The ‘King can do no wrong’ is still, as it were, de-jure philosophy of modern liberalism in the country of Magna Carta fame, i.e., United Kingdom. The de-facto position is different. As such, an individual, as it were, can do no wrong under the libertarian rigmarole of individual’s rights leading to human rights. The concept of an individual’s duty to family and society is not linked to the conception of human rights in the Western philosophy.
The fundamental philosophy and concept of Human Rights since the oncoming of first generation Civil and Political Rights is overburdened with mainly rights of the individual and, conversely, position of the King in Parliament. These individual basic rights are right to vote, assemble, free speech, fair trial, freedom from torture and protection of law including rule of law.[1]
Second generation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights date back to nineteenth century are also exclusive rights vis-a-vis the individual. These rights largely deal with problems of poverty, and rights of access to government, state protection to individual, better social condition of living, education, housing, health, employment, adequate income and social security.
The third generation of Human Rights denotes collective rights dating back to second half of the twentieth century. Indeed, but for the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights, these have not been included into any human rights treaties and conventions. These rights are also exclusive rights for economic development, prosperity, benefits from economic growth, social harmony and healthy environment. Despite being collective and primarily environmental in nature, these rights are also exclusively for the individual, by the individual, of the individual.
Another emerging form of human rights is to be seen in the twenty-first century’s fourth generation of individual liberties. These relate to the present day knowledge age. These are also exclusive rights for the individual anent right to knowledge, originality, intellectual property and patent. Despite the exclusiveness of this knowledge perspective, these are also positive rights for they do not snatch away any part of authority and power from the institution and apparatus of the state.
The first generation of Human Rights are negative rights for they impose restrictions upon the authority of state. The second, third and fourth generation of human rights are positive rights for they seek solace and cooperation from the state and society both without putting any restrictions on the political power of state.
As it is known, the first three generations of human rights have been categorized for the first time by a Czech jurist, namely, Karel Vasak at the international Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg in November 1977. The ‘categorization’ of fourth generation of Human Rights has seen the light of day at the behest of Mohamad Mova Al’s Afghani in September 2006 in The Jakarta Post.
In the foregoing paragraphs there is a clear cut indication about an inherent Western libertarian piquant way of thinking, mental orientation and not so balanced way of life because of their singularly undue and overarching stress on individual’s rights. The Western history is replete with examples of widely accepted one or the other type of domination – it may be the King, Church or the individual from time to time. The social context is relatively missing in the fundamental perspectives of Western philosophy and history in comparison to ancient and medieval Indian philosophy and history.
The first documentary use of the concept of human rights was in the Charter of the United Nations. Indian pedigree could be traced back to Manusmriti, the concept of vasudhaiva kutumbakam and Kautaliya’s Arthashastra etc. Yet, it was the Western experience in formulating this concept in the medieval period and its transplant into our time by the impact of the English, American and French revolutions that made us conscious of rights. The emergence of humanitarian ideas in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe and India led to enactment of laws relating to slavery and labour. Twentieth century focused on victims, minorities, ‘crime against humanity’, rights of women and children, refugees, rights of the disabled and mentally disabled and physical and intellectual integrity in the context of scientific advance and in upholding the struggle against the state. From time to time the foundations are monitored and inspected.[2]
It is said that the ancient and medieval Indian philosophy generally ignores fundamental human rights while the modern Indian political philosophy is largely derived from the Western contours of modern liberal and democratic concerns. Does it mean that Indian Vedic traditions of thought and Akbar’s Deen-e-Ilahi etcetera are completely devoid of human concerns relating to an individual’s peaceful life and social existence? Apparently it may be so. But reality is different.
For John Stuart Mill, the nature of human and individual’s rights is contradictory in itself because, on the one hand, every individual has a right to do and think as one wishes even if the opinion of the entire world goes against the concerned individual. Yet, again for Mill there are self-regarding and other-regarding rights. In case of a clash between self-regarding and other-regarding rights, the role of rule of law emerges. Hence, there has to be a link between the concept of basic human rights and the rule of law. This link is inherent in the human faculty of reason.[3]
However, the ancient Indian philosophy goes much beyond this power of reason among human beings. That is why, as against the Western tradition of political thought, original Indian writings in Vedas, Manusmiriti and Arthashastra etcetera seldom enter into exclusive expositions of rights. They, instead, mostly discuss Dharma and duties in social and political context. Yet, they do not ignore the individual because Dharma is for the individual only.[4]
The entire paraphernalia of ancient and medieval Indian thought constructs and reconstructs Dharma and duties primarily for the welfare of the individual in a cohesive social and political system. Therefore, individual is everywhere in the Indian thought while the individual is not in chains. So is not the case with the Western political traditions of thought and practice because there individual is born free but everywhere in chains. Even modern democracy, liberalism and globalisation have not been able to end this enshacklement of individual. Modern technology and flights of science into space have also mainly burdened the modern individual with high level of stress, dependence and social and political insecurities.
Philosophically speaking, the concept of human rights and efforts to provide diversified protection to individual in society are welcome features of concurrent social, national, international and global perception towards democracies. Yet, they are far away from what they intend to bestow upon the individual.
The apparent intentions behind introducing human rights in the form of various declarations, conventions and treaties appear to be infected with perverted political contexts of nations like United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and France. Just as their developed a strand of behaviouralism during mid-nineteen-sixties to mid-nineteen-seventies, modern human rights perspectives were also evolved in the similar vein in the post-World War II period under the leadership of United States and its other agencies having global reach. These agencies are known to be employing, overtly or covertly, the services of various university professors and college teachers for the formulation of theories and philosophies that can help penetrate human mind all over the globe for expanding such frontiers of knowledge which may secure larger political interests of the United States and other relevant countries of the West.
The ancient Indian tradition of Dharma appears to be away from philosophical and practical weaknesses found in the theory and practice of human rights in India and the world. Therefore, expanding this philosophy of Dharma and its application in the modern context of human rights may as well bring more meaningful dividends to deeper and larger concerns of human rights.
References
[1] Brian Orend, Human Rights: Concept and Context, Broadview Press, 2002, pp. 30-32.
[2] J. Nirmal Chiranjivi, Human Rights in India Historical, Social and Political Perspectives, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2000, p. xxviii.
[3] John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Longmans, Green Reader and Dyer, 1869, pp. 18-30.
[4] S. D. Chamola, Kautilya Arthshastra and the Science of Management: Relevance for the Contemporary Society, Hope India Publications, 2007, pp. 47-48.
