Monthly Archives: October 2025

 Democracy and the Right to Welfare: Reclaiming Human Dignity through Social Rights 

Posted on by
Reply

Thiruppathi P. 

Ph.D. Scholar 

Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), University of Mysore, India. 

Chair of Comparative Politics SRC 

International Association for Political Science Students (IAPSS)

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4840-6782

Abstract

Human rights are widely treated as the normative foundation of contemporary democracy, yet democratic practice often privileges civil and political liberties while marginalizing socio-economic entitlements. This paper argues that democratic legitimacy remains incomplete unless the right to welfare is recognized and institutionalized as a core human right grounded in human dignity and natural justice, rather than as a discretionary state benefit. Drawing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the tradition of social citizenship, it highlights how formal political inclusion can coexist with deep structural exclusion. The Indian experience of Dalits is used as an illustrative case: despite constitutional guarantees and access to electoral politics, persistent discrimination in education, health, housing, and other public goods reveals a democracy that is procedurally inclusive but substantively unequal. The analysis further emphasizes the role of political communication and framing in sustaining or contesting exclusion. When welfare is framed as entitlement and justice, it strengthens democratic participation; when framed as dependency, it legitimises stigma and weak enforcement. Reclaiming a rights-based language of welfare, inspired by Ambedkar’s vision of social democracy, the paper proposes a broader understanding of democracy as “dignity in action,” where social rights enable meaningful citizenship for historically marginalized groups.

Keywords: democracy, welfare rights, social citizenship, Dalits

 

Human rights have been touted as the pillars of contemporary democracy, infusing values of freedom, equality, and dignity. While civil and political rights like voting, freedom of speech, and fair treatment under law are touted, social and economic rights are relegated to the background. In order for democracy to be meaningfully inclusive, the right to welfare needs to be accepted as a core human right and not a state-derived indulgence (Beetham, 1999; Sen, 1999). 

This contends that democratic legitimacy is not complete without considering social exclusion and structural inequality—particularly for historically excluded groups such as Dalits in India. The withholding of welfare, dignity, and equal opportunity from the Dalits highlights the imperative necessity of inscribing social rights into the democratic order. Based on the prisms of political communication and rights-based language, this post contends for an expansive understanding of democracy: one that guarantees substantive equality, natural justice, and collective welfare. 

From Political Equality to Social Citizenship 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) upholds both civil liberties and socio-economic rights (Articles 22–26). However, in practice, democracies often treat the latter as aspirational rather than enforceable. As T.H. Marshall (1950) argued, full citizenship involves not just legal equality but social rights—the right to education, livelihood, and health—which allow people to meaningfully participate in public life. 

Nowhere is this disparity more evident than in the life of Dalits in India. Even with constitutional guarantees and effective political rights, Dalits remain discriminated against in obtaining access to public goods, education, health services, and accommodations (Thorat & Newman, 2010). Their plight best illustrates what democracy 

without welfare rights is like—a society in which formal inclusion camouflages structural exclusion. This is a violation of not just human rights but also the concept of natural justice, which presumes fairness, impartiality, and protection against arbitrary denial of dignity. 

Rhetoric, Framing, and Political Inclusion 

Political communication is a central factor in reinforcing or challenging exclusion. The way in which an issue is “framed” determines public perception and policy measures, as pointed out by Entman (1993). When welfare is framed as an entitlement based on human dignity and natural justice, it enhances democracy; when framed as dependency or burden, it legitimates exclusion. 

In India, social welfare schemes for Dalits—e.g., scholarships, affirmative action, or housing schemes—are frequently articulated not as rights, but as concessions or appeasement. Public opinion and policy enforcement are shaped by this rhetorical articulation, dissolving the moral authority of social justice and intensifying stigma. 

On the other hand, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s call for social democracy rested on the premise that “political democracy cannot last unless it lies at the base of social democracy”. His conceptualization of the abolition of caste and welfare as human rights, and not state charity, is a progressive lesson in rights-based messaging and the moral ethics of natural justice. 

Welfare as a Human Right 

Identifying welfare as a human right changes the state’s role: not to give but to guarantee, not to be benevolent but accountable. This is vital for marginalized groups whose rights are perpetually delayed in practice. When Dalit groups insist on land, education, and healthcare, they are not claiming privilege—they are insisting on justice. These calls ring out in all contexts around the world: Black communities’ fight for social rights in the U.S., Latin American indigenous peoples, or refugees in Europe all attest to a common global shortfall of democratic inclusion. 

By restructuring welfare as a natural justice and democratic equity right, democracies allow the most vulnerable to assert their rightful position in the polity, not merely hope for symbolic representation. 

The Democratic Case for Social Rights 

Real democracy is not just a matter of voting—it’s a matter of living with dignity. When political regimes forget this, they open themselves up to solidifying economic inequality and caste or racial hierarchies, even as they may seem representative. To Dalits, social rights—enshrined through education, employment, access to healthcare, and protection from violence—are not merely a question of survival but of dignity and democratic citizenship. Without them, the promise of equality is rhetorical. 

Democratic democracies will hence need to reimagine participation as incorporating economic agency and social mobility. Welfare programs promoting equality must be articulated not only as state welfare measures but as rights from moral obligations of fairness and justice. 

Conclusion: Democracy as Dignity in Action 

The situation of Dalits in India provides a compelling case of why welfare has to be a fundamental democratic right. It teaches us that civil liberties are insufficient where social structures are oppressive. There can be no genuine democracy until and unless these inequalities are met head on through embedding welfare at the institutional, rhetorical, and ethical levels. By bringing political communication into alignment with a rights-based discourse, and by conceptualizing welfare as a necessary component of citizenship, democracies can become more humane, just, and inclusive. In this vision, human rights are not only safeguards against state tyranny but promises of human flourishing and natural justice—particularly for those who were previously excluded from it. 

References 

Beetham, D. (1999). Democracy and human rights. Polity Press. 

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x 

Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge University Press. 

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom Oxford University Press Shaw TM & Heard. The Politics of Africa: Dependence and Development. 

Thorat, S., & Newman, K. S. (Eds.). (2010). Blocked by caste: Economic discrimination and social exclusion in modern India. Oxford University Press. 

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights 

Internet Shutdowns and Human Rights Violations 

Posted on by
Reply

Laitonjam Muhindro, Ph. D

While internet shutdowns may appear to be an effective strategy for suppressing protests and maintaining order in the short term, they fundamentally infringe upon the fundamental human rights of freedom of expression and the right to access information. These rights are enshrined in Article 19(1)a of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various United Nations resolutions that guarantee the protection of these freedoms. The implications of these shutdowns extend far beyond the immediate suppression of dissent, raising serious concerns about the long-term impact on democratic values and citizen engagement. This is to understand a comprehensive analysis of the human rights issues associated with the increasing prevalence of internet shutdowns, with a particular focus on the situation in India, specifically in the region of Manipur, as well as a broader global perspective. The study will delve into the various ways in which these shutdowns affect individuals and communities, examining the impact on their ability to exercise their rights and participate in public discourse. The imposition of preventive internet shutdowns by Indian authorities has become a disturbing trend, disrupting the daily lives of ordinary citizens without any conclusive evidence that they are effective in restoring peace and stability. Furthermore, these shutdowns severely impede access to essential information, particularly during times of crisis and emergencies, when access to timely and accurate information is most critical for the safety and well-being of the population.

Internet shutdown is becoming a global phenomenon where the controlling authority is treated as the most convenient and easy tactic to suppress issues immediately in the name of public order.  It is reported that 187 times were in 35 countries around the world during 2022 while compared to 76 times in 2016. Usually, an internet shutdown entails purposefully interfering with electronic communications or the internet to the point that they are rendered completely or partially inoperable. Internet shutdowns have occasionally impacted entire nations, but they usually target a specific population or geographic area to limit the free flow of information in that area. Full and localized shutdowns, bandwidth throttling, and service-based blocking of two-way communication platforms are examples of internet shutdowns, often known as “blackouts” or “kill switches.”

International law has established clear guidelines that acknowledge internet access as an essential requirement for both the practice and fulfillment of human rights, whether in digital spaces or in real life. The UN Human Rights Council has repeatedly stated that “the same rights individuals possess offline must also be safeguarded online” and has urged all nations to improve access to and utilization of the internet to foster the complete realization of human rights for everyone. States frequently depend on the justification of “national security” or “public order” to rationalize the interruption of internet services. In legal disputes concerning internet shutdowns, it is crucial to perform a comprehensive analysis of limitations to demonstrate to a court that a right has been violated and that this limitation fails to satisfy the criteria established by Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.

Necessity and proportionality

At the core of challenging internet shutdowns is demonstrating that such actions infringe upon the rights to freedom of expression and access to information, as well as other rights including health and education. Nevertheless, because freedom of expression is not an absolute right, it can be restricted under specific conditions, but only when such restrictions, in line with international human rights standards, are “established by law” and “essential” to guarantee “the respect for the rights or reputation of others” or for “the safeguarding of national security or public order, or public health or morals.”

Human Rights Values Praxis in India: Vishwaguru with Manual Scavengers

Posted on by
Reply

Ms. Sanghamitra Mallick

BITS Pilani K.K. Birla Goa Campus, India

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4722-1447

Abstract

This paper examines the contradiction between India’s constitutional and civilizational claim to uphold human dignity and the continued existence of manual scavenging among Dalit communities. It argues that, despite constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity and the abolition of untouchability, manual scavenging persists as a caste-based and degrading occupation rooted in historical social stratification. The study analyses the human rights framework surrounding the issue by linking the Indian Constitution with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by highlighting the unfinished promise of justice for marginalised groups. It further reviews the legal and institutional context, especially the limitations of the 1993 law, uneven state implementation, weak enforcement, poor complaint mechanisms, and lack of political will. The paper also reflects on the paradox of technological advancement in India, where achievements in science and innovation coexist with continued dependence on human labour for hazardous sanitation work. It concludes that the eradication of manual scavenging requires not only stronger legal enforcement and accountability, but also sustained public investment in mechanisation, rehabilitation, and social transformation. Ending this practice is essential to realizing the constitutional spirit of justice, dignity, and equal citizenship in India.

Keywords: manual scavenging, human rights, caste discrimination, mechanisation

Introduction

India, the largest liberal democracy with a population of 1.4 billion, is a vibrant subcontinent with a rich historical and cultural legacy and often termed as a “Vishwaguru” cultural leader of the cosmos. The Indian constitution, enacted in 1950 post-Independence, accommodated the aspirations of the vulnerable population while absorbing the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 by the UN, which serves as a global benchmark for human rights. Despite the fact that India is hailed as a civilizational state and has evolved as a Constitutional democracy, the human rights situation of the marginalised section of the Indian society remains grim, despite the maker of the Indian Constitution Dr. B.R. Ambedkar whose experience as a Dalit was humiliation, denial of dignity and refusal of Human rights, that he has recorded all along through several of his seminal works. In spite of the fact that the Constitution of India abolished untouchability and advocated the dignified treatment of all human beings equally, the situation of the Dalit population nearly seventy years after the enactment of the Republic is precarious in such a manner that a sizeable number of them are involved in manual scavenging. 

Praxis of Human Rights Values from the Spirit of the Constitution 

A dehumanising occupation of manual scavenging, inheriting a social stratification called the caste system, where the dirty job of society is the yardstick for the Dalits, is constitutionally banned in India. While the spirit of the Constitution (Part III) promotes civil and political rights, the first generation of human rights, the constitution makers left the safeguard of socio-economic rights to the provinces of the then Indian Union, given the limitations of resource allocation through constitution as the “Directive Principles of State Policy” (Part IV) of the Indian Constitution. Thus, a Dalit in India, who is voiceless, is positioned between two columns of Constitutional protection. A) His civil rights are protected and he is an equal before the others, and yet B) his economic rights are to be protected by the Provincial Government, which is supposed to operate in fair terms in ensuring Justice, which is yet to be realised. This praxis would explain how and why manual scavenging in India is perpetuated despite the ban in the Constitution 

Institutional Limitations and Implementation Gaps 

The 1993 Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrine (Prohibition) Act fell under the state subject of health and sanitation, and under Article 252(1), applied only to states adopting it through a legislative resolution. The legal provision is unclear; for instance, the punishment clauses do not specify whether the employer or scavenger is liable for punishment or penalty. It is also a conflicting interest, while a scavenger wants to file a case against executive authority, the same authority is also one to grant permission for filing cases against themselves (Gochhayat, 2018). Since it is a state (Provincial Government) subject, adoption and enforcement differ across states, causing uneven implementation. There is no independent body with enough power to address complaints quickly. There is a lack of political will among states to implement it; some states acted only after the Supreme Court’s intervention.  Exploited by the only means of survival, the fear of social stigma, and the fear of losing their livelihood, manual scavengers often avoid reporting, which leads to poor monitoring data. In 2014, the Indian government, under the leadership of PM Narendra Modi, was installing toilets in rural villages to promote ‘open defecation free’ and eradicate manual scavenging in the country as the flagship project named as Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM). But the question is, who is going to clean the septic tanks in the absence of a suction pump (Wilson, 2016)?

Failure of Technological Implementation to Address the Problem in the Age of AI

In this technologically advanced era, there is a continuous dependence on human labour for hazardous tasks like manual scavenging. Indian has the capability to develop cryogenic engines and launch lunar missions, yet we hesitate to invest in technology that eliminates the need for manual toilet cleaning. Despite the fact that at present there are thousands of cases regarding septic tank and sewer deaths in India (Yacoob & Karthik, 2025). 

Conclusion and Recommendation 

Given AI and technological advancements, the mechanising process is feasible. Lawmakers must plan to eradicate this intolerable evil by sufficient budget allocation and concerted implementation of the mechanisation of scavenging in both urban and rural India. Robotic instruments must substitute for humans in getting down the underground drainage system. This is a classic case that depicts the praxis of Human rights Values in India, when a section of its Population hails the Indian State as a Vishwaguru and at the same time, its weaker sections are entrenched in a perpetuated social oppression.

References

Georg, R. (2014, January 28). Brief History of Class and Waste in India. Retrieved from https://longreads.com/2014/01/28/a-brief-history-of-class-and-waste-in-india-2/?

Gochhayat, R. (2018, April 13). Towards Genocide: Upper Caste Policy Over Manual Scavengers. Retrieved from https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/genocide-under-the-upper-caste-leadership/?

Mahananda, J. (2018, November 22). Only Manuwadi Hindutva gang can burn Indian Constitution. Retrieved from https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/only-manuwadi-hindutva-gang-can-burn-indian-constitution-2/

The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of dry Lartines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. (1993). Retrieved from www.indiacode.nic.in: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1581/1/199346.pdf

Wilson, B. (2016, August 24). Who will clean Swachh Bharat toilets, asks Wilson. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/Who-will-clean-Swachh-Bharat-toilets-asks-Wilson/article14586879.ece

Yacoob, M., & Karthik, A. (2025, July 28). Let’s raise a stink over manual scavenging in Karnataka. Retrieved from https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2025/Jul/28/lets-raise-a-stink-over-manual-scavenging-in-karnataka