I have been mulling upon the elite-subaltern debate, and how the State, among others, might be categorizing and discriminating on basis on Dalit-Adivasi categories.
I was reading Upendra Baxi's 'The Future of Human Rights', when I was somehow drawn to the idea of cultural relativism, and kinda tried to link it to our earlier discussion. Perhaps the Statist ideas are largely tied up with a certain way of thinking, like with respect to development, and human rights? One interesting thing which I observed is that in the present regime, "human rights" are largely provided against the State. But then again, perhaps the idea of the State itself is something which has erupted from the same thought process which gives rise to "human rights" ?
I happened to come across certain criticism of the modern agenda of human rights, especially from Africa and the African Union, in many instances of which human rights were actually termed as "monsters", which are set to destroy their culture; And then I came across a quote by Tony Blair post-9/11, which actually in as much words, said that the current situation (refering to terrorism and stuff) is prevalent, because not everyone understands certain values and abides by them, and well, to protect ourselves we need to advocate the spread of these values...um, I found the quote, it went like..
"The best defence of our security lies in the spread of our values. But we cannot advance these values except within a framework that recognises their universality. If it is a global threat, it needs a global response, based on global rules" - Tony Blair, 5 March 2004
To say the truth, it was quite a bit shocking to me to read this, because I'd been assuming that politicians, and other people, who are not directly concerned with the academic and scholarly research, people who were more "practical" and who are our 'leaders' and make laws, were perhaps all under the impression that human rights are indeed something of an absolute, something universal, which everyone is inherently entitled to- I mean that's what to hear and read (in between lines or not) in the usual textbooks and media, that wherever certain guidelines are not being followed, it's a "violation of human rights". But then Blair's quote sort of made it starkly clear that political leaders also perhaps understand that it might not necessarily be a 'violation', because those human rights which they talk about might not be necessarily established as "human rights," for everyone. And understanding this, he advocates the "spread of our values", so that "human rights" indeed become universal. I had little clue that there was conscious awareness on part of the world leaders, that 'human rights' are indeed to be used as a weapon, and that they are consciously on the offense!
Then I read bits of Eleanor Roosevelt's agenda while she was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the UNDHR. And reading between the lines, the sense of Blair's speech from the perspective of the "West" (if you will; for the lack of a better term), kept coming back to me.
But then I was thinking of certain things which were practised in "non-Western" settings, and which the "West" had assaulted as human rights violation. Like, purdah...child marriage, widow excommunication? And I couldn't really think of them in good terms either. I mean , I had to side by the "West" there in assaulting them- but I was confused! Was that only because my own values had been so shaped and influenced by "Western" ideas and education, that I could no longer think through perspectives sans the "West"?
But still, I could hardly find a parameter- a fair parameter, to judge certain actions- as right or wrong. Then I recalled Foucault, and his ideas on power struggles, and the absence of ...well...a naturally/inherently right-wrong thing. But what does that imply? That all our talks of reform and development are just a myth? Or a game?...hmm, maybe, but isn't it true that people are suffering due to certain regimes/laws, for example, take the tribals in India...so even if the whole thing is just a power struggle for alternative hegemonies, what about the people who bear the brunt of it all? Is there no recourse for them, because any parameter of development/reform/happiness of people is coloured by the 'values in power'?
Though of course, when we say that a person is 'suffering', we use the parameter of certain values to judge that he/she is. But then how does one reconcile the suffering seen from parameter of values X with the 'rights' granted against suffering as seen from parameter of values Y? Is the only solution in this regard is to do what Tony Blair suggests? That is, enforce a framework which recognises the universality of a particular set of values, say Y? Because perhaps as long as power struggles are on, there is little hope for reconciliation in this regard. The recent French burqa ban would perhaps be an interesting issue to consider in the case- the Muslim community in France following the parameter of values X, and the French government of Y.
