Human Rights in Everyday Life in India: The Praxis from Below

Human Rights in Everyday Life in India: The Praxis From Below

Cambridge Scholar Publishing UK  

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-0364-4929-2

Today, I received the author copies of this book. It deals with the rhetoric of human rights that is being contested and debated theoretically at various levels. Drawing on several field-based examples from the Indian context, it illustrates how the frameworks of oppression and resistance operate in tandem. It argues that the oppressors manipulate the rights paradigm to justify oppression, whereas the oppressed leverage the same discourse to contest marginalization and assert their dignity in everyday lives. Despite challenges, the wretched of the Earth articulate the language of rights to ‘educate, organize, and agitate’ to challenge oppression and formulate positive rights to demand their dues. In the process, these people's struggles harness lok-shakti (people’s power) to consolidate the idea of swaraj (self-rule) while shattering the monolithic discourse of rights to imagine a diverse worldview. This work suggests reimagining a just world by strengthening the struggles of ordinary people to consolidate the rights framework. 

While relying on Richard Falk's theory of globalization, which contrasts the phenomenon of Globalization from above with Globalization from below, in the context of the Third World, this work argues that the situation of marginalization is based on dual dynamics. The dominant regressive narrative is hostile, whereas the progressive discourse emerging from everyday struggles of the poor and the vulnerable is based on the praxis of rights and challenges the dual hegemony of neoliberalism and authoritarianism. Human rights advocacy, therefore, is more than just ratifying treaties or addressing the cases of rights violations. It is a tool for the defranchised to right the wrongs. The vocabulary of rights operates in numerous ways, from demanding policies and laws to check barbarism and foster democracy. The rights-based approach is being used to contest for redistributing resources and challenging oppression, guised as patriarchy, casteism, poverty, and other forms of structural discrimination.  

Reframing Scholarship of Pain and Resistance: Praxis and the Politics of Voice

Someone recently asked me why my writing style differs from that of scholars who focus on gender, law, human rights, or governance. The answer lies in the perspective I bring to my work. As both an activist and a practicing lawyer, my writing is grounded in the lived realities of survivors, victims, and their families, with whom I engage directly. These are not abstract issues for me; they are deeply personal and urgent.

I didn’t begin with theory. I began by listening to stories of pain, injustice, resilience, and survival. I began by documenting what I witnessed and what was shared with me in spaces far removed from academic institutions or policy think tanks. These narratives became the foundation of my writing. From there, I started to reflect, analyze, and develop theoretical frameworks rooted in those experiences. This method, which I sometimes describe as a “bubble-based” approach, allows for theory to emerge organically from real-life contexts, rather than imposing pre-existing frameworks onto them.

In contrast, I have encountered several academic scholars—though certainly not all—who adopt what might be described as an “armchair” approach to theory. They produce work that is intellectually sophisticated and methodologically rigorous, yet remains curiously detached from the lived realities of the very communities they analyze or claim to represent. This disconnection between scholarship and the social worlds it purports to understand, in my view, reflects a troubling contradiction. It is a form of academic abstraction that, while cloaked in the language of neutrality, effectively sidelines the voices and struggles of those most impacted by the issues under study. The politics of divorcing research from on-the-ground realities is not just an epistemological choice—it is, I would argue, a hypocritical stance that sustains the very structures of inequality many scholars claim to critique.

The academic establishment often valorizes objectivity and neutrality, holding them up as hallmarks of legitimate scholarship. But in a world structured by systemic oppression, neutrality becomes complicit. As historian Howard Zinn aptly observed,

“Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now.”

Neutrality, in this sense, is not a position of distance but of alignment—with the status quo. Zinn further argues that “objectivity is not desirable because if we want to have an effect on the world, we need to emphasize those things which will make students more active citizens and more moral people.” His call is a reminder that knowledge production is never apolitical.

Another important point is that laws and policies are often written by those in positions of power who benefit from privilege. As a result, the language used can be complex and inaccessible, creating barriers for ordinary people. To ensure fair access to justice, the public must simplify and decode this language. When academic or legal discussions rely on overly technical or elitist language, they alienate the very people they claim to serve. In this way, the language of the privileged becomes a tool of exclusion. This is why demystifying the law is not just helpful—it is necessary.

For me, research must be a practice rooted in both theory and praxis—it is a deeply engaged practice that must be rooted in both critical theory and lived experience, in both analysis and action. It should not only analyze the world but also engage with it—intervening where possible, proposing policy alternatives, and informing legal or structural change.

Scholarship should not be a passive enterprise, limited to the distant observation or interpretation of societal phenomena. Rather, it must be an active force that engages with the world—immersing itself in the urgent realities faced by individuals and communities. True scholarship carries a responsibility not only to understand and explain injustice but also to intervene where such injustice persists. This involves more than critique; it demands the courage to challenge entrenched power structures, to offer visionary alternatives to systems of oppression, and to contribute meaningfully to legal, policy, and institutional reforms.

Such engagement is not optional—it is central to the ethical mission of scholarship. It is about righting historical and present wrongs, advocating for those who have been systematically marginalized, and working toward the emancipation and liberation of all people. This kind of transformative scholarship recognizes that knowledge is not neutral. It can be a tool of domination or a vehicle for justice. Therefore, scholars must use their intellectual labor to advance equity, dignity, and freedom, both within and beyond the academy.

I believe in a mode of research that is grounded, participatory, and accountable—one that is developed in conversation with, and in service to, the communities it seeks to understand and uplift. This kind of intellectual work does not treat suffering as an object of curiosity but engages it as a site of resistance and possibility. Writing about pain and struggle is not an act of voyeurism—it is a weapon of theorization, a means of narrating survival, defiance, and hope. It stands in stark contrast to armchair scholarship that maintains the illusion of objectivity while remaining complicit in the status quo.

My writing often resists conventional academic norms, and this resistance is intentional. I write in ways that center the voices of those who have been ignored, silenced, or erased by dominant systems of knowledge production. I strive to amplify marginalized perspectives and construct knowledge from below—starting with lived realities, not imposed frameworks.

This approach to scholarship is unapologetically political. It acknowledges that all knowledge is produced within power relations and that choosing how and what to write is itself a political act. In doing so, I hope to contribute to a more just and engaged form of scholarship—one that does not shy away from the moral and political dimensions of intellectual work.

In that sense, my work is a form of rebellion—a refusal to conform to depoliticized intellectual traditions, and a commitment to using research as a tool for justice, resistance, and transformation. I see research not just as a way to understand the world, but as a step toward changing it.

 

 Zinn Howard (1990) Declaration of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology, Harper's Collins

Zinn Howard (2008) A People’s History for the Classroom

 

Of Nationalism, Jingoism, Othering, and Belongingness

 

The article was published on countercurrents.org on 12 June 2025

https://countercurrents.org/2025/06/of-nationalism-jingoism-othering-and-belongingness/

It explored the concept of nationalism in India, highlighting its historical trajectory and the troubling ways it has been manipulated in contemporary politics. I critique the rigid, exclusionary form of nationalism that has emerged, particularly under the influence of neoliberal and authoritarian ideologies, leading to the marginalization of various groups. Here's a breakdown of the key points:

1. Historical Context of Nationalism

• Nationalism in India, like in other parts of the world, began as a means to unite people against colonialism and imperialism. It was initially shaped during the 19th and 20th centuries, often drawing from shared language, culture, and history.

• However, there have been two strands of Indian nationalism: a progressive, inclusive vision based on constitutional morality and democratic values, and a reactionary, exclusionary version that glorifies a mythic past and is rooted in religious identity.

2. Weaponization of Nationalism

• The piece argues that nationalism, traditionally a unifying force, has been weaponized by those in power. It has been used to suppress dissent, undermine civil liberties, and consolidate power, often at the expense of minorities.

• In India, nationalism has increasingly merged with religious identity (especially Hindutva), neoliberalism, and authoritarianism, leading to an aggressive form of nationalism that prioritizes the interests of the dominant groups.

3. Nationalism vs. Belongingness

• Nationalism is often equated with belongingness, but this article emphasizes that belonging is a multi-dimensional concept shaped by caste, class, race, gender, and nation. Thus, belongingness is not a one-size-fits-all idea and must be inclusive of all these intersecting identities.

• The rise of pseudo-nationalism (rooted in exclusion and rigidity) has made it harder for diverse groups to feel included in the national fabric.

4. Impact on Women

• Nationalism has had particularly detrimental effects on women, especially during Partition. Women were often seen as the embodiment of national honor—their bodies became battlegrounds for territorial claims and communal violence. The recovery of abducted women was framed as a matter of national prestige rather than addressing the trauma and agency of the women themselves.

5. Critique of Nationalism by Intellectuals

• Key figures like Rabindranath Tagore, Dr. Ambedkar, and MN Roy critiqued nationalism for its moral perversion and its potential to undermine individual freedoms. Tagore warned that nationalism could numb moral consciousness and promote collective egoism, while Ambedkar argued that nationalism in a deeply hierarchical society like India, marked by caste and religious divides, was incompatible with true national unity.

6. Contemporary Nationalism and Jingoism

• In today's India, nationalism has evolved into jingoism—an aggressive, hyper-patriotic sentiment. This version of nationalism often equates criticism of the state with disloyalty or treason, leading to a polarized society where dissent is silenced, and minorities are marginalized.

• Nationalism has become synonymous with militarism and emotional spectacle, with symbols like the national flag or the army being used to demand unquestioning loyalty rather than promoting civic responsibility or inclusiveness.

• 7. Role of the State and Society

• The article critiques how the state and political movements (like the BJP) have co-opted nationalism to serve their own agendas, particularly through the promotion of a masculinist version of nationalism.

• Scholars have noted the intersection of Hindutva, neoliberalism, and authoritarianism, which has further entrenched exclusionary nationalism, focusing on narrow, majoritarian views of identity that fail to include India's pluralistic society.

• 8. Gendered Aspects of Nationalism

• Nationalism is not a neutral force but inherently gendered, prioritizing male experiences and values in the dominant narrative. National identity often draws from masculinized ideals like valor, sacrifice, and authority, positioning men as central to history and citizenship while relegating women to symbolic or supportive roles.

• Political theorists like Carol Pateman and Cynthia Enloe argue that nationalism often marginalizes women by assigning them symbolic roles (e.g., "mother of the nation") while overlooking their political agency and intellectual contributions.

• Challenging this masculinized nationalism is crucial to developing an inclusive national identity that recognizes the diverse experiences shaping the nation.

• 9. Nationalism and Rising Populism

• There's a growing convergence of nationalism and populism, with right-wing populists using nationalist rhetoric to rally support through fears of immigration, globalism, and cultural dilution.

• Leaders in countries like the USA, Brazil, and Hungary exploit nationalism to justify policies that curtail freedoms, suppress opposition, and consolidate power, often undermining democratic institutions

• The rise of religious nationalism has fueled division, xenophobia, and the erosion of human rights, with nationalist ideologies manipulating people's fears to create an "us vs. them" mentality.

• 10. Phony Nationalism and Othering

• Phony nationalism refers to superficial patriotism that manipulates national pride for political control, using exclusion, fear, and spectacle to stifle democratic values and social cohesion.

• • The concept of "Othering" comes into play here—where individuals or groups deemed "different" or "outsiders" are stigmatized, excluded, or oppressed based on race, ideology, gender, or religion.

  • This form of nationalism breeds division, obscuring India's rich pluralism and making the national identity narrower, exclusionary, and increasingly majoritarian.

  11. Nationalism and Global Inequality

  • In the wake of global crises like economic downturns, mass migration, and the COVID-19 pandemic, nationalism has widened global inequalities. Countries increasingly prioritize domestic interests over international cooperation, weakening global solidarity.

  • For instance, vaccine nationalism during the pandemic left poorer nations with inadequate supplies, deepening disparities in health and economic outcomes.

  • Nationalist policies often exacerbate economic inequality, restrict migration, and fuel xenophobic or protectionist policies, which only strengthen global hierarchies and reinforce inequalities both within and between countries.

  12. Nationalism and War

  • Ethnic nationalism or ultranationalism often promotes the belief in the superiority of one nation, which can rationalize conquest, colonialism, or ethnic cleansing.

  • Nationalism plays a significant role in wars and secessionist movements, often justifying the use of force in the name of national unity, honor, or restoration of national greatness.

  • This fuels internal and external conflicts, creating a climate of fear and division where national security is prioritized over diplomacy and human rights.

  13. Globalization, Neoliberalism, and Nationalism

  • Forces like globalization, neoliberalism, and digitalization have reshaped nationalism by fostering interconnectedness and eroding traditional national boundaries.

  • While globalization and digitalization have enhanced global integration, they have also exacerbated economic disparities within nations, contributing to the rise of economic nationalism.

  • Economic nationalism seeks to reclaim economic sovereignty and resist global capitalism’s adverse effects, but it often reinforces exclusionary politics and undermines democratic ideals. This can be seen in both the USA and India, where economic nationalism has been used to foster polarization and social division.

  14. Oligarchy and Nationalism

  • Rising economic inequality has empowered a small elite to accumulate disproportionate wealth and political influence, often exploiting nationalist sentiment to protect their interests.

  • In many cases, nationalist rhetoric is used to suppress dissent, distract from structural injustices, and consolidate power in the hands of the elite. This undermines democratic institutions and fuels a system where the elite thrive at the expense of the broader population.

  15. Rethinking Belongingness

  • Belongingness is redefined as more than just membership in a nation-state. It means being accepted, valued, and integrated into a community, with the agency to participate and influence the structures that define society.

  • True belonging goes beyond national identity and must consider how intersectional factors—such as caste, class, race, gender, and religion—shape individuals' experiences of inclusion or exclusion.

  • In the age of polarization, identity politics, and rising nationalism, fostering genuine inclusion requires expanding the concept of belongingness to embrace diverse experiences and create inclusive communities.

  16. The Redundancy of Nationalism in the 21st Century

  • The article argues that nationalism, in its exclusionary, jingoistic forms, is inadequate to address the challenges of the 21st century, like climate change, migration, and rising inequalities. The regressive focus on national identity obstructs global solidarity, hindering progress on issues that require international cooperation.

  • In contrast, alternatives like targeted universalism, cosmopolitan belonging, and globalism emphasize human dignity, freedom, and justice beyond borders. These frameworks allow us to move beyond toxic polarization and build cohesive societies grounded in social justice.

  Conclusion

  The article critiques the traditional notion of nationalism in India and how it has been manipulated to serve political interests, particularly in the age of neoliberalism and authoritarianism. It warns that contemporary nationalism, particularly in India, has taken a dark turn toward jingoism and exclusion, and advocates for a return to the inclusive, progressive ideals that originally shaped the national movement. It advocates for an inclusive, globally connected vision of belongingness that transcends national borders and majoritarian ideologies. It imagines a future grounded in progressive universal values—such as human rights, sustainability, and diversity—is necessary to reflect the aspirations of a pluralistic society and India’s role in the global community. It stresses the importance of embracing a more inclusive, democratic, and global vision of belongingness that can truly unite people, rather than dividing them based on rigid, exclusionary national identities

Conceptualizing Freedom: M.N. Roy’s Revolutionary Blueprint for India’s Constituent Assembly

 

https://amzn.in/d/aiN4bMd

This book is available at Amazon 

It is about the significant contribution made by the Indian intellectual leader, M.N. Roy, who first proposed the idea of convening a Constituent Assembly in 1928, amid opposition to the Simon Commission. He argued that Indians must independently frame their Constitution, rejecting any Assembly under British control as lacking true sovereignty. 

This book explores Roy's vision of the Constituent Assembly. As a revolutionary, he visualized the CA as a democratic body arising from mass struggle, not a mere legal formality. Over time, he developed this vision through speeches and writings. He also advocated for including Fundamental Rights, as seen in the 1931 Karachi Resolution. For Roy, constitution-making was a transformative act of collective political will, rooted in the people’s active participation. He also authored the draft Indian Constitution in 1944, which was circulated by the Radical Democratic Party.

This work argues that Roy’s conception of the Constituent Assembly differed from his contemporaries and extended far beyond the procedural mechanics of constitution-making. For Roy, constituting the Constituent Assembly was a radical, democratic, and revolutionary project rooted in the active participation of informed, conscientious citizens addressing the immediate concerns of the masses.

This book concluded that if applied today, Roy’s vision could serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of participatory democracy. It underscores the need for civic engagement, transparency, and public accountability in constitutional governance, especially in times when democratic institutions are under stress. His ideas remain relevant as they challenge us to envision constitution-making not as a bureaucratic task but as a continuous, inclusive, democratic, people-driven process.

A quote from this book to demonstrate Roy's idea of the Constituent Assembly:

In his address at Faizpur, Roy elaborated on his idea of the Constituent Assembly, stating, “A Constituent Assembly means nothing less than a challenge to the self-assumed prerogative of the British Government to dictate the political right of Indian people…For us the Constituent Assembly is not only an agitation and propaganda slogan but also a slogan for practical politics. When we raise the slogan, we raise the issue of the capture of power.”

Another quote by MN Roy, as mentioned in this book 

"The idea of the Constituent Assembly means the determination of the Indian people to create an organ of power for asserting their right to self-determination."