rebalancing human rights from a hindu philosophical standpoint

8/8/2019 Rebalancing Human Rights from a Hindu Philosophical standpoint

1/9

,QVWLWXWHIRU*OREDO&KDQJH 6SHHFKGHOLYHUHGDW6\QDJRJXH-DFNVRQV5RZ0DQFKHVWHU 6DFKLQ1DQGKD

1

Rebalancing Human Rights

First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Prinja for inviting me to

deliver this talk tonight, and it gives me great pleasure to see Hindu -Jewish

exchange in this manner. And I thank you for coming here tonight to hear me

deliver this short lecture, and you must forgive me if I end up miss-

communicating some fact or another, or if I accidently end of upsetting the

placidity of someones mind.

I should make clear from the offset that my background is not grounded in the

law, but rather in Philosophy initially political, in the study of Liberalism,

then in behaviourism, and more recently in classical Hindu philosophy. (And I

will use the terms Indian and Hindu philosophy to mean the one and the same.)

So talking about human rights for me is well beyond my comfort zone! At least

thats how I feel. So, you shouldnt be surprised if I gravitate continuously to

philosophical doctrine which will reason for a particular paradigm shift when

discussing human rights.

I think there can be little argument against the following:

that Hinduism and Judaism are two of the oldest religions, if indeed they can

be called that, and have produced some of the most influential memes to ha ve

spread across humanity for thousands of years, enlightening civilisations across

the globe.

An arguable statement, but one that I nevertheless endorse, is that

both groups have been endlessly persecuted throughout history by powers that

are transient and yet have inflicted gruesome damage physically, economically,

psychologically and some even argue spiritually.


2/9


2

The classical Greeks, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Meccans, the

Persians, the Romans, the Mongols, Huns, and many more came, flourished for

a while; they persecuted either the Hindus or the Jews, sometimes both, but then

eventually came to their own demise. These great powers still pull in great

crowds...but only to the museums.

Pause

I have no doubt that if the demigods were the gambli ng sort; what would have

been the odds on the Jews and Hindus to survive the last millennium? No doubt

the odds would have been slim!

BUT here we are Hindus and Jews. Do we not carry a legacy of humanity that

is worth preserving? Do our cultures not carry some inherent wisdom, which

has been bestowed upon us through the passage of time? Here in this room, I

wonder what powerful ideas we hold deep within our subconscious; ideas that if

properly explored, cultivated, and expressed would truly enrich the rather

mundane state of the human rights debate. I am convinced that there are

universal principals, truths, no let me say absolute truths that we can bring forth

from our respective histories that must be applied without hesitation or

reservation once arrived at.

But now, let me be frank, before I actually share with you what I believe Hindu

philosophy, history and experience brings to the debate when it comes to human

rights.

I want to make it clear that both, the state of Israel a Jewish state, and India

which can only be said to be a semi Hindu state, (and Im sure some here would

argue that its not Hindu at all in its Statecraft), however both states, I believe,

at worst have seriously abused basic human rights, and at best have remained

passive when these universal rights have been threatened. Neither can be

acceptable. Rather we, who are the custodians of great suffering throughout


3/9


3

history, should be at the forefront of preserving such universal values. Too

many times have we let out beloved nations, India for the Hindus and Israel for

the Jews, remain silent when on its doorstep there is great injustice.

I am mindful to the fact that both feel threatened by tod ays great transient faith

Islam. I am mindful of the great atrocities that Christians, Muslims and other

Imperial powers have committed against bygone generations. But it is exactly

because of the mistakes of the past that we, as a people, should be ext ra vigilant

that we too, do not repeat them on others whether these other groups respect

Human Rights or not! I firmly believe that it is my responsibility, as an

individual, to step up and speak out when anyones basic life is dealt an unjustly

blow, by another, regardless of their class, faith or creed. So as we explore

human rights from our respective paradigms, let us not forget the great

responsibility we carry, not just for future Jewish or Hindu generations, but for

all humanity.

I know that both Judaism and Hinduism have had apologists who claim that

these cultures are too focused on human obligations rather than human rights.

The source of the obligations for the Jews stems from the Torah, hence

theocentric; for the Hindus from the vast cannon of pluralistic philosophical

texts like the Upanishads, the Vedas, and the Dharma sutras amongst others,

hence philosophic. The criticisms for both are that they are simply not

adequately compassionate at their core, and therefore are not appropriately

ethical.

I think this claim is disingenuous.

Take the example to prohibit all from theft. This in itself bestows rights of

private property to the subject if he fulfils his Dharma (duty) to never steal. By

putting forward an obligation to not steal, it has simultaneously given a right


4/9


4

that to own private property. Take the obligation to not kill. This inherently

gives the right to life. The obligations are prescriptive to the individual, yet the

inherent rights are distributed to all. From a Hindu standpoint and I suspect

Jewish too, if we take care of our own individual obligations the common

human rights, the common good are taken care of automatically. We need not

worry.

But of course as with all things in life its not that simple.

Present human rights, as far as I understand it, can be approached from 4

interrelated paradigms: the legal, the moral, the ethical and the religious.

The legal paradigm is simply interpreted as law, nothing more; nothing less.

Those which subscribe to the treaty can be issued with human rights. Its

rather an oddity if you think about it. Take the UN charter on Human Rights, as

adopted in 1948. Those nations that signed up to it were in turn issued the rights

which they had signed up to, but those countries which did not sign, in turn

were not issued the rights. There is a fundamental problem with this narrowconception of rights. That which can be enforced by the law, can also be taken

away by the law. One cannot merely offer a legalistic answer. This is something

which Im sure we can all relate to all too.

The moral paradigm according to Louis Henkin is simply those moral political

claims which, by contemporary consensus, every human being has or is deemed

to have upon his society and government. Generally then, this is a relative

concept. Our sense morality evolves with t ime and therefore our notions of

human rights change with it.

The ethical paradigm is utilitarian in essence that which serves the greatest

good, for the greatest number. The irony of course is that Jeremy Bentham who


5/9


5

popularised utilitarian thinking in England thought the idea of human rights as

nonsense on stilts. Essentially Utilitarianism states that we feel right talking

about rights because by insisting on them for others we are securing our overall

protection. Indeed this is an attractive idea and approach. One can say its

pragmatic.

Finally there is the religious view, and in this context I believe that Judaism,

through Christianity, has had far greater success in influencing global ideas of

human rights than us Hindus. Of course the reasons are multiple and layered,

and beyond the scope of this discussion. Needless to say that this paradigm

suggests that religion is the source of human right advancements.

Hindu ideas of human duties and rights stem from, and are aligned with the

axiology of the purusarthas, which loosely translates as pursuits of life. There

are 4 in total:

Kama to pursue right desire

Artha to pursue wealth and status

Dharma to pursue duty and virtue

And finally Moksha to pursue enlightenment; to realise the ultimate truth

All Hindu philosophy, tradition, language and religion can be encapsulated as a

pursuit of these four aspects. I believe all four of these can be married to the

four western notions. Kama or right desire, can be aligned with the ethical, in

that it involves the assessment of the relative merits of the elements desired by

the individual vis-a-vis the community. In other words, to assess the desires of

the individual for personal wealth, with the communities need for economic

development, or equality. The legal view can be aligned with Artha, which

takes a literal view of the law and predominately is concerned about socio -

economic and political advancement. The moral can be linked to Dharma,


6/9


6

which I will come onto shortly; and finally the religious can be linked to

Moksha that which deals with the metaphysical aspects of the human

condition.

Hindus are primarily concerned with Dharma. You would have thought

Moksha, but that would be to grossly simplify Hinduism. Hinduism is

pragmatic and idealistic at the same time. It holds to its ideals staunchly, and yet

looks to address the societal needs with an uncanny pragmatism. Grounding

rights in Dharma is essential; for grounding it in Kama would be too hedonistic,

in Artha too positivistic and arbitrary by this I mean devoid of any higher

ideals, which would not serve the spiritual; and in Moksha these rights would be

too remote, or even transggressive meaning that it would push the boundaries

of what a normal society would accept too far.

So Hindus would look to ground these rights in Dharma. Dharma, Im afraid is

something far too complex and subtle for me to adequately grasp it to the

satisfaction of this audience. But nevertheless, I fear I must try.

Dharma is a contextual Sanskrit word. According to the context in which it is

being used can mean duty or obligation . Furthermore, I believe these duties

arise out of a sense of purpose for ones life. The purpose are multi-layered and

multi-dimensional, they result out of our desire (Kama), our need for wealth and

resource (Artha), an innate human need to live a good life (Dharma) and of

course to satisfy the ultimate questions of existence (Moksha). In classical

Hindu culture, each person must sharpen ones own sense of purpose; this in

turn creates a series of duties, which then forms the bedrock of reciprocal rights.

These duties can be personal, social, economical, political and spiritual. Hindu

civilisation didnt legislate for these duties, but rather inculcated them into

culture and tradition. The kings of old would legislate for the provision of Artha

economic, political wellbeing of the society, and Kama right desires through


7/9


7

allowing the flourishing of the arts, music, science and of course philosophy.

However, Dharma the moral life, and Moksha the religious or spiritual life

was by en-large completely grounded in the personal sphere of life. This is

where the family as an institution was given the duty to raise children with

Dharma; with the duty of raising children grounded in Dharma, parents

automatically begin to claim the right to be looked after in old age, and passes

on the duty to their children. This is a cyclical process in existence for

thousands of years.

It is for this reason that it is said over and over again, if you want to understand

Hinduism, go and live in a Hindu family!

I firmly believe that present legislators are too absorbed by Artha and Kama,

and leave the Dharma and Moksha elements to the indivi dual these are indeed

the hallmarks of a liberal society, but the problem we have is that the instrument

which nurtures and cultivates Dharma into every individual is imploding before

our very eyes the nuclear family! Without an effective nuclear fami ly how do

we expect future generations to have a strong sense of Dharma or duty

towards themselves and society at large? And with the state being only

concerned with Artha and Kama we are now in danger of producing

generations only concerned with Artha and Kama and completely ignorant of

their own personal duty. What I believe we need to address as a society is the

implosion of the nuclear family, and to re-establish a culture of obligation, duty

or Dharma upon every individual. The State, I believe must do more to

readdress the culture of individualism creeping into the psyche of the public.

Even though capitalism profits by the growth of individualism, I believe

Dharma does not. And if Dharma is lost so is the idea of our human

obligations. And what good are Human rights without their complimentary

obligations or the sense of duty upon each member of society.


8/9


8

I do not believe we can merely legislate for these things unless we look to

sacrifice personal liberty.

To be liberal, and to promote human rights at every level of society, we need to

preserve the family, from which Dharma stems. I will leave this thought here,

and maybe follow it up in the Q & A.

Furthermore, like Jews, Hindus have been, are being, and no doubt will be,

persecuted in certain parts of the world, simply because they are passive and

until recently have lacked both economic and political power. Take for example

Pakistan. The Hindu population at the time of partition in 1947 was

approximately 24%, today it is less than 2%. And it would be naive of us tothink that 22% of the Hindu population migrated back into India. The

population records simply do not show this. So what happened to over 40

million Hindus? Furthermore, over 2500 temples along with Buddhist stuppas

have been destroyed. We mustnt forget that around the 12th

century,

Afghanistan and contemporary Pakistan was predominately Buddhist.

Across the East, in Bangladesh, the Hindu population has dwindled, from being

24% of the population in 1941, to 21% by 1951, and then suddenly to half that

in 2001. This is through forced exodus, intimidation, huge unemployment and

ultimately due to fear after the 1971 massacre carried out by the Pakistan army

where some 20 million Hindus were forcibly removed from their homes many

killed, some 20,000, causing huge panic.

In Kashmir, Pundits meaning those who conduct religious ceremonies, and are

teachers of Dharma are targeted by Islamic fundamentalists. Today some

200,000 Hindus are living in permanent refugee camps having been forced out

their homes by intimidation and violence, even at times small scale village

orientated massacres; where all the men of a village are shot, the women and

children taken to madrass and converted!


9/9


9

And I can go on and on but I sense I should stop.

I think its paramount that we, all of us, recognise our Dharma towards

humanity, and not just in our narrow confinements of our own faiths! I have no

doubt that by enhancing the importance of personal obligation and duty; we wi ll

serve human rights far better.

Thank you.

rebalancing human rights from a hindu philosophical standpoint

Documents