Political Theory Concepts and Debates

POLITICAL THEORY:
CONCEPTS AND
DEBATES
B.A (HONS.) POLITICAL SCIENCE
SEMESTER-III
DISCIPLINE SPECIFIC CORE COURSE
DSC-7
DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
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
Content Reviewer from the DDCE/COL/SOL

Jyoti, Rupal
Academic Coordinator
Deekshant Awasthi
© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

ISBN: 978-81-19417-82-7
1st edition: 2023
E-mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
Published by:
Department of Distance and Continuing Education
Campus of Open Learning/School of Open Learning,
University of Delhi, Delhi-110 007
Printed by:
School of Open Learning, University of Delhi
© Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

This Study Material is duly recommended and approved in Academic Council

meeting held on 11/08/2023 Vide item no. 1015 and subsequently Executive
Council Meeting held on 25/08/2023 vide item no. 1267.
 All units are taken from CBCS except the lesson on Justice. The lesson on Justice is
being written afresh. All the lesson are reframed according to NEP.
 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 may be sent at the
email- [email protected]
Printed at: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Plot 20/4, Site-IV, Industrial Area Sahibabad, Ghaziabad - 201 010 (5000 Copies)

SYLLABUS
Syllabus Mapping
Unit I: Freedom
a) Liberty: Negative and Positive Lesson 1: Liberty: Negative and Positive
b) Freedom, Emancipation, Swaraj ( Pages 3-24)
Debate: Free speech, expression and dissent Lesson 2: Freedom, Emancipation, Swaraj
( Pages 25-74)
Unit II: Equality

a) Equality of opportunity and Equality of Outcome Lesson 3: Equality of Opportunity and
b) Egalitarianism: Background inequalities and differential Equality of Outcome
treatment ( Pages 77-96)
Debate: Affirmative action Lesson 4: Egalitarianism: Background
Inequalities and Differential Treatment
( Pages 97-107)
Unit III: Justice

a) Justice: Procedural and Substantive Lesson 5: Justice: Procedural and
b) Rawls and his critics Substantive, Rawls and His Critics &
Debate: Scope of Justice – National vs Global Debate: Scope of Justice –
National Vs Global
( Pages 111-124)
Unit IV: Rights

a) Rights: Natural, Moral and Legal Lesson 6: Rights: Natural, Moral and Legal
b) Rights and Obligations Rights and Obligations & Debate: Human
Debate: Human Rights - Universalism or Cultural Relativism Rights - Universalism or Cultural Relativism
( Pages 127-145)
Unit V: Democracy
a) Democracy: Idea and Practice Lesson 7: Democracy: Idea and Practice
b) Liberal Democracy and its critics ( Pages 149-163)
c) Multiculturalism and Toleration Lesson 8: Liberal Democracy and Its Critics
Debate: Representation vs participation ( Pages 165-180)
Lesson 9: Multiculturalism and Toleration
( Pages 181-195)

CONTENTS
UNIT I: FREEDOM
LESSON 1 LIBERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE 3-24
1.1 Learning Objectives

1.2 Introduction
1.3 Concept of Liberty
1.4 Scope of Liberty
1.5 Liberty and Licence
1.6 Liberty and Authority
1.7 Various Notions of Liberty
1.7.1 Views of Laski: Positive View on Liberty
1.7.2 Views of Macpherson: Developmental Liberty
1.7.3 Views of J.S. Mill (1806-1873)
1.7.4 Views of Isaiah Berlin
1.7.5 Views of Milton Friedman
1.8 Marxist Concept of Liberty
1.9 Evaluation and Main Points of Marxian Freedom
1.10 Various Dimensions of Liberty
1.11 Safeguards to Liberty
1.12 Practice Questions
1.13 References
LESSON 2 FREEDOM, EMANCIPATION, SWARAJ 25-74

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 Civilisation
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
UNIT II: EQUALITY

LESSON 3 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY OF OUTCOME 77-96

3.2 Introduction
3.3 Meaning of Equality
3.4 Development of Equality
3.5 Types of Equality
3.5.1 Political Equality
3.5.2 Economic Equality
3.5.3 Legal Equality
3.5.4 Formal Equality
3.5.5 Equality of Opportunity
3.5.6 Equality of Resources/Luck Egalitarians
3.5.7 Equality of Welfare

3.6 Marxist Theory of Equality

3.7 Conclusion
3.9 References
LESSON 4 EGALITARIANISM: BACKGROUND INEQUALITIES AND
DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 97-107

4.2 Introduction
4.3 Major Types of Equality
4.3.3 Social Equality
4.4 Debate: Affirmative Action
4.5 Conclusion
4.7 References
UNIT III: JUSTICE

LESSON 5 JUSTICE: PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE, RAWLS AND HIS
CRITICS & DEBATE: SCOPE OF JUSTICE –
NATIONAL VS GLOBAL 111-124

5.2 Introduction: What is Justice?
5.2.1 Procedural Justice
5.2.2 Substantive Justice
5.3 Contemporary Theories of Justice: Rawls’ Justice as Fairness
5.4 Limitations to the Rawls Theory of Justice
5.5 Communitarian Critique to Rawls

5.6 Feminist Critique to Rawls

5.7 Debating the Scope of Justice: National Vs Global
5.8 Summary
5.10 References
UNIT IV: RIGHTS

LESSON 6 RIGHTS: NATURAL, MORAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
& DEBATE: HUMAN RIGHTS - UNIVERSALISM OR CULTURAL
RELATIVISM 127-145

6.2 Introduction
6.3 Nature of Rights
6.3.1 Negative and Positive Rights
6.3.2 Justification of Rights
6.4 Theories of Rights
6.5 Theory of Natural Rights
6.5.1 Critics of Natural Rights
6.6 Theory of Legal Right
6.6.1 Criticism of Legal Right
6.6.2 Theory of Moral Rights
6.6.3 Rights and Duties
6.6.4 Debate: Human Rights - Universalism or Cultural Relativism
6.6.5 Human Rights are Universal
6.7 Summary
6.9 References

UNIT V: DEMOCRACY
LESSON 7 DEMOCRACY: IDEA AND PRACTICE 149-163

7.2 Introduction
7.3 Democracy: The Idea
7.4 Principles of Democracy
7.5 Kinds of Democracy
7.6 Democracy: The Practice
7.7 Procedural Democracy
7.8 Substantive Democracy
7.9 Models of Democracy
7.10 Indian Democracy: Idea And Practice
7.11 Summary
7.13 References
LESSON 8 LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS CRITICS 165-180

8.2 Introduction
8.3 Types of Liberal Democracy
8.4 Protective Democracy
8.5 Developmental Democracy
8.6 Criticisms of Liberal Democracy
8.7 Elite And Pluralist View of Democracy
8.8 Marxist View of Democracy
8.9 Feminist View of Democracy
8.10 Conclusion
8.12 References

LESSON 9 MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION 181-195

9.2 Introduction
9.3 Multiculturalism: Meaning
9.4 Multiculturalism: In Practice
9.5 Stages of Multiculturalism
9.6 Critiques of Multiculturalism
9.7 Identity, Difference and Tolerance
9.8 Conclusion
9.10 References

UNIT I: FREEDOM
LESSON 1 LIBERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE
LESSON 2 FREEDOM, EMANCIPATION, SWARAJ

Liberty: Negative and Positive
LESSON 1 NOTES
LIBERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE

Ceejun Chandran
Assistant Professor
Miranda House, College, DU
Structure
1.2 Introduction
1.3 Concept of Liberty
1.4 Scope of Liberty
1.5 Liberty and Licence
1.6 Liberty and Authority
1.7 Various Notions of Liberty
1.7.3 Views of J.S. Mill (1806-1873)
1.8 Marxist Concept of Liberty
1.9 Evaluation and Main Points of Marxian Freedom
1.10 Various Dimensions of Liberty
1.11 Safeguards to Liberty
1.13 References
1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
 To understand the concept of liberty and its various dimensions

 To explain how to exercise liberty without restricting the liberty of others
 To discuss the views of different experts such as Laski, J.S. Mill, Berlin, Self-Instructional
Macpherson, and Friedman Material 3

NOTES  To describe about the Marxist concept of liberty and evaluation of Marxian
freedom
1.2 INTRODUCTION
In general, the meaning of the word freedom is 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’s
choice, and freedom to practice and propagate the religion of one’s choice. In short,
freedom means the absence of any kind of restriction, where a person can do whatever
s/he wishes to without any hindrance.
To understand freedom in a better way, we can take some other examples, like
the desire of a 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, and the desire of the patient to go home
after being admitted for a long time to a hospital for treatment. Freedom also implies
non-interference in one’s life in any form of word or action. So, we can say liberty has
different meanings for different people. The term liberty derives from the Latin liber,
which means “absence of restraints”. In other words, liberty implies the freedom to act
without being subject to any restraint. Liberty signifies “the 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
Self-Instructional
4 Material

said that liberty consists of obedience to the general will. J.S. Mill describes, ‘The only NOTES
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”.
1.4 SCOPE OF LIBERTY
One of the major issues in liberty is the 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 interests of society, liberty would be reduced to
‘license’. On the other hand, if the 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. Therefore, it is essential to draw a distinction between
liberty and licence 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 interests of other individuals, liberty degenerates
into license. Such a condition is neither compatible with the maintenance of social
order, nor with the 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 the death of the innocent
sheep; large fish would 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
Self-Instructional
Material 5

NOTES 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 organisational
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 a 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 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 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 to the
enjoyment of liberty by 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 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 that liberty
Self-Instructional
6 Material

within the state is thus a relative and regulated liberty: it is the common measure of NOTES
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 realising 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. 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 an important issue in political theory.
D.D. Raphel has illustrated: Most political theorists recognise 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 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
Self-Instructional
Material 7

NOTES which would not only be more effective, but also more conducive to the justified if it
were backed by moral support and legitimacy instead of mere force. Legitimacy denotes
the support extended by the people to the state and its law because 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 recognise a moral obligation to obey law, they are
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)
Figure 1.1 Nature of Freedom
Source: O.P. Gauba, “Political Theory and Thought”, p.5.4
Self-Instructional
8 Material

NOTES
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 concept of free will 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.”
According to Laski: “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 criticised 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 an 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,
Self-Instructional
Material 9

NOTES 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 associates 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 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 realised 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 realisation. The responsibility of creating these without the conditions
required for their realisation. The responsibility of creating these without the conditions
lies with the government.
Laski mentions positive conditions required for the realisation 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 realise their own
good. Laski says, “…those who desire the good of all begin with the abolition
Self-Instructional of special privileges…Special privilege is incompatible with freedom because
10 Material

the latter quality belongs to all alike in their character as human beings”. Thus, NOTES
liberty is possible only when equality is present.
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 realisation of rights and 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 for 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 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 realised.
ii) The object of liberty is the development of man as a social being.
iii) Without proper opportunities and social conditions liberty cannot be realised.
Self-Instructional
Material 11

NOTES iv) Rights are necessary for liberty, and they are 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 realisation of liberty
and for this purpose 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 positive liberty can 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 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 on 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 takes, the religion
one follows, and their 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
Self-Instructional
12 Material

cannot interfere”. According to them, “that government is the best which governs the NOTES
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.
1.7.3 Views of J.S. Mill (1806-1873)
Mill supported the concept of negative liberty together with 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 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 Self-Instructional
Material 13

NOTES be on its guard”. He maintained that even social collectivity or society may itself be a
tyrant and may tyrannise 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.
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 tour of the
world and is unable to do so because lack of money, it is his/her fault, he/she is 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
terrorised 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
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 realisation
of liberty. He says: “Thus the distinction between freedom and conditions of freedom
Self-Instructional is not a mere pedantic distinction, for, if it is ignored the meaning and value of freedom
14 Material

of choice is apt to be downgraded. In their zeal to create social and economic conditions NOTES
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 realisation of liberty does not mean the absence of
liberty itself. In brief, we can say Berlin maintains liberty as the absence of any restraints
or interference in the personal affairs of an individual.
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 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. Self-Instructional
Material 15

NOTES 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 interests are. 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 realisation of liberty. Liberty may be against justice and equality and in a
dictatorship of man may have more liberty than in a democracy.
Self-Instructional
16 Material

Comparison of Negative and Positive Liberty NOTES
Table 1.1 Comparison of Negative and Positive Liberty
Negative Liberty Positive Liberty

1. Liberty without any restrictions. 1. Liberty with reasonable restrictions.
2. It gives more weight to the personal 2. It looks at in the social context and
aspect and regards liberty as inherent maintains that it is based on the socio-
in the personality of an individual. economic and political conditions of
society.
3. It assumes that the state in an enemy 3. It assigns responsibility of creating the

of personal liberty. positive conditions for the realisation
of liberty to the State.
4. It emphasises the personal and 4. Its emphasis the social and economic
political aspects of liberty. aspects of liberty.
5. It does not associate it with rights, 5. It regards liberty, equality, and justice
equality, morality, and justice. as mutually related.
6. It supports the State with the 6. It supports state with welfare

minimum functions. functions.
7. It is based on the market concept of 7. It emphasises the social aspects of

society-that is composed of atomised liberty.
individuals having natural liberty.
8. Liberalism supported negative 8. Socialism supported positive liberty

liberty. and stood for the abolition of private
property.
Source: M.P. Jain, “Introduction to Political Theory, p.128
1.8 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
Self-Instructional
masses, but they do not change the exploitative character of Capitalism. Freedom is Material 17

NOTES 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.
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 criticised 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 emphasised 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-realisation, 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 bourgeoisie 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
Self-Instructional
18 Material 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 NOTES
an animal-like commodity in the capitalist market. Alienation is a rotten product
of capitalist socio-economic and political system, and it dehumanises 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 analysed the prevailing different
views of people associated with anthropological, spiritual, idealist, individualist,
mechanical, and materialist fields and 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 creative 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.”
Self-Instructional
Material 19

NOTES 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”.
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 dehumanised. There will
not be a gap between his essence and existence. Marx says, “Communism” will
Self-Instructional
20 Material

lead to reintegration of his personality to man, to return to himself as his own NOTES
human essence; or in other words, to the elimination of all forms, of all forms of
human alienation, to elimination of the contradictions between essence and
existence to the all-round development of man as a person and individual”.
1.9 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.
 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-realisation and self-
realisation 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 realise 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. Self-Instructional
Material 21

NOTES
1.10 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 organise political parties,
right to criticise 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.
1.11 SAFEGUARDS TO LIBERTY
Few measures to safeguard the rights and liberties of the people are as follows:
i) Democratic form of government: Dictatorship is characterised 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.
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) Decentralisation 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.
Self-Instructional Such an arrangement is found in the federal government. At the same time, local
22 Material
self-government institutions need to be strengthened.

iv) Free and impartial judiciary: Free and impartial judiciary is essential if we NOTES
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 criticise as it is of a government to govern.
No government can totally ignore the opposition’s viewpoints. 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 freedom 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.
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
organisations, 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.
Self-Instructional
Material 23

NOTES
1.12 PRACTICE QUESTIONS
1. State the meaning of liberty and explain the various notions of liberty.
2. Discuss the difference between positive and negative liberty.
3. What is the Marxian concept of freedom?
1.13 REFERENCES
 Andrew Heywood. 2017. Political Ideologies: Introduction. London

Borough: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers.
 O.P. Gauba. 2015. Introduction to Political Theory. New Delhi: Mayur
Paperbacks.
 P. M. Bakshi. 2017. The Constitution of India. New Delhi: Universal Law
Publications.
 Faizan Mustafa. 2003. Constitutional Issues in Freedom of Information:
International Perspectives. New Delhi: Kanishka Publishing House.
 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: Kanishka Publishing House.
 M. Laxmi Kant. 2010. Objective Indian Polity, Second Edition. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Self-Instructional
24 Material

Freedom, Emancipation, Swaraj
LESSON 2 NOTES
FREEDOM, EMANCIPATION, SWARAJ

Ceejun Chandran
Assistant Professor
Miranda House, College, DU
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
2.8.4 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
2.12 References
 To understand the concept of freedom and classify different kinds of freedom

Self-Instructional
available for a citizen of India and utilize them Material 25

NOTES  To discuss the restrictions on freedom and what a citizen must do when their
freedom is curtailed
 To explain the meaning of emancipation or empowerment and how a common
person can be empowered
 To describe the different types of empowerments and measures taken by the
government to empower the common man and to utilize the same
 To understand what Swaraj is and why it is important and how can we realise
Swaraj or self-rule
 To discuss eminent figures Gandhiji, Tilak and Annie Besant concept of swaraj
and how Gandhiji motivated the common people to achieve self-rule by peaceful
methods
 To examine the aims to impart students to utilise the right to freedom of speech
and expression to speak truth without any fear or coercion
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
Self-Instructional
26 Material 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 NOTES
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.
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 realisation
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. Self-Instructional
Material 27

NOTES Greens, particularly deep ecologists, treat freedom as the achievement of oneness,
self-realisation 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 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
Self-Instructional
28 Material

of liberty – positive freedom– defined by Berlin as the ability to be one’ sown master; NOTES
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-realisation.
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-realisation; 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 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
Self-Instructional
rights. These are:– Material 29

NOTES (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 organisation.
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.
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
Self-Instructional
30 Material

impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the freedom of speech and expression NOTES
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) 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 people. It not, only include 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.
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
Self-Instructional
Material 31

NOTES 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.
(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
Self-Instructional dangerous (harmful drugs or explosives etc.).
32 Material

Protection in respect of conviction for offences: Article 20 grants protection against NOTES
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.
(h) Right to free legal aid.
(i) Right against solitary confinement.
(j) Right speedy trial.
(k) Right against handcuffing.
(l) Right against inhuman treatment. Self-Instructional
Material 33

NOTES (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 detenu should be afforded an opportunity to
Self-Instructional
34 Material make a representation against the detention order (Laxmikant: 53-57).

NOTES
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 Besant, 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 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
Self-Instructional
gain access to basic resources like food, water, health, education, and other necessary Material 35

NOTES things, it empowers to overcome illiteracy and ignorance and enables one to demand
their rights.
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.
Rowlands explains ‘empowerment’ is bringing the people into the decision-
Self-Instructional making process who were not a part of it earlier (Rowlands: 13). Rowlands give
36 Material

definition and talks about the inclusion of people in the decision-making process. That NOTES
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, organisation 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 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, 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 Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes (SCs/STs) and provision of reservation for women in unions, states, districts
and other local bodies. Self-Instructional
Material 37

NOTES 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 organise
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; and Payment of Bonus Act
1965.
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
Self-Instructional
38 Material Kiran Yojana, Indira Mahila Yojana, Vande Mataram Schemes, and Rajrajeshwari

Mahila Kalyan. Laws and schemes are running parallel to provide empowerment to NOTES
the women who are in need. National Commission for Women and National Human
rights Commission are constituted at the centre, state, and district and 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 organisations. 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.
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
unutilised, or is misused by the concerned officials who are dealing with it.
Access to information: It 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 Self-Instructional
Material 39

NOTES 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: It 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 are established to ensure speedy justice to the people without incurring any
money.
Imparting skills and training to the people: It 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
organises 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 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
Programme for the children of the age group 3 to 5. 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, and Employment Assurance
Scheme, etc.
Freedom of speech and expression: It ensures that every person should express his
or her views freely without any fear. A person is free to criticise the government policies
Self-Instructional and programs if it is not in tune with the requirement of the people. Currently, the
40 Material

government has enacted the Public Grievance Redressal Bill that ensures a person’s NOTES
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: It 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: It 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.
Decentralisation 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. Decentralisation does not mean the one related to political decentralisation
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.
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. Self-Instructional
Material 41

NOTES Democratic participation: It 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
criticise the policies and programs of the government contrary to the will of the people.
Social justice: It 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: It 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: It implies common ownership by the group of people or
organisations. 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: It 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.
Organisational learning: It 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 accordingly. The courses help them to raise the standard of living
and contribute to the economic growth of society.
Self-Instructional
42 Material

Improvement: It implies rising above the level you come from. That is the stage of NOTES
higher development from the level of lower development. It emphasises 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: It 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: It 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 realisation that unless these internal barriers are removed
Self-Instructional
Material 43

NOTES and it would be impossible to mobilise 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, 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 recognises 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
Self-Instructional
moneyed men. But that does not mean that they should have palaces like theirs. They
44 Material

are not necessary for happiness. But people should get all the ordinary amenities of life NOTES
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
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 Muslims, or Sikhs and whether legislatures were
exclusively filled by the Hindus or Muslims, 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)
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)
Self-Instructional
Material 45

NOTES 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 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)
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-
Self-Instructional
46 Material

sacrifice. My Swaraj will not be a blood violation of rights, but the acquisition of NOTES
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
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)
Gandhiji’s Swaraj is to keep intact the genius of our civilisation 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 civilise us, and to purify and stabilise our civilisation, it would
be nothing worth. The very essence of our civilisation is that we give a paramount
place to morality in all our affairs, public or private. (YI, 23-1-1930, p. 26). Self-Instructional
Material 47

NOTES 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 organisations 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 mobilised 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 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, cottage industries, and indigenous
system of education. Apart from being a mass leader, he was an outstanding social
Self-Instructional
48 Material

reformer who passionately worked for the elimination of inhuman institutions like NOTES
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. Decentralisation is combined with
economic decentralisation 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 actualising the power of the people. 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.
Ram Rajya: By Rama Rajya, Gandhiji do not mean Hindu Raj. He meant Rama
Rajya as Divine Raj, in other words, 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.
Self-Instructional
Material 49

NOTES 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 on
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 God 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
Self-Instructional
50 Material

success to a remarkable extent in performing this task. He had in his movement the NOTES
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.
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 an adequate basis for unity and Khilafat agitation
was ‘an opportunity of uniting Hindus and Muslims as would not rise in a hundred
Self-Instructional
Material 51

NOTES 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 recognise the Ottoman Sultan
as their Caliph. The Khilafat question was because the Sultan of Turkey was recognised
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 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 Khilafat 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
Self-Instructional helping the government.
52 Material

Non- Cooperation Movement: The Indian nation leadership had contributed a great NOTES
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 recognised 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 to 9 September, 1920 at Calcutta 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, nationalisation
of education, economic boycott, organisation 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 recognised 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
Self-Instructional
Material 53

NOTES 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 organisations 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 authorised Gandhi consequently informed the viceroy on 1
February, 1922, that he had decided to start Civil 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 5
February, 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 Besant
Home Rule Movement by Annie Besant in 1916 to speeding the process of freedom
Self-Instructional
struggle in India. There were two home rule leagues launched. Tilak launched the Indian
54 Material

Home Rule League in April 1916 at Belgaum. Annie Besant launched the Home Rule NOTES
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 organised 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.
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 Self-Instructional
Material 55

NOTES prominent leaders like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Joseph Baptista, G S Khaprade,
and Sir S Subramania 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 realising 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).
 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
Self-Instructional masses and the Home Rule Leagues merged with the Congress Party in 1920.
56 Material

2.8.4 Swarajists NOTES
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 organisation.
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
Self-Instructional
Material 57

NOTES and uniting them against the British for the common cause of independence is widely
acknowledged. His untiring struggle and single-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 organised 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.
Self-Instructional
58 Material

NOTES
2.9 SWADESHI AND HOME RULE LEAGUE
Two of the most prominent movements organised 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 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 organised by Tilak along with
Annie Besant and G.S. Khaparde. 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 Self-Instructional
Material 59

NOTES ‘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 to 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 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
realised 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 recognised right across the world. It includes right
express one’s view written, orally etc. Freedom of speech and expression also includes
Self-Instructional free media. Moreover, right to information is also the extension of 19(1) (a). It provides
60 Material

for the right to access to information held by the public authority. NOTES
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 organisation.
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.
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 Self-Instructional
Material 61

NOTES 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 make democracy an
effective participatory democracy.1 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.
1
Faizan Mustafa, Constitutional Issues in Freedom of Information: Internationa Perspectives,
Self-Instructional New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers, 2003, p.6.
62 Material

2.10.1 Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Role of NOTES
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 Joseph
Wanton Morrison, who were members of the Council opposed Metcalfe. 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. 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
Self-Instructional
Material 63

NOTES 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 also provided penalties for the defaulter
authorities.
Self-Instructional
64 Material

The Press Council of India Bill of 1996 defined the right to information as a right NOTES
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 organisations. 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 former
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, 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). Former Chief
Justice, A. N. 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.2
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
2
Bennet Coleman and Co. v. Union of India AIR 106, 1973 SCR (2) 757. Self-Instructional
Material 65

NOTES 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.3 In 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.4 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 utilised not just for
entertainment but also for education, information, and ideas.5
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 Organiser” 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.6
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”.7
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
3
Secretary Ministry of I & b v. Cricket Association Bengal, AIR 1236, 1995 SCC (2) 161
4
Public Union and Civil Liberties, 1995 SCC, SUPL (2) 572 JT 1995 (3) 365
5
Union of India v. Motion Picture Association, 1999 Appeal (Civil) 3766-6-of 1999.
6
BrijBhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 AIR 129, 1950 SCR 605
7
Virendra v. State of Punjab, 1957 AIR 896, 1958 SCR 308
Self-Instructional
66 Material

ban even under a court injunction could be justified in the interest of the justice only NOTES
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
authorisation has been held to be 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.8
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.9
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”.10
8
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanwal Gandhi, 1997 Criminal appeal no. 840 & 839
of 1997
9
Express Newspaper v. Union of India, 1958
10
Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Asst Commercial Tax Officer, 1994 SCR (1) 682, 1994 SCC (2) 434 Self-Instructional
Material 67

NOTES 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”.11
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.12
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’.13
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 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.”14
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 organisations such as the Council of Europe,
the European Union, the African Union, the Commonwealth and the Organisation 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
11
SarojIyer v. Maharashtra Medical Council of Indian Medicine AIR 2002 BOM, 97, 2002
(3) BOM CR 416
12
Sushil Choudhary v. State of Tripura, 1998 AIR 1998 GAU 28
13
Hindustan Times v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2002 Writ petition (Civil) 328 of 1992
Self-Instructional
14
Ambrish Saxena, Right to Information and Freedom of Press, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 18-29.
68 Material

government to adopt laws on freedom of information. In 2002, the Council of Ministers NOTES
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 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.
Self-Instructional
Material 69

NOTES Article 31 of the American Convention on Human Rights adopted by

Organisation 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.15 The Inter-American Declaration of
Principles on Freedom of Expression adopted in the year 2000, recognises access to
information held by the State is a fundamental right of every individual. In October
2006, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recognised the right to access to
information.
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”.16
In the New Information Order, the freedom of information is challenged by
three threats, namely computer cum satellite, direct broadcasting satellite and remote
sensing 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.
15
www. unesco.org
16
R. Manekar, Whose Freedom Whose Order? A Plea for a new International Order by Third
World, New Delhi: Clarion Books, 1981, p.205.
Self-Instructional
70 Material

The new order not only aims to decolonize and democratize the information but NOTES
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”.17 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 recognised, 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
17
Ibid, R. Manekar, 1981, p.206.
Self-Instructional
Material 71

NOTES separating them from each other; measures must be taken in the international sphere
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.18
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. Discuss the various perspectives of freedom.
Self-Instructional 18
Ibid, R. Manekar, 1981, p. 207.
72 Material

3. Describe the categories of freedom granted by constitution of India. NOTES

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’? State the ways of
emancipation or empowerment.
6. What is ‘Empowerment’? Discuss various types of empowerments.
7. What do you mean by Swaraj? Elaborate on Gandhiji and Bal Gangadhar’s
view on Swaraj.
2.12 REFERENCES
 M.P. Singh and Himanshu Roy. (1998), Indian Political Thought. New Delhi:
Janada Prakashan.
 Andrew Heywood. (2017), Political Ideologies-An introduction. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
 O.P. Gauaba. (2000), Introduction to Political Theory. Noida: Macmillan India
Limited.
 P. M. Bakshi, ed., (2017), The Constituion of India. New Delhi: Universal
Law Publishings.
 R.C. Vermani. (2000), Colonialism and Nationalism in India. New Delhi:
Geetanjali Publishing House.
 Faizan Mustafa. (2003), Constitutional Issues in Freedom of Information:
International Perspectives. New Delhi: Kanishka Publishing House .
 Justice E. S. Venkataramaiah. (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: Kanishka Publishing House.
 M. Laxmi Kant. (2010), Objective Indian Polity, second Edition. New Delhi:
McGraw Hill.
Self-Instructional
Material 73

NOTES  Anthony J. Parel. (1997), Hind Swaraj and Other Writings. New Delhi:
Cambridge University Press.
 Gandhi, M.K. (1988), An Autobiography or the Story of My Experiments
with Truth. Ahmedabad: Nava Jivan Publishing House.
 Gandhi, M.K. (1939), Hind Swaraj or India Home Rule. Ahmedabad:
Navajivan Publishing House.
 Nageshwar Prasad (ed). (1985), Hind Swaraj: A Fresh Look. New Delhi:
Gandhian Peace Foundation.
 https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/gandhis-hind-swaraj-summary-and-
centennial-view.html
 https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/hind%20swaraj.htm
Self-Instructional
74 Material

UNIT II: EQUALITY
LESSON 3 EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND

EQUALITY OF OUTCOME
LESSON 4 EGALITARIANISM: BACKGROUND

INEQUALITIES AND DIFFERENTIAL
TREATMENT
Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome
LESSON 3 NOTES
EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY

OF OUTCOME
Tarkeshwarnath
Research Scholar
Department of Political Science, DU
Structure
3.2 Introduction
3.3 Meaning of Equality
3.4 Development of Equality
3.5 Types of Equality
3.6 Marxist Theory of Equality
3.7 Conclusion
3.9 References
 To understand the meaning of equality and the theoretical issues connected with
equality
 To discuss the meaning and importance of equality for individuals and societies
 To explain various features of equality and characteristics of equality Self-Instructional
Material 77

NOTES  To describe concepts such as formal equality, equality of opportunity, and equality
of outcomes
 To elaborate the equality of resources Luck Egalitarians
3.2 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, as there is always more than
one way to define that relationship, set its goals, and prioritise 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.
3.3 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 or Latin words mean even,
Self-Instructional
78 Material

level, and equal. In general terms, equality means full equality of treatment and reward NOTES
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 society should have equal status,
and everyone should get equal privileges. 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, and 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:
 End of special privileges in society.
 Adequate opportunities to all for developing the full potential of their
personalities.
Self-Instructional
Material 79

NOTES  Access to social benefits for all with no restrictions on any ground like family
position or wealth, heredity, etc.
 Absence of economic and social exploitation.
According to D.D Raphael, “The Right to Equality is a proper 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
 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.
Self-Instructional
80 Material

NOTES
3.4 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, and 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.
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 as 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
Self-Instructional
the existing social and political system. Besides, this is the renaissance influenced gender Material 81

NOTES 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 patronised 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 stable 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 a 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. Thus,
industrialisation resulted in an increase in population phenomenon because of 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.
3.5 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.
Self-Instructional
82 Material

Social Equality NOTES
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 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, 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 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 Self-Instructional
Material 83

NOTES 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 will 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.
Nowadays, the word ‘formal equality’ is frequently used. 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 state,
Self-Instructional
84 Material

a legal association) can legitimately claim that all the citizens (including him) must be NOTES
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
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 people.
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.
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 realise 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 Self-Instructional
Material 85

NOTES race which legitimises its unequal outcome. Thus, the concept of equality of opportunity
recognises 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 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 also the principle,
that no one deserves his/her talents – the product of the natural lottery.
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
Self-Instructional
86 Material

fundamental insight when considering what constitutes a just distribution. Ronald NOTES
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 equalised resources or
opportunity for welfare. However, the point on which Luck egalitarians agree are
inequalities and 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 the book 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 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 recognise 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
skills. 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 a result of intentional action
Self-Instructional
Material 87

NOTES 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 neutralise 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 for this
account.
Luck egalitarians are also targeted for radical rejection of merit and personal
identity. According to this approach, we cannot recognise 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
stigmatising, if based on pity. Moreover, to decide such cases involvement of political
institutions, it 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.
To assess the merit of laws or policies Utilitarian’s adopt a welfarist metric and the
right 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 equalised 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.
Self-Instructional
88 Material

Equality is Complex NOTES
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 emphasises 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 emphasises freedom to achieve
desired situation. Egalitarian Liberals emphasises 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 is 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.
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
Self-Instructional
outcome. Material 89

NOTES  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 recognised 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.
 Criticising equality of opportunity, R H 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
equalised 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 criticised 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 penalised and equal results
are achieved by the process of leveling downwards.
 In a society mechanism, to achieve equal outcome, they are filled with moral as
well as practical problems. To achieve equality of outcome, the state must employ
different ways to compel the transfer of resources.
Self-Instructional
90 Material

NOTES
3.6 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 several 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 institutionalised 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
Self-Instructional
Material 91

NOTES 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 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
Self-Instructional
92 Material

notion of “affirmative action” was first used in the United States in 1961, which included NOTES
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.
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 the 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 marginalised, 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, destabilised 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.
Self-Instructional
Material 93

NOTES 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, it 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 marginalised
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 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 in public and private
institutions such as political parties, educational establishments, corporations, and
companies, in order 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.
Self-Instructional
94 Material

NOTES
3.7 CONCLUSION
To summarise, 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. Explain briefly the meaning of equality.

2. Discuss the development of equality.
3. Critically describe the types of equality.
3.9 REFERENCES
 Acharya, Ashok. 2008. Equality, in Rajeev Bhargava and Ashok Acharya ed.
Political Theory: An Introduction. New Delhi: Pearson Longman.
 N. P. Barry, Norman. 2000. An Introduction to Modern Political Theory.
London: Macmillan.
 Heywood, Andrew. 1999. Political Theory: An Introduction. London:
Macmillan.
Self-Instructional
Material 95

NOTES  Arneson, Richard J. 1995. Equality, in Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit. A
Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. USA: Blackwell
Publishers.
 Sen, Amartya. 1997. Equality of What, in Robert E Goodin and Philip Pettit ed.
Contemporary Political Philosophy an Anthology. USA: Blackwell.
 William, Bernard. 1997. The Idea of Equality, in Robert E Goodin and Philip
Pettit ed. Contemporary Political Philosophy an Anthology. USA: Blackwell
Publishers.
 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.plato.stanford.edu.
Self-Instructional
96 Material

Egalitarianism: Background Inequalities and Differential Treatment
LESSON 4 NOTES
EGALITARIANISM: BACKGROUND INEQUALITIES

AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh
Research Scholar
Structure
4.2 Introduction
4.3 Major Types of Equality
4.4 Debate: Affirmative Action
4.5 Conclusion
4.7 References
 To discuss the modern conception of equality

 To elaborate on the various dimensions of equality like civil, political, and social
equality
 To comprehensively explain about the concept of egalitarianism
 To understand the debates about affirmative action and its various merits and
demerits
Self-Instructional
Material 97

NOTES
4.2 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 revolution. Rousseau made a mark in political thought 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. We
have already discussed types of equality in the previous lesson.
4.3 MAJOR TYPES OF EQUALITY
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
Self-Instructional
98 Material

which constitutes denial of the latter’s citizenship. Equality therefore means, first, the NOTES
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 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 Self-Instructional
Material 99

NOTES 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, there are two: 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 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 utilised, 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, they shall
also be given to me. Legal equality was achieved after the long struggle. Till 1772, the
slaves were denied any legal rights, they were also not even consider people in the eye
of law, and they had no share in the enjoyment of rights. Moreover till 1918, if a
person is in poor receipts of poor relief, he/she 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.”
Self-Instructional
100 Material

4.3.2 Political Equality NOTES
The issue of political equality has been raised during the 19th century by John Locke to
J S Mill’s 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; according to them every ordinary citizen have
votes, have no real access to political power, because it 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 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 and people do not have virtual control over them.
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, 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 obligation and societal hierarchy. The question for social equality arose in
during the 19th century against the hereditary nature, slavery, capitalism, and social
Self-Instructional
Material 101

NOTES inequalities on the basis of color, race, caste, sex, gender, and religion. The struggle for
racial equality in countries like South Africa, 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 about equal voting rights.
In contemporary world, women have raised movements like ‘Women’s Liberation’, in
order 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 must be given equal treatment
in terms of basic rights and provide the access to earn and live their life based on 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. must be given.
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
Self-Instructional
102 Material

of equality. Economic equality does not mean equal distribution of money or wages. It NOTES
seeks equality regarding the basic goods and needs of life.
In the initial phase, economic equality was considered as equality of choosing
one’s 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 does not 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 some 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 that, with the
help of taxation on high income the 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 are 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. Self-Instructional
Material 103

NOTES
4.4 DEBATE: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
According to International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences “affirmative action refers

to policy measures designed to reduce the marginalisation 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 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,
skills, talents, 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 former
Self-Instructional
104 Material

President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order that has mentioned ‘take affirmative NOTES
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, marginalised 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 exists since they involved quotas of reserved
seats. Some deprived sections like blacks, lower caste (in India), and women were
deprived due to inadequate opportunities of their development in the past, with the
help of reservation. In the process, the marginalised 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 the Indian caste system . 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 in the state and union
territory assemblies, as well as in government sector jobs and public institutions for
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 Self-Instructional
Material 105

NOTES 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, 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. It would be tragic because it would erode the respect of excellence
and ability which is the base of social, moral, and intellectual development.
4.5 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.
1. What is meant by equality of opportunity? Do you think it 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 of
the concept and practice of formal equality?
3. Analyse the differences between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
4. Write a short essay on affirmative action.
Self-Instructional
106 Material

NOTES
4.7 REFERENCES
 Darity, William. 2008. International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences

(2nd Edition), New York: Macmillan.
 Dworkin, R. 1997. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth Publishers.
 Earnest, Barker.1951. Principles of Social and Political Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
 Laski, Harold Joseph.1925. A Grammar of Politics. New Haven: Yale
University.
 Rawls, John.1972. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Rhode, Deborah L. 1992. Beyond Equality and Difference: Citizenship,
Feminist Politics, and Female Subjectivity. New York: Routledge.
 Sartori, Giovanni. 1962. Democratic Theory. Detroit: Wayne State University
Press.
 Sen, Amartya.1992. Inequality Re-examined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Self-Instructional
Material 107

UNIT III: JUSTICE
LESSON 5 JUSTICE: PROCEDURAL AND

SUBSTANTIVE, RAWLS AND
HIS CRITICS & DEBATE: SCOPE OF
JUSTICE – NATIONAL VS GLOBAL
Justice: Procedural and Substantive, Rawls and His Critics & Debate: Scope...
LESSON 5 NOTES
JUSTICE: PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE,

RAWLS AND HIS CRITICS & DEBATE: SCOPE OF
JUSTICE – NATIONAL VS GLOBAL
Md. Saalim Farooq Bhat
Research Scholar
Structure
5.2 Introduction: What is Justice?
5.3 Contemporary Theories of Justice: Rawls’ Justice as Fairness
5.4 Limitations to the Rawls Theory of Justice
5.5 Communitarian Critique to Rawls
5.6 Feminist Critique to Rawls
5.7 Debating the Scope of Justice: National Vs Global
5.8 Summary
5.10 References
 To understand the meaning and concept of justice

 To learn the diverse dimensions of justice
 To understand procedural and substantive justice
 To understand John Rawls’ view on justice
 To understand various issues and views of global justice Self-Instructional
Material 111

NOTES
5.2 INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS JUSTICE?
Political philosophy has valued justice at its core for more than 2000 years. Political
philosophers have characterised the “good society” as a “just” society throughout
history. In 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 the 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 secularisation 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 put, justice is about paying each person what they are
“owed.” However, defining what that “due” might be is even more challenging. Perhaps
Self-Instructional
112 Material

the best illustration of an “essentially contentious” idea is justice. There is no single, NOTES
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 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 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 around
justice are contentious and remain relevant for further examination even today. In what
follows, we will be examining the concepts and debates revolving around justice and
its importance for politics in general and political theory.
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 Self-Instructional
Material 113

NOTES 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 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 labourers working in a factory are solely responsible for the condition
of their lives and the difficulties they might be facing, or that they needed to put in more
effort.
Usually, the 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.
Self-Instructional
114 Material

They might even acknowledge that the government must step in to aid people who NOTES
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 where 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 defence of individual liberty.
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. 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
the case of capital punishments, rehabilitative theories reject the death penalty under
Self-Instructional
Material 115

NOTES any circumstances, viewing it as little more than a sort of legalised 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 favour 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
disbursed 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 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 philosophers, the justice of the outcomes that a procedure
tends to create when it is used, greatly influences how just that procedure is. For
Self-Instructional
instance, the processes that make up a fair trial are justified on the basis that, for the
116 Material

most part, they result in decisions that result in the guilty receiving punishment and the NOTES
innocent receiving an acquittal.
5.3 CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF JUSTICE:

RAWLS’ JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS
In his well-known book, Theory of Justice, John Rawls offers a powerful defence 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 because 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 the 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 egoistic, according to Rawls. They wouldn’t have a specific idea of what a 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, Self-Instructional
Material 117

NOTES Rawls anticipated that people would 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 will be the ones in the worst situation, they will 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 for the sake of justice are well-
known concepts. The strong heritage of democratic politics, which had its origins in
the national movement, realised 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 essential extensions of the commitment to equality,
in which every member is seen as having equal stakes in Indian society’s common
resources. That is why Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee, had argued
that members of the Dalit and backward classes, who had long been denied their
rights, in an independent India committed to equality and freedom could not afford to
disregard the demands made by this group of individuals.
Self-Instructional
118 Material

NOTES
5.4 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 defence of inequality to be
incoherent. As per income and wealth, class distinctions are inevitable, and Rawls
recognises this. According to Macpherson, such disparities would have a negative impact
on individual liberty, 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 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.
5.5 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 Self-Instructional
Material 119

NOTES 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 held 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 lived in a different era and environment. Communitarians, therefore,
argue that meanings associated with social and material goods are 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
Self-Instructional
120 Material of a community and not in terms of impersonal, universal ideals.

NOTES
5.6 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, 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 labour 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 normalised 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 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 behaviours 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.
Self-Instructional
Material 121

NOTES
5.7 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 theorising on these subjects.
Cosmopolitans hold that all people are created equal and that the presence of national
boundaries does not 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 pertinent, like how many people use the term “nation,”
Rawls uses the phrase “peoples.” Moreover, Rawls frequently assumes that each
‘people’ has a state for the most part. The eight principles that Rawls supports include
acknowledging people’s 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 organisations that oversee trade, borrowing, and other
issues that are often handled by the United Nations. According to Rawls, any global
Self-Instructional
disparity that may still exist is not morally disturbing as long as all people have a set of
122 Material 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 NOTES
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 for a people’s or nation’s prosperity. Opponents point out that, in
addition to local influences, there are also global ones that have a significant impact on
the possibility of well-being. Several of these are prominently brought to light by Thomas
Pogge. 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. 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 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.
5.8 SUMMARY
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 though 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 Self-Instructional
the liberal viewpoint on justice and the changes within it as envisioned by individuals Material 123

NOTES like John Rawls, we looked at these frameworks. We came to MacPherson’s writings
by taking a critical look at Rawls’ attempts to alter fundamental liberal beliefs. Next
was the discussion of the Communitarian and Feminist critiques of Rawls, where we
learned 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 times.
2. Explain the concept of justice described by John Rawls.
3. Differentiate between procedural and substantive justice.
5.10 REFERENCES
 Brock, G. (2008) ‘Global Justice’, in McKinnon, C. (ed), Issues in Political

Theory, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 289-312
 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,
Self-Instructional
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/
124 Material entries/justice-global/>.

UNIT IV: RIGHTS
LESSON 6 RIGHTS: NATURAL, MORAL AND LEGAL

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS & DEBATE:
HUMAN RIGHTS - UNIVERSALISM OR
CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Rights: Natural, Moral and Legal Rights and Obligations & Debate: Human Rights...
LESSON 6 NOTES
RIGHTS: NATURAL, MORAL AND LEGAL RIGHTS

AND OBLIGATIONS & DEBATE: HUMAN RIGHTS -
UNIVERSALISM OR CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Manish Kumar
Research Scholar
Department of Adult,
Continuing Education & Extension, DU
Structure
6.2 Introduction
6.3 Nature of Rights
6.4 Theories of Rights
6.5 Theory of Natural Rights
6.6 Theory of Legal Right
6.7 Summary
6.9 References
 To understand the meaning and concept of rights

Self-Instructional
 To learn the nature of rights and negative-positive rights Material 127

NOTES  To understand the meaning of legal rights

 To understand human rights and the problem of cultural relativism
6.2 INTRODUCTION
Rights are commonly known as social claims that help a person prove their best
development, etc., and help them develop their personal identities. The state never
confers rights; it only recognises them. Governments never confer rights; they only
give them protection. Rights arise from society, from specific social conditions, and
that is why rights are always social. Rights mean the rights of individuals; they only
belong to individuals, they exist only for individuals, and they are treated by them so
that they can fully develop their personal identities. When we talk of the interrelationship
between 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 favourable conditions and opportunities
a person receives under the state that help him in his 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 a proof that the person’s
dignity is not accepted in the state, in which any rights of the individual do 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, or foreigners. Clearly, such a system of rights is not based on a sense
of justice. Apart from providing opportunities for the full development of personality
among 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 organisations are built. It has been generally accepted that matters
Self-Instructional related to rights play a central role in the political life of a society. Historically, it is clear
128 Material

that the increasing interest in rights is not limited only to the 17th and 18th centuries but NOTES
also to human rights. In the 19th century, there was a revival of growing interest in the
concept. Since 1960, the Civil Rights Movement has 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 centre of attention 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 (LGBT), 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 highlight the relationship between rights and obligations. 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 remains a controversial subject.
6.3 NATURE OF RIGHTS
The relationship between individuals and 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
that ensure the enrichment of human personality. They are the basic conditions of a
good life that are recognised 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 is an interest recognised 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 recognised by society and
Self-Instructional
enforced by the state.’According to Barker, the development of the capacities of the Material 129

NOTES 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 rights.
Based on the 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 rights.
Hence, one cannot have rights apart from the notion of rights. One cannot have secured
and guaranteed rights in the legal sense of the term apart from the law, which is based
upon the notion of rights. In short, rights are the demands of the individual from society
that 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 facts 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 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) from 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 society.
Hence, enjoyment of rights involves respectful observation of certain fundamental canons
of social welfare. Rights are never absolute or unlimited and are governed by society’s
interests. They impose 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 socio-economic development, new demands of individuals
continue to come into existence that struggle for social recognition. Such demands,
Self-Instructional when recognised by the state through its laws, become rights.
130 Material

And lastly, while rights are claimed universally, a great majority of rights are NOTES
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, the right to property–may differ from country to
country.
The concept of rights is a dynamic one. 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 that 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 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 that is placed in a privileged position by
virtue of its money and manipulative power; and (b) rights should not be confined to
delimiting the sphere of state activity and authority but should also prescribe the functions
and responsibilities 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 a sphere where the state is not allowed to enter. They suggest the sphere of
individual freedom, which shall not be encroached upon by the state. Positive rights,
on the other hand, prescribe the responsibility of the state to secure the rights of
individuals. They require the state to take positive measures for the protection of the
weaker and more 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 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 an individual’s thought and expression. So, it
comes under the category of negative rights. But if we say that the state shall provide
universal education to promote its citizens’ faculties of thought and expression, it will
be described as their positive right. In short, positive rights indicate the responsibility Self-Instructional
Material 131

NOTES of the state to improve the lives of its citizens and to help them in their self-development.
For example, the right to medical care, the right to work, the right to legal aid, etc. also
qualify as positive rights. A capitalist state gives precedence to negative rights, while a
socialist state gives precedence to positive rights. A welfare state aims at combining
negative rights with positive rights as far as feasible.
There are two major contemporary philosophical approaches to explaining why rights
should be respected. These two approaches are broadly known as deontological or
status-based rights, and consequentiality, or 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 that 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 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, 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, not because of the good consequences that will flow from doing so.
For them, right is not a means for the promotion of good consequences. They are
rather, in Nozick’s phrase, side constraints on the pursuit of good consequences. The
Self-Instructional status theory does not allow any rights violations, even for the sake of maximising the
132 Material

non-violation of rights overall. By contrast, within an instrumental theory, good NOTES

consequences are the justification for promulgating and enforcing rights.
6.4 THEORIES OF RIGHTS
There are numerous theories of rights that 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
recognises rights as legal; the historical theory of rights pronounces rights as products
of traditions and customs; and the social welfare theory of rights regards rights as
social to be exercised in the interest of both the individual and society.
The concept of rights emerged with the rise of the modern state and out of
criticism of the old social and political order. Its tone was radical, and in its ultimate
employment, it was revolutionizing. Historically, the demand for individual rights was
made by the rising commercial/middle class, which was the product of the industrial
revolution. It became an accepted ideology of the American and French revolutions
and was expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional Bill of
Rights in America, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man in France. Prominent
liberal writers such as Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, J.S. Mill, T. H. Green, Harold
Laski, Earnest Barker, and a host of others have advocated the rights of individuals on
one ground or another. In the post – war period, the concept of rights has been further
expanded by John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dwrokin, and many others.
6.5 THEORY OF NATURAL RIGHTS
The principle of natural rights is first and foremost among the various theories related
to 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
Self-Instructional
human life in the absence of a systematic political institution and government – in other Material 133

NOTES 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, another liberal thinker, declared
that all men are born with certain inherent rights. Rights are here in the individual
human being rather than in society or the 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 rights are granted
to a man as a citizen of this or that state, his natural rights go with him wherever he
goes. Natural rights were derived from natural law and were propagated by 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
the right to life as a natural right. Locke declared the rights to life, liberty, and property
to be natural rights. Rousseau has prioritised the rights of freedom and equality.
Contemporary political philosophies that 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 that
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.”
The idea of natural rights was not accepted by the latter political philosophers.
 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 the 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.
Self-Instructional
134 Material

 The most obvious criticism of this theory was what was meant by natural. It is NOTES
found that the word nature was used in a multi-dimensional sense, such as
nature as a whole universe or 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 that 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 relationships.
6.6 THEORY OF LEGAL RIGHT
According to this theory, there can be no right in the proper sense of the term unless it
is so recognised 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 that is not restrained by the state. In other words, man can have no right
against the state. Bentham rejected the theory of ‘natural rights’ that 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 the state is the source of rights,
(II) The state lays down a legal framework that guarantees rights. It is the
state that enforces the enjoyment of rights,
Self-Instructional
Material 135

NOTES (III) As the law creates and sustains rights, the content of the law changes, and
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.
The legal theory of rights was also found deficient by later writers in certain respects.
 The legal theory did not cover the whole range of rights. It explained the nature
of only those rights that had been given legal recognition by the state. It was
incomplete because it did not tell whether what is guaranteed is a right 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 as members of society. He believed that to limit rights to a
single source, i.e., the state, is to destroy the personality of the individual and
not preserve it.
 The state does not create rights but recognises, maintains, protects, and
coordinates them. As Wild remarked, rights exist whether they are recognised
or not. Higher than the law is our conception of right and wrong. Rights must
have a foundation.
 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 recognised 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, not the law. Law is nothing but the concretization of the feelings of the
community. The legal theory is partly correct in asserting that rights are not
rights until they are secured by the state.
This theory of rights is associated with idealist thinkers, though T. H. Green merged it
Self-Instructional
136 Material with liberalism. Laski, like T. H. Green, erects his theory of rights on moral foundations.

However, he is seriously concerned with the satisfaction of the material needs of the NOTES
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 a standard to judge the
state itself. The moral theory associates rights with the achievement of moral freedom
by man as a member of society. According to this theory, every right is derived from
one basic right: the right to personality. Whether it is the right to life, liberty, property,
education, or health, they are all rooted in and governed by the development of the
personality of the individual. Rights are powers that an individual claims from society
on a moral plane and are recognised and enforced by the state through its law. Legal
rights may or may not embody moral rights, but the ideal is the empowerment of all
moral rights through law. Such rights vary from time to time and from place to place in
accordance with the moral consciousness of the community. With the growth of moral
consciousness, certain rights that were once regarded as natural have lost value. Every
right that an individual has is dependent on the social judgement of its compatibility
with the general well-being.
It must be emphasized, however, that rights have corresponding duties as well as

obligations. 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 that “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 rights of my fellow human beings. 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 for everyone to enjoy his or her rights, it is necessary that we recognise our
obligations towards others. We cannot say that we will be free while others will be
bound by their obligations. Such a position is quite untenable and inhuman. Self-Instructional
Material 137

NOTES Secondly, the 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 realise ourselves. In return for this, it is our duty to take advantage of these
conditions and give our best. The best way in which we can contribute to the social
stock is by following our duties towards our nation, recognising our social responsibilities,
and unscrupulously respecting the similar rights of others. One does not contribute
only by being the 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 to develop our personalities to be able to contribute our best to society. A citizen
should make available valuable judgement on the various issues confronting it. One
must pay one’s taxes to the state and refrain from interfering with the similar rights of
other members of society. So long as the state helps in fostering a climate conducive to
the happiness of individuals, the citizens must also help in maintaining law and order
and must honestly perform their public duties. They should leave no stone unturned in
strengthening their own country, and if the need arises, they 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 a 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 to 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 convince my fellow human beings that by
granting me such a right, they would be enabling me to participate in the good 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 an 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.
Self-Instructional
As we are aware, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been in existence
138 Material 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 NOTES
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 universalism holds that more “primitive”
cultures will eventually evolve to have the same system of law and rights as Western
cultures, cultural relativists hold the opposite, but similarly rigid, viewpoint that a
traditional culture is unchangeable and that cultures have fundamental or essential
“properties, particularly their values and beliefs.” All questions about the origins or
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.
The Universal Declaration contains three distinct sets or generations of human rights.
The first set of generations, known as negative rights, consists of civil and political
rights. These include the right to life, equality before the law, 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 is known as
positive rights and includes a few social, economic, and cultural rights such as the right
to an adequate standard of living and an adequate standard for the health and well-
being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, 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 the right to development
among nations. They represented solidarity among nations and individuals and formed
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 Self-Instructional
Material 139

NOTES 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
the Germans are 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 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 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, stands or rules regulating the conduct of states towards 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–citizens as
well as non-citizens, men as well as women, whites and non-whites, believers and
non- believers, married persons and the unmarried, etc.
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
is 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, who contended that one can use nature or reason to identify basic rights
Self-Instructional
140 Material inherent to every human in pre-existing society.

Briefly, this doctrine can be stated as: NOTES

(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 them, through
ratification of international instruments. In other words, they are rights
because they are natural, God – given, or inherent to humanity. They are
so fundamental that there should be no exception to their application.
Human Right and the Problem of Cultural Relativism
Since its inception, the 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 fundamentalists, as well as unaligned criticisms
from developing countries. Such criticisms focus on the internal cohesion of the UDHR,
problems with interpreting it because of its 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 is justified, or whether they are just
another cunning exercise by western imperialism.
Cultural relativism is based on the idea that there are 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 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
Self-Instructional
issue of cultural relativism, which first emerged after the publication of a book in 1971 Material 141

NOTES 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.
Similarly, 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 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 the 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 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 recognised
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 judgements are valid, no moral judgement is universally
valid.” Cultural relativism argues that each culture or society possesses its own rationality,
Self-Instructional
142 Material coherence, and set of values, and it is only in these terms that one can properly interpret

the organization, customs, and beliefs (including ideas about human rights) of that NOTES
culture or society. Cultural relativists typically maintain that there is a fundamental link
between the cultural origins of a value or 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
emphasises 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 while also protecting one 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.
6.7 SUMMARY
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 recognise the normative force
of the system of international human rights in the face of cultural relativist challenges,
which, in the end, appear to state 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. Self-Instructional
Material 143

NOTES 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, and with an independent
moral standard that 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 that they 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 practise is another. In other words, defending people’s rights to their culture
is one thing, but using the same culture to protect the rights of one part of the population
is paradoxical.
1. Analyze the recent debates on the idea of rights. 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 note on ‘Human Right.’
4. Trace the evolution right. Give an account of the 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.
Self-Instructional
144 Material

NOTES
6.9 REFERENCES
 Talukdar, P.S. (2008) ‘Rights’, in Bhargava, R. and Acharya, A. (eds), Political

Theory: An Introduction. New Delhi: Pearson Longman, pp. 88-104.
 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.
Self-Instructional
Material 145

UNIT V: DEMOCRACY
LESSON 7 DEMOCRACY: IDEA AND PRACTICE
LESSON 8 LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS CRITICS
LESSON 9 MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION

Democracy: Idea and Practice
LESSON 7 NOTES
DEMOCRACY: IDEA AND PRACTICE

Sushant Yadav
Assistant Professor
Meerut University
Structure
7.2 Introduction
7.3 Democracy: The Idea
7.4 Principles of Democracy
7.5 Kinds of Democracy
7.6 Democracy: The Practice
7.7 Procedural Democracy
7.8 Substantive Democracy
7.9 Models of Democracy
7.10 Indian Democracy: Idea And Practice
7.11 Summary
7.13 References
 To understand what democracy means in its essence

 To examine the difference between a direct and representative form of democracy
 To evaluate different views of democracy in practice, substantive and procedural
 To understand the gist of Indian democracy
Self-Instructional
Material 149

NOTES
7.2 INTRODUCTION
Democracy has its real origin in Greek: demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning
rule, which makes democracy rule over people. The terms 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 to monarchies and aristocracies,
the people rule.” “Democracy entails a political community in which there is some
form of political equality among the people.” (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 says, “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 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 that 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 to hereditary privilege. Political philosophers such
as Aristotle recognised the importance of popular participation in democracy but
believed an uncontrolled democracy could take the form of ‘mob rule’. Even in recent
times, such threats to democracy have continued to haunt political thinkers. Despite
such problems, democracy sailed through tough times and survived several years in
theory as well as practice.
There are many differences in 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
Self-Instructional based on such differentiation are direct democracy and representative democracy. In
150 Material

modern times, democracy is associated with electoral democracy, which is largely NOTES
called liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is one of the most dominant forms of
democracy. Yet, there are a few other models of democracy. Democracy, though, has
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 civilised 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)
7.3 DEMOCRACY: THE IDEA
To understand what democracy means, one must go through the debates around the
idea. 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 that is equalising 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 aim at resolving social inequalities. On the other hand, it is a system of decision-
making that 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 on 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 that 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, Self-Instructional
Material 151

NOTES  “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 on 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.
7.4 PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY
Dworkin, in his book Liberalism, Constitution, and Democracy, argues for a good
democracy by mentioning three principles:
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 people have
is not based on their abilities or talents, but on all of them. Therefore, in a democracy,
people have a role regardless of any differences, which 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,
Self-Instructional
everybody has the right to hold public office, which means they can run for elections.
152 Material

The principle of participation also gives reasons why political liberties of speech and NOTES
protest are necessary for democracy. Dwrokin therefore argues that every person will
have a role to play; a person with the right to protest will be given a role to be a
member of the community, yet they 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 the
fact 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 for 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
democratic government which is democratic cannot impose what it thinks is right on its
citizens. Neither can a democratic government tell its subjects to judge politics, morality,
or ethics in their own ways; therefore, it promotes a kind of independence.
What a democratic government should do is promote diversity of thought and
moral, political, and ethical values. The government has a responsibility to promote art
and culture. It should work for the community to promote values. The safeguard of
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 and most importantly, tolerance. Tolerance helps bring respect
to sexual and religious diversity. Diversity helps reinforce justice in the community and
promote respect. This feature of democracy helps avoid the problems of totalitarianism.
All these principles are essential to being the core of democracy. In a way, it
gives people maximum liberty and equality by giving space for criticism. The people Self-Instructional
Material 153

NOTES 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 not
cause disparity among the people based on caste, creed, religion, or position or status.
Some of the important examples of this principle include the abolishment of untouchability
in India. Other principles of democracy are popular sovereignty, elections at certain
intervals, fundamental rights, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary. A
state that is democratic is a welfare state where special attention is given to the welfare
of the people as a whole and not to a particular class.
7.5 KINDS OF DEMOCRACY
As you know, there are various types of democracy. Some are direct in form, others
indirect. Let us discuss them in detail:
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. Hearnshaw 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 a direct
form of democracy. Vajji Sangha during the Buddhist Periods was believed to be an
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 that have direct
democracies: Appenzell, Uri, Unterwalden, and Glarus. In such democracies, there
are no representatives. It is based on popular participation, such as in Athenian
democracy. It was a kind of direct and continuous participation by 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:
Self-Instructional
154 Material

 Referendum: When people take decisions about important issues or policies, NOTES
like the 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 Parliament for
passing the law.
 Recall: This device helps recall a representative of the people they would
have chosen for a constituency. The United States is one such country that
empowers its people to do so.
 Plebiscite: This device gives the people the right to directly vote on an issue.
For example, in 1935, the people of Saar were asked for their opinion on
whether they wanted to live in Germany. Similarly, the people of Junagarh
were asked to give an opinion on 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 is 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

the people of a country to assemble at one place, discuss matters, and make laws.
They elect their representatives at regular intervals. There are a few ways in which
indirect democracy takes form. These include the parliamentary or cabinet form, the
presidential form, the unitary structure, and the federal form. There are many mixed
forms of indirect democracy. In a representative, the will of the state is formed not Self-Instructional
Material 155

NOTES 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 a
representative democracy, the rule is that the people govern through their officials,
while it legislates and controls the administration through its representatives.” In England,
in the 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 the Weimar Constitution.
Representative democracy is limited in the sense that popular participation only
happens at 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 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 labour in politics.
3. It allows the government to be placed in the hands 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.
7.6 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
Self-Instructional the issues around democracy are about, such as representative government, voting
156 Material systems, the role of parliament, and the increasingly global context of democracy.

Procedural democracy is about free and fair elections, fair competition among political NOTES
parties, and political equality. The other form is substantive democracy, which is a
system of government in which the people will be included in the programmes and the
functioning of the government. It may be possible that a country has procedural
democracy but lacks substantive democracy. It is also possible that it may lack both,
yet it may present itself as a democracy.
7.7 PROCEDURAL DEMOCRACY
The characteristics of a procedural democracy are essentially the procedures, such as

free and fair elections, fair competition among the political parties, political equality,
and freedom of 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 are 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 to create mechanisms that push governments to work for the people,
not in their personal interest or de facto powers.
4. It has also been unable to promote order without intervening in the private lives
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 programme of governance reflects the will of the people.
Substantive democracy cares about procedure as well as the actual contents of rights.
7.8 SUBSTANTIVE DEMOCRACY
In a substantive democracy, representatives of the people are elected. This type of Self-Instructional
democracy functions in the interests of the governed. The state must function like a Material 157

NOTES democracy, follow its principles, and not merely be set up. Thus, it is not enough to
have procedures. Just having free, fair elections at regular intervals does not suffice. It
is to ensure that the decisions are taken through discussions and that there is popular
participation in decision-making that 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 where elections are held regularly,
but they might get rigged and take the form of a dictatorship. Just the mere existence of
constitutions does not guarantee that there will be governance with the rule of law and
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 or independent
judiciary, it might as well not be called a democracy at all. In a substantive democracy,
the form of democracy is such that it must follow the principles and not just the
procedures. It is possible, thus, to have a procedural democracy without a substantive
form of democracy. Substantive 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 governments to work
for the people, not in their personal interests or de facto powers. It essentially tries to
promote order without intervening in the private lives of individuals. Indian democracy
is largely believed to be substantive democracy, which fulfils all such claims in practice.
7.9 MODELS OF DEMOCRACY
Democracies have different forms and mechanisms. The models are as follows:
 Classical Democracy
The kind of direct democracy that is discussed above began in Athens in the fourth
and fifth centuries. It was the ideal system of popular participation by a government
through mass meetings. Each had the responsibility of public office and decision-making.
Self-Instructional
158 Material

 Protective Democracy NOTES
The revived form of democracy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was less
mechanical. Democracy took on a protective form; the citizens could now protect
themselves from the encroachments of the government. Protective democracy is a
form of government that 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 the scope to live their lives as they wish.
 Development Democracy
The focus of this form of democracy is on the development of the human individual
and the community. The credit for the development of this model went to 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, the radical idea of
direct democracy is considered more important.
J.S. Mill’s idea of development democracy is a more modest concept of
democracy compatible with liberal and representative government. For him, the notion
should promote the ‘highest and most harmonious’ development of individual capacities.
Mill believed that people should develop their capabilities by participating in political
life. Thus, by participating in a democracy, people will be educating themselves. Mill’s
idea supports the ideas of deliberative democracy and parliamentary democracy.
 People’s Democracy
This form of democracy was developed in the twentieth century by 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
Self-Instructional
Material 159

NOTES achieved through common ownership of wealth. They believe that liberal democracy
is only a facade of equality, not real equality. As against this, Leninist democracy is the
kind of democracy that is based on ‘democratic centralism’ and articulates the interests
of the poor.
7.10 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. The
constitution of India essentially sums up democratic principles: sovereign, socialist,
secular, democratic, and republic. India became a democratic nation after its
independence in 1947.
The basic tenet of democracy is that all citizens 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 officials are elected 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
that is essentially based on equality of opportunity, a welfare state, and free and fair
elections. The Head of State is elected, although indirectly elected periodically. Every
citizen has the right to elect representatives at all levels including panchayats, municipal
boards, state assemblies, and parliament. Indian democracy keeps concepts of
participatory democracy and decentralised governance at its core. It is a form of
parliamentary democracy. It has both the procedures and the values that make Indian
democracy a substantive form of democracy. In this sense, democracy in India is not
only about periodic elections and 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 with the
following principles of democracy itself: The issues of communalism, social injustice of
caste, subjugation of women, and corruption tend to erode democracy. So how do
Self-Instructional
160 Material

we reach substantializing democracy? The answer lies in strengthening the formal NOTES
structures of procedural democracy and incorporating value into the system. Procedural
democracy in India functions well. Elections are held regularly, and India has never
held a military coup. The institutions in India are autonomous. Institutions such as the
Election Commission of India and the CBI are independent and have public trust.
Cultural autonomy can be seen in religious and linguistic minorities’ rights to open their
educational institutions and recognising personal laws as legitimate. Proportional
representation to minorities, reserved seats for scheduled castes, tribes, and OBCs,
and reservation in public service employment and education, Substantive democracy
in India is in peril 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 that push 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 that 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.
7.11 SUMMARY
There is uniqueness in the strength of democracy; it has been capable of addressing

the challenges of politics. There are rival opinions of democracy and differences in
interests, but democratic societies have shown their 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. Self-Instructional
Material 161

NOTES 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 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 you 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.
Self-Instructional
162 Material 4. How is substantive democracy different from procedural democracy?

NOTES
7.13 REFERENCES
 Benhabib, Seyla. (1996). Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries

of the Political. Princeton University Press
 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.
Self-Instructional
Material 163

Liberal Democracy and Its Critics
LESSON 8 NOTES
LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS CRITICS

Sushant Yadav
Assistant Professor
Meerut University
Structure
8.2 Introduction
8.3 Types of Liberal Democracy
8.4 Protective Democracy
8.5 Developmental Democracy
8.6 Criticisms of Liberal Democracy
8.7 Elite And Pluralist View of Democracy
8.8 Marxist View of Democracy
8.9 Feminist View of Democracy
8.10 Conclusion
8.12 References
 To distinguish the liberal form of democracy from other forms of democracy.

 To analyse liberal view with its two different types: protective and developmental.
 To find critique of liberal democracy despite liberal democracy being the
dominant form of democracy.
Self-Instructional
Material 165

NOTES
8.2 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 particular model of democracy, such as liberal democracy. However, if a
particular model of democracy, which we call the liberal democracy has dominated
the minds and thinking of many people, particularly, in the west that they consider or
think, only, liberal democracy is the meaningful democracy or a feasible form of
democracy. For a very long time, the liberal democracy 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 that 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 the order in the society.
The government is a necessary evil, always liable to become a tyranny. So, the
government may acquire enormous power and control the lives of the people in an
authoritarian or in undemocratic manner. To ensure that the government does not
become tyrannical, they talk about checking the government’s power or putting some
balance. 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
executive. All these three organs derived their powers from the constitution and the
constitution sets limits to their functioning. These three organs exist and function 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
Self-Instructional
166 Material

judiciary to ensure that the Parliament or executive should not function besides or NOTES
beyond the limits set by the constitution.
The liberal democracy, thus, talks about how to ensure, that a government and
state should not become tyrannical. They do so by having these mechanisms like
constitution, bill of rights, an independent judiciary, and the network of checks and
balances among the organs and the institutions of the state. Moreover, besides liberal
democracy, this constitution, judiciary, bill of rights, and checks and balances among
the institutions, also, respects 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, and civil
liberties and property rights are also protected for the ruled. So, this is the broader
understanding of the functioning of liberal democracy. Therefore liberal-democratic
rule 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 the act of voting. How is this popular consent exercised in a liberal democracy?
It is not done on a day-to-day basis due to an 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 vote ensure 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. Hence, 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, liberal democracy does not command universal approval or respect. Its
principle critics have been two models that we will discuss later, particularly the elitists
and the Marxists. It argues that it provides protection to every individual but elitists will
argue that no, it is only the few for whom does not matter, what forms of government
enjoy or exercise power in the society or the Marxist believes that the liberal democracy
Self-Instructional
Material 167

NOTES 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 mode 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 a free market economy, which many people argue works for private profit or
works in the interest of those who already have property. This makes liberal democracy
somewhat problematic for many thinkers and scholars, particularly those who argue
about elitist and Marxist models of democracy.
We must remember that the mere structure of a liberal democracy is no guarantee
for achieving the objective of democracy. We have discussed this in the procedural or
the substantive notions of democracy as well. It is possible that 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 or the procedural nature of its rule does not
necessarily make it a democracy because democracy is something that is more than
the procedure. It is about creating a system where people will be reflected in every
decision of the state or system of the rule made. So, a liberal democracy also has this
challenge of ensuring that democracy is maintained not just in procedure but in substance
too.
8.3 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-
Self-Instructional
regulating institutions in two representative cases: Sweden and the United States. The
168 Material

empirical findings lead us to the conclusion that developmental liberal democracies NOTES
represent not only a different kind but also a deeper degree of democracy than the
protective liberal democracies. The implications for democracy promotion appear
substantial.
8.4 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 that 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 in the face of the steam roller-
like administration.
In ancient Greece, many had ideas about the 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 the pursuance
of happiness. Another person who acted behind this type of democracy was James
Madison, a key architect of the 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.
Self-Instructional
Material 169

NOTES Utilitarianism was forcefully advocated in favour of protective democracy. The leitmotif
of utilitarianism was to safeguard right liberty and opportunity, and these are the basic
principles of democracy. These must be protected at any cost and according to them,
democracy was the best form of government that 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. However since people
cannot directly take part in the processes of the 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 check 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.
8.5 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
Self-Instructional
liberties but also on its power to develop the faculties of man. J. S. Mill viewed
170 Material

democracy in this light and C. B. Macpherson first drew the attention of political NOTES
scientists to it. According to Macpherson and Dunn and J. S. Mill (henceforth only
Mill), democracy was a very powerful mechanism of moral self-development and the
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 the 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, and 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’s Democracy in
America. It was the conviction of Tocqueville that the increasing intervention of the
state was bound to curb the freedom of individuals and that would be harmful to
progress. The government must keep itself away from intrusive interference. Mill
wholeheartedly 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 in every aspect of social life was
making individuals extremely dependent on the state. This threatened both the
spontaneity and freedom of men. This tendency is against development. Mill did not
think that the efficiency and pervasiveness of administration were not helpful for the
progress of individuals because these were 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 favourable 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 a danger to mass participation in the governmental process. There is a
tendency of government to bring under its fold the maximum number of people — Self-Instructional
Material 171

NOTES particularly the educated, intelligent, and efficient people. Later, the state uses them to
support its functions, policies, and various schemes. In this way, it grabs the entire
society and the whole society becomes a stooge of state apparatus.
After considering all the types of government or state, Mill concluded 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 favourable atmosphere for the development of
freedoms and rights. Any alternative to representative democracy is direct democracy
of the Athenian type. But, Mill argued that 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 rights 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 that 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 and economic rights are given
priority. A system of checks and balances exists in a 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 that 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.
Self-Instructional
172 Material

NOTES
8.6 CRITICISMS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
From the 1960s the exponents of liberalism and liberal democracy had been clamoring
for less power of state and more freedom for men. Hayek, Nozick, and Rawls are
chief among them. 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
Minister of Britain, and Reagan the ex-president of the United States. But at the
beginning of the nineties, serious thinkers of political science witnessed the revival of
Marxist thought in general and the 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 in three fields liberal democracy failed. In the field of
political participation, liberal democracy has failed to evoke sufficient enthusiasm in
the mind of men, and 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 a clear
erosion of freedom and because of this people could not raise their voices against the
policies of the government. Models of democracy which have criticized liberal
democracies are discussed below.
8.7 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 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
Self-Instructional
Material 173

NOTES 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 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 as long as the 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, labour,
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 a 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.
Self-Instructional
174 Material

Political parties are important for keeping the check and balance of power through NOTES
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 favour any of the group rather
remain neutral. Pluralism prefers a federal system of government in which the 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 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 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
holds 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,
Self-Instructional
Material 175

NOTES and judiciary but there are certain cases where there are power elite makeing 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 doesn’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. 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
itself as a secular country having divided church and state during the French Revolution.
Self-Instructional
176 Material

However, over 80% of its citizens claim to be Roman Catholics, on the other hand NOTES
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 their favour. 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, etc.
8.8 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 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 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 Self-Instructional
Material 177

NOTES a ‘ruling class’. However, significant differences can also be identified. For instance,
elitists suggest that power derive from a variety of sources (education, social status,
bureaucratic position, political connections, wealth, and so on) and Marxists emphasize
the decisive importance of economic factors; notably, the ownership and control of
the means of production. However, Modern Marxists, have been less willing to dismiss
electoral democracy as nothing more than a sham. For example, Eurocommunists
abandoned the idea of revolution, instead embracing the notion of a peaceful, legal
and democratic ‘road to socialism’.
8.9 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.
8.10 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 a considerable
controversy about how liberal democratic systems work in practice. Pluralists praise
Self-Instructional
178 Material

the system’s capacity to guarantee popular responsiveness and public accountability. NOTES
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 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?
8.12 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
Self-Instructional
and Public Affairs 10 (3), pp. 185-246. 35 Material 179

NOTES  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
Self-Instructional
180 Material

Multiculturalism and Toleration
LESSON 9 NOTES
MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION

Sushant Yadav
Assistant Professor
Meerut University
Structure
9.2 Introduction
9.3 Multiculturalism: Meaning
9.4 Multiculturalism: In Practice
9.5 Stages of Multiculturalism
9.6 Critiques of Multiculturalism
9.7 Identity, Difference and Tolerance
9.8 Conclusion
9.10 References
 To understand the meaning and scope of multiculturalism

 To explain the advantages of multiculturalism, its criticism and disadvantages
 To discuss the issues of recognition and pluralism
 To discuss the theory of tolerance and differences
9.2 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 Self-Instructional
Material 181

NOTES 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 ignored. Governments have acknowledged demands for recognition
and protection for minorities. The demand also includes political autonomy inside the
states boundaries as well as in the international society. The demands have also opened
debate in political theory which we will discuss later 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 lesson will
try to discuss such issues in detail.
9.3 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
Self-Instructional a new public policy in the concept of federalism.
182 Material

In the new policies which came in such states largely tried to promote assimilation NOTES
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
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 of 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 different 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 their 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, they will
have to restrict themselves to some basic rules and institutions. In a multicultural society, Self-Instructional
Material 183

NOTES 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.
9.4 MULTICULTURALISM: IN PRACTICE
The concern of managing cultural diversity was subsequently resolved in the 1990s.
This was precise when political theorists began to consider principles on which
multicultural society will be based. It was only then that the notion of multiculturalism
was discussed, defended, and criticized.
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
Self-Instructional
184 Material

maintenance by immigrants and weak cultural acceptance by host society essentially NOTES
leads to separation and marginalization. When host societies are rather accepting the
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. In South
Korea multiculturalism has been considered as symbol of modernization.
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
Self-Instructional
Material 185

NOTES 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, which 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.
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.
9.5 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
Self-Instructional
186 Material

collective good life. Now, communitarians criticize liberals by believing that community NOTES
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 framework, 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 other hand, they
cannot establish one language for official use 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:
Self-Instructional
Material 187

NOTES 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 constitution 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.
9.6 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.
Self-Instructional
188 Material

Toleration as Indifference and not as Accommodation: NOTES
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 not defend the special protections for groups but the individual’s right to form
and leave associations.
Views of Chandran Kukathas
He 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 is 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 Self-Instructional
requires. Brian Barry argues for a Universalist ideal of equality whereas in contrast to Material 189

NOTES 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 or not. 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 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 towards 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
Self-Instructional a genuine dilemma if one accepts both that group-differentiated rights for minority
190 Material

cultural groups are justifiable, as multicultural theorists do, and that gender equality is NOTES
an important value, as feminists have emphasized.
By giving special protections and accommodations to minority groups engaged
in patriarchal practices, it may help reinforce gender inequality within these communities.
It has been analyzed in the scholarly literature to include conflicts over arranged marriage,
the ban on headscarves, and 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 on part of the empirical premise that groups
and seek group-differentiated rights do not support patriarchal norms and practices. If
they do, liberal multiculturalists in principle would have to argue against extending the
group right or extending it with certain qualifications, such as conditioning the extension
of self-government rights to Native peoples on the acceptance of a constitutional bill
of rights.
9.7 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:
Self-Instructional
Material 191

NOTES  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, the disposition leading to the suppression with others, disliked or
disapproved behavior 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 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
Self-Instructional
192 Material

by asymmetries in social standing, status, respect of different groups struggling to NOTES

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 that sometimes arise 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 just effective 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.
9.8 CONCLUSION
A tolerant society might not match the ideal of a multiculturalist society and it may not
be a very comfortable society 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 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 Self-Instructional
wrong, a measure of disparagement, condescension, or even hostility may be a normal Material 193

NOTES concomitant of such commitments. 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?
9.10 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
Self-Instructional
194 Material

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

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.
Self-Instructional
Material 195

Notes
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Notes
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Notes
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Political Theory Concepts and Debates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Theory Concepts and Debates

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Political Theory Concepts and Debates

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL THEORY:

DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

Content Reviewer from the DDCE/COL/SOL

© Department of Distance and Continuing Education

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

This Study Material is duly recommended and approved in Academic Council

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

Unit II: Equality

Unit III: Justice

Unit IV: Rights

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

1.1 Learning Objectives

2.1 Learning Objectives

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

UNIT II: EQUALITY

3.1 Learning Objectives

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

3.6 Marxist Theory of Equality

4.1 Learning Objectives

UNIT III: JUSTICE

5.1 Learning Objectives

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

5.6 Feminist Critique to Rawls

UNIT IV: RIGHTS

6.1 Learning Objectives

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

7.1 Learning Objectives

8.1 Learning Objectives

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

LESSON 9 MULTICULTURALISM AND TOLERATION 181-195

9.1 Learning Objectives

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

LESSON 1 LIBERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE

LESSON 2 FREEDOM, EMANCIPATION, SWARAJ

LIBERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

 To understand the concept of liberty and its various dimensions

© 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

The liberty of individuals must be restricted by a measure of equal liberty to be enjoyed

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

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

As a Human Quality As a Human Condition

Negative Liberty Positive Liberty

Source: O.P. Gauba, “Political Theory and Thought”, p.5.4

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

1.7.1 Views of Laski: Positive View on Liberty

According to Laski: “By liberty, I mean the eager maintenance of that

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

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

1.7.2 Views of Macpherson: Developmental Liberty

Macpherson calls positive liberty as ‘developmental liberty’. He says, “…the division

Important Points of Positive Liberty

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

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