The new secular religion

Another immaculate premise of the Declaration is that the power of the state and of its rulers is derived ultimately from the assent of the people and there are limits to state’s interference with the human rights of its citizens. The Declaration rejects the doctrine of the absoluteness of the state and its unconditional claim to obedience. The corollary is that how a state treats its own people is a matter of legitimate concern of the international community which cannot remain silent or passive in cases where there is state-sanctioned systematic policy and consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights. Thanks to international human rights instruments enacted after the Declaration and the evolution of human rights jurisprudence, the ghost of domestic jurisdiction has been effectively exorcised and the veil of national sovereignty has been rent.

Recognition of the universality of the values of the Declaration should not lead us to minimise the significance of cultural andreligious diversities in different parts of the world. Universal human rights are rooted in different cultures and the extent and manner of their implementation may vary from region to region. There are no universal prototypes for realisation of human rights. In this context, there is vital need for a comprehensive dialogue that draws from all the world’s cultures, religions, and creeds and to interpret and adapt the Declaration in the light of the understanding resulting from such a dialogue. However, cultural and religious practices which derogate from universally accepted human rights, including women’s and children’s rights, cannot be tolerated.

Infanticide, sati, hostile discrimination against women in matters of marriage, divorce and succession, imposition of cruel and degrading punishment, cannot be justified on the ground of cultural pluralism or the right to freedom of religion. In a democratic polity minority groups certainly have a voice in enactment of laws and formulation of policies. They donot have the right to veto majoritarian decisions arrived at after full debate and discussion.

As we embark on a new stage of our journey into the millennium, greater protection to and meaningful realisation of social, economic and cultural rights should be on the top of our agenda. The Vienna Declaration recognises that all human rights are universal, indivisible, and interdependent and further states that they must be treated with the same emphasis.

But where resources are limited and problems of development unlimited, priorities are inevitable. If the budget is limited and the choice is between a new television station or a hospital, the choice is obvious. I venture to suggest that there should be greater emphasis on basic human rights which stem from basic needs and which are crucial for human survival. Specifically, the right to food, shelter and medical care. These subsistence rights are those that every human being may reasonably demand from the rest of mankind as the moral minimum, the linebeneath which no one is to be allowed to sink without destroying human dignity.

Physical torture is indefensible. But is daily deprivation of food and shelter and medical care any less a violence to human personality? It is heretical to suggest that one has necessarily to choose between food and freedom. But is it subversive to recognise the stark truth in Brecht’s lines:

However much you twist,
Whatever lies you tell
Food is the first thing,
Morals follow on,
So first make sure
That those who now are starving
Get proper helpings
When you all start carving
The attainment of social justice should be the primary goal, especially as we confront the onslaught of globalisation with the potential dangers of transnational corporations, or currency traders violating human rights. Advances in technology and science do not generate equity or guarantee human dignity. Technology can be and has been used to violate basic rights of the people. We should heed the warning of Winston Churchill andbeware that “the Stone Age does not return upon the gleaming wings of science”.

It is also necessary to expand the reach of human rights to cover nonstate actors and to move beyond the traditional position that human rights are enforceable only against the state. Non-State actors can violate human rights as potently as the state.

Indisputably there is a wide gap between the rhetoric of human rights and the reality. The taunt of the cynic that the only thing universal about human rights is their universal violation should not lead to despondency but should be regarded as a challenge.

We should not forget that the progress made towards the realisation of the goals of the Universal Declaration far exceeds the most optimistic expectations of its signatories. In nation after nation democracy has taken the place of autocracy. A new sense of shared international responsibility is unmistakably evident in the United Nations and its agencies, as well as in the civil society of numerous supranational NGOs. Thedefence of human rights has become the international secular religion. Our struggle for human rights must continue with a rekindled sense of the vision of 1948 till hunger, poverty and exploitation are eradicated and people everywhere are able to enjoy the rights enshrined in the Declaration and children can play safely and happily again.

Is this a pious hope, foolishly utopian? Maybe. But remember that a map of the world which does not include utopia is not worth looking at. Progress is the realisation of utopias.

The writer is the Attorney-General of India