[Reader-list] Subject: Fwd: Re: reader-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 62Freedom and right to express at what cost to society.?

[Iram Ghufran]

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> Re: [Reader-list] reader-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 62Freedom and 
> right to express at what cost to society.?
> From:
> Venugopalan K M <kmvenuannur at gmail.com>
> Date:
> Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:52:23 +0530
> To:
> Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
>
> To:
> Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
>
>
> Dear Rakesh,
> Thanks for your kind response.  Later I too posted it the list,though 
> I didn't know if login were necessary for posting a message.(I'm new 
> to this list)That case, I hope you'll post this message too.
> About agency, I would argue that  it may not be quite possible to 
> locate one that prefectly matches the  freedom and rights in question.
> Hence, at least to begin with, agency of Constitution/ Rule of 
> Law could be seen as a reference point.
> You have the patriarchal family where women and younger members are 
> structurally deprived of rights of citizenship, despite the existence 
> of the Constitutional Agency guaranteeing citizenship to all. You have 
> those political parties and  police regimes which again, often seek to 
> bye pass  Rule of Law by virtue of the very fact that majority of 
> people are too poor or voiceless to place their stakes in citizenship 
> before  the presiding agency of Constitution.
> Similarly, many of those the UN bodies are comparatively dysfunctional 
> when it comes to the protection of rights of women,labourers, and 
> implementation of the related covenants at governmental levels.
> The question raised by the issue of pub attack and several other 
> similar attacks on women and minorities by various outfits of Hidutwa  
> is obviously not media hype. This is rather about new claims for 
> agency. These claims are  culmination of a series of acts by all 
> political parties that tantamount to subversion of Rule of Law. 
> Fascist outfits are just trying to prevail up on the agency of 
> Constitution by claiming new form of nationhood ,viz, Hindutwa to the 
> exclusion of other sections claiming their legitimate rights for 
> citizenship and inclusiveness.
> Regards,
> Venu.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Venu ji
>
>     First of all you sent a message to me, though I see you intended
>     it for the group. Hence I put it up on the group.
>
>     Secondly, you have stated that human rights are inherent to an
>     individual. I personally have read Sen's argument on human rights
>     (in the book Development As Freedom). What I can't understand
>     here, is his agency argument.
>
>     This means that for any right to be obtained by a person, there
>     should be an agency which should provide that person/individual
>     with that right, and should also care to see if that right is
>     granted properly to that person or not (in other words, it is not
>     violated). In the case of any right, be it human right or others,
>     which is this agency which determines that these are not violated?
>
>     If there is no nation-state (or state-nation like India), then
>     which is the agency which guarantees these rights? I have no
>     objections at all with the 'universality' of human rights, but
>     certainly I wish to know what agency is going to enforce the
>     implementation mechanism to secure these rights for a normal
>     individual? (Normal is someone who is not in a position of
>     power-play in conventional terms).
>
>     Regards
>
>     Rakesh
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://venukm.blogspot.com/