Critics of differentiated citizenship have also argued that policies that break with difference-blind universalism can only

weaken the integrative function of citizenship. Ir embracing multicultural and minority rights means that citizens lose their sense of collective belonging it may also affect their willingness to compromise and make sacrifices for each other. Citizens may then develop a purely strategic attitude towards those of different backgrounds. As Joseph Carens puts kit: From this perspective the danger of [] differentiated citizenship is that the emphasis [it] place[s] on the recognition and institutionalization of difference could undermine the conditions that make a sense of common identification and thus mutuality possible (Carens 2000), Critics of Aboriginal demands for self-government rights have pressed this concern with force (Cairns, 2000).

In addressing these and similar queries Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman have broadly distinguished between three types of demands: special representation rights (fro disadvantaged groups), multicultural rights (for immigrant and religious groups) and selfgovernment rights (for national minorities) (Kymlicka and Norman 1994; Kymlicka 1995). The first two are really demand for inclusion into the mainstream society: special representation rights are best understood as (temporary) measures to alleviate the obstacles that minorities and/or historically disadvantaged groups face in having their voices hard in majoritarian democratic institutions. Reforming the electoral system to ensure the better representation of minorities may raise all sorts of difficult issues but the aim is clearly integration into the larger political society not isolation.

Similarly the demands for multicultural rights made by immigrant groups are usually aimed either at exemption from laws and policies that disadvantage them because of their religious practices or at ensuring public support for particular education and/or cultural initiatives to maintain and transmit elements of their cultural and religious heritage. These should be seen as measures designed to facilitate their inclusion in the larger society rather than as a way to avoid integration.

According to Kymlicak and Norman it is only claims to self-government rights, grounded iun a principle of self determination, that potentially endanger civic integration since their aim is not to achieve a greater presence in the institutions of the central government but to gain a greater share of power and legislative jurisdiction for institutions controlled by national minorities while both representation and multicultural rights take the larger political community for granted and seek greater inclusion in it demands for selfgovernment reflect a desire to weaken the bonds with the larger community and indeed question its very nature authority and permanence (Kymlicka and Norman 1994).

Addressing such demands through a simple reaffirmation of the idel of common citizenship is not a serious option. It may only aggravate the alienation felt by members of these groups and feed into more radical political projects including secession. Further to say that recognition of self-government rights may weaken the bonds of the larger community is to suppose that these bond sexists in the first place and that a significant proportion of national minorities identify with the larger society. Yet such assumptions are often overly optimistic. If these bonds do not exist or regain quite weak what is needed is the construction of a genuine dialogue between the majority society and

minorities over just relations through which difference can be recognized. The hope is that such dialogue would strengthen, rather than weaken their relationship by putting it on firmer moral and political grounds (Carens 2000).

Supporters of multicultural rights are also responding to the changed climate surrounding multicultural demands of immigrant groups. Since worries centre over the ability and willingness of Muslim Immigrants of integrate in to Western liberal democracies. At more theoretical level there is a call to reexamine the complex relation between the secular liberal political cultures dominant in the West and religion more particularly with regards to the difficult question of religions place in the public sphere (Parekh 2066). It is critically important to give another look at the supposed thinness of contemporary liberalism and focus on what should be the basic elements of a common public culture to which all citizens could reasonably be expected to subscribe.

David Millers Views on Citizenship

Liberal nationalists, like David Miller have argued that only specific forms of political practice can produce high levels of trust and loyalty between citizens (Miller 2000). The political activities of the citizens of Athens or of Rousseaus ideal Republic presumed face-to-face relations of cooperation that favor the growth of such sentiments. The scale and complexity of modern states have made the kind of political practice envisaged by Rousseau and described by Aristotle at best marginal.

On the one hand the balance sheet of the nation-state reveals a legacy of oppression of minority cultures within and cultural political and economic imperialism outside its

borders. On the other hand the acknowledgment of the nation-states growing internal diversity and sensitivity toi the injustice of forced assimilation undermine its ability to continue palying the role it fulfilled in the 19 and early 20 centuries. Imposing the majority culture upon minorities may simply make it more difficult for them to identify with the nation-state and weaken its legitimacy. Habermass Perceptions of Citizenship

In conditions of pluralism therefore the majority culture cannot serve as the grounding of shared identify. It must be replaced by universalistic principles of human rights and the rule of law which do not it is argued imply the imposition of a particular majority culture on minorities. Each political community develops distinctive interpretations of the meaning of these principles over time which become embodied in its political and legal institutions and practices. These in turn form a political culture that crystallizes around the countrys constitution and makes those principles into a concrete universal.

This embedding of democratic and liberal principles in a distinctive political culture can in turn give rise to what Jurgen Habermas has called a constitutional patriotism which should replace nationalism as the focus of a common identity. In countries that have achieved a strong national consciousness the political culture has long been entangled with the majority culture. This fusion argues Habermas, must be dissolved if it is to be possible for different cultural ethnic and religious forms of life to coexist and interact on equal terms within the same political community (Habermas 1998).

Political Culture and Social Integration

Given the this version of national identity they propose one might conclude that liberal nationalists are not that far from the constitutional patriotism of Jurgen Habermas. After all both positions seem to give the central role to a common political culture. The distance separating them becomes clear when we look at the political implications of their respective views, like when evaluating the prospects of the European Union. Liberal nationalists are often skeptical towards the European experiment while postnationalists are firm supporters.

Citizenship and the Challenges of Globalisation

For the better part of the last century, conceptions of citizenship despite many differences have had one thing in common: the idea that the necessary framework for citizenship is the sovereign territorial state. The legal status of citizen appears as the formal expression of membership in a polity that has definite territorial boundaries within which citizens enjoy rights and exercise their political agency. In other words citizenship both as a legal status and as an activity is thought to presuppose the exi9stence of a territorially bounded political community which extends over time and is the focus of a common identity. In the last fifteen years this premise has come under close scrutiny.

A host of phenomena loosely associated under the heading globalization have encouraged this critical awakening exploding transnational economic exchange, competition and communication as well as high levels of migration of cultural and social interactions have

shown how porous those borders have become and led people to contest the relevance of state sovereignty. T.H. MARSHALLS THEORY OF CITIZENSHIP

According to him citizenship is a principle of equality and its development is linear. He believes that citizenship has two basis firstly is that man has equal status in the society and second due to equal status he has equal rights. He further states that if all the people have equal rights in a society then class-conflict has little place in that society the line of development begins to move upward and all the people in the society secure equal rights and there is no possibility of the occurrence of class-struggle in that society.

In fact achievement of equal rights in a society is the index of civilized society. Giving clarity to his statement T.H. Marshal states that the achievement of equal rights in England is the result of a long span of development. As the equality of rights went on being established the linear growth of rights also went on moving upward and after equality of rights was established in the society its linear development reached its climax. According to Marshall there are three types of citizens rights Civil Rights Political Rights and Social Rights. Marshall calls them the three elements of citizenship. It proves that in the opinion of Marshall the equality of these three rights is very important. T.H. Marshalls essay Citizenship and Social Class prepared in 1949 examines these trends in the context of citizenship in Western democratic nation-states. He argues that the long-term historical extension of citizenship rights has supplied the basis for overcoming or at least tempering the gross injustices of social inequality. Citizenship is a

source of equality. Citizenship is a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed. Marshall argued that the implication of social stratification and social inequality is clear. The equality implicit in the concept of citizenship even though limited in content undermined the inequality of the class system which was in principle a total inequality.

Marshall says that the civil, political and social rights which make-up the separate elements of modern citizenship were woven into a single thread under the feudal constitution.

Citizenship can be characterized as both a status and a set of rights. This association of rights and status is not accidental. The political importance of rights derives from the social nature of status. In the most general terms rights are significant because they attach a particular capacity to persons by virtue of a legal or conventional status. That is persons may have certain capabilities or opportunities for particular actions certain powers as a consequence of their staurs. A persons rights drive from their attachment to a status because in a meaningful sense ones status indicates what one can do what capacities on has. David Helds Theory of Citizenship Rights

David Held has accounted for various sources of the origin of citizenship rights. He neither accepts Linear Path theory of T.H. Marshal completely nor does he accept

Anthony Giddens theory altogether. The theory propagated by him could be handled in the following manner:

Different Sources of Rights- David Held is of the opinion that rights originated due to various reasons and circumstance. In other words there are various sources of the origin of rights. Rights originated due to the conflict between the king and the feudal lords; the opposition and revolt against imposition of taxes on farmers; the opposition and revolt against imposition of taxes on farmers; rights emerging out of the situation created by the expansion of trade and commerce in England; even the renaissance also gave birth to several rights; rights of citizenship further expanded due to the conditions created by the birth of nation-states; rights created by the state as a result of struggle between State and Church and the reformation movement; and rights developed out of the birth of numerous ideologies in Europe.

David Held tried to rational as to why in his historical existence man constantly struggles. He does not wish that anything should be imposed on him. He wishes to have freedom of Choice in al walks of life political economic and socio cultural. He is the best judge to choose as to what form of government he wants, in what kind of family is he interested and what kind of economic system he wants. David Held has appreciated this freedom of choice adopted by the Western countries and states that in these countries the development of citizenship is based upon freedom of choice. Mand was never prepared to be bound by a living style imposed by absolutism. They struggled for choice of freedom from times immemorial and thus gained citizenship.

After having examined the theory of David Held, we feel that today there is need to widen the scope of citizenship. All the people living in the social system and all the natural resources have to be brought within the political decision-making process, it is very right to state that there be freedom in the activates of the society and the state systematize the society through political apparatus. But the fact is that in a Capitalist system the protection of rights through the state machinery is meaningful only for the economically affluent class and not for the economically weaker class.

Citizenship can become meaningful for the weaker sections of the society only when they get proper participation in the political decision making activities. Though this participation it would enable them to present their own problem struggle for their solution and get the solution the form of rights. In the eighteenth century, thirteen settlements (colonies) of America raised the banner of no taxation without representation against the imperialist British and in the nineteenth century voices were raised that No taxation without representation for the propertied women. Today each one of us is paying taxes either directly or indirectly and there is a greater need for the weaker sections to have participation in politics, and therefore they should not only be given participation in this field, but also should be made to participate realistically. Then alone citizenship will become meaningful for the entire polity. Rights are developmental and therefore citizenship is development and therefore the dialogue should continue.

Globalisaton is commonly used as a shorthand way of describing the spread and connectedness of production, communication and technologies across the world. That spread has involved the interlacing of economic and cultural activity. Rather confusingly

globalization is used by some to refer to the efforts of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Band and others to creates global free market for goods and services. This political project while being significant and potentially damaging for a lot of poorer nations-is really a means to exploit the larger process.

Globalisaton in the sense of connectivity in the economic and cultural life across the world has been growing for centuries. However many believe the current situation is of a fundamentally different order to what has gone before. The speed of communication and exchange the complexity and size of the networks involved and the sheer volume of trade interaction and risk give what we now label as globlisation a peculiar force.

With increased economic interconnection has come deepseated political changes-poorer countries have become even more dependent on activities in central economics such as the USA where capital and technical expertise tend to be located. There has also been a shift in power away from the nation state and toward some argue multinational corporations. We have also witnesses the rise and globlaisation of the brand it isnt just that large corporations operate across many different countries-they have also developed and marketed products that could be just as well sold in Peking as in Washington. Brands like Coca Cola, Nike, Sony, and a host of other have become part of the fabric of vast numbers of peoples lives.

Globalisation involves the diffusion of ideas practices and technologies. It is something more than internationalization and universalization. It isnt simply modernization or westernization. It certainly isnt just the liberalization of markets. Anthony Giddens (1990) has described globalization as the intensification of world wide social relations

which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. This involves a change in the way we understand geography and experience localness. As well as offering opportunity it brings with considerable risks linked for example to technological change.

Globalisation thus has powerful economic political cultural and social dimensions. Here we want to focus on four themes that appear with some regularity in the literature:

(i) (ii)

De-localisation and supraterritoriality; The speed and power of technological innovation and the associated growth of risk;

(iii) (iv)

The rise of multinational corporations; and The extent to which the moves towards the creation of global free markets to leads to instability and division.

Risk Technological Innovation and Globalisaton

Indeed a particular feature of globalisaion is the momentum and power of the change involved. It is the interaction global finance thus becomes just one force driving economies knowledge capitalism the drive to generate new ideas and turn them into commercial products and services which consumers want is now just as pervasive and powerful (Leadbeater 2000). Inevitably this lead into question around the generation and exploitation of knowledge. There is already a raping divide between rich and poor nations and this appears to be accelerating under knowledge capitalism there is also a growing gap within societies and this is on of the driving forces behind the English governments

conations strategy. Commentators like Charles Lead beater have argued for the need to innovate and include and for a recognition that successful knowledge economies have to take a democratic approach to the spread of knowledge: we must breed an open inquisitive challenging and ambitious society (Leadbeater 2000).

However, there are powerful counter forces to this ideal. In recent years, we have witnessed a significant growth in attempts by large corporations to claim intersexual rights over new discoveries for example in relation to genetic research and to reap large profits from licensing use of this knowledge to others. There are also significant doubts as to whether modern economies are indeed knowledge economies. It doesnt follow, for example that only those nations committed to lifelong learning and to creating a learning society will thrive (Wolf 2002).

Citizenship derives from the existence of a community of people a polity embedded in a geographically bounded nation state recognized by other nations and with boundaries and laws upheld if necessary by force.

Globalisation, on the other hand is a phenomenon. It has political, economic sociocultural and technological dimensions, and refers to integration and inter-connectedness across national boundaries along these dimensions (Croucher, Sheila L., 2004). Because goods, services ideas and people have always moved, to some extent, around the globe references to globalolisation today speak to a change in the magnitude of such movement. It is a phenomenon of increased interconnectedness increased flows of goods, services people and ideas though traditional as well as new channels. This increase has made the relationship of citizen and the nation state more complex.

Citizenship, Nation-State, and Globalisation

Culture and National Identity

If on the other hand, identity is fluid and malleable globalization might alter the specific character of the community of citizens but the nation state can be understood as a more robust entity, capable of evolving and adapting.

Further, where a nation state is in developmental time is likely to matter to how it is impacted by globlisation Nations go through a dynamic process of integrating its populations into a community of citizens during which there emerges a sense of common goals a critical mass of common practices and beliefs and most importantly legitimate social and political institutions.

As Dominique Schnapper states in Community of Citizen the term integration is not a matter of an irenic process. On the contrary it is normally by means of internal violence by reducing political and cultural particularizes and external violence by wars which the processes of national integration have occurred. Long standing nation states have generally undergone a more thorough process of integration and will be impacted differently by globalisatoion than developmentally younger nations.

The years since the Cold War have seen tremendous political and economic flux. Representative events include the emergence and dissolution of nation states, creation of the supranational European Union, unprecedented global economic integration resurgence of religious fundamentalism and ethnic rivalries and increased human

mobility around the globe. International labor mobility has resulted in large numbers of people living and working in countries of which they are citizens.

Human agency has become more complex. Individuals face greater options in deciding where to live and work making decision in the context of social and economic networks that span national boundaries. These networks strengthen ties to peoples countries of origin and lessen the extent to which foreign-born residents of a country see themselves as members of the community of citizens in their countries of residence. Thus the cohesion of communities of citizens within geographically bounded space has been undermined by globalization. Complex contradictory overlapping set of realities that entail both integration and disintegration homogenization and fragmentation.

War on terrorism

At first glace, the individuals families and communities of these transnational workers benefit but at what costs to the political and economic institutions of sending countries.

Conceptions of the citizen are important because the blurring of boundaries engendered by globalization have implications for the nation state and for the individual citizen. How a nation receives immigrants is largely shaped by its understanding of the citizen. If immigrants bring conceptions of themselves as citizens which differ from those which dominate in the society to which they move the question arises of who changes the immigrant or the society. The answer to this question, in turn depends on a number of things including the extent of difference in conception between the native-born and the immigrant population.

Globalisation and the Ambiguites of National Citizenship

The challenges to citizenship presented by globaloisation, the international mobility of people and the growing ethnocultural diversity within countries. It is argued that basing citizenship on singular and individual membership in a nation-state is no longer adequate, since the nation-state model itself is being severely eroded. Instead new approaches to citizenship are needed which take account of collective identities and the fact that many people now belong to more that one society. Such reforms should be linked to measures which improve the quality of political participation by permitting more democracy in more places.

Being a citizen meant having the rights to vote and to stand for political office, enjoying equality before the law and being entitled to various government services and benefits. It also meant having the obligation to obey the laws, to pay taxes and to defend your country. The rest of the world aspired to this model.

But there are signs that citizenship has become problematic in recent years. Several countries have changed their rules for access to citizenship for immigrants and other minorities. New countries emerging from the dissolving multi-ethnic states or real socialism have sought to establish appropriate rules of citizenship. Other new countries forged out of former colonies have dissolved into anarchy due to the failure to build and inclusive national identity and a stable state. Citizenship has become the focus of political and academic discourse. Various social movements? Claims that reforming citizenship could help solve major social problems. Why this sudden interest in something that

seemed so obvious? Is it the result of changes in the political and social context? Or have we become sensitive to problems implicit in the commonsense notion of citizenship?

The global context of citizenship is changing dramatically but so is the way we perceive it. First Globalisation breaks the territorial principle the nexus between power and place. The national industrial society as it evolved in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries articulated society state and nation in a particular form. Society referred to an economic and social system based on rational principles within a bounded national territory. The state referred to a political system based on secular (and usually democratic) principles capable of regulating economic and political relations. The nation referred to a people defined both on the basis of belonging to the territory of the state and having a common cultural and ethnic background. Thus politics the economy social relations and culture were congruent in that they all took the nation-state as their main point of reference.

The nation state is still the basic unit for welfare systems but no government ran pursue welfare policies which ignore the dictates of global markets.

The second aspect of globalization is that it has undermined the ideology of relatively autonomous national cultures. These were always a myth because virtually every nationstate has been made up of a number of ethnic groups, with distinct languages traditions and histories.

Globalisation has changed all these rapid improvements in transport and communication have led to an unprecedented degree of cultural interchange. The industrialization of media production puts enormous pressure on national and local cultures. Dominance by

global cultural factories like Hollywood means the diffusion of specific value systems connected with consumerism individualism and US lifestyles. At the same time however we witness a re-ethnicisation of culture at a sub-national level. This trend appears a a form of resistance to both nationalization and the globalization of culture. Collectivities which constitute themselves around cultural claims may be based not only on ethnicity but also on regional location gender sexual preferences and lifestyles. National culture is being squeezed between the global and the local.

The third aspect is the increasing mobility of people across national borders. The period since 1945, and especially since 1980 has been marked by large-scale migrations of all kinds: temporary and permanent movements: labour migrations and refugee exoduses; individual and family flows highly skilled specialists and manual workers. Such migrations have led to settlement in nearly all highly developed countries and in many parts of the less developed regions. Populations have become more heterogeneous and culturally diverse. Often cultural difference and social marginalization are closely linked creating ethnic minorities with disadvantaged and relatively isolated positions in society. Bikhu Parekhs Theory on Multiculturalism

Bikhu Parekh emphasizes that members of cultural minorities must be treated as equal and valued members with the rest as equal respect is central to individual sense of dignity going beyond conventional notions of non-discrinination and equal opportunity and not be given unintended discrimination in employment housing education promotion appointment to public offices. Minority communities may be allowed to run their internal affairs themselves so long as they are not internally internal affairs themselves so long as

they are internally oppressive. They should also be free to set up their own cultural educational and other institutions organize literary artistic sports and other events and to institute museums and academies with the help of the state if they need or ask for. Cultural differences should also be taken into account in the formulation and enforcement of public policies and laws: Parekhs thesis stems firstly out of a rejection of relativism and monism and subsequently form the claim that liberal attempts to respond to the fact of multiculturalism do not take the concept of culture seriously enough. The very basis of Parekhs political theory is the attempt to give adequate expression to the interplay between these three features. Relativism and monism are clearly to extreme. We must not overemphasize difference and we must not overemphasis similarity. It is a balancing act that Parekh also believes that contemporary liberal responses to diversity have failed to pull off. Parekhs critique of Rawls is similar in scope and content to that offered by Kymlicks. From Parekhs point of view Kymlickas liberal multiculturalism does not fare much better. Parekh explicitly picks up on the point that there appear to be no general or undisputed principles that inform Kymlickas hierarchy of national refugee and immigrant minority rights. If culture is a primary good in that it is a necessary condition for the good life then are we right to deny immigrants access to their culture? Parekhalso believes that Kymlicka absolutes liberalism. Kymlickas pervasive suggestion that national minorities are to be given self-government rights provided they govern

themselves within certain liberal parameters fails to take cultural diversity seriously enough.

Will Kkymlicka and Joseph Raz-have expressed sympathy and longestablised groups it is not devoid of a cohesive cultural structure. On the contrary immigrant groups often form their own distinct communities and neighborhoods and even where these are absent they tent to form nationwide and communal institutions to sustain their way of life. Parekhs objection suggest that in principle the demands for self-determination on the part of ethnic minorities may at least in some instances be on par with those of national minorities and hence should be given serious consideration.

Instead of relativism monism and the attempts of liberals such a Rawls and Kymlicka to develop a minimum universalism Parekhs theory takes the form of pluralist universalism.

This is what Parekh man when he says that humankind are culturally embedded. It is important to note here that because of the important place of culture in this dialectic, and because culture is by definition a social/group concept and therefore, people should nto be perceived merely as individuals but as part of a collective group/groups. The rights of cultures are in the view of Parekh, essentially collective rights.