Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.