Political Science and International

Relations
Rights
Rights
— INTRODUCTION
— Rights are understood in two ways
— In moral terms – Right v Wrong
— In terms of entitlement (Entitlement = Right is a privilege) – I must have my privilege irrespective of the fact that I’ve
obligation.
— Right is what a person is entitled to receive without bargaining. Right is described as an entitlement or justified
claim to a certain kind of positive or negative treatment from others.
— According to Laski, Rights are those important conditions of social life without which no person can realise his true self.
— According to the TH green, rights are powers necessary for fulfilment of mans vocation as moral being.
— According to Dworkin, Rights are trump cards. They’ve to be given priority over all other things even the collective gain is
not the reason for compromising the right of someone.
— “Rights are nothing more nor less than those social conditions which are necessary or favourable to the development of
personality” -Beni Prasad
— However, liberalism has started facing challenges from multi-culturalism.
— In medieval times, the discourses were the divine rights of the kings.
— In modern times, the declaration of independence of America and the French declaration started talking about rights of man.
— Later, we also started talking about rights of women.
— In post-modern conditions, we talk about rights of cultural communities and not just rights of humans but also the right of
animals.
Rights
— Features of rights
— Rights exist only in society. These are the products of social living.
— Rights are claims of the individuals for their development in society.
— Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the people.
— Rights are rational and moral claims that the people make on their society.
— Since rights are here only in society, these cannot be exercised against the society.
— Rights are to be exercised by the people for their development which really means their development in
society by the promotion of social good. Rights can never be exercised against social good.
— Rights are equally available to all the people.
— The contents of rights keep on changing with the passage of time.
— Rights are not absolute. These always bear limitations deemed essential for maintaining public health,
security, order and morality.
— Rights are inseparably related with duties. There is a close relationship between them “No Duties No
Rights. No Rights No Duties.” “If I have rights it is my duty to respect the rights of others in society”.
— Rights need enforcement and only then these can be really used by the people. These are protected and
enforced by the laws of the state. It is the duty of a state to protect the rights of the people.
Rights
— THEORIES OF RIGHTS – Liberal v Marxist
— Theory of Natural rights:
— It is the oldest theory of rights. There are 2 traditions in this theory:
— Social contract tradition → Locke
— According to Hobbes, A man had absolute rights in the state of nature but in the absence of state
“might become right”. To end Anarchy man has created state and transferred all his rights except the
right to self-preservation. It’s a supreme right.
— Whereas Locke has given much stronger foundation to the claims of natural rights of man.
According to him, a man can’t alienate right to life, liberty and property. They are
fundamental to this existence. They are given to man by God or nature. They are limitations on the
authority of the state.
— Teleological tradition → T.H. Green, Thomas Paine
— Teleology believes that there is a definite design in nature and nature has determined a destination.
— It suggests that the origin of rights is in the natural needs of man. In the words of T.H. Green,
Human consciousness postulates liberty. Liberty involves rights; rights demand the state.
— Thomas Paine has also supported the rights of man on teleological grounds much before T.H. Green.
Natural Rights theory becomes the basis for human rights theory.
Rights
— Criticism of theory of Natural Rights
— Mostly it is done by utilitarian. Ex; Bentham.
— Natural rights, according to Bentham, are “simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible
rights, rhetorical nonsense, — nonsense upon stilts” So-called moral and natural rights
are mischievous fictions and anarchical fallacies that encourage civil unrest,
disobedience and resistance to laws, and revolution against established governments.
— Only political rights, those positive rights established and enforced by government, have
“any determinate and intelligible meaning.
— ” Rights are “the fruits of the law, and of the law alone. There are no rights without
law—no rights contrary to the law—no rights anterior to the law.”
— According to Bentham, “Natural Rights is a terrorist language. Natural rights are
also criticized by the conservative.”
— Edmund Burke who called Natural Rights as “Metaphysical abstractions”.
Rights
— Theory of legal rights
— Hobbes, Bentham and Austin.
— Legal rights are those rights which are accepted and enforced by the state. Any defilement of any legal right is punished by law.
Law courts of the state enforce legal rights. These rights can be enforced against individuals and also against the government.
In this way, legal rights are different from moral rights. Legal rights are equally available to all the citizens. All citizens follow
legal rights without any discrimination. They can go to the courts for getting their legal rights enforced.
— Legal Rights are of three types:
— Civil Rights: Civil rights are those rights which provide opportunity to each person to lead a civilized social life. These fulfil
basic needs of human life in society. Right to life, liberty and equality are civil rights. Civil rights are protected by the state.
— Political Rights: Political rights are those rights by virtue of which inhabitants get a share in the political process. These allow
them to take an active part in the political process. These rights include right to vote, right to get elected, right to hold public
office and right to criticise and oppose the government. Political rights are really available to the people in a democratic state.
— Economic Rights: Economic rights are those rights which provide economic security to the people. These empower all
citizens to make proper use of their civil and political rights. The basic needs of every person are related to his food, clothing,
shelter, and medical treatment. Without the fulfilment of these no person can really enjoy his civil and political rights. It is
therefore essential, that every person must get the right to work, right to adequate wages, right to leisure and rest, and right
to social security in case of illness, physical disability and old age.
Rights
— Theory of Historical rights
— Edmund burke and Hegel
— The Historical Theory of Rights emphasizes that rights are the product of history.
— They have their origin in customs which once possessed practical social utility and passed on from one generation to another, ultimately
having been recognised as inherent claims or rights.
— In explaining natural rights, advocates of the historical theory maintain that custom is their sanction.
— They are considered fundamental to the development of man, because they have been maintained by a long unbroken custom and the
generations have habitually followed them: Habits are ‘natural’ as they grow. They are neither instituted nor are they invented.
— Burke maintains that the French Revolution was based on the abstract rights of man, whereas the English Revolution was based on the
customary rights of the people of that country.
— There is much truth in what Burke says. The French Revolution itself was the result of the conditions that prevailed in the country, but
its slogan was liberty, equality and fraternity, the three abstract principles of universal application.
— The Glorious Revolution, on the other hand, was simply a reassertion of the historic liberties of Englishmen, which had been their
heritage since the days of the Anglo-Saxons, and had found due expression in the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, and various other
documents of constitutional importance.
— There is much truth in the Historical Theory of Rights and many of our rights really find their origin in primitive customs.
— It does not, however, mean that the origin of all rights can be traced to customs and traditions. When rights are rigidly tied to customs
alone, we altogether ignore the dynamic nature of society and the changing contents of rights.
— Rights change with the facts of time and place. History, as such, is not the only basis of rights and customs do not provide an absolute
right or standard.
Rights
— Marxist theory of rights
— Political rights are useless without the economic and social rights.
— Marx and Engels have not allotted an exclusive place for the detailed analysis of rights,
but they were quite conscious of the condition of various rights as it prevailed in
bourgeois society. The liberal thinkers paid very little attention to the realisation of
economic rights. To them political rights were of prime importance and if citizens get
the opportunity to enjoy all the political rights, absence of economic rights will not
pose any problem on the way of political rights.
— But Marx and Engels denounced this approach to rights and they have stated in no
uncertain terms that in the absence of economic rights there is practically no
significance of political rights.
Rights
— Negative and Positive Rights:
— A concept of rights briefly stated by Andrew Heywood (Political Theory) is that there are two forms of
rights-negative and positive rights.
— Traditional rights mainly elaborated by Locke and Jefferson are called negative rights these rights are
right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. If we scan these rights we shall find that
they impose some restrictions upon the activities and power of the state authority. The state should not
perform such acts or enact such laws as well prevent the individuals from exercising or enjoying the
rights. These are also called forbearance rights. The implementation of rights requires the limitation
upon the power of the state. Needless to say that both John Locke and Jefferson wanted this.
— But in the twentieth century, specially after the Second World War, people demanded larger and
comprehensive intervention in the affairs of society which means that the state must do something for
the general welfare of the society and upliftment of the weaker sections of the community.
— These activities of the state finally came to be regarded as rights which are called welfare rights, social
and economic rights. These rights are known as positive rights. “These are positive rights in the sense
that they demand not forbearance but active government intervention”. The right to health care, right
to education etc. fall in this category.
Rights
— A Synthesis:
— Neither liberal theory nor Marxist theory of rights depicts the correct picture of rights.
— Defects of the liberal views are:
— (a) Too much emphasis on individuals’ freedom and his ability to look after his own interests,
— (b) Guarantee of political rights can cure all the evils, and
— (c) Negligence of economic rights.
— These shortcomings of liberal theory of rights have ultimately deprived a majority of people to enjoy
rights. Rights have become the privileged opportunities of the property owners and have not been
utilised for the development of the best qualities of all men which is the chief objective of rights.
— On the contrary, the Marxists have seen rights from economic perspectives. To them these are to be
economic first-and then political and by declaring this the Marxists have relegated political rights to
absolute insignificance. But both political and economic rights, any sensible man will admit, are
essential for the overall flourish of individual’s good qualities.
— How to effect a balance between political and economic rights is perhaps the most vexed problem of
political science.
Rights
— HUMAN RIGHTS
— These rights are the most controversial aspect of political theory, domestic politics as well as
international politics.
— Universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) adopted in 1948 does not define the human rights.
— However, article 1 of UN charter recognizes that human beings possess certain inalienable rights.
— The three documents that together form the “Bill of rights” are as following:
— Universal declaration of human rights
— International covenants on civil & political rights – 1966
— International covenants on social & cultural rights – 1966.
— Human rights are the rights which are supposed to be given to humans just because they are considered
to be human.
— HRs are an inalienable part of human personality. Taking away these rights means degrading a person
from the status of being human.
— It pre-supposes equality among all human beings. The protection of non-dominant section like women,
minorities, trans-gender poor, persons with disabilities who are more vulnerable than others is the
heart and soul of human rights.
Rights
— ORIGIN:
— Although its origin can be traced back to the theories of natural rights (Locke) but more appropriately its origin remains in
the context of Hitler’s atrocities on Jews and disabled.
— It was recognized that sovereignty of state principle has to be modified. The sovereignty of the state doesn’t give power and
the free hand to the state to commit atrocities on the people.
— In such a situation, international community can’t be a mute spectator.
— This realization led to the recognition of the concept of sovereignty as responsibility and doctrine of responsibility to protect
sovereignty as responsibility.
— The sovereignty of the state is not a free hand to commit atrocities rather the responsibility to protect the people from
internal and external threats. Prime responsibility is off state.
— In case, the state fails to fulfil the responsibility then it’s the responsibility of the international community.
— Even in the US constitution, it is said that every man has 3 inalienable rights
— Right to life
— Right to liberty
— Right to pursuit of happiness
— Basically, HRs are based on the two concepts:
— HRs has entitlements
— Concept of human dignity (Immanuel Kant)
— In the real world, primacy has been given to entitlements arguments over dignity arguments
Rights
— Theory of Human rights which are more debatable:
— The idea of human rights is based on two traditions.
— Theory of natural rights: Locke’s theory – Entitlement approach as well as Jack Donnelly’s concepts.
— Theory of human dignity or concept of human dignity which is based on ideas of Immanuel Kant.
— KarelVesak has given 3 generations of rights (human rights also):
— Civil and Political
— Social and Economical
— Cultural rights (of development .etc related to the 3rd world.)
— First-generation, “civil-political” rights deal with liberty and participation in political life. They are strongly individualistic and
negatively constructed to protect the individual from the state. These rights draw from those articulates in the United States Bill of
Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in the 18th century. Civil-political rights have been legitimated and given
status in international law by Articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.
— Second-generation, “socio-economic” human rights guarantee equal conditions and treatment. They are not rights directly possessed by
individuals but constitute positive duties upon the government to respect and fulfill them. Socio-economic rights began to be
recognized by government after World War II and, like first-generation rights, are embodied in Articles 22 to 27 of the Universal
Declaration. They are also enumerated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
— Third-generation, “collective-developmental” rights of peoples and groups held against their respective states aligns with the final tenet
of “fraternity.” They constitute a broad class of rights that have gained acknowledgment in international agreements and treaties but are
more contested than the preceding types. They have been expressed largely in documents advancing aspirational “soft law,” such as the
1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the 1994 Draft Declaration of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights.
Rights
— Characteristics of human rights:
— Human Rights are Inalienable: Human rights are deliberated on an individual due to the very nature of his existence. They are innate in all individuals
irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, sex and nationality. Human rights are conferred to an individual even after his death. The different rituals in
different religions bear testimony to this fact.
— Human Rights are essential and necessary: Human rights are needed to maintain the moral, physical, social and spiritual welfare of an individual. Human
rights are also essential as they provide suitable conditions for material and moral upliftment of the people.
— Human Rights are associated with human dignity: To treat another individual with dignity regardless of the fact that the person is a male or female,
rich or poor is concerned with human dignity.
— Human Rights are Irrevocable: Human rights are irrevocable as they cannot be taken away by any power or authority because these rights originate with
the social nature of man in the society of human beings and they belong to a person simply because he is a human being. As such human rights have similarities
to moral rights.
— Human Rights are essential for the fulfilment of purpose of life: Human life has a purpose. The phrase “human right” is applied to those conditions
which are essential for the fulfilment of this purpose. No government has the power to curtail or take away the rights which are sacrosanct, inviolable and
immutable.
— Human Rights are Universal: Human rights are not a domination of any privileged class of people. Human rights are universal in nature, without
consideration and without exception. The values such as divinity, dignity and equality which form the basis of these rights are inherent in human nature.
— Human Rights are never absolute: Man is a social animal and he lives in a civic society, which always put certain limitations on the enjoyment of his rights
and freedoms. Human rights as such are those limited powers or claims, which are contributory to the common good and which are recognized and guaranteed
by the State, through its laws to the individuals. As such each right has certain limitations.
— Human Rights are Dynamic: Human rights are not stationary, they are dynamic. Human rights go on expanding with socio-eco-cultural and political
developments within the State. Judges have to construe laws in such ways as are in tune with the changed social values.
— Rights as limits to state power: Human rights infer that every individual has legitimate claims upon his or her society for certain freedom and benefits. So
human rights limit the state’s power. These may be in the form of negative restrictions, on the powers of the State, from violating the inalienable freedoms of
the individuals, or in the nature of demands on the State, i.e. positive obligations of the State.
Rights
— The concept of human rights is based on the following fundamental ideas:
— Equality
— Universality
— Inalienability – it goes to the extent that person’s human rights is recognized
irrespective of the fact how horribly he behaves or in how barbaric manner he behave.
— Permanence
— Personhood or Autonomy.
— The dominant theory of rights during WWII was the legal theory of rights and is
compatible with the monistic theory of sovereignty of state. State was considered as
sovereign so no interference in the domestic affairs of the state was permissible. It was
up to the state to decide which rights it wants to provide to its people. There was no
institution to ensure state’s accountability.
Rights
— CONTROVERSIES RELATED TO HRs
— Controversy is more because of the actions taken in the name of human rights and the resentment against such attempts.
— HRs has been seen as the means and for protection of humanity but as a means to establish the hegemony of the west.
— International institutions which have the responsibility to protect. For eg; UNSC represents domination of US. The manner in which these doctrines have been implemented for eg; in Libya where it was evident that aim
was not human rights but regime changes. Brazil has brought a resolution which talks about responsible protection. It implies accountability of those who are involved in such operation have to be established. There has
been a selective use of HRs by the guardians of HRs.
— On conceptual aspects
— Definition of Human – whenever terrorist or those who commit barbaric acts deserve to be treated as human.
— No clarity as to when human rights start – the issue is related to right to abort a child which is very controversial especially in catholic countries. It is not clear whether human rights begins in the womb of the mother or after birth.
— Universalism is the characteristics of human right but it doesn’t seem that these will be an agreement on inventory of basic human rights. Value system in the west is very different from non-western societies.
— HRs often contradicts with principle of national sovereignty and integrity. It is difficult to decide whether HRs to be given primacy or territorial integrity.
— HRs limit the sovereignty of the state. At the same time, states are expected to protect and strengthen HRs which imply weakening of powers of police and army.
—
— Human rights are a very controversial and politicized concept. Initially, socialist country opposes H.R because they believe that the idea of H.R is based on the idea of Bourgeois society.
— In present times, politics of human rights is one of the dominant factor behind the clash of civilization.
— There is a resentment against the imposition of western values on non-western societies.
— Ex; Former P.M of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad who called for “Asian Values” and to recognize cultural relativism.
— Cultural Relativism are believing that different cultures have different value system and the conception of right and wrong can be understood only w.r.t culture. Cultural relativism suggests that person beliefs and
activities should be understood by other in terms of that person’s culture.
— There are multiple debates w.r.t H.R. For ex; there is a lack of consensus over the concept of human and when human rights begin. For some persons, terrorists or person committing heinous crimes do not deserve to be
treated as humans.
— Similarly, a questionable issue is that since when we should see the beginning of H.R.
— Is it after birth or before birth when the child is inside the womb of mother? This issue relates to the issue of women’s issue of right to abortion. In some countries abortion is not permissible.
— The debate on H.R also centres around the issues like the responsibility, which institution has the prime accountability. HRs are against the state but states are expected to protect HR.
— Similarly, in international politics, sovereignty of the state remains the core principle and often comes into the conflict of the responsibility of the international community.
Rights
— The most controversial feature of the theory of H.R which is also the most
fundamental feature is the universalism.
— The crux of the problem is HRs activism is so far associated with western govts or
western NGOs. Western value system does not correspond to the non-western ways of
life. West believes in supremacy of its values and does not give the desired respect and
recognition to non-western values.
— UNSC which is the main body of enforcement remains dominated by west.
— A new body known as international criminal court which has been created to deal with
crimes of genocide has also come under controversy. So far all the cases and decisions
are only on African countries.
— Many prominent countries like USA, China, India, Israel and Russia remain out of the
ICC. So long human rights do not become an end in themselves and continue to be a
means for narrow national interest, they won’t get the legitimacy which they deserve.
Rights
— CRITICISM OF HRs
— HRs discourse is dominated by liberalism. In recent times, we see the rise of
various perspectives which challenge the hegemony of liberalism.
— Why? Because the characteristics features of liberalism includes
— Liberals propound their theory as universal.
— They consider liberal principles as universal and scientific like Newton’s law of gravity.
— Liberals assumed that their principles are based on scientific methods.
— Liberalism is not a science but a discourse.
Rights
— IMPACTS OF GLOBALISATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
— Like Technology, Globalisation is a double-edged sword.
— Globalisation is full of contradictions. It’s said that more the world is coming together, more it is falling apart. On one hand, there is a growth of Global regimes talks of
Human Rights while on the other hand there is a growth of tribalism.
— Ideally, Globalisation should have strengthened human rights as globalisation means evolution of the cosmopolitan world order. In practise globalisation has increased
consciousness about human rights.
— It has resulted into the proliferation of human rights instrument and institutions but on the other hand it has undermined human rights and democratic forces.
— The present globalisation is driven by neo-liberal agenda. It’s based on the philosophy of market fundamentalism and Washington consensus. Market fundamentalism is the
survival of the fittest.
— The real problem is neo-liberal globalisation. Globalisation has impacted social and economic rights of the people. There is a growth of interstate and intrastate inequalities.
— It has adversely affected the rights of labourers. There’s a race to bottom. To attract foreign capital, Govt. are diluting labour laws.
— Globalisation has increased the pace of environmental degradation. Thus, impacting the life of peoples like tribal who are very much dependent on nature.
— It has increased informal labours, child labours, feminization of poverty. There is an adverse impact of the rolling back of the state subsidies on persons with disabilities & old
person.
— Globalisation has strengthened non-state actors at the cost of state. State is so far the highest elected body.
— It has shifted the powers into the hands of NGOs despite increase in no. of NGOs. There is no better protection of human rights because of the growth of human rights
industry.
— To secure the interest of capital class. States has gone even to the extent of taking military actions. Such actions have resulted into destabilizing in the Middle East which lead to
the failure of state and humanitarian crisis. For ex; Refugee crisis.
— Above discussion shows that globalisation has undermined human rights because globalisation is not democratic in character. Institutions of Global governance lack
accountability, transparency and representative.
— Hence Joseph Stiglitz have suggested the necessity of addressing the democratic deficit of these institutions. AmartyaSen suggested the necessity of incorporating the capability
approach by the states so that people can bear the challenges of globalisation and can utilize the opportunities.
—
Rights
— Human rights in India:
— Human rights are vital for all round development of individuals. The Constitution of India makes provisions
for basic rights also known as Fundamental Rights for its citizens as well as for aliens.
— The Supreme Court of India is the guarantor of the rights according to the Constitution. The court takes into
account fundamental duties while interpreting the constitutional right. In Indian constitution, Rights are
classified mainly in three broad categories: (a) Civil (b) Political (c) Economic and Social. Fundamental Rights
in India recognize certain civil rights. Certain Political and Economic and Social rights are recognized by other
provisions in the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India recognizes Fundamental Right as “natural right”
— In Indian constitution, the Fundamental Rights are defined as the basic human rights of all citizens. These
rights are defined in Part III of the Constitution regardless of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed or sex.
— Guha quoted that “The demand for a declaration of fundamental rights arose from four factors:
— - Lack of civil liberty in India during the British rule.
— - Deplorable social conditions, particularly affecting the untouchables and women.
— - Existence of different religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups encouraged and exploited by the Britishers.
— - Exploitation of the tenants by the landlords.
Rights
— VALUE PLURALISM (Isaiah Berlin)
— This view is discomfort with the type of fundamentalism which prevails in the
liberalism. Traditional liberal scholars believe in supremacy of liberal values. For eg;
Primacy of liberty over equality or fraternity.
— Value pluralism is opposition to value monism. Value monism is the view that there can
be a single denominator to all ethical question for ex; utilitarianism.
— According to utilitarianism, utility should be denominator for all actions, value monism
is value absolutism – Which means considering one value as supreme.
— We can understand, value pluralism in context of the debate b/w liberty and equality.
Isaiah Berlin has given the idea of value pluralism. According to Isaiah Berlin, there can
be difference and conflicting values yet each value is equally correct and necessary for
the followers believes. For ex; b/w liberty and equality it’s not easy to decide which is
more important and which should get preference.
Rights
— Views of Isaiah Berlin
— People are bound to disagree on these values. It creates extremely difficult situation for “Hard choice” as it
becomes impossible to satisfy one without harming the other.
— For ex; if states favours equality, liberty is going to be adversely affected. If state favours liberty, equality will be affected.
— life of a numb and life of a mother – Each of them have the value of their own and each role has its own importance.
Hence, he suggests to adopt value pluralism.
— Conflict of values are intrinsic to human life. Values are not only incompatible but incommensurable i.e.,
value can’t be measured and can’t be put in a definite hierarchy. However, he believes that there are some
generic values over which there is an agreement in most of the societies. These values are the product of
evolution of human civilization. For ex; right to life or value that one should not take another person.
— We can’t establish the superiority of one over the other. It is “Ionian fallacy” i.e., completely Utopian or
impractical) to believe that there can be an agreement on the values. It is wrong to believe that all the general
questions have only one correct answer.
— Some of the examples of the clash of values which can’t be resolved procedurally are as:
— Liberty vs order
— Mercy vs justice
— Love vs Fairness
— Equality vs liberty
— Social vs individual
Rights
— SOLUTION
— Berlin advocates to practice value pluralism but his biasness remains towards liberalism
and thus believes that value pluralism can be practised only in liberal societies because it
requires toleration and rationality.
— We should try to
— reduce harm, human sufferings, moral conflicts should be softened.
— avoid intolerable choices and desperate situations.
— achieve balance
— He does not support cultural relativistic view. It appears as if he expects other cultures
to develop in life of liberal societies.
Rights
— Difference b/w Toleration and Value pluralism
— Both views belong to the liberal discourse – Traditional liberals promoted toleration.
For traditional liberals, there should be a separation b/w personal and political.
— We should confine our religious and cultural beliefs to our personal sphere.
— As far as the public sphere is concerned we should deal only with the common issues
— In public sphere, civic nationalism should be adopted. This is the approach evident in
French concept of Laicite (French secularism i.e., strict separations).
— Liberal pluralism is more accommodative of differences rather than toleration.
Toleration is called as value neutrality.
Rights
— CONCEPT OF VALUE NEUTRALITY
— It is the oldest concept of toleration in liberation. Its origin is in religious conflicts. State
is expected to observe neutrality or indifference to the religious matters.
— State should have the neutral attitudes towards religion neither any preference nor any
discrimination on the ground of religion. Religion should be confined within the private
spheres. Religion should not be present in public sphere. Ex; France.
— Value neutrality is based on the liberal view of atomistic man. Liberals believe that it’s
possible to isolate oneself from once religion, culture or social background. Many
schools of thoughts reject the concept of isolated man for ex; according
to communitarian man is “embedded-self ” or “Situated-self ”.
— Value neutrality is understood as neutrality but it’s not neutrality in real sense. It may be
the imposition of the value of majority over minority
Rights
— MULTICULTURALISM -1960S ONWARDS:
— It gains popularity in the 1960s-70s. In 1960s, in USA we see the rise of black consciousness. Some
black movement also took militant turn.
— In 1970s, we see the rise of political assertiveness among minority groups and non-dominant sections
of the society which include indigenous communities, immigrants, refugees, sexual minorities etc. For
eg; Quebec, Scotland, Wales, Catalonia, Corsica, Flanders
— Multiculturalism represents much deeper understanding of concept of rights which goes beyond the
conventional discourse.
— Conventional discourse is about the civil and political rights, social and economic rights and
multiculturalism stands also for cultural rights.
— Ethnic identities became the vehicle to protest against domination.
— Many European countries also witnessed increase in the scale of immigration. These developments
forced these countries to think about the ways to deal with diversity and sub-national movements.
— Some western countries like Canada and Australia have formally adopted multiculturalism as an official
policy or feature of the constitution.
Rights
— Sources of Influences:
— Herder – gave importance to culture and culture as a foundation for social system. He holds that, human
beings are culturally defined.
— Cultural relativism/Politics of recognition/Asian values – Some statesmen from South-East Asia
suggested the superiority of Asian Values and highlighted the non-applicability of western values for Asian
societies. Ex; Lee KuanYew and Mahathir Mohamad. They’ve challenged the western attempts to impose
liberal values in the name and Human rights. They also challenged the arrogance of the west. Treating non-
western culture as inferior Cultural relativists suggests that each culture is important, every culture is logical
and people understand their world through culture.
— Communitarian-ism scholars like Charles Taylor have challenged the liberal conception of the “Self ”.
According to liberalism, man is “Atomistic”. For communitarian man is an embedded self or situated self,
man is not unencumbered self. For Taylor, culture is a way of life.
— In 2000, EU adopted multiculturalism. It was recognized that we’re living in “Hyper-mobile planet”.
Increasing diversity is a trend. Monoculturlism is no more possible. There is a rising threat of militant Islam.
Hence we’ve to recognize diversity to keep extremism away and to achieve cultural and political cohesion. It
is no more viable to go for unity in Uniformity rather we’ve to go for recognizing diversity in Unity and unity
in diversity. Instead of universal citizenship they advocate multi-cultural citizenship.
— Multiculturalism was also supported on the basis of ecology. Just like diversity is good for the health of
ecosystem so diversity is also good for social political systems.
Rights
— PROMINENT SCHOLARS
— Gurpreet Mahajan
— Neera Chandoke
— Seyla Benhabib
— Charles Taylor
— WILL KYMLICKA (Liberal multiculturalist)
— Human beings are culturally embedded. Culture gives the sense of well-being. If we accept the right of a person to exist and flourish then we must accept the right of that person’s culture to be protected and flourish. Culture is a medium
through which we make sense of world. Just like in ecology, bio-diversity is good, similarly in society, cultural diversity is good. We can’t say a culture inferior or superior because culture is a way of life. Every culture is shaped by its
geography.
— Will Kymlicka, in his book “Multi-cultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights” published in 1995 questions the conventional liberal view of man i.e., atomistic man and accept that man is culturally embedded. He accepts that in the
present times, liberal theory of the value neutrality is not sufficient to address the issue of diversity. According to him, liberal states should recognize the idea of multi-cultural citizenship. He has given the following reasons for the rise of multi-
culturalism→
— Increasing rights consciousness
— Demographic changes
— Multiple access points for communication
— Non- dominant groups asserting their claims
— Consciousness of Human Rights.
— De-securitnization of ethnic relations.
— He suggests multi-culturalism citizenship.
— He believed that multi-culturalism is the natural and inevitable evolution of liberalism. He recommends following rights for minorities and non-dominant section:
— Special representation rights./Group rights Ex; Representation in Parliament
— Self-governance rights if Ethnic community concentrated geographically. Like Tamils in Sri Lanka, Nagas in India (Schedule 5 & 6)
— Poly Ethnic rights or special cultural rights. Ex; in India, religious and cultural minorities have right to preserve their language and script.
— Multi-Culturalism citizenship
— Will Kymlicka adopts Rawlsian logic that someone should not suffer for what he has not chosen and which is just a matter of luck. It’s not a matter of choice but a matter of luck that a person is born in a minority community. By giving them
special rights we’re compensating the disadvantages.
— Will Kymlicka suggests special rights only for indigenous minorities and not for immigrants and refugees.
— Why not for immigrants?
— Immigrants have chosen to immigrate. It’s the conscious choice and not a forced choice. There is no need for state or society to take the burden. Rather it’s their responsibility to adopt the national and cultural hence there is a justification for tests like language proficiency tests
meant for getting citizenship in USA.
— Why not for Refugees?
— Will Kymlicka does not give special rights for refugees. There’s no justification that the state giving asylum should bear the burden.
Rights
— BHIKKHU PAREKH
— School of thought = Post-colonial multi-culturalism.
— Book = ” Re-thinking multiculturalism”- 2002.
— He is critical of Will Kymlicka because of two reasons:
— Kymlicka’s multiculturalism is limited to nationalists’ discourse. He does not see any logic in depriving immigrants and refugees. If culture is accepted as a condition for
person’s well-being there’s no logic to deprive immigrants and refugees.
— According to Bhikkhu Parekh, Liberalism can’t be multi-culturalism. Thus, he challenges Kymlicka’s view that multiculturalism is a natural evolution of liberalism.
— According to Bhikhu Parekh, there is arrogance in liberalism about the superiority of liberal values. They are not ready to accept the good things in cultures of
other community. They want to impose their way of life on all communities.
— He gives the example of the tradition of treating Sunday as a holiday. Sunday is a holiday based on Christian Tradition which has been projected as a universal
system and a common sense. He suggests that exemption should be given to the people belonging to the different communities.
— For ex:
— Muslim and Jews can be given holidays on Fridays.
— There is no problem in permitting Muslim girls to wear scarfs in schools and Sikh community exemptions from wearing helmet or turbans.
— Bhikhu Parekh is aware of inhuman practices present in some cultures. He does not suggest tolerating. He suggests to use “harm principle” in determining the
limits of toleration.
— Bhikhu Parekh suggests the necessity of dialogues b/w civilisation. He does not approve the establishment of the principles governing human life on a single
conception of justice. He recommends dialogues b/w civilizations.
— He is optimistic that human society can arrive at a consensus over some generic values. He believes that human dignity and equality can be the generic values
which is themselves so powerful can provide the foundation for the emergence of cosmopolitan values which will act as a foundation for Global civil society.
— He suggested greater rights for immigrants. Constitution of India is one of the earliest formal legal document giving recognition to idea of multiculturalism.
Constitution of India gives positive endorsement to diversity. It recognizes and respect different ways of life
Rights
— Multiculturalism differs from value pluralism in the context that it is rooted in cultural theory.
— It is a deeper collaboration of diversity than value pluralism.
— Multuculturalists proposes deliberative democracy and consociationalism (consensus building).
— The USA is an example of liberalism and value pluralism whereas India is an example of multiculturalism.
— The Indian concept of nationalism is based on the Salad-bowl concept and cultural mosaic whereas USA’s concept is known as
melting point.
— CRITICISM OF MULTI-CULTURALISM
— Feminist Scholar Susan Moller Okin in her book Is multiculturalism bad for women – Multiculturalism is bad for women
because in general all cultures are giving subordinate status to women.
— Liberal Scholar Brian Barry – It weakens the struggle for socio-economic empowerment because it divides people in the line
of religion. He suggests that multiculturalism may result into the justification of inhuman practises found in some cultures for
ex; mutilation of female genital organs practiced in some societies.
— ChandranKukathas has raises the question of vulnerable minorities within the group. For ex; women, dissenters and sexual
minorities.
— AmartyaSen said that it leads to ghettoization. It also leads to the miniaturization of humanity.
— Jeremy Waldron: Multiculturalism undermines the capacity of people to adapt different cultures and thus weakens the policy
of emergence of the possibility of cosmopolitan cultures.
— He supports the diffusion among cultures rather than maintaining distinct identities. According to this view, by diffusion of culture a
cosmopolitan culture will emerge – (COSMO-POLITAN MULTICULTURALISM)
Rights
— PRESENT STATUS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM
— Multiculturalism is suffering from the crisis and there is a trend towards conservatism,
fundamentalism and nationalism because of multiple factors like Globalisation and
terrorism.
— Andrew Murphy suggested toleration only towards tolerant. He is critical of toleration
towards Muslim Communities. According to him, Islamic values are not open for
generous politics of accommodation.
— Bruce Bawer has pointed towards the issue of security because of multi-culturalism in
his book, “Surrender” appeased Islam and sacrifice freedom. These theories strengthen
the clash of civilization.
—