How rights shield the individual from state power and from majority rule

Introduction

The statement expresses the liberal view that rights are individual protections against power, whether the power of the state or that of the majority. It deserves discussion because rights are also limited and rely on the state for enforcement.

Meaning and importance of rights

A right is an entitlement or a justified claim: what we may rightly claim as citizens, as individuals and simply as human beings, something that the rest of society must recognise as legitimate. Not everything that I want is a right; rights are those claims that I and others regard as necessary for a life of respect and dignity. They are claimed on two grounds, that they are conditions of dignity and self-respect (the right to livelihood, freedom of expression), and that they are necessary for well-being and the development of talents (the right to education). A claim that is injurious to others or to oneself, such as smoking or taking banned drugs, cannot be claimed as a right. Rights are claimed chiefly against the state: each right says what the state must do and what it must refrain from doing, so that rights place limits on the state's authority and make rulers accountable, for the state exists for the sake of the individual and not the reverse.

Rights, the state and the individual

Rights as limits on the state. Rights place obligations on the state to act in certain ways, and they also tell the state what it must not do. The right to liberty means that the state cannot simply arrest me; it must give reasons before a court, which is why police need an arrest warrant. Rights thus ensure that state authority is exercised without violating the sanctity of individual life and liberty; the state exists for the sake of the individual and rulers are accountable. This is also the force of the idea of natural rights, which has been used to oppose the exercise of arbitrary power by governments.

Rights against the tyranny of the majority. A democratic majority can itself threaten minorities and dissenters, so constitutional rights, which are set above ordinary laws, guarantee individuals protection even against elected governments: Fundamental Rights in India are placed in the Constitution, and other laws are supposed to respect them. Citizens must stay vigilant, because governments can become authoritarian and undermine the very reasons for which they exist, especially when restrictions on civil liberties are justified by national security.

Limits on rights. Rights are not absolute: my rights are limited by the principle of equal rights for all; I cannot use free speech to incite a crowd to kill my neighbour; and conflicting rights must be balanced (freedom of expression against privacy). Rights also bring responsibilities: to respect the rights of others and to protect common goods such as the environment.

Is the statement fully true?

It is true in its core: rights place limits on state action and make rulers accountable, and constitutional guarantees stand above ordinary laws made by the majority. But three qualifications are needed. (1) The state is also the protector of rights; a right to education or to a safe environment is a claim that the state should act. (2) Rights are not only against the state: the majority and society can threaten dissenters and minorities, as in the Indian examples NCERT gives of panchayats or colleges imposing dress codes and punishing inter-caste marriage. (3) Rights are limited by the rights of others and by the common good. So rights protect individuals against the state and the majority, but they depend on the same state and on a democratic culture of respect for rights.

Conclusion

The statement is substantially correct. Rights are the main protection of individuals and minorities against arbitrary state power and majority pressure, and a vigilant citizenry and a robust constitution are needed to make them effective.