7) Human Rights and Development: Reflections on Social Movements in India

BARNETT R. RUBIN
The intricate relationship between human rights and development encompasses various
dimensions, including civil and political rights, basic economic and social rights, and aggregate
economic growth. Different studies have explored subsets of these relationships, highlighting
trade-offs or complementarities among them.

1.Studies such as Lipset's Modernization Theory: Suggests that a certain level of economic
development is necessary for the realization of civil and political rights.
2.Huntington's Rate of Change: Emphasizes that the pace of economic development has
distinct impacts on political rights./Huntington's Rate of Change argues that economic growth
can impact rights differently depending on the stage of development.
3.O'Donnell’s Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Argues that economic growth, particularly in
dependent economies, often undermines economic and social rights, which in turn affects civil
and political rights negatively.

Arguments advocating for communitarian political systems or revolutionary authoritarianism

posit that political and civil rights can create divisions detrimental to economic and social rights
and overall growth. Conversely, proponents of democratic systems argue that respect for civil
and political liberties is essential for sustainable economic growth, laying the groundwork for the
realization of economic and social rights over time.// Proponents for communitarian political
systems or revolutionary authoritarianism argue that civil and political rights can hinder
economic growth by enabling groups to make demands that may disrupt economic policies
aimed at growth. This perspective suggests that prioritizing aggregate economic growth can
eventually create the conditions necessary for realizing economic and social rights, and
subsequently civil and political rights.

To understand these theoretical claims in practice, examining India's experience with human
rights and development is illustrative:
Civil and Political Rights: India’s constitution guarantees civil liberties and democratic rights,
yet the enforcement and realization of these rights have often been inconsistent, especially
during periods of economic and political turmoil.
Economic and Social Rights: Despite significant economic growth, large segments of the
population still struggle with basic economic and social rights, such as access to food, health,
and education. Human rights groups in India have highlighted the disparity between economic
growth and the distribution of its benefits, advocating for policies that directly address these
inequities.
Aggregate Economic Growth: India’s economic growth has been robust, yet it has often been
accompanied by significant social and economic inequalities. The challenge remains to balance
rapid economic development with the equitable distribution of its benefits, ensuring that growth
translates into improved economic and social rights for all citizens.
Conclusion- The relationship between human rights and development in India
underscores the complexity of balancing economic growth with the realization of civil,
political, economic, and social rights. The experience suggests that neither authoritarian growth
models nor unrestricted political freedoms alone can guarantee comprehensive human rights. Instead, a
nuanced approach that integrates economic policies with robust protections for civil and political rights,
along with targeted measures to ensure economic and social rights, is essential for sustainable and
inclusive development. This integrative perspective is crucial for understanding the evolving
concerns and emerging challenges that human rights groups face today. To evaluate these
claims, cross-national comparisons of political systems and analyses of political actors'
practices, together with their impact on rights and development, are essential. By examining the
experiences of states, human rights groups, and social movements in India, we can refine
propositions and deepen our understanding of the complex interplay between human rights and
development in practice.

FROM INDEPENDENCE TO THE EMERGENCY

The period from the framing of the Republican Constitution of India to the Emergency between
June 1975 and March 1977 was marked by significant conflicts between human rights and
development, particularly between civil rights and economic rights. The Indian constitution, while
providing for civil and political rights in the Fundamental Rights, also included some economic
and social rights in the Directive Principles of State Policy. However, the interpretation and
implementation of these rights led to tensions and clashes in both theory and practice.

//The conflict between human rights and development in India, particularly between civil rights
and economic rights, has been a complex and evolving dynamic. From the framing of the
Republican Constitution to the period of Emergency in the 1970s, this conflict manifested in
tensions between civil liberties, such as due process, and economic policies, like land reform.

The Constitution of India initially sought to balance civil and political rights with economic and
social rights, granting the government powers to limit fundamental rights in the interest of
national unity and security. However, challenges arose as powerful citizens contested social
reforms, leading to legal battles over issues like zamindari abolition. The Supreme Court's
rulings, notably in the Golak Nath case, reinforced the sanctity of fundamental rights,
constraining further amendments without a constituent assembly.

Simultaneously, India's development strategy envisioned mass participation in governance

through village councils, aiming to mobilize support for redistributive land reforms. However,
democratic political rights often impeded state-led initiatives, as rural politics remained
dominated by elites resistant to radical redistribution of land.

Under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's first term, conflicts between the protection of civil rights
and policies promoting economic and social rights intensified. The government faced legal
battles as the courts overturned policies, such as bank nationalization and ending private
incomes for Indian princes, on grounds of violating Fundamental Rights. In response,
constitutional amendments were passed to restrict the courts from ruling legislation
unconstitutional if aimed at fulfilling the Directive Principles.

These clashes underscored the complex interplay between human rights and development in
India's socio-political landscape. While the constitution aimed to balance civil, political,
economic, and social rights, the practical implementation of these rights often led to conflicts,
highlighting the challenges in reconciling competing interests and visions for development and
governance.
Summary-The period from the framing of the Republican Constitution of India to the Emergency
between June 1975 and March 1977 was characterized by significant conflicts between human
rights and development, particularly between civil rights and economic rights. While the
constitution provided for civil and political rights in the Fundamental Rights and included some
economic and social rights in the Directive Principles of State Policy, tensions arose in their
interpretation and implementation.

One major conflict emerged between civil rights, such as the right to due process, and economic
rights, exemplified by land reform policies. Legal battles ensued as the courts overturned
government policies deemed to violate Fundamental Rights, leading to subsequent
constitutional amendments to validate these reforms.

Simultaneously, the government's development strategy aimed to integrate political rights,

especially mass participation, with economic growth and the protection of economic rights.
However, democratic political rights posed challenges to the state's ability to implement
redistributive measures and forced industrialization.

Under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's first term, conflicts intensified between civil rights
protection and policies promoting economic and social rights. Constitutional amendments were
passed to restrict the courts from ruling legislation unconstitutional if aimed at fulfilling the
Directive Principles, reflecting the complex interplay between human rights and development.

These conflicts underscored the challenges in reconciling competing interests and visions for
development and governance in India's socio-political landscape. Despite constitutional
provisions aimed at balancing civil, political, economic, and social rights, practical
implementation often led to clashes, highlighting the complexities inherent in this relationship.

EMERGENCY
From June 1975 to March 1977, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a State of Emergency in
India, which had profound implications for the balance between human rights and development.
Justifying the Emergency by claiming that powerful citizens were using their rights to hinder
programs intended for the majority, she expanded the notion that civil rights conflicted with the
economic and social rights of the poor. During this period, the government imposed severe
restrictions on fundamental rights, including rights against arbitrary arrest and rights to free
expression, alongside stringent censorship and the arrest of opposition members. Gandhi also
postponed elections for as long as legally possible, although she refrained from altering the
fundamental principle of electoral legitimacy.

The Emergency revealed significant public support for restricting some legal-procedural rights of
a privileged few to implement specific beneficial policies. However, there was far less support for
the broader restriction of rights affecting everyone to achieve vaguely defined general goals.
Despite the more extensive curtailment of civil and political rights, the government under the
Emergency failed to produce notable accomplishments in protecting economic rights or
promoting economic growth, unlike the concrete achievements seen with earlier amendments
that enabled land reforms, bank nationalization, and the abolition of privy purses.

This period exposed the misconception that civil and political liberties were primary obstacles to
protecting the economic rights of the poor. On the contrary, the absence of protections against
arbitrary power disproportionately harmed those with the least resources. Notable abuses
included forced vasectomies of 'untouchables' and Muslims, and the violent eviction of largely
Muslim squatters from Delhi's Turkmen Gate during a 'beautification' campaign.

The aftermath of the Emergency witnessed the emergence of the human rights movement in
India, exemplified by organizations such as the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and
the People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR). This movement was part of a broader surge
of voluntary social movements outside the formal structures of state and party institutions. The
Emergency experience profoundly influenced the Indian political landscape, revealing the
vulnerabilities of established institutions and highlighting the need for a robust civil society to
safeguard against the abuse of power.

In conclusion, the tension between human rights and development in India has been shaped by
historical conflicts over civil and economic rights, and the Emergency period significantly
underscored the importance of civil liberties in protecting the vulnerable. The subsequent rise of
human rights organizations marked a critical shift towards a more vigilant and active civil
society, emphasizing the integral role of political rights in achieving equitable development and
justice.

//During the State of Emergency declared by Prime Minister Gandhi from June 1975 to March
1977, there was a significant suspension of Fundamental Rights in India. While justified as
necessary for the implementation of beneficial policies, the Emergency saw a broadening of the
claim that certain civil rights conflicted with the economic and social rights of the poor.
Parliament's power to enact laws fulfilling Directive Principles was emphasized over
Fundamental Rights, leading to restrictions on security rights and free expression, along with
censorship and arrests of opposition members.
Despite support for limiting legal-procedural rights of a privileged group, there was less backing
for curtailing broad rights enjoyed by all citizens for vaguely defined goals. The Emergency
failed to demonstrate concrete achievements in economic rights protection or growth, despite
severe restrictions on civil and political liberties. Moreover, the period highlighted the
vulnerability of marginalized groups to abuse in the absence of safeguards against arbitrary
power.

Despite the severe restriction of civil and political rights during the Emergency, there were no
concrete achievements in protecting economic rights or promoting growth. Instead, the period
highlighted how the absence of civil and political liberties left the most vulnerable groups
susceptible to abuse. Instances of abuse, such as forced sterilizations and evictions,
underscored the need for safeguards against arbitrary power.

The Emergency era marked the emergence of the human rights movement in India, embodied
by organizations like the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the People's Union for
Democratic Rights (PUDR). These movements, along with other voluntary social movements,
arose in response to the breakdown of formal state and party institutions under Prime Minister
Gandhi's regime. The experience of the Emergency deeply influenced India's civil society,
shaping its commitment to defending human rights and challenging authoritarianism.

POST-EMERGENCY

Since the Emergency period in India (1975-1977), the idea that civil rights conflict with the
economic rights of the poor has largely disappeared from political discourse. This change is
partly due to the discrediting of authoritarianism during the Emergency/the negative view of
authoritarianism after the Emergency and the central government's shift away from redistributive
politics. The current economic strategy of the government. focuses on national-level growth/
aggregate growth, leaving state governments responsible for targeted poverty alleviation
programs. These programmes, such as income generation schemes, food for work, are not
integrated into the growth strategy, which in fact marginalizes or fails to address the marginality
of large sectors of the population. The government implicitly supports the technocratic view that
prioritizing economic growth over economic and social rights is necessary in the short
term. Finance Minister V. P. Singh encapsulated this view in 1985 when he stated that poverty
could only be alleviated through overall economic growth and income redistribution.

During this period; the central government's violations of civil and political liberties have
generally been justified by national security reasons, especially against separatist and ethnic
agitations rather than economic reasons. These have increased as electoral politics have
increasingly taken the form of competitive communal mobilization. This illustrates that state
building and the accumulation of power is another aspect of development, perhaps the key one,
that may conflict with individual rights.

The continued marginalization of large populations due to the growth strategy creates situations
where various actors violate the rights of marginalized groups. These violations have driven the
actions of human rights groups, shaping their views on development and human rights.

Given the state's history of repressing marginalized groups, especially during and after the
Emergency, the human rights movement in India rejects a state-centric model of social
transformation. Instead, it sees social change as emerging from the voluntary sector and
grassroots movements, which need protected space within civil society to pursue their
goals,and civil and political rights help protect them from state repression. Civil and political
rights are crucial for protecting these movements from repression, complementing efforts to
safeguard economic and social rights by empowering marginalized groups.

These groups often oppose government economic policies that harm marginalized communities,
such as displacing tribal peoples for dams or mines. Their involvement with these issues and
events like the Bhopal industrial disaster has also led to a focus on ecological concerns and a
preference for a more egalitarian, inclusive, self-sufficient society over industrialization and
economic growth.

The human rights movement in India now views civil, political, economic, and social rights as
interconnected and sees them as conflicting with the current model of economic growth, which
relies on industrialization and environmental destruction. There is also a Hindu perspective that
criticizes Western human rights concepts for being too focused on humans and not considering
the broader ecosystem.

This perspective highlights a significant issue in human rights discourse: economic growth often
requires industrialization, which can violate economic rights, especially in its early stages.
Human rights principles argue that rights should not be traded for future benefits, especially
when those who lose their rights are not the ones who will benefit from industrialization.

However, rejecting industrialization and Western consumption models may seem politically
impractical. States are pressured to modernize for military and economic reasons, and many
people aspire to a developed, industrial way of life. The Indian human rights movement has not
yet proposed an alternative development model, acknowledging the difficulty in doing so. If they
succeed, it would be a significant achievement. More likely, human rights concerns will continue
to act as a form of resistance against abuses rather than providing a comprehensive alternative
to the existing development paradigm.

SUMMARY–Since the Emergency in India (1975-1977), the idea that civil rights conflict with the
economic rights of the poor has largely disappeared from political discourse. This shift resulted
from the negative view of authoritarianism after the Emergency and the central government's
move away from redistributive politics. The government's current focus is on national economic
growth, leaving state governments to manage poverty alleviation programs, which are often
poorly integrated into the broader growth strategy.

The government now follows a technocratic belief that economic growth should be prioritized
over economic and social rights in the short term. Although the argument that democracy
hinders growth has not resurfaced, direct violations of civil and political liberties by the central
government have been justified by national security concerns, particularly against separatist and
ethnic movements.
Continued marginalization due to this growth strategy has led to various actors violating the
rights of marginalized groups, driving human rights organizations to focus on these issues.
These organizations reject the idea that the state should lead social change, advocating instead
for protected spaces in civil society where grassroots movements can operate freely.

Human rights groups often oppose government policies that harm marginalized communities,
such as displacing tribal peoples for development projects. Their involvement in ecological
issues and events like the Bhopal disaster has led them to favor a more egalitarian,
self-sufficient society.

The movement now views civil, political, economic, and social rights as interconnected and
conflicting with the current economic growth model, which relies on industrialization and
environmental destruction. There is also a Hindu perspective that criticizes Western human
rights concepts for being too human-centered and not considering the broader ecosystem.

This perspective highlights a major issue: economic growth often requires industrialization,
which can violate economic rights. Human rights principles argue against trading rights for
future benefits. However, rejecting industrialization may seem politically impractical as states are
pressured to modernize, and many people aspire to a developed lifestyle. The human rights
movement has not yet proposed an alternative development model but continues to resist
abuses within the existing system.
CONCLUSION-In conclusion, the evolution of the discourse surrounding human rights and
development in India since the Emergency period reflects a complex interplay between political,
economic, and social forces. The fading of the argument that civil rights impede economic
progress coincided with a shift in the government's focus away from redistributive policies
towards a more technocratic approach centered on national economic growth. This shift has led
to a marginalization of large segments of the population and an exacerbation of social
inequalities.
-The human rights movement in India has responded by rejecting the notion that the state
should be the primary driver of social change and instead advocating for a more grassroots
approach. Civil and political rights are seen as essential safeguards against state repression
and as complementary to efforts to protect economic and social rights. However, the movement
faces challenges in opposing government policies that prioritize economic growth over the rights
of marginalized communities.
-Furthermore, the movement's reluctance to propose alternative development models
underscores the difficulty of reconciling human rights principles with the imperatives of
modernization and industrialization. While human rights concerns continue to serve as a form of
resistance against abuses, they have yet to offer a comprehensive alternative to the current
development paradigm.
-In essence, the discourse on human rights and development in India reflects a tension between
competing priorities and ideologies. Moving forward, it will be crucial for policymakers, civil
society organizations, and grassroots movements to engage in dialogue and collaboration to
address these challenges and work towards a more inclusive and equitable society.