AN INSIGHT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

An Insight On Human Rights :Major(R)Khalid Nasr



To ones' utter amazement, emergence of Human Rights in its embryonic form surfaces during the early period of Greek City States; though the early Greeks weren't aware of the present day concept of equality before law. This duality of standards drew a line of demarcation between the free citizens (who were Greeks essentially) and the slaves bought or forced to be included in this category in consequence of their captivity after war. To all intent and purposes, these slaves were treated as personal property of their masters acquiring them in either of the two ways discussed above. Whereas free citizens were held accountable for their actions, the masters were responsible for the acts of their slaves; and were required to compensate to the party suffering a loss because of any indiscrete act on the part of a slave. Whereas patricians & jurors were required to initiate legal action against the misdeeds of a free citizen, the masters had the absolute authority to decide whether their slaves were to be awarded a minor punishment or to suffer death penalty at the hands of their masters. In other words, all free citizens had their respective rights & obligations duly acknowledged by the state, but there was no law to govern the slaves; because they were required to be governed by their own masters.

There were simple set of laws for this almost rural-agrarian socio-economic pattern, wherein every citizen was personally known to every other citizen; and life had not grown complicated. This type of state was bound to come under stress with the passage of time & due to its interaction with other socio-cultural & behavioural configurations. In the West, different concepts of Fundamental Human Rights emerged out of the Social Contract theories evolved by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau-the philosopher having a main role to play in the well-known French Revolution. Political and socio-economists like Montesquieu, and John Stuart Mill propounded their own respective views in the context of Industrial revolution; simultaneously commenting on Laissez-faire etc.

Broad Categories of Fundamental Rights :

(a). The right to live:It has been acknowledged the World over, and has been treated as inalienable to the extent that suicide is forbidden under the law; and has been declared as punishable under the law. The only exception in the contemporary history treating it as beyond the scope of law was in the case of Japan upto the end of World War-ll under Shintoism. Death penalty is under criticism inasmuch as no moral grounds exist for the state to deprive a murderer of his right to live; because in that event state would be committing an act itself which has been proscribed under its own laws. Abolition of death penalty is on the anvil, even in US; whereas it has already been abolished in Europe.Soldiers offering their services for the defence of their motherland surrender this right in the event of their death during the war. This is the only exception internationally accepted, but loss of human lives during the war have been criticized despite this exception.

(b).The right to associate:It provides an overall cover from right to marry & produce children to association for political activities involving the right to vote and contest for state offices. Similarly the right to form clubs, associations, and celebrations has also been acknowledged as absolute; unless such associations are detrimental to the existence of state itself or are based on misanthropy, racial discrimination, and creation of hatred amongst various sections of society within the state. Apartheid in South Africa & colour bar in US restricted this right when in vogue , but have been legally abolished providing a free opportunity to

(c). The right to earn a living :It is granted in as much as the individual is allowed to own means of production for agriculture and industry; and has been allowed to undertake unlimited productive & commercial activity in the free World; whereas the same is also being permitted gradually by the erstwhile Socialistic & Communist countries. Apart from owning means of production, the right to earn a living through a given profession and/or holding offices of profit under their Government , subject to their suitability for a given job. Forced labour would be an offence punishable under the law, and the employer would be under obligation to adhere to the working hours permitted by the state; and employer would be under obligation to provide health cover and compensation in the event of death /loss of limb by a worker under social securities schemes. No discrimination would be made by the employer on the basis of gender.

(d) The right to mobility within and outside the state:The latter being responsible to ask a foreign government to safeguard his/her life and property by issuing a valid certification in the form of a passport. This document is a certification on the part of the state tht the traveller is a bonafide citizen and the country he is visiting should take necessary measures for his safety etc in accordance with the international law & mutually agreed obligations.

(e).The right to profess a certain creed:It accepts an individual's right to hold & profess a certain creed in accordance with his/ her conscience. The individual in such a case wouldn't be asked to convert from his religion to any other religion forcibly. He/ she would be allowed to shape his/ her life in accordance with the religious dictates of the creed he/she belongs to. Religious rites of birth, marriage, and funeral would be performed in accordance with the religion he/she hails from. State would not adopt any policy of discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs . Whereas this Fundamental Right should have been taken care in the normal course due to professed secularism by a majority of states, yet performance of some of the states have been compromised due to the unfortunate emergence of the concept of clash of civilizations in the recent past. Unnecessary intervention & unjustified armed conflicts resulting in loss of precious human lives has been seen in the Middle East.. The State preempting in the disastrous employment of nuclear power in Japan is insisting that no other power especially in the Muslim World should have access to nuclear technology even for peaceful purposes. Countries like Iran find it difficult to digest, and hence nuclear threat is looming over the Globe without any rhyme or reason. Picture regarding relationship between rights & obligtions is getting hazier day by day; showing divergence & a widening cleavage between theory & practice. There is no international agency including the UN to point out & discourage this dichotomy, which has already taken the toll in the form of League of Nations after World War-l.

Equality before law envisages that all citizens would be equal before law and any discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and economic status would be forbidden. Nobody would be kept under custody without resorting to the prescribed legal procedure. A writ of Habeas Corpus would be admissible for wrongful & undue detention and the person/department violating this right would be punished in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law.

(f). Right to get justice : It involves resort to legal action for seeking justice through courts of law in the event of violations of any of the Fundamental Rights conferred upon individual by the state. In other words, each one of the above referred Fundamental Rights are justiciable and violators thereof can be brought to books for any act of recalcitrancy.

(g) Right of freedom of expression:It acknowledges that all individuals would be free to express their opinion by word of mouth, through publications, and through public media such as Radio,and Television etc. Each individual would be allowed access to information technology (IT).

(h) Right to education:It involves right to receive education upto a certain level free of cost. All citizens would be educated in schools free of cost, and College/University education would be accessible to all citizens. Child labour would be prohibited, and all children would be sent to school upto a certain level.Similarly no discrimination would be made on the basis of gender.

(i) Right to maintenance of health :It involves provision of health facilities to the entire citizenry throughout the country. State would ensure provision of medical cover in the event of illness as well as taking preventive measures against the spreading of any epidemic.

(j) Protection during war: It is afforded to non-combatants members of armed forces and civilians. Those responsible for war crimes are tried for war atrocities. Members of armed forces becoming prisoners of war (POWs) are allowed to retain the dignity of their ranks. Similarly Officers are not to be employed as manual labour ; but are allocated jobs in accordance with their status in the force they come from.

(k)The right to restrict information :During interrogation after captivity prisoners have the right to divulge their name, rank, and number in accordance with the Geneva Convention; and refuse other information in response to the queries over & above this information. This right has, however, seldom been observed & so are the other provisions of Geneva Convention. These rights have invariably been flouted by all concerned during the War & after cessation of hostilities.Whereas discussion goes on against violation of these Fundamental Rights in developing countries especially the non-Jewish & non-Christian states, these violations have seldom been commented upon while occurring in states mostly populated by Christians. US had all along been different yardsticks for Muslim areas such as Bosnia Hertzgovena, East Timur, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan and Pakistan etc. International scenario doesn't paint an enviable picture of the role of US in countries like Iraq, which as per US information media was a case of unwarranted internal interference. Besides, these powers are applying two distinct yardsticks for themselves & others. The case of Cuba is in view in this context. They are pressurizing countries like Pakistan to fight a proxy was for US even at the exorbitant price of creating law & order situation in their own country; whereas Pakistan kept waiting and waiting for their 7th Fleet during the War started by Indians in Bengla Desh. Hence Fundamental Human Rights remain an enigma, particularly for developing countries which seldom receive an even-handed treatment from the powers who matter. In fact, there is no such thing as International Law or International morality; because the guiding principle in 20th Century has been 'might is right'; whereas 21st Century is still expecting to see new dawn providing a legal & physical cover to ensure observance of inalienable concept of Fundamental Human Rights. Shall we be seeing this dawn during our own life-span, is the question which still remains unanswered.

Social norms-the basis for interaction in a group/s

As should be evident to students of Social Sciences, the basis for all reactions in a group/s is interaction in a given situation, be it managerial by nature or mere exchange of courtesies.This interaction has been defined as the over or covert communication between two actors, wherein each influences or ties to influence reposes or state of mind of the other party in a palatable or socially acceptable manner. Norms again have been classified in tow different categories, viz norms as defined above & the norms carrying social sanctions in the event of their violation/. The latter category of norms is also known as mores. In the event of the violation of the social norms, the deviant is generally looked at askance & the actors convey their approval or disapproval on the basis of yardsticks evolved over ages and existing since times immemorial. For example gentlemen attending a marriage party in three piece suits with a matching necktie are respected, whereas a person walking into such a party half clad in dhoti & a vest confronts a sardonic smile; which conveys nothing but social disapproval.

By the same argument a leader in a group occupies a central position issuing direct or indirect verbal commands & commands through body language; which influences the state of mind of the other members of the group and determines the future pattern of behaviour. Presuming a situation, wherein the commands are confused & the manager is not sure of the message he wants to convey or else his own behaviour is in clear contradiction of the commands he is issuing or trying to issue. The results would be obvious inasmuch as no member of the group is likely to take him seriously & his words would fall on deaf ears. For example, a manager asking his team to display devotion to duty is generally found sipping tea or gossiping during working hours could hardly expect dedication to the cause when he is negligent of his task & duties. Similarly honesty & integrity require that the manager sets the standards thorough his personal example; failing which he is just talking gobbledegoop. It might be added that entrepreneur hires his labour for their inherent worth of displaying quality in their respective performance & such a hiring conforms to value for money approach; which in layman's terms means such an employees personal contribution for stepping- up quantity & quality of production and maintaining it on an even keel for optimising sales & profits. This concept & other concepts should be applicable both to the unskilled and skilled labour (including management). Besides, Management & the existing leadership are looked upto for guidance in difficult & tense managerial situation; failing which the ones serving under their supervisory control start questioning their appointment in terms of their salaries & perks. This becomes a constant pic-prick unless the situation is resolved by rectifying the weaknesses having crept up or existing for some time. If this state is allowed to continue indefinitely, it would be a continuous retardation which could possibly lead to an absolute collapse

Hence the leadership would be well-advised to undertake constant review of their entire gamut of activities as well as the existing commercial environments for providing incentives to the labour and for boosting-up production. An inacapable leadership wouldn't be able to take the team along & take off stage would never be reached unless the leadership displays sensitivity to three Es, viz Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness alongwith a selfless devotion & observance of productive norms; particularly the one relating to personal integrity.

Jameel Zaidi

CLASH OF EMOTIONS

The Clash of Emotions:Major(R)Khalid Nasr
The world today faces not only a clash of civilizations but a clash of emotions as well. The West displays -- and is divided by -- a culture of fear, while the Arab and Muslim worlds are trapped in a culture of humiliation and much of Asia displays a culture of hope.


Fear, Humiliation, Hope, and the New World Order

Thirteen years ago, Samuel Huntington argued that a "clash of civilizations" was about to dominate world politics, with culture, along with national interests and political ideology, becoming a geopolitical fault line. Events since then have proved Huntington's vision more right than wrong. Yet what has not been recognized sufficiently is that today the world faces what might be called a "clash of emotions" as well. The Western world displays a culture of fear, the Arab and Muslim worlds are trapped in a culture of humiliation, and much of Asia displays a culture of hope.

Instead of being united by their fears, the twin pillars of the West, the United States and Europe, are more often divided by them -- or rather, divided by how best to confront or transcend them. The culture of humiliation, in contrast, helps unite the Muslim world around its most radical forces and has led to a culture of hatred. The chief beneficiaries of the deadly encounter between the forces of fear and the forces of humiliation are the bystanders in the culture of hope, who have been able to concentrate on creating a better future for themselves.

These moods, of course, are not universal within each region, and there are some areas, such as Russia and parts of Latin America, that seem to display all of them simultaneously. But their dynamics and interactions will help shape the world for years to come.

THE CULTURE OF FEAR

The United States and Europe are divided by a common culture of fear. On both sides, one encounters, in varying degrees, a fear of the other, a fear of the future, and a fundamental anxiety about the loss of identity in an increasingly complex world.

In the case of Europe, there are layers of fear. There is the fear of being invaded by the poor, primarily from the South -- a fear driven by demography and geography. Images of Africans being killed recently as they tried to scale barbed wire to enter a Spanish enclave in Morocco evoked images of another time not so long ago, when East Germans were shot at as they tried to reach freedom in the West. Back then, Germans were killed because they wanted to escape oppression. Today, Africans are being killed because they want to escape absolute poverty.

Europeans also fear being blown up by radical Islamists or being demographically conquered by them as their continent becomes a "Eurabia." After the bombings in Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005 and the scares this past summer, Europeans have started to face the hard reality that their homelands are not only targets for terrorists but also bases for them.

Then there is the fear of being left behind economically. For many Europeans, globalization has come to be equated with destabilization and job cuts. They are haunted by the fear that Europe will become a museum -- a larger and more modern version of Venice, a place for tourists and retirees, no longer a center of creativity and influence.

Finally, there is the fear of being ruled by an outside power, even a friendly one (such as the United States) or a faceless one (such as the European Commission).

What unites all these fears is a sense of loss of control over one's territory, security, and identity -- in short, one's destiny. Such concerns contributed to the no votes of the French and the Dutch last year on the referendum on the proposed EU constitution. They also explain the return of strong nationalist sentiments in many European countries -- on display during the recent World Cup tournament.

Some of the same sense of loss of control is present in the United States. Although demographic fears are mitigated by the largely successful integration of Hispanics (compared with the difficulties surrounding the integration of Muslims in Europe), they are clearly present. The quarrel over the Spanish version of the American national anthem echoes the debate over the wearing of headscarves and veils in Europe.

Used to rates of growth significantly higher than those in most European countries, Americans do not fear economic decay the way Europeans do (although they worry about outsourcing). Yet they, too, are thinking of decline -- in their bodies, with the plague of obesity; in their budgets, with the huge deficits; and in their spirit, with the loss of appetite for foreign adventures and a growing questioning of national purpose.

The United States' obsession with security after September 11 is understandable and legitimate. But what has it cost in terms of U.S. influence and image in the world? From the difficulties foreign travelers have entering U.S. territory to the human rights scandals of Guantánamo Bay, terrorists have at least in part succeeded in undermining the United States' claims of moral superiority and exceptionalism by prompting such reactions.

Whereas Europeans try to protect themselves from the world through a combination of escapism and appeasement, Americans try to do so by dealing with the problem at its source abroad. But behind the Bush administration's forceful and optimistic rhetoric lies a somber reality, which is that the U.S. response to the September 11 attacks has made the United States more unpopular than ever. The U.S. intervention in Iraq, for example, has generated more problems than it has solved. Iraq is descending into civil war, and U.S. actions there have tipped the balance of power within the Muslim world to its most radical Shiite elements.

THE CULTURE OF HUMILIATION

Europeans started to reflect on their own decay after World War I: "We civilizations now know ourselves mortal," the French poet and philosopher Paul Valéry wrote in 1919. The Muslim world, meanwhile, has been obsessed with decay for centuries. When Europe was in its Middle Ages, Islam was at the peak of its Renaissance, but when the Western Renaissance started, Islam began its inexorable fall. From its defeat by a Christian fleet at the Battle of Lepanto, in 1571, to its failure to capture Vienna in 1683, to its final disappearance after World War I, the Ottoman Empire slowly shrank into oblivion.

The creation of the state of Israel in the midst of Arab land could only be seen by Muslims as the ultimate proof of their decay. For Jews, the legitimacy of Israel was manifold; it combined the accomplishment of a religious promise, the realization of a national destiny, and compensation by the international community for a unique crime, the Holocaust. For Arabs, by contrast, it was the anachronistic imposition of a Western colonial logic at the very moment decolonization was getting under way. In their view, crimes of the Christian West, fallen into barbarism against the Jews, were being unfairly paid for by the Muslim East.

The unresolved conflict between Israel and its neighbors has helped turn the culture of humiliation into a culture of hatred. Over time, the conflict's national character has shifted to its original religious basis -- a conflict between Muslims and Jews, if not a clash between Islam and the West at large.

The combination of the deepening civil war in Iraq and the fighting in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel has reinforced a sense of outrage in many Muslims that has been fully exploited by Iran and its allies. In a war of images and symbols, Shiite extremists can appear to embody the spirit of resistance to humiliation, getting stronger with each blow they endure.

Globalization, meanwhile, has contributed to the problem. Every day, the Middle East is confronted with the contrast between globalization's winners, essentially the Western world and East Asia, and those who have been left behind.

The culture of humiliation is not limited to the Middle East but extends to the Muslim diaspora in the West as well. The riots that took place in France during the fall of 2005, for example, had an essentially socioeconomic origin, but they were also a lashing out by the disaffected against a society that claims to give them equal rights in principle but fails to do so in practice.

The gap is also, in part, the product of incompatible worldviews, stemming from different historical eras. As societies in Europe are becoming increasingly secular, the importance of religion in the daily life of the Muslim world is increasing. When Europeans look at Islam today, they are reminded of their own zealotry and wars of religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This gap in mindset exists between the United States and the Muslim world as well, but it is less profound because the United States remains deeply religious and has even experienced a religious revival lately. Yet fundamentalism within Islam is unique in the sense that it is animated by a dual sense of revenge: by the Shiite minority against the Sunni majority and by the fundamentalists against the West at large.

THE CULTURE OF HOPE

As the West and the Middle East lock horns, confidence in progress has been moving eastward. An art exhibit displayed in 2005-6 at the Royal Academy of Arts, in London, entitled "China: The Three Emperors, 1662-1795," summarized new China's psychology. The explicit message of the exhibit, sponsored by Beijing, was clear: China is back. The central piece of the exhibit was a huge eighteenth-century painting, in the Jesuit-European style, showing the envoys of the West paying tribute to the Chinese emperor. After two centuries of relative decline, China is progressively recovering its legitimate international status. Its policy of concentrating on economic development while avoiding conflict seems to be working, earning Beijing both material benefits and international respect.

As for India, for the first time in its modern history it has stepped onto the world stage as both an independent and an important power. Cooperating diplomatically with the United States and making economic deals in Europe, the emerging Indian elites are displaying even more pride and optimism than their Chinese counterparts. The world's largest democracy will soon emerge as the most populous country, and it seems to know no limits.

Of course, Cassandras may rightly point out that strategic, economic, social, and political difficulties abound and that the culture of hope could easily collapse on itself like a house of cards. Asia has yet to witness the reconciliation between former enemies that constitutes the most remarkable achievement of postwar western Europe. The level of animosity in China and South Korea over Japan's treatment of the past evokes the situation of Europe in the 1950s. (China seems to have set double standards in this respect, never forgetting Japan's crimes while never remembering its own.) North Korea is a particularly dangerous rogue state. And arms races and nuclear proliferation in East Asia could set the region up for a terrible conflict down the road.

The gap that exists in China between the dynamism of the economy and the near incapacity or total reluctance of the present leadership to implement the most elementary and necessary political reforms does not bode well for the peaceful evolution of the country. Yet despite these concerns, there is hope among both leaders and publics across the region, and it seems likely to last as long as growth continues.



WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

In confronting this clash of emotions, the first priority for the West must be to recognize the nature of the threat that the Muslim world's culture of humiliation poses to Europe and the United States. Denying the threat's existence or responding to it in the wrong way are equally dangerous choices. Neither appeasement nor military solutions alone will suffice. The war that is unfolding is one that the culture of humiliation cannot win, but it is a war nonetheless and one that the West can lose by continuing to be divided or by betraying its liberal values and its respect for law and the individual. The challenge is not figuring out how to play moderate Islam against the forces of radicalism. It is figuring out how to instill a sufficient sense of hope and progress in Muslim societies so that despair and anger do not send the masses into the radicals' arms.

In that regard, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears more than ever as a microcosm of and possibly a precedent for what the world is becoming. Israel is the West, surrounded by the culture of humiliation and dreaming of escape from a dangerous region and of reentry into a culture of hope. But it must find a solution to the Palestinian problem first, or else the escape will not be possible. So, too, Europe and the United States seek to permanently banish their fears but will be able to do so only by finding a way to help the Muslim world solve its problems.

PRIDE & PREJUDICE

PRIDE & PREJUDICE
AUTHOR
Major(R)Khalid Nasr

“PRIDE AND PREJUDICE---- “ The bush doctrine on Terrorism is a classic demonstration of pride on prejudice against ISLAM. Mr. Gorge Bush inherited this prejudice from his father but he is demonstrating much greater pride on his prejudice. The JEHAD for freedom & survival by MUSLIMS is Terrorism in the eyes of Mr. Bush. Israel’s aggression against the innocent people of Lebanon was taken by Bush as a justified act of survival by Israel. After the cold war between America and Russia, the concept of NEW WORLD ORDER has emerged in which America and Israel are joining hands against MUSLIMS just to show their superiority over the rest of the world. Their ultimate motive is to divide the MUSLIM countries into SHIA and SUNNI blocks and make them fight against each other. This is high time that the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) should play its role to unite the MUSLIM countries against any aggression. Instead of being divided into SHIA and SUNNI blocks MUSLIMS should think about a UNITED STATE OF ISLAM. _________________WISHING YOU HEALTH & HAPPINESS. MAJOR(R) KHALID NASR