Blog

The legal approach towards cultural practice in the name of preserving cultural pluralism has so far been in congruence within the relevant social understandings of the cultures within which they are practiced. The respective morality of these practices has been left for the sole discretion of dominant and prevalent notion of a particular community. In this course the gravest injury has been sustained by two groups, women and children who are socially vulnerable in current institutional setup. It is a fairly universally acknowledged fact that young people represent a subservient class and are comparatively powerless and that concerns about the welfare and discipline of young persons have plagued societies for centuries. Even Socrates is reported to have commented on plight of young people. Children were seldom mentioned in discussions of rights prior to the twentieth century. As indicated already, rights were generally assumed to be an attribute of rational adults. Legal scholarship has long been entertaining the principle that a culture can only be judged by endogenous value judgment and the moral principles which permeate form outside world has no validity or admissibility. Paradoxically this doctrine to preserve cultural autonomy made morality a slave to custom. There was still a gulf between the civil and political rights asserted for adults and the social welfare and protection rights granted to children. There were also no mechanisms for monitoring compliance with any of these Declarations of the Rights of the Child, meaning that they were little more th

an statements of good intent. Even if we look at the Constitution it nowhere mentions about the rights to children specifically.
John Stuart mill in his seminal work, On Liberty observed, Do we wish the ‘ought’ to relinquish any transcendental power it may have to critique the ‘is’?. Is it acceptable that a practiced must not be scrutinized under constitutional framework it is because it has been sanctioned by dominant group, which is disregarding the gross human right violation which has somehow acquired a universal conception? The most grueling and perturbing examples of cultural annihilation of child rights are child marriages and female genital mutilation. Culture by its very nature constrains thus says Janet A. Haley. The contention is how long should we allow the continuance of exploitative social institutions like patriarchy and others in the garb of cultural and group autonomy. And when it pertains to matter of child rights violations in the name of culture the situation is more morbid as this section of society is so vulnerable and fragile that it cannot even resist to the tyrannies of culture and eventually this injustice left an indelible mark on the psyche of children for lifetime. A culture always respond to dominating power structure of that particular society. For example, majority of Hindu cultural practices and norms are influenced by Brahmin notions regarding certain aspects of human life. Universalist approach of human rights suggests a universal definition regarding rights of child transcendental of the cultural and communitarian limits.