Human Rights in India
The core principle of human rights is to let an individual lead his life as he may choose while within the legal limits.
Indian society has been conformist - and still is. Glaring examples being the criteria people use to decide on their job and spouse. People are taught to live their lives based on how others would evaluate their choices.
With such a huge gap between the written law and the societal norm, can one expect the law to be upheld in a democracy - especially one in which almost all media outlets are out to win the Best Indian Tabloid award?
Indian society has been conformist - and still is. Glaring examples being the criteria people use to decide on their job and spouse. People are taught to live their lives based on how others would evaluate their choices.
With such a huge gap between the written law and the societal norm, can one expect the law to be upheld in a democracy - especially one in which almost all media outlets are out to win the Best Indian Tabloid award?
posted by eV at 11:45 PM
2 Value-adds:
dont get the point.. the law is all about conformism. so if indian society is conformist, the laws will be upheld more in it. also the core principle of human rights, that you quote, is not violated by the influencing, by society, of people to follow role models rigidly. human rights as such, i think, should be placed out of the scope of law before regulation. that is, they are decided a priori and laws are made to reflect them. which means the law can have no part to play in the definition of human rights or the principles behind them. the only way a society can be created or sustained is by having a certain degree of conformism. the opposite of it, individualism, wrecks society or atleast fragments it. there will always be a huge gap between the law and the societal norm but the principles are the same - to bind together disparate entities into a whole. the law provides exclusively for cases where societal norms are transgressed so there cannot be much overlap except that the law defines means of ensuring that the societal norms be satisfied. i mean to say that the law begins its operations at the point where conventions are not strong enough to hold back an individual. and lastly, in a capitalist democracy, only the media outlet that wins the first prize has proven itself. as long as it wins following the rules of the game(law), nothing is wrong. in one sentence, you seem to be confusing the law with THE LAW. In a democracy, all that can be asked for is that the laws of democracy be upheld.
Shyam,
> if indian society is conformist, the laws will be upheld more in it
Not if the society perceived certain laws to be against their tradition.
>they are decided a priori and laws are made to reflect them
I think you're trying to say that law is defined based on the concept of human rights, and not the other way around. I dont see how that makes a difference.
>the only way a society can be created or sustained is by having a certain degree of conformism...
I didnt mean to denounce conformism. I wasnt expressing my opinion of whether a society should be conformist or not.
>the law begins its operations at the point where conventions are not strong enough to hold back an individual
I cant get myself to agree with that da. You seem to imply that law steps in to cover for society's mistakes.
>in a capitalist democracy, only the media outlet that wins the first prize has proven itself.
So? Are media outlets around the world working towards becoming the best tabloid?
>as long as it wins following the rules of the game(law), nothing is wrong.
Law != Market forces
>in one sentence, you seem to be confusing the law with THE LAW.
I dont see the link between this "conclusion" and the rest of ur comment. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home