Conclusion

Both dowry and domestic violence are manifestations of the socially subordinate position of women in India, in particular of women in relation to and within the institution of marriage. Studies reveal how the socio economic changes ushered in by modernisation have interacted with traditional norms to sustain these practices and through them, the subordination of women. The women’s movement began addressing these social problems through law, and has through the years continued to critique the law for its failure to deliver. The critiques and debates arising from this concern have periodically generated recommendations for law reform, higher sentencing, widening the net of criminalisation, creation of special women’s police stations and courts in addition to strategies for raising gender awareness amongst the judiciary and the police. This article attempts to suggest that the shortcomings of the decades of women’s engagement with the law is not merely because of flaws and gender bias within the law, but more importantly, because of the expectations from the law and the centrality placed on its role in social transformation.

It is at the constitutional junction of law and politics, that a number of prominent American public lawyers have located their ‘civic republicanism’ as a theory about the empowerment of civil society. Civic republicanism is a theory that draws on a number of disciplines and integrates the insights into constitutional theory to suggest a thorough rethinking of the premises of constitutionalism. While the republicans all share the basic premise of the interrelationship I described between self, community, politics and law, they diverge in their accounts of the precise institutional vessel of the political dialogue. They disagree about where to locate the constitutional ‘home’ of the deliberative practice. One of them designates the Supreme Court as the most appropriate forum of the deliberative practice, another the Congress, while a third seeks to locate his republican politics in the ‘constitutional’ mobilisation of the citizenry at large. The initial disparity between the theorists, between elite and populist institutional solutions, has given way, more recently, to some convergence. But the problem of designating the appropriate constitutional realm of the political dialogue still remains the issue that most sharply divides civic republicans. The following sections will explore the answers they give to the problem independently. I will in each case, rehearse the basic premise only briefly and focus more extensively on the various suggested constitutional outlets of the political dialogue to explore how it is that they perform the function of ‘carrying’ the political dialogue onto legal-institutional ground.

How should we treat unruly children in our schools? Which punishments are appropriate? successful?; and will they instill order and discipline in the next generation? These are the perennial questions asked by adults, answered by adults, and rarely posed to children themselves! Instead, educationalists and parents have sought to control minors by resorting to a variety of disciplinary sanctions. Today, however, the questions have to be set within a developing philosophy of `children's rights' whereby young people are seen as having entitlements which challenge existing notions of adult authority. This paper explores these issues within an overarching theme of human rights. It does not seek to promote the case for children's rights in isolation, but rather locates the question within the context of rights and responsibilities of pupils, teachers, and parents. Discussion provides an historical perspective on physical chastisement in the home and at school; analysis of the impact of the European Court of Human Rights on abolition in Britain; and a review of alternative sanctions being explored. Further, attempts to re-introduce the cane are considered notwithstanding clear indication from Strasbourg that violence can no longer be condoned. Finally, the dignity and integrity of the person will continue to be at the forefront of the debate on children's rights as there is clearly discernible an international dissemination of legal norms which can serve as a mechanism of social control, responsive to changing popular ideologies and effecting influence on social policy and practice.