This article particularly revolves around the disadvantages of overemphasis on the rights approach when considering the affirmative action policies in a state and what is the role of state in balancing the claims of individuals, and what are the claims of individuals belonging to the relatively poorer lot against the society. The way forward is to balance both rights and duties so as to make peace with the policies and the welfare aim of the state which can be helped by inculcating the spirit of toleration as far as non beneficiaries are concerned. The article ends on a promising note of how there is a dire need for redistribution in order to provide the most basic resources and facilities to the most deprived lot. In this article Dworkin’s views on rights had been particularly emphasized upon. In his ‘rights thesis’, he has categorically differentiated between policies and principles. Policies are tied to specific goals and they need not always be confused with principles which are the basis of why we need rights. He has categorically brought out the nuanced nature of rights and policies and their relation. Rights and policies need to balance each other as per the need of the situation. The principle and policy stand can clearly help to see how we do not need to overemphasize the rights issue, when the normative justification of affirmative action is needed; rather the policy angle is required to be given sufficient importance.
Rights tend to come along with their characteristic absoluteness which is quite self defeating. Flexibility should be the guiding force to suit the ever changing situations.
how the state needs to respond to the inadequate representation of the minorities. Minority representation is one salient means of fighting the injustice perpetrated on the minorities as it will provide the much needed support to the minorities and help voice their requirements and foster the process of inclusion.. The one aspect which is the guiding feature behind all the initiatives and activities is the need for justice to prevail. We cannot do away with the affirmative action policies, now what comes next is how to regulate the way in which they manifest? To say that the state is the sole guardian and protector of individual rights is no doubt like reinforcing reality, but that needs to be seen in the context as well. Even in the Indian context the directives to the state had been put under the non justifiable part, so that the state is not put in a crippled situation. This is to bring out the fact that to simply state that the state should generate resources and opportunities in a prompt manner will be to run away from reality into a never land.
Redistribution of resources has to be done so as to do away with the anomaly of uneven distributional patterns. In a single country composed of many state there could be wide disparity in the way natural resources are distributed, the nature and trend of agricultural practices the accessibility to education and other factors. Those at the receiving end should be provided with resources and means and there should be an understanding which backs the redistribution process. In theory and in practice the redistribution strategy needs to be fine tuned.
Cite this article:
Bhavna Sharma. Role of State in Balancing Conflicting Interests in Regards to Rights and Policies . Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2017; 5(2): 63-72. doi: 10.5958/2454-2687.2017.00007.7
Bhavna Sharma. Role of State in Balancing Conflicting Interests in Regards to Rights and Policies . Int. J. Rev. and Res. Social Sci. 2017; 5(2): 63-72. doi: 10.5958/2454-2687.2017.00007.7 Available on: https://ijrrssonline.in/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2017-5-2-1