A False Dichotomy? The Unresolved Tension between Universal and Differentiated Citizenship in India
Group-differentiated citizenship has become a widely accepted way of addressing the dissatisfaction with difference-blind liberal universal accounts of citizenship. This article interprets Indian arguments for and against quotas, across the 20th century, in terms of a contest between the powerful rival claims of universalist and differentiated citizenship. The Indian experience, it argues, instantiates many of the normative complexities that theorists of group-differentiated citizenship have identified, in particular its implications for the construction of a civic community; the prospects of weakening social cohesion; and the difficulties of properly determining which groups are deserving of differentiated citizenship rights. The article offers an argument against positing universalist and group-differentiated citizenship in mutual opposition, a false dichotomy in a complex and diverse world.
Volume (Year): 39 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/CODS20 |
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CODS20|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:oxdevs:v:39:y:2011:i:2:p:185-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.