Author: Munmun Jha
Publication: Mkgandhi.org
Date:
URL: http://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/gandhiambedkarrights.htm
Introduction - Gandhi has been attributed
as being the inspiration or model for various rights struggles around the
world. In seeking to understand the notion of human rights in the context
of the approach and ideology of Mahatma Gandhi, let us examine the notion
of human rights. What are human rights? Are they moral rights, or are they
legal rights? Then we focus on the Indian context, sketching the views of
Gandhi, and contrasting these with those of Ambedkar, his arch-rival and the
architect of the Indian constitution.
The Notion of Human Rights
The term "human rights" has been
made familiar by its use in today's international political discourse, and
the prominence accorded to it by the media. However, its meaning is not always
apparent or indisputable. Without going into abstract philosophical debates,
it would suffice to say that a right is something to which we are entitled.
This word in ordinary English usage not only means a "lawful entitlement";
it also means a "just entitlement."1
"Human rights" is an even more complex
term. The idea of human rights or the rights of the individual is commonly
associated with the various forms of liberal individualism as they developed
in the West.
The human rights movement, as we know it today,
began in order to check state violation of constitutional rights or norms
and make the state more accountable. More specifically, it is the result of
the experiences of the Second World War. There seems to be international political
consensus on the list of rights in Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
which is explicitly endorsed by all nations. However, there is a lack of consensus
among philosophers, political scientists, and rights scholars on the philosophy,
origins, or justifications of the ideas of human rights. Other questions that
occupy them relate to the universality of human rights and to the status of
social, economic, and cultural rights.2
While most authors believe that human rights
are vital, they disagree about the nature and source of authority of human
rights. They argue that without a legal status, rights cannot be enforced.
In this debate it is important to note that where human rights are upheld
by laws, they can be both moral as well as legal rights.
In this very context, the question of the
justification of human rights is perhaps more fundamental: How does being
human give rise to rights? According to a moral or philosophical approach,
human rights are necessary to human dignity.3 Some of the sources of legitimacy
identified are religion or morality modified by medieval philosophers, and
later espoused by political thinkers who saw human rights as derived from
the principles of the law of nature?contending that human rights stem from
a higher law than the state. The positivists, on the other hand, contend that
all authority stems from what the state and officials have prescribed.4
In the modern Indian context, Mohanty contends:
Rights have been conceptualized not as claims
recognized by the state but as political affirmations pursued through struggles.
This is not to say that rights need no sanction of the state. It is to assert
that even if they do not have the state sanction they are rights because they
are accepted by the current stage of the human civilization as basic conditions
deserved for every human being. The struggle for rights seeks state recognition
but pursues it in society and culture to further realize it in practice.5
This is indeed how it was in the colonial
period and in the 50 years after national independence.6 But this way of looking
at it brings human rights closer to the notion of natural or moral rights.
Or, is it, in the Gandhian perspective, imposing a duty on the state to recognize
the rights of the people? Gandhi's notion of human rights is closer to the
views of the moralists. And interestingly, the view of Ambedkar, is that rights
are positive rights.
Gandhi: The Moral Perspective
What was Gandhi's ideology as far as human
rights are concerned? As the leader of the national freedom movement, Gandhi's
objective was to attain independence, but his other objective was to save
Indian society, and more specifically, Hinduism. He insisted that India should
show her capacity to reform herself even while asking for freedom. His method
of integrating nationalist aspirations within the framework of social reform
explains his extraordinary tactics, for example, his manner of suddenly calling
off a movement when the nature of the movement turned violent.7
An important aspect of Gandhi's reform was
that it had to take place absolutely within Hinduism. This was illustrated
in Poona in 1931 when he fasted to exact from Ambedkar his withdrawal of the
demand of a separate electorate for the Untouchables.8
His thrust was that of a social reformer campaigning
amongst the higher castes of the Hindu community, propagating social acceptance
of the Untouchables by the community. In this process, he renamed the Untouchables
"Harijans" (sons of God).
Gandhi's programme of social reform was based
on duties rather than on rights. He said very clearly that he did not care
for rights, but for duties:
If all simply insist on rights and no duties,
there will be utter confusion and chaos. If instead of insisting on rights
everyone dies his duty, there will immediately be the rule of order established
among manking.9
Not only did he value duties more than rights,
but went further to say that the assertion of rights might even be harmful:
While it is true that
.hereditary inequalities
must go as being injurious to the well-being of society, the unabashed assertion
of rights of the hitherto downtrodden millions us equally injurious, if not
more so, to the same well-being. The latter behaviour is probably calculated
to injure the millions rather than the few claimant of divine or other rights.
They could not die a brave or cowardly death but those few dead would not
bring in the orderly life of blissful contenetment.10
He argued that if there were any rights at
all, it could only be the result of well-performed duties:
It is therefore necessary to understand the
correlation between rights and duties. I venture to suggest that rights that
do not flow directly from duty well-performed are not worth having. They will
be usurpations sooner discarded the better.11
When someone does not perform his duty in
relation to someone else, Gandhi takes the example of the prince and the ryot
(peasant). He says that if princes, whose duty is to act servants of the people,
fail to perform their duty, "the ryots not only owe no return duty, but
the duty devolves on them of resisting the princely usurpation. It may be
otherwise said that ryots earn the right to resisting the usurpation or misrule."
This resistance must, however, be peaceful, in keeping with the doctrine of
ahimsa (nonviolence): "The resistance will become a crime against man
in terms of duty if it takes the form of murder, rapine, and plunder."12
When H.G. Wells13 sought Gandhi's opinion
on the "Rights of Man" drawn up by him, Gandhi argued for a "Charter
of Duties" instead. The text of the cable that Gandhi sent to Wells sets
out his views regarding rights and duties in no uncertain terms.14
Received your cable. Have carefully read your
five articles. You will permit me to say that you are in the wrong track.
I feel sure that I can draw up a better charter of rights than you have drawn
up. But what good will it be? Who will become its guardian? If you mean propaganda
or popular education, you have begun at the wrong end. I suggest the right
way. Begin with a charter of Duties of Man (both M and D capitals) 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
I had none, not even over my wife. So I began by discovering and 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. If this
too tall a claim, then I say I do not know anyone who possesses greater rights
than I.
Gandhi takes the attitude of a social reformer
calling upon the higher castes to accept the Untouchables. He does not say
that the Untouchables have rights, but says that upper castes have a duty
towards them. When he advocates resistance, he adds that it must be done in
the manner of Satyagraha-that is, not by asking for rights, but by showing
the other person what his duty is. It is obvious that Gandhian notions are
not sympathetic to human rights unless they are products of duties well-performed.
Ambedkar: The Legal Perspective
Gandhi's views can be contrasted with those
of Ambedkar (1892-1956). Though both championed the cause of the Untouchables,
their approaches differed widely.
The Untouchables were designated as Scheduled
Castes under the Government of India Act of 1935-and this term is still in
use. Gandhi had started and popularized the term Harijan for the Untouchables
(though many saw it as patronizing). Ambedkar, however, continued to use the
term Untouchables.15 The term now being increasingly used for them is "dalit"
denoting "the oppressed."16
Ambedkar characterized the national movement
led by Gandhi as the "struggle for power distinguished from freedom"
and accused all political parties of showing no concern for the cause of the
Untouchables. He firmly believed that the caste Hindus would not concede any
rights to the Untouchables due to the very nature of Hinduism itself: "The
Hindus have an innate and inveterate conservatism and they have a religion
which is incompatible with liberty, equality, and fraternity, i.e. with democracy."17
It might be said that he simply did not trust the Hindus.
His position thus led him to assert that the
Hindus and Untouchables were "not merely different by antagonistic,"
and demand that the Untouchables ought to be treated as distinct from the
Hindus. He advocated a separatist policy, including radical changes in the
village system, that is, forming separate Scheduled Caste villages, with land
and money for settlement to be provided by the government. He called this
the "New Life Movement," whose object was to "free the Untouchables
from the thralldom of the Hindus."18
Thus he advocated reservations in government
and legislatures, in public services, judiciary, revenue and police services
for Untouchables on the basis of "minimum qualification"-and not
on the basis of "highest qualification"-for he argued that "self-government
is better than good government" and that "good government based
on highest qualification will be a communal government."19
While dismissing the idea of a purely territorial
constituency, which would "only enable the Hindus to collect and concentrate
all political power in their hands," and mixed electorates, where the
representative would at best only be a "nominal representative"
not a "real representative" of the Untouchables, Ambedkar argued
that there should be separate electorates, that is, an electorate composed
exclusively of Untouchable voters who would elect Untouchables as their representatives
to the Legislature. His argument was that the caste basis of the Hindu society
required this kind of political structure. He believed t hat only constitutional
provisions could guarantee rights to the Untouchables. 20
Concluding Remarks
The wider concept of claims is still the starting
point for the understanding of the term "rights." Those claims which
are in accordance of with some objective standards, whether those of a code
of morality or those of a legal system-are usually and aptly called rights.
Depending on the basis of recognition, they may be called moral or legal rights.21
Thus rights which are laid down in law are called legal rights. They may be
defended in a national court of law. Rights arising out of general principles
of fairness and justice are called moral rights. A moral right may or may
not be supported by the law of the land. Moral rights are thus claimed by
"people in particular situations." They are not rights that can
be claimed by all people in all situation.22
In spite of theoretical debates, any movement
for social or political reform which claims to be promoting freedom in some
form or other (social justice, social transformation, etc.) is guaranteed
a measure of respect. Few among us would want to be identified as hostile
to freedom of human rights. Rights organizations play a significant role in
promoting and protecting the rights of individuals and groups, often mediating
between them and the state. A large number of rights organizations in India
see questions of human rights as necessarily having a moral slant; but as
they seek solutions to various kinds of abuses, they are often forced to recognize
the paramount importance of the role of governmental agencies.
To accept Gandhi's notion that rights and
duties are two sides of the same coin would be too simplistic. It can be valid
only in an ideal world, but since we live in the grim reality of humans fighting
not only for resources, but for self-respect and dignity, the notion of rights
assumes added significance. The notion of duties has sadly been used by those
in position of power either to deny rights to others, or to dole out peaceful
favours, eroding not only the dignity of the recipients of such so-called
favours, but also eroding the power of the others to work towards standing
on their own feet.
Though Gandhi did not agree to becoming a
part of Nehru's civil liberties organization, he nonetheless has become a
symbol for rights organizations all over the world. Similarly, Ambedkar is
a symbol of dalit identity, inspiring several social and political movements
with a view to restoring dignity to the so-called lower castes. Zelliot has
aptly summarized the relative positions of Gandhi and Ambedkar.
Gandhi sought to change the heart of the caste
Hindus by moral pressure within the framework of Hindu tradition. Ambedkar
continued to work in the fields of education and politics in an attempt to
gain legal rights for the Untouchables in the secular world.23
Ambedkar's methods and solutions for the advancement
of Untouchables, through legal and constitutional measures seems more in tune
with the realities of Indian social order than Gandhi's attempt "to change
the caste Hindus." It is not surprising, therefore, that the guiding
ideology of the Untouchables, scheduled castes, and other backward castes
in modern India is that of Ambedkar rather than that of Gandhi. It is also
amply clear that the final aim of both the leaders was the same-to achieve
some kind of equality among different strata of people, to end exploitation,
and to ensure a life of dignity for all.
Both the leaders have thus in their own ways
been responsible for the establishment and ideological sustenance of a large
number of organizations that claim to work in the field of human rights.
---------------------------------------------------
Notes and References
1 David Selby, Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987), p.7.
2 Jack Donnelly, International Human Rights, (Colorado, Westview Press, 1993),
p. 25.
3 Jack Donnelly, International Human Rights, p. 21.
4 Jerome J. Shestack, "The Jurisprudence of Human Rights," in Theodor
Meron, ed., Human Rights in International Law: Legal and Policy Issues (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1984), Vol. 1, pp. 75-83.
5 Manoranjan Mohanty, "The Changing Definition of Rights in India,"
in Sujata Patel, Jasodhara Bagchi, and Krishna Raj, eds., Thinking Social
Sciences in India: Essays in Honour of Alice Thorner (New Delhi: Sage, 2002),
p. 437.
6 For a brief account of the establishment of the first human rights organizations
in India, see Munmum Jha, "Nehru and Civil Liberties in India,"
in International Journal of Human Rights, Volume 7, Number 3, pp. 103-115
7 An excellent example is calling of the Non Co-operation movement in February
1922 after a crowd attacked a police station in Chauri Chaura, killing 22
policemen. See A.R. Social Background of Indian Nationalism (Bombay: Popular
Prakashan, 1976), p. 352
8 Louis Dumont, "Nationalism and Communalism," in Religion, Politics
and History in India: Collected Papers in Indian Sociology, Paris: Mouton
Publishers, 1970, p.104.
9 M.K. Gandhi, "Rights and Duties," in Raghvan Iyer, ed., The Moral
and Political Writings of Mahatma Gandhi (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986),
Vol. 3, p. 496. (First published in Harijan, 6 July 1947).
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., p. 498.
13 Herbert George Wells (1886-1946), English novelist and historian; author
of The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds, The Shape of Things to Come, The
Outline of History, The Invisible Man, and various other works.
14 Gandhi as quoted in Raghvan Iyer, The Moral and Political Writings of Mahatma
Gandhi, Vol. 3, p. 492-3. (First published in The Hindustan Times, 16 April
1940).
15 B.R. Ambedkar, Emancipation of the Untouchables (Bombay: Thacker and Co.
Ltd., 1972), p. 15. (First published in 1943). For a discussion of various
terms for the Untouchables, see Harold R. Isaacs, "The Ex-Untouchables,"
in Michael J. Mahar, ed., The Untouchables in Contemporary India, pp. 13-14
16 The term "Dalit" popularized by the protest movements since the
1970s, includes all backward sections, and at times, specifically the Untouchables.
See Barbara R. Joshi, ed., Untouchable! Voices of the Dalit Liberation Movement
(London: Zed Books and The Minority Rights Group, 1986), pp. 3-4
17 B.R. Ambedkar, Emancipation of the Untouchables, pp. 52-53.
18 Ibid., pp. 15-18, 32-33, 37 and 40.
19 Ibid., pp. 16 and 31
20 Ibid., pp. 15-16 and 24-30
21 F.E. Dowrick, ed., Human Rights: Problems, Perspectives and Texts, (Aldershot:
Gower), p.8.
22 David Selby, Human Rights, pp. 6-8; see also Maurice Cranston, What Are
Human Rights? P. 19-22
23 Eleanor Zelliot, "Gandhi and Ambedkar-A
Study in Leadership," p.86
- Source: Gandhi Marg, Vol. 26, No. 3, October-December
2004