A False Dichotomy? The Unresolved Tension between Universal and Differentiated Citizenship in India

Niraja Gopal Jayal

Oxford Development Studies, 2011, vol. 39, issue 2, 185-204

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.

Date: 2011
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13600818.2011.569087 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:oxdevs:v:39:y:2011:i:2:p:185-204

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/CODS20

DOI: 10.1080/13600818.2011.569087

Access Statistics for this article

Oxford Development Studies is currently edited by Jo Boyce and Frances Stewart

More articles in Oxford Development Studies from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().