Rachana Panthi
Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings – they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental – the right to life – to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.[1] However, rights such as food, education, work, health, and liberty are equally fundamental. Since these rights are essential for sustaining life and ensuring that it is lived with dignity. Without them, the right to life itself would be compromised, as they are all interconnected to human existence.
Human rights are standards that recognize and protect the dignity of all human beings. They govern how individuals live within society, and interact with each other, as well as their relationship with the State and the obligations the State has towards them. Human rights law obliges governments to take certain action and prevents them from taking others. Individuals also have responsibilities while exercising their human rights – they must respect the rights of others. No government, group or individual person has the right to do anything that violates another’s rights.[2]
Human rights recognize the inherent value of each person, based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives. Respect for human rights is thecornerstone of strong communities in which everyone can make a contribution and feels included.[3]
Human rights are a set of norms that dictate how state and non-state actors should treat individuals and groups based on ethical principles fundamental to a dignified life. These rights and freedoms, to which every human being is entitled, are safeguarded against violations by states, including the state of which the victim is a national of, through both national and international law. While some argue that human rights are so intrinsic that they constitute part of natural law, they are more commonly recognized as elements of treaty law. Human rights encompass moral principles or norms that define standards of human behavior and are consistently protected under both national and international legal frameworks. They are universal in nature, applicable at all times and in all places.[4]
Contribution of Vedas and Epic Traditions:
The Sanskrit word “Veda” emanates from the root word “vid,” which implicatively insinuates “knowledge or sagacity”. The Vedas (or cognizance) is the oldest available sacred records believed to be not indited by man but God (apaurusheya) and passed on to humanity through Sages. [5]
The modern concept of human rights was enshrined in the ancient Literary sources, such as the Vedas, the Arthashastra, Dharmasastras, the Mahbharata, and the Ramayana, as well as in epigraphic sources. A comparative study of these texts and human rights declared by the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization reveals a deep-rooted tradition of equality and moral responsibility within these ancient writings. Both the Rig Veda and the Atharva Veda emphasize equality. Religious traditions provided an inherent sense of obligation toward humanity, responsibility to all humanity, and the development of duty-based concepts.
Ancient Indian communities preserved their history, culture, and knowledge systems through their heteroglossic languages, which allowed them to maintain both unity and diversity. These languages also captured the complex stratification and interconnections between various denominational and sectarian traditions, environmental ethos and physical features of their habitats.
The Vedic worldview was one of interconnected, symbolized by the image of the universe being united in a nest (Yatra viśvam bhavatykanīḍam, Yajurveda 32.8), where universal brotherhood was established in the maternal womb (Bhrātṛtvam maturgarbhe bharāmahe. Ṛigveda 8.83.8). The principle of reciprocity of human rights is also evident in Ṛigveda (19.117.6, kevalāgho bhabati kevalādi), which warns that “one who eats alone, eats sin alone”. The Atharva Veda, in the Prithivīsūkta, “Mātā bhoomih, putroaham prthīvyāḥ” established the indissoluble connection of the rights of humanity and nature. The Uddālaka Āruni dialogue in Chāndogya Upaniṣad sums up the Vedic approach of harmony in diversity, we may act like bees to collect juices from diverse trees and to assemble them in unity. The concept of human rights reinforces this approach as enunciated in the Shrīmad Bhagvad Geetā through the premise of pursuit of duties, appropriate to one station in life. It says,
Śreyān svadharmo biguṇaḥ paradharmāt svanuṣṭhitāt
Svadharme nidhanam śreyaḥ paradharmo bhayāvahaḥ.
It is better to perform one’s duties appropriate to one’s station, whatever the quality of performance, rather than perform duties appropriate to stations of others, however well accomplished. Rights are regulated in the Geetā according to capabilities and attributes appropriate to one’s station in life, one’s caste in the words, Cāturvarṇam mayā ṣrṣṭam guṇakarmavibhāgasaḥ. “The four castes are created by me (Supreme Being), according to qualities and attributes of work”. There is also an insistence on the performance of royal duties with the goal of lokasaṁgraha or universal welfare rather than self-aggrandisement to create corollary rights of the sovereign and the community. Karmayoga is explained repeatedly as performance of one’s duties with attachment (pravṛtti) to the means of performance and detachment (nivṛtti) from the fruits of actions, in terms of success or failure. The Vedic Sūtrātman doctrine and the Vedantic theory of consciousness, provide the basis for a universal theory of human rights by uniting transcendence with immanence. The Geetā permits everyone to approach God in his or her own way. “Ye yathā mām prapadyante tānsthaiba bhajāmyham”; It also permits inter caste movement on the ground that the four varṇas have been created according to vocation[6]
The concept of “Karma” emphasizes individual responsibility of humans for all their deeds and their consequences, much like modern Newton’s third law of motion which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The karma philosophy negates the conception that everything transpires coincidentally in life. It maintains that “actions” or “deeds” of the individuals rebound sooner or later either in this life or other lifetimes. The word karma was first utilized in Rig Veda, and a more vigorous and detailed description of karma is found in texts like Brihadaranyak Upanishad (Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣat) and Bhagvat Gita. Vedic literature advocates for an obligation-predicated society, where the rights conferred upon an individual are the rights to perform obligation. Bhagvat Gita verbalizes that a person’s right is to perform his obligation without expecting any fruits of his actions. [7]
The duties of the King to his subjects imply the rights of the subjects. Mahābhārata insists that the king must ensure what is due to the people and not extract what belongs to others. According to Bṛihaspati, constant utthāna or development is the goal of Rājadharma. The ruler has to preserve Pañcavarga, integrity and rights of the five sections of the kingdom: the Minister, State, fort, army and treasury (mantra, rāṣṭra, dūrga, senā and koṣa). The ruler has to protect people from Mātsyanyāya through a contract with the people and the approval of Prajāpati. Nārada advises the ruler to collect taxes from the subjects in a way that is neither excessive nor insufficient, like a calf takes milk from the cow or honey collectors who do not destroy the bee hive.
According to Vyāsa in Ādiparva, the king is not to disrupt the worship of Gods, ancestors, or priests, nor cut standing crops or slaughter women, children, or sages. Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva in Mahābhārata provide instruction in the performance of Dharma. In Śāntiparva, Bhīṣma provides instruction to Yudhiṣṭhīra on various aspects of ruling, such as duty of the ruler in preserving the social order, principles of punishment, war, conduct, self-knowledge, renunciation of personal desire and attachments (Rāja and Varṇāshramadharma, Daṇḍa, Yuddha and Vyāvahāra nīti, Ātmajñāna, Icchā and Anāsaktityoga). Bhīṣma delays his death to offer a complete explanation of dharma, while Krishna interrupts an impending war to discuss the rights and duties in times of both war and peace.
The Mahābhārata says, ”Amṛtam caiva mṛtyuśca dvayam dehe pratiṣṭhitam”, meaning death and immortality being both established co existentially in the human body, a balanced pursuit of rights and duties or their disjunction makes the difference. The Rāmāyaṇa provides ideal foundations for the relations, based on a mutuality of rights and duties, among all members of the family, between the king and the subject, human and non-human beings. [8]
Conclusion
Human Rights are not explicitly and directly discussed in the Vedic literature and it is not very surprising also as it would be perhaps too much to expect from the very first kenned literature of human history. However, there is no doubt that some of the high ideals of human rights do resonate in the hymns of Vedic literature, contributing a non-western perspective to the historiography of human rights. The concept of human rights in Vedic literature is more abstract compared to how it has been reified in the modern era.
The Vedic literature treats duties as corollaries of rights as one-sided accentuate on rights would prove to impede nurturing the spirit of convivial and collective utility among the Vedic society. Though the Vedic society was more obligation-predicated yet the society in which rights depend upon the performance of obligations could still be considered as a society with rights. These abstract rights of individuals precede law and society. The Vedic literature abstains from indiscriminate levelling. There is no denying that many rights are not explicitly mentioned in Vedic literature for example; the concept of the right to own property which is now a universal and an inalienable human right is very ambiguous in Vedas. Further, the ideals of dharma and dharma-king should withal not be construed as having clear congruity with the conception of rights.[9]
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/what-are-human-rights
[2] https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/what-are-human-rights
[3] https://humanrights.gov.au/about/what-are-human-rights#:~:text=They%20are%20based%20on%20principles,choices%20in%20our%20daily%20lives.
[4] https://prawo.uni.wroc.pl/sites/default/files/students-resources/Introduction%20to%20human%20rights.pdf
[5] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2020.1858562#d1e245
[6] https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2211599.pdf
[7] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2020.1858562#d1e705
[8]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376457419_Human_Rights_in_Ancient_Indian_Culture_and_Philosophy/link/6579815dfc4b416622c01398/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19
[9]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347950089_Ancient_Vedic_Literature_and_Human_Rights_Resonances_and_Dissonances