回到权利的粗糙地面:印度“公民自由”历史化的路径

IF 0.1 Q4 AREA STUDIES History and Sociology of South Asia Pub Date : 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2230807517732489
Amit Upadhyay, Sasheej Hegde
{"title":"回到权利的粗糙地面:印度“公民自由”历史化的路径","authors":"Amit Upadhyay, Sasheej Hegde","doi":"10.1177/2230807517732489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article is directed at historicising the language and practice of ‘civil liberties’ in India, and it does so by addressing the specific contingencies that have marked its early twentieth-century trajectory that continue to resonate in our historical present. Of course, the immediate point of departure for the article is a methodological fixation with what has been termed as a ‘political approach’ to rights, whose limits set the terms for a more historically resonant and contextually determined approach to an appraisal of normative languages like rights and civil liberties in highly charged political contexts. In thus illustrating the argument that the political approach to rights has translated into a constriction of the space of our normative languages, the effort here is also to set in perspective the pathways for a historicisation of ‘civil liberties’ in India—one sensitive to its subterranean regulatory folds that served to constitute the inner and outer limits of protest across socio-political collectivities active in the historical fields of action germane to the twentieth century India. These regulatory folds have persisted and sustain themselves well beyond the contours of the Constituent Assembly (CA) that went on to make for a republican India (although this latter point is only being hinted at within the broad ground traversed by this article).","PeriodicalId":41287,"journal":{"name":"History and Sociology of South Asia","volume":"12 1","pages":"1 - 15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2230807517732489","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Back to the Rough Ground of Rights: Pathways for a Historicisation of ‘Civil Liberties’ in India\",\"authors\":\"Amit Upadhyay, Sasheej Hegde\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2230807517732489\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article is directed at historicising the language and practice of ‘civil liberties’ in India, and it does so by addressing the specific contingencies that have marked its early twentieth-century trajectory that continue to resonate in our historical present. Of course, the immediate point of departure for the article is a methodological fixation with what has been termed as a ‘political approach’ to rights, whose limits set the terms for a more historically resonant and contextually determined approach to an appraisal of normative languages like rights and civil liberties in highly charged political contexts. In thus illustrating the argument that the political approach to rights has translated into a constriction of the space of our normative languages, the effort here is also to set in perspective the pathways for a historicisation of ‘civil liberties’ in India—one sensitive to its subterranean regulatory folds that served to constitute the inner and outer limits of protest across socio-political collectivities active in the historical fields of action germane to the twentieth century India. These regulatory folds have persisted and sustain themselves well beyond the contours of the Constituent Assembly (CA) that went on to make for a republican India (although this latter point is only being hinted at within the broad ground traversed by this article).\",\"PeriodicalId\":41287,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Sociology of South Asia\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2230807517732489\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Sociology of South Asia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2230807517732489\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Sociology of South Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2230807517732489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在将印度“公民自由”的语言和实践历史化,并通过解决标志着其20世纪早期轨迹的特定偶然事件来实现这一目标,这些事件在我们的历史现状中继续产生共鸣。当然,这篇文章的直接出发点是一种方法论上的固定,即所谓的权利的“政治方法”,其局限性为一种更具历史共鸣和语境决定的方法设定了条件,以评估高度紧张的政治背景下的权利和公民自由等规范性语言。在阐明权利的政治途径已经转化为我们规范语言空间的限制这一论点时,这里的努力也是为了正确地设定印度“公民自由”历史化的途径——一种对其地下监管褶皱的敏感,这种褶皱构成了在与20世纪印度相关的历史行动领域中活跃的社会政治集体抗议的内部和外部限制。这些监管褶皱一直存在并维持着自己,远远超出了制宪会议(CA)的范围,制宪会议后来建立了一个共和印度(尽管后一点只是在本文所述的广泛范围内有所暗示)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Back to the Rough Ground of Rights: Pathways for a Historicisation of ‘Civil Liberties’ in India
Abstract This article is directed at historicising the language and practice of ‘civil liberties’ in India, and it does so by addressing the specific contingencies that have marked its early twentieth-century trajectory that continue to resonate in our historical present. Of course, the immediate point of departure for the article is a methodological fixation with what has been termed as a ‘political approach’ to rights, whose limits set the terms for a more historically resonant and contextually determined approach to an appraisal of normative languages like rights and civil liberties in highly charged political contexts. In thus illustrating the argument that the political approach to rights has translated into a constriction of the space of our normative languages, the effort here is also to set in perspective the pathways for a historicisation of ‘civil liberties’ in India—one sensitive to its subterranean regulatory folds that served to constitute the inner and outer limits of protest across socio-political collectivities active in the historical fields of action germane to the twentieth century India. These regulatory folds have persisted and sustain themselves well beyond the contours of the Constituent Assembly (CA) that went on to make for a republican India (although this latter point is only being hinted at within the broad ground traversed by this article).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: History and Sociology of South Asia provides a forum for scholarly interrogations of significant moments in the transformation of the social, economic and political fabric of South Asian societies. Thus the journal advisedly presents an interdisciplinary space in which contemporary ideas compete, and critiques of existing perspectives are encouraged. The interdisciplinary focus of the journal enables it to incorporate diverse areas of research, including political economy, social ecology, and issues of minority rights, gender, and the role of law in development. History and Sociology of South Asia also promotes dialogue on socio-political problems, from which academicians as well as activists and advocacy groups can benefit.
期刊最新文献
Women’s Education: Curriculum and Content in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries India Examining the Impact of Forest Policies on Sacred Groves in India: A Historical Review Kunal Debnath, Caste, Marginalisation, and Resistance: The Politics of Identity of the Naths (Yogis) of Bengal and Assam. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2024, xx + 240 pp. €131, ISBN: 9789004689374 (Hardback) Building Construction In Princely State Bikaner: Form, Style And Architecture Core Health and Living Stress Among Older People
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1