No, they're not. This post attempts to put some argument for the said case that Fundamental rights as per our Constitution, aren't absolute. We then shall proceed to see that it would be harmful to the society at large if that were the case. This post comes at a time when a lot of discussion is occurring on whether one can express whatever he/she desires to and this right to do so must be protected as a fundamental right.
Liberty: A modern day obsession
Liberty(i), in modern times has become an obsession, an end that seems to be the only correct goal for the homo sapiens species. Yet, Liberty is not an isolated, all encompassing end for Societies. Equality and Fraternity too are very much crucial for establishing, sustaining and nurturing Liberty. Pro-Liberty dogmatics tend to press hard for it without realizing that the other two elements are equally, or even much more essential for an efficient, fair and most importantly a happy and prosperous society(ii). Liberty, Equality & Fraternity are the three crucial elements for a truly developed, prosperous & sustainable society.
Ensuring Liberty, is not a naturally managed, non-interventionist task. It needs active participation of varied Social institutions. Also, Liberty has to be ensured, it is not naturally available to people. Institutions have to exist that protect it. For Eg. Private property is one such example which needs Institutions such as courts that enforce it & the State that recognizes it. Today, we are far better-off than our forefathers. We can be at home and relax that the property purchased by us is ours and no one would come and snatch it away. Yes, many a times injustice occurs, but we're secured as we have courts and a Justice mechanism to redress and solve it.
Liberty- Origination
Where does Liberty originate from in Indian context? By Liberty, we here mean 'Freedom'. It is important to appeal to an authority to answer this question:
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, on 4th November, 1948 said in the constituent assembly: "I am sorry to say that the whole of the criticism about fundamental rights is based upon a misconception. In the first place, the criticism in so far as it seeks to distinguish fundamental rights from non-fundamental rights is not sound. It is incorrect to say that fundamental rights are absolute while non-fundamental rights are not absolute.The real distinction between the two is that non-fundamental rights are created by agreement between parties while fundamental rights are the gift of the law. Because fundamental rights are the gift of the State it does not follow that the State cannot qualify them."
Here, following important observations are to be made:
1. There are two types of rights that need to be focused on: a). Fundamental and b). non-fundamental
2. Non-fundamental rights are those that are created by coming together of parties in an agreement. Eg. Contracts, Private property, Purchase and Sales, etc.
3. Fundamental rights are a gift of the state. Now that's a metaphor. It means that the state(Government) ensures that these rights are available to every citizens. It thus protects these rights and ensures its enforcement when needed.
4. The state cannot qualify them, meaning change them(as per the interpretation by this blog) as the Supreme Court has time and again ruled that the basic structure of Indian Constitution i.e. its Preamble cannot be changed by any Authority under the State(iii). Thus the central spirit of even the Fundamental rights cannot be changed if change/affect the spirit of the Constitution(iv).
Article 19, Clause 2 states: Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1){refers to the freedom of speech and expression} shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.(v)
Hence, reasonable restrictions are to be put, on the freedom of speech and expression. This makes it clear that any expression that affects any of the above mentioned subjects, namely the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; shall be prohibited/regulated/restricted.
The rationale behind this restriction:
India, as we know, is a vast, multicultural, multilingual, multiracial, multireligious and a very diversified society. It is very much possible that expression and speech of a particular entity may affect the other entity in a manner, unacceptable to them. Thus, it becomes essential to prohibit any such activity.
Having said that, it also becomes essential to point out at the other side of the issue under discussion. It is very much possible and evident too that in the name of such entities, especially religion, caste, etc., unnecessary barriers to the freedom of expression and speech shall rise. It may take the form of bullying by fundamentalist groups, or pressure from some organizations claiming to represent a particular section of society, etc. These matters, though do occur, can be dealt with more amount of clarity in the law about what shall affect the above said factors due to which reasonable restrictions are required. Lack of clarity on which entities, to what extent must be allowed to exert restrictions based on the said factors(vi) is an area requiring immediate intellectual discussion among the Lawyers.
If Fundamental rights were absolute:
People in such a society and Polity would have to face serious consequences. It is well-known what happens when two or more communities do not respect each other. Communal riots aren't alien to India, are they? Due to reasonable restrictions, we as citizens are able to maintain harmony and peace. Indeed, disruptions occur, but are managed due to availability of such restrictions. Exempli Gratia- We don't go out and start abusing some community, religion or any entity especially in public, only because we feel that expression and speech is our freedom, do we? We apply restrictions on our actions and behaviour. Indeed, one may argue that these are Social norms and manners that we learn, but Law has a crucial role in shaping and more so strengthening our norms and behaviour.
An 'absolute freedom' society would mean, expressions that, either may not have been made in a relative freedom(vii) society as currently in India or would have been prohibited/restricted/redressed under a relative freedom society. In such a situation, harmony would have prevailed. Since, in an absolute freedom society one can freely express whatever he/she desires to, non-state social entities(religious groups, communities, etc.) would exert control over the social behaviour(viii) of individuals. Its very well possible that there would be non-state regulating devices, wherein individuals may not be given sufficient rights and representation as is today under constitutional institutions. More on this topic in later posts.
Conclusion:
Freedom/Liberty is not an absolute concept. It is provided by the State, which derives its power from the people, thus ensuring certain fundamental rights to its citizens. These rights, as explained by Dr. Ambedkar, aren't absolute and possess reasonable restrictions. These restrictions, however offending, are important to maintain peace and harmony. The assumption that people shall respect each other even if Freedom were absolute is ill-founded. Restrictions on freedoms(which are minimal) help to tune individual behaviour in tandem with social harmony and tolerance. This means, in different nations, these restrictions vary. In a more tolerant or a largely homogenous society(Eg. nations where diversity in terms of religion, caste, etc. is less), restrictions would be less while more in a largely heterogenous society. Lastly, such restrictions have their flip side too. Unnecessary pressure may be exerted by various entities that may reduce Freedom of expression and speech to a large extent only to a paper-promise. This issue thus needs further clarity as per the law on the entities and sentiments that must be protected and which shall be considered as valid for reasonable restrictions.
Reference and Notes:
(i)- The term Liberty has different connotations as explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty, the above article refers it as Freedom of expression as stated under article 19 of Indian constitution.
(ii)- By prosperity I mean both Quantitative and Qualitative wealth.
(iii)- Authority here means: - As defined under Article 12 of Indian constitution.
(iv)- Spirit of the constitution here is referred to the Preamble
(v)- As given in our constitution; for a link see here:
(vi)- The said factors refer to: the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, as given under Article 19, clause 2.
(vii)- Relative freedom society here means a society wherein Freedoms aren't absolute and have necessary restrictions. Indeed, these restrictions are minimal as evident in our constitution.
(viii)- Social behaviour here is referred to behaviour of individuals during social interactions/in Public.
Rath, I was searching this issue of if the Fundamental Rights are absolute when today I heard our aspiring President Pranab Mukherjee speak this point: Fundamental Rights are not absolute.
ReplyDeleterath, when I read these topics from your article and also from the websites of people from US or UK (http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap225.htm) , there is one hidden difference I notice, rather I have started to feel that it exist, ** The Interpretation of Rights have come to Indians through the Prism of Nationalism, rather than a a society which fought together for something.**. What it means is that even if the Rights are not absolute, the argument that we Indians provide for it has accounted an essential condition as the end, **that the State of India is under threat and must be protected.**. Therefore, we discover the logic of why the fundamental rights are not absolute because be have adopted that State of India has to defended against someone who is threatening it, ;it becomes irrelevant whether the presumed threat is morally justified or not, whether the defender is actually doing more damage to the society of the perceived threat to a Nation called India.
In contrast to this, the Westerners, the US and the UK find the logic of why these rights are not absolute because they see the over-ridding on these in the course of nature itself, for example: A law made to regulate money lenders will essentially by discriminating the people who are into money lending against those who given money to other people, such as the investors. This will mean that equality before law is violated away by a discretionary classification conducted in the set of people who give money to someone, one subset as 'Money lenders' and the other Subset as "Investors". there will be different law for each two subsets, which, prima facie, can be treat a case of violation of "equality before law". The classification however is qualified of being "well studied and well accepted by every one".
Important is that, "a non-democratic state has the style of putting threat to national security" as a reason to restrict the Fundamental Rights. The arguments and the line of reasoning that you provide will cause Indian Society to become qualified for a non-democratic state, because our arguments contain axiom of threat to state' as a justified reasoning which need no further examination, such as "threat from whom? why? what for? etc.".
In the arguments and line of reasoning of the westeners, even if they have the threat to national security" also as a reasoning for restricting the Fundamental rights, the primary path chosen is those arriving from Naturalist Arguments, thus opening the passage for conducting an argument of "threat to state" reasoning as well, if the state is found to abuse this alternate condition for restriction of Fundamental Right. Therefore, the freedom of individual is more important than the existence of Society Itself, unless it is proven beyond doubts that the Society (which is what they called the Nation) is proven to be under threat.
this is what one can call as the Individualism of the Westeners, as against the Socialism of the Easteners. We live on a pirated concept of Nationalism. Therefore we struggle hard to preserve Nationalism and the nation. A Nation is not a natural thought to us.
Part 1:
DeleteMannu: Firstly, thank you for putting your views here. You are always welcomed to share your viewpoint. Its highly appreciated.
Before replying your concerns, I find it essential to put some preliminaries here:
I). As you might see, my posts and my viewpoints as expressed on this blog are fast changing, developing & advancing to newer ideas and thoughts. This article was written by me in a specific material & ideological background.
II). Since February 2012, my understanding and beliefs have transformed very much. My posts reflect these changing beliefs.
III). I wrote this article after having some discussions & readings with an Anarcho-capitalist. As is evident, they tremendously support individual liberty against anything called social till an individual action doesn't affect another individual/group of individuals. I found this extremism for individual liberty rather detrimental to the individual herself. Thus, my article begins with the concept of Liberty.
IV). With passing time, my belief in the current parliamentary democracy is decaying too, forcing me to research and study better alternatives. Still, I'd reply basing on my views as they were some time ago.
Though I agree with some of your concerns, I'd object some of them too.
"The Interpretation of Rights have come to Indians through the Prism of Nationalism, rather than as a society which fought together for something."
I find this proposition vague & incorrect. It would be wrong to come on such a generalization about our interpretation of fundamental rights. Nationalism, and appeals to collective concepts is a characteristic feature of our History of freedom struggle, but not the only one. Moreover, the concept of fundamental rights too emerged slowly through struggle of various ideas during the freedom movement. These rights aren't merely some byproducts of intellectual cognition of few great politicians but lessons that we learnt during the struggle itself. Considering them nationalistic and absolute will be a gross negligence on the interpreter's part.
Rather, respect for diversity is a lesson Indians had grasped long before the advent of British Raj. We always have been diverse. Moghuls, Tughluqs, Christains, Afghans, Pathans, Zoroastrians, etc. have formed a part of Indian society in various time periods of our history. It is this respect and harmony for diversity that I attempted to focus- not some national integrity criterion.
You might object to this by referring to my assertions regarding our constitution's views on this issue. I also stated that 'threat to national unity, &c.' are considered valid reasons for imposing restrictions of fundamental rights. I only stated what our constitution speaks on this issue rather than put a viewpoint, essentially a value-judgement on whether such a view of our constitution is correct or not. I also appealed to Dr. Ambedkar on this issue, only pointing out what our constitution makers believed on this issue. I considered this important as these people were those who had faced the brute realities of the bloody and violent communal killings, various conflicts among leaders, occasional lack of popular support, etc. that happened before, during and after independence.
Part 2:
DeleteOur interpretation of Fundamental Rights can and should change with time. But this has to be done keeping in mind the larger lessons history teaches us- that of restricting our expressions to a certain extent. I also put forward an abstract model of an 'absolute-freedom' society, wherein its clearly visible that restrictions on fundamental rights will be present, then through some non-state entity- as is evident today in various religions where religious authorities have a strong control over rights of people, or the despotic control of tribal regions by extremist groups, khap panchayats, etc. It is far better to have a democratic, people controlled state through which people put such restrictions common to all.
Also, what is fundamental Right is a question that needs an answer before we discuss about it. As Mr. Ambedkar pointed out, its a gift of law. Now that's an unacceptable proposition as we ourselves are the law-makers, but it can be interpret as a gift by people at large to each other, assuming the entire process was highly democratic and popularly accepted. Indeed, in our case, this holds true. Hence, logically, is law 'creates' & 'provides' these rights, it can restrict it as deems necessary. Here too, we assume that this process of deciding what are the correct restrictions, what are not, etc. are done through democratic process. The reality today is far from this. I'd agree on that.
"because your arguments contain axiom of threat to state' as a justified reasoning which need no further examination, such as "threat from whom? why? what for? etc."
Incorrect. If you look at the sub-topic "The rationale behind this restriction", I clearly recognize the fact that its always possible to have unreasonable, politically motivated & class-based restrictions which shall harm individuals and society at large. Its also stressed in that sub-topic that "Lack of clarity on which entities, to what extent must be allowed to exert restrictions based on the said factors(vi) is an area requiring immediate intellectual discussion among the Lawyers."[my quote]
Again in the section "conclusion", its recognized that "This issue thus needs further clarity as per the law on the entities and sentiments that must be protected and which shall be considered as valid for reasonable restrictions." Hence, I fully recognize the ill-usage of this restriction, which is only harming the polity and society. It has to be dealt immediately. Our constitution has a lot of complexity in regards to these issues which then result in very dubious & anti-democracy actions. Thourough revision of these statutes, involvement of common people and conscious reorganization of the society only can solve this issue.
Part 3:
Delete"The arguments and the line of reasoning that you provide will cause Indian Society to become qualified for a non-democratic state"
The concept of 'State' is in itself a completely non-democratic one. It is rather the concept of 'Government' that can proclaim to be democratic. A State is a forced entity that cannot be challenged and changed, whereas a Government can be formed, utilized and even dissolved when needed. Sadly, today that's not the case. Far from it. We rather live in a world where the Governments have got converted into states, completely suppressing radical, truly revolutionary ideas that can help form a better society.
"Therefore, the freedom of individual is more important than the existence of Society Itself.."
I find the seeds of the typical Anarcho-capitalist thinking in such assertions. These are extremely ill-founded. You can try to believe that an individual's freedom is superior to society, but society regulates this behaviour someway or the other. For g. through the state or in an 'absolute-freedom' society through non-state institutions. What an individual is, is decided by her social being, by how she is recognized socially. All the characteristics that you, me or any human possess including our identities are a product of social recognition and social learning. You cannot view an individual in isolation to the social-material conditions she lives in. That's a theoretically comfortable idea, but an incorrect one.
By this, am not asserting to cut an individual's throat just because society considers it right, but because reasonable restrictions are needed in order to be able to live in a society. These restrictions, in present social-material conditions are better made through the state[which we might be able to run democratically] rather than non-state entities- panchayats, rebel groups, etc.
Part 4:
Delete"this is what one can call as the Individualism of the Westeners, as against the Socialism of the Easteners."
No, one cannot define Socialism as one likes. These are not subjective issues that one can form as per one's whims but require a thorough understanding of the large body of ideas behind these terms. Socialism does not equal 'Society'. That's an issue I'll deal with sometime soon on this site. We can leave that for now.
" What remains agnoisng about 'State' is that it is possible that a particular group of people can seize control of it, like the way it is happening now, to give a perception of the State being under threat.
Yes! The state has always been a private property of a particular class. But I'd disagree with you if you say that it belongs to a particular political party. Political parties are merely the Representatives of particular economic ideologies. You accuse Eastern nations of being socialist, but all the major political parties of India[except a few] are pro-neoliberalism, pro-wage labour and pro-private ownership of means of production. There's not even a single trace of Socialism in here. State ownership is not Socialism. Anyway, I'll be dealing with these issues sometime in future. It would be nice that you have your say on those essays too.
Summing up, my view of "fundamental rights are not absolute" is not based on the issues you have pointed out- such as ill-founded restrictions on individuals, unnecessary interference with individuals, etc. Rather, I fully recognize this and propose that further intellectual and legal research be done to make these articles, clauses & statutes of our constitution clearer. I also agree that today the realities are far from the original aspirations of the constitution. This can be changed only by a revolutionary transformation of the society by people themselves- say for Eg. by forming political parties of highly educated, ethically trained youngsters. Current developments in Indian polity reinforce my understanding that we as Indians need to look beyond the realm of parliamentary democracy and search for better and superior alternatives.
Regards and Cheers!
In another deeper truth, the object which we call State is also nothing but a compilation of various Public Institution, such as the Parliament, the Judiciary, the President, the Executive (composed up through the UPSC), etc. What remains agnoisng about 'State' is that it is possible that a particular group of people can seize control of it, like the way it is happening now, to give a perception of the State being under threat. One can notice how the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executives are all building a big nexus to subvert a hot rising issue of Corruption by accusing Team Anna of being Anti-national. It if from this context that Kapil Sibal is using the pretext of 'threat to state' to put a gag on public means of communication, the freedom of expression per se, and the aspiring President, Pranab, is kind of secretly qualifying that act of Kapil by proposing that Fundamental Rights are not Absolute.
ReplyDeleteIt is from this that I have begun to pick that Westners have different logic to "Fundamental Rights are not absolute" , than us. It is likely that one can challenge the State (truley the ruling political party0 as the threat to the state than any other organisation as declared by the so called "State". Positioning of Pranab as President, which perceivably is not a faourite candidate from the Rank , is subtle indicator of the flaws existing in the reasoning of "Fundamental rights are not absolute".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRath, Thank for your response. Being a regular blogger for quite a few year now, I would have all respect for your evolving state of mind from the time you wrote this blog to the present day. It often happens that we write a thing in a particular state of mind and then we pass over it, becoming oblivious of what made us write that! But then, an in-depth knowledge emerges from human Emotions only. That state-of-mind was that Emotional State from which some fountain of wisdom had come. Greater is that need that people record it down just as that Emotional state happen because, as you say (and I agree) that we forget it away within momemts , losing away all that Emotional Wisdom too. Emotional Wisdom is of transient nature. So, you have done a right work by atleast recording down whatever it was.
ReplyDeleteYou say, and I quote:
ReplyDeleteI find this proposition vague & incorrect. It would be wrong to come on such a generalization about our interpretation of fundamental rights. Nationalism, and appeals to collective concepts is a characteristic feature of our History of freedom struggle, but not the only one. Moreover, the concept of fundamental rights too emerged slowly through struggle of various ideas during the freedom movement. These rights aren't merely some byproducts of intellectual cognition of few great politicians but lessons that we learnt during the struggle itself. Considering them nationalistic and absolute will be a gross negligence on the interpreter's part.
Rath, you are partially correct and partially mistaken. You are correct to that extent that intellectualism about the Fundamental Rights did not arrive merely by some arm-chair brainstorming , but also through the lessons learnt from the past. You are mistaken at your observations that these "lesson-learning" ever happened in India! In truth, Indians do not recognise fundamental rights as so basic ingriendients in their day-today lives. We do not honour free speech in offices too. We normally assume that 'boss is always right'. Our parliament believes that it has right to demand respect from us, while our constitution teaches us to respect the book of Constitution and the Parliament. So, in truth when the argument arrives at this conflation where It is taught and expected that Citizen should respect the Constitution, Parliament and National Symbols, and we meet a situation where Someone of stature such as Team Anna, Arvind Kejriwal , Om Puri, Anupam Kher, Ronen sen, Kiran Bedi,- is found not to be doing so, our Logic Colapses and we sink into Logical fallacy exposing our real understanding of what is nation and what are these national symbols.
" We do not honour free speech in offices too. We normally assume that 'boss is always right'."
DeleteI find this inadequate in capturing the behavioural essence of Indians. Indians do honour these rights, in offices, in schools, in courts, everywhere[that is why we have them in our constitution!]. Unfortunately we do not observe them, that appears to be the problem. Letters as law are merely ink on paper. Its observance and full-spirited application is where we lag behind. And I'd agree on this.
"our Logic Colapses and we sink into Logical fallacy exposing our real understanding of what is nation and what are these national symbols."
I find this assertion to be incorrect. It is not a Logical fallacy to be confused on interpretations of what exactly does the text in constitution means. It is very natural to have such confusions on questions of such crucial political importance. Law is generally vague, only regular examining of it in the light of changing circumstances can improve it. It is a matter of urgent popular, intellectual and legal debate. Fundamental Rights and the question of reasonable restrictions is what our Supreme Court has been grappling with since the dawn of Indian Constitution. Many important cases threw light on this, we still are unable to achieve perfect clarity on this.
"where Someone of stature such as Team Anna, Arvind Kejriwal , Om Puri, Anupam Kher, Ronen sen, Kiran Bedi"
These are reformists undertaking their reformist propaganda, having nothing realistic to offer to people. I reject such attempts to reform the problems that are internal to the given polity itself. Only a revolutionary change of the polity, with an accompanying change in the economic system can create a better society.
LOGICAL FALLACY among Indians about the concept of Nation: We see the concept in, as the westerner like to describe it, in a "Socialist" way. That is, the Big Brother style of doing things-- The big brother is offering to his younger brother to make 'voluntary' amends and make-up with each other, lest he knows "what to do". That is what the Westeners think of "Socialism" to be like. If people are not willing to vountarily respect the National Symbols, the Constitution and the Parliament, the socialist country does not recognise between the Positive Liberty and the Negative Liberty and like to deal with them with the same high-handed as for an external threat to their nation. The debate of acceptable protest versus case of hidden external threat to nation ends in a Socialist State. The courts too all down because the seizure of the Fundamental Rights is deemed correct to absolute. In another word, Since the Fundamental Rights are NOT absolute, the Seizure of Fundamental Rights becomes ABSOLUTELY correct in all the situations. That is how a "Socialist" State becomes an evolves extension of a large geography "Feudalism".
ReplyDeleteIndia has that problem about it's understanding of Fundamental Rights. The problem can be better exposed to Intectual groups as worded in the speech of B R Ambedkar Himself " Fundamental Rights are like a GIFT of State to the CITIZENs". --This Gift concept being suggestive of the logic that State therefore has a right to take them away anytime under the condition of threat to state.
In comparison, the westeners see Fundamental Rights as the basic Terms and Condition of the Social Contract between the Citizens and the State. In peacetime situations ,when the state is not at wars against an external enemy, the State cannot take back away the Gift, even if the internal Agents are demanding a separation.
No wonder, this attitude created among the Indians due to the above Logical Fallacy can weaken our position about the affairs of State of Kashmir, and also about the understanding of the Naxalite Problem too. We are indirectly suggesting that Naxalism is a Military problem, not a consequence of the socio-economic failures of the State.
" We see the concept in, as the westerner like to describe it, in a "Socialist" way. That is, the Big Brother style of doing things"
Delete"That is what the Westeners think of "Socialism" to be like"
"That is how a 'Socialist' State becomes an evolves extension of a large geography Feudalism"
This is not Socialism, but Statism. Objective concepts like Socialism, Capitalism, &c. aren't based on whimsical views of anyone, they are rather to be understood through the large body of intellectual ideas that are hidden behind them. As said earlier, I'll surely take up this topic some time soon on this site.
" If people are not willing to vountarily respect the National Symbols, the Constitution and the Parliament, the socialist country does not recognise between the Positive Liberty and the Negative Liberty and like to deal with them with the same high-handed as for an external threat to their nation."
Statist countries always have this problem of dictatorial tendencies over their own people. See for example the events in Syria for last few months. Or the events that occurred in Libya under Qaddhafi. How repressive these people became once their own citizens were rejecting the constitutional[if there was one!] values they obeyed once.
" The debate of acceptable protest versus case of hidden external threat to nation ends in a Socialist State"
It ends in a Statist state. As I said earlier, the concept of state in itself is a highly undemocratic one. Till we depend on a group of some elected elites, we're always going to be in such troubles.
"This Gift concept being suggestive of the logic that State therefore has a right to take them away anytime under the condition of threat to state."
Till we depend on something called State, Fundamental Rights are going to be a gift of an institution rather than a gift by people to themselves. That's where the root of problem lies, the belief of having a state at the first place.
"not a consequence of the socio-economic failures of the State."
The state cannot be accused of failing here. It itself is a part of the very socio-economic mode of economic life that we live under. Changing this very basic aspect of human society is an issue people need to take seriously.
Rather, respect for diversity is a lesson Indians had grasped long before the advent of British Raj. We always have been diverse. Moghuls, Tughluqs, Christains, Afghans, Pathans, Zoroastrians, etc. have formed a part of Indian society in various time periods of our history. It is this respect and harmony for diversity that I attempted to focus- not some national integrity criterion.
ReplyDeleteWe had perhaps not learnt the respect for Diversity. We had submitted to the fate of being subjugated. the idea of struggle for the Muslims was to re-instate the Muslim rule in India after the British left. The country suffered partition. (Please do not suggest to me it was british policy of Divide and rule). Communal riots, intolerances of religious issues are continued featured of Indian platter. Mutual respect in not same as quid-pro-quo silence on religious issues. It is about KNOWING, and Honouring the differences of each other. We cannot talk in open domian the differences between Religious groups. Socialogist call this the Pseudo Secularism of Indians.
"Communal riots, intolerances of religious issues are continued featured of Indian platter."
DeleteYou make correct observations but propose incorrect solutions. How can you expect Fundamental rights to be "absolute" in such a society that has had a history of communal violence? Not only that. We still have a tremendously intolerant society in terms of communal and racial tolerance. When I asserted about the respect for diversity, it was meant to be seen in reference to the "non-absolute" fundamental rights that we have in our constitution currently.
On one hand you observe the sheer rigidity of many elements of our society, yet demand the rights to be absolute? Such a contradictory assessment can cost heavily to the lives of millions of people. We learnt the 'respect' for diversity, but failed to 'observe' it in reality. That's why we have reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights. I especially am stressing on the rights to expression & speech.
" It is about KNOWING, and Honouring the differences of each other. "
Yes, so are you expecting these qualities to fall upon Indians and become a part of their hearts through some magic-wand as the Anarcho-capitalists dream of? Socio-material conditions for having absolute fundamental rights are not present in India currently. We need to create material conditions for having such a society, before calling for any such change in the polity.
"We cannot talk in open domian the differences between Religious groups. Socialogist call this the Pseudo Secularism of Indians."
Right. Still you want to make fundamental rights absolute[especially of free speech and expression] and expect that the disruptive elements as well as grieved ones shall remain mum when they are hurt/excited/insulted/etc.? By making such a change you shall be exemplifying the anger, hatred & distrust of the sensitive sections of society, forcing them to retaliate with far more violence than India's seen before.
The connect between State and the Government should be highlighted. The state is defined in its nature through the constitution and which ever government come to power has to live within the frames of that constitution. Change of Government cannot imply a change in the nature of the State. State , as i think, is a broad collective agreement of all citizens until some new revolution happens. A separatist movement, in this light, should be viewed as a tell-tale of failures of State Policy, through the failures of succeeding governments. Until there are clear reasons to believe that external agent is prompting a separatist war, internal uprising can not and must not be viewed as a Military Situation. It is a consequence of failure of socio-economic policies of state.
ReplyDelete"The state is defined in its nature through the constitution"
DeleteRight. And who forms the constitution? People of the country at large. Thus, a State, in purely logical fashion, must be the product of peoples' wish and needs. However, we do not live under such a situation. None of the state today can be said to qualify this basic criteria of being a product of people's own decisions. It rather is a phenomenon independent of people's will and need.
But a Government is not such a concept. It can be made, utilized and dissolved as per people's need. It is a democratic concept that requires voluntary cooperation, not a repressive police/military/ideological infrastructure to protect itself. This was my point earlier.
"State , as i think, is a broad collective agreement of all citizens until some new revolution happens.
In an ideal sense that should be the case, but as I asserted above, that's not the case today. We live under repressive organizations, whose only aim remains the protection of society and economy as it is currently, repressing every attempt to revolutionize it. Let us hope for better changes in the future.
Rath, I must say you have been mostly very consensus forming opinion maker. Pleasure to read your blogs.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much Manish. Its a pleasure for me too, to be discussing issues of such prime social-importance, with well-informed people as you.
DeleteRegards & Wishes.