Download chapter - vi conclusion

CHAPTER - VI
CONCLUSION
The concept of rights is as old as human society. People enjoyed
rights of some sort or the other, knowingly or unknowingly,
irrespective of the type of society in which they lived. It may not be
an exaggeration to say that they enjoyed more rights than performing
their obligations towards fellow human beings. A cursory look at the
social history of humankind reveals the fact that the progress of
human societies is explained in terms of barbarian, agrarian,
feudalist, industrialist, and capitalist societies. An incisive analysis
of these human societies clearly indicates the standard of life lived
by the members of these societies in different parts of the globe. Of
course, there is a marked development in the standard of living from
one stage to another stage. The progress in the standard of life lead
by the individuals in different periods of their social history is
assessed by means of social freedom or liberty, happiness, and
justice presuppose rights of certain sort. In the absence of these
rights one cannot expect to enjoy social freedom or liberty,
happiness and justice. Of course, these rights may exhibit themselves
in the form of natural rights, fundamental rights, and human rights.
However, rights of every sort may not protect human dignity. Apart
from that, certain rights are enjoyed only by certain individuals as
they are granted to those members belonging to a particular society.
In a sense they cannot be extended to all human beings alike.
Therefore, there is every need to look for those rights which protect
the human dignity in general irrespective of caste, creed, region,
religion, language, race and the like. They are none other than the
human rights. Social development is invariably lined up with the
development or advancement of human rights doctrines.
We can trace back the origination of the concept of right in
the doctrines of the social contract theorists, namely, Hobbes, Locke,
and Rousseau. It is basically in the doctrines of these political and
social philosophers that an estimation of human society in terms of
man's place and status in the state of nature, and in the state that
came into existence due to the social contract established between
the members of a society or between the ruler(s) and the members of
that state. Social contract theorists discussed and developed the
concept of right. But, what they have developed is applicable only to
a particular human society (state or nation), but not to the entire
human kind. This necessitated us to look for a new doctrine of rights
(hat can be applied to humanity as a whole. The result is the doctrine
of human rights. Before embarking on the analysis of the doctrine of
human rights in terms of its scope and significance, let us provide a
summary of the notion of right as discussed in the doctrines of the
social contract theorists, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in their
respective theories of social contract.
The aim of Hobbes is to make England a better place for
social and political life of the individuals. In a way his social
contract theory originated from the then socio - political conditions
witnessed by him in his own country. During Hobbes' time civil war
was underway in England. Keeping these socio - political conditions
as the backdrop of his social contract theory Hobbes began
examining man's nature. He started his theory with the assumption
that all men are basically selfish. Selfishness and self - preservation
are the key issues of his social contract theory. On the basis of his
assumption, that all men are selfish, he deduced that people will
exercise their unlimited rights to fulfil their selfish desires. Also,
Hobbes realized that if people are endowed with unlimited power,
they will never control their desires. Such unlimited power will lead
to a war of all against all. Such a state of affairs leads to a perennial
war of all against all. Therefore, opined Hobbes, the condition of
state of nature is very bad in the sense that there is no security for
life and property. So, people couldn't tolerate the ill nature of state
of nature for a long time. In order to escape from such a condition of
state of nature, people entered into a contract among themselves.
Through this contract every one surrenders all his natural rights to a
sovereign in order to establish a society which protects their lives
and propert). Such a society is almost akin to a state or a
government. In a way, this is a state that is established after the state
of nature by entering into a social contract by all individuals
concerned among them.
Before the contract, people enjoyed unlimited natural rights.
These natural rights are those rights that are not granted by any
sovereign authority, but by the nature itself. But, these rights are not
legally recognized ones. People had absolute freedom to exercise
these rlghts the way in which they can. This resulted in an absolute
chaos as people unmindfully started exercising their rights without
realizing the fact that they would lead to the destruction of human
life and property. In order to control the horrible activities of human
beings that result, directly or indirectly, in the destruction of human
life and property, people entered into a contract. This ultimately led
to the surrender of their natural rights, for otherwise one cannot enter
into a contract. Thus surrendering of one's natural rights becomes a
precondition for entering into a social contract. After surrendering
their natural rights, people started enjoying only limited rights that
are not surrendered during the contract, and the rights that are
granted by the sovereign as a part of contract. Now, sovereign is the
deciding factor of rights of the individuals. People have to live by
defending the sovereign. These rights are apparently granted to the
individuals by the sovereign to protect their lives and property, but
in reality they are granted to the advantage of the sovereign as a
supreme master, who does not come under the purview of contract.
Hobbes social contract theory possesses some demerits. First
of all. a contract will not or cannot give freedom to the individuals. It
is only a contract or a bond of slavery. Secondly, if the ruler is
proved to be corrupt, the people cannot even protest because of fear,
and absence of unanimous consent. Hence, people would be helpless
in replacing the sovereign power. Thirdly, legally his theory is
unsound because generally contracts can be made only between two
or more parties but Hobbes' contract is made by only one party.
Thus it is not binding on the sovereign in any manner.
Laws of nature have a very important role to play in the
political theory of Hobbes. The laws of nature serve as a sort of
restriction imposed on the individuals to prevent them fiom
exercising their natural rights without reasoning. The natural rights
that men enjoyed in the state of nature paved the way to war,
violence and insecurity. On the contrary, the laws of nature serve as
a general rule found out by reason by means of which men are
forbidden to do whatever they like and anything destructive to life.
Such a condition led them to form a Civil Society.
Hobbes' concept on liberty of subjects is derived either from
nature oi'the social contract or from the commonwealth. The liberty
of' subjects is confined to two. One is, the subject can enjoy all those
things that are left out in the original contract, and also to those
things that are not forbidden by the sovereign. Hobbes created a
boundary for the liberty of the subjects within which the subjects
have to enjoy their liberty. The subjects do not possess natural
liberty for they surrendered it to the sovereign in the form of natural
rights. Therefore, liberty of the subjects is restricted for their rights
are restricted by the enforcement of the contract. Thus, after the
contract people started enjoying only a limited liberty in the form of
limited rights. Sometimes they have to tolerate the horrible activities
of the ruler. This precarious situation and the apparent demerits of
the social contract advocated by Hobbes made and inspired Locke to
advocate a well developed social contract theory.
Locke came into the picture with a view to set right the
demerits that he found in Hobbesean social contract theory. He
started with the assumption that human beings are basically good.
This is premise on which he built up his social contract theory. They
are not selfish as stated by Hobbes. Locke believed that before
people entered the civil state, they were living in the state of nature.
But, their living was peaceful. Their behaviour was neither nasty nor
uncivilized nor brutish. Locke started his political philosophy with
the assumption that all men are not selfish. On the contrary, Locke
held that men are capable, efficient, and considerate beings. Human
beings are naturally endowed with certain basic instincts such as
decency, goodness, and social inclination and capable of ruling
themselves. In other words, Locke envisaged that man is not so
selfish and anti - social. He held that man is social and rational
being capable of and interested in living in a society. Men are
naturally able to govern themselves by the law of nature, namely,
reason. Their freedom is governed on the basis of reason that guides
them how to govern themselves.
Even though Locke's state of nature was a state of peace,
good will, mutual assistance and preservation, yet people tried to
come out of it for they feared that their rights are insecure. At the
same time people realized that natural rights are reciprocal. The
rights of one depend on the activ~tiesof his fellow beings who
possess the same r~ghts.Suppose, an individual is not in a position to
recognize the rights of the other(s), then rights would become
meaningless. This means that one common man is needed to control
1 make all of them to recognize the rights of all of them
(individuals). In other words, one common authority is required to
monitor and control the activities of the subjects. In the absence of
common authority, held Locke, men could not follow or approach
the law of nature (reason). Law of nature is that which guides human
beings in their activities. Law of nature are held by reason and
conscience, which commands that no one should harm others' life,
freedom, and possession of others' property.
Thus in the state of nature people were enjoying natural rights
as well as laws of nature. But they realized the fact that their rights
in the state of nature are not secured. In order to protect their life,
property, and liberties they made a contract. Consequently, they
decided to enter into a contract among themselves. Locke held that
people surrendered only a few of their rights. Thus it is a limited
surrender. They surrendered their rights to the community and that
too on the understanding that the natural rights will be guaranteed
and preserved. The contract is between the community and the rulers
by which the society authorizes the government to make positive
laws.
Only for the purpose of safeguarding their life, property, and
liberty people entered into a contract among themselves. Locke held
that if the sovereign goes against the interest of the people, then they
have the power to overthrow the government. According to him, the
people have power, although not the right, to remove a government
whose policies they find are curtailing their rights. In a way this
power can be equated with an extraordinary right possessed by them.
He is of the opinion that the people have certain basic minimum
rights and that no authority in the state has any right to snatch these
rights from them. A state should bestow on the individuals and not
snatch their rights. Locke also believed that law-making agency
should not betray the trust reposed in it. If there is any such betrayal,
then the legislature becomes totally defunct. Locke held that the
society as a whole has to decide whether the state betrayed their
rights or not.
Locke supported the viewpoint that the individuals are
allowed to resist the state when their demands are not fulfilled. It is
not possible to fulfil the demands of all of the subjects. And also the
revolutionary ideas will originate only in the minds of minority. So,
it would take a long time to propagate their ideas to majority then
only resistance would be possible. For Locke, ideas of the laws of
nature are identified through reason and conscience. He held that all
individuals are equal. From this concept of equality the rights such
as the rights to life, liberty and property are derived.
People already possessed some natural rights in the state of
nature. They made a state only for the purpose of making their life
protected. Locke's state is justified on the ground that its existence is
only for making the rights more secure. The function of the state is
very limited. Its chief aim is to prevent the individuals from those
who violate their rules and regulations. The state has no positive
work to do. The individual is left to his own sphere of morality,
intellect, and education. In spite of the fact that Locke tried to
improve up on the social contract advocated by Hobbes, there are
certain pitfalls in his theory. If men are really happy in the state of
nature, because men are not selfish. then there is no need to enter
into a contract by anticipating a violation of certain rights by a
section of people in the state of nature. Perhaps, it is only a pretext
under which Locke tried to build a political state. Then the partial
surrender of rights of individuals to the authority is only a preventive
mechanism by means of which the ruler can exercise his might
although people have the right to dislodge the ruler as and when he
fails to stick to the terns of the contract. However, his theory has a
positive edge over that of Hobbes in many respects.
Locke's claim as natural rights of man is generally thought to
be much clearer than Hobbes. The grounds for claiming Locke as a
genuine natural rights man are: (i) His natural rights are presented as
effective rights in that they are the right which others have a natural
obligation to respect. (ii) His natural rights are meaningful and more
specific. (iii) Locke used natural rights to establish a case for limited
government, and to set up a right to revolution. In these respects
Locke's natural rights are different from those of Hobbes. The
reason that Locke derived his natural rights from natural law
(reason) is that it is reason that obliges everyone to respect others
life, liberty, and property, and it also establishes the rights and the
corresponding obligations. On the contrary, for Hobbes the natural
rights are logically prior and the natural law is derived form the
natural rights.
It has often been pointed out that Locke's state of nature is a
social state in that his natural man is a social man. Locke's natural
man is capable of understanding the law of nature. Men desire not
only to preserve their lives but also to accumulate property beyond
the limit for a comfortable living. The natural rights of Locke's men
are both less and more than the rights of Hobbes' men. Less in the
sense that Locke's men are forbidden by the law of nature to invade
the lives, liberties and properties of other man, and more in the sense
that they have a natural right, which others must respect to unlimited
accumulation of wealth. It is this law of nature that limits men's
natural rights by imposing obligation on others to respect those
rights. Thus Locke's social contract makes the rights more effective
than that of Hobbes. In other words, law of nature taught everyone to
respect others natural right. If every individual respects the rights of
others, then rights become more effective and significant in the
social life of the individuals.
Macpherson raised an important question that: Can the
concept of natural rights developed either by Hobbes or Locke be of
any use in formulating a twentieth century concept of human rights?
His answer to this question is that the concept of natural rights as
developed in the doctrines of Hobbes and Locke satisfies the
minimum requirements of the theory of human rights. It is clear that
any concept of human rights, which would be acceptable in the
second half of the twentieth century, must meet at least two
requirements. First of all, the rights must be equal in the sense that
they can be extended to all human beings in order to attain a
standard of life which is dignified. Secondly, the rights must be
rights of reciprocity as well as rights of action.
On the basis of the deep analysis of the theories of Hobbes
and Locke it appears that neither Hobbes' nor Locke's conception of
natural rights meet these requirements. Hobbes' natural rights are
absolutely equal, but they are not rights of reciprocity. This means,
they meet the first requirement but not the second. In the case of
Locke, natural rights are very unequal in the sense that there is no
mutual recognition for these rights. Thus, Locke's natural rights do
not meet the first requirement and only appear to meet the second
requirement. The inability of Hobbes' and Locke's theory to meet
the two requirements is due to the basic postulate about the nature of
man and society. This prompted Rousseau to advocate his version of
social contract.
Like Locke, Rousseau too started his social contract theory on
the basis of the assumption that all men are basically good. He held
that human beings are innocent and peace loving, and led a
contented life. Their life is free, healthy, honest, and happy. Though
they are not born with reason, they developed it at later stage. Men,
in the state of nature, were treated as equal, independent, and selfsufficient.
Rousseau imagined that people by nature do not prefer to lead
a solitary and independent life. Therefore, they began to live with
settled groups. This sealed groups witnessed some problems in order
to preserve their own life. In order to maintain their life people
started occupying the land, which later on became their private
property. Thus the social institution called private property came
into existence. He further held that private property is the cause of
all the problems, which human beings are facing in their life.
Consequently, men were forced to create a society. They came
together and emerged with summed forces, and found a form of
association, which can defend their life, property, and liberty. They
created a society by surrendering their natural rights to the sovereign
as a whole. Both Hobbes and Rousseau used the term 'sovereign'
and also stated that people surrendered their natural rights to
sovereign. But the difference between these two thinkers is that
Hobbes used the term sovereign in the sense of absolute monarch
who is beyond the contract. Whereas Rousseau used the term
sovereign in the sense of a corporate body which includes all the
members of the society those who surrendered their natural rights.
From this, we can infer the fact that all the three social
contract theorists, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, tried to advocate a
better theory of social contract that benefits the society as a whole.
Some demerits are found in all the three versions of the social
contract. This indirectly indicates the fact that these political thinkers
lived in different periods of time. What is more significant in their
theories is that they have, directly or indirectly, touched the notion of
'right' in their respectwe doctrines. Thus they have also reminded
the political philosophers of all times the significance of the concept
of 'right' and how it is invariably linked up with the social freedom
(liberty) of individuals. This background on the concept of 'right'
inevitably lead to a more generally acceptable notion of 'right' in the
doctrines of modern political philosophers in the form of human
rights. In other words, these theories initiated the importance of
human rights in the minds of political philosophers
This does not mean that the modem conception of human
rights is another natural rights doctrine with the mere change of
name from 'natural rights' to 'human rights'. The human rights are
more comprehensive than the traditional theory of natural rights. For
example, the Lockean natural rights theorists would be reluctant to
include economic rights like the right to join trade {inions or the right
to holidays with pay as natural rights. Where as, modem human
rights theorists considered these rights very important in many
respects. The traditional rights are not universal in application where
as Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 is universal in
application because all the nations of the world were participants in
this Declaration.
What are human rights? What is their importance? It is
sometimes suggested that a right is a human right if it possesses the
following characteristics. They are:
(i)
All al'd only humans have them,
(ii)
All humans share them equally,
(iii)
Human rights are not derived from any special status,
and
(iv)
Human rights can be claimed against or from all
human persons and institutions.
Thus human rights are defined as the rights, which are enjoyed by
human beings without any difference. But the prol~lernthat we often
face is only in connection with their application. If human rights are
applicable to all, then those who are inhuman in human form can
also equally enjo! these r~ghtsT h ~ s1s a debatable question.
It is already mentioned that the molt0 of Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is to protect peace, security,
and human dignity. But it remains a great mystery whether we are
successful in implementing these rights for the purpose for which
they are introduced. At least in India there are still a large section of
people who are not aware of their rights. Even if they know, they
cannot exercise them for they belong to weaker sections of society.
Illiteracy and poverty are the two main evils that are haunting our
society. These two evils let loose the offenders to go berserk. In
spite of its gory past, India is not able to contain the human rights
violations. The lives of many are under constant threat. If we look
at the history of our country, we can understand one important fact
that for a long time we gave importance to human obligations. If
each one performs his duties as obligations, then there is no problem.
People did not give much importance to rights talk. The problem
started only when people started neglected their duties as
obligations. Such a situation gave rise to rights talk. Therefore, like
any other nation. India as a nation is interested in promoting the
human rights as universal obligations.
As already mentioned, human rights violations ate largely
taking place because people ate ignorant of human rights. In a way
these violations are committed by the offenders by taking advantage
of people's ignorance. Sometimes these violations are committed
even if people are aware of human rights, for the people who indulge
in these violations are either politicians, or underworld dons or
terrorist outfits. The nexus between politicians and underworld dons
(criminals), drug peddlers, and others who perpetuate heinous crimes
against humanity, in any country, promote the violation of human
rights. Often police would render a helping hand to these violators
of human rights to derive some benefit, or for fear of threat to their
own Ilves. Either way they are treated as the passive supporters of
these violations. But who would like to bell the cat? It is not all that
easy to tackle these problems. This does not mean that we must give
up our efforts to contain these violations. Some amount of sacrifice
is needed from every honest individual to promote the cherished
goal of human rights doctrine. So, what we have to do is to
popularize the concept. namely, human rights among people. That is
to make them aware of their fundamental rights and also human
rights through proper propaganda. If they are aware of their rights,
at least to some extent they can ensure their promotion. This is the
first check against the perpetrators of human rights violations. The
most important thing to remember is that while claiming for rights of
any sort, we must also remember that we are in obligation towards
others in society. It is a truism that the human rights violations are
taking place due to the fact that we are slowly going away from
performing our obligations. Just as there is Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, there must also be Universal Declaration of Human
Obligations for making human life worthy of human. Unless every
responsible individual realizes his obligations towards others one
cannot really dream of any drastic social change that ensures every
human individual a dignified human existence on the globe. It is
entirely left to us whether to progress or perish as a single human
race.