Paper short abstract:

This paper argues that collective trauma exposes a fallacy of composition within Rawls' Theory of Justice. By employing the Bhopal gas leak disaster as an example, the paper outlines how a paradox inherent in collective trauma should check development policy's reliance on Rawlsian theory.

Paper long abstract:

Rawls' original position and veil of ignorance theoretically form an idealized basis for a social contract and, in turn, good governance. But beyond frequent libertarian critiques, Rawls' theory also encounters a fallacy of composition to the extent that it assumes hyper-rationality among its subjects can lead to a hyper-rational social system. This becomes especially apparent in the case of state disaster response to collectively traumatic events. Behind the veil of ignorance, one would assume that, should misfortune strike one faction of society, rational individuals would expect the collective to take on this trauma as its own and enact policies to address the injustice. But, while somewhat logical, this assumption belies the very nature of collective trauma, which erodes trust in institutions and defies communicability. In this paper, I will examine this paradox as manifested in the debate over the 1985 Bhopal Act following the 1984 Bhopal gas leak disaster. The act effectively nationalized disaster management, transferring responsibility for legal action and compensation distribution from survivors to the Indian central government, effectively paving the way for an unjust outcome in Indian courts years later. Yet, at the time of its passage and even today, many Bhopal survivors and their advocates support the law as a rational legal strategy, though they vehemently with the Indian government's execution of it. I argue that this paradox exposes a key limitation of Rawls' theory, vital for consideration by development policymakers who frequently encounter collective trauma and debate the merits of national versus grassroots responses.