By Prof. (Dr.) Swaran Singh
While globalisation is known for heralding faster cross-border movement of capital and people thus expanding their exposure and opportunities, these movements have become increasingly securitised, radicalised, gendered and sexualised.
Like most other things, globalisation has pulled issues of human dignity out of their isolated, local spatial or cultural confines into the centre-state of global narratives. This has had both positive and negative outcomes: it has helped universalise various best practices as also exposed human dignity to novel instruments of discrimination and to other previously unknown fault lines. Globalisation has made our world increasingly awake to our interconnectedness and to its shared opportunities and challenges. It has also made sovereign states and international organisations increasingly engaged with ensuring human dignity especially through legal instruments for protection of human rights and humanitarian laws. Global conventions, courts and civil society interventions have made states obliged to meet agreed parameters on ensuring human dignity. But globalisation has also created newer challenges further exacerbating both narratives and initiatives about ensuring human dignity for all.
It is in this fast changing backdrop that this paper examines the impact of globalisation on human dignity. It begins by briefly engaging with problems of conceptualising globalisation and human dignity which itself creates formidable challenges. Then second section explores into connection between globalisation and human dignity and how former has impacted the later. The third section looks at major milestones that world has achieved in creating universal standards for ensuring human dignity for all and it is followed by brief outline on world’s largest population country, India, and its challenges and approaches to ensuring human dignity. Finally conclusion section underlines the persistence of binaries of positive and negative spinoffs of globalisation especially those that have impacted human dignity related policies and practices. It recommends constant work in strengthening legal regulatory measures and mechanisms to ensure human dignity against this fast changing tide of everyday newer challenges that need to be identified and address in time and in full measure.
Definitional Dilemmas
To begin with, narratives and initiatives with regards to both globalisation in general and human dignity in particular remain mired in definitional dilemmas. In short, globalisation entails increasing trends of cross-border transactions, interdependence, integration of processes of exchange of goods, services, information and free flow of people and ideas. But spatial distribution of these trends have had variations of speed, scale and scope with varying acceptance and outcomes. Moreover, these trends have had their proponents (e.g. Jagdish Bhagwati) as opponents (e.g. Joseph Stiglitz) highlighting both their transformative and disruptive consequences. There are contentions on whether or not Western-led globalisation has made it into nothing but westernisation. There are also are contentions on its origins, nature and contours as also what it includes and excludes.
Likewise, the mercurial concept of human dignity has also witnessed competing contentions. Varying, value vs. justice or law vs. morality based conceptions of human dignity from ethical, philosophical, political and legal perspectives make adjudication between various connotations frustrating. Most of its narratives have also remained culture specific. Broad western consensus remains around the belief that conception of human dignity had mainly evolved from Immanuel Kant’s ethical position of human beings being an end in itself; possessing inherent dignity. In simple terms, human dignity implies their inherent quality of being honourable and worthy. This leads to the notion that every human being is uniquely valuable and therefore ought to be accorded the highest respect and care to achieve his/her full potential.
This Kantian notion of human dignity seek to disassociate itself from any indices of utility though this is where increasing western trends of commoditisation have come to be its most fundamental nemesis. In international relations, Kantian approach has been carried forward and expanded by school of Liberalism built around the axis of individualism that must thrive by creating conditions for liberty, equality, fraternity. Conversely, Liberalism also seeks to explore into conditions that could threaten human dignity or undermine it. Experts have identified four conditions in which a person can be stripped of dignity. These are: humiliation, instrumentalization, degradation and dehumanisation. Fight against such conditions has always been tough but recent trends of globalisation have created multiple new possibilities on how these four conditions can be accentuated and how these must be mitigated. Moreover, globalisation has witnessed these four conditions reappearing in many imperceptive new shapes and styles like internet bullying or ethical hacking etc.
Pros and Cons
To begin with, globalisation has clearly expanded access to information about diverse practices and perspectives on multivariate challenges as also various best practices and protection measures to ensure human dignity for all. But this has also seen emergence of borderless internet, especially social media, become powerful propaganda and misinformation machine. Likewise, globalisation has heralded a new era of economic empowerment thus enhancing human dignity but at the same time globalisation remains associated with growing inequalities of income and opportunity both within and between nations thereby undermining dignity of those ‘left behind’ while igniting their unfulfilled expectations.
Without doubt, globalisation has facilitated poverty alleviation efforts in multiple countries with impressive results yet, at the same time, it has exposed citizens of less developed nations to the economic exploitation by rich industrialised countries. Western multinational corporations are often accused of opting for poorer wages and poor working conditions as they seek to outsource their menial and manufacturing jobs to such distant places. Globalisation has facilitated great cross-country flows of populations resulting in exposure to different cultures thereby reinforcing the naturalness of cultural diversities. But concerns have also been raised about potential homogenisation with loss of cultural diversity with rise of singular dominant globalised, Western-centric, values.
Globalisation promoting pursuit for pure material growth has witnessed disregard for nature resulting in widespread environmental degradation and climate crisis. First, this has affected traditional communities’ livelihoods pushing them to the margins; indeed making them victims of market and profit-driven industrialisation and urbanisation models of development. This is where multinational corporations have replaced local crafts, trades and industries that can easily co-exist. Indeed such material pursuits of globalisation have triggered climate crisis threatening life itself. Especially least developed countries, that are least responsible for greenhouse gases as also least capable in addressing climate crisis, have become its main victims with rising sea levels threatening to simply drown small island states. Long promised transfers of technology and finance from advanced industrialised countries — that are primarily responsible for climate crisis — have remain a pipe dream adding a new category of climate refugees or displaced persons in their own country.
Cyberspace, that often reflects the realities of extant social structures, has also since 1990s come to be one new arena witnessing instances of both empowerment and discrimination. However, given its excessive focus on State- and data-security or sometimes on right to privacy, there have been hardly any provisions for ensuring human dignity in cyberspace. Result? Cyber insecurities for minorities or marginalised sections like blacks, LGBTQI, even young and women have lately become part of human dignity discourses. Then there are Dalits and Adivasis that was originally an issue limited to Indian subcontinent but has become global with over 25 million people of Indian ethnic origin now living around the world. In absence of global initiatives, cyber platforms have seen a few civil society initiatives that have sought to highlight and address these inflictions on human dignity. CasteistTwitter or International Dalit Solidarity Network provide two apt examples for this.
The most promising outcome of globalisation is that increasing global connectivity and consciousness about opportunities and discriminations on the basis of race, colour, class, language, ethnicity, gender etc have become part of global narratives. This has made sovereign states increasingly circumscribed and guided by global benchmarks for ensuring human dignity though there still remain disjunctions given their contestations and their varying interpretations on each of these globally agreed indices of human dignity.
Measures taken
Evolution of humankind has been a sojourn striving to ensure human dignity in face of persistent and emerging new challenges. It is in this long sojourn that the history of modern nation-states since 17th century saw narratives shifting from religious-ethnical to politico-legal provisions and perspectives becoming the guiding light. Over the years, therefore, legal protections for human dignity have been incrementally enacted by various states and international organisations like the United Nations, its organs and agencies. Also, human rights and humanitarian laws have come to be seen as most agreed instruments that both flow from as also ensure protection of human dignity. But globalisation has also seen rise in formidable new threats to human dignity in terms of gross violations of human rights and humanitarian laws on everyday basis. Ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza provide immediate examples of such dehumanisation.
Amongst various measures for ensuring human dignity for all, the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights remains the most powerful central axis for all such efforts worldwide. This declaration had evolved in the backdrop of unprecedented violence against innocent civilians during the first half of 20th century and it had put the onus on nation-states that were now seen primarily responsible for ensuring human dignity for their citizens. Article 1 of this declaration reads: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Similarly from middle of 19th century international humanitarian laws (that resulted from conferences in Brussels, Geneva, Hague etc.) had come to recognise the centrality of human dignity principles though the formal expression of humanitarian laws appeared only in 1950s.
Similarly, at the end of Cold War, the June 1998 United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court had adopted Rome Statute creating such a court for this purpose of ending such impunity of national leaders. It was brought into force in July 2002 with 60th country ratification and has since heard several cases against war crimes, genocide, crime against humanity and crimes of aggression. In July 2000, the UN Economic and Social Council set up a Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues. This had brought focus on issues of indigenous people (e.g. First Nations) and minorities and their right to their culture, spirituality, language, tradition, intellectual properties and forms of self-governance to the global centre-stage. But the most revolutionary change in international relations engagement with human dignity came in year 2001. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that was set up in September 2000 for addressing humanitarian crisis. In its 2001 report it had created a Responsibility to Protect doctrine authorising UN Security Council to militarily intervene if a state was not able to provide security to its citizens facing conditions of ethnic cleansing or genocide etc. This was first time in the history of oder nation-state that human dignity was clearly privileged over the sanctity of state sovereignty.
More recently, pandemic also reinforced the inherent shared destiny of humankind as it saw coronavirus undoing man-made territorial borders. While it revealed pious sentiments of world coming together to ensure human dignity, it also betrayed instances of disregard for human dignity with law of jungle prevailing in several locations. Especially, lack of pathogen-specific treatment saw nations, for several months, relying on preventive measures (e.g. lockdowns, travel bans, preventive medicines). This showed how social practices and legal mechanisms for ensuring human dignity had remained skewed and fragile. In several instances, prevention and care were often viewed from the prism of citizens falling into categories based on privilege and hierarchy.
India: half glass full
With the 21st century global focus shifting to the Asia-Pacific, alternative narratives on human dignity from Asia have become part of the mainstream (read western) comparative dignity jurisprudence and other religious and philosophical discourses. Amongst these comparative narratives on human dignity, writings and experiments of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B.R. Ambedkar in ensuring dignity for India’s untouchables have drawn great interest of such experts world over. Moreover, India being world’s largest population country, fastest growing economy slated to become world’s third largest by 2030 and a continuing ancient civilisation for 5,000 years that has now witnessed explosive social transformation makes its opportunity and challenges for human dignity even more complex case for scrutiny.
India’s unique ancient traditions and fault lines determining state of human dignity even today remain bound by several unique old and outdated legacies like Caste, Dalits, Adivasis etc. Accordingly, during late 1940s debates, the makers of India’s constitution — driven by India’s prolonged freedom struggle against subjugation and discrimination — had anticipated the notion of human dignity in empowerment of their people; especially India’s vulnerable sections like untouchables, tribals, minorities, women etc. As a result, the Preamble of India’s constitution begins with ‘We the People…” and swears to ensure equality, liberty, fraternity for all followed by detailed chapters on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. Last 75 years have seen hundred plus constitutional amendments to make it more inclusive and effective in ensuring human dignity.
But like rest of the world India also continues to struggle with challenges in addressing the gaps between its practices and prophecies and with its struggle to resolve various anomalies in its social, political and legal beliefs, practices and institutions. Especially, India’s recent economic rise and rapid social transformation have introduced new divides between rich and poor, urban and rural, elite and folk while the old social segregations based on caste, language, region, religion etc. have not been completely eliminated. This is where the innovative approach of Judicial-Activism of India’s courts and dedicated of some non-governmental organisations has earned them distinctions for their contribution to ensuring human dignity for all. Indian Supreme Courts September 2018 judgement striking down section 377 of Indian Penal Code to decriminalise same sex relations between consenting adults provides one such apt example though this remains but work in progress.
Conclusion
As change has been the only permanent reality; each epoch of human history has had its own unique story of fights for ensuring human dignity. First phase of globalisation that modern historian believe began with gold rush, slave trade and industrial revolution of early 1800s had surely exacerbated challenges to human dignity policies and practices. Kantian narratives debates on his Theory of Moral Philosophy had coincided around same time highlighting centrality of human dignity in human affairs. Since then, a multitude of broad definitions and legal instruments and arrangements have continued to grow to ensure human dignity mainly through instrumentalities of human rights and humanitarian laws. But ensuring human dignity requires much deeper change and internalising the inherent nature of human dignity while also working for improving existing practices and perceptions.
Without doubt, the current phase of globalisation has universalised both recognition of the centrality as also of challenges for human dignity thus making it once more acutely challenging and complicated. While globalisation is known for heralding faster cross-border movement of capital and people thus expanding their exposure and opportunities, these movements have become increasingly securitised, radicalised, gendered and sexualised. While technology has empowered masses, world’s wealth and power have become far more centralised in the hands of global elites resulting in widespread groundswell of grievances of those ‘left behind’ often resulting violence becoming increasingly imperceptive and unending. In many ways these constant and invisible violations of human dignity have further strengthened culture of repression, oppression and exploitation. While overall opportunities and awareness have expanded incrementally yet the gap between the powerful and disempowered has also increased, or at least the awareness about has surely increased, thus keeping goal of human dignity for all in sight yet far.
Originally Published : International Affairs Review, January 3'2024
Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorization of the Author.
Prof. Swaran Singh is visiting professor at the University of British Columbia, fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute in Calgary, Alberta, and professor of diplomacy and disarmament at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India