Abstract
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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
