[Dec 2007, Volume 4 Quarterly Issue] Pdf File size - The IIPM Think ...

REIMAGINING INDIA
rights as group rights also violates the
generality requirement of jurisprudence
associated with Kant’s categorical
imperative. Under a Kantian system,
justice is served when rights are
applied generally without particular,
arbitrary preferences for either individuals
or groups.
What is at stake is the choice of a
system that serves as the means for attaining
and measuring social justice.
On the one hand, private property
rights might be seen as essential for
safeguarding most other civil rights.
On the other hand, these rights might
be the most effective incentive to inspire
individual effort that may lead to
general prosperity of the community.
A focus on “social” or communitarian
rights tends to lead to reliance
upon a politicization of the economic
position (income and wealth) of individuals
in the community. Politicizing
such outcomes in pursuit of a special
sense of social justice is open to exploitation
by special interest groups or
power elites of other groups or specific
individuals within the community.
It also allows envy and politics to brew
up a ghastly stew. Anchoring human
rights to a (more or less inviolable)
concept of private property reduces
the number of politicized decisions affecting
peoples’ lives. This would be
less exploitative and also less arbitrary
and probably more stable since community
actions are justified by mutual
consent and voluntary exchange among
individuals. Despite well-intentioned
attempts to create or promote a broad
sense of community, democracy allows
the interests of special groups to dominate
the interests of the wider community.
Mechanisms that rely upon
For greater harmony in the future, political initiatives
and the relentless expansion of restrictions and bureaucracy
that contribute to dehumanization should be
replaced by individual initiatives
majority rule to determine the distribution
of wealth or goods tends to reinforce
an increased sense of collective
identity as a means to avoid, to deflect
or to harness as well as to direct
the policies.
In the end, politicization arising out
of attempts to enforce collective rights
can be seen as the principal cause of
the powerlessness of individuals. Expansion
in the nature and direction of
state intervention replaces the rights
of the individual, except as a member
of a group.
In the United States of America, increased
political divisiveness has
emerged as more collective action has
been mandated. Despite emphasizing
multi-cultural studies in American
universities, one result has been demands
for a restoration of “separate
but equal” facilities for different
groups. More troubling is what seems
to be a growing intolerance of diversity
due to resentment of members of
groups who are perceived as recipients
of preferential treatment. Members of
groups identified as historical victimizers
begin to imagine that they are
being victimized and captive to an insubstantial
logic of retribution. Certain
members of the Hindu community in
India are making such claims against
the Muslim population.
Defining human rights in collective
or group terms invites an increased
politicization of life outcomes, something
to be avoided given India’s ethic
and religious diversity. Unfortunately,
populist politicians seldom search for
private solutions to solve problems or
conflicting interests in a private manner.
For greater harmony in the future,
political initiatives and the relentless
expansion of restrictions and bureaucracy
that contribute to dehumanization
should be replaced by individual initiatives.
As such, the best way serve
humane ends is to ground the concept
of human rights in a Liberal order
where individual rights are protected
within a Rule of Law.
14 THE IIPM THINK TANK