r



   
    

 
      

?

? 
First and foremost, I would like to thank Professor Prinja for inviting me to
deliver this talk tonight, and it gives me great pleasure to see Hindu -Jewish
exchange in this manner. And I thank you for coming here tonight to hear me
deliver this short lecture, and you must forgive me if I end up miss-
communicating some fact or another, or if I accidently end of upsetting the
placidity of someone¶s mind.

I should make clear from the offset that my background is not grounded in the
law, but rather in Philosophy ± initially political, in the study of Liberalism,
then in behaviourism, and more recently in classical Hindu philosophy. (And I
will use the terms Indian and Hindu philosophy to mean the one and the same.)
So talking about human rights for me is well beyond my comfort zone! At least
that¶s how I feel. So, you shouldn¶t be surprised if I gravitate continuously to
philosophical doctrine which will reason for a particular paradigm shift when
discussing human rights.

I think there can be little argument against the following:

³that Hinduism and Judaism are two of the oldest religions, if indeed they can
be called that, and have produced some of the most influential memes to ha ve
spread across humanity for thousands of years, enlightening civilisations across
the globe.´

An arguable statement, but one that I nevertheless endorse, is that

³both groups have been endlessly persecuted throughout history by powers that
are transient and yet have inflicted gruesome damage physically, economically,
psychologically and some even argue spiritually.´

˜
r
 
   
    

 
      

he classical Greeks, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Meccans, the
Persians, the Romans, the Mongols, Huns, and many more came, flourishe d for
a while; they persecuted either the Hindus or the Jews, sometimes both, but then
eventually came to their own demise. hese great powers still pull in great
crowds...but only to the museums.

Pause

I have no doubt that if the demigods were the gambli ng sort; what would have
been the odds on the Jews and Hindus to survive the last millennium? No doubt
the odds would have been slim!

BU here we are ± Hindus and Jews. Do we not carry a legacy of humanity that
is worth preserving? Do our cultures not carry some inherent wisdom, which
has been bestowed upon us through the passage of time? Here in this room, I
wonder what powerful ideas we hold deep within our subconscious; ideas that if
properly explored, cultivated, and expressed would truly enrich the rather
mundane state of the human rights debate. I am convinced that there are
universal principals, truths, no let me say absolute truths that we can bring forth
from our respective histories that must be applied without hesitation or
reservation once arrived at.

But now, let me be frank, before I actually share with you what I believe Hindu
philosophy, history and experience brings to the debate when it comes to human
rights.

I want to make it clear that both, the state of Israel ± a Jewish state, and India ±
which can only be said to be a semi Hindu state, (and I¶m sure some here would
argue that it¶s not Hindu at all in its Statecraft), however both states, I believe,
at worst have seriously abused basic human rights, and at best have remained
passive when these universal rights have been threatened. Neither can be
acceptable. Rather we, who are the custodians of great suffering throughout
†
r
 
   
    

 
      

history, should be at the fore front of preserving such universal values. oo
many times have we let out beloved nations, India for the Hindus and Israel for
the Jews, remain silent when on its doorstep there is great injustice.

I am mindful to the fact that both feel threatened by tod ay¶s great transient faith
± Islam. I am mindful of the great atrocities that Christians, Muslims and other
Imperial powers have committed against bygone generations . But it is exactly
because of the mistakes of the past that we, as a people, should be ext ra vigilant
that we too, do not repeat them on others ± whether these other groups respect
Human Rights or not! I firmly believe that it is my responsibility, as an
individual, to step up and speak out when anyone¶s basic life is dealt an unjustly
blow, by another, regardless of their class, faith or creed. So as we explore
human rights from our respective paradigms, let us not forget the great
responsibility we carry, not just for future Jewish or Hindu generations, but for
all humanity.

I know that both Judaism and Hinduism have had apologists who claim that
these cultures are too focused on human obligations rather than human rights.
he source of the obligations for the Jews stems from the orah, hence
theocentric; for the Hindus from the vast cannon of pluralistic philosophical
texts like the Upanishads, the Vedas, and the Dharma sutras amongst others,
hence philosophic. he criticisms for both are that they are simply not
adequately compassionate at their core, and therefore are not appropriately
ethical.

I think this claim is disingenuous.

ake the example to prohibit all from theft. his in itself bestows rights of
private property to the subject if he fulfils his Dharma (duty) to never steal. By
putting forward an obligation to not steal, it has simultaneously given a right ±

r
 
   
    

 
      

that to own private property. ak e the obligation to not kill. his inherently
gives the right to life. he obligations are prescriptive to the individual, yet the
inherent rights are distributed to all. From a Hindu standpoint and I suspect
Jewish too, if we take care of our own individ ual obligations the common
³human rights´, the common good are taken care of automatically. We need not
worry.

But of course as with all things in life ± it¶s not that simple.

Present human rights, as far as I understand it, can be approached from 4

interrelated paradigms: the legal, the moral, the ethical and the religious.

he legal paradigm is simply interpreted as law, nothing more; nothing less.
hose which subscribe to the ³treaty´ can be issued with human rights. It¶s
rather an oddity if you think about it. ake the UN charter on Human Rights, as
adopted in 1948. hose nations that signed up to it were in turn issued the rights
which they had signed up to, but those countries which did not sign, in turn
were not issued the rights.  here is a fundamental problem with this narrow
conception of rights. hat which can be enforced by the law, can also be taken
away by the law. One cannot merely offer a legalistic answer. his is something
which I¶m sure we can all relate to all too.

he moral paradigm according to Louis Henkin is ³simply those moral political
claims which, by contemporary consensus, every human being has or is deemed
to have upon his µsociety and government¶. Generally then, this is a relative
concept. Our sense morality evolves with t ime and therefore our notions of
human rights change with it.

he ethical paradigm is utilitarian in essence ± that which serves the greatest
good, for the greatest number. he irony of course is that Jeremy Bentham who

U
r
 
   
    

 
      

popularised utilitarian thinking in England thought the idea of human rights as

³nonsense on stilts´. Essentially Utilitarianism states that ³we feel right talking
about rights because by insisting on them for others we are securing our overall
protection.´ Indeed this is an attractive idea and approach. One can say it¶s
pragmatic.

Finally there is the religious view, and in this context I believe that Judaism,
through Christianity, has had far greater success in influencing global ideas of
human rights than us Hindus. Of course the reasons are multiple and layered,
and beyond the scope of this discussion. Needless to say that this paradigm
suggests that religion is the source of human right advancements.

Hindu ideas of human duties and rights stem from, and are aligned with the
axiology of the purusarthas, which loosely translates as pursuits of life. here
are 4 in total:

Kama ± to pursue right desire

Artha ± to pursue wealth and status

Dharma ± to pursue duty and virtue

And finally Moksha ± to pursue enlightenment; to realise the ultimate truth

All Hindu philosophy, tradition, language and religion can be encapsulated as a

pursuit of these four aspects. I believe all four of these can be married to the
four western notions. Kama or right desire, can be aligned with the ethical, in
that it involves the assessment of the relative merits of the elements desired by
the individual vis-a-vis the community. In other words, to assess the desires of
the individual for personal wealth, with the communities need for economic
development, or equality. he legal view can be aligned with Artha, which
takes a literal view of the law and predominately is concerned about socio -
economic and political advancement. he moral can be linked to Dharma,

!
r
 
   
    

 
      

which I will come onto shortly; and finally the religious can be linked to
Moksha ± that which deals with the metaphysical aspects of the human
condition.

Hindus are primarily concerned with Dharma. You would have thought
Moksha, but that would be to grossly simplify Hinduism. Hinduism is
pragmatic and idealistic at the same time. It holds to its ideals staunchly, and yet
looks to address the societal needs with an uncanny pragmatism. Grounding
rights in Dharma is essential; for grounding it in Kama would be too hedonistic,
in Artha too positivistic and arbitrary ± by this I mean devoid of any higher
ideals, which would not serve the spiritual; and in Moksha these rights would be
too remote, or even transggressive ± meaning that it would push the boundaries
of what a normal society would accept too far.

So Hindus would look to ground these rights in Dharma. Dharma, I¶m afraid is
something far too complex and subtle for me to adequately grasp it to the
satisfaction of this audience. But nevertheless, I fe ar I must try.

Dharma is a contextual Sanskrit word. According to the context in which it is

being used can mean duty or obligation . Furthermore, I believe these duties
arise out of a sense of purpose for one¶s life. he purpose are multi-layered and
multi-dimensional, they result out of our desire (Kama), our need for wealth and
resource (Artha), an innate human need to live a ³good life´ (Dharma) and of
course to satisfy the ultimate questions of existence (Moksha). In classical
Hindu culture, each person must sharpen one¶s own sense of purpose; this in
turn creates a series of duties, which then forms the bedrock of reciprocal rights.
hese duties can be personal, social, economical, political and spiritual. Hindu
civilisation didn¶t legislate for the se duties, but rather inculcated them into
culture and tradition. he kings of old would legislate for the provision of Artha
± economic, political wellbeing of the society, and Kama ± right desires through

2
r
 
   
    

 
      

allowing the flourishing of the arts, music, science and of course philosophy.
However, Dharma ± the moral life, and Moksha ± the religious or spiritual life
was by en-large completely grounded in the personal sphere of life. his is
where the family as an institution was given the duty to raise children with
Dharma; with the duty of raising children grounded in Dharma, parents
automatically begin to claim the right to be looked after in old age, and passes
on the duty to their children. his is a cyclical process in existence for
thousands of years.

It is for this reason that it is said over and over again, if you want to understand
Hinduism, go and live in a Hindu family!

I firmly believe that present legislators are too absorbed by Artha and Kama,
and leave the Dharma and Moksha elements to the indivi dual ± these are indeed
the hallmarks of a liberal society, but the problem we have is that the instrument
which nurtures and cultivates Dharma into every individual is imploding before
our very eyes ± the nuclear family! Without an effective nuclear fami ly how do
we expect future generations to have a strong sense of Dharma ± or duty ±
towards themselves and society at large? And with the state being only
concerned with Artha and Kama ± we are now in danger of producing
generations only concerned with Artha and Kama and completely ignorant of
their own personal duty. What I believe we need to address as a society is the
implosion of the nuclear family, and to re -establish a culture of obligation, duty
or Dharma upon every individual. he State, I believe must do more to
readdress the culture of individualism creeping into the psyche of the public.
Even though capitalism profits by the growth of individualism, I believe
Dharma does not. And if Dharma is lost ± so is the idea of our human
obligations. And what good are Human rights without their complimentary
obligations or the sense of duty upon each member of society.

±
r
 
   
    

 
      

I do not believe we can merely legislate for these things ± unless we look to
sacrifice personal liberty.

o be liberal, and to promote huma n rights at every level of society, we need to

preserve the family, from which Dharma stems. I will leave this thought here,
and maybe follow it up in the Q & A.

Furthermore, like Jews, Hindus have been, are being, and no doubt will be,
persecuted in certain parts of the world, simply because they are passive and
until recently have lacked both economic and political power. ake for example
Pakistan. he Hindu population at the time of partition in 1947 was
approximately 24%, today it is less than 2%. And it would be naive of us to
think that 22% of the Hindu population migrated back into India. he
population records simply do not show this. So what happened to over 40
million Hindus? Furthermore, over 2500 temples along with Buddhist stuppas
have been destroyed. We mustn¶t forget that around the 12 th century,
Afghanistan and contemporary Pakistan was predominately Buddhist.

Across the East, in Bangladesh, the Hindu population has dwindled, from being
24% of the population in 1941, to 21% by 1951, and then suddenly to half that
in 2001. his is through forced exodus, intimidation, huge unemployment and
ultimately due to fear after the 1971 massacre carried out by the Pakistan army
where some 20 million Hindus were forcibly removed from their homes ± many
killed, some 20,000, causing huge panic.

In Kashmir, Pundits meaning those who conduct religious ceremonies, and are
teachers of Dharma are targeted by Islamic fundamentalists. oday some
200,000 Hindus are living in permanent refugee camps having been forced out
their homes by intimidation and violence, even at times small scale village
orientated massacres; where all the men of a village are shot, the women and
children taken to madras¶s and converted!

ƒ
r
 
   
    

 
      

And I can go on and on ± but I sense I should stop.

I think it¶s paramount that we, all of us, recognise our Dharma towards
humanity, and not just in our narrow confinements of our own faiths! I have no
doubt that by enhancing the importance of personal obligation and duty; we wi ll
serve human rights far better.

hank you.