Gandhi and International Human Rights
Written by Sanhita // October 1, 2010 // Law & The Judiciary // 8 Comments
Celebrating Gandhi Jayanti, October 2nd, 2010
I recently learned that when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] was being drafted in the 1940s, UNESCO commissioned a project which asked the world’s best-known philosophers the following question: How is an agreement conceivable among men who come from the four corners of the earth and who belong not only to different cultures and civilisations, but to different spiritual families and antagonistic schools of thought? While the existence of the UDHR might make us believe that these philosophers managed to find some common ground, the sad truth is that the report submitted was ultimately shelved because (surprise!) no agreement could be reached on what ‘common convictions’ and ‘universal values’ the world shared. Gandhi was one of the philosophers consulted by this project.
Even in the 1940s, when the world was obsessed with the emerging ‘rights-discourse’, Gandhi’s contribution is unique because of its emphasis on duties. Gandhi disagreed with the rhetoric of rights – at a national and international level – and much preferred a discourse couched in the language of duties. What is most fascinating is that he went beyond the obvious correlation between human rights and state duties, and emphasised the duties of individuals. In other contexts Gandhi argued that the “Rights of Man” be replaced with a “Charter of Duties” and said that “a duty well performed creates a corresponding right”. Of course, the UDHR is testament to the fact that his suggestions were not popular at that time.
The idea of duties in the international human rights discourse has gained great currency in recent times. Most obvious is the emergence of the norm of the responsibility to protect, which suggests that states may act to prevent gross violations of human rights within the boundaries of other states. Interestingly, even Gandhi’s emphasis on the duties of non-state actors in the context of human rights protection is becoming more relevant. International law is progressively realising the inefficacy of promoting global human rights without regulating the conduct of crucial non-state actors. We hear noises about corporate accountability for rights violations, individual criminal liability for rights violations, the responsibility of armed groups and ‘belligerents’ in times of war, duties of peacekeepers and human rights defenders. Recently adopted regional instruments – such as the African Charter for Human Rights – provide for clearly delineated individual duties. The InterAction Council recently went so far as to suggest a draft ‘Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities’.
Yes, some of these developments are problematic. Some aim to subvert the central principle of state sovereignty while others raise concerns about a new-age imperialism in international law. It is also possible that the impact of these developments today will be far removed from what Gandhi envisaged in the 1940s. Nevertheless, the interest in this field demonstrates that while Gandhi’s emphasis on the duties of the individual may have been ignored in the 1940s, there is no doubt that it is a ‘hot’ topic in international human rights today. As is true in many spheres of human activity, it is evident that Gandhi understood the stakes and debates in the project of universalising human rights better than most.
8 Comments on "Gandhi and International Human Rights"
Hi Sanhita, wonderful piece yet again. I had two quick points on which I would like to know what you think. Duties, as opposed to rights or obligations, I agree provide a wonderful alternative discourse. But, I think (a) it is idealised; (b) it doesn’t change much. When you’re talking about individual duties, it would be wonderful if everyone did what was expected of them. But if external enforcement is required, there is a problem since then the range of duties would have to be fairly small. Of course, enforcement perhaps was outside the Gandhian schema of duties, but given that for actual translation into law enforcement may well be necessary, I find it hard to conceptualise a whole range of duties which are sought to be enforced.
Second, if it’s duties of the state, then I think that’s just a different way of stating the rights discourse. I think there’s a fairly good discussion of this in the context of housing and health in the Constitution of South Africa, whether and to what extent these should be rights of the people and to what extent obligations on the state. And as I think those debates have panned out, the difference between the two is largely symbolic.
Greatings, Todo dinбmica y muy positiva!
Nicolas
he was mad mohan das karamchand gandhi he was a butt ass
srry fr this sayings…..
Only now (February 5, 2013) I came across your article of October 1, 2010, which so rightly points to Gandhi’s view of human rights: these are to be preceded by human duties. And his emphasis on these notions to be seen from the point of view of an individual human being. What else could have been meant by the drafters of the 1948 Declaration when they justified the granting of rights to humans by their being endowed with reason and a conscience? The drafters sidetracked the – logical – duties issue for fear of the project being held-up by “metaphysical controversies” (cf. John. H. Knox, Opinio Juris, November 6, 2007), but this flaw is now becoming ever more obvious. A proposal to remedy this situation is put forward in http://www.humanduties.com. It proposes the development of a list of human duties by a process of discussion and agreement
within a network of wise women and men representing all cultures of planet Earth. Of course, it is modern technology – the internet – that makes such a process possible. But once it is in progress, the gradual ‘meeting of minds’ that
will be witnessed will lead to an invaluable enhancement of decision-making all
over the world. The important point now is to prove worldwide support for this initiative, and that is what the website is inviting.
I fully agree with Gandhi .Rights and Duties are the two facets of the same coin.Every human being regardless of of caste, colour, religion or faith, gender,place of birth,etc has undoubtedly some natural rights.But he has some corresponding duties also. For example a child has the right to be loved by the parents,therfore it is the duty of the parents to love the child.similarly the citizens of a country has some civil and political rights against their governments.Therefore, if the government curbs those rights by any means, it beyond doubts violates human rights of the citizens.Hence, right to revolution is also a human right.By doing so the people bring back their government on track.
Sup
Hello everyone WAS SUP