One versus group
Top Stories
- Police on money trail, Sreesanth in fresh trouble
- Chinese Premier Li Keqiang arrives today, PM to seek early revival of border talks
- Disabled girls say raped in Rajasthan school, 4 arrested
- Kataria ideal man, Sohrabuddin had to die: RSS-affiliated outfit
- Gunmen kill senior woman member of Pakistani party led by Imran Khan
Left-liberals assist the state in slowing India's natural evolution from a discrete salad bowl to a composite, dynamic melting pot
Ashutosh Varshney has written eloquently in these pages that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi's third consecutive election victory and his potential ascendance to a role in national politics "challenges the so-called idea of India" ('Modi needs a Vajpayee', IE, December 25, 2012). A great debate is brewing in this context. What is the idea of India? Should certain groups have special rights over and above the individual rights that all citizens enjoy in a free, democratic India?
This is a fundamental schism in political philosophy. While many intellectuals have long argued for the primacy of group rights over individual rights, and the "protection" of minority interests, there needs to be broader discussion on how this mindset might atrophy individual identity.
An identity-based "minority group right" can broadly be of two types. It can either give the group's members more liberty or enforce more restrictions. Will Kymlicka, a leading proponent of multiculturalism, has developed a similar classification — he supports the former, terming them "external protections", and is less enthusiastic about the latter, which he christens "internal restrictions". But even external protections can be problematic. Examples of such protections in India include allowing members of certain groups to have multiple spouses, or providing for special autonomy in education. The question, then, is why not extend this "greater" liberty to all citizens? If the rationale for not doing so is that polygamy is socially harmful, or that regulation of educational institutions is needed, then why be condescendingly detrimental towards such minority groups?
Enforcing more restrictions — like restricting alimony or adoptions — is worse, as it forces individuals to choose between the state's definition of their faith or official apostasy. As Vrinda Narain argues in Gender and Community: Muslim Women's Rights in India, this "discrimination dictates a system of 'differential citizenship' based on ascriptive belonging".
... contd.
Please read our terms of use before posting commentsEditors’ Pick
- Quake-hit and shaken, Bhaderwah spends nights in the open
- UP blast accused dies on way to jail, govt wanted to drop case against him
- Former civil aviation secy changes mind, seeks airport security exemption as EC
- BCCI suspects Gujarat players in other teams were also approached
- Police on money trail, Sreesanth in fresh trouble
- Chhattisgarh 'encounter' leaves 8 villagers dead, no Maoist link yet
- Chinese Premier Li Keqiang arrives today, PM to seek early revival of border talks




The responsibility to protect
Ego trips
A police force of his own
A suitable CAG




















