A Scientist Looks at Hinduism

SPIRITUAL FREEDOM IS THE FOUNDATION OF HINDUISM WHAT IS HINDUISM? Like many Hindus I often find myself at a loss when called upon to explain to others what Hinduism is. I find this problem of Hindu identity to be particularly acute among Indians living in the West, and other 'Westernized' Hindus. What is Hinduism? Is it the observance of festivals like Diwali and rituals like the daily sandhya-vandana? Is it reverence for the Vedas as the word of God, belief in the message of the Bhagavad-Gita, or is it universal tolerance? And this word tolerance -- does it include unlimited tolerance of evil! Is it total pacifism, a belief that nothing is worth defending or worth fighting for? Is it some or all of these? When faced with these questions I find that the major difficulty that a modem Hindu faces in defining Hinduism to others stems from his difficulty in defining it to himself. This is especially the case with the 'educated Hindu' who has unconsciously acquired the habit of looking at himself and his civilization through Christian eyes. As a result his reaction is invariably defensive and he mumbles something like 'essential truth in all religions' or sarva dharma samatva or some such equally meaningless platitude. But this habit -- of measuring something with alien values -- is a very serious limitation if anyone wants to understand what Hinduism is really about. I am speaking here not of the historic hostility of the missionary to Hinduism which has always tried to show it in the worst light possible. The problem runs deeper; the vision and vocabulary of a revealed religion like Christianity or Islam are fundamentally unsuited to describing Hinduism, for Hinduism is an evolved and not a revealed religion. It is also pluralistic, while Christianity and Islam are exclusivist - for they acknowledge no beliefs other than their own as legitimate. The problem that I see in this is not just lack of sympathy: it is the severe limitation of the concept of religion as the revelations of a book or a prophet found in creeds like Christianity and Islam. Trying to understand Hinduism in terms of a revealed belief system or creed is like trying to understand Quantum Mechanics through Newton's Laws of Motion. It just cannot be done; One must try to understand Hinduism on its own terms, and not in terms of the internal and external features borrowed from other (exclusivist) creeds. In this article, that is what I shall try to do in as simple a fashion as possible. But first I would like to make it clear that I approach this task as a student of science and not as a theologian or true believer. Though born into a Hindu Family, I am not by any means a devout

Hindu. Most people do not consider me a practicing Hindu at all. My interest in Hinduism stems from my work in the history and philosophy of science. Recent research has shown that mathematics, especially geometry, has origins in some Vedic practices that go back to before 3000 BC. I also discovered that the concept of mathematical proof could be traced to some yogic principles described in a famous work known as the Yogasutra written by the legendary Patanjali. This greatly intrigued me: the most rational of the rational sciences have religious and mystical roots! It will no doubt come as a surprise to many readers to learn that 'rational thinking', something we all prize so highly, has mystical roots. Both Patanjali and the Greek Pythagoras were mystics, and yet they laid the foundation for the rational processes on which our own civilization depends. This is what made me look deeper into the religious thoughts of the Hindus and the ancient Greeks. What I have to say here about Hinduism is the result of that search. I will try to make it as simple as possible, in terms of seven basic features as I found them in my research into history and philosophy of science.

1. HINDUISM HAS NO HISTORICAL BEGINING. The Rigveda, the oldest of the Hindu scriptures is stated to be eternal and that it always existed. Speaking as a scientist I find that claim hard to accept. There must have been a time in the history of the world when what is contained in the Rigveda did not exist. But there is no period in time, which we can definitely point to and say: "That is when the Rigveda began to be composed." In the 19th century, European scholars and Indologists like Max Muller tried to fill 1200 BC as the date of composition of the Vedas. But this was tied to their own Biblical belief according to which the world was created at 9:00 AM on 23 October 4004 BC and the Biblical Flood took place in 2448 BC. This was just a superstition, but history books continue to use the date 1200 BC for the Vedas though science has discredited it. The truth however is quite different: Vedic civilization in India can be traced at least to 7000 BC in archaeological remains. The last Ice Age ended more than 10,000 years ago, and we cannot even say if the Rigveda is pre or post Ice Age. There are places in the Rigveda where we find descriptions that seem like eyewitness accounts of the cracking of ice caps. The famous Vedic legend of the solar God Indra killing Vritra or 'the coverer' refers probably to this phenomenon. The main point is unlike Christianity and Islam, which are historical religions, we cannot find a specific date or even a century or millennium when Hinduism began. More fundamentally, unlike Christianity and Islam, which are historical religions, we cannot trace the founding of Hinduism to a historical person or a historical era. Christianity cannot exist without Christ, nor Islam without Muhammad, but no such historical person exists in Hinduism about whom one can say: 'Without him, Hinduism cannot exist.'

In other words, Christianity and Islam are paurusheya religions, while Hinduism is apaurusheya. Christianity is the religion founded by a purusha called Jesus Christ, while Muhammad is the purusha of Islam. There is no such purusha of Hinduism. ('Paurusheya' is a derivative of purusha'-- Sanskrit word for a man.)

2. HINDUISM IS NOT A REVEALED RELIGION. IT HAS NO SINGLE AUTHOR OR BOOK. Even the Vedas are not the ultimate authority in Hinduism. The word Veda is derived from the root 'VID' meaning to know -- and Veda simply means knowledge that was discerned by the Vedic seers. It is not a theology or a belief system that everyone is required to acknowledge. The Vedas are simply an accumulated body of knowledge. A Hindu is free to question any or all of the scriptures. He does not cease being a Hindu for denying the authority of scriptures. Even the Bhagavad-Gita questions the authority of the Vedas. The Hindu scripture is meant only to be a guide. One is free to follow one's own interpretation. Appeals to authority cannot be used to suppress dissent. In brief, in Christianity and Islam, scripture is the book of authority, while Hindu scriptures are guidebooks from which one is free to choose a particular path.

3 HINDUISM RECOGNIZES NO PROPHET AS HAVING EXCLUSIVE CLAIM OVER SPIRITUAL TRUTH. This is undoubtedly the greatest difference between Hinduism and revealed religions. A Hindu who believes in the existence of God (or Gods) can follow one's own path. One is nor required to acknowledge an intermediary as a prophet or as the chosen agent of God. In a revealed religion, one can know God only through the divinely chosen agent or intermediary. One who denies the authority of this special intermediary is called a non-believer. This means: in a revealed religion, a believer in God has to believe also in the intermediary. One is not free to believe in God and deny the agent as intermediary. One who does so is still called a non-believer even if one is a believer in God. As a result, in a revealed religion, belief in the divinely chosen intermediary becomes no less important than belief in God. In reality, the intermediary invariably becomes more important than God does; God is dispensable, but not the intermediary. The agents of this divinely chosen agent are called the

'Clergy' and they enforce the diktats of the divinely chosen one with often quite considerable severity. Hinduism recognizes no such intermediary. Every man, woman and child has the same direct access to God through his or her own efforts. Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita says: "All creatures great and small - I am equal to all; I hate none, nor have I any favorites." All are therefore equal in the eyes of God. And this rules out the claim of any privileged or 'chosen' agent of God. The scriptures are there only to assist in these efforts or paths that are often called yoga.

4. HINDU GOD IS A PERSONAL GOD, INTERNAL TO THE SAVER. A great deal of discussion centers around whether God Is one or many, with some making much of the 'fact' of superiority of monotheism. This has tended to make western educated Hindus at times defensive about their religion which in rum makes them claim that Hinduism is also at bottom monotheistic like Christianity and Islam. This shows a serious misunderstanding of the nature of God as expressed by Hindu sages - for God in Hinduism is not something to be counted like pebbles. According to the famous Isha Upanishad, God is everywhere: "The whole universe is the abode of God, every nook and every living thing". Hindu God is not an external God who reveals himself only to a chosen prophet to be then imposed as the ultimate authority on others. God is something that anyone can know through one's own effort and seeking. Remember Krishna's words: "All creatures great and small -- I am equal to all; I hate none, nor have I any favorites". The different yogas are pathways that can lead one to knowledge of God. This is very similar to ancient Greek mysticism as practiced by sages like Pythagorean. There is no dogma that an external agent enforces upon everyone in the name of One God. Thus, the Hindu God like the Greek God is a personal God as diverse as the individual. The multiplicity of Gods one sees in Hindu and Greek pantheons is a reflection of the multiplicity of pathways explored by Sages. It is a natural consequence of the spiritual freedom that is the right of every Hindu. The so-called monotheistic creeds that are enforced by intermediaries in the name of One God, do not permit this spiritual freedom. Believers have to believe in what they are told to believe -they are not given a choice. It is for this reason that theocracies always claim to be monotheistic, invoking their One God in whose name His representatives enforce authority. This may be called 'authoritative monotheism' as opposed to monotheism of choice in which one is free to believe in One God or many Gods. Hinduism gives this freedom of choice and of conscience.

5. HINDUISM DOES NOT RECOGNIZE CLAIMS OF EXCLUSIVITY OR A CLERGY Anyone who claims to be the exclusive possessor of spiritual truth Or the, only 'method' of reaching God finds no place in Hinduism; method or a message can only be one among many

Exclusivity divides the world into believers and non-believers, which Hinduism does not. Krishna speaking as God in the Bhagavad-Gita says: "All paths lead to me," and also those who worship other Gods with devotion worship me." This leaves no room for anyone claiming to be the only true guide to God, claiming to be in possession of the only path. As a result Hinduism has no clergy to monitor and enforce the belief among believers.

6.HINDUISM DOES NOT FORCE ITSELF ON OTHERS THROUGH PROSELYTIZATION Since the main emphasis in Hinduism is the realization of the divine through personal effort and experience, Hindus have never sought to convert others through force or persuation. Religions like Christianity and Islam seek external growth through expansion; this has inevitably meant suppression of the individual Hinduism on the other hand seeks growth internally through the individual. Hinduism is a method -- an approach to the fundamental questions about creation and existence that respects different pathways This in a way is like scientific thinking, not something that can be, forced upon others by fire and sword. For this reason, Hindus have never found it necessary to send missionaries backed by guns and gold to convert others. Those who wish to join the Hindu fold must seek it -- through study and with the help of teachers. There is now substantial interest in the world in Hinduism and its offshoot of Buddhism. But there are no central authorities like the Pope with his vast army of clergy running a multinational business empire in the name of One God. Hindu missions in the West are essentially volunteer organizations. Anyone visiting them can see the difference between a sermon and the serene atmosphere and the free discourse found in these Hindu missions The priest or the sadhu claims to profess no divine authority sanctioned by God or His agent. He is simply a repository of learning and experience and for this reason, many in the West that Hinduism has attracted have been men and women of the highest intellectual accomplishments including scientists and artists. They are attracted by the rationalism of Hinduism -- Which is a method and not a creed; it seeks to impose no dogma and carries no authority

7. THE ONLY 'DOGMA' OF HINDUISM IS FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND OF CONSCIENCE. Hindu religious literature, in its pristine Form is concerned mainly with the knowledge and method necessary to learn the truth about God. This can take the form of Vedantic Philosophy like the Upanishads, practical techniques like Yoga, or examples of great lives to be emulated like what are found in the epics and the Puranas. It is completely wrong to compare these works with the scriptures of revealed religions which lay down the beliefs required of true believers that are then enforced by the clergy. The Reformation in Europe was essentially a revolt against this exclusive authority.

Hindu scriptures on the other hand are simply guides for each individual to follow according to the dictates of his or her conscience, capacity and will. The great Bhagavad-Gita is a summary of different pathways, particularly as found in the, Upanishads. If there is one belief above all others that defines Hinduism it is pluralism: there is no one chosen path and no one chosen people. As a result, there is no division of the world into mutually exclusive camps of believers and non-believers. All paths of spiritual exploration are equally valid, and there is no such thing as heresy. This is what makes Hinduism pluralistic. At the same time, pluralistic tolerance does not mean tolerance of evil. Defense of this freedom of thought and of conscience is the duty of every Hindu. Tyranny is not a fundamental right. Anyone who in the name of essential unity of all religions' claims that it is the same as in every other religion is either deluded or dishonest. It is a very great fallacy to claim that all religions Say the same thing by comparing isolated fragments taken from different scriptures. So here is an interesting anomaly: the only dogma that Hinduism admits is one that does not permit of a dogma. Of the seven principles just stated, the last -- relating to freedom of choice is the one most pristinely characteristic belief of Hinduism. Any accommodation of a belief system that denies one's freedom of choice and of conscience is fundamentally incompatible with Hinduism. To follow one's own chosen path calls for a guide and a discerning intellect. The scriptures -- the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Gita and others are this guide. The search for such a discriminating intellect -- the Gita calls it sthitha dhi or 'stable intellect' -- is expressed in a prayer stated thousands of years ago in the great Gayatri mantra in the form of a chant addressed to Savitar, so that he may 'inspire our intellect' -- dhiyo yo nah pracodayat. This prayer -- dhiyo yo nah pvacodayat -- as I see it embodies the essence of Hinduism.

In the wake of World War II, the United Nations General Assembly compiled and adopted a document called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The day of its adoption, December 10, 1948, became known internationally as Human Rights Day. But over the next several decades, the declaration could do little to actually prevent widespread abuse against human rights throughout the world, despite the best efforts of the United Nations. Millions of people have had their supposedly inviolable rights as humans more than violated they have died due to inhumane actions. Civilizations and societies have long addressed the question of human rights, but with great variation in application and entitlement. The history of human rights is a long examination of the question of what is natural about the human condition and, by extension, what is right. Human rights, broadly speaking, should be inalienable and universalbut what are those rights, and to whom do they really apply? Early Civilization B.C.The Foundation Human rights in the early civilizations of both the East and the West were composites of various philosophies that served a peoples social and cultural contexts. Both religious and secular

conceptions of civilization determined the laws that dictated early human rights. The primary forerunners of civilization, namely agriculture and the warehousing of food, allowed for humans to stay settled and increase in population, leading to advances in civilization as settlements turned into cities. Civilization spread outward from ancient Mesopotamia taking and evolving the components of the Western tradition, including the earliest tenets of human rights.

The Ten Commandments are among the best-known early documents dictating good behavior The Code of Hammurabi from about 1800 B.C. is often cited by historians for its foundational place in the Western tradition of human rights. Two hundred eighty-two mostly rational clauses governed Babylonian existence and were rooted in eye for an eye justice. Of course, there was great disparity between judgment on nobility and judgment on slaves, but the document attempted to rid society of the violence of primitive tribalism left over from precivilization, savage human existence.

Among the most famous texts that shaped human behavior in the ancient world was the Hebrew Torahs Ten Commandments, later part of the Christian Old Testament. The specific commandments attempting to discourage anti-social behavior are:

Honor your mother and father. You shall not murder. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

In addition to the Ten Commandments, the Old Testament lent the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, among other documents, to the history of good behavior and evolving human rights. By 800 B.C., the rise of Grecian city-states with a focus on the rights of the (free) individual established an ideal atmosphere for Greek thinkers to develop some of the most sophisticated ideas the world had yet seen (Lewis). Plato is among the foremost of ancient Greek philosophers who developed theories of existence that included some of the basic tenets of human rights, emphasizing individual virtue to benefit the common good. Stoicism borrowed heavily from Plato and Socrates when defining a cosmopolite, meaning citizen of the world. Cosmos, meanwhile, is the overarching order of the universe within which all humans are moving together in common humanity and, according to Greek philosopher Zeno of Citrium, should not be divided by laws (Ishay). As the Greeks waned and the Roman Empire grew and came into contact with unique cultures throughout the Mediterranean, the republic was obliged to strike relationships with people who held very different perceptions of the world. Borrowing from the Greek philanthropia, the Romans adopted a system of humanitas, which focused on a cultivated and educated society

driven to do good. Most importantly, the philosophy rejects outward violence toward any other human being (Ishay). The question of slavery under the Roman Empire, like slavery in any civilization, complicates the question of membership in the human race, but the fundamentals of human rights and duties, like those laid for out for Roman citizens in The Twelve Tables from 450 B.C., were nevertheless in place. From the beginning, basic rights and duties of citizens would become central to the drafting of any local or universal human rights ethic. The belief in a sympathetic existence is a common theme throughout the early history of human rights. But the value of brotherhood, in particular, is fundamental to early religious texts, including both the Christian New Testament and the Muslim Quran. First Millennium A.D.The Rise of Faith

The record of Jesus Christ's sermons is a significant contributor to human rights The birth of Christ and the record of his Sermon on the Mount (of Beatitudes) in the New Testament are key religious texts of the early first millennium in the Western tradition. For many Christians, the Sermon on the Mount from the Gospel of Matthew is the primary interpretation of Mosaic Law, meaning the Gospel is a record of Jesus understanding of the Ten Commandments (Lewis). Christian universalism explicitly preached that its adherents love their neighbors and endowed all human beings with the potential for virtue and moral equality.

Originating in the seventh century, the 114 surahs (chapters) of Islams Quran continued the religious tradition of tolerance in the history of human rights. Believed to have been revealed to Mohammed by God, the Quran guides its followers toward justice, tolerance, and solidarity, and it shares single deity monotheism as well as an ethic of universalism with Judaism and Christianity: O mankind! We created youthat ye may know each other, not that you may despise each other (Surah 49:13, quoted in Ishay). In all of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, there are questions of religious tolerance among faiths and variations in the universality of rights in practice, especially with respect to slaves, women, homosexuals, and each other, but the basic principles of modern human rights are nevertheless laid out (Ishay). Renaissance and Reformation Jon E. Lewis A Documentary History of Human Rights calls the era following the fall of the Republic of Rome The Age of Faith because the Church of Rome survived and spread across much of Europe. The church continued to spread virtually unimpeded until the East-West Schism of 1054 divided medieval Christianity along geographical and ecclesiastical divides. Western Roman Catholicism and Eastern Greek Orthodoxy took root and spread independently and was only the first of many divisions in Christianity.

Over the next few centuries, the Western world experienced a growth in urban population and an intellectual revival that helped drive a transition from the High Middle Ages in to Renaissance. The era, however, was troubled by the vicious series of Crusades attempting to free Muslimcontrolled Jerusalem. There was further violent religious persecution at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition. It was a period of extreme religious prejudice largely rooted in Christian fear and intolerance. But such intolerance and acts of violence would prompt reformers to encourage change based upon a return to what they perceived to be the central truths of the Gospels. Such change would reshape the Western tradition not only in the Old World, but by the fifteenth century, began to broaden its reach. European conceptions (and restrictions) of human rights extended into New Worlds, as European conquest almost always violently suppressed indigenous practices and stripped native rights. Determining absolute conceptions of human rights was never an easy task. Sir Thomas Mores canonical Utopia from 1516 suggests an ideal world where men and women have access to free education and freedom from religious and economic oppression (Lewis). Renaissance ideals like those suggested in Utopia emerged in a more secular, republican atmosphere that nurtured the revival of humanist ideals and rights from classical antiquity. Those Greco-Roman foundations of human rights had been largely supplanted by the church during the Middle Ages in Europe. It would take revolutions in science, geo-politics, mercantilism, and culture to pave the way to individual enlightenment and revive the conversation in human rights. Meanwhile, human rights were left in limbo during religious tension set off by Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation of the sixteenth century and the subsequent several Great Awakenings (beginning in the eighteenth century) continued to divide and refine human rights as drawn from Christianity. Those divisions subtly changed how faith influenced conceptions of human rights according to where religion spread. The challenges to supremacy of Roman Catholicism incited wars across the European continent consuming the better part of a century between 1562 and 1648. That final year, the Treaty of Westphalia ended the religious wars and divided the continent into spheres of influence (Ishay). Individual religious freedom, however, would be saved for the colonization of the New World. Subsequent revolutions would affect notions of human rights all over the West. Ultimately, the period of the European Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation broke up the moral monopoly held by the Roman Catholic church and spurred a shift in secular human thought to what would be known as the Enlightenment. Enlightenment and Industrialization

As Western agrarian nations industrialized, the rising middle class and enlightened governments spurred major advances in human rights The

importance of Enlightenment-era thinking to the history of human rights is that human rights were tied up in national struggles for freedom and independence. A rising middle class, free market economies, and individual rights replaced feudal authoritarianism and

Inquisition-era church authority in the eighteenth century. A so-called universal right to life and property became fundamental to the Western tradition (though, as always, there were exemptions), and the Bill of Rights adopted by the newly independent United States became the benchmark of individual human rights in a free, democratic society: 1. 1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, redress of grievances. 2. 2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 3. 3. Protection from quartering of troops in peacetime or in war. 4. 4. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. 5. 5-7. Judicial rights of due process, freedom from self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and trial rights. 6. 8. No excessive bail nor cruel and unusual punishment. 7. 9. Protection of rights not specifically stated in the Constitution. 8. 10. States rights. In the nineteenth century, social conflict arose to advance human rightsprompted not only as the bonds of slavery were formally eroded around the world, but also with increased demands from the working class and as woman fought to achieve equality. The diverging paths of capitalism and socialism evolved with often distinct notions of human rights even as their societies and people advanced along similar trajectories of industry and growth. Debates over human rights erupted out of industrialization, especially as unions fought for labor equity and protection from unjust law and administration. In the United States, the disparate economies of the North and the South clashed over the question of slave labor. European classes and their roles in society were outlined by the most renowned thinkers of the era, including the champion of the middle class, Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx, who envisioned human rights being sustained by the working proletariat who, within their societys economic infrastructure, had nothing to lose but their chains (Ishay). The Eastern Tradition Long before Islamic influence under the spread of the Arab Empire reached into the East, the ideological tenets of Hinduism and Buddhism had spread and taken hold. In addition, other Eastern philosophers, most notably Confucius from the sixth and fifth centuries B.C., have contributed to morally guiding humans in their everyday lives. While the teachings of Buddhism are attributable to Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha, Hinduisms origins are diverse and obscured by time. Their teachings are numerous, but Buddhism and Hinduism put forth a code of human rights that can be boiled down to several basic tenets: freedom from violence, want, exploitation, early death and disease, fear, frustration, and despair, as well as freedom of conscience. Tolerance and compassion are also espoused in the Hindu Vedas, a moral code of conduct known as dharma that emphasizes the symbiotic interrelationship of all things. Compassion and solidarity in

Buddhism hope for a universal ethic where people help one another in their common path to salvationan idea that took hold in early Chinese philosophy as well. Of central importance to the Chinese tradition is The Analects of Confucius, who asks, Am I not a member of this human race? Indeed, the modern conceptions of individualism and human rights share a lot with the two-millennia-old Confucian ethic, which believes that all individuals, even commoners, [possess] rational, aesthetic, political, social, historical, and transcendental qualities that [can] be cultivated through education (Ishay). People, Confucius maintains, can enjoy peace and security if their government looks after their economic and moral welfare (ibid). Confucius, then, is a logical source of inspiration for the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, given the Western belief in the role of governing bodies in preserving human rights for their citizens. The Role of the West in Defining Universal Human Rights

Peace, compassion, and freedom from fear and want are human right tenets at the heart of Eastern philosophy and religion At

the time of European exploration into Eastern waters, the great civilizations of China and India had achieved as much, if not more, culturally than their Western counterparts. There was even religious freedom and tolerance in India under the leadership of Akabar in the sixteenth century. The political and religious backbone of China held together a vast, populous, and often rebellious state because of the ethical strength and stability established by Confucius. Meanwhile, the technologically advanced Arab Empire that took hold across Persia and around the Mediterranean not only spread the tenets of Islam, but also had safeguarded and translated the best treatises of antiquity. The humanistic philosophy of Classical Greece was thriving in the Arab Empire. But, ultimately, the West would assume the responsibility of attempting to establish a universal human rights ethic. The reason for the Wests assumption of the responsibility of defining human rights seems to lie in the astonishing speed with which the West ascended to domination. The revolutions of France and America, free-market capitalism, American entrepreneurialism, and Western invention along with industrialization all lent to the rise of the West. Important to the history of human rights are systems like the existence of the Hindu caste system in India and the centralized power and dominant unity of China. Castes are by definition not egalitarian, and the Confucian idea of universal justice couldnt hold up to the increasing control of the centralized authority of Imperial China, which would be perfectly poised for a Communist revolution. Still, drafters of the UDHR borrowed heavily from latent Eastern philosophy as human rights finally became institutionalized (Ishay). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was a leading voice and author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Adopted by the United Nations in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights became the foundation of an international human rights tradition. The UDHR has been translated into hundreds of languagesmore than any other document. Though the document itself has no legal force, it provides the platform for human rights all over the world and defines freedoms and rights fundamental to the language of the United Nations. The declaration emerged out of World War II and broadly condemns acts of barbarism from the more distant past, though the document is clearly a reaction of moral outrage resulting specifically from the Holocaust (De Baets). The subsequent Nuremberg and Tokyo trials that tried war criminals in an international setting established precedents for the prosecution of crimes against peace and humanity that became the principles of the UDHR. Consisting of a preamble and 30 articles, The UDHR commission was helmed by Eleanor Roosevelt, who hoped the documents preamble and 30 articles would be measured in importance against the eighteenth-century landmarks of human rights: the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in France and the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the United States (Ishay): 1. Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood. 2. Article 2 proclaims all rights listen therein are universal and without distinction of any kind. 3. Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. 4. Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude 5. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 6. Article 11 provides for innocence until guilt is proven. 7. Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion 8. Article 19 and 20: Freedom of expression, opinion, and assembly. 9. Article 23: Right to work clause with provision for favorable conditions. 10. Article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellness of himself and of his family While all the rights are noble in intent, the Human Rights Commission faced the challenging assumption that, in fact, there are no universal ethics. The commission wrote a questionnaire for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to circulate among prominent thinkers of the time in order to bring together a variety of traditions, from both the East and the West.

Debate quickly erupted between sides. Unfortunately, even amid its calls for civil rights, America was rightly called out by the Soviets for its segregationist policies still intact throughout the South. There remained serious questions of universality. Nevertheless, the declaration was adopted without dissent. Fifty of the then-58 member states ratified the document. The other eight, including the Soviet Union, abstained from voting, with legitimate concerns that the U.N. document would supplant the preferences of their own states. It was a fitting beginning to a tense era of Cold War, but a serious challenge to subsequent efforts in the push for universal rights. The International Bill of Human Rights The next phase in the history of human rights came with elaborations on articles of the UDHR into two covenants adopted in 1966, both featuring the right to self-determination and freedom from discrimination based upon race, color, sex, language, religion, or political or other opinions (Ishay). The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights combined with the UDHR into an International Bill of Human Rights. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) utilized their relationship with the U.N. to continue to push for expanded rights and treaties, including the rights of children and the prevention of racial or gender discrimination. The Second Half of the Twentieth Century On the heels of the International Bill of Human Rights, an additional wave of activism expanded the reach of those documents into health rights, womens rights, economic justice, and indigenous peoples rights (Cmiel). But the reach of those rights remained only as far as a nations political borders. And the lofty intentions of the bill were no match for the challenges of the global socio-political landscape, pervasive religious and ethnic intolerance, and the duplicity of governments. The last decade of the twentieth century witnessed a frightening array of human rights violations even as Slobodan Miloevi? was incarcerated for crimes against humanity in a major international tribunal similar to the tribunals that followed World War II. Even in the latter decades of the twentieth century, clashes in nationalism, belief, ethnicity, class, and government have led to violent war in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq, as well as rampant genocide in such places as Kosovo, Rwanda, and Darfur, to name only a few. None of these situations has presented a clear-cut solution to outsiders looking in. Stopping genocide is a lofty ideal challenged by the debate over the right of intervention into sovereign nations (Peterson). Human Rights in a Global Society

When cultures clash, people often suffer violence as a result of difference, ignorance, and fear By some reports, human torture is as prevalent now as nearly four decades ago when Amnesty International began campaigning against the use of torture. Optimism of progress in the campaign seemed to have peaked in the 90s. Many analysts are concerned that a new era, in part defined by post-9/11 anxiety, has reversed the momentum gained by human rights activists of the previous decade. But what persists at the heart of the matter are the same kinds of cross-cultural concerns that faced imperialistic nations from ancient times into the present: different cultures are driven by different perspectives.

While international laws are written with innate rights of human beings in mind, universalistic claims made about those rights are potentially masking a dangerous hubris. (Cmiel). What that means is, as well meaning as declarations of human rights are, they cannot be forced upon people without making their designers seem arrogant. The concern was evident even during the drafting of the UDHR, when framers insisted the document was more than just the culmination of a strictly Western tradition. On the other hand, an increase in activity by nongovernmental organizations may point toward a better futurejust as, for example, Chinas simple willingness to participate in a conversation about human rights suggests the possibility of improved conditions for the poorest citizens within the Peoples Republic. Uprisings and revolutions, like the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia in 2011, are the result of widespread discontent for iron-fisted rule under authoritarian leaders. Waves of discontent have spread throughout North Africa and in countries where regimes allow for rampant governmental and police corruption and the suppression of individual rights. Talk of governmental transparency in the United States intends to ensure actions representative of the fundamental rights to freedom upon which America is founded, but allegations of torture and liberties taken under the pretexts of democracy and war have undermined the dominance of the country in the global community. In the modern era, technology and the Internet have prompted new questions of privacy with respect to human rights. Most pointedly, the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the Patriot Act) in the United States as a result of the 2001 terrorist attacks allows the U.S. government unprecedented access to the private lives of its citizens. While privacy and bodily harm are two extremes of human rights, this act illustrates the breadth of the question of human rights. More importantly, global terrorism itself has spawned governmental reaction such as the Patriot Act to protect national interest as well as to attempt to protect its citizens from fearone of the most basic tenets of human rights. The nations of the world may never agree on what rights are truly universal. The moral imperatives of any declaration have been proven unable to supplant local religious and political preferences in how people should be governed or allowed to live. The spirit of brotherhood

prominently featured in the first article of the Universal Declaration suggests a common purpose and human behavior and safeguard against oppression and fear. But any future progress is dependent upon the willingness of nations to uphold those ideals in an open, transparent, just, and cooperative world community that may not share common philosophical ground but shares literal ground.

Bases of Human Rights in Hinduism Hindus and Human Rights

[Have you done any research in this area? If so, please share it.] Robert Traer* Hindu scholar Mark Juergensmeyer begins an essay on "Dharma and the Rights of Untouchables" with the statement: "If by 'human rights' one means minority rights, then Hindu society can be said to have a human rights tradition, for it has always had a way of incorporating the poor and socially ostracized into the social whole."1 The caste system can be understood as a reflection of dharma or "the moral order" in Hindu society, which at its best maintains "reciprocal relationships of mutual economic and social benefit. Each group respects the rights and dignity of the others." 2 Of course, as Juergensmeyer acknowledges, the reality has very often been otherwise. On the other hand, Kana Mitra argues that traditional codes of conduct in the Hindu tradition are on their face contrary to human rights. Manu's Dharma Sutra, which is considered authoritative in this regard, relates all rights to duties specified by caste, age, and sex. Traditional rights then are privileges of status and position. However, for twenty-five hundred years there have been rebellions within the Hindu tradition against its hierarchical order, and today many Hindus believe Manu's code needs revision.

Manu uses the Sanskrit word adhikara to describe the notion of a just claim or right; however, only Brahmans have such rights. Thus, deriving a notion of human rights within the Hindu tradition requires turning to the general concept of duty, or dharma, which is central to the Dharma Sutras. Mitra writes: "Dharma implies justice and propriety as does the word 'right' of the U.N. Declaration, although the connotation of a 'just claim' is not explicitly present."3 The revolts against traditional Hinduism reinterpret dharma. For instance, some bhakti groups assert: All humans are equal as God's creation but are not the same; therefore, all should give and receive according to their own nature. These groups uphold the idea of following one's own nature (svadharma) as advocated in the Bhagavad-Gita.4 The various vedanta groups within Hindu orthodoxy also hold that one should follow one's own nature to realize perennial truth. Mitra argues, "They uphold human rights on the basis of all human beings having the same essence."5 Humans may be potentially divine, but may not have realized this potentiality. Thus, while asserting essential nonduality, most vedanta schools also embrace Manu's rules of conduct for life in this world.6 In addition to these ancient reinterpretations of Hindu tradition, Western notions of individual rights have entered Indian society, initially through British law and education. There have been many efforts to combine modern notions of rights with Hindu notions of rights and duties. Rammohan Roy, founder of the Brahmo Samaj movement, advocated equality for all persons regardless of caste or sex, on the basis that all humans are God's creatures. Vivekananda, leader of the Ramakrishna movement, supported equality on the basis of vedanta thought and thus did not, like Roy, reject Manu. "Rabindranath Tagore is another influential name in the human-rights movement."7 Most of those who led the independence movement in India sought some accommodation between Western notions of individual rights and the Hindu tradition of

duty and caste. The Indian Constitution, largely drafted by B. R. Ambedkar, who was an untouchable, abolished untouchability and affirmed individual civil and political rights. Legislation was even passed to reserve places in government and schools for untouchables. The caste system itself, however, was left intact. John Carmen notes that the Indian Constitution guarantees more rights than the American Bill of Rights. The preamble speaks of securing "the dignity of the individual" and sections which follow it include: "Right to Equality," "Right to Freedom," Right against Exploitation," "Right to Freedom of Religion," "Cultural and Educational Rights," "Right to Property," and "Right to Constitutional Remedies."8 Clearly, many of these rights directly challenge the system of unequal privileges that is fundamental to the Hindu tradition of caste. Carmen argues that although the Indian Constitution contains an impressive list of fundamental rights, "it does not ground them in anything, whether in individual human nature, the requirements of human community, or the creative intention of God." 9 In short, "the constitution does not recognize the fundamental dharma affirmed by the Hindu tradition and sets no spiritual obligation for the state itself or for the people."10 In the face of persisting untouchability in India despite these efforts to eradicate it, reformers who turn again to the notion of dharma have found in the ancient Indian concept the basis for ideas that are quite similar to those of socially sensitive Westerners, and yet are rooted in the Indian religious tradition. In short, they have discovered dharmic reforms appropriate to the modern world.11 For example, members of the Arya Samaj movement have argued that the original Vedic teachings are casteless and thus have fashioned "a notion of dharma based on universal, rather than caste-specific, obligations to social values."12 Mitra writes that "Mahatma Gandhi is the epitome of the human-rights movement within traditional Hinduism," for his "fight for the rights of the untouchables was based on his

ideas of human rights."13 Gandhi considered himself an orthodox Hindu. He believed that whether God is understood in theistic or nontheistic terms, Hindu theology could not be used to justify the unequal treatment of human beings. As Mitra affirms: "Theistic Hinduism upholds human equality on the basis that all are God's creatures. Nontheistic Hinduism emphasizes the identity of the essence of all humans." 14 Gandhi included untouchables in his ashrams and movement. Yet, he accepted Manu's idea that rights and duties, one's dharma, are to be understood in terms of svadharma, one's natural situation in life. Mitra writes: The idea of svadharma, if not understood as a rigid code or law, can be a contribution in the field of human rights in its suggestion that differences be taken seriously. Manu offers suggestions in taking it in a nonrigid way. Dharma, he says, is what "is followed by those learned of the Vedas and what is approved by the conscience of the virtuous who are exempt from hatred and inordinate affection." Tradition, conscience, and reason must all be consulted to determine the rights and duties of humans. Rights and duties of different people in different situations are different, but each human being deserves and should have equal consideration and concern.15 Gandhi was not advocating "individual rights" in the Western sense, but rather dharma: "an ethic of community, responsibility and loyalty."16 Gandhi's emphasis on tradition and duty are clear. When asked what he thought of the proposed Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he replied: I learnt from my illiterate but wise mother that all rights to be deserved and preserved came from duty well done. Thus, the very right to live accrues to us only when we do the duty of citizenship of the world. From this one fundamental statement, perhaps it is easy enough to define the duties of Man and of Woman and correlate every right to some corresponding duty to be first performed.17 His position, as always, was rooted in religious commitment rather than political expediency.

However, he did speak of learning "to stand up for human dignity and rights," and even affirmed that everyone "has an equal right to the necessaries of life. . .." 18 Therefore, we might say that Gandhi affirmed human rights in the context of his Hindu tradition: If we all discharge our duties, rights will not be far to seek. If leaving duties unperformed, we run after rights, they will escape us like a will o' the wisp. . .. The same teaching has been embodied by Krishna in the immortal words: "Action alone is thine. Leave thou the fruit severely alone." Action is duty, fruit is the right. 19 While others have turned to the Bible or to the Qur'an to find justification for human rights, Gandhi turned within his own Hindu tradition to the sacred text of the BhagavadGita. Gandhi's legacy includes a multitude of movements for social change within India that emphasized swaraj or self-rule. "The Indian human rights movement grew out of this tradition of autonomous social organization and is linked to other social movements, many also of Gandhian inspiration, both through shared personnel and because the victims of human rights violations are often activists in those movements."20 Barnett concludes that, given the caste tradition and all the problems of Indian society, any success of human rights protection in India "is a strong argument for the potential universality of the movement."21 R. C. Pandeya, too, stresses that for the Indian all rights are derived from duties, and thus he suggests that the first principle of human rights is buried in Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible."22 In Hindu philosophy this notion of duty follows from the nature of man and may be articulated in two ways: Negatively formulated, it will state that a man ought not to act in such a way as to obscure his true nature. In other words his duty would consist in withdrawing or refraining from all such acts as were likely to obscure any aspect of the totality of his

being. The same idea formulated in positive terms would amount to saying that man ought to act in order to fulfill his total nature. In this alternative formulation his duty would consist in a complete knowledge of self.23 These two different emphases in the formulation of duty lead to a fork in the road in Indian philosophy: the path of renunciation, represented by Buddhism, and the path of realization of being as being, as represented by vedanta. Pandeya argues that both of these paths are reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Declaration, with its emphasis on freedom and equality of men and the consequent denunciation of distinctions contrary to the basic spirit of equality and freedom, represents a highly balanced blending of the two paths mentioned above. This is a philosophical tribute to the thoughtfulness and wisdom of the framers of the Declaration.24 The Declaration "reaches almost to the combined goal of Buddhism and Vedanta," he claims, but because of constraints in the modern world the Universal Declaration fails to specify the duties that generate human rights.25 The danger of this approach is that traditional Hindu notions of duty include justifications for violence. Gandhi read the Bhagavad Gita from the epic Mahabharata as an allegory, but literally it calls members of the warrior (ksatriya) caste to do their duty by fighting on the battlefield. They are to leave the consequences of their killing to God. Moreover, the Gita makes violence easier by affirming that the soul cannot be killed: "he who slays, slays not; he who is slain, is not slain."26 Today, advocates of Hindu nationalism readily justify violence in the name of their religious and cultural traditions. The Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Patriotism Organization) destroyed a mosque in Avodhya in 1992, and this precipitated violence throughout India between Hindus and Muslims. The RSS, as it is generally known, claimed the right to destroy the mosque because the site was originally a place

sacred to the god Rama, although there is no historical evidence to substantiate this claim. More recently Hindu nationalists have attacked Christians and Muslims in their effort to create a purified "Hindustan" (Hindu society). Clearly, modern concepts of human rights are a reflection of Western influence and interfere with traditional notions of dharma.27 Yet, some Hindu reformers seek to interpret dharma in ways that support the notion of human rights. This is not easily done. Perhaps this is why the Indian constitution sets forth the major human rights affirmed in the Universal Declaration without providing any philosophical foundation for them. Nonetheless, at the time of India's independence "most educated Hindus not only accepted these fundamental rights but insisted that they expressed age-old Hindu principles."28 *Revised material from Faith in Human Rights: Support in Religious Traditions for a Global Struggle (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1991).

Hinduism and Human Rights Discourse

There has always been a tendency to view human rights as rather western with Asian societies having little to contribute to dialogue on this topic that is continually the focus of the contemporary world. That prevailing ideas of human rights are western in origin and nature, and not necessarily of relevance to the rest of the world, is a charge the subject often faces. This perception stems from the idea that the non-western world was insufficiently represented during the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Many Asian nations were colonies of the West when the UDHR was drafted, and the codified rights were not and, in many cases, are still not applicable in the same way across the world. The identification of certain universal rights in a multi-cultural world was seen as a difficulty even during the drafting of the UDHR but what overcame this was the idea that some practices are so terrible that no one will approve them and "certain things are so good in practice that no one will publicly oppose them."

Rights in Asian societies

Also, Asian philosophical thought focusses on duties and obligations rather than rights, which gives the West the impression that the concept of human rights is alien to Asia. Hinduism, for example, has the concept of Sadharana dharma. Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism and Confucian thought see humans as part of a larger scheme of things and propagate the idea of harmony with and in Nature rather than considering man a special creation, as is the assumption in monotheistic religions. Traditional Asian societies put group rights before the individual; and

contemporary rights discourse is often seen as a rather individualistic western concept. Human rights are also perceived as rather western because human rights intellectual discourse is a phenomenon of the West. However, branding human rights as western based simply on these arguments is to reduce the issue to its most fundamental, as this book by Arvind Sharma points out. He puts forth 36 senses in which human rights are seen as western, and carefully explains that though each of these reasons is perfectly valid, none of them present an insurmountable hindrance to extending global acceptance to human rights.

Perspectives
The book is divided into nine segments, each one dealing with different aspects of the universality of human rights. Though none of the sections are watertight the nature of the discussion is such that the arguments often overlap Sharma has made every effort to approach the issue logically and in sequence. He examines the various perspectives of the argument starting with the historical and the secular and moving thorough the economic, religious, colonial, rational, philosophical, unilateral and institutional perspectives of rights discourse. Some arguments wander into the realm of the abstruse but for the most part his logic is clear and easy-tounderstand, and his language simple and straightforward. Without drawing explicit conclusions, he leads the reader through the numerous issues confronting the universality of human rights and brings up the many facets of human rights discourse. Sharma's arguments based on the historical, secular and economic perspectives are very interesting and well laid out. The most interesting chapters, however, are those relating to the religious and the colonial perspectives. The colonial perspective, which includes the concepts of imperialism and racism, is an argument of historical and contemporary significance not only because half the Asian world was once under western rule but also because of the many human rights abuses that occur today as various governments pursue policies that seem increasingly imperialistic in design. Though human rights are western in many senses, he says, they are not so exclusive as to be unable to move out of the western world and be applied universally.

Reparation for wrongs

However, he does point out that there are three senses in which human rights could be considered absolutely western: the concept evolved in the West with the citizen rather than the human being as the primary referent; human rights discourse has not been able to free itself from the western conception of religion, which is not shared by most of the world; that human rights are very western when one looks at the concept of compensation for historical wrongs inflicted by colonial, occupying and other powers. Current human rights discourse only speaks of equality of opportunity but there is no provision for reparation for past wrongs. As Sharma puts it, "Human rights discourse is Western in the sense that it possesses only a sense of biography and not history." This dimension is of significance in the contemporary world, "in an age when terrorism fuelled by historical grievances poses a global threat to the human rights of victims and compels states to abridge the rights of its citizens as they prioritise security over liberty." And the debate will continue until historical wrongs are righted.

Both Hinduism and Human Rights are essentially concerned with ensuring human flourishing, or an "increase of being" as some modern philosophers choose to put it. So their interaction is

bound to be of significance to both, in view of this common interest in ensuring human wellbeing. Three strands in the pattern of interaction between them can be readily identified. From one perspective, it might be useful to look at Hinduism through the lens of Human Rights and see how it fares. It would be useful to do so because Human Rights have virtually become the idiom of moral discourse in our times and it is always helpful to review whether a society's practices measure up to contemporary moral criteria as one way, among others, of evaluating them. Some practices within Hinduism, such as those involving residual caste-discrimination, may then stand out as particularly in need of continuous attention. Some issues pertaining to the position of women may also need to be reviewed in this light.

Previous

New and Old in Conversation: Hinduism's Balancing Act Four Trends: Hindu Travel, Studies, Politics, and Immigration Mythology, Media, and the Future of Hinduism Hinduism and America: Finding Common Ground, Common Values. Temples and Pujas: Hinduism in the Second Generation

From a second perspective, it would be useful to look at Human Rights from the perspective of Hinduism. Human Rights discourse is concerned with the right to life; a Hindu perspective might suggest the inclusion of a "right to longevity" as well. Similarly, here is a tendency in Human Rights discourse to ignore the rights of non-proselytizing religions like Hinduism in its interpretation of religious freedom because it works with an Semitic concept of religion itself, which may tend to emphasize the right to change one's religion over against the right to retain one's religion. Hinduism also may have similar contributions to make in areas involving animal rights and ecological rights. Thus, just as viewing Hinduism from the lens of Human Rights helps identify areas within Hinduism where work remains to be done, viewing Human Rights discourse through the lens of Hinduism discloses some directions in which it could be extended.

Read More from: The Future of Hinduism

It is, however, a third perspective that might be even more relevant from a futuristic perspective. Human Rights discourse in general needs to seriously address the issue of the righting of historical wrongs, an area it tends to shy away from on the grounds that wrongs belong to a period prior to the establishment of a Human Rights regime and therefore fall outside its purview. But can moral entitlements, which constitute the bedrock of Human Rights, be overlooked by drawing such somewhat arbitrary temporal distinctions? Can there a statute of limitations on moral discourse and its consequent legal implications? In any case, this limitation principle has already been bent in the course of the Nuremberg trials, and such defenses as "the past is past" appear disingenuous to people from the Third World. Hinduism, with its firm belief and robust confidence in the doctrine of karma, and the ineluctability of moral consequences of

our actions, no matter when they were performed, can go a long way in providing Human Rights discourse with the moral courage required in negotiating this vital, if delicate and even treacherous terrain.

The Caste System (Varna, Jati) and Human Rights The most peculiar characteristic of the Hindu society is the system called varna and jati. Varna is caste on the basis of position in the society and jati a sub-caste. (Varna in Sanskrit actually means colour). Varna is the positional label imposed upon different castes as a yardstick for social classification. It was this discrimination, exploitation and human right violations on the basis of the varna-jati classification that the reformist movements opposed the most. The varnas are four in number: brahamanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras. This four-fold division was on the basis of profession and the grades of respectability attributed to each of these. And thus the brahmanas who were the custodians of the worship of gods and the performance of the rituals were sanctioned the highest of varnas. The shudras who were allotted the manual labour and related clean jobs the lowest. Below these four layers were the numerous other castes and subcastes engaged in unclean jobs. These people were below the varnas and therefore were treated as untouchables. The practice, of untouchability is prohibited by law, but it is continued in certain parts of the country. Mahatma Gandhi called the untouchables harijans, the people of Lord Vishnu. They now call themselves dalits. The government coined the term scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Varna did not have any particular use in the operations of the social system, nor had it a built-in power for that. But the most important factor was the caste or jati. Jati denoted a particular community with a definition on customs by and large, having a particular profession hereditarily and, inclusive marriage rights. Each varna would contain several jatis each of which had its own customs and practices. Historian Romila Thapar writes on the genesis and formulation of the caste system: When the Aryans first came to India they were divided into three social classes, the warriors or aristocracy, the priests, and the common people. There was no consciousness of caste, as is clear from remarks such as a bard am I, my father is a leech and my mother grinds corn. Professions were not hereditary, nor were there any rules limiting marriages within these classes, or taboos on whom one could eat with. The three divisions merely facilitated social and economic organization. The first step in the direction of caste (as distinct from class) was taken when the Aryans treated the dasas (slaves) as beyond the social pale, probably owing to a fear of the dasa and the even greater fear that assimilation with them would lead to a loss of Aryan identity. Ostensibly the distinction was largely that of color, the dasas being darker and of an alien culture.

<<< Back

Caste System in India and Its International Overtones Dr. Prabhas C. Sinha sinha.prabhas@gmail.com The enactment of caste system in modern India is probably one of the biggest mistakes made by its founding persons. The enactment / enforcement of caste-based reservation system in education and employment have done severe damage to this nation and in near future, it would emerge as the biggest threat to the unity of this country. Introduction: A caste is a combined social system of occupation, endogamy, culture, social class, and political power. Caste should not be confused with class, in that members of a caste are deemed to be alike in function or culture, whereas not all members of a defined class may be so alike. Indian society is often now associated with the word caste. Discrimination based on caste, as perceived by UNICEF, is prevalent mainly in parts of Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Japan) and Africa. UNICEF estimates that such perceived discrimination based on caste affects 250 million people worldwide. Varna: Early Indian texts like the Manusmriti and the Puranas speak of Varna, which means order, category, type, colour (of things), and groups the society into four main types as follows: Brahmins (scholar, teacher, priest) Kshatriyas (warrior, king), [Soldiers]) Vaishyas (merchant, agriculturist) Shudras (worker, service provider). All others who did not subscribe to the norms of this Hindu society, including foreigners, tribals and nomads, or even those who had been excommunicated, were called Mlechhas or Anaryas and were to be treated as contagious and untouchables. The fear of banishment from the society was seen as a major disincentive against violating its norms by its members. The Varna system however be differentiated from the ubiquitous socio-cultural caste-system pervasive throughout India since ancient times. According to the Varna system, Brahmins are enjoined to live in poverty and their primary vocation was to

learn the Vedas, sacred texts and secular subjects, teach others and pray for the wellbeing of all. The Kshatriyas chief occupation was martial skills and kingship. The Vaishyas were those occupied with trade and agrarian activities including cattle raising, while the Sudras were workers and service providers of all types. All the Varnas were urged, without exception, to inculcate non-possessiveness, non-stealing, truthfulness, non-violence and benevolence. These too were the very attributes propounded by the Jain and Buddhist doctrines. By the 4th century AD, and certainly by the 7th century AD, there were people excluded from society altogether the group of outcastes now referred to by themselves as Dalits or the downtrodden. Thus, an untouchable, or an outcaste, was a person who was deemed not to have any Varna by those who claimed to possess it. In nutshell, Varna refers to the main division of Hindu society into four social classes or castes. This quadruple division is not to be confused with the much finer division of the contemporary caste system in India. The four Varnas are: 1. the brahmins, clergy and teachers wielding religious authority; 2. the kshatriyas, warriors and administrators, wielding political power; 3. the vaishyas, merchants and farmers or cattle-herders with economic prosperity; 4. the shudras, servants or unfree / bonded peasants. Castes / Jatis: Castes are often called Jatis in India. The Indian society is even today an agglomeration of numerous castes, tribes and religious communities. The tribal and caste groups are endogamous, reproductively isolated populations traditionally distributed over a restricted geographical range. The different caste populations, unlike tribes, have extensive geographical overlap and members of several castes generally constitute the complex village society. In such a village society, each caste, traditionally self regulated by a castecouncil, used to lead a relatively autonomous existence. Each caste used to pursue a hereditarily prescribed occupation; this was particularly true of the artisan and service castes and the pastoral and nomadic castes. The several castes were linked to each other through a traditionally determined barter of services and

produce. These caste groups retained their identity even after conversion to Islam or Christianity. Each of the caste groups was thus the unit within which cultural and perhaps genetic evolution occurred, at least for the last 1500 years when the system was fully crystallized and probably much longer. Over this period the various castes had come to exhibit striking differences in cultural traits like skills possessed, food habits, dress, language, religious observances, as well as in a number of genetic traits. Under the Jati system, a person is born into a Jati with ascribed social roles and endogamy, i.e. marriages take place only within that Jati. The Jati provided identity, security and status and has historically been open to change based on economic, social and political influences. In the course of early Indian history, various tribal, economic, political and social factors led to a continuous closing, consolidation and variation in the prevailing social ranks which tended to become traditional, hereditary system of social structuring. This system of thousands of exclusive, endogamous groups is called Jti. Though there were several kinds of variations across the breadth of India, the Jati was the effective community within which one married and spent most of ones personal life. Often it was the community (Jati) which one turned to for support, for resolution of disputes and it was also the community which one sought to promote. The Untouchables - Pariahs or Antyajas, were at the bottom of the social scale and even now perform the jobs nobody else wants such as raw sewage handling, killing animals or execution of criminals; They lived in special areas and were not allowed to read holy books. It is, however, rather interesting that people of all Jatis across the spectrum, from the so-called upper castes to the lowest of castes, including the Untouchables, tended to avoid intermarriage, sharing of food and drinks, or even close social interaction with a Jati other than their own. Indeed, most of the Jati castes did not see themselves as socially inferior to the others in any way. If at all, it was the

other way round and most of them had folk narratives, traditions, myths and legends to bolster their sense of identity and cultural uniqueness. Difference between Varna & Caste System: The terms Varna (general classification based on occupation) and Jati (caste) are two distinct concepts. Varna (from Sanskrit, literally arrangement) is usually a unification of all the Hindu castes or Jatis into four groups: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra. It is sometimes also used to refer to this unification into one of several varna-sankaras. Jati (community) is an endogamous group. Generally a sub-community is divided into exogamous groups based on same gotras. Indologists sometimes confuse the two. Many of the Hindus could be classified into a specific varna but not all. During the British rule, several cases went to court to settle the varna of a subcommunity. For example, the farmers are sometimes given Kshatriya status because many ruling Chieftains may have risen from them. On the other hand some classified them as Vaishya, based on an older occupation of artisans. Orthodox Brahmins may classify them as Shudras, because they do not have a tradition of undergoing through the thread ceremony, that would make them dvija (dvija being a term referring to the three high Varnas - Brahmin, Kashatriya and Shudra members of which are allowed to engage in the thread ceremony and thereby gain the right to education). Shudra, normally spelled Sudra is the lowest Varna in the traditional four-section division in the Hindu caste system. Their assigned and expected role in post-Vedic North India was that of farmers, craftsmen, and labourers. The four Varnas are Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra. Hindu society eventually came to include a fifth pariah class, the lowest of all, popularly known as untouchables. Shudra as a Varna is seen amongst the Hindus of Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bali in Indonesia. In Bali, Indonesia, they form 90% of the practicing Hindu population. During the historic period many people in Java, Cambodia, and Champa (a region in Vietnam) were considered to be Shudras prior to their conversion to Islam and Buddhism. Dalit is a self-designation for a group of people traditionally regarded as low caste or untouchables (outcastes). Dalits are a mixed population of numerous caste groups

all over South Asia, and speak various languages. While the caste system has been abolished under the Indian constitution, there is still discrimination and prejudice against Dalits in South Asia. Since Indian independence, significant steps have been taken to provide opportunities in jobs and education. Many social organizations have encouraged proactive provisions to better the conditions of dalits through improved education, health and employment. The Central Government of India classifies some of its citizens based on their social and economic condition as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Class (OBC). The OBC list presented by the commission is dynamic (castes and communities can be added or removed) and will change from time to time depending on Social, Educational and Economic factors. For example, the OBCs are entitled to 27% reservations in public sector employment and higher education. In the constitution, OBCs are described as socially and educationally backward classes, and government is enjoined to ensure their social and educational development. Until 1985, the affairs of Backward Classes were looked after by the Backward Classes Cell (BCC) in the Ministry of Home Affairs. With the creation of a separate Ministry of Welfare in 1985 (renamed as Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 25 May 1998) the matters relating to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Minorities were transferred to the new Ministry. Backward Classes: Backward class people is a collective term, used by the Government of India, for castes which are economically and socially disadvantaged and face, or may have faced discrimination on account of birth. Most of them do not have any land ownership or economic independence and are dependent on Forward Castes for employment, mostly as farm hands or menial labour; or derive income from self employment on caste-dependent skills assignment. They typically include the Dalits, the Scheduled castes, and the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). They live mainly in rural India and perform hard physical labour such as agriculture and janitorial work. Backward Castes constitute around 50% of the Indian population. Even though

they have a rich culture, many live below the poverty line. According to estimates from the Indian governments National Sample Survey, in 1999-2000 44% of Scheduled Tribes and 35% of Scheduled Castes lived in poverty. Their plight is regarded as a serious issue in Indian society. Creamy Layer: The creamy layer is a term used in Indian politics to refer to the relatively wealthier and better educated members of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) who are not eligible for government sponsored educational and professional benefit programs. The term was introduced by the Sattanathan Commission in 1971, which directed that the creamy layer should be excluded from the reservations (quotas) of civil posts and services granted to the OBCs. The Supreme Court defines creamy layer by quoting an office memorandum dated September 8, 1993. The term was originally introduced in the context of reservation of jobs for certain groups in 1992. The Supreme Court has said the benefit of reservation should not be given to OBC children (SCs, STs, and the unreserved are exempt now) of constitutional functionaries such as the president, judges of the Supreme Court and high courts, employees of central and state bureaucracies above a certain level, public sector employees, members of the armed forces and paramilitary personnel above the rank of colonel, lawyers, chartered accountants, doctors, financial and management consultants, engineers, film artists, and authors. OBC children belonging to any family that earns a total gross annual income of Rs. 4.5 lakh (450 thousand) (the income ceiling for creamy layer raised from 2.5 lakhs to 4.5 lakhs in October 2008) belong to the creamy layer. (US$ 5,500 in 1993 when the office memo was accepted) and so are also excluded from being categorized as socially and educationally backward regardless of their social/educational backwardness. Creamy Layer concept is meant only for the OBCs. This concept is not applied to the scheduled castes category and scheduled tribes category. Justice K G Balakrishnan, who is the first SC to become the Chief Justice of India stated: by

excluding those who have already attained economic well-being or educational advancement, the special benefits cannot be further extended to them and, if done so, it would be unreasonable, discriminatory or arbitrary resulting in reverse discrimination. But this logic is applied exclusively for OBCs and the logic is not applied for SCs, STs and the unreserved category seats. The criterion is also not applicable to minority institutions. The supreme court also indirectly reserves at least 50% of seats for the unreserved category (which includes the creamy layer from OBCs and all forward communities) and any reservation to any other (BC/MBC/SC/ST) category shall be such that the total reserved seats never exceed 50% of total. The forward community form around 12% to 46% of population in the big states of India. No official creamy layer percentage census is available at present. Also, there is no mention about the concept of creamy layer in the Constitution, and nowhere does it proscribe any directive to exclusively discriminate OBCs. The health minister of India said: All the leaders who work for social justice should work together to defeat the creamy layer concept. The exclusion leads to undermining the constitution itself since socially backward and educationally backward were the key words enshrined after thorough deliberations and the economic criterion (cream concept) can never be a criterion in determining reservation policy. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of India and its constitutional bench have decided to give sanctity to a concept that they themselves invented during the course of Mandal Commission implementation. Thus India now faces a legislature vesus judiciary war whereby the will of the legislature is undermined by the utopian concepts/ perception of the supreme court. It is another debate if the judiciary can impose any policy upon the government or the legislature, since the Judiciary has no constitutional mandate to initiate policy decisions which are the sole prerogative of the legislature. Whether a socially and educationally backward child can be denied the constitutional upliftment (guaranteed by the constitution) by a bench interpreting the constitution for the reason that his/her parents managed to get a combined yearly income of 4.5 lakh is another Pandoras box since the exclusion concept is used to discriminate within OBCs only. All parties

welcomed the 27% reservation to socially and educationally backward communities (OBC). But the creamy layer exclusion has varied responses from various political formations. Most political parties are uncomfortable with the rigid criterion for the creamy layer concept although everyone is pleased that 27% quota has got legal sanctity. The net result of job reservation for the Other Backward Classes over the last 15 years and more is that their total representation has declined to less than 5 per cent. A major factor is the creamy layer concept, which has become an excuse for keeping the backward castes out. History now repeats itself with the Supreme Court verdict in favour of denying reservation in higher education institutions to the creamy layer among the OBCs. The Supreme Court tried to take away what Parliament tried to give the OBC. In sum, Sudras, i.e. the scheduled castes, no doubt, have been the biggest sufferers in terms of have-nots. However, those sudras, who have already progressed a lot during last 60 years of Indian independence, continue to take the advantage of this caste-based reservation system, like the scheduled tribes and the other OBCs. Current Debate Regarding Equating Caste-based Discrimination with Racism: The latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which concluded on Mahatma Gandhis birth anniversary, has challenged Indias 13-year-old position on caste. This is because of Nepals unexpected endorsement of a proposal to expand the definition of descent-based discrimination to include caste. Indias predicament may be bad. But it is worsened by its shifting position on equating caste with race as a form of descent-based discrimination. India spared no effort to keep caste out of the resolution adopted at the 2001 Durban Conference against racism. But there was a time it insisted at another UN forum on the similarity between caste and race. But that was more than 40 years ago and it was a time when India was upholding the Mahatmas legacy and was in the forefront of the international campaign against apartheid in South Africa. Here are Indias flip-flops on caste as a form of descent-based discrimination: o In 1965, India proposed the historic amendment to introduce descent in the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination or CERD. It

cited its own experience with caste. K C Pant moved the amendment as a member of the Indian delegation and admitted that certain groups, though of the same racial stock and ethnic origin as their fellow citizens, had for centuries been relegated by the caste system to a miserable and downtrodden condition. o In 1996, India performed a somersault when it submitted its CERD report. It insisted that caste, though perpetuated through descent, was not based on race and therefore did not come under the Conventions purview. It freed itself of any reporting obligation on the situation of Dalits and Tribals. It said it was prepared to provide information about them only as a matter of courtesy. But the CERD panel maintained that descent does not solely refer to race and that the situation of Dalits and Tribals falls within scope of the Convention. o At the 2001 Durban conference against racism, former Supreme Court judge K Ramaswamy, himself a Dalit, dissented from the Indian government position in his speech as a member of Indias Human Rights Commission. It is not so much the nomenclature of the form of discrimination that must engage our attention but the fact of its persistence that must cause concern, he said. He added that the debate on whether race and caste are co-terminus or similar forms of discrimination is not the essence of the matter. Government representative Omar Abdullah contradicted him saying: We are firmly of the view that the issue of caste is not an appropriate subject for discussion at this conference. o In 2002, just a year on from Durban, the CERD panel issued a general recommendation confirming its interpretation that descent included discrimination based on forms of social stratification such as caste and analogous systems of inherited status, which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human rights. o In 2009, Indias state of self-denial suffered a body blow when the UN Human Rights Council issued draft principles and guidelines on discrimination based on work and descent and recognised caste as a factor. The draft said, This type of discrimination is typically associated with the notion of purity and pollution and practices of untouchability and is deeply rooted in societies and cultures where this discrimination is practised. This is the document that Nepal supported, putting India in a fix. Conclusion: It would be a good idea to work out parallels between Caste-based Discrimination and Racebased Discrimination. In favour of any CERDs position on this, lots of factual evidences need to be established before putting up this point at international agenda. Also, India needs to learn a lot, preferably from South Africa, on this issue and ways to resolve this problem. Just because racial discrimination has an external overtone for discrimination, caste-based discrimination should not be taken lightly or even spared just because it has internal overtones.

Is Hinduism Devoid of a Concept of Human Rights?

It has been claimed that the Hindu texts did not develop a concept of human rights but rather of caste rights.[1] Is then Hinduism devoid of a concept of human rights? One source of this suspicion could be that Hinduism might seem to lack the concept of common humanity itself, on account of the caste system, especially if one insists that castes originated separately to begin with. However, there are many accounts of the formation of castes [that] are silent on the subject of any separate origination of castes.[2] For instance, in some texts men are said to be the offspring of Vivasvat; in another his son Manu is said to be the progenitor; whilst in a third they are said to be descended from a female of the same name.[3] A passage clearly states that the Brhmaas, Katriyas, Vaiyas and drasall proceed from Manu, although the exact manner in which this happened is somewhat obscure.[4] It is clear therefore that caste distinctions do not necessarily obscure common humanity in mythical Hinduism. In philosophical Hinduism the recognition is even clearer. The Skhya Krik (53) speaks of an eightfold divinity but a single humanity manuya caikavidha.[5] The next question to be faced is: if Hinduism does possess a concept of common humanity, does it also possess a concept of human rights? Human rights, as a concept in its modern formulation, originated as an attempt to define the rights of human beings over against the state. Does then Hinduism conceptualize human rights in the face of such a situation? A passage in the Bhadrayaka Upaniad seems to address such a situation. The context in which it occurs deals with the successive creation of the varas; the creation of each vara is necessitated by the fact that he did not flourish by itself. Even after all the four varas had been created such flourishing did not occur. Then the text says: He was not yet developed. He created still further a better form, law (dharma). This is the power (katra) of the Kshatriya class (katra), viz. Law. Therefore there is nothing higher than law. So a weak man controls a strong man by law, just as if by a king.[6] The point comes into clear focus in the commentary of akara, who raises the question: why did it not develop? He answers: on account of the fear of arbitrary conduct by the state (katrasyniyatakay). The concept of Dharma here clearly has the connotation of rights; this is also confirmed by the Nyakopaniad.[7]

Ram Madhav
HUMAN DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS HINDU PERSPECTIVE

PAPER PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES GENEVA 27-31 MAY 2008

Home COMMUNAL VIOLENCE BILL HUMAN DIGNITY AND HUMAN HUMAN DIGNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS HINDU RIGHTS HINDU PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE Lecture at the WCC Conference Revisiting our Political Institutions - Their Failures and Options for Amritasya Putrah Vayam - We are all begotten of Betterment immortal. Sitemap

the

This is how Hinduism introduces human beings. Every individual soul is potentially divine, proclaimed Swami Vivekananda. It is necessary to delve into the fundamentals of Hinduism in order to comprehend its position on human dignity, human rights etc. The fundamentals of Hinduism are in those great dialogues that took place in the Himalayas some 4-5 Millennia back very much like the Socratic dialogues. They are not commandments but informed suggestions.

Ethical-Spiritual Identity of Human Beings: Hinduism doesnt recognise human beings as mere material beings. Its understanding of human identity is more ethicalspiritual than material. That is why a sense of immortality and divinity is attributed to all human beings in Hindu classical thought. Consistent with the depth of Indian metaphysics, the human personality was also given a metaphysical interpretation. This is not unknown to the modern occidental philosophy. The concept of human personality in Kants philosophy of law is metaphysical entity but Kant was not able to reach the subtler unobserved element of personality, which was the basic theme of the concept of personality in Indian legal philosophy, observes Prof. S.D. Sharma. (Sharma SD, Administration of Justice in Ancient Bharat, 1988) An invisible Atman - the soul - dwelling in each body as the quintessential identity of all creatures forms the basis for all discussion on the status of human beings in Hindu classical thought starting from the times of the Vedas, indisputably the ancient-most literature of the world. It is on the principle that the soul that makes the body of all living organisms its abode is in fact an integral part of the Divine Whole Paramaatman that the Vedas declare unequivocally:

Ajyesthaaso Akanisthaasa Yete

Sam Bhraataro Vaavrudhuh Soubhagaya RigVeda, Mandala-5, Sukta60, Mantra-5

No one is superior or inferior; all are brothers; all should strive for the interest of all and progress collectively. The RigVeda is the first of the four Vedas and is considered the essence of all knowledge Jnana. In fact the Vedas emphasise the quintessential oneness of the entire creation.

Samaani va Aakootihi Samaanaa Hridayaanivah

Samaanamastu vo Mano Yathaa Vah Susahaasati RigVeda,

Mandala-10, Sukta191, Mantra-4

Let there be oneness in your resolutions, hearts and minds; let the determination to live with mutual cooperation be firm in you all. It is worthwhile to mention here that it was much later and very recently that the world had come up with the ideals of French Revolution or for that matter the first Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) that exhorts: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Three famous ideals that inspired the French Revolution i.e. Liberty, Equality and Fraternity have subsequently found place in almost all the democratic constitutions of the world including that of Bharat. Liberty and Equality are the ideals that can be achieved through constitutional means. But for

achieving Fraternity constitutional means.

we

need

something

more

than

What does Fraternity mean? Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Architect of Bharats Constitution questioned, and went on to explain that Fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians of Indians being one people. It is this principle that gives unity and solidarity to social life. (B.R. Ambedkar and Human Rights, Complete Works - 8)

Fundamental Unity - Omnipresent Consciousness: Human dignity can not be ensured merely through constitutional means. It has to be embedded in the basic Sanskaras the value system of the society. The ancient sages of Bharat have thus visualized the grand idea of the oneness of Atman and Paramaatman and universal oneness of human beings based on Chetna the collective consciousness. That the same Consciousness pervades all creation is the greatest contribution of the Hindu classical thought to the wisdom of the world. Nobel Physicist Schrdinger concluded in his book My View of the World after many experiments in Physics and neurophysiology that: In all the world there is no kind of framework within which we find consciousness in the plural. This is something we construct because of the temporal plurality of the individuals. But it is a false construction The only solution to this conflict, in so far as any is available to us, lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishads. (Swami Jitatmananda, Modern Physics and Vedanta, Sri Ramakrishna Ashrama, Rajkot) Upanishads are the fountainhead of Hindu philosophy which the great German philosopher Schopenhauer described as the solace of my life (Harbilas Sharda, Hindu Superiority). Vedic and Upanishadic literature abounds in ideas that proclaim universal oneness and universal well-being. Hinduism is the essence of all that wisdom handed down to generations after

generations. These ideas have shaped and guided the Hindu socio-religious life for centuries. When one enters the Parliament Building in Delhi one comes face to face at the very entrance with a Sanskrit verse: Ayam Nijah Paroveti Ganana Laghu Chetasaam Udaara Charitaanaam tu Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam It says: Small and narrow-minded people look at the reality in terms of this is yours and this is mine; for those of higher consciousness the whole world is a family. This ideal of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam the World as One Family is unique in this age of Globalisation in the sense that while the ancient sages of Bharat have proclaimed that the whole humanity is like a big extended family, the modern-age pundits want us to believe that the whole world is, in fact, a huge market. While the Hindus stand for One World, the Globalisation stands for One Market. In reality what we are actually achieving is not Globalisation, but Mc Donaldisation. While emphasizing on the fundamental unity of the Atman consciousness, Hinduism does recognize that there exists diversity in Gods creation. This diversity is not seen by a Hindu as a misnomer. Neither does he set out to destroy this diversity in his quest for uniformity when he talks about the innate oneness. Diversity in form and unity in spirit is what Hinduism stands for. The secular ideals of Europe are nascent in front of the Hindu ideal of Sarva Dharma Samabhav Equal Respect for all Religions. Whereas the secular ideology stops at calling for tolerance to the diversity, Hinduism goes much further. It doesnt just tolerate; it accepts every religion. It transcends all barriers of religious bigotry and even celebrates diversity.

Omnitheism: Some wrongly portray it as polytheism or pluralism. Pluralism means existence of parts that are not inter-connected. However the Hindu ideal of respect for and celebration of the diversity in the Creation stems from its core belief that whatever we see in the universe is nothing but the manifestation of the Supreme Reality only. The Chandogya Upanishad describes it beautifully as: Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma meaning All that we see in this universe is Brahman (Supreme Consciousness) only. The Mundaka Upanishad says that this Atman (Consciousnessexistence - Bliss-absolute) has interpenetrated everything in the universe. Lord Krishna refers to the omnipresence of the Divine in his discourse to Arjuna in the Bhagawat Gita. Mayi Sarvamidam Protam Sutre Manigana Iva I have interpenetrated the universe like gems threaded together. It is interesting to observe the scientific developments in Quantum Physics that seem to proceed along the same lines. After successful experiment on Bells Theorem, eminent Physicist David Bohm wrote: The essential new quality implied by the quantum theory is non-locality, i.e. that a system cannot be analyzed into parts whose basic properties do not depend upon the whole system. This leads to new notion of unbroken wholeness of the universe. (Swami Jitatmananda, Swami Vivekananda Prophet and Path-finder) We shall term it Omnitheism. The purpose of life for a Hindu is to realize this, feel One, and through this feeling, liberate spiritually. Omnitheism guides the Hindu way of life. He sees God everywhere, in trees, in rivers, in serpents and even in the vacuum. For him all creation animate and inanimate is sacred. He worships a river and calls it Ganga Mata Mother Ganges. He worships a cow and calls it Go Mata Mother Cow. Even if he were to cut a tree for laying up a road, he

would do that only after offering his obeisance to that tree and seeking pardon from it. Hence every Hindu might have a personal deity like patron saints culled from historical figures enshrined in folk memory. This is not polytheism as these deities are as divine as any in the creation and merely a part of the Whole. Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanti Truth is one; Wise men call it by various names, exhorts Rig Veda. We not only tolerate, but we Hindus accept every religion . Knowing that all religions, from the lowest fetishism to the highest absolutism, mean so many attempts of the human soul to grasp and realize the infinite, each determined by the conditions of its birth and association, and each of them marking a stage of progress exhorted Swami Vivekananda at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. (Subhash Kashyap; Understanding Bharat Relevance of Hinduism, 2007) In fact the Narada Smriti, one of the many constitutions Hindus have had during the course of their long history enjoins upon the king to protect non-believers too. Pashandanaigama sreni poogavraata ganadishu Samrakshet samayam Raja Durge Janapade Tatha The king should accord protection to compacts of associations of believers of Vedas (Naigamas) as also the nonbelievers (Pashandis) and others (Narada Smriti, Dharma Kosha) To put in a nutshell, the Hindu perceives global diversity as the Divine Game and sets out to preserve and enrich it rather than trying to establish a Global Standard Culture.

Right of Happiness:

Hinduism is the religion of bliss. It considers the Right of Happiness to be the highest fundamental right of all humans. The ultimate goal for Hindusim is material and spiritual wellbeing of the mankind. It is pertinent to mention here that this all important Right of Happiness doesnt find a place in the acclaimed Universal Charter of Human Rights. The holy prayer of Hindus from time immemorial has been: Sarvepi Sukhinah Santu Sarve Santu Niramayah Sarve Bhadrani Pashyantu Ma Kaschid Dukhabhag Bhavet

Let all be happy Let all be free from diseases Let all see auspicious things Let nobody suffer from grief

Another prayer that finds place in the Sikshavalli (Chapter on Education) in the Taittareya Upanishad is also very significant. Om Sahanavavatu Saha Nau Bhunaktu

Sahaviryam Karavavahai Tejaswi Navadhitamastu Ma Vidmishamahai Om shantih shantih shantih

May He protect us together May He nourish us together May we work together with greater energy May our study be vigorous and effective May we not hate each other Let there be peace allover

It may be noted that all these prayers essentially talk about the material well-being and happiness of the entire mankind. In that sense the modern thinkers are not the first to think in terms of the welfare and happiness of the mankind. However the Maximum Benefit to Maximum Number principle of the modern economic thought was never accepted by the ancient Hindu seers. Total Good of All Beings has been the life-ideal of Hinduism.

Karma Highest Obligation:

Another significant aspect of the Hindu view on Human Rights is its emphasis on duties. In fact Hinduism doesnt support the idea of separation of Rights and Duties. Thus in Hindu discourse no Right is absolute. All the Rights bestowed upon a section enjoin upon another section corresponding Duties too. And for a Hindu the highest obligation is Karma performance of his Duty. For example, the Right to Happiness was prominently emphasized in the Artha Shastra of Chanakya. But it also enjoined upon the King the obligation to ensure that those Rights of all his subjects are protected. Prajasukhe Sukham Rajnah Prajanam cha Hite Hitam Naatmapriyam Hitam Rajnah Prajanaam tu Priyam Hitam In the happiness of the subjects lies the happiness of the King; in their welfare his welfare. The King shall not consider what pleases himself as good; whatever pleases his subjects is only good for him (Artha Shastra) In the Bhagwat Gita, Lord Krishna declares to Arjuna: Dharmenaavirodheshu Kaamosmi Bharatarshabha I am those desires that are not against the Dharma A very enlightening exchange took place during the Second World War between two stalwarts Mahatma Gandhi and H.G. Wells on this question of Human Rights. Mahatma Gandhi steadfastly refused to accept the Rights discourse that was taking place in the 40s within the Western tradition. Eminent English writer H.G. Wells had drawn up a list of Human Rights. But Mahatma Gandhi told him that he would do better by drawing up a list of the duties of man. Begin with a Charter of Duties of Man and I promise the Rights will follow as spring follows winter. I write from experience. As a young man I began life by seeking to assert my Rights and I soon discovered that I had none not even over

my wife. So I began by discovering performing my duty by my wife, my children, friends, companions and society and I find today that I have greater Rights, perhaps than any living man I know. (Richard L. Johnson, Gandhis Experiments with Truth) As an essential prerequisite for the Right to Happiness, the Rig Veda unequivocally declares that all human beings are equal. The Atharva Veda goes further and talks about various Rights and obligations or Duties. Samani Prapaa Saha Vonnabhagah Samane Yoktre Saha vo Yunajmi Aaraah Nabhimivaabhitah All have equal Rights to articles of food and water. The yoke of the chariot of life is placed equally on the shoulders of all. All should live together in harmony supporting one another like the spokes of a wheel of the chariot connecting its rim and hub. (Atharva Veda Samjnana Sukta) In his important work Happiness for All to Secure Social Harmony, Js Rama Jois writes: The Vedas and Upanishads were the primordial source of Dharma, a compendious term for all Human Rights and Duties, the observance of which was regarded as essential for securing peace and happiness to individuals and society. The Smritis and Puranas were collections of the rules of Dharma including Civil Rights and criminal liabilities (Vyavahara Dharma) as also Raja Dharma (Constitutional Law). There were also several other authoritative works on Raja Dharma, the most important of them being the Kamandaka, Shukra Niti and Kautilyas Artha Shastra. All of them unanimously declare that the objective of the State was to secure happiness of all. (M. Rama Jois, Guruji and Social Harmony, Sri Guruji Janm Shatabdi Samiti, Karnataka) Bharats Constitution has Part III containing details of the

Fundamental Rights enjoyed by every citizen of the country. Commenting on this Part Js. Bhagwati said: These Fundamental Rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of this country since the Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of the individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. (Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of Bharat, 1978 (1) SCC 248)

Rights of Women: Mr. Herbert Spender, the great apostle of individual freedom, says that the position of women supplied a good test of the civilization of the people. In Bharat, women have always occupied a position of very high esteem. Prof. H.H. Wilson says: It may be confidently asserted that in no nation of antiquity were women held in so much esteem as amongst Hindus. (Mills History of Bharat, Vol. II) God in Hinduism is Artha Nareeswara in form and gender-free in formless. Women enjoyed not only equal opportunities and privileges with men in the classical Hindu literature; they even enjoyed rights that were not available for their counterparts. Manu Smriti, the greatest work on Hindu social codes, declares: Yatra Naryastu Pujyante Ramante Tatra Devatah - Where women are worshipped there the angels tread. This great law-giver of Hinduism defined the status of a wife and her equal rights thus: 1. If a wife dies, her husband may marry another wife. (Manu, Chapter V, Verse 168). If a husband dies, a wife may marry another husband. (Manu, quoted by Madhava and Vidyanatha Dikshita; Parasara; Narada;

Yagnavalkya; Agni Purana) 2. If a wife becomes fallen by drunkenness or immorality her husband may marry another. (Manu, Chapter IX, Verse 80). If a husband becomes fallen, a wife may re-marry another husband. (Manu, quoted by Madhava and several other scholars) 3. In particular circumstances, a wife may cease to cohabit with her husband. (Manu, Chapter IX, Verse 79) 4. If a husband deserts his wife, she may marry another. (Manu, Chapter IX, Verse 76 and several others)

Varnashrama (Later day Caste System) and Human Dignity: No discussion on Human Dignity and Rights with respect to Hinduism can be complete with out taking up the question of the Caste system and the hierarchical arrangement therein. The Hindus perfected social organization. The Hindu Varnashrama was the most scientific principle of social organization. The Varnashrama was not the same as the present day Caste system. The society was organized into four Varnas/Castes. However unlike the Caste system of the present day the Varnas were not hereditary. Untouchability and caste-based discrimination were unknown during the Varnashrama days. No one was high and no one low. Shankara Digvijaya of Adi Shankaracharya boldly proclaims: Janmanaa Jaayate Shudrah Sanskaraat Dwija Ucchate Vedapaathi Bhavet Viprah Brahma janaati Brahmanah By birth all are Shudras only. By actions men become Dwija (twice-born). By reading the Vedas one becomes Vipra and

becomes Brahman by gaining the knowledge of God. A passage in the Vanparva of the Mahabharata runs thus: He in whom the qualities of truth, munificence, forgiveness, gentleness, abstinence from cruel deeds, contemplation, and benevolence are observed, is called a Brahmin in the Smriti. A man is not a Sudra (low Caste) by being a Sudra nor a Brahmin by being a Brahmin. The Shantiparva in Mahabharata categorically rejects the idea of some castes being superior to others. Na Visheshosti Varnanaam Sarvam Braahmyamidam Jagat Brahmanaa poorva Sristhim hi Karmabhih Varnataam Gatam There are no distinctions of castes. Divine consciousness is omnipresent in the world. It was Brahmanic entirely at first. The Varnas have emerged in consequence of mens actions. In his paper read before the International Congress of Orientalists at Berlin in 1881, Mr. Shyamji Krishna Verma, a renowned scholar and said: We read in the Aiteriya Brahmana (ii.3.19), for example, that Kavasha Ailusha, who was a Sudra and son of a low woman, was greatly respected for his literary attainments, and admitted into the class of Rishis the pre-eminent Hindu sages. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of his life is that he, Sudra as he was, distinguished himself as the Rishi of some of the hymns of Rig-Veda (Rig., X. 30-40). It is distinctly stated in the Chandogyopanishad that Jabala, who is otherwise called Satya Kama, had no gotra, or family name whatever (Chan. Upa., IV. 4). Though born of unknown parents, Jabala is said to have founded a School of the Yajur Veda. Even in the Apasthambha Sutra (II. 5-10) and Manu Smriti (x. 65) we find that a Sudra can become a Brahman and a Brahman can become a Sudra. (Harbilas Sharda, Hindu Superiority) From Vyasa, Valmiki, and Vishva Karma to the present day saints one finds countless eminent Rishis who are Sudras by

Varna. Even Megasthenes, the great Greek historian wrote that there were four castes in Hindus and a Hindu of any caste may become a Sophist (Brahmin). Caste hierarchy and privileges based on caste had no sanction in Hinduism. They are the result of the distortions crept in to the Hindu body-politic during the Medieval period. Hinduism has witnessed a continuous stream of social reformers to uproot this malice like Narayana Guru, Swami Vivekananda, Jyotiba Phule, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Wherever you go, there will be caste. But that doesnt mean that there should be these privileges. They should be knocked on the head. The duty of the Advaita is to destroy all privilege. The days of exclusive privileges and exclusive claims are gone, gone forever from the soil of Bharat, exclaimed Swami Vivekananda. (Subhash Kashyap, Understanding Bharat Relevance of Hinduism) Interestingly the caste system is no longer the exclusive appendage of Hinduism. Almost all religions in Bharat have these castes today, and they are afflicted by the system of caste-based privileges leading to conflicts within. Dalit Christians is a word frequently used to describe the converts to Christianity from the so-called low caste Hindus. These Dalit Christians complain that they suffer a number of disabilities and discrimination within the Christian Church establishment in Bharat. There were instances when it lead even to violence and separation of Parishes on caste lines as in the recent incidents in the South Indian city of Pondicherry in March 2008.

Conclusion: No way of life or philosophy can be free of contemporary aberrations. Hinduism is no exception. Myriad jostles of history and further deliberate misinterpretations have left it scarred albeit cautious. In its present continuous, it connects simultaneously with the highest philosophic deliberations and variegated folk systems of worship while embracing with

happy understanding all other systems of belief. The only reservation is about exclusivist medieval codes which refuse to allow other faiths to survive. The supreme salvation of Hinduism, which is no different than Realization of Self as an essential component of the Divine Whole, is achieved thus by peaceful coexistence rather than aggressive ambition, by cooperation rather than competition. As Gandhis deity Ram says in Ramcharitmanas, the most popular religious text in modern times: Nirmal Man Jan So Mohi Pawa Mohi Kapat Chhal Chhidra Na Bhava (The Pure of Heart can find me in them. I do not come to Pretenders, Deceivers and Vicious persons.)

***

Today we are still living in this transitional chapter of the world history, but it is already becoming clear that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not to end in self-destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous moment in human history the only way of salvation for the mankind is an Indian way Arnold Toynbee, Introduction to World Thinkers on Ramakrishna and Vivekananda.

***