Active Stocks
Thu Mar 28 2024 15:59:33
  1. Tata Steel share price
  2. 155.90 2.00%
  1. ICICI Bank share price
  2. 1,095.75 1.08%
  1. HDFC Bank share price
  2. 1,448.20 0.52%
  1. ITC share price
  2. 428.55 0.13%
  1. Power Grid Corporation Of India share price
  2. 277.05 2.21%
Business News/ Opinion / Online-views/  Taking rights seriously
BackBack

Taking rights seriously

Taking rights seriously

Premium


The sensible women and men who drafted the Indian Constitution in the years after Independence had good reasons to understand the nature and scope of the human rights contained in the universal declaration, which was adopted in 1948. Those rights had two distinct elements: those that placed restraints on states, and those that urged states to act in ways through which the rights would get realized.

There were fundamental human rights which were claims we, the people had, as rights holders, on the state. And the state was the primary duty bearer, responsible to ensure that the rights became real. The state had the obligation that individual rights were respected, meaning that the state did not infringe upon them; protected, which meant that the state had to ensure others did not infringe upon the rights; and fulfilled, meaning the individuals could realize, or enjoy, their rights. To respect, protect and fulfil human rights became state obligations.

Then there were other rights, to food, education, and healthcare, being among them. The Constitution created directive principles of state policy which outlined these state obligations. How India dealt with the different rights is not unusual: due to the politics of the Cold War, internationally, too, two types of rights emerged—the international covenant on civil and political rights included what was broadly contained in fundamental rights; the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights included what was broadly contained in the directive principles. International human rights law also recognized that realizing economic, social and cultural rights would require significant resources. This is not to suggest that civil and political rights are cheap or free—just as it costs money to educate children, it costs money to establish courts and train judges to ensure enforcement of the rule of law.

While the law acknowledged the lack of resources states faced, it did not offer them a free ride to back away from their core minimum obligations. A poor state may not be able to provide calorie-rich diet to every individual, but it could not permit starvation deaths.

It is worth bearing in mind these nuances of human rights law as we consider the well-intentioned initiatives to establish the rights to food and education. Who could be against constitutional guarantee of food or education? And yet, there are substantive issues to bear in mind. But sadly, the debate has been a dialogue among the deaf. Those who want to establish the rights to food and education—many of them from the civil society and development field—and the unelected National Advisory Council make their argument based on people’s needs and our compassion to try to prick the collective conscience. With typical bleeding heart liberalism, they might point to suicide-prone farmers in Vidarbha and ask: how can shining India permit this?

On the other side are economists and fiscal fundamentalists who present well-reasoned arguments about the cost implications of such commitments. Who will pay for this? What might the impact be on inflation? What would a culture of entitlements do to incentives? Arguing that Indian taxpayers can’t afford it, they say these good intentions pave the way to hell.

Economics isn’t about protecting rights. It is about efficient processes that reduce costs, and it encourages competition. While development jargon consists of terms such as social inclusion and sustainable development, these policies assert rights without an enforcement mechanism, and may ensure that the poor remain poor, dependent on someone’s compassion. The poor become objects of pity and recipients of charity, and not equal citizens who should have equal access to opportunities.

This will create a semi-permanent dependent underclass; an undefined, indeterminate mass that would include a wide range of people in need. Instead of providing them enabling opportunities to lift themselves from poverty, they are lumped together with disabled, minorities, women, children and other groups that are supposed to arouse sympathy. It is crude; it disrespects the poor (and women, children, and other groups too). It raises expectations, but keeps the poor where they are—lest they might disrupt the social structure, which allows the bleeding hearts to feel good, because they feel the pain (and others don’t) and they are willing to do something (unlike others, who are heartless, right wingers).

And so it goes: rights are asserted, and instead of creating conditions and opportunities through which those rights can be realized, benefits are promised on a platter—benefits that maintain the status quo and sustain poverty. Instead of promoting social inclusion, there will be exclusive enclaves, a new class, where the poor are exotic, endangered species who must remain where they are.

Salil Tripathi is a writer based in London. Your comments are welcome at salil@livemint.com

Also Read |Salil Tripathi’s earlier columns

Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!

Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
More Less
Published: 04 Jan 2012, 10:56 PM IST
Next Story footLogo
Recommended For You
Switch to the Mint app for fast and personalized news - Get App