Group-differentiated citizenship has become a widely accepted way of addressing the dissatisfaction with difference-blind liberal universal accounts of citizenship. This article interprets Indian arguments for and against quotas, across the 20th century, in terms of a contest between the powerful rival claims of universalist and differentiated citizenship. The Indian experience, it argues, instantiates many of the normative complexities that theorists of group-differentiated citizenship have identified, in particular its implications for the construction of a civic community; the prospects of weakening social cohesion; and the difficulties of properly determining which groups are deserving of differentiated citizenship rights. The article offers anargument against positing universalist and group-differentiated citizenship in mutual opposition, a false dichotomy in a complex and diverse world.
展开▼
