a good thing or a 1ad thing! I dont have a strong view! unlike #anmohan who /learly thinks it is a good thing! and the *ommunist Party! whi/h thinks it is the 1iggest disaster5 Four friends on the "eft are re0enting now5 Its /lear they 0i/ked the wrong issue to 1ring down the government5 I gave a television interview on that su1&e/t a year ago! in August! &ust after the vote5 And what you said hurt them the most 1e/ause the /riti/ism was /oming from a friend! not from the other side5

=hen I met $ahul at Trinity! 0oliti/s wasnt 0art of his 0lan5 But he was /learly /ommitted to Indian develo0ment5 *ertainly not from the other side5 I am a friend of the "eft and my 0oliti/s has 1een on the "eft! 1ut sometimes its diffi/ult to re/ognise what is "eft! what is $ight5 I am in favour of fighting todays 1attles rather than yesterdays 1attles5 I think this gut anti;Ameri/anism3dont make it the headline ?laughsB3is a 0ro1lem5 It is a minor 0ro1lem! 1ut one of the reasons why the "eft /annot

li1erate itself from the *old =ar5 It made sense at some stage to o00ose Ameri/a for various reasons5 But I think gut anti;Ameri/anism is /ertainly 0ulling the "eft 1a/k now5

(ave you had any /onversations with them a1out thisD I have /onversations every time I go to *al/utta! many of them are very /lose friends! also in -elhi5 And how do they res0ondD

*hild undernourishment is hard to remove in India as /hildren here are 1orn mu/h more de0rived! 1e/ause 0regnant women are de0rived5 9ender ine2uality is an issue5 They are always kind to me 1ut that doesnt mean they agree5 And usually they tell me they /ouldnt have a//e0ted the deal! given their views on Ameri/a5 This reading that the 0lague that haunts the world today is Ameri/an im0erialism has a grain of truth in it! 1ut that grain of truth is underneath a ton of other things5 (ow /an you em0hasise that and forget everything else3forget the international threat of terrorism! of /ree0ing fundamentalism a/ross the world! not see the 0ro1lems of di/tatorial /ontinuation! whether in Sudan or in our neigh1ourhood! Burma! or that demo/ra/y has not made mu/h 0rogress in re/ent years< not see our domesti/ 0ro1lems like hunger and undernourishment! on whi/h the "eft is the natural 0arty to 0rotest loud and /learD Are you saying the "eft should have o00osed the government on issues other than the dealD They were 0art of the government! they /ould have done more than they a/tually did5 Prakash :arat re/ently said *u1a is a very good role model for India5 -id you read thatD I didnt read the statement! 1ut I dont 1elieve that for a se/ond5 There are things to learn from *u1a a1out health/are and 1asi/ edu/ation! not a1out demo/ra/y ?laughsB and not a1out media freedom5 It is a very unfree /ountry5 There are things to learn from Ameri/a! 1ut not a1out medi/al /are for the masses5 There is no /ountry that 0rovides us with a model5 In your new 1ook! The Idea of .usti/e! you s0eak a lot a1out the differen/e 1etween niti ?institutional &usti/eB and nyaya ?realised &usti/eB5 -o you think we have too mu/h niti in India and too little nyayaD

To deal with 0ast in&usti/e! it has to 1e re/ognised5 In the GH riots! theres not 1een enough admission5 The short answer is yes5 'iti has huge a00eal and this a00lies to the great as well as to the non; great5 In the Bhagavad 9ita! Ar&unas 0osition has mu/h to /ommend it5 I am not saying he should not have fought the war! 1ut his dou1ts were not dismissa1le! in the way that :rishna dismissed them5 :rishna is /learly a niti 0erson5 (ow 0e/uliar it is that someone as non;violent as 9andhi&i! who was very ins0ired 1y the 9ita! was on the side of :rishna! who is making Ar&una fight a war

and kill 0eo0le! when Ar&una is saying may1e I shouldnt kill> The #aha1harata ends with su//ess! 1ut also with grief! desolation! with women wee0ing for their lost men and funeral 0yres 1urning in unison5 =as it a &ust warD Fes! you /an /all it a &ust war5 Thats the 0ower of theory! thats niti! saying its your duty! you ought to do it5 'iti 0lays a 1ig 0art in the "eft too! they think a1out Ameri/an im0erialism rather than the /onse2uen/e of living in the kind of world we live in5 This is 1efuddling5 Similarly! we take /omfort in the institutions of demo/ra/y 1ut not the things that would make demo/ra/y a su//ess5

-o you think dynasti/ 0oliti/s! of whi/h we see so mu/h in India! is intrinsi/ally un&ustD I dont take an intrinsi/ally 0ositive or negative view of dynasti/ 0oliti/s5 It de0ends on who the 0eo0le are5 I think it would have 1een sad if Franklin $oosevelt was not allowed to 1e/ome 0resident on grounds of the $oosevelt /onne/tion555 But what a1out India3the 9andhi family! the A1dullah family! the :arunanidhi family! sons automati/ally 1e/oming leaders555 I /ant have a general attitude on this5 Peo0le tend to 1egin with .awaharlal 'ehru! 1ut he was the son of #otilal 'ehru! who was the *ongress 0resident5 If on dynasti/ 0oliti/al grounds we had e4/luded .awaharlal 'ehru! we would have lost something5 =e have to &udge in ea/h /ase3 'ehru! Indira 9andhi! $a&iv 9andhi! $ahul 9andhi555 A lot of 0eo0le felt very disillusioned after the re/ent ele/tions 1e/ause it seemed that the 0oliti/al /lass had shrunk to a small! self;0er0etuating elite5

I dont think #odi is fit to 1e P#5 Im sur0rised to hear $atan Tata /ould have said that5 'ewsre0orts /an 1e unrelia1le5 Thats an issue of internal demo/ra/y in 0oliti/al 0arties3you /ould ask! does the *ongress 0arty have enough internal demo/ra/yD3not a 0ro1lem a1out dynasti/ 0oliti/s5 -ynasti/ 0oliti/s is a1out whether! for e4am0le! $ahul /ould 1e/ome a 0ossi1le 0rime minister! and I would say! that would de0end on $ahuls 2ualities5 +1viously! we have an e4/ellent 0rime minister at the moment so that 2uestion does not arise and no one in the 9andhi family or elsewhere has seriously raised that 2uestion5 +n the other hand! would $ahul some day 1e a good 0rime ministerD Its 2uite 0ossi1le5 I know him a /ertain amount5 I on/e a/tually s0ent a day with him when he visited me in Trinity and I was very im0ressed with him5 Then again! we have to /om0are what the alternatives are5 (is 1eing $a&iv and Sonia 9andhis son doesnt /hange my view one way or the other5 =hat im0ressed you a1out $ahulD I think he is very talented5 (e is a Trinity man! we had a meal together when I was #aster of Trinity and we /hatted a1out what he was 0lanning to do5 At that time! 0oliti/s was not 0art of his 0lan at all! and he told me that5 I 1elieve those were his genuine views and he /hanged his mind later5 It was very /lear to me that he was very /ommitted to Indian develo0ment5 I 0ointed out to him there were ways for him to da66le the world with the money he /ould make5 But he wasnt in

the least interested5 I would say! sin/e I have known #anmohan at the same age! that there was a very similar /ommitment in 1oth of them! in terms of 1eing dee0ly /on/erned a1out de0rivation in India and wanting to make a /hange in that5 And to devote ones lifetime to that5 +n a different note! we tend to attri1ute in&usti/es in India to the histori/al 0ast! the /olonial 0ast5 -o we overdo thatD =hat /an we do! we have inherited this terri1le lega/y555

I dont think #anmohans 0oli/ies have 1een neo;li1eral5 (ad they 1een! we would have done mu/h worse in this /risis5 =e have inherited some terri1le lega/ies and some good ones5 =e /ertainly inherited from the $a& the low litera/y! the low attention to health/are and /om0lete negle/t of the 1asi/ welfare and freedom of the 0o0ulation5 And some good things too5 Three things that are very im0ortant3India has a long argumentative tradition ?on whi/h I have written a 1ookB! British rule en/ouraged that5 The im0ortan/e of the media is to a great e4tent a British /ontri1ution5 The third thing that 0eo0le often dont re/ognise! that is /ommon 1etween Britain and India! is a 1asi/ toleran/e of e//entri/ity5 If you think a1out some of the great writers we tolerate555'irad *haudhuri! a totally e//entri/ writer! a/tually 1army in many res0e/ts! and yet a 1rilliant writer5 After I 1e/ame #aster of Trinity! one of my )nglish /olleagues asked me! do you like 'irad *haudhuriD I said I have disagreements with him! 1ut I do like him5 I dont like some of his 1ooks! like A Passage to )ngland! whi/h was a 0rofoundly silly 1ook5 #y /olleague then remarked that most Indians did not like him 1e/ause he was so 0ro;British and anti;Indian5 So I said do you know what remark he made when I was a00ointed #aster of TrinityD (e said! it is a terri1le a00ointment! it goes against British /ulture5 And then he added British /ulture is nothing without its ra/ism> The 0ast is a very live issue for us! in ways other than the /olonial lega/y5 This year! it will 1e I@ years sin/e the Sikh riots! we still havent /ome to terms with them5 The Sikh riots should 1e in our memory 1e/ause they were a terrifying event5 It is diffi/ult to 1elieve that they ha00ened in this /ity5 (ow should we deal with themD +ne thing we have learnt from the leadershi0 of #andela and -esmond Tutu is that there is no way of /oming to terms with 0ast in&usti/e until those who /ommit it a//e0t res0onsi1ility5 'either retri1ution nor forgetting! it has to 1e re/ognition and then /oming to terms5 Admitting wrongdoing is an im0ortant 0art of it5 =here the Sikh riots are /on/erned! I dont think there has 1een enough admission in I@ years5 =hat is our re/ord as a /ountry! after CI years! on /oming to terms with su/h atro/itiesD #i4ed5 The /ountry rea/ted well to the 9u&arat riots with the e4/e0tion 0erha0s of 9u&arat itself5 The 0o0ularity of the government res0onsi1le has diminished 1ut not as mu/h as I would have e40e/ted5 But it /ertainly /ontri1uted to their ?the B.PsB loss in the general ele/tion in IAAH! and /ertainly did not hel0 them /onsolidate the fight for IAAJ! and if I am any &udge! is not hel0ing them now5 =ith that kind of 1lood on your hands! its very diffi/ult if 0eo0le forget5 And I think Indians havent forgotten5

+ur /or0orate /hiefs3$atan Tata! Anil Am1ani! Sunil #ittal3went to 9u&arat and showered 0raise on 'arendra #odi5 They said he ran the state so well! and that he was fit to 1e P#5 I dont think 'arendra #odi is fit to 1e 0rime minister of India5 But I havent seen the re0orts! so I wont /omment on the statements you /ite5 The 0erson I know 1est among them is $atan and it sur0rises me to hear that he /ould have said that5 'ews0a0er re0orts /an 1e unrelia1le5 ?ButB would I like 'arendra #odi to 1e 0rime minister of IndiaD 'o! I wouldnt5 Ak1ar! Ashoka and 9autama Buddha are your three great heroes! you /ome 1a/k to them time and again in your 1ook5

#ore money has /ome in for edu/ation and health/are! not as mu/h as I would like! 1ut it has /ome in5 There is more radi/alism needed5 I have many heroes> But those youve mentioned were very arti/ulate! you see5 Ak1ar to a great e4tent 1e/ause he had su/h a great assistant in the form of A1ul Fa6l5 Ashoka was keen on his views 1eing re/orded on stone a/ross the /ountry5 Buddha gave a lot of good s0ee/hes and in my /hildhood he was a 1ig figure for me5 (e agonised! he /hanged his mind! he reasoned! his /on/lusions /ame out of reason5 +ne s0e/ta/ular moment is when after two years of fasting and starving the 1ody he /omes out and says! 1asi/ally! Fou /ant im0rove your soul 1y starving the 1ody5 But I even 2uote .esus! as you will have seen in my 1ook5 The B.P was very u0set when in an interview with +utlook some years ago! you gave 0rima/y to Ashoka and Ak1ar5 Thats 1e/ause you 0ut a giganti/ headline3two great em0erors of India! and neither of them (indu ?laughsB5 But even if they were (indus! my 0oint would have stood 1e/ause great Indians have /ome from every 0art of the nation5 India is not a great history;1ased /ountry! we dont know who said what to whom and when5 In /ontrast! Ak1ar! Ashoka and Buddha were well; do/umented! it is easier to illustrate from them5

+ne last 2uestion a1out 0oliti/s5 The 0rime minister and his e/onomi/ team3P5 *hidam1aram! #ontek Singh Ahluwalia3have em1ra/ed neo;li1eral e/onomi/s5 S/hemes like '$)9S were initially resisted 1y this team5 9iven #anmohan Singhs 1a/kground! are you sur0risedD I dont think his 0oli/ies have 1een neo;li1eral5 (ad they 1een! we would have done mu/h worse in the e/onomi/ /risis5 Thats not to say the governments 0oli/ies are entirely /orre/t5 There are issues to 1e dealt with! and the main issue is whether there is ade2uate engagement with the 0rimary in&usti/es in India5 I must add that in the /onte4t of 0oliti/s it is very diffi/ult to &udge what a 0erson would say as a free intelle/tual! as o00osed to 1eing 0rime minister5 In general! I see #anmohan in the right territory5 =ould I like him to go a 1it moreD Fes5 Am I a1le to &udge how far he /an go! given the 0oliti/s of the situationD 'o5

#anmohans always well;1ehaved with everyone! whether its 9eorge Bush or the :ing of

Bhutan5 (e and I did have disagreements in KJJK;JI! when he /ame in as finan/e minister and wanted to /arry out the reforms5 I was very mu/h in favour of them 1ut I wanted a 0a/kage5 #y ideal statement from #anmohan would then have 1een! the state is over;e4tended in some areas! we have to /ut it! it is under;e4tended in other areas! like edu/ation and health/are! we must e4tend it5 That did not /ome for a long time! and I was hesitant when news0a0ers asked me whether I was in favour of reforms5 +n/e in *al/utta after a le/ture on Indian history! the only 2uestion I was asked was Are you in favour of reforms or notD I said! look I have &ust given a talk on history! I am not going to answer this 2uestion5 The ne4t day! a headline said ,Amartya refuses to answer 2uestion on reforms5 I have to say I re/ognised what #anmohan was doing then he has always tried to identify a 1ig 0ro1lem and go at it5 Is he doing that now! with the Indo;Pakistan relationshi0D I havent followed that5 But in the Ameri/an /onte4t he did think there was a strong /ase for im0roving relations with the Enited States and he went for that5 But when he /ame 1a/k to offi/e in IAAH! he said from the start that along with reforms we have to e40and the state in edu/ation and health/are5 And more money has /ome in! not as mu/h as I would like! 1ut it has /ome in5 There is more radi/alism needed5 -o you think #anmohan has emerged as a good 0oliti/ianD As an old friend! may I say something that 0eo0le seem to missD (e is immensely well;1ehaved with a1solutely every1ody5 Peo0le say things like =hen I saw him with Bush he looked so ha00y and so su00ortive5 But you see any 0i/ture of #anmohan and he always looks friendly and su00ortive5 Fou see him standing very ha00ily with the :ing of Bhutan! and you /ould immediately say this is a la/key of the :ing of Bhutan5 But in the /ase of Bush they say it! in this /ase! not ?laughsB5 I would defy you to find a 0i/ture of #anmohan looking angrily at anyone5 I havent seen one in the @H years Ive known him5 =hether that is a la/una in a 0oliti/ian! whether he has to &um0 and lose his tem0er! I dont know5 But if there is a fault! it is a fault of generosity and /ourteousness5 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; $eview ,-oing .usti/e .usti/e /ant ignore lives we are /a0a1le of leading! argues Amartya Sen Prata0 Bhanu #ehta P$I'T S(A$) *+##)'TS

Also In This Story I Prefer To Fight Todays BattlesThe Amartya Sen you didn't know on niti and nyaya! the "eft! #anmohan! $ahul! Sikh riots! #odi

The Idea +f .usti/e By Amartya Sen Allen "aneLPenguin M HJC 0ages M $s CJJ

In thinking a1out &usti/e! it is tem0ting to su00ose that we need some ideal /on/e0tion against

whi/h to measure the inade2ua/ies of the world we inha1it5 =hen fa/ed with /om0eting /on/e0tions of &usti/e! we think there might 1e a higher stand0oint from whi/h different 0rin/i0les /an 1e re/on/iled5 It is also tem0ting to think that &usti/e must 1e something that a00lies to the 1asi/ institutions of so/iety< it is the &ustness of the overall framework that matters5 Amartya Sens /hara/teristi/ally /lear and 0owerful The Idea of .usti/e is a /autionary tale against these tem0tations5 Ideal /on/e0tions of &usti/e /an often 1e misleading5 It is a 1it like saying that we need to use the virtue of #ona "isa to ad&udi/ate a /hoi/e 1etween %an 9ogh and -ali5 In other words! we should /on/entrate on ameliorating real in&usti/e3something we /an have a sense of! even in the a1sen/e of an ideal5 +r more 0ositively! we need to /on/entrate on /on/rete /om0arisons rather than aim at ideals5 A theory of &usti/e should draw on so/ial /hoi/e te/hni2ues and aim at 0artial rankings of states of affairs5 'or should we assume that a higher level of a1stra/tion will allow us to ad&udi/ate 1etween different 0rin/i0les of &usti/e5 That is usually an una//e0ta1le sim0lifi/ation of the various /on/erns that are 0art of any a//ount of &usti/e5 Indeed! the 1ook is not so mu/h a1out an idea of &usti/e as it is a1out the vast range of legitimate /onsiderations that have to 1e taken into a//ount in a theory of &usti/e5 And finally what institutional arrangements might 1est em1ody a move towards greater &usti/e will /ru/ially de0end on /ir/umstan/es< 0erfe/t institutional stru/tures are no guide to how we might 0ro/eed5 #ore than a third of the 1ook is devoted to /riti2uing what Sen /alls trans/endental /on/e0tions of &usti/e5 This was most famously arti/ulated 1y the greatest 0oliti/al 0hiloso0her of the twentieth /entury ?to whose memory the 1ook is dedi/atedB .ohn $awls5 Sens /riti2ue is a to0;/lass tour dhori6on in /ontem0orary 0oliti/al 0hiloso0hy5

Sens am1ition has 1e/ome ameliorative< it does not even theoreti/ally /onsider large;s/ale stru/tural issues5 But a large 0art of the 1ook is devoted to defending ideas that Sen has so influentially arti/ulated the 0la/e of reason in ethi/al reasoning! the idea of 0ositional o1&e/tivity! the defen/e of li1erty and! most famously! the /a0a1ilities a00roa/h5 The 0oint of de0arture for the /a0a1ilities a00roa/h is the idea that &usti/e /annot 1e indifferent to the lives 0eo0le /an a/tually lead5 Individual advantage is &udged 1y a 0ersons /a0a1ility to do things he or she has reason to value5 In a sense! this argument is situated 1etween li1eralism and #ar4ism5 +n the one hand! the traditional li1eral /on/e0tion fo/uses on freedom and the means to living su/h as resour/es or 1asi/ 0rimary goods< the #ar4ist /on/e0tion! arti/ulated most re/ently 1y 95A5 *ohen! fo/uses on whether we have a/tually a/hieved the fullest 0ossi1ilities of self;realisation5 The li1eral em0hasis on li1erty is salutary< 1ut its em0hasis on resour/es /onfuses ends and means5 $esour/es are merely means< it is the a/tual /a0a1ilities of 0eo0le that matter5 But on the other hand! a fo/us on a/tual a/hievement rather than /a0a1ility would set the 1ar too high! and ignores the fa/t that there /an 1e legitimate ga0s 1etween /a0a1ility and a/hievement5 This 1ook is a distillation of so mu/h that has /ome to 1e asso/iated with Sen! and reading these new formulations is truly hum1ling5 The intelle/tual /larity! the a1ility to /reate /on/e0tually innovative distin/tions! the 1road range of histori/al learning from sour/es a/ross the world! the 0owerful use of e4am0les! 1ut 0erha0s most im0ortantly! the dee0 humanity and faith in a /ertain form of non;uto0ian 0rogress all vividly shine through5 But Sens intelle/tual width! his a1ility to generously res0ond to so many interlo/utors! might intimidate the uninitiated reader5 Although he is a master at /ommuni/ating with the 0u1li/! the

arguments of this 1ook are a/ademi/ in flavour5 Sen in fa/t s0ends far less time ela1orating his own far;rea/hing and original a//ount of the /a0a1ilities a00roa/h! and more in situating its distin/tiveness in relation to several influential /ontem0orary theories like $onald -workins and Philli0 Pettits5 -workin is! amongst other things! too trans/endental< Pettits fo/us on &usti/e as non;de0enden/e 0i/ks out one im0ortant as0e/t of &usti/e! 1ut in the end fails to do &usti/e to the thought that what matters are the su1stantive o00ortunities 0eo0le have5 There is a generous 0luralism running through the argument5 There are not &ust 0ossi1le trade; offs 1etween old ideas like li1erty and e2uality5 )ven ea/h of these /on/e0ts has several dimensions5 "i1erty is 1oth a 0ro/ess and an o00ortunity5 )2uality invites the 2uestion )2uality of whatD There are several 0lausi1le and /onfli/ting answers to this 2uestion5 It is here that the strength of the 1ook is also! in an odd way! its weakness5 The /a0a1ilities a00roa/h3an a00roa/h that fo/uses on enhan/ing 0eo0les /a0a1ilities3is so su00le that you are left wondering e4a/tly where Sen stands5 So e2uality of /a0a1ilities turns out not to 1e overriding! if it /onfli/ts with other /onsiderations< e2uity in 0arti/i0ating in 0ro/esses /an override a fo/us on out/omes< /a0a1ility does not s0eak in one voi/e sin/e it /an 1e defined in many different ways5 Trans/endental /on/e0tions of &usti/e leave us devoid of any tools with whi/h to assess /on/rete /ases /om0aratively5 But it is not /lear that a /a0a1ilities a00roa/h that is as /a0a/ious! as o0en to different weights 1eing assigned! would also allow us to ad&udi/ate dis0utes over &usti/e5 In some ways! Sen re/ognises this5 That is why the demo/rati/ ad&udi/ation of /om0eting 0rin/i0les 1e/omes /entral to Sens argument5 (e is a great votary of 0artial and o0en;ended ranking of different states of affairs! ones that are 0ro0erly arrived at through demo/rati/ deli1eration5 The last se/tion of the 1ook argues rightly that the authority of any rankings will in 0art de0end u0on the 0ra/ti/es of demo/rati/ &ustifi/ation5 =hile there /an 1e no 2uarrel with this 0osition! it is a 1it of a theoreti/al let;down in that it leaves a large 2uestion hanging In some theories! su/h as those of (a1ermas! to whom Sen is sym0atheti/! the idea of &usti/e is assimilated into that demo/ra/y5 .usti/e is what demo/ra/y does< the tri/k is to s0e/ify what demo/ra/y means5 That does not a00ear to 1e Sens 0osition5 =hat then is the relationshi0 of ideas of &usti/e to demo/rati/ deli1erationD In a 1ook that gives so mu/h it is /hurlish to ask for more5 But you sometimes wonder whether Sen has 1een too 2ui/k in his dismissal of the trans/endental ty0es of theories that /on/entrate on 1asi/ stru/tures5 +ne of his favourite e4am0les to illustrate the 0luralism of 0rin/i0les is the /ase where there is one flute and three 0ossi1le /laimants5 +ne /laims it on the ground that she 0lays it 1est< another on the ground that she is 0oor and does not have a//ess to any other goods! and one on the ground that she la1oured to make it5 There are three 0lausi1le /riteria of distri1ution! and none of the /onsiderations /an 1e dismissed out of hand5 =e /an de1ate what 0rin/i0les should have 0riority5 But we /an also shift the 2uestion slightly =hat are the 1a/kground /onditions that 0ut us in a 0osition of having to make these hard /hoi/esD Is there some other way of stru/turing so/iety! transforming its 1asi/ stru/ture! su/h that we are not in a 0osition of having to make these /hoi/esD +f /ourse! no so/iety! other than the most uto0ian! will o1viate the need for ad&udi/ation5 But it is a measure of how attenuated and ameliorative Sens am1ition has 1e/omes that it rules out even theoreti/al /onsideration of large;s/ale stru/tural issues5 Sen /ould argue! &ustifia1ly! that our fo/us must 1e on the /on/rete and a/hieva1le rather than 1uild /astles in the air5 But if the terrain of engagement is the a/tual state of affairs! then argua1ly what one needs is a messy engagement with the 0oliti/al e/onomy of 0ower rather than ela1orate distin/tions in the domain of &usti/e5 (ere one wishes he had followed his great hero in the 1ook! the mu/h;/ari/atured Adam Smith! a 1it more5 Smith had the e4traordinary /a0a/ity to /om1ine immense moral sym0athy! a 1elief in the 0ossi1ility of 0rogress! with a dee0 s/e0ti/ism a1out the sour/es of 0rogress5 (e had wariness a1out /on/entrations of 0ower! one that Sen fleetingly a/knowledges< 1ut he also had a dee0 sense of the 0arado4i/al and messy ways

through whi/h 0rogress takes 0la/e5 The 0arado4 of this 1ook is that while Sen is a severe /riti/ of uto0ianism in thinking a1out the ends of &usti/e< he ends u0 sounding too straight;la/ed a1out the means to a/hieve &usti/e5 In the end! his 0rofound humanism o1s/ures the tri/kier 0ro1lem for &usti/e how to straighten the /rooked tim1er of humanity5 ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;