PTCD

Department of Distance and Continuing Education
University of Delhi
nwjLFk ,oa lrr~ f'k{kk foHkkx
fnYyh fo'ofo|ky;
B.A. (Hons.) Political Science

Semester-III
Course Credits-4
Discipline Specific Core Course (DSC-7)
POLITICAL THEORY: CONCEPTS AND DEBATES
As per the UGCF - 2022 and National Education Policy 2020
Political Theory: Concepts and Debates
Editorial Board
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
Dr. Shambhu Nath Dubey
Dr. Mangal Deo
Content Writers
Ceejun Chandran, Tarkeshwarnath,
Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Md. Saalim
Farooq Bhat, Manish Kumar, Sushant Yadav
Academic Coordinator
Deekshant Awasthi
© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

ISBN: ----------------------
Ist edition: 2023
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
Published by:
Department of Distance and Continuing Education under
the aegis of Campus of Open Learning/School of Open Learning,
University of Delhi, Delhi-110007
Printed by:
School of Open Learning, University of Delhi
© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

• All units are taken from CBCS except the lesson on Justice. All the lesson are reframed according to
NEP. The lesson on Justice is being written afresh.
• Corrections/Modifications/Suggestions proposed by Statutory Body, DU/Stakeholder/s in the Self
Learning Material (SLM) will be incorporated in the next edition. However, these
corrections/modifications/suggestions will be uploaded on the website https://sol.du.ac.in. Any
feedback or suggestions can be sent to the email- [email protected]

Table of Contents
Sl. No. Title Writer Pg.

No.
Unit-I Freedom
(a) Liberty: Negative and Positive Ceejun Chandran 01
(b) Freedom, Emancipation, Swaraj Ceejun Chandran 20
Unit-II Equality
(a) Equality of opportunity and equality Tarkeshwarnath 63
of outcome
(b) Egalitarianism: Background Inequalities Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh 80
and Differential Treatment
Unit-III Justice: Procedural and Substantive, Md. Saalim Farooq Bhat 89
Rawls and his Critics
Unit-IV Rights
Rights: Natural, Moral and Legal Rights Manish Kumar 102
and Obligations
Unit-V Democracy
(a) Democracy: Idea and Practice Sushant Yadav 119
(b) Liberal Democracy and its Critics Sushant Yadav 132
(c) Multiculturalism and Toleration Sushant Yadav 145

Unit-I: Freedom
(a) LIBERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE
Ceejun Chandran
STRUCTURE
1.1 Learning Objectives
1.2 Introduction
1.3 Concept of Liberty
1.4 Scope of Liberty
1.5 Liberty and License
1.6 Liberty and Authority
1.7 Various Notions of Liberty
1.8 Views of Laski: Positive view on Liberty
1.9 Views of Macpherson: Developmental Liberty
1.10 Views of J.S. Mill (1806-73)
1.11 Views of Isaiah Berlin
1.12 Views of Milton Friedman
1.13 Marxist Concept of Liberty
1.14 Evaluation and Main Points of Marxian Freedom
1.15 Various Dimensions of Liberty
1.16 Safeguards to Liberty
1.17 Practice Questions
1.18 References
1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
• The aim of this section is to introduce the student to the concept of liberty, different
dimensions, and types of liberty; to make the students understand how to exercise
liberty without restricting the liberty of others.
1|Page

• The lesson discusses the views of Laski, J.S. Mill, Berlin, Macpherson and
Friedman.
• It also discusses about Marxist Concept of liberty and evaluation of Marxian
Freedom
1.2 INTRODUCTION
Freedom is meant by the word liberty. Freedom can be defined in a variety of ways, including
freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom to perform a chosen profession, and
freedom to follow and spread a chosen religion. In a nutshell, freedom is the absence of all
restraints, allowing an individual to act as they like without interference.
1.3 CONCEPT OF LIBERTY
The term liberty means freedom. Freedom can be understood in different ways i.e., freedom
of speech, freedom to move, freedom to practice the profession of one choice, freedom to
practice and propagate religion of one’s choice. In short, freedom means the absence of any
kind of restrictions, where a person can do whatever he/she wishes to without any hindrance.
To understand freedom in a better way we can take some other examples like the
desire of bird in a cage to fly in the open air, the desire of the prisoner to set himself free from
prison and lead a free life, desire of the patient to go home who is admitted long time in a
hospital for treatment. Freedom also implies non-interference in once life in any form of
word or action. So, we can say liberty has different meanings to different people. The term
liberty derives from the Latin liber, which means “absence of restraints”. In other words,
liberty implies freedom to act without being subject to any restraint. Liberty signifies “a
power or capacity of doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying.”
According to Hobbes, ‘By liberty is understood…absence of external impediments,
which impediments may oft take part of man’s power to do what he would do’. According to
Hegel, liberty consists of obedience to the law. Rousseau said that liberty consists of
obedience to General will. J.S. Mill describes, ‘The only freedom which deserves the name is
that of pursuing our own good in our own way so long as we do not deprive others of theirs
or impede their efforts to obtain it (Mill: 1975).
Laski explains liberty as the “Absence of restraints upon the existence of those social
conditions which in modern civilization are a necessary guarantee of individual happiness”.
2|Page

1.4 SCOPE OF LIBERTY
One of the major issues in liberty is adjustment of claims between individuals and society
(community). Here the State plays an important role because it is the instrument or agency for
regulating their relations. If the claim of the individual is stretched to an extreme in utter
disregard of the interest of society, liberty would be reduced to ‘license’. On the other, if
liberty of the individual is increasingly restricted in the supposed interest of society, the result
would be an unconditional submission to authority, hence the loss of liberty, it is therefore,
essential to draw a distinction between liberty and license on the one hand, and to fix the
proper frontier between liberty and authority, on the other.
1.5 LIBERTY AND LICENCE
When liberty is interpreted as the absence or removal of all restraints on the action of an
individual in utter disregard of the interest of other individuals, liberty degenerates into
license. Such a condition is not compatible with the maintenance of social order, nor with
maintenance of liberty itself. In that case, one man’s liberty would become another’s
constraint or oppression; liberty of the strong would amount to the suppression of the weaker;
liberty of the wolf would amount to death of the innocent sheep; large fish will be free to
swallow the smaller one, and there would be a still larger fish to swallow the former. A
thief’s liberty to take away anybody’s property would become a threat to everybody’s
security. A driver’s freedom to drive at any speed in any direction at his own whim would
endanger the life and liberty of all users of the road. Such a situation is obviously self-
contradictory. It cannot be permitted in a civil society, otherwise, it would defeat the very
purpose of social and organizational liberty.
If freedom is not to become a prerogative of a single individual, or for that matter a
group of individuals, it must be regulated in such a way that none shall use his freedom to
destroy the freedom of others. L.T. Hobhouse has pointed out: “The unchartered freedom of
one would be the conditional servitude of all but one, and conversely a freedom to be enjoyed
by all must impose some restraint upon all” (Hobhouse,1922). Earnest Barker has sought to
apply this principle in the wider socio-economic context: The need for liberty for each is
necessarily qualified and conditioned by the need of liberty for all.
The liberty of the owner of capital to determine the conditions of work in a the factory
which he owns is a relative liberty which must be adjusted to the liberty of the worker to do
his work under such conditions as leave him still a free agent and give him also a share in the
determination of the conditions of work. Because the liberty of each is, thus relative to that of
3|Page

others, and must be adjusted to that of others, it must always be regulated; and indeed, it
would not exist unless it was regulated.
1.6 LIBERTY AND AUTHORITY

The liberty of individuals must be restricted by a measure of equal liberty to be enjoyed by
others. In other words, one man’s liberty should not become an obstruction in the enjoyment
of liberty of others. As liberty is demanded for a man as a ‘rational being’, it follows that
liberty is meant to enable men to pursue ‘rational objects’ or ideal objects. If they do so,
everyone shall pursue his happiness in consonance with the happiness of society; and an
individual’s good will become an integral part of the social good. In such a perfect state, no
regulations would be necessary. But since, in the real world, individuals are not perfect-they
are only capable of perfection-the regulation of liberty becomes necessary to safeguard
liberty itself. Barker has further observed: Liberty within the State is thus a relative and
regulated liberty: it is the common measure of liberty, which is possible for all, as determined
and defined (i) by the need of each to enjoy similar and equal liberty with others; (ii) by the
need of all to enjoy the specific liberty of realizing specific capacities.
This view of relative and regulated liberty does not dismiss or dilute the essence of
liberty. On the contrary it provides for a more substantive foundation thereof. As Barker has
elucidated: A relative and regulated liberty, operative and enjoyed, is liberty greater in
amount than absolute liberty could ever be – if indeed such liberty could ever exist, or ever
amount to anything more than nothing at all.
Regulation of liberty implies the recognition of authority of the state over the
individual. If the liberty of the individual cannot be permitted to be absolute, can we allow
the authority of the state to become absolute? Thus, the conflict between liberty and authority
is no less grave than the conflict between liberty and license. In other words, if we deny
absolute liberty to the state because no state on earth is perfect. The conflict between liberty
and authority has remained a important issue in political theory. D.D. Raphel has illustrated:
Most political theorists recognize that individual liberty and State authority conflict with each
other, and that a balance must be struck between them and the values they represent. Some,
like Hobbes, are prepared to say that liberty must be severely limited to make way for the
benefits of State authority (Raphel:1976). Other thinkers like J.S. Mill and Locke think that
State authority should be markedly limited to leave as much room as possible for liberty.
Whatever the situation, limitations on the authority of the State must be laid down to
make authority more meaningful with reference to its social purpose. A State may possess
unlimited legal powers. For instance, the British Parliament is regarded as legally
4|Page

omnipotent. But in the real world, no State can afford to exercise unlimited powers. Raphel
clearly stated that: no state has unlimited practical power to make any law that it pleases,
even though it may possess unlimited legal powers. A legislature that has any sense and that
wants to remain in office will pay more regard to political than to legal possibilities, to what
it can effectively do than to what it may legally do.
As the State makes law; it has the power to enforce that law by coercion. In other
words, the law is backed by sanctions; the state is free to use the methods of compulsion.
However, compulsion comprises a physical weapon, not a moral weapon which would not
only be more effective, but more conducive to the justified if it is backed by moral support
and legitimacy instead of mere force. Legitimacy denotes the support extended by the people
to the state and its law out of their moral beliefs and values.
Legitimacy comes from the people. A State is legitimate if people believe that it is
necessary for them and that its action is lawful and valuable to society. If its legitimacy is
unquestioned, the State will rarely need to use force. But if its legitimacy is widely
questioned, the State is in a dangerous situation. A regime is in serious trouble if the people
believe that its military is illegitimate, its police brutal, and its courts unfair. It may have
power- the ability to get its orders obeyed despite widespread opposition-but it does not have
authority of State or law would prove most effective only when most people accepted it on
moral grounds. When most people recognize a moral obligation to obey law, they would be
acting from a moral motive, and not under compulsion (Gauba:21).
Nature of Freedom
Freedom
As a Human Quality As a Human Condition

Liberty
Negative Liberty Positive Liberty

(Absence of Restraint) (Provision of Real Choice and
Removal of Existing Constraints)
Source: O.P. Gauba, “Political Theory and Thought”, p.5.4
5|Page

1.7 VARIOUS NOTIONS OF LIBERTY

Positive Liberty: During the latter half of the 19th century, a positive concept of liberty
developed. We can find it in the writings of Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, T.H. Green, Bosanquet,
Barker and Laski. Kant said that there are higher and lower selves in an individual. Freedom
comes when an individual subjects him/herself to the dictates of universal reason. He refused
to accept the free will concept and regarded man/woman as a rational and self-conscious
creature. Laski, Hobhouse and MacIver were of the view that, “Liberty is good, but to be free
to do undesirable things is to enjoy no liberty, but ‘license’, and that is bad”. John Locke and
Adam Smith regarded every law as involving a decrease in liberty, whereas Green and Laski
desired to reform society through the agency of laws. According to them, liberty does not
mean “absence of restraints, it rather signifies “an opportunity” for you to do something
which is worth doing. Laski explains, “by liberty I mean the eager maintenance of that
atmosphere in which men have the opportunity to be their best selves.”
1.8 VIEWS OF LASKI: POSITIVE VIEW ON LIBERTY
Laski says: “By liberty I mean the eager maintenance of that atmosphere in which men
can be their best selves. Liberty, therefore, is a product of rights…Without rights there
cannot be liberty because without rights people are subject to law unrelated to the needs of
personality. Liberty, therefore, is a positive thing. It does not merely mean absence restraint”.
He criticized Mill’s view of liberty, he maintained: “Liberty thus involves in its nature
restraints, because the separate freedoms I use are not freedoms to destroy the freedoms of
those with whom I live:” Laski give importance to the relationship of the individual’s liberty
with society. Personal liberty cannot be enjoyed in isolation from society. Laski states
maintains that liberty should not be left at the mercy of the State because “…in this context
can be called to account; and it should always be so called to account when it invades rights”
(ibid:145). Laski supports the positive concept of liberty; he is suspicious of governments and
does not surrender liberty to the State. He says, “…governments may in fact invade liberty
even while they claim to be acting in the common interest…Liberty, therefore, is not merely
obedience to a rule”. Laski differs from the idealist view of liberty that liberty lays merely in
obedience to the laws of the State.
Laski associate liberty with the availability of opportunities for the development of
personality. He says, “…the freedoms I must possess to enjoy a liberty are those which, in
their sum, will constitute the path through which my best self is capable of
attainment…Freedoms are, therefore, opportunities which history has shown to be essential
6|Page

to the development of personality”.

Laski talks of three kinds of liberties-private, political, and economic-are essential to
the development of the human personality. Private liberty is negative and it” is thus that
aspect of which the substance is mainly personal to a man’s self. It is the opportunity to be
fully himself in the private relations of life”. Defining political liberty, he says that it,
“…means the power to be active in affairs of State. It means that I can let my mind play
freely about the substance of public business”. He mentions two conditions that are required
for political liberty to be real. These are education and the provision of an honest and
straightforward supply of news. “A people without news is, sooner or later, a people without
the basis of freedom”. Laski realized the importance of the right to information which is
being demanded by the fourth generation of rights. He defines Economic liberty as
“…security and opportunity to find reasonable significance in the earning of one’s daily
bread…I must be safeguarded against the wants of tomorrow”. To uphold economic liberty,
he pleads for democracy in industry. Laski describes the nature of three kinds of liberties -
Private liberty is mainly a negative thing, whereas political and economic liberties need some
socio-economic conditions for their fulfillment and are positive in nature. Positive and
economic liberties are meaningless without the conditions required for their realization. The
responsibility of creating these without the conditions required for their realization. The
responsibility of creating these without the conditions lies with the government.
Laski mentions positive conditions required for the realization of liberty. They are as follows:
i) The absence of Special Privileges: Freedom cannot exist in the presence of special
privileges. Special privileges lead to frustration, the habit of creativeness is lost due
to this, and people lose the ability to realize their own good. Laski says, “…those
who desire the good of all begin by abolition of special privileges…Special privilege
is incompatible with freedom because the latter quality belongs to all alike in their
character as human beings”. Thus, liberty is possible only when equality is there.
ii) The Presence of Rights: Liberty can only be enjoyed in the presence of rights. There
cannot “…be liberty where the right of some depends upon the pleasure of others”. It
is the duty of the state to maintain equal rights.
iii) Responsible Government: The government must be responsible. Only a responsible
government can create the socio-economic and political conditions required for the
realization of rights and liberty.
7|Page

1.9 VIEWS OF MACPHERSON: DEVELOPMENTAL LIBERTY
Macpherson calls positive liberty as ‘developmental liberty’. He says, “…the division will be
better marked if we change the name of positive liberty to developmental liberty”.
Macpherson defines “positive liberty to act as a full human being. A man’s positive liberty is
virtually the same as what I have called a man’s power in the developmental sense”
(Macpherson: 105). According to Macpherson liberty means the availability of life and labor
to each member of society. For this, he suggests that the capitalist mode of production, based
on private property, should be replaced by some other system. Liberty is not negative liberty
because in such a case the liberty because in such case the liberty of one individual can
destroy the liberty of another individual. He says, “…since each individual’s liberty must
diminish or destroy another’s the only sensible way to measure individual’s liberty is to
measure the aggregate net liberty of all the individuals in the society(ibid-117).” So, the
measurement of liberty is total liberty. However, Macpherson does not accept the division
between negative and positive liberty and maintains that negative liberty is absence of any
extractive power.
Important Points of Positive Liberty
i) Liberty is not the absence of restraints, rather it is the presence of those socio-
economic and political conditions without which it cannot be realized.
ii) The object of liberty is the development of man as a social being.
iii) Without proper opportunities and social conditions liberty cannot be realized.
iv) Rights are necessary for liberty, and it is related to justice, morality, and equality.
v) The liberties of an individual must correspond with social welfare.
vi) The duty of the State is to create positive conditions for the realization of liberty and
for this the State can limit the liberties of some individuals. However, the
government must be a responsible government. The State is not viewed as an enemy
of personal liberty.
vii) Liberty is social requirement of social man, and it is not given to an asocial or anti-
social beings.
viii) Only in a welfare State can positive liberty exist.
Negative Liberty: Negative liberty means, “absence of external restraints”. The supporters of
Negative liberty include John Locke, Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer. They believed the
sphere of State activity should be restricted to the narrowest possible limits. According to
8|Page

John Locke, the rights to life, liberty and property are the natural rights of man. The
Legislature or the Executive cannot be allowed to impose restrictions on these rights. Adam
Smith propounded the theory of “laissez faire”, i.e., government should not interfere with
business, finance, or people’s economic conditions. Herbert Spencer also upholds the same
view.
J.S. Mill describes that man’s actions are of two kinds, i.e., “self-regarding” and
“other regarding”. The self-regarding actions have an effect only on the doer, whereas other
regarding actions have an effect other’s existence. No individual can be granted absolute
freedom regarding activities which influence other’s existence. For example, these acts affect
other’s freedom: obscene behavior, talking nonsense under the influence of liquor and
committing theft etc. Society would be justified in stopping others from doing such deeds.
But there are other activities for which complete freedom must be granted to the people. The
food and drinks one take, the religion one follows, and one choice of profession are the
private affairs of an individual. According to J.S. Mill, “over himself, over his own body and
mind, the individual is sovereign”.
Negative liberty indicates the “zone of non-intervention”. According to F.A. Hayek, “the
individuals have some assured private sphere… with which others cannot interfere”.
According to them, “that government is the best which governs the least”.
The supporters of Negative Liberty believe that: -
(i) The more the laws, less is the liberty available to the individuals.
(ii) Freedoms of thought, speech, religion, and property should never be restricted.
(iii) ‘Franchise’ should be universal.
(iv) The sphere of State activity should be very limited.
1.10 VIEWS OF J.S. MILL (1806-73)
Mill supported the concept of negative liberty together with the support for the support for
the positive view of the State. Mill was writing in the latter half of the 19th century when
negative liberties were vehemently opposed. He was writing in the age when the
“…extending suffrage conferred a measure of power on classes who had something to gain
from the legal interference in daily affairs, and…it was accepted that State had a legitimate
and positive part to play in promoting welfare” (Benn and Peter,1959). In this circumstances
Mill opined that there may be a possibility of ‘tyranny of the majority’ and the liberty of the
minorities may vanish. He says that the advent of democracy does not mean that the liberty of
9|Page

individuals will be protected. Majorities may take away the liberties of the minorities.
Therefore, the liberty of the individual should be protected against the interference of
democratic States. He says: “The notion, that the people have no need to limit their power
over themselves, might seem axiomatic… such phrases as ‘self-government’ and ‘the power
of the people over themselves’, do not express the true state of the case. The ‘people’ who
exercise the power are not always the same people as those over whom it is exercised; and
the ‘self – government’ spoken of is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all
the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means the will of the most numerous or
the most active part of the people… precautions are as much needed against this as against
any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over
individuals loses none of its importance when the holders of powers are regularly accountable
to the community…and in political speculations the tyranny of the majority is now generally
included among the evils against which society is required to itself be a tyranny of the be on
its guard”. He maintained that even social collectivity or society may itself be a tyrant and
may tyrannize over the separate individuals who compose it. Here lies the value and worth of
Mill’s individualism, and he is afraid of the restraints of both the democratic State and
society, so far as the individual’s liberty is concerned.
1.11 VIEWS OF ISAIAH BERLIN
According to Berlin: “Political liberty in this sense (negative) is simply the area within which
a man can act unobstructed by others” (Berlin: 141). The absence of coercion is the basis of
liberty. He says: “You lack political liberty or freedom only if you are prevented from
attaining a goal by human beings (ibid: 142). He put forth that if a man/woman is free but
unable to enjoy his/her freedom, the fault lies not in the concept of liberty but with
man/woman. If a man/woman is free to purchase bread or have or tour of the world and is
unable to do so because lack of money, it is his/her fault-he/she incapable of enjoying it. He
says: “If my poverty were a kind of disease, which prevented me from buying bread or
paying for the journey, or getting my case heard, as lameness prevents me from running, this
inability would not naturally be described as a lack of freedom, least of all political freedom”
(ibid). Berlin supported the view propagated by Helvetius “The free man is a man who is not
in irons, nor imprisoned in a jail, nor terrorized like a slave by the fear of punishment: it is
not lack of freedom not to fly like an eagle or swim like a whale” (ibid-142). Berlin says: “by
being free in this sense (negative) I mean not being interfered with by others. The wider the
area of noninterference, the wider is my freedom” (ibid: 143).
Berlin further explains that there is no logical relationship between liberty and
10 | P a g e

democracy as a man/woman may be left by a dictator than by a democratic government. He

says: “Freedom in this sense (negative) is not, at any rate logically, connected with
democracy or self-government may provide a better guarantee of the preservation of civil
liberty…But there is no necessary connection between individual liberty and democratic
rule” (ibid:148).
Berlin is of the view that liberty is something different, and the socio-economic
conditions necessary for the fulfillment of liberty are altogether different. He refuses to
accept the relationship between liberty and the conditions required for the realization of
liberty. He says: “Thus the distinction between freedom and conditions of freedom is not a
mere pedantic distinction, for, if it is ignored the meaning and value of freedom of choice is
apt to be downgraded. In their zeal to create social and economic conditions in which alone
freedom is of genuine value, men tend to forget freedom itself”. He does not accept the
relationship between liberty and justice, and liberty and equality. If there is poverty in society
and no coercion at all, there may be injustice or inequality in the society, but liberty is very
much present there. So, the absence of the necessary socio-economic conditions for the
realization of liberty does not mean the absence of liberty itself. In brief we can say Berlin
maintains liberty is the absence of any restraints or interference in the personal affairs of an
individual.
1.12 VIEWS OF MILTON FRIEDMAN
Friedman, a neo-liberal (libertarian), supports negative liberty and finds connection between
liberty and capitalism. He is of the opinion that without capitalism there cannot be freedom in
a society. According to him, political freedom means, “…the absence of coercion of a man by
his fellowmen” (Friedman: 13). In the present century with competitive capitalism, which is
based on free market has given way to regulated economy and State controlled capitalism.
Friedman is pleading for a free capitalistic economy as a pre-condition for freedom. He
favors negative State and the regulations of the economy by it are improper. In the earlier
stage political freedom was demanded for the development of capitalism, but today Friedman
is demanding free capitalism for the maintenance of the political freedom. He supports that
competitive capitalism is necessary, though not sufficient, condition of political freedom and
“…history suggests…that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom” (ibid:10).
He considered socialism as the main enemy of personal initiative and political freedom
because in such a system economic and political powers are concentrated in one hand. He
attacks the positive State and the positive view of liberty because state interference in
economic matters is harmful to the economic liberty of individuals and economic
11 | P a g e

development of society. By economic liberty he means availability of free capitalist market

economy. He does not associate liberty with human values like justice and equality.
Friedman’s views assume that free-market capitalism has got a capacity to survive,
whereas the fact is that the great depression of 1929 and great financial meltdown of
September 2008 in capitalist economies have proved beyond doubt that this assumption is
baseless in the present century.
Important Points of Negative Liberty
i) Liberty is a negative thing- the absence of restraints.
ii) An individual is rational and only he/she knows what his/her interest is. For the
development of his/her personality he/she needs certain liberties. They have a
personal sphere of their own, distinct from that of society.
iii) Everyone should be given personal liberty regarding their personal affairs and
society, or the State must not interfere with it. Among these personal liberties, the
liberties of thought and discussion, of association and assembly are the most
important.
iv) There is no conflict between the personal interest and social interest and by serving
his own interests an individual also serves the social interest. Personal liberty is a
precondition of social progress.
v) Leaving a man free in his personal affairs will lead to personal and social
development. Personal development is in harmony with social development.
vi) Those actions of individuals which influence society can be controlled by the State
through the laws. But this interference of the State should be minimal.
vii) The laws of the State cannot take away personal liberty but can only regulate it for
overall social welfare.
viii) Democratic government is not a sufficient guarantee of personal liberty as it may
lead to tyranny of the majority or a collective mediocrity and may crush minorities.
ix) There is a difference between liberty and necessary socio-economic conditions for
the realization of liberty. Liberty may be against justice and equality and in a
dictatorship of man may have more liberty than in a democracy.
12 | P a g e

Comparison of Negative and Positive Liberty

Negative Liberty Positive Liberty
1. Liberty without any restrictions Liberty with reasonable restrictions
2. It gives more weight to the It looks at in the social context and
personal aspect and regards liberty maintains that it is based on the socio-
as inherent in the personality of an economic and political conditions of society.
individual.
3. It assumes that the State in an It assigns responsibility of creating the
enemy of personal liberty. positive conditions for the realization of
liberty to the State.
4. It emphasizes the personal and Its emphasis the social and economic aspects
political aspects of liberty. of liberty.
5. It does not associate it with rights, It regards liberty, equality, and justice as
equality, morality and justice. mutually related.
6. It supports the State with the It supports State with welfare functions.
minimum functions.
7. It is based on the market concept It emphasizes the social aspects of liberty.
of society-that is composed of
atomized individuals having
natural liberty
8. Liberalism supported negative Socialism supported positive liberty and
liberty stood for the abolition of private property.
Source: M.P. Jain, “Introduction to Political Theory, p.128
1.13 MARXIST CONCEPT OF LIBERTY
The Marxist concept of freedom is different from the liberal-individualistic view. According
to the Marxist thinkers, welfare policies might lessen the misery of the masses, but they do
not change the exploitative character of Capitalism. Freedom is not possible only when
means of production and distribution-land, factories, mines, banks, railways etc.-are all
owned by society, i.e., State. They should be distributed as best possible amongst people. The
Liberal democrats believed in people having a lot of economic freedom, the Marxist held that
abolition of private property was necessary to ensure freedom and equality of opportunity.
13 | P a g e

Marxism analyses socio-economic and political problems and concepts based on

dialectical materialism. Personal freedom is not something abstract and asocial. During 18th
and 19th centuries the liberal supporters of liberty based their concept of liberty on the
alienated individual, and personal, political, and religious liberty were demanded liberal
writers were supporting the capitalist system, and on the other way were giving the slogans of
liberty, equality, and fraternity. The development of capitalism resulted in a society where
oppression, exploitation, unemployment, and starvation were dominant, and liberty was not
available to a vast majority. Marx and Engels criticized the inhumanity of the capitalist
system and gave a new materialist interpretation of human essence, purpose, and value. They
interpreted rights, freedom and morality on a scientific basis and emphasized all round and
harmonious development of man. All these ideas are known as ‘Marxian Humanism’ and are
associated with Marx’s philosophical anthropology or the theory of man. The Marxist
concept of freedom is associated with concepts like self-realization, self-development, self-
development, self-fulfillment, and self-creativeness. Any fruitful discussion on Marxist
concept of freedom must consider Marxian view of man in its multi-dimensional aspects and
his relationship with self, nature, and society. Marxist concept of freedom has been divided
into the following parts: -
i) Critique of man and his freedom in bourgeoise societies: Marx presented a sound
and scientific criticism of the position of man and woman and his freedom in
bourgeois societies. He explains that bourgeois revolution has politically
emancipated people and their freedom can be achieved only by abolishing private
property and establishing social ownership of the means of production. Marx
borrowed the concept alienation from Hegel and Feuerbach gave an altogether
humanity in the capitalist system. The system of private property separates man
from their human essence. The inhuman power of private property separates man
from his humanity and instead of real man what is found in such societies is a
slave, a slave of his property (rich man) and a slave of his property and slave of
his physical needs (poor man/woman). A worker in such a society gets alienated
from his/her labor, from nature and from their fellow beings and becomes an
animal-like commodity in the capitalist market. Alienation is a rotten product of
capitalist socio-economic and political system, and it dehumanizes man/woman.
Marx concludes that private property is the enemy of humanity, and freedom- a
human quality- is not possible along with it.
ii) Views on human essence, purpose, and value: The understanding of philosophical
concept of man/woman is the first requirement for understanding any problem of
man/woman. Marx scientifically analyzed the then prevailing different views of
14 | P a g e

people anthropological, spiritual, idealist, individualist, mechanical and materialist

pointed out the weaknesses of these and then gave his own view. “The-Marxist
social thought relied theoretically on the concept of man in the abstract, man in
general. Divorced from all socio-political, economic, legal, and other relation, and
hence from political activity”. Marx gave a different interpretation to man/woman
as a creating social-being. Marx said, human essence” …is the totality of the
social relations”. He further said that: “The essence of the individual person’ lies
not in his beard, not in his blood, not in his abstract physical nature but in his
social quality”. Human beings are social animals and cannot be studied under
isolation. Mere existence is not their existence in social nature. The purpose and
values of man are closely associated with human existence. Non- Marxist
ideologies have insisted that the purpose of man is abstract truth and virtue
(idealism), personal happiness (individualism), achievement of salvation or
spiritualism (religion), etc.
iii) The meaning of freedom: Freedom and necessity: Marxism does not regard
absence of restraint as freedom, nor does it accept that personal and political
freedoms are the highest ideals and other freedoms are based on these. It defines
freedom by associating it with essence and purpose of man. Explaining the
Marxian view of freedom, Huberman and Sweezy: “Freedom means living life to
the fullest-the economic ability to satisfy the needs of the body regarding adequate
food, clothing and shelter, plus effective opportunity to cultivate the mind,
develop one’s personality, and assert one’s individuality. Similarly, Petrosyan
says: “Marx’s understanding of freedom implies activity aimed at creating real
conditions for the free all-round development and flowering of man’s
individuality.”
iv) Freedom and praxis (purposive social activity): Praxis means social activity of
man. Marxism regards knowledge of objective law as the necessary condition for
freedom, but this alone is not sufficient. Freedom can be achieved by
revolutionary social activity (Praxis), based on the knowledge of objective laws of
nature and society. Knowledge makes possible the mastery of man over nature
and society, but without man’s revolutionary social activity this knowledge is
useless. Engels stresses that “Freedom, in the sense of the laws of nature and
society not only come as a result of practical revolutionary activity based on such
knowledge of the laws of historical development”.
15 | P a g e

v) Freedom as a class concept: Marx describes that in a class divided society freedom
will mean different things to different classes. For the owners of the property, it
will mean freedom of private property, of profits, of free contracts, of employing
someone or removing them from their exploitation and bad working conditions.
Freedom of one class becomes the bondage of another class. Thus, freedom does
not have a universal character in a class divided society. Giving an example of
Huberman and Sweezy “The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for
which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces
him for the same act, as the destroyer of the liberty…Plainly, the sheep and the
wolf are not agreed upon the definition of the word liberty”(ibid:77). Similarly
Claudwell writes, “…bourgeois social relations alike give rise to these two
extremes, the freedom of the idle bourgeois and the unfreedom of the proletarian
worker…The bourgeois could not enjoy his idleness without the labor of the
worker…thus the liberty of the few is in bourgeois social relations built on the
unfreedom of the many” (Claudwell:73).
vi) Freedom, where and how? According to Marx freedom can be available in the free
atmosphere of a free society. Free society will be a classless society in which
everyone will be free from exploitation by his fellow beings. The wall of private
property will not remain between man in the society and man can live in the
society with his true essence, purpose, and values. Freedom means multi-
dimensional development of social man and a free socialist society provide ample
opportunities for this. Here alienation between man and his nature, society and his
labor will come to an end and man will not be dehumanized. There will not be a
gap between his essence and existence. Marx says, “Communism” will lead to
reintegration of his personality, to man to return to himself his own human
essence or in other words, to the elimination of all form of all form of human
alienation, to elimination of the contradictions between essence and existence to
the all-round development of man as a person and individual”.
1.14 EVALUATION AND MAIN POINTS OF MARXIAN FREEDOM
• The issue of personal liberty is associated with Marxian humanism.

• Man’s essence is the totality of social relations. In a class-divided society based on
private property, man is alienated, and his existence contradicts his essence. In such a
situation the question of freedom does not arise.
16 | P a g e

• Human freedom should be considered in the totality of social relations and with due
reference to man’s essence, purpose, and values.
• Freedom means the availability of conditions for self-realization and self-realization
and self-fulfillment. It means multi-dimensional development as a social being.
• There is nothing like will of man as there are certain objective laws of nature and
society (necessity) which exist independently of human will and the free will of an
individual is restricted by these laws.
• Man can realize freedom having scientific understanding of these objective laws.
Thus, scientific knowledge is the necessary requirement of freedom.
• Based on scientific understanding, there should be revolutionary social activity
(praxis) because without changing society and nature, freedom is not possible.
• In a class divided society the freedom of owners of property is built upon the
unfreedom of the property less. So, freedom in such a society has a class future.
• Freedom to all can only be available in a free society man gets free socio-economic
conditions for free development of his personality.
• Communist society can be established by a socialist revolution, and the struggle for
socialist revolution is a struggle for freedom.
1.15 VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF LIBERTY
i) Civil Liberty: It includes Protection of life, liberty and property; Domestic liberty
(Right to privacy); Freedom of Speech and Assembly; Religious liberty; Freedom to
form Union and Associations; Freedom of Movement etc.
ii) Political Liberty: It includes the right to participate in decision making and right to
choose one’s own representative. Right to vote; Right to get elected to the
Legislature and other public bodies; The Right to organize Political parties, right to
criticize the government.
iii) Economic Liberty: It includes the Right to Work and the Right to Rest and Leisure,
Freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property; Racial and National Liberty.
1.16 SAFEGUARDS TO LIBERTY
Few measures to safeguard the rights and liberties of the people-

i) Democratic Form of Government: Dictatorship is characterized by ‘Command’ and
‘Coercion’. Democracy, on the other hand, bestows upon each citizen the right to
participate in decision-making processes, through their elected representatives.
17 | P a g e

ii) Safeguards afforded by a written constitution: One of the objectives of the

Constitution is to safeguard the rights of the citizens. Several rights have been
guaranteed to citizens by the American and Indian Constitutions. Some Constitutions
not only lay down the rights, but also provide the means to enforce them.
iii) Decentralization of powers: The powers of the government must be subjected to
limitations. One method to preserve the liberty of people is to divide the legislative,
executive, and judicial powers among separate bodies or organs of the government.
This is known as ‘Separation of Powers’. The powers have further to be divided
between the Central Government and the State Governments. Such an arrangement is
found in the federal government. At the same time, local self-government institutions
need to be strengthened.
iv) Free and Impartial Judiciary: Free and impartial judiciary is essential if we want to
protect the rights and liberties of our people. Moreover, judicial procedures need to
be speedy and inexpensive. Indian Constitution provides Free Legal Aid under
Article 39-A, Article 14 provides Equality before Law.
v) Rule of Law: Rule of Law denotes the absence of arbitrary powers. It means the rule
of law and not of men”. The Law of the Land is Supreme, and nobody is above the
law, be it ruler or the subject both are under the law, nobody is above the law.
According to Ivor Jennings, Rule of law implies a Constitutional Government as
distinct from Dictatorship” or a Police State.
vi) Autonomy of Groups and Associations: There are various groups and associations
operating in the fields of education, business, trade, art, religion, and science. The
associations keep the government in touch with the trend of public opinion, so that it
may shape its policies accordingly.
vii) Role of the Opposition: The opposition keeps the government on its toes. It is as
much the duty of the Opposition to criticize as it is of a government to government to
govern. No government can totally ignore the opposition’s viewpoint. The parties
provide a link between the people and the government.
viii) Independent Mass media: The government should not have absolute control over
the mass media, i.e., radio, television, and the newspapers. Independence of the mass
media strengthens freedoms of the masses.
ix) Egalitarianism: It suggests that “all people are equal and deserve equal rights,
opportunities and privileges”. Thus, regardless of one’s race, religion, caste, or sex,
all should have equal opportunities to develop their talents.
18 | P a g e

x) Enlightened Public Opinion: An enlightened public opinion is the best guarantee of

freedom and growth. There are various agencies which formulate public opinion.
Newspapers, literary works, parties’ associations, voluntary organizations, and
educational institutions are the most prominent among such agencies. Curbs on the
freedom of press or intentional distortion of facts and news by the mass media act as
a hindrance in the way of sound public opinion. Therefore, the citizens must keep
their eyes open. Thus, we can conclude that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
1.17 PRACTICE QUESTIONS
1. What is the meaning of liberty? Explain the various notions of liberty.

2. What is the difference between positive and negative liberty?
3. What is the Marxian concept of freedom?
1.18 REFERENCES
• Andrew Heywood (2017), Political Ideologies: Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan

• O.P. Gauba (2015), Introduction to Political Theory, New Delhi
• P. M. Bakshi, ed., The Constitution of India, New Delhi: Universal Publication
• Faizan Mustafa (2003), Constitutional Issues in Freedom of Information:
International Perspectives, New Delhi: Kanishka Publisher
• Justice E. S. Venkata Ramaiah (1987), Freedom of Press Some Recent Trends, New
Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation
• Ambrish Saxena (2004), Right to Information and Freedom of Press, New Delhi
• M. Laxmi Kant (2010), Indian Polity, Second Edition
19 | P a g e

Unit-I
(b) FREEDOM, EMANCIPATION, SWARAJ
Ceejun Chandran
STRUCTURE

2.2 Introduction
2.3 Freedom
2.4 Freedom (or Liberty)
2.5 Freedom and Indian Constitution
2.6 Emancipation
2.7 Ways to Empower People
2.8 Swaraj
2.8.1 Achievement of Swaraj
2.8.2 Basis of Self-Sacrifice
2.8.3 Genius of Our Civilization
2.8.4 Swarajists
2.9 Swadeshi and Home Rule League
2.10 Debate: Free Speech Expression and Dissent
2.10.1 Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Role of Press in India
2.10.2 Efforts Made by International Bodies
2.10.3 New International Information Order
2.12 References/Further Readings
• The aim this lesson is to impart students about the concept of freedom; To classify
different kinds of freedom available for a citizen of India and utilize them when ever
need; What are the restrictions on freedom; What a citizen must do when their
freedom is curtailed.
20 | P a g e

• The aim of this lesson is to understand meaning of emancipation or empowerment;

how a common person can be empowered; what are the different types of
empowerments; What are measures taken by the government to empower the
common man and to utilize the same.
• This lesson also makes the student to understand what Swaraj is and why it is
important; How can we realize Swaraj or self-rule; It also draws our attention towards
Gandhiji, Tilak and Annie Besant concept of swaraj; How Gandhiji motivated the
common people to achieve self-rule by peaceful methods.
• It also aims to impart students to utilize the right to freedom of speech and expression
to speak truth without any fear or coercion; We can express our views in written or
orally, painting etc. It also permits every person to keep quiet; This right also includes
the right to information from the government.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
Freedom is the life blood of democracy. It gives individuals the opportunity to pursue what
they consider as their own interest. This concept has many dimensions. Sometimes it is
considered as emancipation. It says that individuals need to get some amount of
empowerment to excel themselves to continue with their natural growth. Thus, in case of
Indian citizen the state worked as the developmental agent since independence. The lesson
also discusses about the idea of self-rule which is been considered as the Indian conception of
Swaraj. The lesson tries to unfold the philosophical debate on Gandhi’s, Annie Besant’s
conception of Swaraj in Indian context.
2.3 FREEDOM
A belief in the supreme importance of the individual leads naturally to a commitment to

individual freedom. Individual liberty (liberty and freedom being interchangeable) is for
liberals the supreme political value and, in many ways, the unifying principle within liberal
ideology. For early liberals, liberty was a natural right, an essential requirement for leading a
truly human existence. It also gave individuals the opportunity to pursue their own interests
by exercising choice: the choice of where to live, for whom to work, what to buy and so on.
Later liberals have seen liberty as the only condition in which people are able to develop their
skills and talents and fulfill their potential.
21 | P a g e

2.4 FREEDOM (OR LIBERTY)
The ability to think or act as one wishes, a capacity that can be associated with the individual,
a social group, or a nation.
Perspectives on Freedom
Liberals give priority to freedom as the supreme individualist value. While classical liberals
support negative freedom, understood as the absence of constraints – or freedom of choice –
modern liberals advocate positive freedom in the sense of personal development and human
flourishing.
Conservatives have traditionally endorsed a weak view of freedom as the willing recognition
of duties and responsibilities, negative freedom posing a threat to the fabric of society. The
New Right, however, endorses negative freedom in the economic sphere, freedom of choice
in the marketplace.
Socialists have generally understood freedom in positive terms to refer to self-fulfillment
achieved through either free creative labor or cooperative social interaction. Social democrats
have drawn close to modern liberalism in treating freedom as the realization of individual
potential.
Anarchists regard freedom as an absolute value, believing it to be irreconcilable with any
form of political authority. Freedom is understood to mean the achievement of personal
autonomy, not merely being ‘left alone’ but being rationally self-willed and self-directed.
Fascists reject any form of individual liberty as nonsense. ‘True’ freedom, in contrast, means
unquestioning submission to the will of the leader and the absorption of the individual into
the national community.
Greens, particularly deep ecologists, treat freedom as the achievement of oneness, self-
realization through the absorption of the personal ego into the ecosphere or universe. In
contrast with political freedom, this is sometimes seen as ‘inner’ freedom, freedom as self -
actualization.
Islamists see freedom as essentially an inner or spiritual quality. Freedom means conformity
to the revealed will of God; spiritual fulfillment being associated with submission to religious
authority. Nevertheless, liberals do not accept that individuals have an absolute entitlement to
freedom. If liberty is unlimited it can become ‘license’, the right to abuse others. In On
Liberty ([1859] 1972) John Stuart Mill argued that ‘the only purpose for which power can be
rightfully exercised over a member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent
22 | P a g e

harm to others’. Mill’s position is libertarian in that it accepts only the most minimal
restrictions on individual freedom, and then only in order to prevent ‘harm to others’. He
distinguished clearly between actions that are ‘self-regarding’, over which individuals should
exercise absolute freedom, and those that are ‘other regarding’, which can restrict the
freedom of others or do them damage. J.S.Mill did not accept any restrictions on the
individual that are designed to prevent a person from damaging himself or herself, either
physically or morally. Such a view suggests, for example, that laws for driving car drivers to
put on seat belts or motorcyclists to wear crash helmets are as unacceptable as any form of
censorship that limits what an individual may read or listen to. Radical libertarians may
defend the right of people to use addictive drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, on the same
grounds. Although the individual may be sovereign over his or her body and mind, each must
respect the fact that every other individual enjoys an equal right to liberty. This has been
expressed by John Rawls in the principle that everyone is entitled to the widest possible
liberty consistent with a like liberty for all. While liberals agree about the value of liberty,
they have not always agreed about what it means for an individual to be ‘free’. In his ‘Two
Concepts of Liberty’ ([1958] 1969), Isaiah Berlin distinguished between a ‘negative’ theory
of liberty and a ‘positive’ one. Early or classical liberals have believed in negative freedom,
in that freedom consists in each person being left alone, free from interference and able to act
in whatever way he or she may choose. This conception of freedom is ‘negative’ in that it is
based on the absence of external restrictions or constraints on the individual. Modern liberals,
on the other hand, have been attracted to a more ‘positive’ conception of liberty – positive
freedom– defined by Berlin as the ability to be one’ sown master; to be autonomous. Self-
mastery requires that the individual can develop skills and talents, broaden his or her
understanding, and gain fulfillment. This led to an emphasis on the capacity of human beings
to develop and ultimately achieve self-realization. These rival conceptions of liberty have not
merely stimulated academic debate within liberalism but have also encouraged liberals to
hold very different views about the desirable relationship between the individual and the
state.
Negative Freedom: The absence of external restrictions or constraints on the individual,
allowing freedom of choice.
Positive Freedom: Self-mastery or self-realization; the achievement of autonomy or the
development of human capacities.
Interconnection between Reason and Freedom
The liberal case for freedom is closely linked to a faith in reason. Liberalism is, and remains,
very much part of the Enlightenment project. The central theme of the Enlightenment was the
23 | P a g e

desire to release humankind from its bondage to superstition and ignorance and unleash an
‘age of reason’. Key Enlightenment thinkers included Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel
Kant, Adam Smith, and Jeremy Bentham. Enlightenment rationalism influenced liberalism in
a few ways. In the first place, it strengthened its faith in both the individual and freedom. To
the extent that human beings are rational, thinking creatures, they can define and pursue their
own best interests. By no means do liberals believe that individuals are infallible in this
respect, but the belief in reason builds into liberalism a strong bias against paternalism. Not
only does paternalism prevent individuals from making their own moral choices and, if
necessary, from learning from their own mistakes, but it also creates the prospect that those
invested with responsibility for others will abuse their position for their own.
2.5 FREEDOM AND INDIAN CONSTITUTION
There are few articles interconnected to the idea of freedom. Article 19-22 of the Indian
Constitution deal with freedom. Article 19 guarantees to all citizens the six rights. These
are:–
(a) Right to freedom of speech and expression.
(b) Right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
(c) Right to form associations or unions.
(d) Right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
(e) Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India.
(f) Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
Right to freedom of speech and expression: – It implies that every citizen has the right to
express his views, opinions, beliefs, and convictions freely by word of mouth, writing,
printing, picturing or in any other manner. The Supreme Court held that the freedom of
speech and expression includes the following: –
i) Right to propagate one’s view as well as view of others.
ii) Freedom of the Press.
iii) Freedom of commercial advertisements.
iv) Right to telecast, that is, government has no monopoly on electronic media.
v) Right against bundh called by a political party or organization.
vi) Right to know about government activities.
24 | P a g e

vii) Freedom of silence.

viii) Right against imposition of pre-censorship on newspaper.
ix) Right to demonstration or picketing but not right to strike.
The State can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the freedom of speech and
expression on the grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court,
defamation, and incitement to an offence.
Right to assemble peaceably and without arms: Every citizen has the right to assemble
peaceably and without arms. It includes the right to hold public meetings, demonstrations and
take out processions. This freedom can be exercised on public land and the assembly must be
peaceful and unarmed. This provision does not protect violent, disorderly, riotous assemblies,
or one that causes breach of public peace or one that involves arms. This right does not
include the right to strike. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
freedom of speech and expression on the grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India,
security of the State. Under section 144 of criminal Procedure Code (1973), a magistrate can
restrain an assembly, meeting, or procession if there is a risk of obstruction, annoyance or
danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of the public tranquility or a riot or any
affray. Under section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, as assembly of five or more persons
becomes unlawful if the object is a) is to resist the execution of any law or legal process; b) to
forcibly occupy the property of some person; c) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass;
d) to force some person to do an illegal act; e) to threaten the government or its officials on
exercising lawful powers.
Right to form associations or unions: All citizens have the right to form associations and
unions. It includes the right to form political parties, companies, trade unions, or any body of
persons. It not only includes the right to start an association or union but also to continue with
the association or union as such. Further, it covers the negative right not to form or join an
association. The State can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the freedom of
speech and expression on the grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, and
morality. Subject to these restrictions, the citizens have complete liberty to form associations
or unions for pursuing lawful objectives and purposes. However, the right to obtain
recognition is not a fundamental right. The Supreme Court held that the trade unions have no
guaranteed right to declare a lock-out. The right to strike can be controlled by appropriate
industrial law.
25 | P a g e

Right to move freely throughout the territory of India: This freedom entitles every citizen to
move freely throughout the territory of India. He can move freely from one state to another or
from one place to another within a state. This right underlines the idea that India is one unit
so far as the citizens are concerned. Thus, the purpose is to promote national feeling and not
parochialism. The grounds of reasonable restrictions on this freedom are two, namely, the
interests of the public and the protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe. The entry of
outsiders into tribal areas is restricted to protect the distinctive culture, language, customs,
and manners of scheduled tribes and to safeguard their traditional vocation and properties
against exploitation. The Supreme Court held that the freedom of movement of prostitutes
can be restricted on the ground of public health and in the interest of public morals. The
Bombay High Court validated the restrictions on the movement of persons affected by AIDS.
Freedom of movement has two dimensions, internal (right to move inside the country) and
external (right to move out of the country) and right to come back to the country. Article 19
deals with the first dimension and Article 21 (Right to life and liberty) deals with the second
dimension.
Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India: Every citizen has the right to
reside and settle in any part of the territory of the country. This right has two parts: (a) the
right to reside in any part of the country, which means to stay at any place temporarily, and
(b) the right to settle in any part of the country, which means to set up a home or domicile at
any place permanently. The right is intended to remove internal barriers within the country or
between any of its parts. This promotes nationalism and avoids narrow mindedness. The State
can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right on two grounds, namely, the
interest of the public and the protection of interests of any scheduled tribes. The right of
outsiders to reside and settle in tribal areas is restricted to protecting the distinctive culture,
language, customs, and manners of scheduled tribes and to safeguard their traditional
vocation and properties against exploitation. In many parts of the country, the tribals have
been permitted to regulate their property rights in accordance with their property rights in
accordance with their customary rules and laws.
Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business: All
citizens are given the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or
business. This right is very wide as it covers all the means of earning one’s livelihood. The
State can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right in the interest of the
public. Further, the State is empowered to:
(a) Prescribe professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any
profession or carrying on any occupation, trade, or business.
26 | P a g e

(b) Carry on by itself any trade, business, industry, or service whether to the exclusion
(complete or partial) of citizens or otherwise.
Thus, no objection can be made when the State carries on a trade, business, industry, or
service either as a monopoly (complete or partial) to the exclusion of citizens (all or some
only) or in competition with any citizen. The State is not required to justify its monopoly.
This right does not include the right to carry on a profession or business or trade or
occupation that is immoral (trafficking in women or children) or dangerous (harmful drugs or
explosives etc.).
Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences: Article 20 grants protection against
arbitrary and excessive punishment to an accused person, whether citizen or foreigner or legal
person like a company or a corporation. It contains three provisions in that direction:
(a) No ex-post-facto law: no person shall be convicted of any offence except violation of
a law in force at the time of the commission of the act, nor subjected to a penalty
greater than that prescribed by the law in force at the time of the commission of the
act.
(b) No double jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence
more than once.
(c) No self-discrimination: No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: Article 21 declares that no person shall be deprived
of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This right
is available to both citizens and non-citizens. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its
judgement in the Maneka Gandhi case. It has declared the following right as a part of Article
21:
(a) Right to live with human dignity.
(b) Right to a decent environment including pollution free water and air and protection
against hazardous industries.
(c) Right to livelihood
(d) Right to privacy.
(e) Right to shelter.
(f) Right to health.
(g) Right to free education up to 14 years of age.
27 | P a g e

(h) Right to free legal aid.

(i) Right against solitary confinement.
(j) Right speedy trial.
(k) Right against handcuffing.
(l) Right against inhuman treatment.
(m) Right against delayed execution.
(n) Right to travel abroad.
(o) Right against bonded labor.
(p) Right against custodial harassment.
(q) Right to emergency medical aid.
(r) Right to timely medical treatment in government hospital.
(s) Right not to be driven out of a state.
(t) Right to fair trial.
Protection Against Arrest and Detention: Article 22 grants protection to persons who are
arrested or detained. Detention is of two types, namely punitive and preventive. Punitive
detention is to punish a person for an offence committed by him after trial and conviction in a
court. Preventive detention means detention of a person without trial and conviction by a
court. Its purpose is not to punish a person for a past offence but to prevent him from
committing an offence soon. Thus, preventive detention is only a precautionary measure
based on suspicion. Article 22 has two parts-the first part deals with the cases of ordinary law
and the second part deals with the cases of preventive detention law.
The first part of Article 22 deals with the cases of ordinary law and second part deals
with the cases of preventive detention law) Right to be informed of the grounds of arrest; ii)
Right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner; iii) Right to be produced before a
magistrate within 24 hours, excluding the journey time; iv) Right to be released after 24 hours
unless the magistrate authorizes further detention. These safeguards are not available to an
alien, or a person arrested or detained under a preventive detention law.
The second part of Article 22 grants protection to persons who are arrested or
detained under a preventive detention law. This protection is available to both citizens as well
as aliens and includes: – i) the detention of a person cannot exceed three months unless an
advisory board reports sufficient cause for extended detention. The board is to consist of
judges of a high court; ii) The grounds of detention should be communicated to the detenu.
However, the facts considered to be against the public interest need not be disclosed; iii) The
28 | P a g e

detenu should be afforded an opportunity to make a representation against the detention order
(LaxmiKant:53-57).
2.6 EMANCIPATION
Emancipation means empowerment or upliftment. For example, uplifting the poor and
downtrodden, bringing policies and programmes to improve their conditions, equip the
people with such conditions or power which enable them to work independently their own.
Emancipation also includes prohibiting any kind of discrimination or exploitation based on
class, caste, creed, religion, sex, place of birth Empowerment generally means to equip an
individual with power, basically the underprivileged class. In India there were many people
who were associated with emancipation, empowerment or upliftment of the common people.
Gandhiji stood for woman empowerment and uplifting of the untouchable and making them
to stand on equal footing. Ishwara Chandra Vidya Sagar and Swami Dayanand Saraswati
stood for women education and widow remarriage; Raja Ram Mohan Roy abolished Sati
System prevalent in India. In America President Abraham Lincoln stood abolished slavery
completely, In South Africa Nelson Mandela and Gandhiji opposed racial discrimination.
Pandit Rama Bai, Sarojini Naidu, Suchita Kripalani, Kamala Nehru and Annie Beasant etc
were very actively involved in empowering people from all classes and sections in the Indian
Society.
Empowerment in the era of human rights means there is unlimited access to rights.
International bodies and the State have made many efforts through various laws to uplift the
conditions of common man and enacted necessary laws to protect and prevent the gross
human rights violations among the most vulnerable sections of the society. Empowerment is
a concept that aims to giving power to an individual at all levels, regardless of sex, class,
creed, religion or place of origin. It literally means to give strength to the weak or the
powerless. While placing all the people equally and by eradicating discrimination.
Empowerment does not mean to exploit the weak or the powerless. It aims to create equal
status for all the people in the society.
The various notions of empowerment clearly indicate that it aims to uplift a person, it
gives sufficient power so as to overcome all the problems or burden, it empowers to fight
against inequalities exist in the society, it empowers to raise voice for the implementation of
rights, it enhances the confidence of people, it encourages people to participate in the
development and progress of the country, it empowers to gain access to basic resources like
food, water, health, education and other necessary things, it empowers to overcome illiteracy
and ignorance and enables one to demand their rights.
29 | P a g e

The term empowerment has an element of ‘selfishness’, which implies empowering

self. It puts “I” before ‘we’. When we talk of empowerment, first thing that comes to our
mind is the empowerment of self and then we think of empowerment of others. To
understand the concept of empowerment we can take the example of rights and basic needs of
an individual living in the society, which is the basic component of a society. If a person’s
right is violated, then he or she raises his/her voice to get the rights implemented by the
authority, who is responsible for the implementation of it.
Empowerment as a concept is very simple to define but it is not a narrow concept. It is
a broad concept, used in different scenarios and different contexts. For instance,
empowerment for a poor person will be to reduce the economic disparity; empowerment for a
wealthy person will be to have control over the economy; empowerment for an unemployed
individual will be to get employed; empowerment for a person living in a village will be to
have good infrastructure facilities like good roads, electricity, construction of tube wells and
canals etc; empowerment of a person living in cities will be digital literacy, access to quick
transportation such as metro; empowerment for a child may be to have innumerable toys and
gifts; empowerment for an accident victim will be to have immediate medical aid. By seeing
the above definition, we can say that empowerment as a concept varies from person to
person.
According to Naila Kabeer, empowerment is “the expansion in people’s ability to
make strategic life choices in a context where this ability was previously denied to them”
(Choudhary: 3). From this definition, we can say that the underprivileged people who were
first denied of basic rights and necessities are now empowered. M.S. Lazo defines,
“empowerment is a moving state; it is continuum that varies in degree of power. It is relative,
one can move from an extreme of having absolute power” (ibid: 5). Here the author opines
that empowerment is an unending process and the degree of power that a person receives
cannot be measured. Power is not used in a narrow or selfish sense, but it is used in a broader
way, stating that, power does not provide ultimate or absolute power to a person to control
others however it gives power to a person without causing harm to others.
Jo Rowlands explains ‘empowerment’ is bringing the people into the decision-making
process who were not a part of it earlier (Rowlands:13). Rowlands’s definition talks about the
inclusion of people in the decision-making process. That is, he favours participatory
democracy, where every person has equal say in the decision-making process affect decision-
making. In a similar approach, McWhirter believes ‘empowerment’ is the process through
which people, organization or groups who are powerless, become aware of power dynamics
at their work and develop the skills and capacity for gaining reasonable control over their
30 | P a g e

lives, exercising control over others without infringing the rights and support the
empowerment of the community (ibid: 15).
Types of Empowerments
Empowerment as a socio-political concept goes beyond political participation and conscious
arousing in the people. Empowerment in general can be classified into five major types. They
are social, economic, political, and legal and gender empowerment. All these types of
empowerments are important in one way or another. Each of it has its own importance in the
way it is implemented in the society. One type of empowerment cannot be replaced by
another.
Social empowerment enhances the power of a person to restrict oppression, exploitation or
any kind of discrimination. For example, ability to stand against discrimination based on
caste, class, creed, sex, religion, or place of birth. There are various Articles of the Indian
Constitution that provide social empowerment to the people such as the ‘prohibition of
discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15);
Abolition of untouchability (Article-17); Prohibition of human trafficking and forced labor
(Article- 23); Freedom of Conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion (Article- 25); Protection of the interest of the minorities (Article- 29); promotion of
educational and economic interests of Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes and so on. Some of
the laws enacted in India are Abolition of untouchability Act 1955; The Schedule Castes and
The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention and Atrocities) Act, 1989; Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 etc.
Political Empowerment includes right to vote, right to participate in the decision making,
right to contest in elections, reservation of seats for SC/ST and provision of reservation for
women in Union, State, District and other local bodies.
Economic Empowerment aims to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor and provides
equal opportunities. It creates an environment where a person can work to earn for himself
and his family. Everyone can practice their own choice of profession. Equal opportunities in
employment (Article 16); equal pay for both men and women; right to work (Article 41);
right to just conditions of work (Article- 42); to organize trade unions (Article 43); promotion
of trade; providing compensation to people in case of accidents or accidental death at the
workplace; providing insurance and other health facilities. There are many laws which have
already been enforced to grant economic empowerment to the people. Some of them are
Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Minimum Wages and Remuneration Act 1948; Payment of
Bonus Act 1965.
31 | P a g e

Legal Empowerment is guaranteed through a good legal system in every country. These
include basic human rights of a person, fundamental rights, and other rights which the State
enforces from time to time. Legal rights are enforceable by the courts and violation of these
will invite punishment. Hence, an independent and impartial judiciary is important for legal
empowerment. Some rights are for the citizen of a particular state while some rights are
granted to each person despite the geographical boundaries. Fundamental rights granted
under the Indian Constitution are Right to equality (Article 14); Right to freedoms (Article
19-22); Right against exploitation (Article 23); Right to freedom of religion (Article 25);
Cultural and educational rights (Article 29-30); Right to constitutional remedies (Article 32).
Apart from these rights, Article 39 provides equal justice and free legal aid to needy people.
Gender Empowerment aims to abolish the inequality between men and women in the society.
It aims to treat women in par with men, if women are provided with education, skill, and
training, they can also perform all the work and responsibilities that men undertake in the
society. If women are denied their basic rights and respect, then the economy will not move
with a single wheel – the world cannot stand through a man’s presence and gender-based
violations and discrimination. Some laws that are already enacted to end discrimination are
Immoral Traffic And Prevention Act 1956; Dowry Prohibition Act 1961; Indian Divorce Act
1869; Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Indecent Representation of
Women’s Act, 1986. Some of the schemes run by the government to empower women are
Rashtriya Mahila Kosh, Janani Suraksha yojana, Ladli Scheme, Mahila Samridhi Yojana,
Pratibha Kiran yojana, Indira Mahila Yojana, Vande Mataram Schemes and Rajrajeshwari
Mahila Kalyan. Laws and schemes are running parallel to provide empowerment to the
women who are in need. National Commission for Women and National Human rights
Commission are constituted at the Centre, State and District are working to protect the
interests and rights of the vulnerable women.
Lee H Staples, on the other hand, contends that there are two types of empowerments
the individual and the collective empowerment. Individual Empowerment aims to empower
each person in society or state wherever he/she is placed. Every person is given equal
opportunity, so that they create a place for themselves. Some of the factors that help a person
to establish themselves are knowledge, capacity, and skills that the person possesses.
Collective Empowerment refers to the process in which every individual in society stands
together and helps each other for their common interests. They share the available resources
in the community for a common purpose by influencing external institutions and political
organizations. It creates consciousness among the people about the current issues they are
facing and arrive at a solution by discussing and debating with each other.
32 | P a g e

2.7 WAYS TO EMPOWER PEOPLE
Imparting quality of education to the people: it will help to ingrain good qualities and inspire
them to become a resourceful person. The people are treasured resources of a country. When
people receive standard education, it will help them to achieve their goals and improve their
lives. Education is the backbone of a society; illiteracy is a curse and a burden on the country.
The more they are educated, the more they will participate in the process of nation building.
Creating awareness about the government policies and programs from time to time will help
the people to know the implementation of social and economic schemes that are run by the
government. Creating awareness is a good step and it will help them to become a beneficiary
to the welfare scheme. Lack of awareness does not invite the right beneficiary, thus public
funds remain unutilized, or is misused by the concerned officials who are dealing with it.
Access to information helps people to get information about the day-to-day activities and
functions of the government. In a democracy, there is no place for secrecy. Secrecy invites
corruption and malfunctioning. Access to information enables citizens to get the right
information at the right time. One can track the status of an application through information
law. The information law in India turned out to be a grievance redressal tool and it empowers
the people to know about the details of ration entitlements, availability of pension and
scholarship.
Access to justice is the right of every person. The Indian constitution under Article 14
provides equality before the law which clearly means everybody is equal before law despite
of any class differences, creed, religion, status, or place of birth. Impartial and speedy justice
is the right of each citizen. Law is futile if it cannot do away with injustice. Article 39
provides free legal aid to the poor. Legal Aid Clinic and Lok Adalat is established to ensure
speedy justice to the people without incurring any money.
Imparting skills and training to the people will boost their abilities. This will help them to
stand on their feet and earn their livelihood. The Government in India is running many
programs to impart semi-skills and other youth training, so that people may start their small
business at home. For example, Training to Rural Youth for Self-Empowerment (TRYSEM)
aims to provide technical education to the youth between the age group of 18-35. The next
important program is Krishi Vigyan Kendra which organizes employment-oriented training
programs for both men and women in the field of agriculture.
Access to basic services, food, health, education, and shelter will improve the standard of
living and conditions of the people. These are the necessities of life and should not be denied
33 | P a g e

to any person. First and foremost is the necessity of food. When a person’s hunger is satiated
then only, he thinks of other materialistic things. In the food sector, government of India is
running many programs such as mid-day meal scheme for the school going students up to
class eighth and Balwadi Nutrition Program for the children of the age group three to five. In
the education sector, there are schemes like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Shiksha Sahyog Yojana,
Right to Compulsory Education Act, 2009 etc. In the Health sector, there are schemes such as
Janani Suraksha Yojana, National Rural Health Mission, Employment Assurance Scheme etc.
Freedom of speech and expression ensure that every person should express his or her views
freely without any fear. A person is free to criticize the government policies and programs if
it is not in tune with the requirement of the people. Currently the government has enacted the
Public Grievance Redressal Bill that ensures a person’s grievance be heard orally within
fifteen days of filing the complaint. Another legal philosophy is audi alterem partem which
means ‘let the other party be heard’. Justice is incomplete without hearing both sides.
Freedom of opinion is the utmost important for a democratic society, without it, truth will not
come out. People will feel insecure if they are not allowed to express their opinion.
Social inclusion means inclusion of the people irrespective of their class, creed, sex, religion,
or place of birth. Every person is equal partakers in democracy; exclusion of class will restrict
the progress and development of the country. Countries are known in the global arena for the
quality of people and the quality of work they perform. Each class of people have separate
tasks to perform, for example, agriculturalist performs the task of farming, middle class
engages itself to provide services like banking, health, education, and the business class do
business with other countries of the world. In this way each class engages itself in
contributing towards the progress of the country in which they are located.
Equality and Non-discrimination is the basic principle in a democracy. Everybody must be
considered as equal partakers. To establish peace, progress and development, every citizen
should feel secure. This basically means that individuals should not view people from a
different culture as different beings.
Decentralization of power between center, state, district, and other local bodies is one of the
best features which enables a large democratic country like India to function smoothly.
Decentralization does not mean the one related to political decentralization but also
transferring of power to the common people. There is a shift from representative democracy
to participatory democracy. Now there is a shift from government to the citizens (G2C)
concept. The stress is on citizen centric administration, where a citizen will decide how the
government should function. There are some good examples such as right to information law,
public service bill, public grievance redressal bill and so on.
34 | P a g e

Evaluation of Empowerment: Principles

Miller and Campbell have laid down ten principles to evaluate empowerment. These
principles are necessary conditions to evaluate how empowerment is being experienced by
the common people. It is a continuous process. If the people continue to exist, empowerment
will also continue its work.
Democratic participation implies participation of the common people in the affairs of the
government. People of the country have the right to vote and elect their own representative,
to participate in the decision-making process and the right to criticize the policies and
programs of the government contrary to the will of the people.
Social justice basically means to do away with discrimination and any other inequality on
various grounds based on class, creed, sex, and religion. There should be absence of
recognition in any class or creed. Citizens of a country should be equal in all respect, there
are no low or high, everybody should be identified or represented equally.
Accountability implies accountability to the people. Government authorities cannot wash
away their hands from their duties and responsibilities. They are responsible for the
performance and non-performance of their duty. People can question the authorities
whenever there is malfunctioning or mismanagement. Freedom of information in India has
brought legislature, executive and judiciary within its ambit.
Community ownership implies common ownership by the group of people or organizations.
There are many programs being run by the Civil Society, NGO’s, Self Help Groups, etc. In
India, sanitation programs have been successfully carried out by the NGO called ‘sulabh’,
another example is the Mid-day meal contract, which is given to ISKCON, Akshaya Patra
Foundation and Ekta Foundation. The programs are successfully implemented and provide
the people with quality of services. When a group of people come together for a common
interest, society moves a step ahead.
Capacity building aims to build skills and gives training to the people, so that they can stand
on their own feet. The government, along with the help of NGO runs training programs in
villages, rural areas, semi-urban and urban areas to impart skills to the young groups. They
provide training to tailors, weavers and individuals who make homemade goods, so that it
meets the standard quality of the market. Training helps people to earn a good amount for
their livelihood.
Organizational learning basically means providing technical skills to people such as
computer courses, electrician work, mobile repairing, typing course, secretarial and official
training, etc. The technical course helps the youth to work with a good company as most of
the time the institutes are tied up with big companies and they place their students
35 | P a g e

accordingly. The courses help them to raise the standard of living and contribute to the
economic growth of society.
Improvement implies rising above the level you come from. That is the stage of higher
development from the level of lower development. It emphasizes the continuous development
of the people. An economy or society is never constant; they keep on moving a step further.
For example, changes and advancements in science, defense, technology, information
technology, medicine, and other related fields.
Community knowledge implies knowledge and awareness about the community in which
they live. The people living in society must be aware of the problems and ongoing
development around them. Awareness is possible through newspapers, radio, and television.
It informs us about the current issues or any emergency that society is passing through. For
example, the rising dengue cases in Delhi have resulted in the government issuing orders to
hospitals and health authorities to take immediate measures to control and prevent it. As a
result of which, the number of beds at the government hospitals has been increased to control
the swarm of people coming in for treatment.
Inclusion means larger inclusion of people in the welfare programs that are run by the
government. If the policies and programs are made but not implemented, it will not benefit
the real beneficiary. This way the inclusion is considered as nil. Under the Indira Awas
Yojana, poor people were allocated to small homes but instead of acquiring homes by the
beneficiary, it has been occupied by the rich people. Another example is the enactment of
Right to Education Act which provides twenty five percent reservations to the students
belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS).
2.8 SWARAJ
Swaraj means self-rule. It has a metaphysical system of Gandhiji. The word Swaraj is a
sacred word, a Vedic word, meaning self-rule and self-restraint, and not freedom from all
restraint which ‘independence’ often means. (YI, 19-3-1931, p.38) To understand Gandhiji’s
swaraj we should understand his dream or aim for India. Gandhiji consistently fought for two
fronts simultaneously, one against the British Rule and the Second against the evils of Indian
society. It was equally important to break the socio-cultural evils like untouchability, women
seclusion etc, were prevalent in the villages. Gandhiji had the realization that unless these
internal barriers are removed it would be impossible to mobilize people for the said objective.
The four cardinal principles of Gandhi namely, the re-establishment of communal harmony
and village republics, and the upliftment of women and Harijans were also parts of
philosophy and existence of peasantry in India; and his methods of struggle for justice,
36 | P a g e

namely non-violence and satyagraha and non-cooperation. The re-establishment of communal

disharmony between the two prominent religious communities, namely, Hindu and Muslim
had begun ugly head in the 20th century. For centuries Muslims in India had been co-existing
with Hindus as an integral part of Society in thousands of villages spread throughout the nook
and corner of the country. Muslims in India were local converts who belonged to the lower
order of the village society. The caste or class economic division within Hindus and Muslims
forced the members of these communities to identify themselves with each other on
economic division rather than on religious beliefs.
The other two prominent problems that engaged the mind of Gandhi were low status
of Harijans and women in the villages of India. By Swaraj Gandhiji mean the government of
India by the consent of the people as ascertained by the largest number of the adult
population, male or female, native-born or domiciled, who have contributed by manual
labour to the service of the State and who have taken the trouble of having their names
registered as voters. Swaraj will come, not by the acquisition of authority by a few, but by the
acquisition of the capacity by all to resist authority when it is abused. In other words, Swaraj
is to be attained by educating the masses to a sense of their capacity to regulate and control
authority. (Young India, 1925, p. 41). Self-government means continuous effort to be
independent of government control, whether it is foreign government or whether it is
national. (Ibid:276)
Swaraj for the Poor
The Swaraj of Gandhi’s dream recognizes no race or religious distinctions. Not is it to be the
monopoly of the lettered persons or yet of moneyed men. Swaraj is to be for all, including the
former, but emphatically including the maimed, the blind, the starving, toiling millions.
(Ibid:149)
The Swaraj of Gandhi’s dream is the poor man’s Swaraj. The necessaries of life
should be enjoyed by you in common with those enjoyed by the princes and the moneyed
men. But that does not mean that they should have palaces like theirs. They are not necessary
for happiness. But people should get all the ordinary amenities of life that a rich man enjoys.
Gandhi said, “I have not the slightest doubt that Swaraj is not Poorna Swaraj until these
amenities are guaranteed to you under it”. (YI, 26-3-1931, p. 46) What we mean and want
through Poorna Swaraj … is an awakening among the masses, some knowledge among them
of their true interest and ability to serve that interest against the whole world, ... harmony,
freedom from aggression from within or without, and a progressive improvement in the
economic condition of the masses. (YI, 18-6-1931, p.147)
Real Swaraj must be felt by all-man, woman and child. To labor for that
37 | P a g e

consummation is true revolution, India has become a pattern for all exploited races of the
earth, because India’s has been an open, unarmed effort which demands sacrifice from all
without inflicting injury on the usurper. The millions in India would not have been awakened
but for the open, unarmed struggle. Every deviation from the straight path has meant a
temporary arrest of the evolutionary revolution. (H, 3-3-1946, p. 31)
No Majority Rule
It has been said that Indian Swaraj will be the rule of the majority community, i.e., the
Hindus. There could not be a greater mistake than that. If it were to be true, I for one would
refuse to call it Swaraj and would fight it with all the strength at my command, for to me
Hind Swaraj is the rule of all people, is the rule of justice. Whether, under rule, the ministers
were Hindus or Musselman or Sikhs and whether legislatures were exclusively filled by the
Hindus or Musselman or any other community, they would have to do even-handed justice.
(YI, 16-4-1931, p. 78) Today our minds are clouded by delusion. In our ignorance, we quarrel
with one another and indulge in rowdyism against our own brethren. For such as these there
is neither salvation nor Swaraj. Self-discipline or rule over self is the first condition of self-
rule or Swaraj. (H, 28-4-1946, p. 111)
2.8.1 Achievement of Swaraj
Gandhi’s Swaraj could not be granted even by God. We would have to earn it ourselves.
Swaraj from its very nature is not in the giving of anybody. (YI, 25-5-1921, p. 164)
Swaraj is the abandonment of the fear of death. A nation which allows itself to be
influenced by the fear of death cannot attain Swaraj and cannot retain it if some-how attained.
(YI, 13-10-1921, p. 326)
Swaraj can never be a gift from one nation to another. It is a treasure to be purchased with a
nation’s best blood. It will cease to be a gift when we have paid dearly for it. … Swaraj will
be a fruit of incessant labor, suffering beyond measure. (YI, 5-1-1922, p. 4) Surely Swaraj
will not drop from the clouds. It will be the fruit of patience, perseverance, ceaseless toil,
courage, and intelligent appreciation of the environment. (YI, 27-8-1925, p. 297)
For Gandhiji the only training in Swaraj we need is the ability to defend ourselves
against the whole world and to live our natural life in perfect freedom, even though it may be
full of defects. Good government is no substitute for self-government. (YI, 22-9-1920, p. 1)
The pilgrimage to Swaraj is a painful climb. It requires attention to some detail. It means vast
organizing ability; it means penetration into the villages solely for the service of the villagers.
In other words, it means national education, i.e., education of the masses. It means an
awakening of national consciousness among the masses. It will not spring like the magician’s
38 | P a g e

mango. It will grow almost unperceived like the banyan tree. A bloody revolution will never
perform the trick. Haste here is most certainly waste. (YI, 21-5-1925, p. 178)
One sometimes hears it said: ‘Let us get the government of India in our own hands
and everything will be all right. There could be no greater superstition than this. No nation
has thus gained its independence. The splendor of the spring is reflected in every tree, the
whole earth is then filled with the freshness of youth. Similarly, when the Swaraj spirit has
really permeated society, a stranger suddenly comes upon us to observe energy in every walk
of life, he will find national servants engaged, each according to his own abilities, in a variety
of public activities. (Swaraj:146)
2.8.2 Basis of Self-Sacrifice
Swaraj can be maintained only where there is a majority of loyal and patriotic people to
whom the good of the nation is paramount, above all other considerations what-ever
including their personal profit. (YI, 28-7-1921, p.238) Gandhi said “My Swaraj will be… not
a result of murder of others but a voluntary act of continuous self-sacrifice. My Swaraj will
not be a blood violation of rights, but the acquisition of power will be a beautiful land natural
fruit of duty well and truly performed. It will…provide amplest excitement of the Chaitanya
type, not of the Nero type…. It can come often does come when the horizon is the blackest.
But I know that it will be preceded by the rise of a class of young men and women who will
find full excitement in work, work, and nothing but work for the nation”. (YI, 27-8-1925, p.
297). Without a large, very large, army of self-sacrificing and determined workers, real
progress of the masses I hold to be an impossibility. And without that progress, there is no
such thing as Swaraj. Progress towards Swaraj will be in exact proportion to the increase in
the number of workers who will dare to sacrifice their all for the cause of the poor. (YI, 24-6-
1926, p. 226) Without a large, very large, army of self-sacrificing and determined workers,
real progress of the masses hold to be an impossibility. And without that progress, there is no
such thing as Swaraj.
Progress towards Swaraj will be in exact proportion to the increase in the number of
workers who will dare to sacrifice their all for the cause of the poor. (YI, 24-6-1926, p. 226)
Through Truth and Nonviolence If we wish to achieve Swaraj through truth and non-
violence, gradual but steady building-up from the bottom upwards by constructive effort is
the only way. These rules out the deliberate creation of an anarchical state for the overthrow
of the established order in the hope of throwing up from within a dictator who would rule
with a rod of iron and produce order out disorder. (H,18-1-1942, p. 4)
We have all-rulers and ruled-been living so long in a stifling, unnatural atmosphere
that we might well feel, in the beginning, that we have lost the lungs for breathing the
39 | P a g e

invigorating ozone of freedom. If the reality comes in an orderly, that is, a non-violent
manner, because the parties feel that it is right, it will be a revealing lesson for the world. (H,
7-4-1946, p. 70)
2.8.3 Genius of our Civilization
Gandhiji’s Swaraj is to keep intact the genius of our civilization which should be written as
many new things as possible, but they must be all written on the Indian slate. If Swaraj was
not meant to civilize us, and to purify and stabilize our civilization, it would be nothing
worth. The very essence of our civilization is that we give a paramount place to morality in
all our affairs, public or private. (YI, 23-1-1930, p. 26).
Gandhi’s Ram Rajya is regarded as the part of Swaraj. Ram Rajya is regarded as the
kingdom of Dharma. Gandhi said swaraj is all embracing. It does not include complete
independence along with many other things. Sardar Vallabha Bhai Patel, Vinayak Damodar
Savarkar, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Ram Manohar Lohia gave a moral boost to
Gandhiji to attain Swaraj for the country. The Swaraj of Gandhiji consists of a state
embracing a society which is dependent on morals, a society which is the embodiment of
equality of social, political, and economic rights of people.
Gandhiji did not want any economic classification of social classes or casteism under
his concept of Swaraj. Gandhi fought for Indian independence from foreign domination. In
order to define swaraj, Gandhi also talked about Village Swaraj. The Village Swaraj,
according to him, is a complete village republic, independent of its neighbors for its vital
needs. The first concern of every village would be to run its affairs on a cooperative basis.
The government of the village would be conducted by the Panchayat of five persons,
annually elected by the adult villagers, male and female. Swaraj can generally mean self-
governance or “home-rule”. The soul of Swaraj to him is Swadeshi. Swadeshi means self-
sufficiency. Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the main critique and dead against swaraj and said
swaraj could be achieved through constitutional struggle. Navjivan Trust was one of the
organizations and stood for peaceful means in the attainment of Swaraj, that is Hind Swaraj.
Khilafat leaders also participated and supported Swaraj for the future results for the Indians.
Gandhiji changed the character of the national movement, gave it a new ideology, a
new method of action, a unique moral code, and a mass-based leadership in the post-first
world war era. Gandhi evolved a program of struggle which mobilized the divergent groups
and classes and various sections of people-industrialist, workers, peasants, traders, students,
lawyers, lower classes, and women-and made it a multi-class and mass based national
movement. He called upon the peasants not to pay taxes to the government, exhorted the
students to boycott the educational institutions, called upon the lawyers to desert the courts
40 | P a g e

and asked women to picket the liquor shops. Millions of people marched in demonstrations,
faced lathis, bullets and went to jails. He evolved a new techniques of mass struggle such as
satyagraha, non-cooperation, civil disobedience, hunger strike, khadi and cottage industries
and indigenous system of education. Apart from being a mass leader, he was an outstanding
social reformer who passionately worked for the elimination of inhuman institutions like
untouchability and casteism.
Satyagraha and ahimsa (non-violence) formed the basis of his philosophy. According
to him, search for truth was the goal of life and since no one could be sure of having attained
the ultimate truth, use of violence to enforce one’s own truth was sinful. For him, the real
enemy was not the British political domination alone but the whole modern industrial
civilization of which British Raj was the symbol. Hence for him, attainment of political
swaraj would only mean ‘English rule without Englishmen’. Against the liberal view of the
state, he propounded an alternate view of the state. Ideally preferred an enlightened anarchy
under which socially responsible and morally disciplined men and women would never harm
one another and would not need not any polity. But given circumstances, he opted for an
‘ordered anarchy’ in which citizens enjoy maximum freedom consistent with minimum
necessary order. Such an ‘ordered anarchy’ would consist of three elements: non-violent state
through village republics, Swaraj, and Ram Rajya. To quote Hind Swaraj again, ‘the state
should be composed of self-governing and self-sufficient village communities with
expanding circles upward, i.e., from village to talukas, from talukas to district, from district
to province to the center, each tier enjoying considerable autonomy. Decentralization is
combined with economic decentralization based upon the fact that every person should lead a
simple life and limit himself to necessities. By swaraj, he meant a polity based upon small
village communities developing and actualizing the power of the people. And it is only when
there is political, economic, and moral Swaraj or self-rule that one can talk of Ram Rajya. For
Gandhi Ram Rajya was a state based upon the denial of power and renunciation of the use of
force.
Ramrajya: By Rama Rajya Gandhiji do not mean Hindu Raj. He meant Rama Rajya Divine
Raj, the Kingdom of God. For him Rama and Rahim are one and the same deity. He
acknowledges no other God but the one God of truth and righteousness. Whether Rama of my
imagination ever lived or not on this earth, the ancient ideal of Rama Rajya is undoubtedly
one of true democracy in which the meanest citizen could be sure of swift justice without an
elaborate and costly procedure. Even the dog is described by the poet to have received justice
under Rama Rajya. According to Gandhi Rama Rajya was the ideal state where there would
be equality of rights between Prince and Pauper.
41 | P a g e

Definition of Independence
By political independence he does not mean an imitation to the British House of commons, or
the soviet rule of Russia or the Fascist rule of Italy or the Nazi rule of Germany. They have
systems suited to their genius. Gandhi said, we must have ours suited to ours. What that can
be is more than I can tell. Gandhi has described it as Rama Rajya i.e., sovereignty of the
people based on pure moral authority. (H, 2-1-1937, p. 374). Friends have repeatedly
challenged him to define independence. Gandhi said that independence of my dream means
Rama Rajya i.e., the Kingdom of God one earth. He does not know it will be like in Heaven
and has no desire to know the distant scene. If the present is attractive enough, the future
cannot be very unlike. (H, 5-5-1946, p. 116)
No Coercion: Gandhiji’s conception of Rama Rajya excludes their placement of the British
army by a national army of occupation. A country that is governed by even its national army
can never be morally free and, therefore, its so-called weakest member can never rise to his
fullest moral height. (ibid)There can be no Rama Rajya in the present state of iniquitous
inequalities in which a few rolls in riches and the masses do not get even enough to eat … my
opposition to the Socialists and other consists in attacking violence as a means of effecting
any lasting reform. (H, 1-6-1947, p.172). Gandhiji compared nirvana to Rama Rajya or the
Kingdom of Heaven on earth…. The withdrawal of British power does not mean Rama
Rajya. How can it happen when we have all along been nursing violence in our hearts under
the garb of nonviolence?
Respect for Others: Hinduism according to Gandhiji teaches to respect all religions. In this
lies the secret of Rama Rajya. If you want to see God in the form of Rama Rajya, the first
requisite is self-introspection. You must magnify your own faults a thousand-fold and shut
your eyes to the faults of your Neighbors. That is the only way to real progress.
Gandhi was primarily a man of action and not a philosopher or political theorist. At a
practical level, he initiated a movement which was national in the real sense and the
philosophy which could assimilate the fundamental tenets of various political groups inside
the country, thereby making it a considerable section of people. For the success of such a
movement, it was necessary that it should be designed so as to satisfy diverse groups with
conflicting ideas and even clashing interests. Gandhi achieved success to a remarkable extent
in performing this task. He had in his movement the characteristics of liberalism and
economic content of the philosophy of moderates, the political radicalism and religious
interpretation of Khilafat, and the influence of Home Rule League. He tried to combine these
various elements through his own technique of non-cooperation and mass civil disobedience
against an alien government on a national scale.
42 | P a g e

Movements Led by Gandhiji to Free India from the Britishers Include

Rowlatt Act: The Sedition committee appointed under the Chairmanship of Justice Rowlatt to
study the revolutionary activities suggested certain measures of arbitrary arrests without trial
and restrictions on the movement of persons suspected of anti-government activities. The
Government moved two bills in the central legislature in February 1919 to give effect to the
recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee (The bills came to be known as Rowlatt Bills or
Black Bills). The Bills were introduced against the unanimous opposition of all non-official
Indian members. Under these Acts, the Government armed itself with unrestricted powers to
control the press, to try the political offenders without the help of juries and to arrest and
detain a person suspected of subversive activities for any length of time without trial, subject
to maximum period of two years. The bills were a crude attempt to curtail civil liberties of
Indian in the name of curbing terrorist violence at a time when, after the war, Indians were
expecting constitutional concessions in return for their whole-hearted support to the British
government during the war. Despite opposition unanimous Indian opposition, the Bills were
passed as Anarchial and Revolutionary Act, 1919. The Bills provoked a wave of resentment
throughout the country among the Moderates, Extremists, the younger generation, and
members of the Home Rule Leagues. Though opposition was unanimous, it was left to
Gandhi to lead an all-India protest it. Gandhi started a countrywide campaign against the Act
and decided to oppose it through Satyagraha (Vermani: 230).
Khilafat Movement: As the agitation against Rowlatt Act came to an end, Gandhi was being
drawn into the Khilafat question which soon gave him an opportunity to forge Hindu-Muslim
unity and launch a non-cooperation movement against the British rule. The Lucknow Pact did
not form a adequate basis for unity and Khilafat agitation was ‘an opportunity of uniting
Hindus and Muslims as would not rise in a hundred years. The Khilafat agitation aimed to
conserve the Ottoman Empire, it was an extraordinary movement. Till the middle of 19th
century, the Indian Muslims had shown no concern in the affairs of Turkey. In fact, they did
not recognize the Ottoman Sultan as their Caliph. The Khilafat question was because the
Sultan of Turkey was recognized Caliph i.e., religious head of the Muslims and had to
perform certain duties towards the holy places of Islam situated in Jazirat-ul-Arab. It was
necessary that the holy places should be under his supervision and control. Therefore, they
demanded (i) maintenance of the religious prestige and temporal power of the Caliph’s duties
in the preservation of holy places such as Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Arabia. This could be
done by giving complete self-government under Caliph’s control over the holy places; (ii)
Guaranteeing sovereignty of the Muslim states, forbidding the imposition of the members of
Britain and France over the State of Arab states. The Arabs were incited by the British,
revolted against their Sovereign Caliph. The Greeks were incited to grab even the homeland
43 | P a g e

of the Turks, the Arab Provinces of Turkey. Mustafa Kamal Pasha by his force by his heroic
efforts saved by Turkey but lost control of the Arab lands including the Holy places of Islam.
The conduct of Britain was treacherous. In September 1919, an All-India Khilafat Committee
was formed which had Gandhi M.M. Malviya as members (ibid:231). Three central demands
presented by Mohammad Ali to the diplomats in Paris in March 1920 were: i) Turkish Sultan
must retain control over the Muslim sacred places; ii) He must be left with sufficient territory
to enable him to defend the Islamic faith and iii) the Jazirat-ul-Arab (i.e., Arabia, Syria, Iraq,
Palestine) must remain under Muslim sovereignty.
The Khilafat movement had two strands-Moderates and Radicals. Moderates focused
on the All-India Khilafat Committee wanted to limit the agitations to meetings, deputations
and memorials to London and Paris. The radical strand consisted of lower-class journalists
and Ulama with considerable influence over small towns and villages and was led by Ali
Brothers. Gandhi played a mediating role for both the groups. In February 1920, he suggested
to Kilafat Committee to adopt a program of non-violent non-cooperation to protest the
Government behavior. On June 9, the Khilafat Committee met Allahabad had enunciated a
four-stage non-cooperation program. It included: i) Surrender of titles and honorary posts, ii)
resignation from the services in the police and army, iii) Resignation of posts of civil services
of government, iv) refusal to pay taxes. Gandhi called upon the Hindus to help the Muslims
and to desist from helping the government.
Non- Cooperation Movement: The Indian nation leadership had contributed a great deal
towards the British effort to win the first world war with the hope that India would be
rewarded with some major reforms, if not complete self-government, after the war. However,
their hopes were shattered, and they were forced to fight back. During the war, since imports
from Britain and other foreign countries had stopped, the needs were met through increased
production in India. As a result, India trade and industry prospered to a certain extent and
showed its potentiality that, given an opportunity, it can match the foreign competitors.
Indian industrialists and businessmen reaped enormous profits. But the exports suffered
during the war.
Though the Khilafat Committee had passed a resolution had passed a resolution non-
cooperation, for its success support of the Congress was essential. The non-cooperation
movement was launched formally on 1 August 1920 on the twin issues of Khilafat question
and Punjab wrongs, after the expiry of notice that Gandhi had given to the viceroy in which
he asserted the right recognized from time immemorial of the subjects to refuse to assist a
ruler who misrules. The Congress had not so far given its formal approval to the movement.
A special session of the congress was convened between 4-9 September 1920 at Calcutta
44 | P a g e

under the Chairmanship of Lala Lajpat Rai. Some of the members of Indian National
Congress (INC) suggested measures which includes: - resignation from councils,
renunciation of legal practice, nationalization of education, economic boycott, organization of
workers for national service, raising of a national fund and Hindu-Muslim unity. Thus, the
Congress and the Khilafat Committee agreed upon the triple purpose of non-cooperation; i)
Redressal of Punjab grievances, ii) rectification of Khilafat wrongs and iii) establishment of
Swaraj.
Non-cooperation movement had two objectives: Negative and Positive. The negative
objectives included boycott of law courts by lawyers, boycott of schools and colleges owned
or aided or recognized by government, boycott of elections to legislative assemblies and
provincial councils, surrender of honors and titles, boycott of official functions, boycott of
British goods and prohibition of drinking liquor. The positive objectives included
establishment of national educational institutions, setting up of popular tribunals for
administration of justice, encouragement of Swadeshi specially khaddar or home-spun,
home-woven cloth, raising a fund of one crore rupees in the name of Tilak to finance non-
cooperation activities, to enroll a volunteer corps of one crore members to help in the
promotion of various boycotts-social, educational, legal and economic, and to distribute
twenty lakh spinning wheels to provide work to the unemployed and under-employed.
Complete Boycott of the foreign cloth was achieved by September. A meeting was called
upon by Gandhi at Bombay beach to bonfire of foreign clothes. But the mob turned violent
and assaulted the Europeans and Parsees who showed their loyalty to the prince. The police
firing led to 53 killings.
Similarly, the hartal in Calcutta was followed by clashes between police and Khilafat
volunteers. Gandhi looked upon violence with distaste and criticized the defaulters. Picketing
of shops selling foreign cloth was also a major form of boycott. In August 1921, the Moplahs,
a fanatical Muslim community in Kerala had rebelled and established Khilafat kingdom and
in the process massacred Hindus and such Europeans as they could lay hand upon. By
November 1921, the government was forced to take repressive measures. After the arrests of
Ali brothers, Khilafat leaders were demanding complete independence.
Civil Disobedience Movement: The government declared Khilafat organizations as well as
the Congress as unlawful. Public assemblies and processions were banned. C.R. Das decided
to accept the challenge and disobeyed the orders. Thousands of volunteers swelled jails. This
was followed by mass arrests. During the next three months, more than 30 thousand
nationalists were in prisons. The Ahmedabad session of Congress in 1921 authorized Gandhi
consequently informed the viceroy on 1 February 1922 that he had decided to start Civil
45 | P a g e

Disobedience movement in those areas which he considered sufficiently prepared to

undertake the responsibility placed on them such as Bardoli in Gujarat and Guntur in madras
with no tax campaign that would gradually bring the wheels of government in these districts
to a halt. However, before the movement could start in Bardoli, an outburst of violence took
place on 5February 1922 at Chauri Chaura in the United Province. A crowd composed of
peasants attacked and set fire to a police station leading to the death of twenty-two
policeman. On hearing about the incident Gandhi decided to withdraw the agitation. The
Congress Working Committee was hastily summoned and at Gandhi’s insistence, it ratified
the decision of Gandhi, dropped civil disobedience (ibid 232-242).
Home Rule Movement by Annie Beasant
Home Rule Movement by Annie Beasant in1916 to speeding the process of freedom struggle
in India. There were two home rule leagues launched. Tilak launched the Indian Home Rule
League in April 1916 at Belgaum. Annie Besant launched the Home Rule League in
September 1916 in Madras. They had the common objective of achieving self-government in
India. There was an informal understanding between both the leagues wherein Tilak’s league
worked in Maharashtra (except Bombay), Karnataka, Berar, and the Central Provinces.
Besant’s league worked in the rest of the country.
Objectives
• To achieve self-government in India.
• To promote political education and discussion to set up agitation for self-government.
• To build confidence among Indians to speak against the government’s suppression.
• To demand a larger political representation for Indians from the British government.
• To revive political activity in India while maintaining the principles of the Congress
Party.
Activities
• The leagues organized demonstrations and agitations.
• There were public meetings in which the leaders gave fiery speeches.
• They were able to create a stir within the country and alarm the British to such an
extent that Annie Besant was arrested in June 1917.
• This move by the British created a nation-wide protest and now even moderate leader
joined the league. Besant was released in September 1917.
46 | P a g e

Significance
• The Home Rule League functioned throughout the year as opposed to the Congress
Party whose activities were confined to once a year.
• The movement was able to garner huge support from a lot of educated Indians. In
1917, the two leagues combined had around 40,000 members. Many members of the
Congress and the Muslim League joined the league. Many prominent leaders like
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Joseph Baptista, G S Kharpade and Sir S Subramanya Iyer
were among its members.
• The moderates, extremists and the Muslim League were briefly united through this
movement.
• The movement was able to spread political consciousness to more regions in the
country. This movement led to the Montague Declaration of 1917 in which it was
declared that there would be more Indians in the government leading to the
development of self-governing institutions ultimately realizing responsible
governments in India. This Declaration (also known as August Declaration) implied
that the demand for home rule would no longer be considered seditious. This was the
biggest significance of the movement.
Failure and Decline
• The movement was not a mass movement. It was restricted to educated people and
college students.
• The leagues did not find a lot of support among Muslims, Anglo-Indians, and non-
Brahmins from Southern India as they thought home rule would mean a rule of the
upper caste Hindu majority.
• Many of the moderates were satisfied with the government’s assurance of reforms (as
preluded in the Montague Declaration). They did not take the movement further.
• Annie Besant kept oscillating between being satisfied with the government talk of
reform and pushing the home rule movement forward. She was not able to provide
firm direction and leadership to her followers. (Although ultimately, she did call the
reforms ‘unworthy of Indian acceptance’).
• In September 1918, Tilak went to England to pursue a libel case against Sir Ignatius
Valentine Chirol, British journalist and author of the book ‘Indian Unrest’. The book
contained deprecatory comments and had called Tilak the ‘Father of Indian Unrest.’
(Tilak lost the case).
47 | P a g e

• Tilak’s absence and Besant’s inability to lead the people led to the movement’s
fizzing out. After the war, Mahatma Gandhi gained prominence as a leader of the
masses and the Home Rule Leagues merged with the Congress Party in 1920.
2.8.4 Swarajists
The Swarajists entered the councils through the elections held in November 1923. Within a
short span of time, they are managed to get 42 out of 101 elected seats in the central
legislative assembly, clear majority in the Central Province, largest party in Bengal, fared
well in Bombay, UP and were less successful in Madras, Punjab.
Aims and Objectives of Swarajists: They adopted the programs and policies of the Congress.
They kept in view the essential principles of non-violence and non-cooperation. They aimed
at securing Swaraj or Dominion Status within the British empire. Whereas no-changers
wanted to attain Swaraj through constructive programs and building mass movement, the
Swarajists wanted to achieve this aim by making use of the legislative councils for displaying
their popularity and strength of the organization. Their purpose was to secure the changes
through parliamentary methods, and if that was not possible, make the councils completely
unworkable. They demanded the release of all political prisoners, repeal of repressive laws,
provincial autonomy, calling a round table conference to draw up a scheme for full control
government by the legislative councils and development of industries. On the economic front,
the Party believed in liberal capitalism prevailing at that time i.e., private, and individual right
to property, civil liberties. Harmony between capitalist enterprises and demands of the
laborer. They had two-fold objectives: destructive and constructive. The destructive part
consisted of the rejection of proposals emanating from bureaucracy and rejection of budget
and ‘smashing the councils and wrecking reforms. The constructive side included presenting
resolutions necessary for the healthy growth of national life, displacement of bureaucracy and
give support to the constructive program of Gandhi.
Swaraj According to Balgangadhar Tilak
Tilak was a strong believer in Vedic philosophy and social ideas. Born as Keshav Gangadhar
Tilak on 23 July 1856, in the small coastal town of Ratnagiri in Maharashtra, he soon moved
to Poona (now Pune). Tilak’s father was a renowned Sanskrit scholar and belonged to the
Marathi Chitpavan Brahmin section. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the great educationist, social
reformer, author, and freedom fighter, is widely acknowledged as ‘the father of the Indian
Unrest’. His contribution to the freedom struggle was monumental, and his role in awakening
the political consciousness in the lay people and uniting them against the British for the
common cause of independence is widely acknowledged. His untiring struggle and single-
48 | P a g e

minded love for the country earned him the respectful title of ‘Lokmanya’ meaning ‘revered
by the masses’ from his followers and supporters. A learned scholar of Sanskrit, Philosophy
and Political Economy, Tilak’s entire life was a ‘karma yajna’, dedicated to the ideal of
independence for India. Tilak was the first leader to propound the ideal of ‘sampoorna
swarajya’, and his statement, “Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it”, inspired
thousands of Indians, and laid the foundation for an organized and united freedom movement.
Tilak, through his newspapers, ‘Kesari’ and ‘Mahratta’, played a vital part in arousing the
indignation of Indians against the callousness and excesses of the British rule, and exposed
the sufferings and indignities which the Britishers were subjecting the Indians to. His bitter
denouncements of the Government’s handling of the famines and epidemics that rocked parts
of India during the end of the 19th century aroused anti-British feelings amongst the
countrymen and were a major factor in uniting the nation against foreign rule. His writings
inspired several revolutionary leaders and is said to have led to the assassination of Mr. Rand,
the notorious plague commissioner of Pune in 1897.Tilak established the Deccan Education
Society in 1884 with some of his colleagues from university, with the view of improving
education for the Indian youth. Two of the institutions set up by the society that still exist
today are the New English School for secondary education and the Fergusson College.
From teacher and lawyer to journalist and independence activist, Tilak’s life went
through some distinct phases. Bal Gangadhar Tilak joined the Indian National Congress
(INC) in 1890; He wanted to stop being loyal to the British and not use constitutional
agitation as a means to gain their goals. Instead, he wanted to get Swarajya or self-rule which
he believed to be the essence of freedom and important for the growth of a nation. Because of
his radical approach, Tilak came into direct opposition with his contemporary, Gopal Krishna
Gokhale, who was one of the stalwarts of the Congress at that time. However, he did gain the
support of other radicals, like Aurobindo Ghose and V.O Chidambaram Pillai. Tilak also
formed the famous Lal-Bal-Pal trio alongside Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal. They
took over the leadership of the radical section of the Congress after the split at the Surat
session in 1907. Tilak was a radical nationalist, but was socially conservative, believing that
society should be based on Hindu revivalist structures.
2.9 SWADESHI AND HOME RULE LEAGUE
Two of the most prominent movements organized by Bal Gangadhar Tilak were the
Swadeshi and Boycott (of foreign goods) movement and the Home Rule League. The
Swadeshi and Boycott movement was a revivalism of traditional Indian cottage industries. It
was intensified after the Partition of Bengal in 1905, and the impact of the movement was felt
49 | P a g e

all over the country where there were Indian industries, schools, universities, and traditional
cottage industries being set up.
It also came with the boycott of all English made goods like Lancashire and
Manchester made goods. The Home Rule League was organized by Tilak along with Annie
Besant and G.S. Kharparde. The aim of this movement was to recruit members and form a
pressure group which would eventually lead to home rule for India. This was inspired by the
Irish freedom movement, and Besant being an Irishwoman brought this idea to India. Tilak
was also a major supporter of the Home Rule movement between 1916 and 1918, founded by
Annie Besant. Through articles in his newspapers, and speeches, Tilak helped the movement
spread and gain a mass following and support, causing more and more uneasiness to the
ruling Britishers. Tilak travelled abroad and succeeded in getting the support of the British
Labour Party. Along with Lala Lajpat Rai, he also oversaw the spread of the movement to
America. Tilak was a radical as far as political ideology was concerned, but his conservative
nature and thought in social and religious matters too was manifest from his life. He said, “a
true nationalist desires to build on old foundations … but without detriment to progress and
reform needed for our national reconstruction”. Tilak made people aware of their identity as a
nation, and their rights, and gave them the moral courage and conviction to fight for their
rights against all opposition.
Sedition Charges and Life in Prison
His support for revolutionaries got him into serious trouble with the British authorities. Tilak
was charged and tried of sedition for this, and sentenced to eighteen months of imprisonment
Tilak was one of the torchbearers of revolutionary nationalism in India and along with leaders
like Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai and Aurobindo Ghosh, was among its most
prominent and outspoken leaders. Tilak was a political ‘extremist’ and was a vocal critic of
the moderate policy of the Indian National Congress. He regarded the peaceful and
Constitutional methods of protest as ‘useless’ and propounded the path of direct action. The
conflict of ideology between the moderates and extremists within the Congress led to the split
in it in 1907 during the Surat Session. He was charged with sedition and sentenced to six
years of imprisonment in Mandalay (Burma, now Myanmar) between 1908-1914. He focused
on reading and writing while in jail. After being released, Tilak tempered his views, and
decided to focus more on getting concessions from the British rather than a full-scale self-rule
all at once. When the first World War started, Tilak cabled George V, King-Emperor of the
United Kingdom, and its territories, to lend his support. When Morley-Minto released the
Indian Councils Act, 1909, Tilak welcomed it saying that it marked an increased confidence
between the rulers and the ruled. He was also convinced that violence diminished, rather than
50 | P a g e

hastened, the pace of political reforms in India. However, Tilak was not totally removed from
his goal of Swaraj, and he told Gandhi when they first met that total non-violence should not
be the goal but attaining self-rule necessary.
Lokmanya Tilak was widely respected and admired by contemporary leaders, even
those who did not subscribe to his ideology or methods. Mahatma Gandhi said about him, “I
admire Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak like millions of his countrymen for his indomitable
will, his vast learning, his love of country, and above all, the purity of his private life and
great sacrifice. Of all the men of modern times, he captivated most the imagination of his
people. He breathed into us the spirit of Swarajya. No one realized the evil of the existing
system of government as Tilak did.” C. R. Das called him “the greatest Maratha since
Shivaji”.
2.10 DEBATE: FREE SPEECH EXPRESSION AND DISSENT
Freedom of speech and Expression is enshrined in Article 19 (1)(a) of Indian Constitution. It

is the most widely recognized right across the world. It includes right express one’s view
written, orally etc. Freedom of speech and expression also includes free media. Moreover,
right to information is also the extension of 19(1)(a). It provides for the right to access to
information held by the public authority.
Right to freedom of speech and expression: It implies that every citizen has the right to
express his views, opinions, beliefs, and convictions freely by word of mouth, writing,
printing, picturing or in any other manner. The Supreme Court held that the freedom of
speech and expression includes the following:
i) Right to propagate one’s view as well as view of others.
ii) Freedom of the Press.
iii) Freedom of commercial advertisements.
iv) Right to telecast, that is, government has no monopoly on electronic media.
v) Right against bundh called by a political party or organization.
vi) Right to know about government activities.
vii) Freedom of silence.
viii) Right against imposition of pre-censorship on newspaper.
ix) Right to demonstration or picketing but not right to strike.
51 | P a g e

The State can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the freedom of speech and
expression on the grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court,
defamation, and incitement to an offence.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 19:
(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold public opinions without interference.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right includes freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of all frontiers,
either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his
choice.
Gandhiji on Freedom of Expression
According to Gandhi, in a vast country like this, there must be room for all schools of honest
thought. And the least, therefore, that we owe to ourselves, as to others, is to try to understand
the opponent’s viewpoint and, if we cannot accept it, respect is as fully as we expect him to
respect ours. It is one of the indispensable tests of a healthy public life and, therefore, fitness
for Swaraj. (YI,17-4-1924, p. 170). Freedom of speech and pen is the foundation of Swaraj. If
the foundation stone is in danger, you must exert the whole of you might in order to defend
that single stone.
Freedom of speech and expression was upheld by following cases in India:
In the case S. P. Gupta v/s Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149) opined that, “the guarantee of
freedom of speech and expression elevates the right to know and the right to information to
the status of fundamental right. Open government is the new democratic culture of an open
society towards which, every liberal democracy is moving and our country should be no
exception’’.
In the famous Judges case, S. P. Gupta vs Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87 Justice
Bhagwati said that, now it is obvious from the constitution that we have adopted a democratic
form of government. Where a society has chosen to accept democracy as it creedal faith, it is
elementary that its citizen ought to know what their government is doing. The citizens have a
right to decide by whom and by what rules they shall be governed, and they are entitled to
call on their behalf to account for their conduct. No democratic government can survive
without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have
information about the functioning of the government. It is only if people know how
government is functioning that they can fulfill the role which democracy assigns to them and
52 | P a g e

make democracy an effective participatory democracy.i A popular government without

popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or
perhaps both. The citizen’s right to know the true facts about the administration of the
country is thus one of the pillars of a democratic state and that is why the demand for
openness in the government is increasingly growing in different parts of the world.
In the case A. K. Koolwol v/s State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988, and Justice Dinakaran
said, “Every citizen has the right to know about the activities, administrative efforts and
initiatives of the government.” These judicial pronouncements suggest that there was a
general consensus on the need to have the right to information granted to the people.
2.10.1 Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Role of Press in India
Freedom of speech and expression is considered as a basic right in democratic polity.
Freedom of the press is considered as an important aspect of freedom of speech and
expression. The set of regulations was framed by Governor General Wellesley in the year
1799. By asserting freedom of press in India, it was to introduce a set of regulations and rules
to regard pre-censorship of the news before secretary of the ongoing British Government in
India.
In 1818 an attempt was made by Governor General Lord Hastings, who favored
freedom of press. In 1823, Governor General John Adam issued an ordinance to provide
license to the press for printing all the matters except the commercial matters. This rule was
soon replaced by the Press Act 1835, popularly known as the Metcalfe’s Act, which required
the printer and publisher of every newspaper to declare the premises of its publication.
Metcalfe requested Lord Macaulay, the Law member of Governor-General-in-Council, to
prepare a draft press bill. Macaulay believed that the existing licensing regulations of the
press were defensible and believed that the repressive press laws in India did not ensure the
security of the government and that government did otherwise possess sufficient powers to
enforce security and emergency legislation. He said that the Act would remove evils and
establish a perfect uniformity in the laws regarding the press throughout India. When the Act
is adopted, each person can set up a newspaper without even seeking permission. But no
person will be allowed to print or publish sedition without government’s permission. H.T.
Prinsep and Lt. Colonel Morison who were members of the Council opposed Metcalf.
However, Metcalfe warned the members of the Council that their tenure is dependent and the
attempts to suppress the communication of public opinion could not last long and will fail.
Metcalfe finally convinced the members of the Council, and the Press Act 1835 was passed.
i
Faizan Mustafa, Constitutional Issues in Freedom of Information: International Perspectives, New Delhi:
Kanishka Publishers, 2003, p.6.
53 | P a g e

The Press Act 1835 was the most liberal Act in the Indian press history. After this, Lord
Canning, The Governor General reintroduced the licensing Act that came to be known as
Gagging Act in 1857. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 made the offences of defamation and
obscenity punishable to the press also.
The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 were still in force. The Act specifically
deals with the Press. It does not control the press and the publication of newspapers and
books. It also provides the preservation of every book and newspaper printed in India. The
Act intended to prevent the publication of anonymous literature. Then, the Vernacular Press
Act 1878 came about, which gave punishment to those who published seditious writings in
newspapers in Indian languages. The Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act 1908 and The
Indian Press Act 1910 intended to prevent revolutionary activities in India. The first Act
empowered the local authority to take judicial action against the editor of any newspaper for
publishing matters which in its view was an incitement to a rebellious act. As per the
provisions of the Act, search warrants could be issued. There was a provision that no
forfeiture could be questioned in any court except the High Court. Both these Acts were later
repealed in 1922.
To have more control on the press, the Official Secrets Act was enacted in the year
1923 to maintain the security of the State against the leakage of any information. The Press
ordinance was passed in 1930 to follow the stringent provisions of the repealed Act 1910.
Then, the Press (Emergency Powers) Act was passed 1931 to curb terrorists’ activities. In
1956, the Parliament passed the Newspapers (Price and Page) Act 1956 which empowered
the Central Government to regulate the prices of newspapers in relation to the pages and sizes
and to regulate the allocation of space for advertising matters. Under this Act, the government
promulgated the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page) Order 1960, thereby fixing the
maximum number of pages that might be published by a newspaper according to the price
charged and prescribing the number of supplements that could be issued.
First Press Commission, Parliament passed the Press Council Act 1965 for the
establishment of a press council whose objective was to preserve the freedom of press and to
maintain and improve the standards of newspapers in India.
In 1991, there were reports in the Press that the Official Secret Act will be replaced by
freedom of information legislation. In 1996, the Press Council of India drew up the draft of
freedom of information bill. The draft affirmed the right of every citizen to have access to
information held by the public body. According to the draft, ‘public body’ included not just
the State but also privately owned undertakings, non-statutory statutory authorities, and
companies. Information cannot be denied to the Parliament or State Legislatures. The draft
54 | P a g e

also provided penalties for the defaulter authorities.

The Press Council of India Bill of 1996 defined the right to information as a right to
access to information, it also includes inspection, taking notes, taking extracts, and obtaining
certified copies of documents or records held by the Public Authority. The draft bill provided
that the public authority shall be under an obligation to maintain the records duly catalogued
and indexed to make it available to the citizens whenever it is required.
In the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, 1950, the court held that freedom of
speech and press is the foundation of all democratic organizations. Without free political
discussion and public education, proper functioning of popular government is not possible.
The democratic form of government itself demands its citizens’ active and intelligent
participation in the affairs of the community. According to the Chief Justice Patanjali Shastri,
“Every citizen has an undoubtedly the right to lie what sentiments he pleases before the
public. Freedom to air one’s view is the lifeline of any democratic institution and any attempt
to stifle, suffocate or gag this right would sound a death knell to democracy and would help
ushers in autocracy or dictatorship” (Venkataramaiah: 5).
In the case of Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India, the government issued an
order to control, import and supply of newsprint on a quota system. The new Newsprint
Import Control Policy of 1972 and 1973 limited the circulation of newsprint and prevented
the number of pages, page area, and periodicity and so on. The Supreme Court declared that
the government had the power to control the supply and use the newsprint, but the court
struck down under that order and put unreasonable restrictions on freedom of the press
guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a). Justice Ray found the Newsprint Import Policy as
abridging the fundamental rights of the petitioners as the newspapers were not allowed their
right to bring out newspapers or editions. It was pointed out that freedom of the press lays
both in circulation and content and the new policy restrained newspapers to adjust their page
numbers and circulation. i
In the case of Secretary, Ministry of I & b v. Cricket Association Bengal, 1995 the
Supreme Court referred to the justification given by David Feldman in his book, ‘Civil
Liberties and Human Rights’. The liberty to express oneself freely is important as it is a
significant instrument of freedom of conscience and self-fulfillment. Freedom of expression
enables people to contribute to debate about social and moral value. Freedom of expression
allows a political discourse which is necessary for any country which aspires democracy.ii In
i
Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India AIR 106, 1973 SCR (2) 757.
ii
Secretary Ministry of I & b v. Cricket Association Bengal, AIR 1236, 1995 SCC (2) 161
55 | P a g e

the case of Public Union and Civil Liberties, 1997 the freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under article 19(1) (a) means right to speak and to express one’s opinion by
mouth, writing, printing and posting pictures.i In the case of Union of India v. Motion Picture
Association 1999 which held the right to freedom of speech and expression also includes
compelled speech. It asserted that in cinema, the exhibitor of the film must show a film which
may be educational or scientific. A documentary carrying news or current events is not
violating Article 19(1) (a). When a significant population is illiterate and does not have
access to information or ideas, the audio-visual communication is utilized not just for
entertainment but also for education, information, and ideas.ii
In the case of Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi 1950, the Supreme court struck down as
violating under Article 19(1)(a) the order given by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi issued
an order in pursuance of section 7(1)(c) of the East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949 as the
extended Province of Delhi, against the petitioner, the printer, publisher and editor of an
English weekly, “The Organizer” published from Delhi, directing them to submit scrutiny in
duplicate form before publication and till further orders, all communal matters and news
about Pakistan including photographs and cartoons other than those derived from official
sources or supplied by the news agencies.iii
In the case of Virendra v. State of Punjab, The Supreme Court held that banning of
publication in the newspapers of its own views or views of the correspondents about burning
topic of the day was, “serious encroachment on the valuable and cherished right to freedom
of speech and expression”.iv
In the case of Reliance Petro Chemicals Ltd. V. Proprietors of Indian Express
Newspaper, Bombay Put Ltd 1989, The Supreme Court said that pre-publication ban even
under a court injunction could be justified in the interest of the justice only when there was a
clear and imminent danger to the administration of fair justice ( Reliance v. Petro Chemicals
Ltd. V. Propritors of Indian Express Newspaper, Bombay Pvt Ltd, 1989 AIR 190, 1988 SCR SUPL.
(3) 212).
In the case of R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1995, the Supreme Court held that
neither the government nor any officials have any authority to impose prior restraint upon the
publication of a material on the grounds of defamation. The right to publish the life story of a
prisoner convicted with or without his/her consent or authorization has been held to be
i
Public Union and Civil Liberties, 1995 SCC, SUPL (2) 572 JT 1995 (3) 365
ii
Union of India v. Motion Picture Association, 1999 Appeal (Civil) 3766-6-of 1999.
iii
BrijBhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 AIR 129, 1950 SCR 605
iv
Virendra v. State of Punjab, 1957 AIR 896, 1958 SCR 308
56 | P a g e

included under the freedom of press guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a). No prior permission
is required for it (R. Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1995 AIR 264 1994 SCC (6) 632).
In the case M. Hasan v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1998, the Andhra Pradesh
Court held that refusal of a journalist and videographer seeking interview with the prisoners
means to deprive the rights of a citizen. It is a fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a). The court held that the prisoner has the same right as that
of a free citizen. He/she is free to give ideas when entitled to being interviewed or televised.
The press while interviewing a person must obtain his willingness to be interviewed .
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanwal Gandhi, 1997, the Court
held the right to interview the prisoners is not absolute nor the Article 19(1)(a) provide any
right to have unrestricted access to means of information. In certain sensitive matters like the
commission of rape, the unnecessary publicity leads to miscarriage of justice.i
In the case Express Newspaper v. Union of India, 1958, the Apex Court held that
violation of liberty of press not only affects it when there is a ban on the circulation but also
when some action on the part of government adversely affects the circulation.ii
In the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Asst. Commercial Tax officer, 1994, the
Supreme Court held that, “there should be prohibition upon the imposition of any restriction
to disseminate information and to circulation of newspaper”.iii
In the case of Saroj Iyer v. Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicine, the
Court held that, “freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) includes
freedom of press”.iv
In the case of Sushil Chowdhary v. State of Tripura, 1998, the Court held that freedom
of press is not of much benefit for the press, as it is for the benefit of the general community.v
In the case of Hindustan Times v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2002, the Court held
‘Executive order, which interferes with rights and liabilities of newspapers without any
sanction of law, is opposed to equity and good conscience and is arbitrary’.vi
In the case of Tata Press Ltd. V. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, 1995, the
Supreme Court held that, “commercial speech” could not be denied under the protection of
i
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanwal Gandhi, 1997 Criminal appeal no. 840 & 839 of 1997
ii
Express Newspaper v. Union of India, 1958
iii
Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Asst Commercial Tax Officer, 1994 SCR (1) 682, 1994 SCC (2) 434
iv
SarojIyer v. Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicine AIR 2002 BOM, 97, 2002 (3) BOM CR 416
v
Sushil Choudhary v. State of Tripura, 1998 AIR 1998 GAU 28
vi
Hindustan Times v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2002 Writ petition (Civil) 328 of 1992
57 | P a g e

Article 19(1)(a). Court explained that “advertising is considered to be the cornerstone of our
economic system. Low prices for consumers are dependent upon mass production; mass
production is dependent upon advertising. Apart from the lifeline of the free economy in a
democratic country, advertising can be viewed as the life blood of free media playing of the
costs and thus making the media widely available.”i
2.10.2 Efforts Made by International Bodies

It is not just third world countries like India trying to bring freedom of information law, but
many countries across the world did make tremendous efforts in this direction. Apart from
member countries, international organizations such as the Council of Europe, the European
Union, the African Union, the Commonwealth and the Organization of American States
through its declaration and conventions approved freedom of information law. The Council
of Europe was founded in 1949 and comprised of forty-six countries. In 1979, the Council of
Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PA Recommendations 854) recommended the Council of
Ministers to call the national government to adopt laws on freedom of information. In 2002,
the Council of Ministers approved a recommendation [Rec (2002)2] for the member states to
adopt a national law on access to information held by the public authorities. The act had
provision for appeals and exemption. The European Union (EU) provides special rules for
access to information. It follows rules on freedom of information and data protection that
gives citizens a right to demand information from the European body. Article 255 of the
Treaty of European Union elaborates that any citizen of the Union, be it natural or legal
people residing or having their registered office in a Member State, shall have the right to
access the European Union Parliament, Council and Commission’s documents, which is
subject to a condition defined in paragraph 2 and 3. Each of the bodies of the EU has adopted
rules on the access to information similar to the national Freedom of information Law. The
European Ombudsman mediates the cases; the appeal can also be made to European Court of
Justice.
The African Union adopted Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. It was
adopted in June in the year 2003.The treaty was signed by forty of the fifty-three members
and was ratified by 15. It went into effect in July 2006. Article 9, Access to Information,
states that each State Party shall adopt such measures to enable the right to access any
information required to assist in the fight against corruption and related offences. Article 9(1)
of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, states that every individual shall have
the right to receive information. The Convention created the African Commission on Human
i
Ambrish Saxena, Right to Information and Freedom of Press, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 18-29.
58 | P a g e

and People’s Rights. In October 2002, the Commission adopted the Declaration of Principles
on freedom of expressing rights. Section IV of the Freedom of Information states that public
bodies should not hold information for themselves but as the custodians of the public, they
should be good, and everyone should have the right to access information.
In 1980, the Commonwealth of Nations adopted a resolution encouraging its members
to enhance the citizen’s access to information. In 1999, the Commonwealth Law Ministers
recommended the member states to adopt laws on the principles of disclosure, promoting a
culture of openness with limited exemptions, record management and a right to review. In
2003, the Commonwealth Secretariat issued a draft bill on freedom of information (FOI). The
draft sets out detailed procedures for Parliamentary systems based on the freedom of
information law based on Canada, Australia, and other Commonwealth countries.
Article 31 of the American Convention on Human Rights adopted by Organization of
American States (OAS), states that everyone has a right to freedom of thought and
expression. This includes freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers either orally, written, printed form of art or through any other
medium of one’s choice.i The Inter-American Declaration of Principles on Freedom of
Expression adopted in the year 2000, recognizes access to information held by the State is a
fundamental right of every individual. In October 2006, the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights recognized the right to access to information.
2.10.3 New International Information Order
The demand and movement for NIIO started in the decade of 1970’s. The New International
Information order aimed to provide a universal, equitable, free fair and balanced flow of
information, updated, and attuned to the new social conditions generated by the electronic
era. It is an information order that is equitable and egalitarian. Cees Hamelink, in his critique
on MacBride Report, suggested that the new order should be multidirectional in structural
from ethnocentric to culturally pluralistic and multidimensional in perspective. It is “an
international exchange of information in which States which develop their cultural system in
an autonomous way and with complete sovereign control of resources, fully and effectively
participate as independent members of the international community”.ii
In the New Information Order, the freedom of information is challenged by three
threats, namely computer cum satellite, direct broadcasting satellite and remote sensing
i
www. unesco.org
ii
R. Manekar, Whose Freedom Whose Order? A Plea for a new International Order by Third World, New
Delhi: Clarion Books, 1981, p.205.
59 | P a g e

device. They often bring clashes between the doctrines of free flow of information within the
concepts like sovereignty by national security. This is a universal problem especially in
advanced countries like Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, and Western Europe, who have been
in the process of attaining defense against the free flow of information.
The new order not only aims to decolonize and democratize the information but also
tries to bring the entire infrastructure of both international and domestic media and
telecommunications. It tries to attain fair and competent coverage of international news so as
to facilitate free movement of journalists within countries and also between countries. It aims
to guarantee protection to the journalists on professional duty and ensures that their rights are
well protected while taking care of the responsibilities. It tries to formulate a code of conduct
and ethics for the profession they are engaged in. It also attempts to do correction in reporting
other words, through the entire software content by ensuring quality and quantum of news
flow.
According to Mustapha Masmoudi, Tunisia’s ambassador to UNESCO, “The
International Information Order is founded on democratic principles, it seeks to establish
relations of equality in the communications field between developed and developing nations
and aims to bring greater justice and greater balance”.i The first requisite of NIIO is to ensure
free flow of information and balanced flow of information in terms of quantity and quality.
There is a need for two-way flow of information; free outgoing of information and free
incoming of information, which in other words, is expressed as free exchange of information.
Some attributes of NIIO are media to be made free and responsible; right of every
country to protect its own cultural identity against the align media, “invasion”; right of every
country to formulate its own communication policies and cultural identity against the align
media invasion, information being a national resource, a country’s sovereignty over its
information must be recognized, to ensure equal distribution of the electro-magnetic spectrum
and satellite slots in the outer space based on the balanced allocation of all regions of the
globe, imbalances and inequalities in the telecommunications and tariffs must be sorted out,
tariffs for sending satellite transmission of messages and images must be reduced, so as to be
within the reach of the developing countries, promotion of international cooperation and self-
reliance for the purpose of communication development, wider access and diversification of
the news sources, to build a high field of communication in developing countries; regional
and inter-regional machinery must be set up to exchange, distribute and sell literature of
cultural, scientific, literary and developmental interest, in order to brake the walls of isolation
hitherto separating them from each other; measures must be taken in the international sphere
i
Ibid, R. Manekar, 1981, p.206.
60 | P a g e

for adequate printing and supply of newsprint in the developing countries to increase the
production of newspapers and books, so as to ensure free flow of information and
knowledge.i
Baghdad resolution was adopted in June 1980 to New International Information order.
Some of the points includes the self-determination of people and sovereign equality, it also
promotes non-interference in the internal affairs, it promotes the right of every nation to
develop its own independent information system to protect its national sovereignty and
cultural identity in particular by regulating the activities of the trans-national corporations;
right to participate in free exchange of information under favorable conditions in the sense of
equality, justice and mutual advantage.
UNESCO’s resolution on the MacBride recommendations tabled at Belgrade session
in October 1980, has laid down some basis of New International Information Order. It
includes elimination of imbalances and inequalities present in the current set up; do away
with the monopolies, be it public or private spheres, absolute removal of internal and external
obstacles so as to have free flow as well as balanced dissemination of information and ideas,
plurality of sources and channels of information, freedom of the press and information,
freedom of journalists and all professionals in the media, to improve the capacity of
developing countries by providing equipment, infrastructures, to help the developed countries
to develop and to attain the objectives, to respect the cultural identity of every nation to
inform it’s interest, aspirations and cultural values, to respect the right of all the people to
participate in international exchange of information on the basis of equality, justice and
mutual benefit, respect for all the ethnic and social groups and their access to information, so
as to enable them to participate actively communication process.
1) What is freedom? What are two major types of freedom?

2) What are the various perspectives of freedom?
3) What are categories of freedom granted by constitution of India? Explain in detail.
4) Is the freedom granted by the Indian constitution is absolute or it can be restricted.
Explain briefly?
5) What do you understand by the term ‘Emancipation’? What are ways of emancipation
or empowerment?
i
Ibid, R. Manekar, 1981, p. 207.
61 | P a g e

6) What is ‘Empowerment’? Discuss various types of empowerments.

7) What do you mean by Swaraj? Explain Gandhiji and Bal Gangadhar’s view on
Swaraj.
2.12 REFERENCES/FURTHER READINGS
▪ M.P. Singh and Himanshu Roy, Indian Political Thought, Jnanda Prakashan, 1998.
▪ Andrew Heywood ,Political Ideologies-An introduction, Palgraves Macmillan, 2017.
▪ O.P. Gauaba, Introduction to Political Theory
▪ P. M. Bakshi, ed., The Constituion of India, New Delhi: Universal Publication
▪ R.C. Vermani, Colonialism and Nationalism in India, 2000.
▪ Faizan Mustafa, Constitutional Issues in Freedom of Information: International
Perspectives, New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers, 2003.
▪ Justice E. S. Venkataramaiah, Freedom of Press Some Recent Trends, New Delhi:
B.R. Publishing Corporation, 1987.
▪ Ambrish Saxena, Right to Information and Freedom of Press, New Delhi, 2004.
▪ M. Laxmi Kant, Indian Polity, second Edition, 2010.
62 | P a g e

Unit-II: Equality
(a) EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY
OF OUTCOME
Tarkeshwarnath
STRUCTURE

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Meaning of Equality
1.4 Development of Equality
1.5 Types of Equality
1.5.1 Political Equality
1.5.2 Economic Equality
1.5.3 Legal Equality
1.5.4 Formal Equality
1.5.5 Equality of Opportunity
1.5.6 Equality of Resources Luck Egalitarians
1.5.7 Equality of Welfare
1.6 Marxist Theory of Equality
1.7 Conclusion
1.9 References
The main objective of this chapter is to understand the meaning of equality and the
theoretical issues connected with equality. After reading this chapter students will be familiar
with:
63 | P a g e

• The meaning and importance of equality for individuals and societies. Various
features of equality and characteristics of equality. The lesson would explain formal
equality, equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes.
• The lesson also explains the equality of resources Luck Egalitarians.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
In social contexts, equality means the status of a society in which all the people of that
society have equal rights or status. For social equality, 'equal rights before the law' is a
minimum requirement under which security, voting rights, freedom of speech, freedom to
gather, property rights, equal access to social goods and services etc. Apart from this, equal
opportunity and equal responsibility also comes under it. The concept of equality is rooted in
the core of normative political theory. This is an idea based on which crores of people have
been rulers for centuries. They have been and will continue to fight against unjust social
systems and undemocratic governments or policies. In this sense, equality is placed in the
category of permanent and universal concepts. A state of relationship between two or more
people or groups is one that can be defined as equality. However, equality as an idea is not so
simple and simple, as there is always more than one way to define that relationship, set its
goals, and prioritize one aspect of it over another. Different definitions of the idea of equality
emerge when different methods emerge. From the ancient Greek civilization to the twentieth
century, there have been many drastic changes in the design of this idea. Many thinkers have
contributed to its development and the changes in it, including Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau,
Marx, and Tocqueville.
1.3 MEANING OF EQUALITY
The belief of equality is a major assumption of a self-governing society. Equality does not
entail complete equality. Equality originates from aequalis, aequus and aequalitas. These are
all old French or Latin words. These French/Latin words mean even, level, and equal. In
general terms, equality means full equality of treatment and reward for all. It is needed as
natural equality. It is thought that all men are born natural and free. Men are neither equal in
respect of their physical features nor in respect of their mental capabilities. Some are
stronger, others weaker, and some are more intelligent and capable than others. In common
words, the meaning of equality is taken equally. It is considered the opposite of disparity.
Equality has been demanded in society since ancient times. Many theoretical and intellectual
grounds have also been presented for this. In other words, equality means that all people in
64 | P a g e

society should have equal status, and everyone should get equal prvillages. But this is not
completely real because not all people are equal. Man has been made equal by nature.
Depending on anatomy, form, color, strength, intelligence, the variation found in individuals
is found. Due to the fundamental distinctions given by nature, complete equality cannot be
brought in a person. For example, in the same way that all the fingers of the hand cannot be
equal, in the same way not all the people of society can be equal. Equality does not mean that
all individuals get equal property. The basis of property sharing is also physical and
intellectual inequality. In the end, not every person can get the same property.
The real meaning of equality is that all people should get equal opportunity for their
development and should not be differentiated based on caste, birth, religion, sex, class,
property race. The state should provide proper opportunities for the development of their
intellect and personality without any discrimination. One should not be bound to the
development of a person by qualification. Here equality has three Basic elements:
– Absence of special privileges in society.
– The presence of adequate and equal opportunities for development of all.
– Equal satisfaction of basic needs of all.
According to Laski, the most influential positive liberal thinker, set down the following
conditions for equality:
1. End of special privileges in society
2. Adequate opportunities for all for developing the full potential of their personalities.
3. Access to social benefits for all with no restrictions on any ground like family
position or wealth, heredity etc.
4. Absence of economic and social exploitation.
According to D.D Raphael, “The Right to Equality proper is a right of equal satisfaction of
basic human needs, including the need to develop and use capacities which are specifically
human.”
Therefore, equality does not mean absolute equality in all spheres and to every person. It does
not aim at identity of treatment as intellectual and physical capacity varies. It opposes
inequitable treatment. It means complete and absolute equality at the bottom most level and
then equal opportunity to develop one's inner potential.
Characteristics of Equality:
65 | P a g e

• Equality does not stand for absolute equality. It accepts the presence of some natural
dissimilarities.
• Equality stands for absence of all unnatural manmade inequalities and specially
privileged classes in the society.
• Equality assumes the grant and guarantee of equal rights and freedoms to all the
people.
• Equality infers the system of equal and adequate opportunities for all the people in
society.
• Equality means equal satisfaction of basic needs of all the persons before the special
needs', and luxuries of some persons may be met.
• Equality supports an equitable and fair distribution of wealth and resources i.e.
Minimum possible gap between the rich and poor.
Equality accepts the principle of protective discrimination for helping the weaker sections of
society. In the Indian political system, right to equality has been given to all and yet there
stands incorporated provisions for granting special protection facilities and reservations to
persons belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes, minorities,
women, and children.
1.4 DEVELOPMENT OF EQUALITY
Greek Philosophy
The problem of equality and inequality has figured in political thought since earliest
times. We have two different traditions (a)Inequality which was supported by Plato and
Aristotle, (b) Equality which was supported by Pericles, Sophists, Antiphon and Stoics.
Aristotle discovered that 'inequality' was a cause of rebellion in many a state. He defined
justice as treating equals equally and unequal unequally. This was a typical statement in that
it insisted on recognition and maintenance of existing inequalities in society—between
master and slave, between rich and poor, between morally superior and morally inferior, and
so on.
Whereas Plato classified men into a man of Gold, man of Silver, man of Iron. Stoic
philosophy gave the idea of universal brotherhood and citizenship based on natural law and
reason. They opposed slavery and pleaded for natural equality among men. Therefore,
equality is a force which binds together friends, cities, and allies.
66 | P a g e

The Medieval Period

During the medieval period Christianity raised the voice for equality but soon it got converted
into equality before God. During this period feudalism emerged in Europe and unequal rules
of aristocracy developed. In fact, feudalism was emerged a combination of legal and military
customs in medieval Europe that flourished between 9th and 15th century broadly defined it
was way of structuring society around relationship derived from the holding of land in
exchange for service and labor. In fact, during the medieval period social in equalities got
legal recognition and legal privileges to the clergy and the nobility were accepted in society.
The social inequality of caused where resources in given society are distributed only typically
through norms of allocation that gender specific pattern non alliance of socially defined
category.
The Renaissance
The Renaissance and the reformation played an important part in weakening and shaking the
existing social and political system. Besides this the Renaissance influenced Gender
inequalities in terms of marriage, wealth, ownership, and freedom of expression. The
emerging middle class challenged the legal, social, and political privileges of the feudal
order. In European history the middle class played an important role as an agent of change to
transform society. It was patronized by rulers to encounter feudal lords who challenged their
authority and rebels against them to empower the middle-class ruler granted them charter or
official rights to trade a broad and to take responsibility of the administration of cities with
stabilities Municipalities. Thus, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, the American
declaration of Independence of 1776 and the French revolution of 1789 helped the cause of
equality.
Nineteenth Century and twentieth Century
A demand for socio-economic equality from the newly working class. As result of the
industrial revolution economic disparities have increased and the demand for economic
equality and justice came from quarters. In fact, the industrial and economic development of
the industrial revolution brought significant social changes. Industrialization resulted in an
increase in population phenomenon urban growing number of people move to urban center in
search of employment. Thus, the movement of political equality also became stronger and
adult franchise became the battle – cry of the democrats. It is noteworthy that until the 18th
century, the notion of equality remained largely confined to the legal side. But the succession
of capitalism has increased the scope of inequality even further. Initially Utopian socialism
and later Engels and Marx raised the demand for economic equality. Subsequently, political
equality was also demanded along with the demand for economic equality.
67 | P a g e

1.5 TYPES OF EQUALITY
Natural Equality
Though humans differ in respect of their physical features, psychological traits, mental
abilities and capacities, all humans are to be treated as equal humans. All are to be considered
to avail all human rights and freedoms.
Social Equality
Social equality is referred to as equal rights and opportunities for development for all classes
of people without any discrimination such as civil rights, freedom of speech, property rights,
and equal access to social goods and services. However, it also includes concepts of health
equity, economic equality and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and
obligations, and so involves the whole of society. Social equality requires the absence of
legally enforced social class or caste boundaries and the absence of discrimination motivated
by an inalienable part of a person's identity. For instance, sex, gender, race, age, sexual
orientation, origin, caste or class, income or property, language, religion, convictions,
opinions, health, or disability must not result in unsatisfactory treatment under the law and
should not reduce opportunities unreasonably.
Specifically, Social equality stands for:
a) Absence of special privileges for any class or caste or religious group or an ethnic
group.
b) Prohibition of discrimination against anyone based on caste, color, creed, religion, sex
and place of birth.
c) Free access to public places for all the people, i.e., no social segregation.
d) Equality of opportunity for all people. It however accepts the concept of protective
discrimination in favor of all weaker sections of society.
Contemporary theme of social equality is to eliminate gender inequality, to ensure equal
status and opportunities to the women and to ensure equal rights of male and female children
to live and develop.
It is referred to as equal opportunities for participation of all in the political process. This
involves the concept of granting equal political rights for all the citizens with some uniform
qualifications for everyone. All citizens must possess similar political rights, they should
68 | P a g e

have a similar voice in the working of the government, and they should have equal
opportunities to actively participate in the political life and affairs of the country. Political
equality guarantees the enjoyment of similar political rights to all citizens. Universal adult
franchise is a means to this end. Universal adult suffrage has been introduced in India. The
same provision has been made in England, U.S.S.R., U.S.A., France, and many other
countries.
Economic equality does not indicate equal treatment or equal reward or equal wages for all. It
denotes fair and adequate opportunities to all for work and for earning of their livelihoods. It
also means that the primary needs of all should be fulfilled before the special needs of few
are gratified. The gap between rich and poor should be lowest. There should be equitable
distribution of wealth and resources in society.
Legal Equality is defined as equality before law, equal subjection of all to the same legal
code and equal opportunity for all to secure legal protection of their rights and freedom.
Equality before the law is the principle that each independent being must be treated equally
by the law and that all are subject to the same laws of justice. Therefore, the law must
guarantee that no individual or group of individuals be privileged or discriminated against by
the government. Equal protection of law means that law provides equal opportunities to all
those who are in similar circumstances or situations. This concept is slightly positive in
connotation.
1.5.4 Formal Equality
Nowadays a term is frequently used, and it is formal equality. The political scientists do not
especially use this term, but it is manifest from their analysis that the idea of formal equality
is quite fresh in their minds. It is believed that formal equality is legal equality. The inner
idea is that every citizen is a legal member of the state which is a legal association.
As a legal member of the legal association every person has certain claims to equality.
There are two very important forms of legal or formal equality. One is equality before law
and equal protection of law. We have already mentioned these two. What is to be noted here
is that the legal member of the legal association (Barker calls a state a legal association) can
legitimately claim that all the citizens (including him) must be treated equally by law and no
discrimination is to be allowed.
There is another type of formal equality, and it is equal protection of law. It is the
69 | P a g e

primary function of law to give protection to all citizens and while doing this it makes no
distinction between rank, position, and wealth. Legal or formal equality, to speak the truth,
constitutes the very core of the rule of law. In this sense formal equality comes to be
associated with equality.
It has been pointed out by Heywood that formal equality is basically negative because
the state authority takes special care about the distribution of opportunities. The objective
shall always be not to allow awarding special privileges to few persons.
Naturally to attain this goal the state must impose restrictions in one form or other
upon the distributing machinery or the state must take policy to that extent. We have already
noted that Laski has observed that equality means the absence of ‘special privileges.
Formal or legal equality has received almost universal approval from conservatives,
liberals and even socialists. It is irrational, unjustified and even bigotry to deprive some
persons of their legitimate share in wealth, income and manifold privileges on the ground of
accidental birth in poor families or in so called neglected religious groups.
1.5.5 Equality of Opportunity
The rationale behind this political ideal is that society is uneven, with privileges, standing and
potential for success being heavily influenced by many different factors predetermined by birth.
The political ideal places an individual in any given rung of social hierarchy because of their
background. Equality of opportunity calls on a ‘fairness of outcome’ in society. The notion of
equality of opportunity follows from the idea of formal equality and can be traced even in the
writings of Plato who propose educational system that offers all children equal chance to
realize their talents and social positions based upon merit and efforts. The concept of formal
equality does not address the opportunities and chances available to the individual. Equality
of opportunity is concerned with initial conditions available meaning it is not required that all
runners must finish the race in line together because they left the starting point together rather
it is the equal start to the race which legitimizes its unequal outcome. Thus, the concept of
equality of opportunity recognizes equal opportunities to become unequal. The concept
advocates removal of obstacles that stand in the way of individual development that should
surely be enjoyed by all citizens. The issue of debate is how to ensure equality of opportunity.
Does this mean providing equal welfare or ensuring equality of opportunity by removing
effects of inequality in social and economic circumstances or talent of the individuals? Does
rigorous application of equality of opportunity lead to State intervention in social and
personal life? Let’s discuss different views to ensure substantive equality of opportunity. (In a
factory setting, equality of opportunity is often seen as a procedural fairness along the lines of
"if you assemble twice as many lamps, you'll be paid double". In this sense, the concept
70 | P a g e

contrasts with the concept of equality of outcome which might require that all workers be
paid similarly regardless of how many lamps they made).
According to Rawls formal equality of opportunity is not enough. It is important to
incorporate intelligence and social position as part of the distributive criteria. The notion of
Equality of opportunity does not compensate inequalities that arise due to factors that are
arbitrary from a moral point of view. Social economic circumstances and special talents of
individuals are arbitrary from the moral point of view because they are the result of brute
luck. John Rawls’ second principle allows social and economic inequalities if they provide
greatest benefits to the least advantaged member of the society and offices and position
remain open to all under fair equality of opportunity. In the original position the device of the
veil of ignorance is used to conceive people as equal. However even in the original position
people behind veil of ignorance have a capacity for having a conception of good and sense of
justice. In the original position equal participation takes place as they are equal part of the
process designed to choose the principle of justice. Fair equality of opportunity is ensured
and so is the principle that no one deserves his talents – the product of the natural lottery.
1.5.6 Equality of Resources Luck Egalitarians
Luck egalitarian theory is based around the notion that an individual is responsible for his
choice but not for his unchosen circumstances. “People’s fates are determined by their
choices and their circumstances, and this must remain, argue luck egalitarians a fundamental
insight when considering what constitutes a just distribution. Ronald Dworkin, Richard
Arneson, G.A. Cohen, Philippe V. Parjisare the thinkers who endorse the position termed as
Luck Egalitarians by Elizabeth Anderson. Though there is disagreement among lucky
egalitarians as what should be equalized resources or opportunity for welfare. However, the
point on which Luck egalitarians agree are inequalities are just if they are the result of
voluntary made choices. People are responsible for their voluntarily made choices and not for
their unchosen circumstances.
Ronald Dworkin’s influential account of luck egalitarianism is based on equality of
resources. In Sovereign Virtue Dworkin writes, “Equal concern is the sovereign virtue of
political community—without its government is only tyranny –and when a nation’s wealth is
very unequally distributed, as the wealth of even very prosperous nation now is, then its equal
concern is suspect. For the distribution of wealth is the product of a legal order: a citizen’s
wealth massively depends on which laws his community- has enacted – not only its laws
governing ownership, theft, contract but its welfare laws, tax law, labor law, civil rights law,
environment regulation law and laws of practically everything else.
Dworkin believe that the basic structure of society should be publicly justified to all
71 | P a g e

citizens with special emphasis on two fundamental principles of ethical individualism…

The principle of Equal importance-It is important from an objective point of view that
human lives are successful rather than wasted, and this is equally important from an objective
point of view, for each human life.
Principle of special responsibility---Though we must recognize the equal objective
importance of the success of a human life, one person has a special and final responsibility
for that success –the person whose life it is.
The principle of equal importance requires the government to formulate laws and
policies that are insensitive to the special particulars of individual. This means being
insensitive to their economic background, gender, race, and particular set of skill. The second
principle of special responsibility requires government to make laws and policies as far as
possible sensitive to the choices that people willingly make. Dworkin’s theory of equality of
resources is ambition sensitive and endowment insensitive. An unequal share of social goods
is fair if it is result of intentional action of those concerned. This means an autonomous
individual bear responsibility for the consequences of his actions. However, inequality that is
due to arbitrary social circumstances or natural endowments are unfair.
Moreover, the benefits of equal resources may differ for different individuals.
Amartya Sen imagines two persons A and B. Person A as a cripple gets half the utility that
the pleasure in the real world income tax is a device that is used to neutralize the effects of
differential talents and handicaps. Wizard B does from a given level of income. Neither
Rawls Difference Principle nor Dworkin’s Equality of Resources takes this “utility
disadvantage’ for which it would be absurd to hold A responsible into account.
Luck egalitarians are also targeted for radical rejection of merit and personal identity.
According to this approach we cannot recognize ourselves with our own achievements.
Moreover the criterion of individual responsibility could turn out to be inhuman in its
consequences because applying the principle of choice if a person is responsible for his
misery, then that person would be supposedly left alone with his misery. But in another
situation when people are in terrible situation due to factors beyond control or brute luck
the reasons proposed to help them are supposedly stigmatizing if based on pity. Moreover, to
decide such cases involvement of political institutions is required that means taking certain
decisions for which some important relevant information needs to be gathered about citizens
which according to some may harm their private sphere.
1.5.7 Equality of Welfare
To assess the merit of laws or policies Utilitarian’s adopt a welfarist metric and the right
72 | P a g e

policy is that which promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Equality of
welfare requires that those whose welfare is restricted may receive extra resources so that the
amount of welfare can be equalized but fails to accommodate the principle of special
responsibility towards oneself for example if a person is born with a disease or handicap
he/she may have less welfare due to factors which are not in his control but what about
those who need extra resources due to expensive way of life and taste and need extra
Focus on resources to achieve the same level of welfare. Equality of welfare fails to
distinguish between deserving and undeserving beneficiaries.
Equality is Complex
Walzer argues for complex equality, the idea is different goods belong to different
distributive spheres and each has its own distributive principles. For example, unequal
distribution of money is permissible if that inequality is the result of some fair mechanism,
which is people’s ability to make money and as long as money inequality does not influence
the distribution of goods belonging to other spheres for example education or health.
According to this view inequality justified by relevant reasons is not objectionable if it is not
disturbing equality in other spheres.
According to the above-mentioned discussion of various positions equality of
opportunity seeks to correct for all unchosen disadvantages natural as well as social and
difference of Achievement-Equality of Welfare emphasizes on achievement, meaning the
final satisfaction that people derive from different state of affairs.
Means of achievement- Rawls and Dworkin’s principle of primary goods and equality
of resources represents shift towards means to achieve various situation. Freedom to achieve-
Amartya Sen’s capability approach emphasizes freedom to achieve desired situation.
Egalitarian Liberals emphasizes that liberty and equality are compatible political values. In
society for just division of benefits and burdens of social cooperation both these values
should be given due consideration. However, there is no consensus about distributive
outcomes that best complement liberty and equality. Outcomes reflect differences of choice.
This means if people make informed choices and are aware of its consequences equality of
opportunity amounts to equality of outcome. Difference of outcome is not inequality. For
example, A works longer hours than B thus earning more money while B works less and
enjoy more leisure and earns enough to stay alive, in this example with respect to money
outcome there is inequality, but they will have equal outcome in terms of overall bundle of
income plus leisure.
73 | P a g e

Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of outcome

• Equality of opportunity is concerned principally with initial conditions and the
removal of obstacles that stay in the way of personal development; equality of
outcome is concerned with end results. Equality of outcome may refer to resources,
level of welfare, social circumstances, material equality and involves transfer of
income or wealth or some other measure to promote equality of outcome.
• The equality of outcome whether in its moderate or radical sense usually argues that it
is the most vital form of equality because equal legal and civil rights are of little
benefit to citizens who do not possess secure jobs. Moreover, the doctrine of equal
opportunity is used to defend material inequalities by creating the myth that that they
are the result of informed choice of the people.
• Equality of outcome is also a prerequisite for securing individual liberty. As far as
individual is concerned a certain level of material prosperity is essential if people are
to lead worthwhile and fulfilled lives.
• Rousseau recognized the danger of social inequality and argued “no citizen shall be
rich enough to buy another and none so poor as to be forced to sell him” Material
inequality may lead to enslavement of the poor and deprive them of both moral and
intellectual autonomy.
• Criticizing equality of opportunity, R T Tawney named it as the “Tadpole
philosophy” where all start from the same position but are then left to the vagaries of
the market, some succeed and many fail. Opportunity to rise could not be equalized in
a society where the circumstances surrounding it from birth are themselves unequal.
Social well-being also depends upon cohesion and solidarity in society.
• Equality of outcome is criticized because it may lead to stagnation and injustice.
Stagnation results from the fact that social leveling serves to cap aspirations and
remove the incentive for enterprise and hard work. It may become the reason for
injustice because injustice arises not only when equals are treated unequally but also
when the unequal are treated equally.
• Equality of outcome can be achieved by massive interference because people are
different in their abilities and aspirations. Talent is penalized and equal results are
achieved by the process of leveling downwards.
74 | P a g e

• In a society mechanism to achieve equal outcome are filled with moral as well as
practical problems. To achieve equality of Outcome, the State has to employ different
ways to compel the transfer of resources.
1.6 MARXIST THEORY OF EQUALITY
Like his other political concepts, equality is also a part of his entire political philosophy
which is primarily linked with the unmasking of the real nature of capitalist system, its
abolition and emancipation of working class. From the study of various aspects of society
Marx concluded that there were a number of inequalities in capitalist system.
For example, social, political, economic etc.; and these were due to the bourgeois
structure. In any capitalist state there were inequalities between men and women, rich and
poor, there were discriminations among various religious groups.
Even the inequalities were institutionalized by the capitalists. Theoretically bourgeois
scholars and political scientists propagate for equality and strongly argue for formal or legal
equality. Even the bourgeois constitutions (constitutions framed by the bourgeois scholars to
meet the needs of a particular class) pontifically announce the inclusions of rights, liberties,
and equalities as parts of the constitution and also make provision for their protection.
How to Achieve Equality?
On the Jewish Question Marx dealt with several issues and one of these is equality. He had
said that it was mere farce to think of emancipation of all exploited people through the
declaration of equal civil rights and liberties. To Marx such declaration amounted to political
emancipation.
But people’s equal rights and privileges could never be obtained through the
announcement of political emancipation. According to Marx it was merely partial
emancipation. For the achievement of all forms of equality (also of rights and liberties)
human emancipation was necessary. By human emancipation he meant emancipation of all
men and women from every type of bondage created and imposed by the capitalists.
Emancipation only of the Jews could not achieve that ambitious objective.
So, Marx on the Jewish Question ridiculed the emancipation only of the Jews. Marx
believed that the institution of private property was the chief evil and it always acted for the
creation of inequalities and differences among people. For this reason, he recommended the
abolition of private property through the seizure of political power. The prevalence of market
economy was another factor for the growing menace of inequality and exploitation.
The weaker sections of the body politic were gradually being eliminated from the
75 | P a g e

market because of money power exercised by the capitalists. Therefore, the abolition of
capitalism was the first precondition for the attainment of universal political values such as
equality, right and liberty, and justice.
Two Principles of Equality
A serious analysis of Marxist thought reveals that Marx had two types of equality in his
mind. The two principles of equality are- “From each according to his abilities, to each
according to the amount of work performed”.
There is another principle: “Each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs”. This principle indicates that each person in society will perform his duties as far as
his abilities permit him to do. That is, none will be asked to do any work beyond his capacity.
In the first stage of post-revolutionary society, Marx claimed, this objective or
principle could be achieved. Marxists did not treat this stage as the stage of just equality. It
was apprehended that due to differences in ability and talent there might appear differences
among men in many respects. Nevertheless, this principle might be regarded as the
steppingstone to equality.
There is another principle delineated by Marxists: “From each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs”. Marxists (including Lenin) stressed this principle
and held that only in a communist society this principle could be achieved. Under
communism will there be equal treatment of unequal human beings with all their necessarily
unequal needs”.
Affirmative Actions
Affirmative action is the strategy to errand members of a disadvantaged group who currently
suffer or historically have suffered from discrimination within a culture. Often, these people
are deprived for historical reasons, such as oppression or bondage. The notion of “affirmative
action” was first used in the United States in 1961, which included a provision that
government contractors “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and
employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or
national origin.”
In simple terms, Affirmative action is anticipated to promote the opportunities of
defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority
population. Affirmative action denotes to the policies and laws that attempt to redress a
situation of discrimination and promote equal opportunity. Affirmative action is also related
to positive discrimination, which entails means to compensate or counter the effects of
prejudices in terms of race, gender and / or disabilities.
76 | P a g e

Affirmative Action in India

Reverse Discrimination: In the system of Affirmative action, the Majority of populace feel
omitted and discriminated against as the allocation of jobs and positions in various fields is
based on a quota system or reservations. In India, the government continues to reinforce
reservations, and increases the quotas to gain vote bank, and the majority feel acutely side-
lined. The system of reservation was meant to last for a decade or so, but it has become so
established in contemporary times, that the majority are naturally in disdain of it. The heated
issue of Patidar Reservation Agitation in India is best example of reverse discrimination in
India. Patels, as a prosperous caste in India are also highlighting themselves as 'backward
classes'. In doing so, they demand reservations in jobs and educational institutions the same
way the disadvantaged OBCs are entitled to. With considerable quotas put aside for the
marginalized, the majority has to bear the brunt of tightened and hence highly competitive
vacancies and posts resulting in many meritorious candidates losing at academic and career
opportunities. If Patels who belong to a commercial community fear the loss of their jobs or
unavailability of jobs altogether, it speaks volumes on Reverse discrimination in India.
Brain Drain: It is major outcome of identity-based politics in India. Due to reservations, and
quota-based systems, the public feels challenged, destabilized and even rejected as selections
in jobs and education are made on the criterion of Caste than Merit. Hence, the intellectuals
are forced to work abroad, and the phenomenon of Brain Drain keeps draining India of its
think tanks, learned scholars and intellectuals.
Against Constitution: If the constitution struggles for a democratic society with equal rights
for everyone irrespective of caste, color and creed, then the case of preferential treatment as
evidenced in the policies of Affirmative Action may/will attack as a double standard. Because
of this fact, in many countries Affirmative Action based on race is deemed prohibited but in
India such is not the case.
Creamy Layer: It has been observed that there are economic divisions even in the
impoverished classes such as OBCs. Mostly the well-off sections of the same community
tend to seize the reservations while the poor remain poor and incapable of accessing the
welfare schemes meant to rehabilitate them. To arrest such a practice, the concept of creamy
layer was introduced in India according to which the upper and middle sections of OBCs are
not eligible for reservations allowing the poor OBCs access to government's welfare
programs. In this system, the sections belonging to low castes that have progressed in
educational and job circles will not be entertained as marginalized and can compete with the
majority without the helping hand of the reservations. Simultaneously, the poor castes can
benefit from the quota system, and advance themselves to the level of not needing
77 | P a g e

reservations in the long run.

There are critics who stated that affirmative actions are not good practices.
Challengers of affirmative action such as George Sher consider that affirmative action
diminishes the accomplishments of people who are chosen based on the social group to which
they belong rather than their qualifications, thus rendering affirmative action
counterproductive.
But affirmative action is intended to enhance the life of deprived people. Affirmative
action is a set of measures approved by governments and public and private institutions such
as political parties, educational establishments, corporations, and companies to address a
history of systemic discrimination and exclusion of particular social groups or to encourage
the efforts of particular social groups in the interests of certain development goals.
Affirmative action is expected to improve development indicators by reducing inequalities
and facilitating the contribution of particular social groups to development.
1.7 CONCLUSION
To summarize, equality is an important notion of Political Science. It is demonstrated in

Chinese Dictionary that equality refer to the process in which people are entitled to the same
treatment in terms of society, economy, laws, and the same status. People possess the same
social status and enjoy the same treatment. In political thought, equality is described that all
human beings are equal, and equality in distribution, namely equal distribution of wealth,
social opportunities and political power. There are different types of equality such as
political, social, legal, natural, and economic equality. There is a strong link between freedom
and equality. Regarding affirmative actions, it can be appraised that Affirmative action is an
effective way of eliminating or reducing the impact of discrimination.
1. What is the meaning of Equality, Explain briefly.

2. Explain the development of Equality.
3. How many types of Equality? Critically explain.
1.9 REFERENCES
• Acharya, Ashok, “Equality” in Rajeev Bhargava and Ashok Acharya ed. Political
Theory: An Introduction (New Delhi, Pearson Longman: 2008)
78 | P a g e

• N. P. Barry, Norman, An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, Macmillan,

London, 2000
• Heywood, Andrew, Political Theory: An Introduction
• Arneson, Richard J., “Equality” in Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit A Companion
to Contemporary Political Philosophy (USA, Blackwell Publishers: 1995)
• Sen, Amartya, “Equality of What” in Robert E Goodin and Philip Pettit ed.
Contemporary Political Philosophy an Anthology (USA, Blackwell:1997)
• William, Bernard, “The Idea of Equality” in Robert E Goodin and Philip Pettit ed.
Contemporary Political Philosophy an Anthology (USA, Blackwell Publishers: 1997)
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.plato.stanford.edu.
79 | P a g e

Unit-II
(b) EGALITARIANISM: BACKGROUND INEQUALITIES
AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh
STRUCTURE

2.2 Introduction
2.2.3 Social Equality
2.3 Debate: Affirmative Action
2.4 Conclusion
2.6 References
• The lesson would discuss the modern conception of equality and would elaborate
various dimensions of equality like civil, political, and social equality. It also
comprehensively discusses about egalitarianism.
• The lesson also debates about affirmative action and various merits and demerits of it.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
Let us discuss equality and its various dimensions. As we know, equality is the most used
term in the modern era. The concept of equality can be tracked from political thought since
Greek philosophy. During Greek era it has been used by Aristotle in terms of cause of
revolution in many states. He said that the absence of balanced equality, of a fair deal, leads
to lack of justice and splits the city into fractions. Aristotle asserted that more the equality
more stable the state is. He considers that state as the best, which is dominated by a middle
class, because in such a state, there shall be less inequality and hence very little chances of
80 | P a g e

revolution. Rousseau made a mark in political thought in 1749 when he wrote Discourse on
the Origin and Foundation of Inequality, in which he severely attacked the institution of
private property and held it responsible for the inequality in society.
The term equality can be widely understood to entail civil, political, and social rights.
The American and French Revolutions, equality was moved to the foreground of political
ideals, becoming a realistic aspiration attached to the promise of democracy. This term has
many identical terms like similar, identical, and equivalent. The term has many aspects, and it
cannot be explained in a single sentence. The exact meaning of the term can be understood
because of various scholars’ definitions and meanings. According to Cambridge dictionary,
the term equality stands for “the right of different groups of people to have a similar social
position and receive the same treatment: equality between the sexes, racial equality, the
government department responsible for equalities”. Furthermore, it has been explained as “a
situation in which men and women, people of different races, religions, etc. are all treated
fairly and have the same opportunities”.
Whereas Harold J Laski has mentioned in his book A Grammar of Politics that
equality is coherence of ideas each one of which needs special examination. Undoubtedly, it
fundamentally represents a certain levelling process. It means that no man shall be so placed
in society that he can over-reach his neighbor to the extent which constitutes denial of the
latter's citizenship. Equality therefore means, first, the absence of special privilege and
secondly adequate opportunities are laid open to all.
Explaining the meaning of equality Harold J Laski said, equality means adequate
opportunities should be laid in front of all, there should not have any form of
discrimination—there should not have special privilege to anyone, all the persons have access
to all kinds of social, economic, and political benefits—it should not be restricted to few
special persons in terms of birth, hereditary etc.
Rawls’ has mentioned about the equality in his book A Theory of justice (1971), in
which he had mentioned that to attain the equality we need to distribute the rights “Each
person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties of others”. According to him, every individual
has the right to claim equal liberties with others in this process it is the role of state authority
to ensure it. The state must see that about the allotment of rights the principle of equality has
been most carefully observed.
The liberal thinker’s main concern was moral equality which implied the right of each
man to be treated as an end and not a means. They carried on achieving equality through the
rule of law or written constitution. In contemporary era, the term equality represents the
81 | P a g e

theory of rights. It postulates that man as rational being. The physical, emotional, and
intellectual needs of all the men are similar and hence they are entitled to equal rights.
Equality as a principle correcting the unjust inequalities in society is a modern idea.
R. H. Tawney mentioned ‘if liberty means every individual shall be free, according to
his opportunities, to indulge without limit his appetite…it is the term equality does not mean
similar treatment to all the persons. It means proportional equality—amongst equals and
inequal among equals. In this process of treatment, equals and unequal should be rational and
just. At the end liberty means, equality of treatment-equality of rights and duties, equality
before law and equal protection of law, absence of all the forms of exploitation—based on
gender, class, caste, religion, race etc.
The term equality has many dimensions. Especially in a democratic country, the concept has
gained many entrances in many fields. There was a period when the concept was interpreted
with a narrow sense but in the contemporary era it has a wide range of horizons. In the
modern world, the concept of equality can be understood in different ways as it has been
mentioned by Lord Bryce that there are four types namely, political, economic, social, and
legal. According to Earnest Barker, it has two forms legal and social, whereas according to
Laski political and economic equality.
The demand for equality has been raised during the French Revolution and American
Revolution. There was demand for legal equality to protect and overcome other forms of
discrimination, most especially by the feudal system. It means equality before law and equal
protection of law. Law never does distinction between rich and poor and in other forms it
treats all the persons equally. Legal equality does not merely mean equal laws but also the
opportunities to get justice from the courts. In modern world, man needs both the time and
money to have justice which the poor cannot afford. In this term legal quality is fictitious in a
society where the people are not able to pay the cost of the legal system. In this term Earnest
Barker has used the term ‘equality of legal personality’ to explain the legal dimension of
equality. Legal personality means the citizen is granted certain legal rights by legal principles
under which those rights are utilized for example article 14 of Indian Constitution ‘equality
before law’ under the fundamental rights.
The legal equality represents the moral considerations and serves as the basis of equal
rights of man. Earnest Barker has mentioned in his book Principles of Social and Political
Theory, that the principle of right to equality also has the same measures. It can be granted to
others in terms that whatever rights are given to others shall also be given to me. Legal
equality was achieved after the long struggle. Till 1772, the slaves were denied any legal
82 | P a g e

rights, he was also not a person in the eye of law, and he had no share in the enjoyment of
rights. Moreover till 1918 a person in poor receipts of poor relief was similarly condemned to
an inferior degree of legal capacity by being denied the rights of voting along with and on the
same earn as others. In this view J R Lucas said “Equality before the law does not guarantee
equal treatment by the law but equal access to the law and considers only of those factors lid
down by as relevant. The legal system will decide the dispute after hearing from both the
sides, fairly, and impartiality without fear or favor”.
The issue of political equality has been raised during the 19th century by the John Locke to J
S Mill philosophy ‘natural rights and freedom of expression’ equal rights to vote or adult
franchise. According to political equality every citizen should have the equal right-right to
vote, equal rights to public services, right to contest election and no difference should be
made on the ground of race, color, class, caste, sex, religion, and language. Empirically
political equality centered around universal suffrage and representative government.
According to this, each citizen has the right to vote. It was an important step toward
establishing political equality but not the end. Right to vote granted after the political
movement and demands from any section of the society. In 20th century women won the right
to vote.
Harold J Laski feels that political equality can never be real unless it is supported by
fundamental economic equality. There were other persons too who have raised the issue like
Mosca, Pareto and Michel’s according to them every ordinary citizen have votes, have no real
access to political power because the political results in the usurpation of power by governing
elite which is oligarchical in nature. Laski has also mentioned that political equality can never
achieved unless the economic equality; political power there is based on the economic
equality. Apart from him, Karl Marx has also mentioned that no real political equality can be
achieved in a society based on capitalism. The men of property have control over legislature,
executive and the mass media. Moreover, in the contemporary world government is very
complex and real powers are in the hands of bureaucrats over which people don’t have virtual
control over them.
2.2.3 Social Equality
The term equality can also be equating with the citizens equality to access and opportunity
for the individual need and requirement irrespective of race, caste, religion, sex, race,
language, and ethnicity. There are other forms of distinction too in society in terms of
occupation, profession and law superiority or inferiority. As it has been mentioned by the
Jacobin men during 1789 as a ‘equality before the law’ which means eliminating and feudal
83 | P a g e

obligation and societal hierarchy. The question for social equality arose in during the 19th
century against the hereditary nature, slavery, capitalism, and social inequalities on the basis
of color, race, caste, sex, gender and religion. The struggle for racial equality in countries like
South Africa and racial inequalities practiced in the United States of America and the current
caste issue in India.
The issue of equality was raised during American and French revolution. These
revolutions have raised the slogans of equality between sexes, equal voting rights. In
contemporary world women have raised movements like ‘Women’s Liberation’ to fight
against subtle forms of inequality in society. Different thinkers like Mary Wollstonecraft
have mentioned in her book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman equality to both the sexes.
While the time of discussing that she has stressed on the role of education in which she has
mentioned mixed sex schools. She has argued that for women’s dignity and respect it is
essential that they have to be given equal treatment in terms of basic rights and provide the
access to earn and live their life on the basis of self-support. Apart from her, many other
feminist thinkers have mentioned about that there are no biological differences between the
sexes—the difference is created by society, and it is societal construction. Most importantly,
because of sex the individual should not be discriminated in the sphere of voting rights,
political and social participation, entry to the professions and educational opportunities, jobs
or rights to hold the highest offices in the government and industry.
The issue of social equality is linked with the principle of equality of opportunity. It is
very important to create favorable equitable atmosphere in terms of equal opportunity to all.
No one will deprive from any public places—temple, church, school, atmosphere etc.
Likewise access to the public wells, cinemas, etc. According to social equality there should
be equality of opportunity in society to all the persons vis-à-vis caste, gender, rich, poor,
religion, race, birth.
Socialist theorist foundation based on economic equality. As it has been mentioned by Laski
in his book Grammar of Politics ‘Political equality is never real unless it is accompanied by
economic equality’. It means wealth provides all kinds of opportunities to those who have it
and the poor are forced to suffer from serious disadvantages. A very poor or starving man,
having no economic opportunities, has no absolute political and social equality. Hence
economic equality is an essential condition for all the forms of equality. Economic equality
doesn’t mean equal distribution of money or wages. It seeks there should be equality
regarding the basic goods and needs of life.
In the initial phase, economic equality was considered as equality of choosing one’s
84 | P a g e

own trade and profession. It is also considered as all the people are free to choose the work
and profession without any restriction and barrier. Economic equality is also taken as a
freedom of agreement and equal income to the citizens. All these understandings of equality
are insufficient.
Economic equality represents physical and mental needs satisfactions to all the
citizens. It doesn’t mean that one rich person or economically strong person may purchase
another person. Moreover, in such a condition one person is not compelled to sell or purchase
any person. Economic equality is not only centered around the individual, but also associated
with the whole social and economic structure. Economic equality can exist only when all the
people have reasonable economic opportunities to develop themselves. Adequate possibility
of job, income, free time, trade, and other economic rights creates economic equality.
The accumulation of private property in the few hands increases inequality as it has
been witnessed during the industrial revolution. This issue has been mentioned by Marx and
Engels that due to inequal and discriminatory system the workers had done the revolt to
overcome from inequality and discrimination. W Friedman mentioned in his book Law in the
Changing Society that “Taxation is one of the most important weapons by which state can
mitigate the two objectionable aspects of unrestricted private property: first, the inequalities
of wealth and secondly, the power to use property for private profit and with regard to
community purpose”. He has said with the help of taxation on high income, gross inequalities
of the wealth will be removed and through this method the state can also pursue social
schemes. Equality prevails only in a society where do we have the following conditions.
1. All people are provided with adequate opportunities for the development of their
personalities.
2. No class or race or group is given special privileges which are denied to others.
3. Rights are equally distributed among all.
4. All have equal access to opportunities leading to equality.
2.3 DEBATE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
According to International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences “affirmative action refers to

policy measures designed to reduce the marginalization of groups that have historically
suffered from discrimination, exclusion, or worse, and that are underrepresented in a
society’s desirable positions. The measures may take the form of public laws, administrative
regulations, and court orders, or of practices by private businesses and non-profit
institutions”. The concept of equality is derived from the theory of right. Equality is a
prescriptive term not descriptive. It is trying to be claimed that all the men should be treated
85 | P a g e

as equal, but this does not mean that they are equal. All men are naturally equal as physical,
emotional, and intellectual needs of all the persons are equal hence they acquire equal rights.
It is to be noticed that we do not say that all men are equal in terms of physical, mental
capacities, beauty, and talents. Men are differing in their skin, but they are similar in color of
blood hence they should be treated equally.
The idea of equality does not represent that all the material in terms of goods and
entire national income or the educational opportunities available in the society should be
distributed on the principle of equal distribution. What is means that men who are different
from one another in their physical and mental capacities aptitudes, skill, talent and energies
should be given equal opportunities for the development of their personal qualities and
capacities. In this light term ‘Affirmative Action’ policy has taken birth which means special
and extraordinary privileges given in the different areas such as education, job, training,
appointment, health to bring the equality in the society. As it has been described in the
encyclopaedia, Affirmative Action is a kind of policy that is designed to benefit the
individuals those are discriminated, underrepresented identity groups. According to the policy
such individuals should be treated and provided more favourable access, extra advantages in
terms of employment, jobs, promotions, or admissions to educational institutions, but
sometimes resources such as financial help in terms of loans and contracts, monetary support,
or land rights.
The concept of Affirmative action evolved in United States of America after the civil
rights movement to end the long history of injustices and to establish the equality and
overcome from the model of discrimination-racism and gender. America’s President John F.
Kennedy signed Executive Order that has mentioned 'take affirmative action to ensure that
applicants are employed without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin’. By the
late 1960s, the nature and the expansion of policy spread across many government agencies
and private institutions too. They have started giving preference to African Americans in
appointment and special privileges. Thus, the term affirmative action started representing a
positive action in favor of members of discriminated, marginalized groups. It was not only
the effort to abolish all forms of discrimination but also to establish the real form of equality.
It seeks to ensure that discrimination will not be tolerated once it is detected.
Apart from the USA, affirmative action policy has been implemented in many
countries across the world like India, South Africa, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka. India was one of
the first such countries to level affirmative action policy with the different name called
‘reservation’. Reservation stands for since they involved quotas of reserved seats. Some
deprived sections like blacks, lower caste (in India) and women were deprived due to
86 | P a g e

inadequate opportunities of their development in the past, with the help of reservation. In the
process, the marginalized and discriminated people will be given extra advantage to
compensate the loss, for example an increase in the number of black doctors and lawyers in
order to fulfil the objective of equality.
India has witnessed social and civil rights movement on the issue to caste system in
India. In the early 20th century, most of the popular movements were against the hierarchical
nature of Indian caste system ‘Brahmins’. During the British colonial rule, they have reserved
some seats for non-Brahmins in some public services and educational institutions. After the
independence, the Indian constitution have also mentioned the explicit provision for
affirmative action in the form of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and state and union territory assemblies, as well as in government
sector jobs and public institutions education.
Affirmative action policies are highly controversial as it has been mentioned by John
Michael Eden and John Paul Ryan and many others that most point of time it has generated
heated debate on the question reverse discrimination, inequality on the principle of providing
equality. The policies as a kind of reverse discrimination represent the principle to establish
equal rights for all the individuals. It can be expressed and observed very clearly. As per the
Affirmative action policies individuals that are treated as privileged members and extra
weightage in the light of underrepresented social and individual groups, those who are in the
best position to take support and help to improv access to desirable positions and resources.
In this light of this, it is very clear that affirmative action does not compensate those
individuals most disadvantaged by past injustices, nor does it redistribute effectively from
rich to poor. The policy has been questioned at the front of that it is trying to establish literal
equality by affirmative action or reservation would be tragic because it would erode the
respect of excellence and ability which is the base of social, moral, and intellectual
development.
2.4 CONCLUSION
The idea of equality is the defining feature of the modern era. The modern battle of equality
has different views about where and how equality should be applied. Especially in the light of
establish the democratic model and system. The philosophical principle of formal equality, if
political and legal principle, is widely accepted especially in the liberal democratic societies.
Genuine legal and political equality demands people should have access to equal social
resources.
87 | P a g e

1. What is meant by equality of opportunity? Do you think this is an achievable

benefit? Give reasons to support your answer.
2. What do you understand by formal equality? What do you think are the limits to the
concept and practice of formal equality?
3. Analyze the differences between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
4. Write a short essay on affirmative action.
2.6 REFERENCES
• Darity, William (2008), International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (2nd

Edition), Macmillan References USA: New York
• Dworkin, R (1997) Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworh.
• Earnest, Barker (1951), Principles of Social and Political Theory, Oxford University
Press: Oxford
• Laski, Harold Joseph (1925), A Grammar of Politics, Yale University: New Haven.
• Rawls, John (1972), A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
• Rhode, Deborah L. (1992), Beyond Equality and Difference: Citizenship, Feminist
Politics, and Female Subjectivity, Routledge: New York
• Sartori, Giovanni (1962), Democratic Theory, Wayne State University Press: Detroit.
• Sen, Amartya (1992), Inequality Re-examined, Clarendon Press: Oxford.
88 | P a g e

Unit-III
JUSTICE: PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE, RAWLS AND
HIS CRITICS
Md. Saalim Farooq Bhat
STRUCTURE

1.2 Introduction: What is Justice?
1.2.1 Procedural Justice
1.2.2 Substantive Justice
1.3 Contemporary Theories of Justice: Rawls’ Justice as Fairness
1.4 Limitations to the Rawls Theory of Justice
1.5 Communitarian Critique to Rawls
1.6 Feminist Critique to Rawls
1.7 Debating the Scope of Justice: National vs Global.
1.8 Summary and Conclusion
1.10 References
After reading this unit you will be able to:

• Understand the meaning and concept of justice.
• Learn the diverse dimensions of justice.
• Understand procedural and substantive justice.
• Will understand John Rawls view on justice.
• Understand various issues and views of global justice.
1.2 INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS JUSTICE?
Political philosophy has valued justice at its core for more than 2000 years. Political
philosophers have characterized the “good society” as a “just” society throughout history. In
89 | P a g e

Plato's Republic, one of the oldest descriptions of justice may be found. In his work, Plato
attempts to define the “real nature of justice” before creating a perfect society that would
embody his conception of justice. One of the four pillars of virtue according to Plato, along
with temperance, wisdom, and courage, was justice. The epitome of justice would be creation
of a place where each person lives according to his or her inherent worth, with some men
being philosophical and intellectual and others being good craftsmen or artisans, etc.
Everyone would faithfully carry out their duties in a just society. Aristotle defined justice as
assimilating aspects concerning equality, proportionality, and the maintenance of social
equilibrium. Thus, he represents a departure from the notion of hierarchy that underpinned
the Platonic concept of justice.
Following Greek philosophy's concern for justice, there was a general lull on this
subject. The thoughts on justice were governed by either divinity or God, the ideal of natural
justice, or traditions and conventions. New methods of thinking about justice evolved with
the growing secularization of society in Europe, owing to several events spanning from the
Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution. Justice came to be firmly embedded within the
secular framework of the contemporary nation-state. What it meant and how it would be
maintained elicited a variety of responses, but it was apparent that justice was no longer
viewed as a religious value or as dependent on old social customs.
Regarding what justice entails, there has been much less consensus. Justice is used so
loosely in ordinary speech that it is interpreted to signify “fairness,” “rightness,” or simply
“what is ethically correct.” Justice is unquestionably a moral or normative concept: what is
“just” is unquestionably morally “good,” and what is “unjust” is condemned as morally
“bad.” But the word “justice” does not just mean “moral.” Instead, it refers to a specific
moral assessment, particularly one on how rewards and penalties are distributed. Simply said,
justice is about paying each person what they are “owed.” However, defining what that “due”
might be is even more challenging. Perhaps the best illustration of an “essentially
contentious” idea is justice. There is no single, agreed-upon definition of justice; rather, there
are several competing concepts.
Furthermore, even though justice is a distributive concept, it is not entirely apparent
what it seeks to distribute. What rewards and punishments are covered under the idea of
justice? The distribution of nearly anything, including wealth, income, leisure, freedom,
friendship, romantic love, and other things, could be a matter of justice. Any of these “goods”
could be distributed according to the principles of justice, but there is no reason why every
instance of distribution should be regarded as just. For instance, even individuals who support
the equal distribution of monetary wealth may find the idea of an equal distribution of
90 | P a g e

romantic love to be rather odd, if not outright unfair. In that sense, it is very difficult to
establish a universally applicable set of rules for justice. Different principles may therefore be
applicable in various contexts, as Walzer had suggested. For example, in the 20th century the
distribution of money, rewards and social life in general came to dominate the discussions
about justice. This is what is commonly referred to as “social justice.” However, on the other
hand, the concept of “legal justice” is used to discuss justice most often in relation to the law.
Legal justice is concerned with how the law allots punishment for crimes or compensation in
the event of harm or damage. Justice in this sense obviously entails the formulation and
application of a public set of laws, but for these laws to be “just,” they must also possess a
moral foundation.
It should be clear that even after many centuries; questions revolving justice are
contentious and remain to be relevant for further examination even today. In what follows,
we will be examining the concepts and debates revolving justice and its importance for
politics in general and political theory.
1.2.1 Procedural Justice
Procedural or “formal” justice refers to the process by which decisions or results are reached
rather than the nature and substance of the decisions themselves. Some people, for instance,
contend that legal justice is more interested in the process than the results of the law, such as
judgements, verdicts, penalties, and so forth. Without a doubt, there are times when justice is
solely a procedural concern; following specific procedural standards ensures a fair and
acceptable result. Many of these procedural principles are not just applicable to the legal
system but also to other spheres of life, from formal discussion in committees or chambers of
the legislature to casual conversations among friends or family. It is sometimes argued that
these laws represent a broadly shared and maybe intrinsic understanding of what is right or
acceptable. This may be observed, for instance, in the pervasive notion that it is just for all
parties to have the chance to voice their opinions during dispute and discussion, or when
choices are made those who will be impacted by them should be informed beforehand.
Because many people believe that the fairness of such standards is self-evident, there is
frequently wide consensus over what constitutes the procedurally just implementation of the
law. Thus, the idea of formal equality forms the core of procedural justice. It is important that
everyone is treated equally under the law regardless of their gender, color, religion, or social
background. This calls for the law to be implemented fairly, which can only be done if judges
are completely neutral and independent.
The theories of procedural justice tend to have an individualistic appeal. These
theories do not distinguish between distribution and production. This indicates that each
91 | P a g e

person is an independent being with unique rights that are not based on any overarching
distributional concept that considers the needs of the entire society. This suggests that the
government has no right to meddle with a person's right to certain entitlements; in fact, doing
so would be incredibly unfair. These beliefs, which are heavily influenced by individualism,
reject the idea that societies have any “goals” or objectives that must be pursued collectively.
This is a highly appealing concept that gives the person a great deal of power, autonomy, and
control over his or her life. The person is also entirely accountable for any triumphs or
failures that may occur. Yet, if we give this concept some thought, we could feel a little
uneasy since it might suggest, for example, that laborers working in a factory are solely
responsible for the condition of their life and the difficulties they might be facing, or that they
needed to put in more effort.
Usually, procedural conception of justice is founded on a tight relationship with how
the market economy functions. Without government intervention, it is thought that the market
will allocate resources in the best and most effective way possible. Any attempt to interfere
would be unfair and harmful for everyone. Also, any assistance would have to be based on
some established standards of impoverishment or need. Procedural theorists contend that this
is impossible since there can never be a broad consensus over what defines necessities or
what makes a just desert in a free society. They might even acknowledge that the government
must step in to aid people who cannot compete in the market, but they would not believe that
this has anything to do with justice despite their concern for individuals who cannot succeed
in the market.
The procedural theory of justice is best exemplified by Robert Nozick's explanation of
it in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Individual property holdings, according to Nozick,
are just if they result from a fair purchase or even transfer. This implies that neither force nor
fraud should have been employed to acquire the property. Nozick permits correction in cases
when unjust methods were used to acquire property. Nozick would not permit a redistribution
of this property if, in these conditions, certain people were able to acquire and amass
enormous sums of property without resorting to coercion or fraud. Nozick assures that the
state would only have a very limited role to play in redistribution by making this kind of
argument. So, according to Nozick, individual liberty is preserved. Nozick seeks to protect
individual autonomy by restricting the role of the state. According to him, doing so would
encourage people to take initiative and apply reason effectively, which would assist in
fostering the conditions necessary for the protection of individual liberty. As a result,
Nozick's theory of justice is an adamant and compelling defense of individual liberty.
92 | P a g e

1.2.2 Substantive Justice

However impartial and carefully they are administered, procedural rules cannot fully satisfy
the standards of justice. For instance, during a legal proceeding, injustice may result not from
the application of the law in an unfair manner, but rather from the law itself. That simply
because laws are implemented by fair and impartial courts does not make them “just,” as in
the case of laws that exclude women from voting or that forbid members of certain ethnic
groups from owning property. A concept of substantive or “concrete” justice must, thus, be
considered when evaluating the content of the law.
The rules of procedural justice are generally accepted; however, this cannot be true of
the principles of substantive justice. Justice has long been associated with the notion that the
rule of law should treat individuals fairly, or, in the words of the Roman Emperor Justinian,
justice means “giving each man his due.” But what would fairness or due mean differ across
the competing ideas and theories of justice. For instance, in case of capital punishments
rehabilitative theories reject the death penalty under any circumstances, viewing it as little
more than a sort of legalized murder; supporters of retribution may contend that in principle
justice requires that the murderer's life be forfeited in punishment for his crime; supporters of
deterrence may embrace the death penalty but only when empirical evidence indicates that it
will reduce the number of murders; and supporters of deterrence may also favor the death
penalty. Because these perspectives are founded on fundamentally distinct moral foundations,
no amount of discussion or analysis is likely to make any of them change. The goal of
distributing material rewards shares a similar pattern of disagreement. Some contend that
social justice necessitates a high degree of financial equality because wealth should be
dispersed in accordance with individual needs, but others are content to accept a high degree
of material inequality if it is based on the different talents of the parties involved.
The concept of substantive justice is arbitrary; at its core, it is a matter of opinion, like
all normative principles. As a result, perceptions of justice differ from person to person, from
group to group, from society to society, and from era to era. Due to ethical and cultural
diversity, it is hard to create acceptable standards for differentiating between just and unfair
laws or to make any conclusive judgments on the moral content of the law. In this way, the
concept of justice is a relative one. It might not apply to society as a whole and only have
meaning for certain people or groups.
Nevertheless, the moral and cultural norms of the society in which the law is made
have a significant impact on whether that legislation is thought to be just. For instance, the
beliefs that are present in that culture will have a significant impact on whether the rules
regarding abortion or drugs are seen as just. Where laws are deemed unfair, societal order
93 | P a g e

may suffer long-term repercussions. The British government's decision to put a tax on tea
imported into the American colonies in the eighteenth century served as the impetus for the
American War of Independence. Due to their lack of representation in the British Parliament
and consequent lack of control over taxation, the American colonists viewed this as unfair.
More recently, in the 1990s, there was social upheaval due to the imposition of the
community charge, also known as the “Poll Tax,” which imposed a flat rate local authority
tax on every adult, regardless of income.
Conclusively, for most of the philosophers the justice of the outcomes that a
procedure tends to create when it is used, greatly influences how just that procedure is. For
instance, the processes that make up a fair trial are justified on the basis that, for the most
part, they result in decisions that result in the guilty receiving punishment and the innocent
receiving an acquittal.
1.3 CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF JUSTICE: RAWLS’

JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
In his well-known book Theory of Justice, John Rawls offers a powerful defense of the
concept of justice based on the fundamental principles of procedural theory, i.e., justice
necessitates strict adherence to rules. However, Rawls' theory is careful to address the most
frequent argument aimed specifically against procedural theory—that unjust situations could
be produced despite strict adherence to the norms. To prevent this, Rawls contends that under
controlled circumstances, rational individuals would opt for principles that uphold ideas
congruent with the central notion of distributive justice.
According to Rawls, justice only holds true when every deviation from equality can
be rationally justified. In contrast to Nozick's entitlement theory, where the concept of
equality is conspicuously absent, Rawls' theory of justice is founded on the requirement for
equality. To illustrate his argument, Rawls places people outside of their social and economic
settings behind a “veil of ignorance.” The people concealed beneath this curtain have no idea
who they are or what their requirements, wants, or other needs are. He does this as people
tend to secure their selfish interests given the fact that they know what they need or require.
Imagine a group of individuals who are unsure about their ethnicity, such as Kuki or Naga,
Muslims or Hindus, Dalits, or Brahmins, etc. A group like this won't understand which way
the social fault lines that lead to discrimination flow. To chisel out the principles of justice
Rawls imagined this hypothetical arrangement termed by him as Original Position. People
present in such a situation would possess a basic understanding of psychology, economics,
and what Rawls refers to as a “feeling of justice.” They would be self-interested but not
94 | P a g e

egoistic, according to Rawls. They wouldn't have a specific idea of what the happy life looks
like, but instead would be engaged in increasing their primary good—liberty, opportunity,
income, wealth, and self-respect—instead of being influenced by others' positions since they
wouldn't have any room for jealousy. After the curtain was lifted, Rawls anticipated that
people will be free to pursue any vision of the good they may have.
Moreover, he assumes that these fictitious individuals would be prudent risk takers
who, when faced with an unclear circumstance, would undoubtedly choose the option that
would result in the least negative consequences. Since they believe that when the curtain is
lifted, they would be the ones in the worst situation, they would adopt the principles that
would enhance that position. Such individuals, according to Rawls, would decide to uphold
the following justice principles:
1. Every individual shall have an equal right to the broadest liberty consistent with a
similar liberty for other individuals.
2. Social and economic disparities must be set up such that they both: a) are most
advantageous to the underprivileged; and b) are associated with offices and positions
that are available to everyone under circumstances of fair equality and opportunity.
Rawls arranges these principles in a precise sequence that is subject to the priority rule. The
first principle must always come first, and 2a) must come before 2b). As a result, there is no
chance of individual liberty being sacrificed for the sake of others' liberty. It also assures that
any deviation from the concept of equality benefits the least advantaged the most; in other
words, disparities should be structured in such a way that they benefit the poorest.
In the Indian context, Rawls' fervent dedication to equality and stress that any
deviation from this principle can only be justified in the sake of justice is a well-known
concept. The strong heritage of democratic politics, which had its origins in the national
movement, realized that dedication to the values of equality, liberty, and fraternity in the face
of profound and deep-rooted socioeconomic inequality required some inventive and creative
political thought. The recommendations and policies drafted in our constitution are
considered as essential extensions of the commitment to equality, in which every member is
seen as having equal stakes in the Indian society's common resources. That is why
Ambedkar, the chairman of drafting committee, had argued that members of the Dalit and
backward classes who had long been denied their rights, an independent India committed to
equality and freedom could not afford to disregard the demands made by this group of
individuals.
95 | P a g e

1.4 LIMITATIONS TO THE RAWLS THEORY OF JUSTICE
Rawls acknowledges that, despite equal opportunity and education, inequalities will persist
due to the structure of the family. To demonstrate this argument, Rawls compares the son of a
member of the entrepreneurial elite to the son of an unskilled laborer. He contends that these
disparities lead to divergent expectations, which in turn encourage the economy to operate
more efficiently and produce more material riches for the benefit of everybody, including the
least advantaged. So, Rawls would contend that attempting to eliminate such disparities
would not yield much benefit. Given Rawls' original commitment to the notion of equality,
C.B. Macpherson (1973) considers such a defense of inequality to be incoherent. As
per income and wealth, class distinctions are inevitable, and Rawls recognizes this.
According to Macpherson then, such disparities would have a negative impact on individual
liberty by in turn leading to power disparities in a society.
According to Macpherson, Rawls presents a justification for liberal ideals and beliefs
rather than a universal theory of justice. Rawls acknowledges that his theory is predicated on
the presence of a certain type of free and equal person who lives in a diverse society without
a consensus over the social institutions and goals that they should be working towards. He
contends that his explanation would promote social harmony and stability in such a society.
Consequently, in Macpherson's view, Rawls' theory is culture-specific and only fit for liberal-
democratic societies with a welfare orientation rather than being a universal explanation of
justice applicable to all rational human beings. Also, Rawlsian definition of the individual is
thus far from being a purely abstract one; the rational, self-interested, individualistic, and
autonomous individual is too like the liberal idea of the individual to be applicable to all
situations.
1.5 COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE TO RAWLS
The concept that individuals in the “original position” select a set of principles that serve as
the cornerstone of purportedly universal ideas of justice is the major focus of the
communitarian critique of Rawls. Individuals may only be classified as members of pre-
existing social institutions, according to communitarians. Hence, whatever beliefs men and
women may hold, they are products of the culture and community to which they belong.
They will thus undoubtedly draw conclusions about the distributive criterion from their
contextual circumstances. For instance, many societies had the belief that the priestly class
and the temple god each received a portion of the agricultural produce. This would be
unacceptable to us in the current situation, but it was certainly acceptable to individuals who
96 | P a g e

lived in a different era and environment. Communitarians, therefore, argue that meanings
associated with social and material goods is dependent on the existence of a community, from
which no individual can be arbitrarily abstracted.
Communitarians disagree with the notion that people can make decisions when they
are removed from their social, economic, and cultural circumstances. They contend that such
a “stripped-down” person won't be able to make decisions. The question of how individuals'
decisions can ever be significant in a true social context is raised by communitarians since the
Rawlsian veil of ignorance prevents people from experiencing real social context. According
to communitarians, people are shaped by their communitarian environments, and their moral
standards influence the decisions they make. They believe that this idea of the good is
produced and maintained by what the community—to which the person belongs—perceives
to be the “good,” rather than because of individual reason and resolve.
In his book Spheres of Justice, Michael Walzer advances the communitarian argument
against John Rawls. Walzer's main argument is that no system of justice can be judged to be
intrinsically just or unjust; rather, assessments can only be made considering the social
connotations linked to the items in question. The caste-based society Walzer uses as an
example is one in which birth determines both purity and defilement. So, access to many
resources, such as water, land, and education, is determined by birth. According to Walzer,
justice would consist of adhering to those meanings and respecting the distributional principle
that results from the caste system if all members of the community share those meanings. So,
it is impossible to decide how to distribute things without first comprehending their precise
meanings, which are socially created and ingrained in the community's practices and
institutions rather than in people's individual actions and beliefs. As a result, according to
Walzer, the commodities that require distribution are social goods since they get their
significance and values from social interaction. As a result, justice can only be defined in the
context of a community and not in terms of impersonal, universal ideals.
1.6 FEMINIST CRITIQUE TO RAWLS
As you know, in her book Justice, Gender, and the Family, Susan Moller Okin draws
attention to how few large-scale, philosophical texts on justice take the functioning of
families into account when discussing justice. This is also true of Rawls. The family is seen
as “private,” and the concept of justice has an impact on the “public” domain. This
presumption ignores the fact that the 'public' world of laws, institutions, and concepts of
justice that it is comprised of greatly influences the family and how it functions. Consider the
numerous laws that control human family dynamics, including those pertaining to property,
97 | P a g e

inheritance, divorce, and adoption. So, the “public” directly affects the “private.” People's
participation in family life both shapes and is shaped by their lives in the “public.” For
instance, the unequal distribution of labor within the family places barriers in the way of
women's success outside of the home, and these disparities are frequently maintained by
social customs.
Any conception of justice, according to Okin, that ignores the disparities that exist
within families is lacking. Young people may scarcely be expected to develop a sense of
justice if they grow up in households where injustice is normalized and accepted, disguising
itself as either nature or virtues like “nobility,” “sacrifice,” and “patience.” This omission also
belongs to Rawls. Only the heads of households-assumed to be men-gather and concur to
adopt the ideas of fairness in Rawls' plan. According to Rawls, the family is the fundamental
unit of society for which the justice principles are being decided. Yet, he believes it is
unnecessary to consider the injustices within the family.
For certain feminists, the ideal of a self-interested, independent, logical, and
individualistic person leaves little room for values and behaviors like nurturing, caring,
cooperation, and empathy, which are often associated with feminine characteristics. They
contend that Rawls' original perspective does not adequately represent feminine
characteristics. Another set of feminist arguments claim that Rawls' focus on impersonality,
reason, and universality is founded on male standards of moral reasoning; women's style of
moral reasoning is different since it results from considering everyone’s unique needs.
1.7 DEBATING THE SCOPE OF JUSTICE: NATIONAL VS

GLOBAL
What might the appearance of a just world be like? Different theorists support various models
of global justice, which may include different elements that are not necessarily mutually
exclusive. For example, some theorists support the idea that everyone should be able to enjoy
the prospects for a respectable life, the universal promotion of human rights, global equality
of opportunity, a more equitable distribution of resources globally, etc. The best way to
achieve these desired components, the rules that should govern our relationships on a global
scale, and how to handle our global affairs better are all topics of debate in contemporary
political theory.
The Laws of Peoples by John Rawls (1999), as well as the cosmopolitan viewpoint,
have had a significant impact on contemporary theorizing on these subjects. Cosmopolitans
hold that all people are created equal, and that the presence of national boundaries does not
98 | P a g e

significantly weaken the strength of our moral obligations to others, in apparent contrast to
nationalists who believe that we have stronger obligations to our own countrymen than to
foreigners. What our responsibilities are to others is a topic of intense controversy among
modern cosmopolitans, but there is broad agreement that Rawls' explanation of these
obligations in a global context is flawed.
John Rawls makes a case for eight principles that, in his opinion, ought to govern
cross-border relations between peoples. According to Rawls, a “people” is made up of a
collection of individuals who share sufficient traits, such as culture, history, custom, or
feeling. In ways that are pertinently like how many people use the term “nation,” Rawls uses
the phrase “peoples.” Moreover, Rawls frequently assumes that each ‘peoples’ has a state for
the most part. The eight principles that Rawls supports include acknowledging peoples'
independence and equality, the right to self-determination alongside duties of non-
intervention, the need to uphold treaties, respect a specific set of human rights, behave
appropriately in times of war, and the obligation to help other people’s establish institutions
that allow for people's self-determination. Moreover, he is an advocate of international
organizations that would oversee trade, borrowing, and other issues that are often handled by
the United Nations. According to Rawls, any global disparity that may still exist is not
morally disturbing as long as all peoples have a set of institutions that allow their inhabitants
to live respectable lives. Opponents like Thomas Pogge (2008) point to the ways in which
global inequality—possibly in terms of power or wealth-can create chances for suffering and
disadvantage. For instance, the globally privileged might exert influence on the norms
of international institutions, such as trade practices, which can open new prospects for further
advantage and, as a result, pose a danger to others' ability to live decently in other places.
Different perspectives on the origins and consequences of wealth are significant
topics that drive the discussion between Rawls and his critics. What Rawls believes to be the
source of wealth is stated in a very forceful manner. He contends that domestic political
culture, the virtues and vices of leaders, and the quality of domestic institutions are the root
reasons of a people's/nation’s prosperity. Opponents point out that in addition to local
influences, there are also global ones that have a significant impact on possibilities of well-
being. Several of these are prominently brought to light by Thomas Pogge. The International
Borrowing and Resource Privileges are two instances of how international institutions may
have a significant impact on local issues that unquestionably also contribute to economic
growth. Governments may borrow money on behalf of their nation under the international
borrowing privilege, but their nation is then responsible for repaying the loan. The
international resource privilege refers to a government's discretion over its use of resources,
including the right to sell them for whatever price it sees fit. These rights are very
99 | P a g e

advantageous to the global privileged, who have little reason to change them. Pogge,
however, thinks that improvements are urgently required. One significant barrier that now
stands in the way of developing nations' access to these benefits would be removed by the
international community if only sufficiently legitimate governments are permitted to take
advantage of them.
1.8 CONCLUSION
Yet, we have learned that, depending on the real-world situation in which it is being
implemented, justice can take a variety of distinct shapes. Even while we noticed certain
common threads in this variety of uses, which are best encapsulated in Justinian's maxim of
“giving each man his due”, they were formal rather than substantive. In these circumstances,
it is only reasonable to search for a broad framework that can accommodate all of the
numerous contextually relevant notions of justice. By examining the liberal viewpoint on
justice and the changes within it as envisioned by individuals like John Rawls, we looked at
these frameworks. We came to MacPherson's writings by taking a critical look at Rawls'
attempts to alter the fundamental liberal beliefs. Next was the discussion of the
Communitarian and Feminist critique of Rawls, where we learned that how Rawls fails to
take into cognizance the underlying social meanings of public goods and questions pertaining
to women respectively. The consensus that has emerged from the topic of justice is that there
cannot be a single, accepted definition of justice by all people. Our perception of justice
would be greatly influenced by how we see the world around us, how we feel it is organised,
and how we would like to change it. As a result, it is a political idea that solely has political
implications.
1. What do you mean by justice? Discuss various dimensions of justice in contemporary

time.
2. Explain the concept of the justice described by John Rawls.
3. Differentiate between procedural and substantive justice.
1.10 REFERENCES
• Brock, G. (2008) ‘Global Justice’, in McKinnon, C. (ed), Issues in Political Theory,

New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 289-312
100 | P a g e

• Menon, K. (2008) ‘Justice’, in Bhargava, R. Acharya, A. (eds), Political Theory: An

Introduction. New Delhi: Pearson Longman, pp. 74-86
• Andrew, H. (2004). Political Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Miller, D., (2021) “Justice”, The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/justice/>.
• Brock, G. (2022) “Global Justice”, The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL:
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/justice-global/>.
101 | P a g e

Unit-IV: Rights
RIGHTS: NATURAL, MORAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS
AND OBLIGATIONS
Manish Kumar
STRUCTURE

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Nature of Rights
1.31 Negative and Positive Rights
1.3.2 Justification of Rights
1.4 Theories of Rights
1.5 Theory of Natural Rights
1.5.1 Critics of Natural Rights
1.6 Theory of Legal Right
1.6.1 Criticism of Legal Right
1.6.2 Theory of Moral Rights
1.6.3 Rights and Duties
1.6.4 Debate: Human Rights - Universalism or Cultural Relativism
1.6.5 Human Rights are Universal
1.6.5.1 Human Right and the Problem of Cultural Relativism
1.7 Conclusion
1.9 References
After reading this unit you will be able to:

• Understand the meaning and concept of Rights.
• Learn the nature of rights and negative-positive rights.
102 | P a g e

• Understand the meaning of legal rights.

• Also, able to understand human rights and the problem of cultural relativism.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
Rights are commonly known as social claims that help a person prove their best development,
etc. and help them to develop their personal identities. The state never confers rights, it only
recognizes them, governments never confer rights, it only gives them protection. Rights arise
from society, from specific social conditions, and that is why rights are always social. Rights
means the rights of individuals, they only belong to individuals, they exist only for
individuals, they are treated by them so that they can fully develop their personal identities.
When we talk of the interrelation of the individual and the state, then two things emerge:
first, what should the person get from the state - it is his right - second, what should the
person do for the state – these are duties. In short, rights are the favorable conditions and
opportunities a person receives under the state which helps him in self-development.
According to Harald J. Laski, "rights are the conditions of social life without which one
cannot normally hope for complete self-development."
According to Ernest Barker, "Rights are the result of the social system of justice upon
which the state and its laws are based." In fact, the right is the proof that the person's dignity
is not accepted in the state, in which any rights of the individual Are not exist. Nevertheless,
certain classes in a state could be denied rights. For example, in the ancient Greek city states,
only freemen had civil rights, and there were no rights for slaves, women, and foreigners.
Clearly, such a system of rights is not based on a sense of justice. Apart from providing
opportunities for full development of personality to the people, the authority also sets some
important limits on the activities of the state. The Declaration of Independence made by the
founders of the United States, stating that certain rights are non-transferable and the French
Declaration of the Rights of Citizens and Men, are two effective political documents of the
modern era. These documents accept the concept of rights as one such central concept. On
the basis of which political organizations are built. It has been generally accepted that matters
related to rights play a central role in the political life of a society. Historically, it is clear that
the increasing interest in rights is not limited only to the 17th and 18th centuries but also to
the human rights in the 19th century there is a revival of growing interest in the concept.
Since 1960, the Civil Rights Movement adopted rights as a major pillar for the reconstruction
of society. In recent contemporary debate issues related to women and disadvantaged
minorities have come to the central stage. Even in our time, the question of the right to death
by will of our own is hotly discussed. Similarly, in the present sexual minorities - L.G.B.T.
103 | P a g e

The issue of community rights has added a new dimension to the rights of minorities. Today
on the central stage of the discussion of rights, there are discussions related to human rights.
The discussion concerning rights has become so fascinating in present society that the
language of rights has become the most powerful language for moral change, not only in the
present but also in the near future. In this unit, we will try to understand the various concepts
of rights, under which special importance will be given to natural, moral, and legal rights, as
well as to highlight the relationship of rights and obligations in this unit. This unit also
incorporates the concept of human rights, which remains a subject of debate in the
contemporary world. The Comprehensive Declaration of Human Rights of the United
Nations in 1948 'propounded a new notion of human rights which was virtually a product of
Western countries, but which has gradually spread to the countries of Asia and Africa and
contemporary political discussion it remains a controversial subject.
1.3 NATURE OF RIGHTS
The relationship between the individuals and the states has been an important question of
political theory, one that has baffled, if not confused, political philosophers for ages. Political
philosophers have debated as to who, whether the state or the individual, is more important
and who owes what to whom. Rights are the sum of those opportunities which ensure
enrichment of human personality. They are the basic conditions of good life which are
recognized by the state. According to Laski, ‘Rights, in fact, are those conditions of social
life without which no man can seek, in general, to be his best’. According to Salmond, ‘a
legal right ins an interest recognized and protected by the rule of law an interest to violation
of which would be a legal wrong and respect for which is a legal duty.’ Bosanquet defines it
as ‘a claim recognized by society and enforced by the state.’(Homosexuality). According to
Barker, the development of the capacities of the personality of the individual is the ultimate
purpose of the state and the final political value. The law of the state is right and possesses
the quality of rightness or justice by virtue of securing and guaranteeing to the greatest
possible number of persons, the external conditions necessary for the greatest possible
development of the capacities of the individual personality. These secured and guaranteed
conditions are called by the name rights '.
Based on above definitions, we can draw certain general conclusions regarding the
nature of rights.
Firstly, rights in their nature are the result and embodiment of the general system of
rights on which the state and its laws are based. Rights are a portion of right. Hence one
cannot have the rights apart from the notion of right. One cannot have secured and guaranteed
104 | P a g e

rights in the legal sense of the term apart from the law which is based upon the notion of
rights. In short, the rights are the demands of the individual from society which are secured
by law and they are the conditions of the development of personality.
Secondly, regarding the sources of rights, the origin of rights is something in the
individual himself. Rights flow from the inherent fact of an individual’s own moral
personality and his social nature. In this sense, we can say that rights are natural or human.
One cannot possess the rights unless they are secured and enforced by the state. In this sense
rights have a source outside man, and the rights now flow from something more than one's
personal nature. That is to say, the state is the immediate source of rights. Thus, rights are
derived from two sources (I) from the individual personality and the quality of being a
condition of its development, and (II) the state and its laws, and the quality of being secured
and guaranteed by the action of law.
Thirdly, the concept of rights is essentially about human relationships in the society.
Hence enjoyment of rights involves respectful observation of certain fundamental cannons of
social welfare. The rights are never absolute and unlimited and are governed by society’s
interest. They impose co moral responsibilities on every individual. While enjoying rights,
man must be aware of the similar rights of others. Rights are given equally to all individuals
in society. Whereas privileges and prerogatives are limited to a particular group, class or
section of society, rights are given to all irrespective of birth, caste, creed, economic status,
religion etc.
Fourthly, with the socio-economic development, new demands of individuals
continue to come into existence which struggle for social recognition. Such demands, when
recognized by the state through its laws become rights.
And lastly while the rights are claimed universally, a great majority of rights are
limited in time and space because they have a reality only in the context of a particular
human society. For example, the rights possessed by the Indian people after independence did
not exist before and may not be the same in the 21st century. Also, the content of a particular
right-say right to property-may differ from country to country.
1.3.1 Negative and Positive Rights
The concept of rights is a dynamic concept. With the development of social consciousness,
rights are subjected to continual review and redefinition. It is interesting to note that rights are
always demanded and even granted as the ‘rights of man.’ But their beneficiaries are usually
those classes which articulate this demand because they formulate the demands of rights in a
manner best suited and calculated to serve their own interests. However, with the spread of
105 | P a g e

modern consciousness, the concept of rights has been modified in two important directions. It
is now admitted that: (a ) the advantages of rights should not be confined to a tiny class which
is placed in a privileged position by virtue of its money and manipulative power; and that (b)
rights should not be confined to delimiting the sphere of state activity and authority, but
should also prescribe the functions and responsibility of the state so as to make them
beneficial to the bulk of society. This trend indicates a shift of focus from negative to positive
rights. Negative rights suggest the sphere where the state is not allowed to enter. They
suggest the sphere of freedom of individual which shall not be encroached by the state.
Positive rights, on the other hand, prescribe the responsibility of the state in securing the
rights of individuals. They require the state to take positive measures for the protection of the
weaker and vulnerable sections or those placed in a vulnerable position. In fact, the negative
and positive rights should be treated as parts of a continuum, not as distinct entities.
Broadly speaking, negative rights indicate as to which acts of the individual shall not
be restricted by the state. Thus, 'freedom of thought and expression ' implies that the state
shall not impose any restriction on individual's thought and expression. So, it comes in the
category of negative rights. But if we say that the state shall provide universal education to
promote its citizens' faculty of thought and expression, it will be described as their positive
right. In short, positive rights indicate the responsibility of the state to improve the life of its
citizens and to help them in their self-development. For example, the right to medical care,
right to work, right to legal aid, etc. also qualify as positive rights. A capitalist state gives
precedence to negative rights while a socialist gives precedence to positive rights. A welfare
state aims at combining negative rights with positive rights as far as feasible.
1.3.2 Justification of Rights
There are two major contemporary philosophical approaches to explain why rights should be
respected. These two approaches are broadly known as Deontological or the status-based
rights and Consequentiality or the instrumental rights.
Status - theories hold that human beings have attributes that make respect for these
rights appropriate. On the other hand, Instrumental theories hold that respect for rights is a
means for bringing about some optimal distribution of interests. Status - theories belong to
the tradition of natural rights theories. All natural rights theories agree that there are certain
features that humans have by their nature, and which make respect for certain rights justified.
The theories, however, differ over precisely which attributes of humans give rise to rights,
i.e., whether it is rationality, free will, autonomy, or the ability to regulate one's life in
accordance with one's chosen conception of the good life. Natural rights theorists agree that
human reason can grasp the fact that it is appropriate to treat human beings with such
106 | P a g e

attributes in certain ways, although they disagree on whether such facts are "self-evident."
Natural rights theory reached its high point in the early modern era, in the works of Grotius,
Hobbes and especially Locke. On the other hand, the Instrumental theories depict rights as
instruments for achieving an optimal distribution of interests. For example, Rawls theory may
define the optimal distribution as a fair one: i.e., the distribution that would be chosen from
the perspective of an original position. Other contemporary normative theorists such as
Ronald Dworkin, and Amartya Sen. have set out systems that give a central role to
instrumental rights. Overall, the two approaches differ sharply over the role of consequences
in the justification of rights. Status theorists hold that rights should be respected because it is
fitting to do so, and not because of the good consequences that will flow from doing so. For
them right is not means for the promotion of good consequences. They are rather, in Nozick's
phrase, side constraints on the pursuit of good consequences. The status theory does not allow
any rights violation even for the sake of maximizing the non-violation of rights overall. By
contrast, within an instrumental theory, good consequences are the justification for
promulgating and enforcing rights.
1.4 THEORIES OF RIGHTS
There are numerous theories of rights which explain the nature, origin and meaning of rights.
The theory of natural rights describes rights as nature; the idealistic theory, like the theory of
legal rights, relates rights only with the state; the theory of legal rights recognizes rights as
legal; the historical theory of rights pronounces rights as products of traditions and customs;
the social welfare theory of rights regards rights as social to be exercised in the interest of
both the individual and the society.
The concept of rights emerged with the rise of the modern state and out of the
criticism of the old social and political order. Its tone was radical and in its ultimate
employment was revolutionizing. Historically, the demand for individual rights was made by
the rising commercial/middle class which was the product of industrial revolution. It became
an accepted ideology of the American and French revolutions and was expressed in the
Declaration of independence and the constitutional Bill of Rights in America and
Declaration of the Rights of Man in France. Prominent liberal writers such as Locke,
Rousseau, Bentham, J.S. Mill, T. H. Green and Harold Laski, Earnest Barker and a host of
others have advocated the rights of individuals on one ground or the other. In the post - war
period, the concept of rights has been further expanded by John Rawls, Robert Nozick,
Ronald Dwrokin and many others.
107 | P a g e

1.5 THEORY OF NATURAL RIGHTS
The principle of natural rights is first and foremost among the various theories related to the
rights. John Locke, in his article Second Treaties on Civil Government, published in 1690,
gave the most effective statement on natural rights. But before that the theory of natural
rights had been presented by Thomas Hobbes. His ideas related to natural rights can be
understood by her concept called 'natural state'. It refers to the state of human life in the
absence of a systematic political institution and government - in other words, the natural state
of a human being against artificial conditions under a government. According to Hobbes, the
natural right he called 'Jas naturalis'.
The natural rights theory propounded by Locke other liberal thinker, declared that all
men are born with certain inherent right. Rights here in individual human being rather than in
society or state. ‘God gives them to his children just as he gives them arms, legs, eyes and
ears.’ Rights, according to this theory, were attributed to the individual as they are the
intrinsic property of man. Whatever right are granted to a man as citizen of this or that state,
his natural rights go with him where he goes. Natural rights were derived from natural law
and were propagated by the social contract theorists like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. They
assumed that man had certain natural rights before the origin of the state, and he surrendered
some of them to a superior authority i.e., civil society to safeguard the rest of them. Hobbes
considered right to life as a natural right. Locke declared the right to life, liberty, and property
as the natural rights. Rousseau has prioritized the rights of Freedom and Equality.
Contemporary political philosophies which continue to believe in the liberal tradition
of natural rights include libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, and Objectivism, and include
scholars like Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard. A
libertarian view of inalienable rights is laid out in Morris and Linda Tannehill's ‘The Market
for Liberty’, which claims that a man has a right to ownership over his life and, therefore,
also his property, because he has invested time (i.e. part of his life) in it and thereby made it
an extension of his life. However, if he initiates force against and to the detriment of another
man, he alienates himself from the right to that part of his life which is required to pay his
debt: “Rights are not inalienable, but only the possessor of a right can alienate himself from
that right - no one else can take a man's rights from him.”
1.5.1 Critics of Natural Rights
The idea of natural rights was not accepted by the latter political philosophers.
108 | P a g e

• It was felt that if rights are attributed to the individual absolutely, we cannot resolve
the conflict between man and society. For example, in a situation like famine, one
man’s right to life could be violated by hoarding of food by another man’s right to
property. That is if the two equally absolute rights conflict, there is no principle upon
which this can be solved.
• The most obvious criticism of this theory was what is meant by natural. It is found
that the word nature was used in a multi-dimensional sense such as: nature as a whole
universe, nature as the non-human part of the universe. In short, the term ‘natural’
remained vague at the hands of various writers.
• There can be no rights without a law. Rights imply certain duties; they imply social
relations on which duties can rest. As was pointed out by Green later, every right must
be justified in terms of ends which the community considers good and which cannot
be attained without rights.
• The theory assumed that one could have rights and obligations independent of society.
This was an erroneous view because the question of rights emerges only in society
and in the context of social relationship.
1.6 THEORY OF LEGAL RIGHT
According to this theory, there can be no right in proper sense of the term unless it is so
recognized by the state. No rights are absolute, nor are any rights inherent in man as such.’
Rights are relative to the law of the land; hence they vary with time and space. Rights have
no substance until they are guaranteed by the state.
Hobbes argued that the only fundamental right of the individual, viz. the right of ‘self-
preservation’, is better maintained by the state than by the individual himself. Hence, man
must depend on the state for the maintenance of his rights. He is free to do anything which is
not restrained by the state. In other word, man can have no right against the state. Bentham
rejected the theory of ‘natural rights’ which had been advanced by the early liberals. He
describes the theory as metaphysical, as a ‘hodge-podge’ of confusion and absurdity, as
‘simple nonsense upon stilts’.
The legal basis of rights implies three things:
(I) The state defines and lays down a bill of rights. Rights are not prior to the state but
state is the source of rights,
(II) The state lays down a legal framework which guarantees rights. It is the state which
109 | P a g e

enforces the enjoyment of rights,

(III) As the law creates and sustains rights never the content of the law changes, the
substance of rights also changes. The legal theory of rights implies that there is no
right where there is no power to secure the object of rights.
1.6.1 Criticism of Legal Right
The legal theory of rights was also found deficient by the later writers in certain respects.
• The legal theory did not cover the whole range of rights. It explained the nature of
only those rights which had been given legal recognition by the state. It was
incomplete because it did not tell whether that which is guaranteed is rights or really
needed recognition. The theory assumed that what is guaranteed by the state is right.
• The legal theory did not take into consideration the rights of multiple associations in
society. For example, as Laski said, men enjoy rights not merely as members of the
state but also a member of the society. He believed that to limit the rights to a single
source i.e., the state is to destroy the personality of the individual and not to preserve
it.
• The state does not create rights but recognizes, maintains, protects, and coordinates
them. As Wild remarked, rights exist whether they are recognized or not. Higher
than law is our conception of right and wrong. Rights must have a foundation of
right.
• If the state and its laws are accepted as the sole source of rights, then there is no right
against the state. Liberal writers like Green and Laski recognized the need to resist the
state in certain circumstances. As Laski put it, obedience to the state is limited and
conditional. It is obedience to rights and not might, to justice and not to authority. The
material source of rights is the community's sense of justice and not law. Law is
nothing but the concretization of the feeling of the community. The legal theory is
partly correct in asserting that rights are no rights until they are secured by the state.
1.6.2 Theory of Moral Rights
This theory of rights is associated with idealist thinkers, though T. H. Green merged it with
liberalism. Laski, like T. H. Green, erects his theory of rights on moral foundations.
However, he is seriously concerned with the satisfaction of material needs of the masses.
Laski is much ahead of Green in dealing with the maladies of the capitalist system. Thus,
Laski holds that rights are not concessions granted by the state. On the contrary, they are
superior to the state, because they provide for a standard to judge the state itself. The moral
theory associated rights with the achievement of moral freedom of man as member of the
110 | P a g e

society. According to this theory, every right is derived from one basic right - the right to
personality. Whether it is right to life, liberty, property, education, or health, they are all
rooted in and are governed by the development of the personality of the individual. Rights
are powers which an individual claims from society on a moral plane and are recognized and
enforced by the state through its law. Legal rights may or may not embody moral rights, but
the ideal is the empowering of all moral rights through law. Such rights vary from time to
time and from place in accordance with the moral consciousness of the community. With the
growth of moral consciousness, certain rights which were once regarded as natural lose value.
Every right that an individual has is dependent on the social judgment of its compatibility
with the general well - being.
1.6.3 Rights and Duties
It must be emphasized, however, that rights have corresponding duties as well as obligation.
The two are correlated. The rights and duties of citizens are two sides of the same coin. The
relationship between them is twofold. Firstly, society functions on the principles of
reciprocity. My rights involve a duty, on the part of others, to respect my rights and a duty on
my part to respect the similar rights of others. Society works on the principle of, “he who
takes gives and he who gives takes”. Indeed, my enjoyment of a particular right must be
conceived in terms of the similar claims of other citizens. My rights are integrally related to
the right of my follow human beings. The one cannot exist without the other. A society in
which people care less for their own duties and more for their rights, sooner or later,
disintegrates. In their frantic effort for the vindication of their own rights at the expense of
fellow human beings, society will be reduced to the status of a jungle in which ultimately the
law of might will prevail. In order that everyone enjoys his or her rights it is necessary that
we recognize our obligation towards others. We cannot say that we shall be free while others
will be bound by their obligation. Such a position is quite untenable and inhuman.
Secondly, logic of rights and duties also implies that if we have certain claims against
the state, it is also our responsibility to contribute something towards its enrichment by doing
socially useful work. The state creates those conditions in which we can realize ourselves. In
return for this, it is our duty to take advantage of these conditions and give our best to it. The
best way in which we can contribute to the social stock is by following duties towards our
nation, in recognizing our social responsibilities and unscrupulously respecting the similar
rights of others. One does not contribute only by being a son of a prime minister or a poet but
by being oneself. I may not succeed in my life, but if I have given sufficient indications of
sincere efforts to make such a contribution, as I am capable of, my job is done. It is the duty
of every one of us that we must develop. Our personality to be able to contribute our best to
111 | P a g e

society. A citizen should make available valuable judgement on the various issues
confronting it. One must pay one's taxes to the state and must refrain from interfering with
the similar rights of the other members of society. So long as the state helps in fostering a
climate conducive to happiness of the individuals, the citizens must also help it in
maintaining law and order and must honestly perform their public duties. They should leave
no stone unturned for strengthening their own country and if the need arises must be prepared
to defend it at any cost. These obligations by being reciprocal in character do not impose
restrictions on the rights of individuals; rather, they give them fuller and greater reality. To
think that my rights can be separated from my duties is to be guilty of gross selfishness. It is
only by performing a useful function in society that we contribute towards its enrichment. A
state in which citizens care more about their rights and less about their duties remains in a
precarious situation. It would lead first to anarchy and then to its disintegration. To preserve
my right, it is necessary that I must convince my fellow human beings that in granting such a
right they would be enabling me to participate in the goof of society. I must show that so far
as society does not secure me this right, it derogates me from the status of a human being and
my capacity to make my contribution to social welfare. It is only in the apprehension of this
equation between individual's function and social well-being by the members of society that a
true theory of rights can be constructed and society can be built on stable foundations.
1.6.4 Debate: Human Rights - Universalism or Cultural Relativism
As we are aware, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been in existence since
1948 when it was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, however, an
important issue of the past twenty years has been the conflict between two rival ideologies of
human rights popularly known as universalism and cultural relativism. Most contemporary
readings on the topic of Human Rights include one or more chapters on cultural relativism.
The bulk of the existing literature revolves around a description of western versus non -
western philosophies and argues as to which approach better defines human rights. While the
Universalism holds that more "primitive" cultures will eventually evolve to have the same
system of law and rights as the Western cultures, the cultural relativists hold an opposite, but
similarly rigid, viewpoint, that a traditional culture is unchangeable, that cultures have
fundamental or essential "properties, particularly their values and beliefs. All questions about
the origins or the universality of human rights become questions about their validity. If
human rights are western, they cannot be universal. Put differently, both the universalists and
relativists agree that the key point at issue is whether human rights are essentially linked with
western culture, but they disagree about the answer.
112 | P a g e

1.6.5 Human Rights are Universal

The Universal Declaration contains three distinct sets or generations of human rights. The
first set of generation, known as negative rights, consists of civil and political rights. These
include right to life, equality before laws, freedom of speech and religion, freedom of
movement and assembly, as well as guarantees against discrimination, slavery, and torture.
The second set or generation of rights known as positive rights and include a few social,
economic and cultural rights such as right to an adequate standard of living, adequate
standard for the health and well - being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services". In addition," motherhood and
childhood are entitled to special care and assistance "and everyone has the right to free
education at the elementary level. A third set or generation of human rights involves a
collective set (also known as group rights) or community rights such as right to development
among nations. They were the solidarity among nations and individuals and form a core value
of the declaration. This set of rights is the least developed among the three types of human
rights.
Now, the above rights are also called universal rights. The concept of universalism
came into prominence after World War II. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, countries all over the world discussed and negotiated values that would
become the basis for human rights. The horrific consequences of World War II left a legacy
that great harm could result in allowing individual countries or nations to define and pursue
their own values (as was demonstrated by Hitler that German is the most superior race on this
earth), a core concept of Human rights included in the Declaration is that those rights belong
to everyone, no matter as to what status that person holds in society. This notion of
universalism is the basis of human rights. Every individual has a claim to the enjoyment of
human rights, wherever the individual may reside. For example, human rights include
adequate health care and nutrition for everyone. And the governments have an obligation to
provide a framework for ensuring the delivery of these rights even if local cultures consider
the procurement of these items a matter for the individual. Human rights are internationally
agreed values, stand or rules regulating the conduct of states of their own citizens and toward
non-citizens. In the words of the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
these rights are a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. These
rules, which the member-states have imposed upon themselves, serve to restrict the freedom
of states to act towards their entire population-citizen as well as non-citizen, men as well as
women, whites and non-whites, believers and non- believers, married persons and the
unmarried etc.
113 | P a g e

The Universalists argue that at least some moral judgments are universally valid.
They generally hold that something like the catalogue of rights enunciated in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other international covenants and conventions are
universally valid. The universality of human rights derives from claims or arguments held to
transcend cultures. Modern universalist theories of human rights can be based on natural law
justice, reaction to injustice, dignity and equality of respect and concern. Grounded on ideas
of universality, empowerment and human-centeredness, the concept of human rights is
considered an appropriate and vitally necessary radical framework for altering international
relations and politics, including changing notions of humanitarian intervention.
Now, the important point to remember here is that this universalistic theory of Human
Rights is largely based on Western philosophy and the value it places on the individual. It is a
product of Greek philosophy, Christianity and the Enlightenment thinkers which contended
that one can use nature or reason to identify basic rights, inherent to every human, which pre-
existent society.
Briefly, this doctrine can be stated as:
(i) All humans have rights by virtue of their humanity.
(ii) A person's rights cannot be conditioned by gender or national or ethnic origin
(iii) Human rights exist universally as the highest moral rights, so no rights can be
subordinated to another person (e.g., a husband) or an institution (e.g., the state), also,
it has been the practice of states to accept it, through ratification of international
instruments. In other words, they are rights because they are natural or God - given or
inherent to humanity. They are so fundamental that there should be no exception to
their application.
1.6.5.1 Human Right and the Problem of Cultural Relativism
Since its inception that UDHR has been mired in controversy. There have been theoretical
criticisms which include reactionary, communist, communitarian and pragmatist. Politically
and ideologically motivated criticisms included socialist, Confucianist, African and religious
fundamentalist as well as unaligned criticisms from developing countries. Such criticisms
focus on the internal cohesion of the UDHR; problems with interpreting it because of few
precise definitions; cultural relativism; globalization and recent changes on the world stage.
These criticisms have raised important questions such as - whether human rights criteria
deserve the authority they have acquired, whether their claim to universality are justified, or
whether they are just another cunning exercise by western imperialism.
114 | P a g e

Cultural relativism is based on the idea that there is no objective or universal

standards by which others can be judged. The debate between universalism and relativism is
as old as the history of philosophy itself and its discussion of truth. Relativism was
introduced, among others, by the Sophist Protagoras. He rejected objective truth by saying in
so many words, later quoted by Plato: "The way things appear to me, in that way they exist
for me, and the way things appear to you, in that way they exist for you" can be called as
relativism.
Relativism as linked to culture appeared late in the work of anthropologists who
demonstrated empirically that there exist in the world many different cultures, each equally
worthy. However, international law has only recently begun to tackle the issue of cultural
relativism, which first emerged after the publication of a book in 1971 by Adda Bozeman
entitled The Future of Law in a Multicultural World. The central themes of the book were:
1. There exist profound differences between western legal theories and cultures and
those of Africa, Asia, India, and Islam.
2. In order to fully understand a culture, one must be a product of that culture.
3. Even if a culture were to borrow a concept from another culture, that concept's
meaning would be filtered through the first culture's unique linguistic-conceptual
culture,
4. There can be no universal meaning to a moral value.
5. A universal text on values is a futile exercise.
Similar, Polis and Schwab in their essay Human Rights: a Western Construct with Limited
Applicability argued that the Western political philosophy upon which the Charter and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights are based provides only one particular interpretation
of human rights, and that this Western perception may not be successfully applied to non-
Western areas due to ideological and cultural differences.
Cultural relativism maintains that there is an irreducible diversity among cultures
because each culture is a unique whole with parts so intertwined that none of them can be
understood or evaluated without reference to the other parts and to the cultural whole, the so-
called pattern of culture. Cultural relativism refers to a view that all cultures are equal and
universal values become secondary when examining cultural norms. No outside value is
superior to that of the local culture. If the local culture allows female genital mutilation, then
the human right prohibiting cruel or degrading treatment shouldn't prevent the genital
mutilation. If the culture accepts genital mutilation, then no outside principle should overrule
115 | P a g e

the cultural norm. Relativists hold that "cultures manifest so wide and diverse a range of
preferences, morality, motivations, and evaluations that no human rights principles can be
said to be self-evident and recognized at all times and all places." There are no absolute
values or principles by which any culture or society can be judged apart from those of the
culture itself. This brand of cultural relativism must be distinguished from a more
thoroughgoing moral relativism: cultural relativists typically do not deny truth or morality,
but instead hold that while “for every culture some moral judgments are valid, no moral
judgment is universally valid.” Cultural relativism argues that each culture or society
possesses its own rationality, coherence and set of values and it is in these terms only that one
can properly interpret the organization, customs, and beliefs (including ideas about human
rights) of that culture or society. The cultural relativists typically maintain that there is a
fundamental link between the cultural origins of a value or the principle and its validity for
that culture.
Against the universalism that is the foundation of human rights; cultural relativism
insists that cultural context determines pluralism in human rights, values and practices.
Broader culturalism consists of the interrelated approaches of cultural essentialism (or
reductionism), cultural determinism and cultural relativism. It turns culture-or cultures-into
the trump card in any debate about human rights, or indeed world politics. It emphasizes the
uniqueness and exclusivity of each culture. Thus, if human rights are not indigenous to a
particular culture, their validity and applicability are in doubt. In Ann Maver's words, human
rights are “alien and therefore incompatible" with non-Western cultural or religious
traditions.” The liberal doctrine of human rights does not speak the people's worldview.
Cultural concerns are two sided- upholding one's cultures and traditions but also protection
from cultural imperialism. Culture performs multiple roles: culture versus rights, rights to
culture, rights as culture, and culture as a way of improving understanding and analysis of
rights processes as situated social action.
1.7 CONCLUSION
There is no doubt that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides a foundation for
constructing human rights. It remains significant with its baseline for setting the human rights
agenda in international consciousness and law, and generating further conventions,
declarations, and changes to the concept of human rights worldwide since its inception. To
acknowledge the universality of human rights, then, is not to deny cultural pluralism or the
relativity of values. It is to recognize the normative force of the system of international
human rights in the face of cultural relativist challenges - which, in the end, appear to state
116 | P a g e

little more than demands for international legal tolerance of intolerance.

The concept of rights has no meaning unless rights are universal, but rights cannot
attain universality without a certain social anchoring. In other words, rights must be founded
upon equality of access to economic, social, cultural, civil, and political rights. Cultural
relativism does not conflict with universality. Cultural relativism is a reply to the cultural
uniformity and cultural imperialism that dominant nations want to impose on the rest of the
world through globalization. The concept of cultural relativism emerges from the assertion of
the right to be different. Universalism in human rights can be infused with cultural sensitivity,
with the capacity for diversity, though with an independent moral standard which is not
reducible to cultural particularism. So, the debate should not be a contest between the two
perspectives, nor bogged down in human rights ancestry, rather, it should be a dialogue. A
simple black and white moral argument is certainly not sufficient. As mentioned above
neither an extreme nihilistic cultural relativism nor an extreme universalism that permits no
reasonable flexibility on cultural grounds will suffice the need is for a broad culturally
inclusive universalism. The universal claim of human rights instruments is and must remain
self-consciously minimalist. Their aim should be to protect human agency and legislate
moral, political, or cultural conformity. But we must not consider culture or a tradition as one
thing, and refusing every concerning certain practice is another. In other words, defending
people’s rights to their culture is one thing, but using the same culture to rights of one part of
the population is paradoxical.
1) Analyze of the recent debates on the idea of right. Which of these viewpoints do you
agree with and why?
2) Examine the idea of natural rights as advanced by John Locke.
3) Write a short not on ‘Human Right.’
4) Trace the evolution right. Give an account of major critiques of natural rights theory.
5) Map out major debates on the question of “why should we obey the state”?
6) Make a short note on Human Rights and Cultural Relativism
1.9 REFERENCES
• Talukdar, P.S. (2008) ‘Rights’, in Bhargava, R. and Acharya, A. (eds), Political

Theory: An Introduction. New Delhi: Pearson Longman, pp. 88-104.
117 | P a g e

• Mckinnon, C. (2003) ‘Rights’, in Bellamy, Richard and Mason, Andrew (eds),

Political Concepts. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 16-27.
• Campbell, T. (2008) ‘Human Rights’, in McKinnon, C. (ed), Issues in Political
Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 194-217.
118 | P a g e

Unit-V: Democracy
(a) DEMOCRACY: IDEA AND PRACTICE

Sushant Yadav
STRUCTURE

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Democracy: The Idea
1.4 Principles of Democracy
1.5 Kinds of Democracy
1.6 Democracy: The Practice
1.7 Procedural Democracy
1.8 Substantive Democracy
1.9 Models of Democracy
1.10 Indian Democracy: Idea and Practice
1.11 Conclusion
1.13 Bibliography
Students will be able to understand what democracy means and the essence of it. They will be
able to make out the difference between direct and representative form of democracy. The
chapter also emphasizes different views of democracy in practice; substantive and procedural.
It also gives a gist of Indian democracy.
1.2 INTRODUCTION
Democracy has its real origin in Greek: demos meaning people and kratos meaning rule
which makes democracy rule of people. The term democracy and concept are firmly rooted in
Ancient Greece. Political thinkers such as David Held define it as, “a form of government in
which, in contradistinction monarchies and aristocracies, the people rule. Democracy entails a
political community in which there is some form of political equality among the people.”
119 | P a g e

(Held, 2006) Seeley says, “Democracy is a government in which everybody has a share.”
According to Bryce, “Democracy is that form of Government in which the ruling power of a
state is legally vested, not in any particular class or classes but in the members of the
community as a whole.”. “Democracy”, writes Mazzini, “is the government of the best and
wisest, for the progress of all and through all.” Dicey, “Democracy is a form of government
in which the governing body is a comparatively large fraction of the entire nation.” Dworkin
thinks democracy makes sense as the best form of government because of its care and respect
for minorities and for its mistrust of majorities.
Democracy is justified because it guarantees the right of each person to be taken care
of and respected; but in practice, the decisions of a democratic majority may infringe that
right, about what the liberal theory believes to be required by such a right.
Democracy is a form of government which gives primary importance to people’s
participation. A democratic government gives its people equal opportunity and is based on
individual merit. It gives no place of hereditary privilege. Political philosophers such as
Aristotle recognize the importance of popular participation in democracy but believed an
uncontrolled democracy can take form of ‘mob rule’. Even in recent times such threats to
democracy have continued to haunt political thinkers. Despite such problems democratic
sailed through tough times and survived several years in theory as well as practice.
There are many differences how democracies work. Most importantly the distinctions
are based upon direct popular participation in government, and those that operate through
some kind of representative mechanism. The models of democracy based on such
differentiation are direct democracy and representative democracy. When seen in modern
times, democracy is associated with electoral democracy which is largely called liberal
democracy. Liberal democracy is one of the most dominant forms of democracy. Yet, there
exist a few other models of democracy. Democracy, though, many critics C.B. Macpherson
writes, in The Real World of Democracy, “Democracy used to be a bad word. Everybody
who was anybody knew that democracy, in its original sense of rule by the people or
government in accordance with the will of the bulk of the people, would be a bad thing - fatal
to individual freedom and to all the graces of civilized living. That was the position taken by
nearly all men of intelligence from the earliest historical times down to about a hundred years
ago. Then, within fifty years, democracy became a good thing.” (Macpherson, 1966)
1.3 DEMOCRACY: THE IDEA
To understand what democracy means, one must go through the debates around the idea.
120 | P a g e

Democracy has been associated with something good. Bernard Crick writes, “Democracy is
perhaps the most promiscuous word in the world of public affairs.” (Crick, 1993) The idea of
democracy is a very popular one and Crick sees it as a very flexible term as it can mean a lot
of things although there is a danger that the meaning can become empty. Democracy can be
easily called a system of rule by and for the poor and disadvantaged.
What it aims at giving is an opportunity which is equalizing in nature. It runs in
accordance with individual merit. An important feature is that it doesn’t rely on hierarchy and
privilege for the ruling. Democracy is essentially the idea of welfare and redistribution which
aims at resolving social inequalities. On the other hand, it is a system of decision-making
which is based on the principle of majority rule but at the same time secures the rights and
interests of minorities. It does so by placing checks upon the power of the majority. Another
such feature is the filling of public offices through popular vote which aims at forming a
government. This government serves the interests of the people. In this way democracy calls
for participation and links the people to the government. Some of the definitions which are
attached to democracy and are somehow complementary to each other form an understanding
of the idea as explained in Andrew Heywood’s book Politics. He writes,
● A form of government in which the people rule themselves directly and continuously,
without the need for professional politicians or public officials.
● A society based on equal opportunity and individual merit, rather than hierarchy and
privilege.
● A system of welfare and redistribution aimed at narrowing social inequalities.
● A system of decision making based on the principles of majority rule.
● A system of rules that secures the rights and interests of minorities by placing checks
upon the power of the majority.
● A means of filling public offices through a competitive struggle for the popular vote
● A system of government that serves the interests of the people regardless of their
participation in political life.”
One can safely say that any one of these definitions will not be able to explain what the idea
of democracy is but if taken together, they bring out the essence of the idea.
1.4 PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY
Dworkin in his book, Liberalism, Constitution and Democracy, argues for a good democracy
by mentioning three principles:
121 | P a g e

Principle of participation
Each person has a role offered by the government which allows people to give consensus to
the decisions that the government must take. This role that the people have is not based on
their abilities or talents but on all. Therefore, in a democracy, people have a role regardless of
any differences that means everyone must have a role which ultimately adds to society. Here,
the principle of participation explains another feature of democracy and tries to give
justification for it associating democracy with universal suffrage and with a system of
representation. With this principle, everybody has a right to hold public office that means
they can run for elections. The principle of participation also gives reason to why political
liberties of speech and protest are necessary for democracy. Dwrokin therefore argues that
every person will have a role to play, a person with right to protest will give them a role to be
a member of the community yet have differences with it.
Interest Principle
The principle of interest gives the feature of collective decisions which must reflect the
principles of equality. Each person must be treated equally. This will also include that the
resources are to be distributed evenly. Dwrokin explains, “Along with this principle, we can
say that democracy means “government for and by the people”. Each member of society must
be considered in his integrity and democratic decisions should not affect either his autonomy
or dignity. The community must develop social and economic factors so that no individual is
excluded from the community.” Thus, the most important point is that no one can be
excluded from democracy.
Principle of Independence
Dworkin believes that the principle of independence gives birth to one of the most popular
expressions of democracy: “We, the people…”. The concept of ‘we the people’ is closely
related to collective action. Independence here means that a government which is democratic
cannot impose what it thinks is right on its citizens. Neither can a democratic government tell
its subject to judge politics, morality, or ethics in their ways, therefore it forwards a kind of
independence.
What a democratic government should do is to promote diversity of thought and
moral, political and ethics. The government has a responsibility to promote art and culture. It
should work for the community to promote values. The safeguard to democracy essentially
comes from the right to political liberty. The importance of a constitution becomes inevitable
in this case. This is how liberal democracy is associated with constitutionalism. Thus, the
principle of Independence in this way is endorsing the principle of liberalism, most
122 | P a g e

importantly tolerance. Tolerance helps bringing respect to sexual and religious diversity.
Diversity helps reinforce justice in the community and promote respect. This feature of
democracy helps avoid problems of totalitarianism.
All these principles are essential for being the core of democracy. In a way gives
people maximum liberty and equality by giving space for criticism. The people do not only
have to be tolerated in this system, but tolerance is also encouraged. The principle of equality
is special in a democracy. A democratic government does no disparity among the people
based on caste, creed, religion and position or status. Some of the important examples of this
principle has been the abolishment of untouchability in India. Other principles of democracy
are popular sovereignty, elections at certain intervals, fundamental rights, rule of law and
independence of the judiciary. A state which is a democratic state is a welfare state where
special attention is given to the welfare of the people as a whole and not to a particular class.
1.5 KINDS OF DEMOCRACY
As you know there are various types of democracy. Some are of direct in form others are of
indirect. Let us discuss
• Direct Democracy:
When people express their will for decisions to be taken, this type of government is called
direct democracy. It can also be called pure democracy. Here, the people make laws by
meeting. Hearn haw writes, “a democratic form of government, in the strict sense of the term,
is one in which the community as a whole, directly or immediately, without agents or
representatives, performs the functions of sovereignty”.
Democracy which was established in ancient Greek city-states was direct form of
democracy. Vajji Sangha during the Buddhist Periods was believed to be Indian form of
direct democracy. In today’s time it is impossible to think that each person will be able to
meet in large meetings to make government decisions. In complex societies direct democracy
is impractical. Switzerland has some areas which have such direct democracies; Appenzell,
Uri, Unterwalden and Glarus. In such democracies there are no representatives. It is based on
popular participation such as Athenian democracy. It was a kind of direct and continuous
participation of people.
People in a direct democracy rule themselves by removing the need for a separate class of
professional politicians. They use devices which makes them direct democracy, they are:
– Referendum: When people take decisions for important issues or policies like that of
123 | P a g e

amendment of the constitution. These opinions by the people can be compulsory or

voluntary.
– Initiative: People can take the initiative to pass a law of their choice. They can do that
in a democracy where they can send proposals to the Parliament for passing the law.
– Recall: This device helps recall a representative of the people which they would have
chosen for a constit-uency. United States is one such country which empower their
people to do so.
– Plebiscite: This device gives the right to the people to directly vote for an issue. For
example, in 1935, the people of Saar were asked for their opinion if they wanted to
live in Germany. Similarly, the people of Junagarh were asked to give an opinion
whether they wanted to be in India or Pakistan.
The following are the merits of direct democracy as mentioned in Politics by Andrew
Heywood:
1. It heightens the control that citizens can exercise over their own destinies, as it is the
only pure form of democracy.
2. It creates a better informed and more politically sophisticated citizenry, and thus it has
educational benefits.
3. It enables the public to express their own views and interests without having to rely on
self-serving politicians.
4. It ensures that rule if legitimate, in the sense that people are more likely to accept
decisions that they have made themselves.
• Indirect Democracy
In an indirect democracy, people elect representatives. It is practically impossible for people
of a country to assemble at one place and discuss matters and make law. They elect their
representatives at regular intervals. There are a few ways in which indirect democracy takes
form. These include Parliamentary or Cabinet Form, Presidential Form, Unitary structure,
and Federal Form. There are many mixed forms of indirect democracy. In a Representative
the will of the state is formed not directly by the people, but by their representatives to whom
they give the power of decision-making. John Stuart Mill says, “Indirect or representative
democracy is one in which the whole people or some numerous portions of them exercise the
governing power through deputies periodically elected by themselves”. Bluntschli said, “In
the representative democracy the rule is that the people govern through its officials; while it
legislates and controls the administration through its representatives”. England, in the
124 | P a g e

seventeenth century and in France, indirect democracy was established in 1830 and in Italy in
1948. In Germany it was established after the First World War according to Weimar
Constitution.
Representative democracy is limited in the sense that popular participation only
happens in intervals and is brief. Here, representation is reduced to the act of voting every
few years. The public is kept at arm’s length from the government. Representative democracy
nevertheless qualifies as a form of democracy, even if it is limited. The fact is that voting
remains a vital source of popular opinion and their will. It is seen as a form of ‘government
for the people’.
The following are the merits of indirect or representative democracy as mentioned in Politics
by Andrew Heywood:
1. It offers a practicable form of democracy (direct popular participation is achievable
only in small communities)
2. It relieves ordinary citizens of the burden of decision making, thus making possible a
division of labor in politics.
3. It allows government to be placed in the hand of those with better education, expert
knowledge, and greater experience.
4. It maintains stability by distancing ordinary citizens from politics, thereby
encouraging them to accept compromise.
1.6 DEMOCRACY: THE PRACTICE

To understand aspects of modern democratic practices one must understand the ways in
which democracy has taken form. While doing so one will get a gist of what the issues
around democracy are about such as representative government, voting systems, the role of
parliament, and the increasingly global context of democracy. Procedural democracy is about
free and fair elections, fair competition among political parties and political equality. The
other form is substantive democracy which is a system of government in which the people
will be included into the programs and for the functioning of the government. It may be
possible that a country has procedural democracy, but it lacks substantive democracy. It is
also possible that it may lack both and yet it may present itself as a democracy.
1.7 PROCEDURAL DEMOCRACY

The characteristics of a procedural democracy are essentially the procedures such as free and
fair elections, fair competition among the political parties and political equality, freedom of
125 | P a g e

the press. It is essentially a type of democracy where people or citizens of the state have less
influence than in a liberal democracy. There lie a few challenges to procedural democracy:
1) It has been seen that procedural democracy has been incapable of generating socio-
economic equality.
2) It has been largely unable to promote the participation of the greatest possible number
of people in government activity.
3) It has failed in creating mechanisms that pushes the governments to work for the
people and not in their personal interest or de facto powers,
4) It has also been unable to promote order without intervening in the private life of
individuals.
Therefore, the idea of substantive democracy is thought to be a better form of democracy
which includes procedure too. In substantive democracy, the functioning of the government
or the program of governance reflects the will of the people. Substantive democracy cares
about procedure as well as for actual contents of rights.
1.8 SUBSTANTIVE DEMOCRACY
In a substantive democracy representative of the people is elected. This type of democracy

functions in the interests of the governed. The state must function like a democracy, follow
its principles and it should not merely be a set up. Thus, it is not enough to have procedures.
Just to have free, fair elections at regular intervals does not suffice. It is to ensure that the
decisions are taken through discussions and there is popular participation in decision-making
which reflects the will of the people.
It is quite possible that a state has a democratic setup, but it may lack the rule of law
and civil liberties. There can be a democracy in face where elections are held regularly but
they might get rigged and take shape of a dictatorship. Just the mere existence of
constitutions does not guarantee that there will be governance with rule of law and with
democratic principles. That means, substantial democracy goes beyond procedural
democracy. In that sense all substantive democracies are procedural democracies.
One of the most important features of democracy is an independent judiciary. In a
democracy where elections occur and there are no civil liberties and independent judiciary
then it might as well be not called a democracy at all. In a substantive democracy, the form of
democracy is such that it must follow the principles and not just procedures. It is possible,
thus, to have a procedural democracy without a substantive form of democracy. Substantive
126 | P a g e

democracy aims at generating socio-economic equality. It tries to promote the participation of

the greatest possible number of people in government activities. It helps in creating
mechanisms that push the governments to work for the people and not in their personal
interest or de facto powers. It essentially tries to promote order without intervening in the
private life of individuals. Indian democracy is largely believed to be substantive democracy
which fulfills all such claims in practice.
1.9 MODELS OF DEMOCRACY
Democracies have different forms and mechanisms. The models are as follows:
● Classical democracy:
The kind of direct democracy which is discussed above began in Athens in the fourth and
fifth century. It was the ideal system of popular participation by a government by mass
meeting. Each one had a responsibility of public office and decision making.
● Protective democracy:
The revived form of democracy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was less
mechanical. Democracy took a protective form; the citizens could now protect themselves
from the encroachments of the government. Protective democracy is a form of government
which is indirect and limited. Accountability is extracted from the regular voting process. An
important feature of this democracy is constitutional democracy which keeps a check on the
government and is run on the principle of individual liberty. It guarantees separation of power
in the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Protective democracy is compatible with laissez
faire capitalism and aims at giving its citizens a scope to live their lives as they wish.
● Development democracy:
The focus of this form of democracy is on development of the human individual and the
community. The credit for the development of this model was Jean Jacques Rousseau. It was
a departure from the dominant liberal tradition of democracy. For him, democracy was
ultimately a means through which human beings could achieve freedom. In a developing
democracy, citizens are free only when they participate directly and continuously in shaping
the life of their community. It goes beyond the conventional notion of democracy, where
elections matter, here radical idea of direct democracy is considered more important.
J.S. Mill’s idea of development democracy is a more modest concept democracy compatible
with liberal and representative government. For him, the notion should promote the ‘highest
and harmonious’ development of individual capacities. Mill believed that people should
127 | P a g e

develop their capabilities by participating in political life. Thus, by participating in a

democracy, people will be educating themselves. Mill’s idea supports the idea of deliberative
democracy and parliamentary democracy.
● People’s democracy:
This form of democracy was developed in the twentieth century from the communist states. It
was essentially developed by the ideas of V.I. Lenin. This theory was dismissive of liberal or
parliamentary democracy. People’s democracy was used to signify the importance of people
and to designate the goal of social equality which could be brought via common ownership of
wealth. They believe that liberal democracy is only a facade of equality and not real equality.
As against this, Leninist democracy is the kind of democracy which was based on
‘democratic centralism’ and articulates the interests of the poor.
1.10 INDIAN DEMOCRACY: IDEA AND PRACTICE
India is the world’s largest democracy. The citizens have the right to vote and elect their
leaders. It goes irrespective of their religion, caste, color, creed, and gender. Constitution of
India essentially sums up democratic principles it forwards, sovereign, socialist, secular, and
democratic and republic. India became a democratic nation post its independence in the year
1947.
The basic tenet of democracy is that the citizen must be equal. Equality must be
present in the individual vote. Each individual vote has equal weight which pushes forward
the concept of ‘one person one vote’. The U.S. system of government is also a republic, a
type of democracy in which election of officials to carry out the will of the people directly
whereas in India it is done by indirect voting.
The ideals of democracy in India are the system of adult franchise and indirect
participation by the people. People are equal before the law. It is a democratic state which is
essentially based on equality of opportunity, welfare state, free and fair elections. The Head
of the State is elected although indirectly elections periodically. Every citizen has a right to
elect representatives to all levels from panchayats, municipal boards, state assemblies and
parliament. Indian democracy keeps concepts of participatory democracy and decentralized
governance to its core. It is a form of parliamentary democracy. It has both the procedures as
well as the values which makes Indian democracy a substantive form of democracy. In this
sense, democracy in India is not only about periodic elections, participation but it goes
beyond this. Indian democracy is about civil liberties, rights, and people’s dignity and worth.
Problems with substantive democracy arise when there are problems in the following
128 | P a g e

principles of democracy itself. The issues of communalism, social injustice of caste,

subjugation of women and corruption tend to erode democracy. So how do we reach
substantializing of democracy? The answer lies in strengthening formal structures of
procedural democracy and to incorporate value in the system. Procedural democracy in India
functions well. Elections are held regularly, and India has never and there has been no
military coup. The institutions in India are autonomous. Institutions such as Election
Commission of India and CBI are independent and have public trust. Cultural autonomy can
be seen in religious and linguistic minorities' rights to open their educational institutions and
recognizing personal laws as legitimate. Proportional representation to minorities and
reserved seats for scheduled castes, tribes and OBC and reservation in public service
employment and education. Substantive democracy in India is in perils as development
promises are not met. India’s rank on the Global Hunger Index is low., public health, poverty,
farmer suicide and unemployment are some of the issues which pushes forward the claim that
only procedures are not enough.
The problem associated with Indian democracy is widespread inequality,
unemployment, and poverty. Democracy has often been said to be slow with respect to
growth. It has often been argued that democracy is not for poor countries and that the pace of
development is slow. ‘Lee thesis’ based on Lee Kuan Yew, who was the former Prime
Minister of Singapore, believed that democratic rights should be suspended as well as
political freedom should be denied. The sole reason for this authoritative argument is
economic growth.
Amartya Sen believes that this thesis is not supported by evidence which is
satisfactory and empirical. He says that in poor societies democracy is instrumental in
promoting development. The incentive for the ruler is to listen to the people because they
must go through the election process.
1.11 CONCLUSION
There is uniqueness in the strength of democracy; it has been capable of addressing the
challenges of politics. There exists rival opinions of democracy and difference in interests,
but democratic societies have shown its strength and have come out to be peaceful and stable
Democracies essentially rely on open debate, persuasion and compromise. Dissent in a
democracy and acceptance of people with rival views or competing interests are normalized.
Democracy is rooted in ideas like individualism. It gives importance to the principles of
equality, citizenship, one person, one vote and the idea of pluralism. The dominant form of
democracy is liberal western-style democracy, and its spread, sometimes imposed and always
129 | P a g e

encouraged, to the non-western world can be viewed as a form of cultural imperialism. Good
government not popular government.
The problem with democracy is that the dictates of wisdom and experience tend to be
ignored because the views of the well-educated minority are swamped by those of the less
well-educated majority. Being committed to the principle of political equality, democracy
cannot cope with the fact that the majority is not always right. This is a particular concern for
economic policy, where options, such as raising taxes or cutting government spending, which
may best promote long-term economic development, may be ruled out simply because they
are unpopular.
Rights of political participation and access to power, especially the right to vote, are
universally applicable because they stem from the basic entitlement to shape the decisions
that affect one’s own life. It gives the right to self-rule. It gives equal access to power and the
right to political participation could be viewed as virtues and as preconditions for the
maintenance of all other rights and freedoms. All systems of rule are apt to become tyrannical
against the people, reflecting the fact that those in power are inclined to place self-interest
before the interests of others.
Governments and leaders need to be checked or constrained, and there is no more
effective constraint on power than democracy. It deepens tribal, regional, or ethnic tensions,
and strengthens the tendency towards charismatic leadership, thereby breeding
authoritarianism. Democracy is based on values and assumptions that betray the cultural
biases of its western heartland.

1. What do you understand by democracy? Discuss its types and dimensions?
2. What do you understand by direct democracy? How is it different from representative
democracy?
3. What are the various views of democracy? Explain in brief.
4. How is substantive democracy different from procedural democracy?
1.13 REFERENCES
• Benhabib, Seyla. (1996). Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of

the Political. Princeton University Press
130 | P a g e

• Birch, Anthony H. (1993). The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy.

London: Routledge.
• Christiano, T. (2008) ‘Democracy’, in McKinnon, C. (ed), Issues in Political Theory.
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 80-102.
• Dahl, Robert A. (1963). A Preface to Democratic Theory. University of Chicago
Press.
• Dahl, Robert A. (1991). Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press.
• Diamond, Larry & Richard Gunther. (2001). Political Parties and Democracy. JHU
Press
• Emerson, Peter. (2012) ‘Defining Democracy’, Springer.
• Lijphart, Arend. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance
in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press.
• Mosley, Ivo (2003). Democracy, Fascism, and the New World Order. Imprint
Academic.
• Owen, D. (2003) ‘Democracy’, in Bellamy, Richard and Mason, Andrew (eds),
Political Concepts. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
• Raaflaub, Kurt A.; Ober, Josiah; Wallace, Robert W (2007). Origins of Democracy in
Ancient Greece. University of California Press.
• Srinivasan, J. (2008) ‘Democracy’, in Bhargava, R. and Acharya, A. (eds), Political
Theory: An Introduction. New Delhi: Pearson Longman.
• Wood, E. M. (1995). Democracy against Capitalism: Renewing historical
materialism. Cambridge University Press.
131 | P a g e

Unit-V
(b) LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS CRITICS
Sushant Yadav
STRUCTURE

2.2 Introduction
2.3 Types of Liberal Democracy
2.4 Protective Democracy
2.5 Developmental Democracy
2.6 Criticisms of Liberal Democracy
2.7 Elite and Pluralist view of Democracy
2.8 Marxist view of Democracy
2.9 Feminist view of Democracy
2.10 Conclusion
2.12 References
After completing this lesson, the students will be able to understand the liberal strand of
democracy.
• They will easily distinguish liberal form of democracy from other forms of
democracy.
• Liberal view is further analyzed with its two different types: protective and
developmental.
• Students will also be able to find critique of liberal democracy despite liberal
democracy being the dominant form of democracy.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
Liberal democracy, which is a widely prevalent or acceptable form of democracy is about the
idea of liberal democracy. Although, it is not easy, to have universal consensus on any
132 | P a g e

particular model of democracy, such as liberal democracy, however, if a particular model of

democracy, which is liberal democracy has come to dominate the thinking of great many
numbers of people, particularly, in the west, many in the west thus, treated it as the only,
feasible or meaningful form of democracy. This model of democracy, which we call liberal
democracy has dominated the minds and thinking of so many people, particularly, in the west
that they consider or think, only, liberal democracy is the meaningful democracy or a feasible
form of democracy. And many thinkers, especially, when the liberal democracy, for a very
long time, was challenged by the socialism or Marxist ideals, after the collapse of
communism in Russia, one US New Right Theorist, namely, Francis Fukuyama, argued about
the end of history. By the end of history, he meant, there is no competing idea, as there is
only one idea which triumphs and that is called liberal democracy. He argued, the liberal
democracy is the only, feasible forms of democracy for the world and there is no competing
model of democracy or ideals. So, what is this liberal democracy? A liberal state is based on
the principle of limited government. So, the government in a liberal democracy does not have
absolute power and so, it is limited. It exists to protect the individual life and property, so the
state in liberal perspective or government is seen as a necessary, evil. It is seen as limiting the
freedom or the movement of individuals and yet such limiting or curbing individual freedom
is regarded as necessary, to maintain order in the society.
The government is a necessary evil, always liable to become a tyranny. So,
government may acquire enormous power and control the lives of the people in an
authoritarian or in an undemocratic manner. To ensure that the government should not
become tyrannical, they talk about checking the government power or putting some balance
or check on the power of the government. So, this leads to the support for devices designed to
constrain the government, such as, the constitution, bill of rights, independent judiciary and a
network of checks and balances among the institutions of government. So, we remember in
the state, we have talked about these three organs of the modern state: legislature, judiciary
and exertive. And all these three organs derived their powers from the constitution. And the
constitution sets limits to their functioning. These three organs exists and functions in a way
to check each other. The executive should not expand or use its power undemocratically, or
unconstitutionally. So, there is a Parliament to check that or a judiciary to ensure the
Parliament or executive should not function, besides, the limits set by the constitution or
beyond the limits set by the constitution.
The liberal democracy, thus, talks about how to ensure, how a government and state
should not become tyrannical. And they do so by having these mechanisms like constitution,
bill of rights, independent judiciary and the network of check and balances among the organs,
and the institutions of state. Liberal democracy, moreover, besides, this constitution,
133 | P a g e

judiciary, bill of rights and checks and balances among the institutions, also, respect the
existence and promotes a vigorous, healthy civil society, based on the respect for civil
liberties and property rights. Thus, liberal democracy promotes a vibrant or healthy civil
society, where freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed, the right to criticize the
government is protected, civil liberties and the property rights are also protected for the ruled.
So, this is the broader understanding of the functioning liberal democracy. So, liberal-
democratic rule, therefore, typically, co-exists with a capitalist economic order. This is the
challenging part of a liberal democracy, where we see all liberal democratic states, also,
promote the capitalist, economic order, or a free market economy. Thus, the democratic
element or a liberal democracy is the idea of popular consent, as expressed in the practice
through act of voting. How is this popular consent exercised in a liberal democracy? It is not
done on a day-to-day basis, as indirect participative model of democracy, which we will
discuss later. But it is done through the periodic elections in a free and fair manner. So, the
voting and right to voting ensures the political equality of every member of that society. They
come together and participate in the voting, giving consent to a political party to form the
government. This popular consent in a liberal democracy is thus ensured through the act of
voting. So, liberal democracy is a form of electoral democracy, in which popular elections are
seen as the only, legitimate source of political authority.
In a liberal democracy, the idea of election and having the election, periodically, in a
free and fair manner is therefore, very necessary, for the legitimacy of the government.
Nevertheless, the liberal democracy does not command universal approval or respect. Its
principle critics have been two models that we will discuss today, particularly, elitists and the
Marxists. It argues, it provides protection to every individual, but elitists will argue that no, it
is only, the few, who is no matter, what the forms of government enjoy or exercise power in
the society or the Marxist which believes that liberal democracy is actually, the bourgeois
democracy, which protects the interests of capitalists and they work, to enhance or protect the
interest of the capitalists against the majority working class in the society. Therefore, we see
a kind of thinking or an assumption that liberal democracy is the only feasible, modes of
democracy particularly, in the west. However, it is not universally accepted as we have seen
by the elitists and Marxists who criticize this liberal democracy. And, because of that
simultaneous existence of liberal democracy with free market economy, which many people
argue works for private profit or works in the interest of those, who already, have property.
That makes the liberal democracy, somewhat, problematic for many thinkers and scholars,
particularly, those who argued about elitists and the Marxists models of democracy.
We must remember that the mere structure of a liberal democracy is no guarantee for
achieving the objective of democracy. This we have discussed in the procedural or the
134 | P a g e

substantive notions of democracy as well. It is possible; a country may claim itself to be a

democracy or a liberal democracy in terms of procedure, so there will be a free election. The
periodic election, but that procedural nature of its rule does not necessarily, makes it a
democracy, because democracy is something which is more than the procedure. It is about
creating a system where people’s will be reflected in every decision the state or system of
rule makes. So, a liberal democracy also, has this challenge of ensuring that democracy is
maintained not just in procedure, but in substance, too.
2.3 TYPES OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

Liberal democratic governments may differ in both their kind and degree of democracy.
However, the literature too often conflates this distinction, hindering our ability to understand
what kinds of governing structures are more democratic. To clarify this issue, the article
examines two prominent contemporary models of democracy: developmental liberal
democracy (DLD) and protective liberal democracy (PLD). While the former takes a
‘thicker’ approach to governance than the latter, conventional wisdom holds that these
systems differ only in kind rather than degree. The article tests this assumption through an
empirical comparison of electoral, legislative, and information-regulating institutions in two
representative cases: Sweden and the United States. The empirical findings lead us to the
conclusion that developmental liberal democracies represent not only a different kind, but
also a deeper degree of democracy than protective liberal democracies. The implications for
democracy promotion appear substantial.
2.4 PROTECTIVE DEMOCRACY

The main theme of classical democracy was the participation of all citizens in the processes
of state and the Athenians (where the classical democracy flourished most prominently)
believed that they could achieve equality. So, the basis of classical democracy was equality in
respect of rights and privileges. But the protective democracy highlights quite a different
aspect. In the words of Heywood “democracy was seen less as a mechanism through which
public could participate in political life, and more as a device through which citizens could
protect themselves from the encroachments of government, hence protective democracy”.
Here democracy has been viewed as a means at the disposal of individuals which they can
use to safeguard their rights and liberties. In the Middle Ages and early modern period the
autocratic rulers on any flimsy ground and in most of the cases without any ground
encroached upon the basic rights and liberties of the citizens and they were helpless on the
face of the steam roller-like administration.
135 | P a g e

In ancient Greece many had the idea about protection of rights and liberties. Plato
thought that the rule of the guardian class could serve the purpose properly.
The origin of democracy as an instrument of protecting human rights and liberties can
conveniently be traced to the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. More
specifically John Locke is regarded as the great apostle of protective democracy. His civil
society based on democratic principles was created through the instrumentality of social
contract to protect the right to life liberty and property and ensure pursuance of happiness.
Another person who acted behind this type of democracy was James Madison, a key architect
of American constitution.
The three stalwarts of utilitarianism were also the important figures of the protective
democracy. They were Jeremy Bentham, James Mill and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism was
forcefully advocated in favor of protective democracy. The leitmotif of utilitarianism was to
safeguard right liberty and opportunity, and these are basic principles of democracy. These
must be protected at any cost and democracy according to them was the best form of
government which could guarantee these. Bentham, James Mill, and his philosopher son
argued that only in democracy all sorts of individual interests could be protected and
advanced. Locke, Madison, Bentham, and the Mills-all were in favor of protective
democracy, and it is an aspect of liberal democracy. In their hands this received the best
treatment. In fact, Bentham and the Mills were the representative thinkers of protective
democracy.
Protective democracy believes in popular sovereignty. But since people cannot
directly take part in the processes of state, they do it through their representatives. Both the
popular sovereignty and representative form of government are legitimate. It is the primary
duty of the state to protect the rights and liberties of citizens and whether this is properly
performed or not people keep a strong vigilance over the functions of the state. The authority
is accountable to the People and to establish it elections are held on a regular basis. There are
also other ways of establishing accountability. A very important way of protecting rights,
liberties and distribution of privileges is the division of powers among legislature, executive
and judiciary. This is done in all liberal democracies. There is a prevalence of
constitutionalism. Both the ruler and the ruled are controlled by the principles laid down in
the constitution. Constitution is the source of power for all and is the guarantor of rights and
liberties. There are also measures to prevent the violation of rights and liberties.
Organizations associations groups have enough freedom, and they always act as friends of
citizens and fight against any violation of rights or encroachment on liberty. Competition in
all spheres is a feature of protective democracy. A clear distinction between state and civil
society is strictly maintained.
136 | P a g e

2.5 DEVELOPMENTAL DEMOCRACY
J. S. Mill is a prime advocate of developmental democracy. He did not concentrate his

attention mainly on the power and function of democracy to protect the rights and liberties
but also on its power to develop the faculties of man. J. S. Mill viewed democracy in this
light and C, B. Macpherson first drew the attention of political scientists to it. According to
Macpherson and Dunn and to J. S. Mill (henceforth only Mill) democracy was a very
powerful mechanism of moral self-development and highest and harmonious expansion of
individual capacities. We are thus in possession of two elements of development. One is
moral self-development and the other is the development of individual capacities.
Rousseau prescribed a form of democracy known as direct democracy of the Greek
city-state type. His main concern was all- round development of moral qualities of men
which were degraded amid the development of art, culture, and civilization. Rousseau’s view
is quite polemical, but he thought so. By individual capacities Mill meant the argumentative
power of men, intellect, reasoning, to understand the distinction between right and wrong and
above all the ability to participate in the processes of government. Mill was also indebted to
de Tocqueville Democracy in America. It was the conviction of Tocqueville that the
increasing intervention of state was bound to curb the freedom of individuals and that would
be harmful for progress. The government must keep itself away from intrusive interference.
Mill whole-heartedly subscribed to this contention of de Tocqueville.
Like Tocqueville, Mill concluded that if it is not countered, it would become a recipe
for capitulation to the dictate of the administrator. In developmental democracy, the state
apparatus was accumulating more and more power jeopardizing the freedom of individuals.
The increasing appearance of the state on every aspect of social life was making individuals
extremely dependent on the state. This threatened both spontaneity and freedom of men. This
tendency is against devel-opment. Mill did not think that the efficiency and pervasiveness of
administration were not helpful for progress of individuals because these are anti-freedom.
The ceaseless expansion of administration blocked the free flow of information
because the government would try to withhold information for its own sake. To Mill an
efficient and scientific administration meant overall control of bureaucracy. But he had no
favorable view about it. The greatest shortcoming of bureaucracy is that it is not accountable
to the electorate/individuals. This unaccountability encourages it to act in the most
irresponsible way. He believed that the ever-rising expansion of state activities posed danger
to mass participation in the governmental process. There is a tendency of government to
bring under its fold the maximum number of people —particularly the educated, intelligent,
137 | P a g e

and efficient people. Later, the state uses them to support its functions, policies, and various
schemes and in this way, it grabs the entire society and the whole society becomes stooge of
state apparatus.
After considering all the types of government or state Mill drew the conclusion that
only the representative form of government was suitable for the realization of rights and
liberties without which no individual could develop his moral self- development and
manifold capacities. In Mill’s account a representative form of government was quite
equivalent to all types of freedom and various categories of liberty. In a representative
democracy an individual could find a favorable atmosphere for the development of freedoms
and rights. Any alternative to representative democracy is direct democracy of the Athenian
type. But, Mill argued, such a form of government was not possible for a modern state. So the
representative form of government, in the background of the attainment of right and liberty,
was in a sense, quite unparalleled. It would act as a watchdog and from Mill’s assessment
some people started to call state night-watchman.
In a developmental democracy citizen’s involvement is generally found and it is done
through the voting mechanism which is held regularly. There is a decentralization of power.
All the powers are extended up to the grass-root level and this enables citizens to participate
in various affairs. However, the legislature and bureaucracy are separate from each other, and
the latter has no control over the legislators. However, as specialists the bureaucrats enjoy a
certain amount of freedom. There are constitutional and legal provisions which guide both the
ruler and the ruled as well as all the branches of state administration and judiciary. Special
arrangements are available for the promotion of rights and liberty. Various social economic
rights are given priority. A system of checks and balances exists in developmental democratic
system. Representative form of government is the main type of developmental democracy.
No other form of government is suitable for developmental democracy. In developmental
democracy, it has been observed, popular sovereignty is vested in people. Powers of the
government are generally separated from each other which stands in the way of the
domination of one department. The rule of law (which means equality before the law and
equal protection of law) is an important feature.
2.6 CRITICISMS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
From the 1960s the exponents of liberalism and liberal democracy had been clamoring for
less and less power of state and more freedom for men. Hayek, Nozick and Rawls are chief
among them. And practically in the eighties of the last century there was a spectacular
upward movement of liberalism at the helm of which were Thatcher, the former Prime
138 | P a g e

Minister of Britain, and Reagan the ex-President of the United States. But at the beginning of
nineties serious thinkers of political science witnessed the revival of Marxist thought in
general and Marxist model of democracy and behind this revival there was a clear case of the
failure of liberal democracy. Alex Callinicos and several others observed that at least on three
fields liberal democracy failed: in the field of political participation liberal democracy has
failed to evoke sufficient enthusiasm in the mind of men, accountability of the government is
not prominent. The chief feature of democracy is the authority shall be accountable to the
people and in most cases, this did not happen and in almost all the liberal democracies there
was clear erosion of freedom and because of this people could not raise their voice against the
policies of the government. Models of democracy which have criticized liberal democracies
are as follows:
2.7 ELITE AND PLURALIST VIEW OF DEMOCRACY
One of the most important political ideologies used in the modern era, especially by the
Western countries is liberal democracy. A liberal democratic state involves the goals of both
liberalism and democracy in a liberal democratic model, it is necessary to have some basic
criteria on liberal democracy. The four criteria that will be explored in relation to the case
study countries are multiple distinct political parties, separation of powers into different
branches of government, an idea of equality and lastly secularism.
According to Gordon Smith political parties are, ‘summation of pluralist tradition’.
This means political parties are very important because of the role they play in society.
Pluralists debate that there should be multiple contenders in opposing centers of power as the
power should not rest in one group rather be divided and diffused. Political parties represent
the public interests. Likewise, multi- party system creates diversity and competition in turn
parties make efforts and try out to reach to a larger group of people making their policies
relevant. It emphasizes different groups of interests within the liberal democratic state which
prevents any one group from dominating. As each human being has different perspective of
looking at the world, similarly each party might have a different interpretation on a policy
because of the different ideals and values. The main aim of political parties is to capture state
power. This pluralist view applies to a country like Russia where they have multi-party
system. It is practically accurate to argue that at the national level Russia has attained at least
a semi-pluralistic political system, with number of national parties and the strong influence of
business interests.
On the other hand, elite theory rejects the pluralist theory that power can be diffused
and can be divided and spread among different groups of society. Elite theory argues that the
139 | P a g e

power rests in the hands of the few, who are wealthy. They assert that the average person
cannot be heard because the power is usually concentrated in a few at the top. Democratic
elite theorists argued that the decrease in internal party democracy and meeting process did
not matter much, so long as competition between parties still give voters the final power.
Elite theory says that two-party or multi-party system is usually dominated by an elite. For
example, in a country like the USA elite theory works more than pluralist theory. United
States has two parties unlike the other countries that have multi-party system. In a multi-party
system, political parties usually have specialized agenda which in turn represents their
interests like environment, labor, or business. But in America with a more generalized
system, the two parties must please a wider range of people to be elected. Consequently, both
parties act neither too liberal nor too conservative. Many people agree that the United States
has a two-party system but there have been few cases where third party candidate won an
election. Third party candidates must struggle to get elected. The last time when the country
saw a third party presented elected was in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln became President. In
the view of elite theory, they agree with the two-party system in the United States as
campaigns costs a fortune in this country. In their view ‘wealth buys political power by
recruiting capable individuals to serve the interests of the ruling class, and by financing the
campaigns of politicians and the operation of political parties. Political parties are important
for keeping the check and balance of power through peaceful means and are thus important in
a liberal democracy. ‘Without having any form of competition then from an elitist, then there
would be only one outcome and that is whatever the elite considers the best then that will be
the decision’.
In a country to be liberal democratic state power should be divided among different
groups so that state cannot rule the masses on their own and the power is distributed among
different factions of government. Pluralism critique of the state suggests a solution to how
democracies can be realized in large and complex societies and how to achieve popular
power and at the same time limit the power of the state. Pluralism is strictly against the
totalitarian government. A pluralist society is one in which the decisions are taken by
associations of citizens, acting independently of the state. They assume the state as a neutral
actor which helps control conflicts and negotiations among groups. As all groups do not have
equal resources or influence as some of the other groups in society, the state does not favor
any of the group rather remain neutral. Pluralism prefers a federal system of government in
which power is divided among executive, legislature and judiciary. So that there are checks
and balances and no one can misuse the power. Madison advocated a simple logic stating
that, ‘grant independent power to the different branches of government, and each member of
that branch will have a personal interest in maintaining that power and preventing the other
140 | P a g e

branches from carrying out their repressive designs’. It means if the power is distributed
among different bodies in the government, no person will be able to impose his or her will.
Pluralist theory can apply to a country like France where there is a federal system of
government although the executive is body is slightly stronger than that of legislature.
However, all the power does not rest with the executive, power also lies within the two
remaining branches of government, the legislative, and the judiciary.
The second critique which describes the state is elite theory. In their view, the
separation of power is unimportant within the state because in the end unified elite hold the
power. They assert that the elites will always hold power in society in different forms and
their nature will directly determine the properties of society in which they live. The post- war
elite theory critique C. Wright Mills argued that important decisions made in United States
policy making were most of the times made by unelected power elite. For example, Unites
States has a federal system of government in which power is evenly distributed among the 3
bodies of government, namely legislature, executive and judiciary but their certain cases
where there are power elite makes the decisions. For instance, the head of a big American
business corporation or even the President or his appointed staff. On the contrary, Marxist
theory argues that the economy is the most important element in the society and that the
society should grow towards a classless structure with an equal distribution of power.
Each citizen should be treated equally irrespective of gender, caste and religion to live
in peace. Thus, the idea of equality should be present in every country, which makes it an
important aspect of a liberal democratic country. Marxist Theory can best explain why there
is inequality among countries. Marxists state that unequal distribution of wealth is caused by
exploitation in production as well as distribution of wealth. Capitalism and the notion of
private property create class differences and unequal distribution of power. Private property
maximizes the gap between rich and poor. For instance, if a person owns a property, he gets
to exploit people who don’t which leads to other people working for the person who owns the
property and can provide them with money. This form of organization develops into two
classes, the bourgeoisie or ruling class who control and profit from the system and the
working class who are much more numerous. In Marxist view wealth should be equally
distributed among people. Rejecting this theory of Marxism, elite critics argue that economic
or social class forces do not determine what happens in society rather elites do. Italian writer
Vilfredo Pareto criticizes Marxists for overlooking the control of elite. For example, in a
country like America and Nigeria there is a huge income gap between rich and poor due to
capitalism. The wealth is concentrated in the hands of elites which gives an adverse effect on
the welfare of citizens. Utter poverty for a large percentage of the people of Nigeria is
because of the mismanagement of the economy and widespread corruption by political elites.
141 | P a g e

Therefore, both the theories can be applied in the countries like Nigeria and the United States.
All the liberal democratic countries should accept that citizens should not be
prevented from practicing their religion and the state is no one to interfere with the religious
decisions of citizens or their institutions. Marxist sees religion as a feature only of a class-
divided society. The theory argues that whichever class controls economic production also
controls the production and distribution of ideas in society via institutions such as church,
education system and the media. For example, France has declared herself as a secular
country having divided church and state during the French Revolution. However, over 80%
of her citizens claim to be Roman Catholics, on the other hand 10% claim to be Muslim
(CIA). Despite being a secular state France does not allow manifestation of religion in public
sphere. In 2004, an anti-religious law passed through legislature that banned the wearing of
headscarves, turban, skullcaps, or large crosses in public schools .Therefore looking at this
example of France it can be said that the Marxist theory can describe secularism in France as
the person who is ruling is passing all the laws which controls all the power in the
government and can influence any law in his favor. Moreover, this law in the end can lead to
divisions in society.
Similarly, Pluralism accepts all the religions in the society and rejects the notion that
there can be a single belief in religion or culture. That is, pluralism is a simple recognition of
the fact that there are many different faith groups active in the country. Pluralist theory works
well in the liberal democratic countries as they demonstrate well about secularism. Pluralist
theory works well in religious country like United States which is a multi-cultural society
consisting of many religious groups such as Christians, Muslims, Hindus.
2.8 MARXIST VIEW OF DEMOCRACY

The Marxist view of democratic politics is rooted in class analysis. In this view, political
power cannot be understood narrowly in terms of electoral rights, or in terms of the ability of
groups to articulate their interests by lobbying and campaigning. Rather, at a deeper level,
political power reflects the distribution of economic power and the unequal ownership of
productive wealth. The Marxist critique of liberal democracy thus focuses upon the inherent
tension between democracy and capitalism; that is, between the political equality that liberal
democracy proclaims and the social inequality that a capitalist economy inevitably generates.
Liberal democracies are thus seen as ‘capitalist’ or ‘bourgeois’ democracies that are
manipulated and controlled by the entrenched power of a ruling class. Marxism thus offers a
distinctive critique of pluralist democracy. Power cannot be widely and evenly dispersed in
society if class power is unequally distributed. Indeed, in many respects, the Marxist view
142 | P a g e

parallels the elitist critique of pluralism. Both views suggest that power is ultimately
concentrated in the hands of the few, the main difference being whether the few is conceived
of as a ‘power elite’ or as a ‘ruling class’. However, significant differences can also be
identified. For instance, whereas elitists suggest that power derive from a variety of sources
(education, social status, bureaucratic position, political connections, wealth and so on),
Marxists emphasize the decisive importance of economic factors; notably, the ownership and
control of the means of production. Modern Marxists, however, have been less willing to
dismiss electoral democracy as nothing more than a sham. Eurocommunists, for example,
abandoned the idea of revolution, embracing instead the notion of a peaceful, legal and
democratic ‘road to socialism’.
2.9 FEMINIST VIEW OF DEMOCRACY
Feminists have taken issue with liberal democracy on several counts, including the conditions
necessary to achieve political equality and the importance to be attached to political
participation. Issues are raised under the rubric of citizenship, earlier and continuing
arguments for a more actively participatory democracy, and questions associated with
representing social heterogeneity and group difference. The argument throughout is that
while liberal democracy has signally failed to deliver on its promises to women, it does not
help to address these failings in terms of giving up on liberal democracy.
2.10 CONCLUSION
There are a few rival models of democracy, each offering its own version of popular rule.
Classical democracy, which is based on the political system of Ancient Athens, is defended
on the grounds that it alone guarantees government by the people. Protective democracy
gives citizens the greatest scope to live their lives as they choose. Developmental democracy
has the virtue that, in extending participation, it widens liberty and fosters personal growth.
People’s democracy aims to achieve economic emancipation, rather than merely the
extension of political rights. There is considerable controversy about how liberal-democratic
systems work in practice. Pluralists praise the system’s capacity to guarantee popular
responsiveness and public accountability. Elitists highlight the tendency for political power to
be concentrated in the hands of a privileged minority. Corporatists draw attention to the
incorporation of groups into government. The New Right focuses on the dangers of
‘democratic overload’. And Marxists point to tensions between democracy and capitalism.
Growing global interdependence has stimulated interest in whether democracy can, and
should, operate at a global or cosmopolitan level, either through the construction of some
143 | P a g e

kind of world parliament, or through a global civil society. However, major obstacles stand in
the way of cosmopolitan democracy, with many rejecting the idea as unfeasible in principle.
1. What do you understand by liberal democracy? What are the two main fragments of
liberal democracy?
2. What do you mean by liberal democracy? Write an essay on liberal democracy
critically.
3. What are the different views/alternatives of democracy other than liberal democracy?
2.12 REFERENCES
• Arblaster, A. (1994) Democracy. (2nd Edition). Buckingham: Open University Press.

• Mill, J. S. (1991) On Liberty and Other Essays. ed. Jon Gray. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. Berlin, I. (1969) ’Two Concepts of Liberty’, in Four Essays on
Liberty. England: Oxford University Press, pp. 118-172
• Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
• Dworkin, R. (1981) ‘What is equality? Part I: Equality of Welfare’, Philosophy and
Public Affairs 10 (3), pp. 185-246. 35
• Dworkin, R. (1981) ‘What is equality? Part II: Equality of Resources’, Philosophy
and Public Affairs 10 (3), pp. 185-243.
• Dworkin, R. (1977) Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth.
• Dryzek, J. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
• Miller, D. (2006) The Liberty Reader. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
• Knowles, Dudley. (2001) Political Philosophy. London: Routledge.
• Swift, Adam. (2001) Political Philosophy: A Beginner’s Guide for Students and
Politicians Cambridge: Polity Press
144 | P a g e

Unit-V
(c) MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION
Sushant Yadav
STRUCTURE

3.2 Introduction
3.3 Multiculturalism: Meaning
3.4 Multiculturalism: In Practice
3.5 Stages of Multiculturalism
3.6 Critiques of Multiculturalism
3.7 Identity, Difference and Tolerance
3.8 Conclusion
3.10 References
• This lesson makes the students familiar with the meaning and scope of
multiculturalism.
• The text would convey to students the advantages of multiculturalism, it also talks
about its criticism and disadvantages.
• The lesson also discusses the issues of recognition and pluralism and sums up with a
detailed discussion about the theory of tolerance and differences.
3.2 INTRODUCTION
The issue of dealing with cultural diversity has become a topic of contemporary political
theory. The moral, legal and political claims that are made in the name of diversity namely
peoples' ethnicity, religion, language, and nationality has become the issue that dominates
political theory. (Kymlicka, 2001) Governments are dealing with cultural diversity and
nationalistic claims which were not written much about but were too important to be left
145 | P a g e

ignored. Governments have acknowledged demands for recognition and protection for
minorities. The demand also includes political autonomy inside states boundaries as well as
in international society. The demands have also opened debate in political theory which we
will discuss in this chapter.
In the 1980s the focus of political theorists shifted to cultural and group rights, which
was because of the rise in Eastern Europe’s nationalism, right after the fall of Berlin wall in
1989.
The political activism in the areas of religion and the increase of Muslim immigrants
in Europe brought a sudden interest in the groups which now let’s minorities protect and
preserve their customs and practices like language and rituals.
These groups have interested political theorists of both liberal and non-liberal
traditions. They now argue whether groups can or should have rights, should they have
recognition. Questions raised also include if these groups have been granted rights and what
rights were granted.
The challenge with the notion of multiculturalism and tolerance (which is the basic
premise on which liberalism stands) as we have discussed above, has given birth to issues in
political theory. These issues range from the role of state, rights of women, education and
even the matters of citizenship.
A detailed discussion of what multiculturalism stands for and the question is whether
we need toleration and how much becomes important issues. The chapter will try to discuss
such issues in detail.
3.3 MULTICULTURALISM: MEANING
‘Multiculturalism’ as a term has its use when we talk about it in terms of political theory, but
not by very long. It can be seen along with the concept of nationalism which is an older idea
but a widely discussed one. The idea of multiculturalism only came about in the 1970s, in
Canada and then in Australia when it was used to describe a new public policy in the concept
of federalism.
In the new policies which came in such states largely tried to promote assimilation of
minorities and immigrants which was aimed at promoting policies of integration of cultures
and accepting difference and diversity. It was in the 1980s that multiculturalism entered
America. It was largely found in the discussions about public education.
Nathan Glazer talks about multiculturalism as a term which describes American
146 | P a g e

society well. According to Bridge, American education needs to report to diversity and needs
to accept it (Glazer, 1997). In such a way, multiculturalism is responding to ethnic diversity.
He also talks about multiculturalism as the “position that rejects assimilation and the ‘melting
pot’ image as an imposition of the dominant culture, and instead prefers such metaphors as
the ‘salad bowl’ or the ‘glorious mosaic’, in which each ethnic and racial element in the
population maintains its distinctiveness” (Glazer, 1997).
The definition talking about multiculturalism as a single position misses the point that
there are many different positions and views of multiculturalism, and it is differently
understood by different people. Multiculturalism requires changes to social and political
institutions to make people from cultures comfortable and to ice them preserve their
respective customs and language.
It also requires greater social transformation. This transformation must transform
modern society itself where racism has been eliminated. This social transformation must be
nurtured and not repudiated. Social transformation must be tolerated. Tolerance becomes the
key in some ways. We will discuss tolerance and difference later in the chapter.
Drawing from the above discussion multiculturalism can be seen as a way of
embracing diversity. A question then arises how this diversity can be embraced. Diversity
must be accepted via away of accommodation but what would be the principles on which
society be based on. If in a multicultural society, diversity can exist, where language and
religion are not a basis of discrimination and there is no subordination to or by a single group
or dominant group, then there is a demand for unity amongst them which will make them
coexistence possible.
An ideal situation is a world where we aspire to a borderless world. An ideal world is
a world where people can move freely. It will be futile to imagine an ideal world which is not
restricted by any boundaries. But even an ideal society will have to restrict themselves to
some basic rules and institutions. In a multicultural society, it must decide to accept some
language as their official language, define itself as a nation, keep a criterion for membership
and then set controls for determining who may join it. This way we observe multiculturalism
in practice.
3.4 MULTICULTURALISM: IN PRACTICE
The concern of managing cultural diversity was subsequently resolved in the 1990s. This was
precisely when political theorists began to consider principles on which multicultural society
will be based. And it was only then that the notion of multiculturalism was discussed,
defended, and criticized.
147 | P a g e

Multiculturalism can be viewed in four distinct ways.

1. Demographic reality: Globalization has impacted talent flow. It resulted in people
forcefully being migrated as well as unification of those who were separated. The
phenomenon is occurring at a slow pace where there is less immigration like South
Korea.
2. Immigrant integration: It is defined as a philosophy which aims at accommodation of
diversity which can be seen in the presence of ethno cultural diversity. It is largely
necessitated by the people of the states who are hosts dealing with people who have
immigrated or are just different, thus accepting difference.
3. New Policies: The most important way is government making policies.
Multiculturalism becomes a way by which the government can make policies
depending on what these governments think about the notion.
4. Narratives and attitudes: Governments can facilitate multiculturalism signaling
towards multiculturalism. These decisions of policy mainly build narratives which
build the opinion for countries to make the policies, there by politicians influencing
policy making becomes normal.
These four points find further references in the successes of multiculturalism in
accommodating diversity. Whereas the migrants essentially lead to assimilation into host
society culture on the other hand, it can be observed that strong cultural maintenance by
immigrants and weak cultural acceptance by host society essentially leads to separation and
marginalization. When host societies are rather accepting of ethnic minority culture, the idea
of cultural maintenance will essentially lead to positive outcomes. It is better that the society
has immigrant integration because it can also be of economic advantages for the host country.
Now, this situation is only talking about culturalism created in the current scenario of
footloose population or to say migration. But there exists diversity in boundaries itself. Here,
resolving conflicts and managing diversity becomes difficult.
Firstly, the idea of multiculturalism has been understood and practiced differently in
different countries. The following are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism
in many countries.
1. Canada: French speaking people and English-speaking people have united quite
nicely in the country. It is a matter of pride for Canadians. On the other hand, South
Korea which is a largely homogeneous country has symbolized multiculturalism as
148 | P a g e

being modern South Korea hopes to be compared with other western countries such as
Canada in such matter.
2. Weaknesses: Multiculturalism can create fault lines. It does so by creating differences
and separateness boned on religion or ethnicity. It can also create differences that can
be created via rights for e.g., Mauritius. Countries in Europe have also led to the
promotion of separation via multiculturalism such as Germany Netherlands and
Denmark. Here the ethnic minorities have no contact with the native country people
or the majority. This essentially results in less or no integration and thus less
economic opportunity for the immigrants.
3. Successes: Australia and Canada have successfully promoted multiculturalism and
tolerance. Inclusion in such countries attracts skilled workers. This results in an
incoming of foreign capital and international students which is essentially helpful in
boosting their economies. It is observed that Canadian exports projected a growth by
ten percent annually when compared to exports of other countries.
4. Obstacle to Equality: Western societies that give importance to valuing human rights
and fair treatment and maintenance of practices of different cultures are enriched with
multiculturalism. In similar vein, these countries affront gender equality. On the other
hand, there is a tendency that when a host country rejects values and culture, there is
hostility towards immigrants and mostly Muslims which becomes an obstacle to
equality.
5. Positive outcomes: Countries that embrace multiculturalism show more positiveness.
There is integration of ethnic minority immigrants. On the other hand, states that are
not multicultural and have poorer ethnic minority integration are seen to experience a
lot of backlashes from its citizens.
Secondly, an ideological character which tends more to indicate how we would ideally like
things showcases the current debate on multiculturalism. They often seem to acquire cases of
the approaches of policy as well as political philosophy. (Kymlicka 1995) There is a clash
between a ‘policy-oriented conception’ of multiculturalism and the ‘empirical recognition of
diversity’. This is the reason that the contemporary debate on multiculturalism appears to be a
central concern for normative aspects. This attempt to reconstruct an ideal condition for a
respectful co-existence with difference and the subtle presupposing of what multiculturalism
indicates is simply that it aims at stability. Thus, multiculturalism often ends up seeing
differences as something to be accommodated and tries to transform them into something
unalterable and necessary.
149 | P a g e

In analysing the notion of multiculturalism in people’s life, the tendency to solve

difference was identified much earlier but much was said against it because difference was
considered good. Therefore, there was a constant struggle to reject the accommodation of
diversity owning to the theories which promoted difference on the terms of respect.
Acknowledging of difference wouldn’t then mean to homogenise but to respect and coexist.
3.5 STAGES OF MULTICULTURALISM
1. Multiculturalism as Communitarianism
Communitarians have criticized liberalism where liberals have believed that individuals are
to be set free to pursue their own notions of good life. According to Liberals, individuals have
heights, and they should have primary liberties over community and collective good life.
Now, communitarians criticize liberals by believing that community is more important than
individual they reject the idea that individual is ‘prior’ to the community. The value of good
of the community can’t be credited to individuals according to communitarians. They
acknowledge collective good and thus set the stage for multiculturalism which purities
forward for idea of group rights.
2. Multiculturalism within the framework of liberalism
A justification within liberalism which was revised with critical engagement multiculturalism
as an idea which joins the notion of autonomy and equality and talk about cultural
membership will Kymlicka was one of the theorists who developed the liberal theory of
multiculturalism. Kymlicka develops the theory in two books. In his first book, he writes with
the Rawlsian ramework talking about justice and sees cultural membership as a notion of
‘good’ which people will want and are necessary. In the book, liberalism, community and
culture (1989), Kymlicka mentions the ‘primary good’.
Kymlicka in his second book, Multicultural citizenship (1995) moves beyond
Rawlsian framework and includes Margalit and Joseph Kaz’s understanding of national self-
determination. Tejh focus was on autonomy and its condition of having opinions to choose
from. According to Kymlika, culture has a ‘choice’ nature as it provides options which are
meaningful. This would mean that with a cultural group, a person can have a connection
between self-respect and respecting the group. Membership of the group gives choices to the
member and self-respect.
The state cannot be neutral with reference to culture and all law which aims at solving
the problem of discrimination, but they are not always successful at making minority groups
equal. State thus supports certain groups and, on the others, hand they cannot establish one
150 | P a g e

language for official uses or public schooling but they have to stop racial discrimination.
3. Multiculturalism as response to nation-building
Going beyond liberalism and republicanism and focusing on the historical injustices and to
the minority group, is important, especially the post-colonial perspective. The idea of
indigenous sovereignty gives way to the understanding of minority’s claim historical
background not giving equality as well as equal sovereign status to these groups. This also
meant dispossession of the group’s land and removal of their culture and practices.
Now, the stage has authority over aboriginal peoples, and it must give right to protect
its legitimacy of doing so. The state gives rights of self-governance and special rights. The
state has a character and history of being oppressed which makes it dangerous that the state is
interesting into the internal matters of groups.
The postcolonial perspective goes beyond liberal and republican understanding of
multiculturalism. The goal is to be models which are developing, constitutional and they
recognize cultural distinctness.
Parekh argues that liberal theory is unable to give an impartial framework between the
communities. They should be models of intercultural dialogue. In which political values of
equality and justice give rise to cross cultural dialogue.
3.6 CRITIQUES OF MULTICULTURALISM
Cosmopolitan view: Theories of multiculturalism are premised on the important view of culture.
They are not distinct, self-contained wholes; rather they have long interacted and influenced one
another. They have done so through wars, imperialism, trade, and migration. They live within cultures
that are already cosmopolitan, characterized by cultural hybridity. This hybridity can be observed in
many parts of the world. To aim at protecting a culture there is a risk of giving advantage to one
version of that culture which may be considered pure or supreme. This cripples people’s ability to
adapt to changes in such circumstances.
Cultures are interactive and overlapping theorist who believe in multiculturalism are often
said to maintain that individuals belong to different cultures and the ‘options’ which was discussed
before, becomes important only when it is shared. There can be many sources available to people like
ethnic and historical.
Toleration as Indifference and not as Accommodation: This criticism is aimed at liberal
multicultural theories of accommodation and stems from the value of freedom of association and
conscience. If we take these ideas seriously and accept both ontological and ethical individualism as
discussed above, then we are led to defend not special protections for groups but the individual's right
151 | P a g e

to form and leave associations.

Chandran Kukathas says that there are no group rights but only individual rights. By granting
cultural groups rights, the state oversteps its role, which is to secure civility, and risks undermining
individual rights of association. States should not pursue cultural integration or engineering but rather
a politics of indifference toward minority groups. One limitation of such an approach is that groups
that do not themselves value toleration and freedom of association, including the right to dissociate or
exit a group, may practice internal discrimination against group members, and the state would have
little authority to interfere in such associations. A politics of indifference would permit the abuse of
vulnerable members of groups tolerating.
Politics of Recognition: A third challenge to multiculturalism views it as a form of a politics
of recognition. This diverts attention from the politics of redistribution. It can be distinguished
between these modes of politics: a politics of recognition challenges status inequality and the remedy
it seeks is cultural and symbolic change and on the other hand a politics of redistribution challenges
economic inequality (Fraser, 1997).
Working class mobilization tilts toward the redistribution end of the spectrum, and claims for
exemption from generally applicable laws and the movement for same-sex marriage are on the
recognition end. In the U.S. critics who view themselves as part of the progressive left worry that the
rise of the cultural left with its emphasis on multiculturalism and difference turns the focus away from
struggles for economic justice.
1. Universalist Ideal of Equality: This relates to the issue of the liberal multiculturalists'
understanding of what equality requires. Brian Barry argues for a Universalist ideal of
equality. Whereas in contrast to the group-differentiated ideal of equality defended by
Kymlicka, Barry believes that religious and cultural minorities should be held
responsible for bearing the consequences of their own beliefs and practices, just as
members of the dominant culture are held responsible for bearing the consequences of
their beliefs. Barry thinks that special accommodations are owed to people with
disabilities, but he believes religious and cultural affiliations are different from
physical disabilities: the former do not constrain people in the way that physical
disabilities do.
Physical disability supports a strong prima facie claim to compensation because it
limits a person's opportunities to engage in activities that others can engage in. In
contrast, religion and culture may shape one's willingness to seize an opportunity, but
they do not affect whether one has an opportunity. He argues that egalitarian justice is
only concerned with ensuring a reasonable range of equal opportunities, not with
ensuring equal access to any choices or outcomes (Barry, 2001)
2. Postcolonial Critique: Some postcolonial theorists are critical of multiculturalism and
152 | P a g e

the contemporary politics of recognition for reinforcing, rather than transforming,

structures of colonial domination in relations between settler states and indigenous
communities. State recognition of self-government rights and other forms of
accommodation are important steps toward rectifying historical injustices and
transforming structural inequalities between the state and indigenous communities.
Coulthard's analysis redirects attention to the importance of evaluating and
challenging the structural and psycho-affective dimensions of colonial domination,
but by arguing that indigenous peoples should let go from settler-states and settler
societies may play into the neoliberal turn toward the privatization of dependency and
to risk reinforcing the marginalization of indigenous communities at a time when
economic and other forms of state support may be critical to the survival of
indigenous communities.
3. Feminist Critique of Multiculturalism: Some of the most oppressive group norms and
practices revolve around issues of gender and sexuality, and it is feminist critics who
first called attention to potential tensions between multiculturalism and feminism
(Okin, 1999). These tensions constitute a genuine dilemma if one accepts both that
group-differentiated rights for minority cultural groups are justifiable, as multicultural
theorists do, and that gender equality is an important value, as feminists have
emphasized.
By giving special protections and accommodations to minority groups engaged in
patriarchal practices may help reinforce gender inequality within these communities.
It has been analyzed in the scholarly literature include conflicts over arranged
marriage, the ban on headscarves, the use of cultural defenses in criminal law,
accommodating religious law or customary law within dominant legal systems, and
self-government rights for indigenous communities that reinforce the inequality of
women.
Many feminist critics have emphasized, granting external protections to minority
groups may sometimes come at the price of internal restrictions. They may be
different sides of the same coin: for example, respecting the self-government rights of
Native communities may entail permitting sexually discriminatory membership rules
enacted by the leaders of those communities. Whether multiculturalism and feminism
can be reconciled within liberal theory depends in part on the empirical premise that
groups that seek group-differentiated rights do not support patriarchal norms and
practices. If they do, liberal multiculturalists would in principle have to argue against
extending the group right or extending it with certain qualifications, such as
153 | P a g e

conditioning the extension of self-government rights to Native peoples on the

acceptance of a constitutional bill of rights.
3.7 IDENTITY, DIFFERENCE AND TOLERANCE
Toleration is a social virtue. It is a political principle allowing for the peaceful coexistence of
individuals and groups. These groups may hold different views, they may practice different
ways of life, or even have different characters within the same society. Toleration is required
in situations where social differences exist and more so if these do not coexist harmoniously.
Tolerance then becomes basic for social order and peace, hence bringing out an establishment
of link between toleration and difference.
There can be different views by which differences can be accommodated. The following are
the four different conceptions of toleration:
– The view of tolerance as a moral virtue.
– The liberal views of toleration according to the perfectionist.
– The liberal view of neutralist perspective.
– Toleration as recognition.
First, according to a conception of tolerance as moral virtue, within political philosophy, as
the disposition leading to the suppression with others, disliked or disapproved behavior,
which is considered important both by the tolerator and by the tolerated. If tolerance is to be
defined as a virtue, differences need to have the features of disliking the potential tolerator.
Only then the proper differences will be tolerated when it will be moral and not non-moral.
To be seen as a virtue, tolerance should be the overcoming of one’s feeling of dislike or
disapproval for higher moral reasons such as respect for others and their autonomy. Attitudes
such as racism and practices such as slavery or torture, which are universally acknowledged
to be morally wrong and unjust, cannot be subjects for toleration. Being tolerant with
reference to these practices is not a virtue, but a moral wrong.
Moving on to the second and third arguments of the liberal tradition, toleration can be
construed as a political principle. Liberalism includes two strands which bear on the
conception of toleration: neutralist or political liberalism, represented by John Rawls and
perfectionist liberalism outlined by Joseph Raz. The neutralist argument starts from pluralism
as a problematic fact, and then goes on to generalizing the model of political toleration which
provided the solution to the religious wars of early modern Europe. Political toleration works
for peace and civil coexistence, demarcating between matters pertaining to political order and
154 | P a g e

public affairs and matters concerning issues that are irrelevant to order and peace. The latter
realm defines the private sphere, where the state has no business, hence no reason to
intervene with coercive action. The principle of toleration therefore relies on the
public/private divide, and properly applies to private–personal questions, while in the public
domain it requires the principle of state neutrality. If toleration is the suspension of the
political power of interference in an individual's religious and moral views, neutrality means
not favoring any such views, or their holders, over others in the public sphere.
Finally, toleration as recognition thus acknowledges different identities as its proper
subjects and points out that cultural contrast is invariably fueled and examined by
asymmetries in social standing, status, respect of different groups struggling to improve their
status, or alternatively, resisting any such change. Focusing on the power relationship
between groups, however, does not automatically solve the cases of incompatibility
sometimes arising between certain cultural practice and legal norms or individual rights. The
hotly debated issue of headscarves at state schools in France; practices concerning arranged
marriages; various demands of exemption of state mandatory education for children; up to
perhaps the most controversial issue, female genital mutilation, are all instances of
incompatibility.
Toleration as recognition is less concerned with the principled defense of liberal
values than with effective just treatments of people; hence it shares the view that the
approach to hard cases should always be contextual, careful in the interpretation of the claims
at issue and of the positions of the various parties involved. Moreover, toleration as
recognition makes a distinction between the symbolic recognition of a collective identity,
implying its public visibility and legitimate presence in the ‘‘normal’’ range of the open
society, and the actual acceptance of specific practices and claims. Toleration as recognition
is aimed not at a mosaic society or at the preservation of cultures as endangered species, but
at making people, whatever their differences and identities, feel at ease with themselves, and
at ease with their choice to identify or not with certain differences.
3.8 CONCLUSION
A tolerant society might not match the ideal of a multiculturalist society and it may not be a
very comfortable society either against the views of some images of a tolerant society as one
at ease with itself. It is therefore easy to exercise toleration in relation to things we do not
much care about; but when we really do care, toleration is difficult. There is a tendency to
approve of toleration as it does not require us to tolerate what we disapprove of. This is
because we are not really being challenged in any deep or fundamental way that enables us to
155 | P a g e

be not merely tolerant but even to talk cheerfully of mutual recognition, openness, dialogical
engagement, and the celebration of cultural diversity, while more or less subtly wagging our
finger at others but exempting ourselves. However, in so far as different cultures and ways of
life are deeply committed to beliefs and practices that are mutually antagonistic, particularly
when they are bound up with ideas of right and wrong, a measure of disparagement,
condescension or even hostility may be a normal concomitant of such commitments. And in
our enthusiasm for something supposedly better we should not lose sight of the continuing
role that the traditional conception of toleration is still needed to fulfil.
1. What do you understand about multiculturalism? Do you agree with the way
multiculturalism accommodates differences of culture?
2. What are the stages of development of multiculturalism?
3. Write in brief a critical evaluation of multiculturalism and tolerance?
4. What do you understand about tolerant society in contemporary world?
3.10 REFERENCES
• Ackerman, B. 1980. Social Justice in the Liberal State. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press.
• Dworkin, R. 1978. Liberalism. Pp. 113–43 in Private and Public Morality, ed. S.
Hampshire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fraser, N. 1995. From distribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a
postsocialist era. New Left Review, 212: 68–93.
• Kymlicka, W. 1989. Liberalism, Community, and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 1992. The right of minority cultures: a reply to Kukathas. Political Theory, 20:
883–905.
• Young, I. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
• Berry, J.W. 1977 Multiculturalism. The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation
Psychology. Cambridge
156 | P a g e

• Parekh, B. (2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political

Theory. London: Macmillan.
• Creppell, I. (2003): Toleration and Identity. Foundations of Early Modern Thought.
London: Routledge.
• Rawls, J. (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press
• Taylor, C. The Politics of Recognition in GUTMANN A. (ed.), Multiculturalism:
Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
157 | P a g e


PTCD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PTCD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PTCD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Distance and Continuing Education

B.A. (Hons.) Political Science

© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Sl. No. Title Writer Pg.

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.3 CONCEPT OF LIBERTY

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.4 SCOPE OF LIBERTY

1.5 LIBERTY AND LICENCE

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.6 LIBERTY AND AUTHORITY

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

As a Human Quality As a Human Condition

Negative Liberty Positive Liberty

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.7 VARIOUS NOTIONS OF LIBERTY

1.8 VIEWS OF LASKI: POSITIVE VIEW ON LIBERTY

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

to the development of personality”.

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.9 VIEWS OF MACPHERSON: DEVELOPMENTAL LIBERTY

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.10 VIEWS OF J.S. MILL (1806-73)

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.11 VIEWS OF ISAIAH BERLIN

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

democracy as a man/woman may be left by a dictator than by a democratic government. He

1.12 VIEWS OF MILTON FRIEDMAN

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

development of society. By economic liberty he means availability of free capitalist market

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Comparison of Negative and Positive Liberty

Source: M.P. Jain, “Introduction to Political Theory, p.128

1.13 MARXIST CONCEPT OF LIBERTY

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Marxism analyses socio-economic and political problems and concepts based on

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

people anthropological, spiritual, idealist, individualist, mechanical and materialist

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.14 EVALUATION AND MAIN POINTS OF MARXIAN FREEDOM

• The issue of personal liberty is associated with Marxian humanism.

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.15 VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF LIBERTY

1.16 SAFEGUARDS TO LIBERTY

Few measures to safeguard the rights and liberties of the people-

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

ii) Safeguards afforded by a written constitution: One of the objectives of the

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

x) Enlightened Public Opinion: An enlightened public opinion is the best guarantee of

1.17 PRACTICE QUESTIONS

1. What is the meaning of liberty? Explain the various notions of liberty.

• Andrew Heywood (2017), Political Ideologies: Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan

© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

2.1 Learning Objectives

2.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES