HUMAN RIGHTS 1

Sri.K.V.kunhikrishnan: When we talk of Human Rights we do not generally mean the rights that we expect each of us to have as a human being living in this world. Such a concept would mean all the very different notions about individual freedom and rights that each of us may have. What we mean about Human rights is only the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on 10th December 1948.
As we all know the United Nations came into being immediately after the IInd World War in 1945, as an attempt to stop the possibility of any further World Wars. In 1946 the UN appointed a commission to formulate the Human Rights that any citizen of the world could enjoy without restraint. The commission was appointed under the Economic and Social Council of the U.N. The U.N. had already affirmed its faith in Fundamental Human Rights in its charter, and the declaration of human rights was meant to pave the way for its implementation.
There are thirty articles in all in the declaration. The first twelve articles of the declaration stress equality and liberty to all without any discrimination, abolition of slavery, security and safety to life, recognition and honor, justice and equality before law, and natural justice. Art.13,14, and 15 refers to freedom of movement, asylum and freedom to change nationality. Right to marriage by mutual consent is assured by art.16, and art.17 preserves the right to property. Freedom of thought and expression are covered by art,s 18 and 19. There are also rights for assembly and elections, which are assured under articles 20 and 21. Other political rights like right to work, rest, leisure, standard of living, and freedom for self development are covered by articles 22 to 25. Separate provisions are there for education and culture in articles 26 and 27. The rest of the three articles 28, 29, & 30 are of a general nature to establish a set up to implement these provisions, imposing some limitations to the freedoms subject to the general purpose of the UN Charter, and to avoid misinterpretation of the provisions in the declarations.
We can thus see that the declarations are elaborate and rather exhaustive. But alas, the declaration does not have sufficient teeth to impose it on the nations of the world. It has no legal validity or backing unless each country incorporates the same in their constitutions. The declaration itself is recommendatory in nature and is a standard prescribed for such incorporation. For example, in our own constitution, which came later on in Nov 1949, most of the provisions are incorporated in the Fundamental Rights, but with modifications. Most of the nations violate the provisions of the declaration, in what are called ‘public interests’, by enacting special emergency laws. But although not strictly legal, the Declaration of Human Rights have powerful moral authority, which is very often used (or even misused) by superpowers as a stick to beat other nations with. And they themselves, like in the case of Guantnamo Bay, are sometimes caught violating human rights.
Prof. Sankarankutty: Violation of Human Rights is naturally a matter for condemnation. All the same, certain degree of cruelty becomes necessary to be practiced by those who defend the rights. The question is how do one deal with the terrorists? Normal mild approach would not do.
Prof. Richard Hay: And where is Human Rights in the matter of freedom of expression? Take the case of Taslima Nasreen. She was hunted out for writing a novel.
Prof. Sankarankutty: She criticized the clergy and the whole community turned against her, even in India. She has a right to express her views. In Hyderabad in India, she was physically manhandled. She is a Bangladeshi who was denied any Human Rights in her own country. She was to be safe in India, but that also turned out to be unsafe for her. It is a chain of Idea Vs Politics Vs Human Rights.
Dr. Thomas: There is a view that she is uncomfortable with herself like Kamala Surayya, and that is why both of them behave eccentrically.

Sri.Kunhikrishnan: That would be no excuse for denying freedom of expression. Now to continue, there are some mechanisms to implement the Human Rights. The covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture, the conventions for women’s and children’s rights and the Convention against Racial discrimination are some of them. Again, these are applicable to the member nations who have entered into the respective agreements. In so far as India is concerned it is a signatory to all major conventions. Although all cases relating to Human Rights are still dealt with under the common criminal law of the country, we have an effective monitoring system under the Human Rights Protection Act. Under this Act, there is a National Commission for Human Rights, and State Commissions in the States. The commission takes notice of human right violations and receives complaints, and proceeds to see that justice is done. One sessions court in each district is designated as Human Rights Court for giving speedy justice. The commission takes up cases suo motu when violations come to its notice.
In Law, if precisely worded, there is not much room for any free thinking. The provisions have to be strictly interpreted according to rules of interpretation. There are many books on principles of statutory interpretations, on jurisprudence, and on Natural justice. There are also binding decisions of the Supreme courts, which have the force of law. While passing comments and references in the course of a judgment, called ‘obiter dicta’, of the Apex Court are not Law. Substantial findings of the courts are as good as any enactment by parliament. But yet they are only interpretations. It would be foolish to criticize the judge, as the present day politicians often do, for a decision because he has no other alternative but to go strictly according to the principles of interpretation. If the politician cannot agree, he has the remedy to change the law, which is within his area of action. Thus in Law there is no scope for free thinking.
That is not the case with Natural Human Rights. Having been born in this world, has he not the basic rights to keep his life safe till nature takes it back, pursue happiness and avoid unhappiness, and have his minimum needs met? But naturally, others have also such rights which he has to recognize and concede. Therefore he must be prepared to compromise, and find a balance. That is what is called living in a society. Man is thus a social being.
Stretching the idea further, the question will arise whether only man has rights in this world? What about animal rights? They have also the right to live as comfortable as possible. Among themselves survival of the fittest is Nature’s rule. But vis-à-vis the humans it is the duty of man to recognize the rights of animals and to see that a balance is maintained by doing only the minimum harm to the animals in the course of pursuit of his own happiness. He should not have the attitude that all other beings are here on earth to satisfy the pleasure of Man as maintained by the captain of the ship on which Mahatma Gandhi traveled.
Sometimes one has to kill or destroy insects and animals, knowingly or unknowingly. This cannot be avoided. That is definitely part of nature. That is why perhaps the Puranic writers invented the system of giving ‘Moksha’ to their enemies whenever they needed to kill. There was nothing wrong in Rama killing Bali hiding behind a tree, because he was giving him Moksha!. So many instances of giving such Mokshas to Rakshasas and demons can be found in the Epics.
Ultimately one has to find his own balance among human rights, animal rights, insect rights, and Rakshasa (murderers, rapists, and the like) rights, to live properly in this world!