RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

PYQs on Rights
1. Assess the significance of right to property in political theory.(2020/150/15)
2. Discuss the importance of personal data protection in the context of human rights.
(2019/200/15)
3. Discuss the doctrine of 'rights as trumps'. (2019/200/15)
4. Critically examine the notion of "Asian Values" in the context of the on-going debates on
human rights. (2018/250/20)
5. What do you understand by three generations of Human Rights? (2018/250/20)
6. "The implementation of human rights is regarded as a matter of changing the conduct of
States." Comment. (2016/200/15)
7. Do you endorse that the conventional discourse on human rights has failed to include
women’s rights ? Explain in the context of feminist theories. (2015/250/20)
8. Comment on: Idea of Natural Rights (2015/150/10)
9. Analyse the relationship between natural rights and human rights. (2013/150/20)
10. Examine the multi-cultural perspectives on rights. (2012/200/15)
11. Critically examine the cultural relativist approach to human rights. (2010/200/30)
12. Explain as to why Jeremy Bentham dismisses the theory of natural right as nonsense
upon stilts. (2009/200/20)
13. Comment on: "Real rights are a result of performance of duty." (Mahatma Gandhi)
(2008/200/2)
14. "Human rights are basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and cultures
possess, simply because they are people." Explain the statement. (2008/200/60)
15. Discuss the evaluation of the theories of human rights from natural rights to collective
and environmental rights. (2002/200/60)
16. Comment on: The true source of light is duty. If we all discharge our duties, rights will
not be far to see (M K Gandhi). (2002/200/20)
The concept of rights is, politically less contentious than equality or social justice. However,
there is far less agreement about the grounds on which these rights are based, who should
possess them, and which ones they should have. The concept of rights or 'human rights’,
originates from the voice of protest oppression perpetrated by the dominant groups in
society. Rights are meant to safeguard the individual from the irresponsible and arbitrary use
of power by the ruling class.

There is, in the first place, a distinction between legal and moral rights. Some rights are laid
down in law or in a system of formal rules and so are enforceable; others, however, exist only as
moral or philosophical claims. Furthermore, problems surround the notion of human rights.
Who, for instance, is to be regarded as ‘human’? Does this extend embryos as well as to
adults? Are groups of people, perhaps women and ethnic minorities, entitled to special rights
by virtue either of their biological needs or social position? Finally, the conventional
understanding of rights has been challenged by the emergence of the green and animal
liberation movements, which have raised questions about the rights of non-humans, the
rights of animals and other species.

CONCEPT OF RIGHTS:

LASKI defines:
Rights as the conditions of social life without which no one can seek, in general, to be at his
best.

As the definition suggests,

a) they are the conditions of social life and thus there cannot be any rights in the state of
nature,thus,nobody can seek to be at his best in the state of nature.

b) Laski holds that rights are not concessions granted by the state. For men, to be him, to
own his own personality, to develop his own character requires certain rights which must
be recognized by the society or state. On the contrary, they are superior to the state,
because they provide for a standard to judge the state itself. For since the State exists
to make possible that achievement, it is only by maintaining rights that its end may be
secured.

c) Rights, therefore, are prior to the State in the sense that, recognized or not, they are that
from which state’s validity is derived.
Thus, rights are those claims which must be recognized by the society or state and the
recognition of those rights and protection of rights are considered as essential for the
individuals to develop fully, to be at himself or to be the best version of himself. This
discourse on rights is fundamental aspect of modern political philosophy.

The conception of social life essentially entails a relationship between Rights and Duties. When
rights are erected on moral foundations they are essentially accompanied by duties. So,rights
are meaningless, if it does not invoke obligations or duties on the part of others. Person’s
rights or claims or entitlements, necessarily, require other individuals or groups, society, or the
state to have certain obligations towards those individuals and similarly, same individual must
also, recognize the rights of others. Therefore, other rights become one’s own obligation, to
recognize or extend those rights to other individuals also. So,one person’s rights or claims or
entitlements are necessarily, another person’s obligations. So, rights and duty must go hand
in hand, but it is not equal to each other. The obligation is what you are obliged to do for
others, for the society, state, and other members in society. But rights are your due, your own
entitlements or claims against other members or society or the state. So, rights are those
claims which individuals make against, the state or society which needs to be secured by the law
or constitution. Thus, there are broadly, speaking two kinds of rights. They are- legal and
moral rights.

Laski carefully points to their correlation.

“The possession of rights . . . does not mean the possession of claims that are empty of all
duties . . . Our rights are not independent of society, but inherent in it... To provide for me the
conditions which enable me to be my best self is to oblige me, at the same time, to seek to be
my best self. To protect me against attack from others is to imply that I myself will
desist from attacking others. “
The concept of rights postulates that the state as well as the individual shall pursue the ideal
objects of society. Accordingly, the duty of the individual is coextensive with the duty of the
state. If the state fails in its duty, it is the duty of the individual to resist the state.

Moreover, as the rights of man are subservient to the common good, it is his duty to
contribute to the common good in exercise of his rights. A shared conception of a collective
end — a common good — is the basis of society's existence, and is also the basis of the
individual's existence as a moral agent. Hence, achieving the moral end of man is dependent
on the recognition of oneself as a purposeful agent who can only progress within a society of
other purposeful moral agents. This echoes the Kantian idea that a fundamental element of
rights is adherence to the categorical imperative.

Similarly, T H Green argues that we are entitled to rights because this enables us to fulfil our
moral agency, and thus, to contribute to the common good. The purpose of rights should not
be seen as a protection of the individual from social authorities, because ‘a right against
society, as such, is an impossibility’. Green says “the human consciousness postulates liberty’,
Liberty involves rights; rights demand the state”.

Thus rights become rights only when there is corresponding duty attached to [Link]
correlation between rights and duties also determine whether Rights are claims or a mere
entitlements. The claim versus entitlement debate is reflective of age old debate on legal
versus moral [Link], are said to have no meaning without duties and one person’s
rights necessarily, involves another person’s duties or vice versa. So, the rights and duties
must go hand in hand.

The idea is the very formation of modern state which is based on certain assumptions and
one of the assumptions for the formation of the state is that it recognizes the individual as
a right bearing citizen or a member. Therefore, state has certain obligations to recognize
certain rights of individuals and also, it must protect those rights.

Some of the basic features of rights are:

Rights are claims of individuals and it exists only, in a society, when others exist to
recognize those rights, and these are the products of social living.

Rights are recognized by the society as common claims of all the members of that society.
So, rights are rational and reasonable moral claims which individuals seek to get
recognized by the state and other members of the society.

Rights are equally, available to every member of the community and not to a particular
member or a group of individuals or privileged members in the society. Rights if,
understood as claims, recognized by the society, then those rights are available to every
member of society and not to a selected few. However, if there are some differences or
some kinds of preferential treatment given to certain groups or individuals from certain
groups, then those differences or differential treatment must be duly, justified.
The scope or set of rights constantly, keeps expanding and changing with the passage of
time and new rights are included, such as in India, we have a set of fundamental rights
and how, the right to education which was earlier not part of our fundamental rights is
now, added to it and regarded as the fundamental right.

Rights are not absolute. There are always, some reasonable restrictions on the right which
are deemed essential for maintaining public health, security order and morality.

Rights are inseparably, related to duties or obligations, and there is a close relationship
between the two. There is a kind of intimate connection between rights and obligation,
although, both are not same.

Claims versus Entitlement:

The claims and entitlements enable the individuals to make certain choice, to do something
or to get something done or to not to do something. So, the rights have some elements of
choice, some elements of voluntarily action on the part of the individuals, it enables and
gives the individual his or her due in the society or being a member of that society.
However, all the claims or entitlements that individual may seek from the society, or the
state may not be necessarily, regarded as rights. For the claims and entitlements to be
regarded as rights, the society or state must recognize them. In other words, rights are
recognized as claims.

Claims are strong rights in the sense because there is corresponding duty or responsibility
on someone to give it to the possessor of the right. Claims are rights one must have.

Entitlements on the other hand are weak rights. One may deserve it but there is no
corresponding obligation/duty on anyone to give it to the possessor of the entitlement.

For example right to food was a mere entitlement earlier but post the enactment of food
security bill, it is a claim because there is a duty cast upon the state to provide certain
minimum amount of food to the claimants.

Similarly fundamental rights are claims and Human rights are entitlements.

Legal and moral rights:

Legal rights are rights which are enshrined in law and are therefore enforceable through
the courts. They have been described as ‘positive’ rights, in that they are enjoyed or upheld
regardless of their moral content. For example, Fundamental rights.

Legal rights extend over a broad range of legal relationships. A classic attempt to
categorize such rights was undertaken by Wesley Hohfeld in Fundamental Legal
Conceptions (1923). Hohfeld identified four types of legal right.

First, there are privileges or liberty-rights. These allow a person to do something for
instance, to use the public highway or not to do something or perform some obligations.
Second, there are claim-rights, based on which another person owes another a
corresponding duty – for example, the right of one person not to be assaulted by another.
Third, there are legal powers. These are best thought of as legal abilities, empowering
someone to do something – for example, the right to get married or the right to vote.
Fourth, there are immunities, according to which one person can avoid being subject to the
power of another – for instance, the right of young, elderly, and disabled people not to be
drafted into the army.

A different range of rights, however, may have no legal substance but only exist as moral
claims. The simplest example of this is a promise. A promise, freely and rationally made,
invests one person with a moral obligation to fulfil its terms, and so grants the other party
the right that it should be fulfilled. Unless the promise takes the form of a legally binding
contract, it is enforced by moral considerations alone. It is, quite simply, the fact that it is
freely made that creates the expectation that a promise will be, and should be, fulfilled.
In most cases, however, moral rights are based, rather, on their content. In other words,
moral rights are more commonly ‘ideal’ rights, which bestow on a person a benefit that
they need or deserve. Moral rights therefore reflect what a person should have, from the
perspective of a particular ethical or religious system.

The danger with moral rights is, however, that they may become impossibly vague and
degenerate into little more than an expression of what is morally desirable.

THEORIES OF RIGHTS:

Various theories regarding origin and justification of rights can be classified as:

a) Natural theory
b) Legal theory
c) Conservative theory
 d) Libertarian theory
d) Communitarian theory
e) Multicultural theory.

NATURAL THEORY OF RIGHTS:

This is the oldest theory of rights and has two traditions in it.

The first tradition belongs to the social contract propounded by John Locke .

The second tradition is called as the teleological and its main proponent was Thomas
Paine.

Social contract tradition:

Essence of theory of natural rights is to limit the power of the state. The concept of natural
right is of modern times. We saw the ideas in American war of independence and the
French revolution.

The theory of natural rights was in contradiction to the theory of divine rights of medieval
times. According to it King had the absolute authority and people had no rights against the
king or absolute powers of state. So the natural rights tradition as propounded by Locke
talks about the natural rights of man in which state has no absolute rights. Government is a
trust and people are trustees. Government can’t go against the wishes of the people. If it
does so, people have a right to revolt. Locke held that right to life, liberty and property are
the natural rights. Thus, Lockean conception of state is of minimal state which must
protect or recognize individual rights and its only, task is to protect those rights and such
rights are right to life, property and liberty.

In the social contract tradition, origin of rights is in intuition or reason rather than in any
institution or state. The proponents of these rights hold that people inherit certain rights
from the natural law and before they come to live in the society, whether the civil or
political society or state, they used to live in the ‘state of nature’. In this ‘state of nature’,
they enjoyed certain natural rights in the words of Locke, like right to life, right to liberty
and property. Therefore, they argued that society and state must recognize these rights
which are not something, that is, recognized by the society and state. But it is something,
which individuals enjoyed in his ‘state of nature’.

Thus, it was Locke who tried to demonstrate how, natural rights, that is rights derived from
natural law i.e. reason could form the basis of the principles of governance. However, many
scholars and theorists, have criticized this natural right as being imaginary or excessively,
individualistic. Because it focuses on the individual as a self- defining autonomous subject
and ‘a historical’. There is no historical evidence to prove that there was a ‘state of nature’.

Teleological tradition:

Teleology means the doctrine of final causes. It signifies the view that any developments
are due to the purpose or design that is served by them. The teleological view of rights,
therefore, seeks to relate the rights of man with the purpose of human life. These rights
do not depend on any institutional arrangements, but ensue from the very nature of man
and serve the purpose of his life. These are, therefore, natural rights. It is a commonsense
based approach.

They are a critic of social contract tradition. Paine calls it illogical. Paine rejected the
doctrine of the social contract as it was 'eternally binding, and hence a clog on the wheel
of progress’. He asks that how can we bind next generation by the contract of a previous
generation. He insisted that every generation should be free to think and act for itself. But
rights to 'liberty, property, security and resistance of oppression', which are the proud
possessions of man in civil society, derive their sanction from the natural rights’-existing in
the individual'.

Thus teleological tradition gives the end of men i.e objective or purpose of [Link] is to live
with dignity and therefore some rights are essential to live with human dignity.

Natural rights are claimed to be eternal and immutable. But, in actual practice, they are
capable of immense variations. In short, the concept of natural rights is a subjective
concept. Their character depends on the views and values of the class which grasps,
interprets, and articulates them.

THEORY OF LEGAL RIGHTS:

It is associated with the ideas of Hobbes and Bentham. They are utilitarian’s and thus
prefer order over liberty. The theory of legal rights holds that all rights of man depend on
the state for their existence. There can be no right in the proper sense of the term unless it
is so recognized by the state. According to this theory,

a) no rights are absolute,

b) nor are any rights inherent in man as such.

So state is the source of rights.

Natural rights are not rights but they are power, as in the absence of state in the state of
nature, might become right. Thus, only when state comes into existence, people can enjoy
rights.

This implies:

(a) in the first place, that there are no rights prior to the state, because they
come into existence with the state itself.
(b) secondly, it is the state which declares the law and thereby guarantees and
enforces rights—no rights can exist beyond the legal framework provided
by the state; and
(c) finally, as the law may change from time to time, the substance of rights
also changes therewith—there can be no 'fixed' rights in any society, not to
speak of eternal or universal rights.

Bentham rejects the doctrine of natural rights as unreal and ill-founded. He calls natural
rights as nonsense upon stilts. Entire natural rights theory has no ground and only source
of rights is state. According to Bentham Natural rights are terroristic language. It creates
terror because if we demand rights from state which it is unable to provide, it will result
into anarchy and chaos. Bentham condemns natural rights as an invention of fanatics,
which are dogmatic and unintelligible, devoid of [Link] calls them as chimeras

It is thus evident that the theory of legal rights was advanced with a focus on political
reality and to repudiate the imaginative character of natural rights theory.

CONSERVATIVE THEORY OF RIGHTS:

It holds that rights are the product of a long historical process. They differ from state to
state and from time to time because of the different levels of historical development of
society. Rights grow out of custom which stabilized through usage in several generations.

This theory originated in eighteenth century conservative political thought. Its upholders
defended evolutionary change and deprecated revolution. At best, they supported a
revolution inspired by the established order of society. Edmund Burke ,the greatest
champion of historical theory of rights, criticized the French Revolution (1789) for it was
provoked by a conception of abstract rights of man—liberty, equality, fraternity. On the
contrary, he glorified the English Revolution (1688) which sought to reassert the
customary rights that Englishmen had enjoyed from very early days, and which had found
expression in such documents as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), etc.
Thus, for them, customs and traditions are the source of rights and not nature and law.
Rights rooted in customs are reality and the rest of the rights are an illusion. The state
has only to recognize those rights of men which have already come into vogue through
long-standing usage and custom.

LIBERTARIAN THEORY OF RIGHTS:

Presently this theory comes closest to natural rights theory and has given the strongest
justification of absolute right to property. Libertarian theory of rights which talks about
individuals, his welfare and happiness which must be given primacy over the welfare and
happiness of collectives or communities. So, the libertarian conception gives primacy to
individuals, his welfare and happiness. An individual, here, is understood as a self-defining,
autonomous individual who is independent and above the society or collectivity. They
argue about giving primacy to the welfare and happiness of individuals over the collectives
or communities. This argument is in response to the egalitarianism, multi- culturalism or
the communitarian arguments about equality, rights, and justice.

The prominent champion of the libertarian theory of rights in contemporary times is Robert
Nozick. His book, Anarchy State and Utopia was published after John Rawls, Theory of
Justice. This book is a libertarian reply to the egalitarian theory of Rawls. Rawls’s
conception of justice is responded to by this text of Robert Nozick called Anarchy State and
Utopia, where he defended the right to property and in no circumstances, if property is
acquired justly, it should be influenced upon or taken away for the re-distributional
purposes. Rawls in this book, tried to reconcile the concerns of equality and community
with the demands and concerns of liberty, and development of the individuals.

In response, to Rawls theory, Nozick argued that everyone has certain rights, such as
property rights which are absolute. He argued against the infringement of the right to
property of individuals in the name of collective goods or welfare. His conception of
justice is also called the ‘entitlement theory of justice’. So, if individuals, acquire his or her
property or if such acquiring is based on just principle or through just means, then, it
gives the individual certain entitlements which cannot be taken away in the name of
larger good or collective good. He gives two ways, in which wealth can be legitimately, or
justly, acquired by the individuals.

First, he argued that a person who acquires the property in accordance, with the principle
of justice at that point, is entitled to that property. So, the individual’s entitlement to
property is based on this principle, whether he or she has acquired that property through
legitimate means, or not, and if such, acquiring is based on legitimate or just means,
then he or she is entitled to that property.

The second principle of acquiring property is that if, a person has acquired that property
through legitimate transfer from someone who is the rightful owner of that property. So,
if someone, who is the rightful owner of property and if he or she, transfers that property to
other individuals, then the other individual is entitled to that property. Because it is,
transferred to him or her, by someone, who is the rightful owner of that property. These are
the two basic criteria of acquiring property which Nozick talks about and any other criteria
by which property is acquired, he considered that as unjust.

So, Nozick, wanted to give primacy to the liberty and individual autonomy or freedom
without any consideration to the re-distributional aspect or equalizing factor that is,
argued by many egalitarian theorists and scholars. He wanted individuals to be given
maximum liberty, regardless of its consequences on the collective welfare or economic
implications of such liberty.

DWORKIN: TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY.

Utilitarian’s argue that there is sufficient grounds to curtail or limit the rights of
individuals, if such limitations or curtailment is in the benefit of larger good or common
good of the society or humanity. According to utilitarianism fundamental basis to
determine the public policy is utility. What government should do or not do is to be
determined by the principle of utility. It is determined by greatest happiness of the greatest
numbers. This is a majoritarian approach, and it will ignore the interest of a few who are
non-dominant.

Dworkin gives his theory of rights in criticism to utilitarianism. Ronald Dworkin argued
about the significance or inalienability of rights in the sense, he wants those scholars to
take rights seriously, as the name suggests. So, a right is not something, which can be
compromised or tradeoff between other kinds of goods or goods for the humanity. But
rights are something which is considered inalienable and very essential for the growth of
individuals. It cannot be traded off in some other goods or moral political values.

In this essay, ‘Taking Rights Seriously’, philosopher and constitutional lawyer Ronald
Dworkin, argued, ‘rights are trumps. By this phrase ‘rights are trumps’, he meant that the
basic rights must take precedence over other norms, including, the interests or welfare of
the whole community or society. So, there are certain fundamental rights which must be
given primacy, to any other goods that may be society collectively is desirable. In other
words, the rights are the possessions of individuals which cannot be taken away or which
cannot be traded off with some other goods. Rights, are therefore, individual possessions
which cannot be violated simply, because such violations benefit other individuals or
society.

In Ronald Dworkin’s conception of rights is something, which is the possession of individual

which cannot be violated, even if, such violation is in the interest of other individuals or
groups of individuals or even for the good of society or community. In that sense, his
conception of rights is considered as inevitable or essential possession of individuals
which must not be taken away or infringed upon for the sake of other goods or goods for
the whole society.

This understanding of rights is based on those foundational or constitutional notions of

rights which are used by the courts to override legislation contrary, to these rights, even
if, such legislations democratically, endorse or claims to serve the public good. Here, we
need to understand, we can take the example of Indian constitution. So, Parliament is
empowered to enact legislation in the service of people or for the benefit of people. In
enacting such legislation, it cannot violate certain principles of the constitution or certain
rights given to the individual by the constitution. If it does so, then such person or the
members of the society, may request the court, that means, supreme court or the high
court which then, can review the legislation enacted by the Parliament or duly, enacted by
the Parliament. And then, it decides, how far that enactment is in contrary to the principles
of constitution or violate, the rights protected in the constitution. And so far, it violates or
limits those enactments or legislation which can be nullified by the constitution. We are
talking about reviewing a Parliament Act or legislation through the constitutional
mechanisms or principles.

The conception of rights as argued by Dworkin is about such kinds of rights, where those
rights cannot be taken away, even by the Parliamentary legislation in the name of
serving the common good. Thus, rights, for Dworkin are very essential for the growth of
individuals.

COMMUNITARIAN THEORY OF RIGHTS:

Communitarians regard rights or justice as important for the progress and development of
individuals and society. Like libertarians, communitarians equally, regard rights and
justice as very significant for the growth of individuals and society. However, they
criticized, first the ‘a historical’ and external criteria which is applied by the liberals, to
criticize the actual and everyday lived realities of communities in society. So, they want
this discourse on rights should be sensitive to the actual lived realities of different
communities in society and not having a kind of hypothetical, abstract or ‘a historical’
assumption about certain rights.

In the natural right theorists or the social contract predictions, we have seen how,
individual is assumed to be independent and autonomous of society and his or her
community. But in the actual lived reality, individual is always, embedded in his or her
community. However, the libertarian or liberal takes ‘a historical’ or abstract
understanding of individuals.

They criticized not the universality, or the emphasis on justice, but the liberal conception
of individual. For the communitarians, individual is not an abstract, category or entity,
but is deeply, embedded in his or her social and cultural community. And if, that is so, one
kind of understanding of individuals as self- defining, autonomous individual is challenged
and criticized by the communitarians which believed that individual is embedded in his or
her social and cultural community. And that embeddedness gives a certain worldview
which defines the welfare to an individual.

In the liberal conception, individual well-being and happiness is seen as independent and
autonomous of his or her community. Whereas, communitarians, argue that individuals
make sense of and enjoy his or her well-being or happiness in his or her community.
Therefore, they argue that while allocating rights to individuals, we should also, take into
account his social and cultural backgrounds. In other words, the liberal conception wants
certain rights to be given to everyone universally, where there is no difference or
differentiation between two sets of individuals.

However, communitarians, argues about granting certain rights to individuals not

because he is regarded as autonomous or self-defining individual, but because he or she
belongs to a certain community. The membership to that community should also, entitled
that individual to have certain differential rights.

Michael Sandel in his book, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, argues for the
abandonment of the liberal notion of politics of rights and go for the politics of common
good.
These are some of the flaws of liberal premises which regards individual as a unit and
therefore, the rights should be distributed based on understanding that the society is
constitutive of individuals and individual has their own rights and sense of good. There
are no collective or shared goals which can be defined or applicable to everyone in the
society. Michael Sandel, questions such kind of argument in liberalism.

Michael Walzer is another such communitarian scholar, who argued that very quest for a
universal theory of rights is misguided. So, for Michael Walzer, the best way to identify,
the rights and goods is to find out, how a particular community understands the value of
social good.

For Walzer, the good or social good is something, which is socially, constituted. It cannot
be decided ‘a priory’ or through philosophical argumentation or counter argumentation,
but society together, or communities together, constitute what is shared and what they
value as the social goods. In this way, for Walzer, rights and justice are more about
cultural interpretations, than about philosophical arguments

He argued that shared principles of rights and justice require complex equality, that is, a
system or distribution which does not try to equalize all goods, like libertarian and those
who believed in the equality of outcome. But it seeks, to ensure that inequalities in one
sphere do not permeate into another sphere. That is, what Michael Walzer argued about
the first social constitution of good and second, it should be based on participation or on
the beliefs of every member in society. And society, thus, must not ensure to equalize the
distribution of good. But it must ensure that inequality in one sphere must not influence or
permeates in the other sphere of life, and that is how, he argued about differential or
differentiated rights, depending upon different conceptions of social goods by different
communities.

MULTICULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON RIGHTS:

One of the biggest challenges of liberal democracies in contemporary times is to reconcile

between the ideal of equality on the one hand and social, economic, and cultural
differences of the community, on the other hand. There is an urge to equalize, to give
everyone equal access, to treat everyone equally, but there is a simultaneous presence or
existence of socio-economic and cultural differences.
When a liberal state follows a universal or uniform approach to re-distribute, it does not
understand the differential needs of different individuals belonging to actual and
different communities in the society.

Multiculturalists say that Universal citizenship is color blindness. There cannot be one size
fit all solutions for a multicultural society. The difference blind approach to rights is
insensitive to the differential needs of the individuals and communities. So, they argue,
for group rights which should be recognized for ethnic groups and national minorities. Thus,
we see an influence of communitarians on the multiculturalists.

Will Kymlicka calls for special rights to national minorities. He creates hierarchy of rights
such as self government,special rights, polyethnic rights etc. on the basis of whether a
community is of refugees or immigrants or of national minorities etc. Will Kymlicka, argues
about giving special representation, or more autonomy, or to give rights based on their
language, and giving ownership to lands. In that way, the condition of minorities or
national minorities can be protected from encroachment and majority communities.

Similarly, Bhikhu Parekh, argues that in a multi-cultural society, there exists a number of
cultural, linguistic and religious communities which generally, demand various kinds of
rights which are not possible to be accommodated within the liberal jurisprudence of
rights based on individual rights. Thus, the demands of different communities are not
possible to be accommodated within this liberal jurisprudence of rights. Parekh gives the
‘Harm principle’. According to it ,as long as certain right does not harm to others it could
be granted to minorities. For example wearing scarf or declaring holidays on Friday instead
of Sundays for Muslim community.
HUMAN RIGHTS

It can be argued that the idea or premise of human rights discourse is based on the
principle of every individual having same or equal moral worth. Therefore, they have
certain rights which are inalienable or cannot be differentiated on the basis of their birth,
class, caste, religion, and [Link] human rights concept is essentially a liberal
discourse as it espouses Rationalism and Universalism i.e. Man is rational and all men
are rational and hence are morally equal.

So, human rights are based on the principle that every individual has certain basic rights,
recognized and protected simply, by virtue of him or her being a human. There are no other
criteria required for the protection of these rights. These rights are guaranteed, recognized,
and must be protected simply, because a person is human-being and not because he or she
is a member of any particular community The premise of these rights are based not
because of the individual is a member of a particular community, but because that
individual or that person is member of humanity, or more precisely, he is a human-being.

Human rights are moral rights and aspirations. They are not claims and are just
entitlements. They were expounded in the backdrop of world war two. Where Hitler
symbolized majoritarianism and fascism was mobocracy, the idea of human rights was to
protect the non-dominant sections of society.A duty has been cast upon states to protect
the human rights of the individuals and the international community acts as a guarantor of
human rights.

The human rights discourse transcends those boundaries of nation and state, and includes
every single individual on the planet. The human rights discourse, tries to include within
its fold different communities, races, religions and other kinds of communities, and
groups within its fold.

JUSTIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

Justification of human rights can be traced to

a) Natural rights tradition as found in Locke and Jack Donnelly

b) Dignity tradition as found in Kant and Alan Gewirth.

Natural rights tradition:

Donnelly’s believe in the idea that through an engagement with liberalism it is possible to
discern a normative conceptualization of human rights that eschew the time/space
complex.(possibility of universalism).

Human dignity tradition:

Alan Gewirth states that the relations between human rights and human dignity are
many and complex but one relation is primary: human rights are based upon or derived
from human [Link] is because humans have dignity that they have human rights.

Characteristics of Human Rights:

Human Rights are Universal:

Human rights are universal because everyone is born with and possesses the same rights,
regardless of where they live, their gender or race, or their religious, cultural, or ethnic
background. The universality of human rights is encompassed in the words of Article 1 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity
and rights.” They are not a monopoly of any privileged class of people. They are universal in
nature, without consideration, and without exception. They are inherent in all individuals
irrespective of their caste, creed, religion, sex, and nationality. Human rights are enforceable
without a national border.

Human Rights are Inherent:

Human Rights are inherent because they are not granted by any person or authority. Human
rights do not have to be bought, earned, or inherited; they belong to people simply because they
are human.

Human Rights are Fundamental:

Human Rights are fundamental rights because, without them, the life and dignity of man will
be meaningless.

Human Rights are Imprescriptible:

Human Rights do not prescribe and cannot be lost even if a man fails to use or assert them,
even by a long passage of time.

Human Rights are Inalienable:

Human rights are conferred on an individual due to the very nature of his existence. They are
inherent 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 inalienable. Human Rights are
inalienable because: they cannot be rightfully taken away from a free individual and they
cannot be given away or be forfeited. They should not be taken away, except in specific
situations and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a
person is found guilty of a crime by a court of law.

Human Rights are Indivisible:

Human Rights are not capable of being divided. They cannot be denied even when other rights
have already been enjoyed. Irrespective of their relation with civil, cultural, economic, political,
or social issues, human rights are inherent to the dignity of every human person. Consequently,
all human rights have equal status, and cannot be positioned in a hierarchical order. Denial of
one right invariably impedes the enjoyment of other rights. Thus, the right of everyone to an
adequate standard of living (say right of health or right of education) cannot be compromised at
the expense of other rights.

Human Rights are Essential and Necessary:

In the absence of human rights, the moral, physical, social, and spiritual welfare of an individual
is impossible. Human rights are also essential as they provide suitable conditions for the
material and moral upliftment of the people. Human rights are necessary for the fulfillment of
the purpose of human life.

Human Rights are in Connection with Human Dignity:

All individuals are equal as human beings and by virtue of the inherent dignity of each human
person. There should not be any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ethnicity, gender,
age, language, sexual orientation, religion, political or other opinion, national, social or
geographical origin, disability, property, birth or other status. Human dignity should be
maintained.

Human Rights are Interdependent and Interrelated:

Human Rights are interdependent because the fulfilment or exercise of one cannot be had
without the realization of the other. The fulfilment of one right often depends, wholly or in part,
upon the fulfilment of others.

Human Rights are Irrevocable:

Human rights are irrevocable. 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. No government has the power to curtail
or take away the rights which are sacrosanct, inviolable, and immutable.

Human Rights are Participative and Inclusive:

All people have the right to participate in and access information relating to the decision-
making processes that affect their lives and well-being.

Human Rights are Never Absolute:

Man is a social animal, and he lives in a civic society, which always put certain restrictions on
the enjoyment of his rights and freedoms.

Human Rights are Dynamic:

Human rights go on expanding and changing with socio-eco-cultural and political developments
within the State. Judges must interpret laws in such ways as are in tune with the changed social
values.

Human Rights Limit State Power:

States and other duty-bearers are answerable for the observance of human rights. In this
regard, they must comply with the legal norms and standards enshrined in international human
rights instruments. So human rights limit the state’s power.

Generations of Human Rights:

When human rights are being discussed, they are often divided up into three categories called
generations. A reflection of the three generations of human rights can be seen in the popular
phrase of the French Revolution: liberté, egalité, fraternité. These generations of human rights
were first formally established by Karel Vesak, a Czech jurist, in 1979. This division of the types
of human rights helps improve conversations about rights, especially those involving legislation
and the role that governments play in human rights.
Generations of Rights

Louis B. Sohn classified human rights into four generations which covers civil and political rights,
economic, social, and cultural rights, collective rights and subjective rights.

i. The Human Rights of First Generation (Civil and political rights)

ii. The Human Rights of Second Generation (Economic, social and cultural rights)
iii. The Human Rights of Third Generation (Collective rights)
iv. The Human Rights of Fourth Generation (Subjective rights)

I. The Human Rights of First Generation-Liberty

The human rights of the first generation are civil and political rights of the people. Civil rights are
related to the right to life and personal liberty which includes, right to life, personal liberty,
security, freedom of speech and expression, worship etc. Political rights are the rights which allow
the people to participate in government actions such as the right to an election.

Political rights are arising out when there is a clash between people and the government. These
rights are essential to every individual to reduce government arbitrary actions.

Civil and political rights together are known as “Liberty Oriented Human Rights” and they are
also called negative rights because they protect people from excesses of the state. The first
generation of human rights speaks about various rights and its importance, it has been
incorporated in different Constitutions of various states.

The first-generation human rights were also incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948 from Article 3 to 21. Also in the International covenant on civil and political rights
1966, American and African instruments of 1969 and 1981, the European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedom 1950.

II. The Human Rights of Second Generation-Équality

The second generation of human rights are socio-economic and cultural rights includes right to
work, right to education, freedom of association, right to insurance for sickness and old age etc.
This generation of human rights guarantees the right to equality and fulfilment of minimum
necessities to live as a human being. These rights are based on the availability of resources and
these rights impose duties on the government to fulfil them for the betterment of individuals,
hence it would be called “red rights”.(inspired by communism).

These rights impose positive obligations on the state, hence they are called positive rights. The
Social, economic, cultural and rights of minorities together are known as “Security Oriented
Human Rights” because they provide basic security in the life of the people. Also, if there is an
absence of these rights the existing human beings will be in danger. These rights are incorporated
from Article 22 to 28 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, also in the
International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.

III. The Human Rights of Third Generation-Fraternity

The third generation of human rights is collective rights. These rights originated in the 20th
century known as development-oriented human rights. These rights include environmental rights
such as the right to air, water, food, natural resources, pollution-free environment, and other gifts
of nature. These rights empower individuals to participate in the all-round development of the
country.

According to Louis B. Sohn, every individual belongs to a community like family, religious
communities, social or political communities etc. The international law recognizes the collective
rights of the individuals who are grouped into a larger group, those rights can be exercised jointly
by the people and nations.

The right to self-determination, right to development, right to peace and solidarity, right to
economic and social development, right to a healthy environment, right to natural resources, right
to communicate, right to participate in cultural heritage, right to intergenerational equity and
sustainability etc. are the third-generation human rights. These are also called Green Rights. The
implementation of these rights is based on international cooperation; therefore these rights are
called solidarity rights.

According to Karen Vesak, “The third generation of human rights refers to the fraternity or
brotherhood. This category of rights is based on the sense of solidarity, which is essential
for the realization of the major concern of the international community such as peace,
development and environment”.

The third generation of human rights expressed in various international documents such as the
Stockholm Declaration of the United Nation Conference on Human Environment 1972, the Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development 1992 and other laws.
IV. The Human Rights of Fourth Generation

The fourth-generation human rights linked to the intergenerational justice or the rights of future
generations. This category includes rights related to genetic engineering.

The human genome, genetic manipulation, vital fertilization, human embryos, euthanasia, and
eugenics are the activities which can generate complicated legal issues with ethical, moral and
religious values. Therefore, the European Council opinion to member states to adopt principles
which cover the relationship between genetic engineering and human rights so that the right to
life and dignity can be understood as a rift over genetic characteristics of the individuals.

POLITICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

Human rights are grounded on a liberal discourse. It is seen as a purely western construct.
Developing societies and societies in Global south see the Universality, equality etc. of Human
rights as a western way of ‘cultural imperialism’. Thus, in UNHRC conference certain politicians
of Southeast asian nations held that Human rights are another way of imposing hegemony of the
west and thus they gave the idea of ASIAN VALUES.

In contrast to the western emphasis on individual and his or her exclusive rights, these Asian
leaders have argued that ‘Asian value’, this term is not homogeneous, within it there is a lot of
difference or [Link] argued that the ‘Asian value’ give priority to the community
lives rather than individuals, social order, respect for authority, general welfare, loyalty to family,
state, and nation. That is the kind of response to the western focus on individuals and his or her
exclusive [Link] rights and democracy are western [Link] idea of human rights is
based on the values very different from Asian values and not suited to Asian [Link]
western values emphasize on individual,equality and liberty etc. the eastern values are
communitarian ,hierarchy and [Link], they argue that in these societies, historically and
culturally, their sense of welfare and happiness is constituted very differently, on different sets
of values which are not always, understood or appropriately, comprehended by the western
theorists or commentators.

In many Asian societies, like in China, the Confucius philosophy or in India or in South-East Asian
countries, there is the growing realization of limitedness or selfishness of the western conception
of theory or individuals, or how to govern the collective life as self-destructive. Therefore, they
realize that the ‘Asian values’ are different which not only, help in organizing the collective,
political or social life, but also, to provide enabling conditions for individuals and community to
live together, to sustain his or her life in the lives of community. That growing realization of values,
we sustain the individual and collective life in Asia which is regarded as different from the western
conception of [Link] Mohamad has listed the six most important societal values of East
Asians on the basis of a survey by David Hitchcock. These are:

a) an orderly society;
b) societal harmony;
c) the accountability of public officials;
d) open- ness to new ideas;
e) freedom of expression;
f) respect for authority.

The comparable values held by Americans are:

a) freedom of expression;
b) personal freedom;
c) the rights of the individual;
d) open debate;
e) thinking for oneself;
f) the accountability of public officials.

Spokesmen for 'Asian values' commonly portray the West as morally decadent. Lee Kuan Yew,
for example, says that in the USA the individual has acquired the right 'to behave or misbehave
as he pleases'.

Joseph Chan has pointed out that declarations of human rights are often general and vague;
and that interpretations of human rights may therefore be properly controversial. He argues that
such interpretations necessarily involve judgements about political morality, and that this allows
Asian states to claim that they have a different understanding of human rights.

The philosophical basis of Asian values can be found in theories of ‘Cultural relativism’,
‘communitarianism’ and ‘multiculturalism’.

Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make
judgments using the standards of one’s own culture. The goal of this is to promote
understanding of cultural practices that are not typically part of one’s own culture. Using the
perspective of cultural relativism leads to the view that no one culture is superior than another
culture when compared to systems of morality, law, politics, etc. It is a concept that cultural
norms and values derive their meaning within a specific social context. This is also based on the
idea that there is no absolute standard of good or evil, therefore every decision and judgment of
what is right and wrong is individually decided in each society. The concept of cultural relativism
also means that any opinion on ethics is subject to the perspective of each person within their
particular culture. Overall, there is no right or wrong ethical system. In a holistic understanding
of the term cultural relativism, it tries to promote the understanding of cultural practices that are
unfamiliar to other cultures such as eating insects, genocides or genital cutting.

Cultural relativism emerged as a reaction to the universal rights model. Relativists challenge the
concept that rights are universal, arguing that rights are dependent on cultural norms and that
human rights are not universally valid because they are the product of Western norms or — in a
subtler form of the argument — that human rights need to be appropriate for, and accepted in,
specific local contexts in order to politically legitimate. The “Asian values” ideology is a main
example of cultural relativity. Mahathir and Lee Kaun Yew viewed universal human rights as an
alien imposition from the West, reflecting specific Western values, and argued for an approach
based on “Asian values” instead.

Michael Ignatieff argues that opposition to human rights under the pretext of cultural relativism
comes exclusively from those who commit human rights abuses because of their powerful
positions within a particular [Link] sen also criticises Asian values as a pretext for
authoritarianism.

Donnelly eloquently deconstructs the argument that “all societies cross-culturally and historically
manifest conceptions of human rights” . He concedes that while all major cultures have had some
form of duty system, which governs the social recognition of human dignity, these systems
however, are alternatives to rather than synonymous with human rights. Furthermore, although
culture maintains a critical function in establishing and implementing universal human rights,
according to Donnelly, “culture is not destiny”; thus, negotiations—through meaningful
dialogue—between and amongst cultures can lead to the realization of the UDHR model.

Dworkin on rights
Dworkin’s task is to explain what is involved in taking rights seriously. He maintains that people
who believe there are moral rights “in the strong sense” are committed to believing that
government should tolerate law-breaking in some cases, namely, when laws conflict with rights.

Distinctions:Most of the rights that we talk about can be broken down into separate elements.
These include:

1. Claims: someone else has a duty corresponding to the right.

2. Privileges or liberties: the person with the right lacks a duty.
3. Powers: the person with the right has the ability to change rights and duties.
4. Immunities: others lack the ability to change the rights and duties of the person
with the right.
The familiar rights that we began with combine these elements in various ways.

Dworkin’s “rights in the strong sense” are claims or claim-rights (the terms are used
interchangeably). His “rights in the weak sense” are liberties or privileges.

Taking rights seriously

Taking rights seriously, according to Dworkin, means that the normal justification for
government action is not good enough when the action might infringe on rights.

But how should courts or other government officials resolve cases in which it is not clear
whether a government action would infringe on individual rights? Dworkin argues that it will
not do to balance society’s interests against those of the person whose rights will be infringed.
That would be to use the normal justification for government action.

Society’s rights

Dworkin argues that a society that takes rights seriously will not try to balance individual
rights against society’s rights. The point was that a society that worked in this way would
always favor the society over the individual and that, Dworkin claimed, would not take
individual rights seriously.
Right to Property

Nature Of Property
The right to property is derived from the general theory of rights. However, it is a
complex issue. The fundamental issue is—how can the right to property be made
to serve the cause of social justice instead of allowing it to remain a weapon of
exploitation and injustice?

Liberal Perspective: Liberal theory has usually regarded the right to private property as an
essential ingredient of man's liberty and his right to the pursuit of happiness. Locke held that
man's right to 'life, liberty and property' was a fundamental natural right, and that the state
was created for the protection of this right.
Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and other exponents of classical liberalism regarded the
institution of private property as an essential instrument of social progress. The right to property
comprised the very foundation of market economy and the capitalist system.

Early liberal political theory regarded the possession of property as a proof of

an individual's stake in the state as also of his political wisdom, so much so that
it insisted on linking the 'right to vote' with property qualification. In short, early
liberalism sought to glorify and defend the right to property.

Modern liberal theory, however, which witnessed the cruel operation of the
capitalist system and the rise of socialist theory, does not recognize any sacred or
absolute right to private property. J.S. Mill, who initially made a strong
plea for the security of property, later argued that the right to property was not
absolute or sacrosanct, and went to the extent of advocating considerable restriction
on the rights of inheritance and bequest. He criticized private property in land
which was the original inheritance of all mankind, and pleaded for the taxation of
rent.
T.H. Green , as an ardent champion of rights, paid due importance to the right to property as
an instrument for exercising moral freedom. But he held that when an unrestrained right to
property right becomes a hindrance to the exercise of freedom in society. Green, therefore,
pleaded for reasonable restrictions on the right to property.

In short, modern liberal theory, instead of conceding an absolute right to property, proceeds
to investigate the ethical basis of this right and, in the process, indicates the proper limits of
the right to property.

Natural Rights Theories

Natural rights theories regard property as a fundamental right independent of institutions,
though some institutions are more likely to be in harmony with natural law than others. Locke
conceives of natural rights differently. It is a right which derives its support from inward
morality, conscience or the rational faculty of man. Locke argues that the state has no authority
to tamper with this right because it is duty-bound to protect this right.

Among the liberal thinkers, Locke is the chief exponent of the theory of property
as the fruit of labour. Locke argued that every man by nature has a property in his
own person: the labour of his body and the work of his hands are properly his.
Whatsoever then he removes out of nature and mixes with his labour becomes
his property, 'at least where there is enough and as good left in common for
others'. (The Second Treatise of Civil Government, 1690).

C.B. Macpherson (The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism) has termed Locke's view
regarding the right to property as a typical expression of the idea of 'possessive individualism'.
According to this view, man—the individual—is the absolute natural proprietor of his own
capacities, owing nothing to society for them. He is, therefore, free to use his capacities in
search of satisfactions, provided he does not harm others.

THEORIES OF CONTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC GOOD

Theories of contribution to the public good seek to make the right to property subservient to
social justice rather than maintain it as an instrument of personal gratification.
This view finds its fuller expression in social-democratic perspective on property.

SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PERSPECTIVE:

Social-democratic perspective allows individual ownership of property under such regulations
that it is largely used to serve social purpose.

HOBHOUSE AND TAWNEY ON THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY

L.T. Hobhouse in his Liberalism has amply demonstrated the social origin of property. He has
argued that it is the organized force of society that maintains the rights of owners by
protecting them against thieves and depredators.

R.H. Tawney, in his The Acquisitive Society , has deprecated the tyranny of functionless
property and has advocated subordination of property to social service.

LASKl's VIEWS ON THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY

The Moral Basis of Property
At the outset, Laski deals with the right to property as a part of his theory of
rights. Thus, in his A Grammar of Politics ,Laski very strongly argues for the limitation of
the right of inheritance, on moral grounds. No property can be justified unless it
is the result of the performance of socially useful functions and duties
MARXIST PERSPECTIVE:
Marxist theory views 'private property' like the state, has not existed from eternity,
not to speak of property as a natural right. The origin of private property was
attended by the beginning of exploitation in society. The state was created by the
class of property-owners for the protection of its private property. It is, therefore,
an instrument of exploitation of the dependent class which does not own property.

Friedrich Engels, in his The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
has held that ,the origin of private property is, associated with the division of society into
antagonistic classes. This division is sharpest under the capitalist system.
The proletariat by its very definition, is propertyless and dependent on wage labour.
Marxism, however, advocates the abolition of private property in this sense, not
personal property. Marxist theory holds the system of private property responsible for the
erosion of human values and thus cause alienation. In his other works, particularly Critique of
Hegel's Philosophy of Right and On the Jewish Question , Marx argues that the constitution of
modern representative states is, in reality, the 'constitution of private property'.
Marx develop later in Capital concept of 'the fetishism of commodities'. Fetishism of
commodities implies a feature of capitalist society where social relation between different
producers is reduced to relation between the products of their labour. It brings different types
of skills and quantities of labour into equivalence with each other in terms of their market
values. Thus, the social relationship between a tailor and a carpenter appears as a relationship
between a coat and a table in terms of their exchange value in the market rather than in terms
of the labour and skills embodied in these products. In other words, the commodity
becomes an embodiment of value under the capitalist system of private property,
while the human being as worker and real producer of value, is reduced to a
commodity governed by the market forces of demand, supply and competition. The
result is an overall dehumanization of man, his self-estrangement and alienation.

So if human values are to be restored, human freedom is to be secured, and a rational system of
production and distribution is to be evolved to ensure satisfaction of social needs, the obvious
course is the abolition of private property itself.

In short, Marxist theory views the system of private property as the foundation of capitalism
which is characterized by the exploitation of man by man. It, therefore, advocates the abolition
of private property in the major means of production to pave the way for a humanistic
reorganization of production and distribution.

Marxist theory of property draws a significant distinction between 'personal

property' and 'private property'. It favours full protection of 'personal property'
which is the source of security of the individual, and abolition of 'private property'
which is an instrument of controlling the lives of others.
Mahatma Gandhi , sought to assess the role of property in the sphere of social as well as
personal morality. His principles of non-possession (renunciation or aparigraha) and non-
stealing (abstention from theft or asteya) deal with personal morality. A person should not
acquire any material things beyond his immediate requirement because amassing of wealth is
bound to degrade his character. It also amounts to theft because thereby you
deprive others of their due share. Gandhi maintained that the earth has enough to
satisfy everybody's need, but it does not have enough to satisfy anybody's greed.
Then Gandhian principle of 'bread labour' requires that everybody should do
physical labour, apart from his usual duties, and contribute to the production of
material things in order to compensate for his consumption. Gandhi also commended 'bread
labour' as an instrument of self-purification.
 Citizenship
PYQs
1. Examine the multi-cultural perspectives on rights.(2012, 200, 15)
2. Critically examine the cultural relativist approach to human rights. (2010, 200 30 )
3. What do you understand by Multiculturalism? Discuss Bhikhu Parekh's views on
Multiculturalism.( 2017, 250, 20).

This term citizenship is very central to a modern political discourse, especially, in

democracy. It is basically, about the relationship between the ruled and ruler or the
government and the governed of a particular society or nation-state.

To begin, with citizenship broadly, speaking in simple terms, it denotes the membership to
a political community. This political community, in modern times, is called the nation state.

In the other historical context, it could be a small city-state as in Greece or imperial states
like Roman Empire or absolutist monarchy of the pre-modern times. There can be different
kinds of political community.

Now, the origin of this idea of citizenship can be traced back to the ancient Greek city-
states. Historically, we will see that one of the fundamental rights or the core issue of
citizenship is the political participation, who gets the citizenship and that membership to a
particular community, becomes absolutely, crucial for living a dignified life.
Thus, every single individual in modern world is supposed to be or expected to have a
membership to a particular political community. And that membership to a political
community determines, to a great extent the kind of life that one lives in today’s world. The
statelessness or non-membership to political communities is a worse state for individual
existence. Citizenship gives us certain rights and it protects us from certain aggression. The
responsibility of the state or modern state is to protect its citizens and their rights, to
protect their properties and life. So, all those facilities or services by the state are provided
to the citizen.

Therefore, this membership becomes very crucial, but in modern times, we see, that certain
groups or individuals are excluded from the citizenship status. Who are the citizens, and who
are not is something, very central to the citizenship debates which is about the idea of
inclusion and exclusion. Similarly, the idea of thick and thin notions of citizenship, also,
relates to the active and passive citizenship i.e whether the citizenship is merely, a formal
legal status which provides certain protection to the citizens or it is something, more than
that.
That means, it enables and gives the individual, not just certain protection by the state or
certain protection of the rights, properties, life by the states. But, also, they have the right
and responsibility or obligation towards the state. They must participate and actively,
participate in the governing of the society.
 The public affair or the civic virtue or the civic republicanism is about the active
participation of the citizens in the common affairs of their political community. That is
about the thick notion of citizenship. The thin notion or passive notion of citizenship is it is
a kind of legal and formal status, where being the citizen of a particular political
community, we are given certain rights and protected against any aggression or any
threat to our life and property.
Citizenship is a very distinctive about democracy, and it is a democratic idea. In monarchy
or in dictatorship, the people or the population is treated as the citizens, subjects and not as
a citizen. In contrast to the subject, which is the object of rule or subservient to the state,
we find citizens as a kind of empowered individuals in the state. The very existence and
legitimacy of states rest on these citizens themselves, the people are the sovereign or the
ultimate authority for the state or the government and their legitimacy.
The commonly, accepted definition of citizenship in modern times is by T.H Marshall in his
text, Citizenship and Social Class. He defines, citizenship, as the full and equal membership
in a political community. So, citizenship is about the full membership. So, every member in
the political community is equal, and this equality is a horizontal equality. Now, every
individual in the modern states have the full participation or full freedom to participate in
the political process, and they are treated equally, without any discrimination.
This logic of citizenship is about these two ideas, the equality and the integration of
individuals in the political community.

The historical development of citizenship

If we look at the citizenship as a term is derived from the Latin word civis and the Greek’s
equivalent to this term is the polites. So, it means, member to a particular polis or city. This
is about the membership to a particular political community like the polis or city. In ancient
Athens, citizenship was perceived mainly, with reference to the duties, while the modern
connotation of the citizenship involves a set of rights, besides, duties. So, earlier the
citizenship or the membership to a particular community, requires, members to participate
actively, in the political process. It was more about the public spirit or the service. But, in
modern times, particularly, the early modern talks about this legal or the formal status of
citizenship, which gives a kind of passive notion of citizenship.
The development of ideas that surrounds the concept of citizenship can broadly, speaking, is
divided into four concepts. The citizens can be attributed to the following four historical
periods.
First, is the classical Greco and Roman period, 4th century BC onwards, during this period,
emphasis was largely, on the active participation, in the civic or the public affairs of the
community. The citizenship is about the participation in the public or the collective life of the
community. So, it is the active participation, which ensures the freedom of the individuals.
Individual is thus free, and that freeness or freedom can be enjoyed or exercised, when that
person actively, participates in the public affairs. Here, the idea that participation in the
common affairs of the community was understood as part of the human nature. Therefore,
Aristotle’s, definition of human being as the ‘Zoon Politikon’. The idea of ‘Zoon Politikon’,
defines, the man as the political animals. They live a dignified life which is possible, only in
the life of community. Those who choose to live outside the community, is either a god or a
beast and such is the definition.

Aristotle gives the very thick or active notion of citizenship in Aristotle, who defines
citizenship, as the ability to rule and being ruled in turn. So, citizenship, as participation in
the public life is not merely, the receiver or we know the subject of the rule, as we see in
modern times. However, it was an exclusionary citizenship as well, because it was limited to
the free, native born men at the cost of exclusion of women, children, slaves, residents or
aliens.
The Romans introduced further, a new aspect of citizenship, that is, a formal and legal
status. There it is not just about participation, but also, about having some rights or certain
protection by a uniform set of rule. So, the Roman Empire tried to unify, its heterogeneous
population, and not, by allowing them to participate in the decision making or the political
process of governing the empire. But by giving them, certain legal protection, within a
uniform set of rights. This kind of citizenship is about the civitas sine suffragio, that means,
the citizenship without franchise. So, we have citizenship as a legal status of the Roman
Empire, but that citizenship does not give us the scope to participate in the governing
process or the political process of the empire, but it gives us certain protection by the empire,
under the uniform set of rules. It extended the legal protection to the citizenship, but limited
their participation in the political process.
Thus, the French Revolution in 1789 combined the two seemingly, contradictory ideals of the
civic participation and modern liberal individuals. These two ideas, on the one hand, the
obligations, duties or ideas of participation in the political process, and on the other hand,
the idea of individuals as the self-defining, autonomous, individuals, and citizens having
certain rights.

The modern contradictions in the citizenship are about this civic participation on the one
hand, and the modern, liberal individuals on the other. And these two contesting ideals are
further, developed and extended throughout the 19th and 20th century in different parts of
the world.
In all historical periods, what we find is these two major strands of citizenship. One is the
civic republicanism, and then, there is the liberal citizenship. The civic republican notion of
citizenship is characterized by the idea of common good or public spirit or political
participation and civic virtue. So, the civic republican notion of citizenship is about the
service or participation in the public life or the political process of the political community.
The term, civic republican denotes a constitutional government founded on the principles
of power sharing, to prevent arbitrary authority, and the involvement of the citizens in the
public affairs, to the mutual benefits of individual and community.
This is the notion of the civic republicanism, which is what sharing of the power, to counter
any arbitrariness on the part of the authority, the constitutional form of government, and
the idea of public good or the public spirit or the civic virtue, which works in the interests of
both the individuals and community which defines the civic republican tradition, as strands
of thought about the citizenship.
Then, the other is the liberal citizenship, which is about the idea of individual as the
autonomous self-defining individuals or citizens which have certain rights and private
interests, and this is the major aspect of citizenship and the understanding of citizenship in
liberal tradition. Thus, the liberal citizenship is in contrast, to the civic republicanism which
emphasis on the individuals having certain rights and private interests which must be
protected by the state and authority, and that is something, in contrast to the republican
emphasis on the public spirit and civic virtue.
And these two traditions, constantly, contest each other’s understanding or
conceptualization of citizenship throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
 Marshall’s theory of citizenship
T.H. Marshall’s conception of liberal citizenship and its critique, particularly, by the Marxist
and feminist critiques.
T. H. Marshall’s, conception of citizenship is regarded as the most comprehensive account
of citizenship. There is a kind of evolutionary understanding of modern citizenship in the
theorization of citizenship made by T. H. Marshall.
He explained or articulated his theory of citizenship by historicizing the political or social or
economic transformations that were taking place particularly, in England at the arrival of
the modern times.
By historicizing it, he, included the new rights and those people who were excluded earlier
from the domains of citizenship. He argued that citizenship was more about the progressive
extension of equality to those who were excluded from the ambit of citizenship.
Citizenship, as an ideal, helps us to understand not just historical transformations, but also,
about how the changing nature of the relationship between the social classes and the
state has unfolded over a period of time. This theorization of citizenship is based on his
study of historical evolution of different classes with the growth of capitalism in England
and their corresponding demands, claims and rights to the state. The different classes, first,
emerged during the time of the mercantile capitalists followed by the emergence of the
middle class and then, the marginalised poor or workers. Their demands from the state led
to the different nature or forms or structure of state in the modern England. State had , a
very minimum role to play, limited to arbitrate only, if there, is some violation of contract.
Finally, there was the demand for a welfare state, where some of the essential services are
supposed to be provided by the state.
This historical evolution of different classes led to different claims and kinds of demands
from the states. T. H. Marshall was a liberal, social, democrat and in his influential account
of the growth of citizenship in England, he argued that the concept of citizenship has
developed in conflict as well as in collusion with capitalism. One of the key features of T. H.
Marshall’s conceptualization of citizenship is to see, how, the modern notion of citizenship
has evolved in its conflict, but also, in its collusion with the modern capitalism. The
outcome of citizenship and capitalism is very contradictory to each other. Thus, where
capitalism produced inequality in society, citizenship was about creating a horizontal
solidarity. He linked citizenship to the social classes and envisioned citizenship as remedy to
do away inequalities produced by the capitalist market economics. Citizenship, for
Marshall, was a kind of remedy, to the social inequalities or economic inequalities that is
produced by the modern capitalist market economy. For Marshall, the concept of
citizenship was rooted in the ideal of universal equality among the members of a political
community. So, within a political community, in modern times, the political community is
understood as nation-state. The member of nation-states, therefore, shared a kind of
uniform or equal status in either a state without any discrimination on the basis of caste,
class, gender, religion, etc. His conception of citizenship is thus, based or rooted in the ideal
of universal equality, among those who are the members of a particular political community
like the nation-state. This notion of citizenship is also known as the liberal theory of
citizenship, where the civil right is necessary, for the growth or living a dignified life for the
individuals who is the very foundation of citizenship. The ideal of citizenship is to ensure that
the individuals carry certain rights, which must be protected by the state. Those rights are
necessary, for the fuller or complete development or development of his or her talents or
skills is absolutely, necessary and state must protect those civil rights.
In the liberal theory of citizenship, civil rights constitutes the very foundation. It believes in
the evolution of rights associated with the citizenship and can also be described as the
evolutionary theory of citizenship.
That means, Marshall, like the liberals, argued that civil right is absolutely, necessary in any
conception of citizenship. Because it is about individual rights which is necessary for his or
her growth or development and the state must protect them. But, Marshall also, argued
about other kinds of rights, which are something, evolved over a period time with the
changes in the political structure and the rise of different social classes in the society. In that
sense, in Marshall, what we find it is not a rigid or a fixed understanding of citizenship, but a
kind of evolutionary theory, where it argued that citizenship gradually, unfolds or
internalised those who are excluded from its domain. So, it starts with the civil rights came
to includesthe political and socio-economic rights.
Marshall’s theory of citizenship is a liberal theory of citizenship. It can also be regarded,
therefore, as a kind of evolutionary theory of citizenship which includes newer rights or
newer people in the domain of citizenship, understood as the extension of equality, among
the members of a particular political community. Thus, the definition of T. H. Marshall is a
widely, accepted definition of citizenship in the modern democracy. It basically, argued, that
citizenship is about a process of progressively, expanding the domain of equality. It may
start with the few people, but it is something, which includes those who are excluded. So it
is a continuous evolutionary thing. In his classic text, The Citizenship and Social Class, 1950,
Marshall, distinguished three strands or bundles of rights that constitutes a citizenship.

These three bundles of rights or the set of rights are known as the civil rights, political rights,
social and economic rights.

The civil rights, which is regarded as absolutely, necessary for the individual growth and
freedom, it is absolutely, necessary and these civil rights are freedom of speech and
expression, movement, equality before the law or equal protection of law or right to own
property. These rights are the civil rights which is regarded as absolutely, necessary for the
growth and progress of individuals. And with the growth and progress of individuals, it is
understood that it automatically, leads to the progress of society or the economy or nation
as such. So, these rights are individual rights which the state must protect. Therefore, these
rights are also, called as negative rights, as it limits or checks the authority of the state.
Then, it is the political right which talks about the kind of civic republicanism. It means,
where there is the opportunity of citizens, to not just have the rights guaranteed or
protected by the state, but also, they participate in the political process or the political life of
the community.
The third kind of rights is the socio-economic rights. These rights are about ensuring the
basic social and economic needs of each individual. In the absence of the socio-economic
rights, it was understood that the legal or the political rights would have very little
meaning or no meaning at all, because then, they would be open to certain manipulations.
So, the fulfilment of these social, economic rights such as, the right to food, right to shelter,
right to education, right to health are regarded as necessary for the individuals to exercise
their civil and political rights
Broadly, speaking these three kinds of rights corresponded to three centuries, where in the
18th century, the natural right theories or the social contract theories, they argued, about
those civil rights of the individual like the right to life, property, freedom of conscience,
freedom of speech, and expression, liberty of thought etc.
The political rights or representative forms of government or democracy were something,
broadly, argued in the 19th century and the socio-economic rights were something, which
emerged in the 20th century. This cannot be said that civil rights were not argued in 19th
century or 20th century, in many countries.
The modern notion of citizenship is a radical departure from the hierarchical status of
individuals in the societies or groups in society. It talks about individuals who are put in the
condition of
a) horizontal equality, where everyone is treated equally, so that is one fundamental
premise of Marshall’s conceptualization of citizenship which talks about the horizontal
equality or solidarity.
b) a gradual integration of various excluded and marginalised sections of population into
the fold of expanding a circle of citizenship. The women, slaves, immigrants, racial or
linguistic or religious minorities are a kind of continuous integration or inclusion in the folds
of citizenship. For Marshall, the citizenship is therefore, a kind of progressive expansion of
this horizontal solidarity, which includes those who are excluded from the domains of
citizenship.
According to Marshall, citizenship, promotes the equality of status of each individual and it
ultimately, combats this disruptive inequalities produced by the market economy. This is the
T. H. Marshall’s conceptualization of citizenship which is the liberal conception of citizenship.
The fundamental premise of the modern liberal notion of citizenship is that it treats
individuals equally, without any discrimination or it holds the promise of extension of such
equality to every member of society without any discrimination on the basis of their social,
economic and cultural backgrounds. However, one major criticism against the liberal
conceptualization of citizenship is that it disregards the real differential situations of
individuals in the societies across the classes, which actually, determines their ability to
exercise the right or legal capacity confirmed on them by the virtue of their citizenship to a
particular nation-state. Marshall also, argued that citizen having equal social worth is as
important, and not merely, is about of equal rights that requires the equality of status in the
form of minimum supply of certain essential goods and services which should be guaranteed
to each member of the political community. Thus, the equal social status is as important as
the equal rights, and that requires certain social or essential goods and services which are
made to be available to every member of the political community. John Rawls, extended this
argument in his Theory of Justice or also, in the political liberalism, where he talks about how
to reconcile the contradictions of equality or equality of opportunity with the differences
required to ensure that the least advantaged or the disadvantaged section should have the
opportunity to prosper or to develop themselves.
Critics of liberal citizenship, including those on the left, the feminists and communitarians
among others have pointed out, the existing contradictions and ambivalences which are
rooted in the liberal conception of citizenship and its relationship with the capitalism.
Marx, argued, the claims of liberal citizenship about equality and freedom are flawed
claims as these are incompatible with the rise of capitalism. In his work on the Jewish
question, he distinguished between the rights of men from the rights of citizen. He,
basically, criticized the rights of men which are based on the natural right theory, which he
regarded as the extension of a modern egoistic bourgeois. So, Marx, rejected, the rights of
men, like the freedom of religion, liberty, security and private property. Because he believed
that these rights could not reconcile with the ideals of community lives. For Marx, the rights
of citizen is more important and valid than the right of men, which he regarded as merely,
about the recognition of bourgeoisie, atomistic self which is contrary, to the human nature
or nature of the human species, which is about sociality or participating in the life of
community.
Feminism, on the other hand, argued about the liberal ideas of citizenship, which they
argued is based on the uniformity or equality are actually, inimical to the rights of women.
This gender blindness of the citizenship in liberal democracy, fails to understand the
structure of oppressions and separations that exists in patriarchy. The second, the discursive
practices of citizenship have produced a dichotomy between the private and public life.
 Multiculturalism and Cosmopolitan Citizenship
Multicultural or communitarian notion of citizenship re-theorize or renegotiate with the
liberal conception of citizenship as individual being the right bearing citizenship and those
rights are given to the individual not because he or she is a member to a particular
community, but he or she is a self-defining rational subject.
To begin, with the contemporary debates on citizenship have questioned the idea that
citizen can enjoy rights independent of their context. This context of individual can be
social, cultural, linguistic, or economic which determines a lot of changes or scope that
individual may be able to enjoy in his or her life.

They argue, that citizen as an individual is a member to a particular community. Therefore,

when we guarantee and give some rights to the individual, we also, need to take into
account the social, cultural, economic and linguistic backgrounds of citizenship which
actually, determines the way the individual exercises his or her citizenship rights. This new
debate about individual being the member to a political community, but also, to a social,
cultural, ethnic, or linguistic community which determines and saves his values, or his
behaviour and opinion about politics.
Therefore, while we give some rights to the individual, we need to take into account these
social, cultural, linguistic backgrounds of the individual which is something, very crucial in
the actual exercise of citizenship rights of the individual.
If we remember, the liberal notion of citizenship, there is this understanding of individual
as an abstract, self-defining individual and his or her contexts really, do not matter in his
or her, exercise of citizenship rights.
The multicultural theorists try to re-negotiate or re-theorize such notions of individuals and
citizenship. Basically, the multicultural discourse on rights cherishes the cultural diversity
and envisages a society in which different communities can form a common identity, while
retaining their cultural specificity.
The multicultural argument is that we should not homogenize the cultural diversity or
plurality of a society. Rather, we need to celebrate those diversity and plurality which helps
in developing more enriching experiences or understanding of politics, identity,
recognition, and respect. So, it envisages the society which celebrates the cultural diversity
and plurality, where different communities can come together to form a common identity
or a society which has some common outlook and yet it permits, the differences or cultural
specificities of different communities.
In other words, one need not have to loose or forgo one’s cultural, linguistic or ethnic
identity in order to participate as a free and equal member in the political community. The
multicultural or communitarian argument is about the celebration of diversities and cultural
specificities which helps or enriches the participation or making of a common identity for
the society as a whole, where one participates in the collective affairs, as a member of his or
her particular cultural, ethnic or linguistic community. There are growing interests in
redefining citizenship by giving due importance to the cultural differences.
In the multicultural discourse, the idea is how to celebrate or recognize the cultural
differences, even when we are inspiring or trying to create a common political identity.

In the debates over citizenship in contemporary times, the ideas like multiculturalism and
minority rights are invoked as democratic values, whereby, the diverse cultural
communities are granted the right to negotiate or re-negotiate their fair terms of inclusion
in the national political sphere.
In order, to individuals from a minority to the marginal community or a different cultural,
ethnic community to participate in a free and equal manner should not to be based on his
forgoing or cultural specificities or ethnic specificities. So, the multicultural discourse on
citizenship opens up those debates and discourses, where these communities tries to
participate in the political sphere or the national political sphere, by renegotiating the terms
of their inclusion in the larger community.
Contribution of Iris Marion Young

The idea of differentiated citizenship was put forward by the many theorists who thought
that the idea of common rights or uniform rights should be made available to every single
member of the community is not enough, because it cannot accommodate the particular
or specific needs of different ethnic, religious or linguistic communities, particularly, those
who are from the marginal or minority community. And their needs or specificities required
in the notion of citizenship takes into account their differences, distinctiveness and yet
allow them to participate in their common affairs of the society. They argued that different
groups can be accommodated into common citizenship only by adopting what Iris Marion
Young called as differentiated citizenship.
This idea of differentiated citizenship is put forward by Irish Marion Young, who believed
that the different communities whether linguistic, cultural or ethnic communities requires
different kinds of recognition. And in national politics such considerations needs to be taken
into account, while granting citizenship rights to different individuals belonging to different
communities, specificities and particularities of different communities, needs to be taken
into account, and we cannot just have liberal, equal or uniform rights, that is given to
everyone. Thus, the need of a particular community is something, which they have argued
for. So, the notion of differentiated citizenship means that members of certain groups should
be accommodated not only as individuals, but also, through their memberships and their
rights would personally, depend upon their group membership. This idea of group
differentiated citizenship is based on the assumption that certain rights should be given to
individuals not because he or she is an individual, independent of his socio-cultural
linguistic backgrounds, but also, because he or she belongs to a particular linguistic, socio,
ethnic or cultural community. The differentiated citizenship, argues, for differentiated rights
depending upon individual membership to a particular group or ethnic community. Young
argues, about a society, where some groups are privileged, while others are oppressed.
Person should leave behind their particular affiliations and adopt a general view, while
insisting all as citizens. So, these oppressions or subordinations are something, detrimental
for the developing of a common outlook or to have same sense of participation or
association with the larger community. To develop that outlook, one needs to forgo or leave
behind, particular affiliations and should adopt a general view. However, that adoption
should not privilege one community over the other or oppressed one community by the
other.

Contribution of Will Kymlicka

Will Kymlicka, argues about the different ways in which the cultural or ethnic diversities in
the communities can be reconciled. So, seeking, to redefine the principle of equality and
make it compatible with multiculturalism, Will Kymlicka, provided a framework of
representation and membership which accommodated the cultural and group differences
in a way that a person’s group membership and membership in a cultural community is
not of any disadvantage to her. Will Kymlicka is basically, trying to provide a mechanism of
representation, where the membership of one’s cultural community or group membership is
not seen as a kind of disadvantage to the individual. For example, a society which is liberal
and do not acknowledge any kind of privilege is associated to one’s belongingness to a
particular community. It may in practice, practically, speaking, still leaves scope for
oppression and privilege, associated with a particular community in the nation-state.

So, Will Kymlicka was trying to provide a mechanism, where there could be the possibility of
making representations fair for everyone. The membership to one’s cultural, linguistic or
ethnic community is not seen or should not work as a detriment or disadvantage to one’s
scope and chances in participating in the common life of a community.
According to, Will Kymlicka, the demands of national minorities and ethnic groups can be
accommodated within a framework of democratic citizenship. They are basically, extending
the notion of liberal democratic citizenship by including or accommodating the demands or
requirements of the specific cultural, linguistic or ethnic communities. So, this
accommodation of difference can be done within the framework of a liberal democratic
citizenship by two ways.
One, there should be the protection of common rights of all citizens that is the protection
of civil and political rights of individuals, freedom of association, religion, speech and
mobility for protecting group differences. Thus, one way of doing or accommodating such
differences is by protecting the common rights of every citizen to have civil and political
rights or the freedom of association, religion, speech and mobility, so that they can protect
their differences or group differences.
Second, there should be the accommodation of cultural diversity. The cultural diversity is
not something, seen as a kind of problem or a challenge, rather it is seen as something,
which enriches the lives of citizens and it must be protected and celebrated. There should be
accommodation of cultural diversity through special, legal and constitutional measures in a
way that members of a specific group are being guaranteed the specific rights as Young
would call them, as group differentiated rights. So, this may require some constitutional
measures, where the member of a particular community, especially, those who are marginal
or excluded or in minority, some constitutional measures for them, to have special
representations that overall creates the representation for everyone within a democratic
set up or a democratic framework of citizenship. Kymlicka, argues for three kinds of group
differentiated rights.
They are the self government rights, poly-ethnic rights, and special-representation rights.
Now, these three kinds of constitutional measures or rights are given to three kinds of
communities or groups in the society. First, is the self-representation rights, which recognize
some kind of political autonomy or territorial jurisdiction of national minority it ensures their
autonomy within the overall political structure in the country. Basically, the self-
government rights are meant for the national minorities, who claimed that while they
were incorporated in the larger state, they did not relinquish some of their political or
cultural linguistic identities or jurisdiction. Therefore, the state must recognize the self-
government rights of these national minorities.
Then, there are poly-ethnic rights. These are specific rights of the immigrant communities,
basically, in the large liberal democracies of Europe or US, we have a lot number of
immigrant communities from different parts of the world. They carry certain culture, certain
language, certain way of living, certain way of dressing and so on. So, this poly-ethnic right
is meant for the specific rights of immigrant communities and such rights may take the
form of demanding the right to express their peculiarities and differences without fear of
prejudice and discrimination in the mainstream society. Thus, what to wear, where to pray,
whom to marry, what to eat, which language one should speak, these are some of the
demands which must be protected in a liberal state especially, for those communities which
are immigrant in a particular nation and they must express themselves or their way of life or
language or living style without being feared or stigmatized by the large mainstream society.
Poly-ethnic rights, recognize the specific rights or peculiarities or differences of immigrant
communities in the larger democratic society.

Now, the special-representation rights or third kind of rights are meant for the national
and ethnic groups as well as for the non-ethnic groups such as women, poor and disabled.
This special representation rights are basically, to democratize the state institutional
structures by making them more representative. The state structure even when it is neutral
may lead to some kind of exclusion or marginalization of certain sections of the societies. So,
to ensure fair representation, Will Kymlicka, argues, for the special representation rights of
national and ethnic groups, but also, for the non-ethnic groups such as women, poor and
disabled to make the state institutions and structure of administration more representative
in nature.

The multicultural theory of citizenship has altered the way in which the political
communities are thought of. Usually, the political communities are thought of as
homogeneous groups. However, far for being a homogeneous group, the political
community is in multicultural discourse, seen as a heterogeneous group of communities
having different cultures, language, ethnicity and associated differences and peculiarity. And
yet they all together enriches the experiences of individuals in the society and therefore, they
must be protected and celebrated which leads to expansion or inclusiveness of the liberal
democratic framework of citizenship.
However, multiculturalism runs into danger of denying the individual right of critical and
creative membership in the communities and it overlook the hierarchies and oppressions
that communities practice and promote within. And it appears that individual is
subordinated to the identity of a community and that is one of the biggest criticisms
against the multi-cultural theories of citizenship which subordinates the rights of individual
to that of communities.
Another criticism leveled against multiculturalism is that by acknowledging, the
communities power to apply internal restraints, it leaves little scope for individual rights
and freedom. Thereby, it appears, in recognition of the community rights or group
differentiated rights, the rights of individuals and his freedom is somewhat, compromised
in the multicultural discussion and overall they tried to expand the liberal democratic
framework, yet they fail somewhat, to understand the inner constraints or oppressions
which operates and functions within these communities.

Bhiku Parekh : Rethinking multiculturalism : Cultural Diversity and Politics.

Current debate on multiculturalism is an extension of liberal/communitarian debate.
Multiculturalists echo the communitarian’s concern, that we are social beings embedded in
and sustained by culture.
Acc. to him for multiculturalists, cultural plurality must figure prominently about how we
ought to live together collectively as a society, but contemporary liberalism ignores this
plurality, when it endorses the assimilationist politics of equal citizenship. Liberals believe
that their theory is culturally neutral, they are blind to the fact that they unfairly privilege
the interests of the cultural majority over cultural minorities. Collective cultural rights appear
counter to the traditional liberal vision of “autonomous individuals”.
While, liberals like Rawls accept that a commitment to genuine equality may entail special
cultural and social rights. They stress that such rights to be conceptualized as individual
rights.
Parekh believes, Rawls work is deeply inhospitable to cultural plurality. Rawls political
liberalism, unduly restricts political discourse. Allowing people in society, leaving their moral
& religious baggage’s at door, is to bar important resources from political debate to offer, a
unitary concepts of individual citizenship is to deny cultural pluralism a voice.

In Parekh’s view Kymlicka’s liberal multiculturalism does not fare much better. There is no
logic to the general or undisputed principles that inform kymlicka’s hierarchy of national
refugee and immigrant minority right. If culture is a primary good it is necessary condition
for good life cannot be denied to immigrants.
Kymlicka absolutizes liberalism as his suggestion is that national minorities are to be given
self-governance rights, provided they govern themselves within certain liberal parameters,
fails to lake cultural diversity seriously enough.
Thus different from Rawl’s & Kymlicka’s effort to develop ‘minimum universalism’, Parekh’s
theory takes the form of ‘pluralist universalism’. For Parekh, the rights of cultures are
‘primary collective rights’. Thus he gives pluralist perspective on cultural diversity. Writing
within liberal tradition and outside, he calls “moral monism” of contemporary liberalism
undefensible.

He offers careful analysis of why cultural differences should be respected and publicly
affirmed. He argues for dialogic interplay between human commonalities and cultural
differences. He, creates scope for genuinely balanced and thoughtful compromises on even
the most controversial cultural issues.
He gives “thick culturalism” to include all groups including immigrants in comparison to ‘thin
multiculturalism’. He suggest that all groups deserve equal protection in human dignity is
fundamental value. He asks the state to adopt liberal and non-liberal view points from
perspective of equality.
He gives 3 components of multiculturalism :
• Human beings are culturally embedded culture ,moulds their nature and beliefs

• Different cultures represent different systems of meaning and visions of the good life,
distinction does not make them superior or inferior,

• Culture is dynamic, it changes with the changing circumstances and therefore,

multiculturalism is also a dynamic idea.

• Cultures are plural, identities are fluid and open

Cultures itself cannot be a defence of practice. It can be protected only when it contributes
to human interest. It can be protected only when it contributes to human interest.
Criticisms of multi-culturalism
Jeremy Waldron - people are not connected to their own culture in any deep live in
kaleidoscope of cultures.
Amartya sen - multiculturalism leads to miniaturization, rather than developing cross
civilizational understanding.
Seyla Behabib - It Cripples ability of culture to adopt other cultures and prevent emergence
of cosmopolitan culture.
Susan Moller Okin - Multiculturalism is bad as it gives subordinate status to women.

Brian Barry - multiculturalism implies tolerating in human practices

Cosmopolitan notion of citizenship

Which is something not practiced, as we see the membership to a particular political
community or in the nation-state. Cosmopolitanism or cosmopolitan citizenship is far from
being practical or pragmatic and yet as an ideal or as a thought experiment, it is
something, which we must consider or engage with. This idea of cosmopolitanism is derived
from the Greek word cosmopolites, which means, the citizen of the world. And Diogenes is
regarded as the first cosmopolitan philosopher who asserted that ‘I am a citizen of the
world’.

This idea, we know that citizenship is about the membership to a political community. The
world is divided into different nation-states. This nation-state is for all practical purposes
whether it is the legitimate political organization or institution and citizenship is seen in
association with the membership to a particular nation-state or a particular political
community. However, the cosmopolitan citizenship tries to transcend the boundaries of
nation-states, to develop sensibilities, to develop the obligation towards world as a whole
and not because, it is not limited to a particular nation-state or political communities.
And this we can often, say as a citizen of India or Pakistan or Bangladesh, our sensibilities,
loyalties and obligations are limited to the territorial boundaries of countries like India,
Pakistan or Bangladesh. But when we develop sensibilities and obligation or loyalties
towards the world, our responses or our associations will not be defined or limited to the
territorial boundary of any of these states. Because, we consider and imagine ourselves as
not being a member of a particular political community, but to the larger community of
humanity or human ideals, as such. Now, this ideal is there from the very beginning, but in
modern contemporary times, with the coming of globalization, theorists have also talked
about delinking of relationship between the citizenship and nation-state, and they argued for
replacing it with global or cosmopolitan citizenship with the universal human community.
The community to which one belongs is not thus, limited to the nation-state, but to a
universal human community. That becomes the ideal for a cosmopolitan notion of
citizenship.

According to Derek Heater, although, the cosmopolitan citizenship is undefinable in theory

or non-existent in practice, as an ideal, it is worth considering. It lacks the legal and political
exactness. Ho.
And this we will discuss through these three-four ways of cosmopolitan citizenship.

a) People who have a feeling of identity in the whole of humanity are regarded as world
or cosmopolitan. So, there are individuals in the society, who feel or associate
themselves with the whole humanity and not just to the members of their one particular
nation-state. They are regarded as a cosmopolitan citizen.
b) Cosmopolitan citizens accept the moral percept that the individual has some
responsibility for the condition of the planet and the rest of its inhabitants. So, they
develop sensibilities that their obligation is not just limited to a particular nation-state
and its territory, but it extends, to the whole of humanity and other inhabitants of
humanity as well. They work or operate in this moral percept which transcends the
boundaries of the nation-states.
c) Finally, a cosmopolitan citizen believes in and works for the supranational, universal,
political community and authority. They develop the concept of human rights or
democracy or democratic rights of the citizens, that is the basic healthcare or universal
declaration of human rights is one such examples, where every member of the planet is
treated as a human.

However, there are genuine criticisms levelled against the cosmopolitan notion of
citizenship and there are many skeptics, who argued that such notion of citizenship in
the absence of exact legal and political status are merely, utopia. There are many
skeptics who argued, the cosmopolitan citizenship is merely, utopia because it lacks, the
exact legal or political status.

And many others viewed cosmopolitan citizenship as nothing but a facet of globalization
which is the extension of capitalism driven largely, by the MNCs and TNCs, that is,
Multinational Corporation or Transnational Corporation because they want the free flow
of capital and goods. Therefore, they want to create a global network of institutions and
authority which helps in the free flow of ideas, people’s, goods and capital.
Although, it is true that cosmopolitan citizenship is far from being real or pragmatic or
practical, yet even, its critics would argue or acknowledge the necessity, of creation of a
global society to which each one of us has obligation to. There are many challenges
before humanity such as the climate change or terrorism or global terrorism which
requires people and communities to come together in order to solve it. These challenges
of climate change or global terrorism cannot be tackled by a particular country or a
single country, no matter, how much economical and military powerful that country is.