Print this


As the world war came to an end, a new era of cold war started budding in this new world. There have been several faltering endeavors to frame a new world order to guide the conduct of states and abhor further scourge of war. In other words, the new community of humankind turned new pages to erase further social problems. But unfortunately, it turned the situation upside down. It created new social tribulations. After the end of the WWII, the scenery of the global structure showed new dynamics to get an end of the long existing turbulence.
This was the period when the power enmity achieved its closing stages and a rise of disparity in north and south in wealth and access gained impetus with brutality, sadism, redundancy, homelessness and itinerancy walking on side tracks. The previously secluded people are brought together by materialization of new political associations and by the increasing integration of markets. The developments of science and communications technology are all the factors responsible.
With growth of this integration; the multicultural issue starts burgeoning. This led to several tensions going around the globe. In this process of search for the compatibility with pluralism, there have been surmounting confusions and conflicts. This variation in the global climate elevated a new susceptibility to the universal nature of human rights. The grip of the primary grasp over the cultural individualities was strong enough to mutilate the collective nature of human rights. The deep contention on the side of relativism is based on the principles of self identity, expression and designation. The crisis of self cultural identity on one side & the disintegration of universality on other is the matter of concern of this discourse.

Aim: To articulate if the universality of Human Rights is on the verge of fragmentation

• To trace the origin of relativism and universalism
• To mark out the cause behind the clash in between two
• The inevitability of cultural relativity
• Incompatibility between relativism and Universalism

Scope & Limitations
The ambit of this work is limited within the scope of Human Rights discourse. Due to constraint of time, I have dealt with the issues relevant to my aim. Instead of going extensively to the details, I have dealt with the topic only to the extent they are necessary to explain to the argument put forth.
Mode of study :
The study is absolutely analytical. The doctrinal study has been undergone to get into the root of problem. The contention that has been taken is totally based on the rational reasoning. Hence, it won’t be appropriate to regard this work hysterical or naïve in nature.
Hypothesis :
Human rights vary from culture to culture. Relativism pertains to conserve, preserve and uphold it while universalism tries to bring all under a roof to preserve the true essence of “being human”. The latter is oriented to bring integrity in spite of all prevailing diversity based on cultures. A man’s identity derives from his culture; he/she can’t fail to notice it. But the cultural relativism should not transgress the norms of all basic first generation human rights. In this contemporary globalized world, a weak radical cultural relativism harmonizes the turbulence in between these two lords; Universalism & relativism.


The most challenging question in the contemporary human rights discourse is over the existence of universal human rights in a diversified world. With gradual integration of the universal principles of human rights, the question over the cultural integrity and diversity remains unanswered. To get into the deep ocean, I have it in mind to carry some life guards with me. Hence, I will carry the principle of what I would like to mention as “G”s related to Human rights. G =Generation, G= globalization and G= governance. The first G stands for the division of human rights cohort based on its primary, secondary and tertiary level. The second G speaks about a state of modern world where all diversified culture comes under a single roof and the third G deals with the cultural governance of each state (e.g. African, American tribals and colonial nations) in defense to the application of universality. As I have raised certain question in my objectives, I will arrange my discussion accordingly. The cultural relativism asserts that the human values are far from universality and they deal according to civilizing perceptions. Hence, this conception will vary for sure. For some the promotion and protection of human rights can only be done under the shield of cultural relativism. This perception of cultures will be different in diverse ethnic mores and religions. The first generation of human rights received a moderate loom from philosophers like John Locke, Rousseau. The first generation of human rights is the basic moral rights which cannot be compromised at any instances. These are more like the modern concept of non derogatory rights. The root of the cultural relativism lies deep into collective self-sufficiency and self determination. The whole clash is between internal principles of cultural relativism and external standards of universalism. The basic moral rights are strong enough then comprehensive universalism. As it is the culture which determines the origin of a human being. So, one cannot ignore that totally to advocate the norms of universality. It is just like you cannot get into an island without sailing over the surrounding water.

Three Generation(s) of human rights

In the year 1979, Czech jurist Karl Vasak propounded the division of human rights in three subdivisions. He was a scholar in the field of European Law. His proposition was based on the three catchphrases of equality, fraternity and liberty. The source of this thought was none other than French Revolution. When we talk about the universal declaration of the human rights, we will find it as the culmination of both without any concrete division. Briefly, I want to lay an emphasis on those three divisions of human rights. As I believe, to understand this discourse, the theme should reflect the idea of basic rights.

1st Generation Human Rights
The first generation is generally denoted as the blue rights by several philosophers. As this division of human rights deal with Liberty. This is the ground level of all other secondary and tertiary rights. The nature of these human rights are very individual centric. In addition it speaks of all civil and political rights. They can also be said as negative human rights. As they preserve and provide safeguards to human beings from the arbitrary activities of states.
As mention above, this generation of human rights carries the most essential roots of basic rights, one can assume the following rights as the part of it for sure:
• Right to exercise the freedom of speech;
• Right to profess and follow a religion;
• Political rights of voting;
• Right to receive a trial based on the principles of natural rights;
• Right to live with dignity;
And many more…
As discussed by Prof.H.K.Nagaraj in his discussions on concept of human rights discourse, all these basic rights originates its buds from Bill of rights, Magna Carta and Declaration of Rights of man and the citizen of France. It was UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) which for the first time preserved this category of rights in a worldwide stage. As this the first lap of human rights or rather it will be better to say the first knot of rights which is coupled to second generatio0n of human rights. Hence, restricting the first one will automatically affect the second one. In other words, we can say that these two generations of human rights are interconnected.

2nd Generation of Human Rights:

This division of human rights is generally known as Red rights and they originated after Second World War, which speaks of right to equality, socio-economic and cultural rights. All the further branches of rights for e.g right to have proper healthcare, equal treatment among unequal, guarantee of employment and other rights based on social security principles etc. if we look into the articles 22-27 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we will find a set of rights. These can be said as second generation of human rights.

3rd Generation of Human Rights

These are the ‘Green’ rights which cross the lines of mere socio-economic, cultural, civil and political rights. With the concept of environmental issues rising gradually, we have seen Stockholm and Rio declarations and hence, these categories of human rights are very new and vey soft in nature. The amplitude of these rights are wider than previous two. Rights like self determination, pollution free environment, access to natural resources and other economic and political rights. Several governments and international instruments safeguards these generations of rights.

Hence, from this classification, we can assess that the first and second layer of human rights was never deduced for notional analysis. One was just fretful with the civil and political rights while another with socio-economic rights.

International law and universality of human rights

The United Nations Charter reflects the universality of Human Rights. It confers on each state party a commitment to respect the norms of human rights. According to some authors, thinkers and jurists, the universal concept of human rights under United Nation (UN) charter has wide amplitude. It represents the accord of human dignity. This consensus is broader than any other cultural and traditional norms. If we have a close look at the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), we can see a clear picture of universality right on its face. The preamble of UDHR proclaims, “ common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”

This statement is echoed most recently in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which repeats the same language to reaffirm the status of the Universal Declaration as a “common standard” for everyone.

The Vienna Convention like UDHR stands on the floor of universality of human rights. It is clearly states the obligation of every member state to preserve promote and protect the value of Human Rights. The preservation and protection of human rights is the utmost responsibility of every member state despite their cultural perspectives. The Vienna convention explicitly expresses the term “universal nature” in it, which implies the universality of human rights and freedom ahead of any questions. The obligation lies on the state to respect this universal nature of human rights. A state cannot claim exemption from this obligation. Even if during crisis, the state bounds to mould, it can do so only with the affirmation of the guidelines of Siracusa principles from derogations of rights. The Vienna convention enunciates the obligation of the International principles of human rights as the first responsibility of a state.

If we turn the page of history, we will find that there has been several thinkers who have explained their views related to this discourse

He was a strong believer of universal truth and good quality. In further states this idea took a new shape of universalism. The shape, which redefines human rights at a new altitude.

St Thomas Aquinas
He saw that basic human needs such as self preservation require fundamental human rights.

Aristotle’s view of the world included the existence of different social classes, accepting that there will always be an underclass and even a slave class and that this is perfectly normal. According to him, Human rights are resting upon the moral universalism. If we look up to the origin of this moral universalism, we will find the role of Aristotle and Stoics is immense. In Nichomachean Ethics, he explains an existence of natural moral order. According to him, that is the base of all lucid system of justice.
Aristotle writes, ‘the natural is that which has the same validity everywhere and does not depend upon acceptance.’ (Nicomachean Ethics, 189) Thus, the criteria for determining a truly rational system of justice pre-exist social and historical conventions. ‘Natural justice’ pre-exists specific social and political configurations’.

Hobbes and Bentham
They were the propounders of positive law. According to them, the human rights must be preserved by a hard shield. They seek strong law to protect them. They took a different standpoint. As Bentham was strong believer of utilitarianism. Hence, he supported the individual protection of every people.


According to him, the law came under the framework of a national legislation. That too is based on natural law, which bears in itself natural rights. Hence, the power of state was still subject to unassailable rights. His idea rests on the consequent development after French and American Revolution


With him came the social contract theory, where citizens enter into a contract with the state and in turn state ensures protection and equality to all its subjects.

John Stuart Mill

His work On Liberty was firmly stands opposite to the ideology of utilitarianism. According to him, utilitarianism is a form of tyranny by bulk. According to him, freedom of general public should not be absolute in nature.


According to him, the individual rights should not be infringed and transgressed by another individual in his enjoyment of rights.

Marx and Engels

They had a very different of view of rights. On the other hand, Marx had a different view on Liberalism. As he said, “Equality was more important that liberty, especially in the ownership of private property (fundamental tenet of communism)”.


He strongly opposes Bentham’s theory on Utilitarianism. According to him, human rights are not universal but a result of politics. The sole purpose of which is to promote equality among individuals.

John Rawls

His stand on Human Rights is very empathetic in nature. According to him, the state should distribute equally among all individuals the benefits unless the unequal distributions will help the poor class of the society. He believes Human rights as an outcome of social solidarity of all individuals living harmoniously in a society. His view lends to cultural relativism.

According to Michael J Perry,
The idea of human rights consists of two parts: the premise or claim that every human being is sacred (inviolable, etc.), and the further claim that because every human being is sacred (and given all other relevant information), certain choices should be made and certain other choices rejected; in particular, certain things ought not to be done to any human being and certain other things ought to be done for every human being.4 One fundamental challenge to the idea of human rights addresses the first part of the idea; it contests the claim that every human being is sacred. Another fundamental challenge, the one with which this article is principally concerned, addresses the second part of the idea. According to this latter challenge, whether or not every human being is sacred-and, so, even if every human being is sacred-there are no things that ought not to be done (not even any things that conditionally rather than unconditionally ought not to be done) to any human being and no things that ought to be done (not even any things that conditionally rather than unconditionally ought to be done) for every human being.
Based on this discourse, one can differentiate the claim that has been put by the author. The human rights on the sacredness of whole homo sapiens and human rights confined to a particular community. The second disputation lies on the theme that not all human beings are sacred in nature. The author laid an emphasis certain philosophies that prevailed for ling and even now it is prevailing in certain geographical area of Africa, Nazis in Germany and of course women in many states. The relativists challenge the first claim that all human beings are sacred. They support the second contention. The author gave a good example of Nazi ideology where mass killing was not regarded as human rights violations as they never regarded Jews as sacred Human beings. They regarded the Jews as pseudo humans. On the same footing the author has also criticized the ideology of Serbians. The Serbs rapists and murderers believed that they are purifying the world from pseudo humans. Their culture permits that with respect. So question lies where the protection of rights lied in those situations?

According to Martha Nussbaum,

“even the most persuasive rebuttals of relativist arguments typically fail to address challenges to the fundamental claim that all human beings are sacred.”

She explains that the good of a human being is an objective, valuable to pursue his own rights keeping the pain and pleasure on sidelines. What she meant by other human beings is all human beings. In her essay we can feel of solidarity among all humans. She points that very human feels the difference and disturbance when any happens around them. She express that real world if filled with Primo Levi i.e. “Us¬-ism”

“Those on the Rosenstrasse who risked their lives for Jews did not express opposition to anti-Semitic policies per se. They displayed primarily what the late Primo Levi, a survivor of Auschwitz, called “selfishness extended to the person closest to you . . . us-ism.” In most of the stories that I have heard of Aryans who risked their lives for Jews to whom they were married, they withdrew to safety, one by one, the moment their loved ones were released. Their protests bring home to us the iron limits, the tragically narrow borders, of us-ism”.

Hence, the scholastic altitude has reached the height of huge critiques both in favor and against of universalism-relativism debate. The post European renaissance thought has even entered the arena of Indian politics, where claims like “one nation, one culture and one peoples” created so much of debate.
The human rights are not correspondent to justice or perfect society or even democracy but it is related, dependent to all these. It declares a claim of an individual over the society and over another individual of that society. The idea of the human rights is totally based moral nitty-gritty and the idea is political in nature. This political ideology will triumph among individual and society.

Impact of Globalization and Governance

With the development of science and technology, the gap across the boundaries has been minimized. If we look at the recent development of 20th and 21st centuries, we will find several new branches of International Law have emerged. These laws not only guide the conduct of all those nations but also reflect the unity among all nations. At present, we can even find a person sitting in some outskirts of Mumbai, India is helping a Yankee to reach a destination through the streets of New York City, United States Of America. This outsourcing of information reflects that the concept of human beings under the umbrella of universal brotherhood. Be the international legislations like TRIPs, GATT now WTO. All these norms, bodies are bringing the diverse cultured people together. The wall of variation still remains at certain points. But no one can deny that the impact of globalization has also made the downtrodden feel, “If an American lady can have such rights then why can’t we?” This inspiration cannot be ignored. But this turn out to be threat for certain strong relativists. On the other side the governance of certain countries where the cultural aspects has been amalgamated with the political motives and issues, the situation is very pathetic. Some of the examples from the pages of history are women under the regime off Taliban, the apartheid of Africa, ethic rivals in Rwanda and many more. In Afghanistan, the long conflicts took a leap and today we can find largest number of children without limb and widow in there. Education of girls are still maintaining low profile. Exact statistics may give us a fair idea but not the exact idea. As to ascertain that, the freedom to expression is necessary; which is still questionable. The same with Sudan, Congo. It is not just universalism that is standing against relativism but inter cultural spar is also a matter of issue.

The contention from this side is that rights exist everywhere and every time. The UDHR is the founding stone of this ideology. Universality cannot be ignored when we believe that human beings all around the globe are same. This dogma has been deeply criticized by several relativists. According to them, the UDHR is Euro-centric; western oriented concept. The time it was enacted several states were either under colonial rules and several just got freedom from long imperialistic rule of those western countries. Hence, we are not supposed to expect those countries to follow the western norms, who have already dominated them for hundred years. Even though nations like India became a part of it. The Islamic states till date are the strongest opponent of universality. Even African states are on their side only. The period when UDHR came into force, all those budding independent state were far more concerned about their internal affairs and development. The idea of human rights protection was not their first criteria. But the political and philosophical thoughts of human rights were not always universal. The origin of this philosophy lies back in 17th century in the theory of natural rights by John Locke.
“In America, we tend to pro-claim Thomas Jefferson’s restatement of Locke in the Declaration of Independence. But the idea was rejected by traditionalists such as Edmund Burke. It was rejected by progressives, even such eminent progressives as Jeremy Bentham. Bentham said: Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical non-sense-nonsense upon stilts. An American thinker once wrote that natural rights have been as much “the shield of conservatism as the sword of radicalism.”

In later stages of 19th and 20th century, these thoughts of natural rights came under the huge criticism of positivists. According to Jerome Frank,
Natural rights have been as much “the shield of conservatism as the sword of radicalism”.
The idea of universalism was also attacked by socialists and the communitarians tagged human rights as self centric and egoistic in nature.

The roots of the declaration of universal human rights deeply rooted in the Bill of rights, which in itself maintained the silence over racial discrimination, slavery and rights of vote. The discrimination on the basis of sex and even minorities was prevailing in America. On the other side of the planet in the year of 1789, France asserted its Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Even it never preserved the interests of the downtrodden. There have been several human rights violations in all those western nations for more than a decade.
“Religions, too, have challenged the idea of rights. At various times, almost every religion-including Protestantism, whose stress on the individual contributed to the idea -has not

received the idea of human rights warmly. Religions have not tended to favor ideas that could be seen as essentially anthropocentric”.

At last the cultural philosophers incriminated the western thoughts for natural rights theory and its overreaching effects over cultural relativism. As mentioned above the concept of human rights is based on political idea, it cannot be denied that in this contemporary world political universality has taken a shape of mammoth. It has received huge universal support. Follows by the political universality the legal universality gave an idea to the concepts of Human rights. This can be evidenced from the enactment of UN charter. Today the UDHR has been recognized by almost every state. Not only that the application of the customary law of human rights has even wider amplitude. In several decisions of International court of justice, we have seen that. Right after that, in this present scenario, most of the member states have ratified the UDHR. But even then we cannot say that the universalism- political or legal; has achieved that height of acceptability. As the relativism prevails on side lines who believes such acceptance as oratory and facade. As Louis Henkin writes:

“We may be approaching universality even among philosophers. Natural rights have had a rebirth. Philosophers who continue to eschew natural rights may nonetheless recognize a sense of common moral intuition that provides a basis for human right.”

Cultural Relativism

The only strong contender of universality in present situation is just one- CULTURE. As discussed earlier, the believers of this philosophy maintain a standpoint that the Universalism is the result of western philosophies. There is a huge debate over the imposition of these thoughts to other parts of the world. Especially third world countries are very susceptible to Western ideologies and this is not an exception. But the peculiar point that is the resistance of these third world nations is hardly on the universality of human rights; but against the politics of United Nations and the master minds behind it. This has been very clear to all that the United Nations speaks what P5 speaks. In this contemporary political world, the political thoughts of human rights are ingrained in interpersonal principles. The principles of relativism can be further sub divided into two parts:


Strong Radical Relativism Weak Radical Relativism
The culture cannot be overlooked when it comes in clash with the universal norms of human rights. It is also undeniable that certain cultures are totally in gross violations of morality. If we apply the principles of morality; we will discover gross deviations. For example, the struggle for emancipation of women in Islamic states is still a matter of huge concern. The suppression is still on. Even if they want to, they can’t. The shackles of culture are tight enough. If a particular culture permits child marriage, then a question lies if it is a violation of the child rights according to its universal norms (say Convention of the Rights of Child). Here, lies the question. I believe the equality has not been accepted universally completely. The world has evolved but it has not evolved to that extent. It is just not the Eastern countries which defend on the ground of culture; if we turn the pages of history, we will find that even the western countries permitted the human rights violations in the name of culture for long. The conception of human rights is based on a common moral institution, which is practically universal in nature and those rights are affable. Amiable and also acceptable by several nations. The gross violations of these rights in several countries reflect not the cultural resistance but the opposition based on socio-political and economic under development and volatility. This can be said as a result of weak constitutionalism. On the other side, as I mentioned certain rights like rights of women, children and even religious in nature are yet unacceptable.
The question over the universal and relative nature of human rights affirmed in vital instruments of the Human Rights movement has been a resource of discussion. The nature of the human rights has been casted in different ways but they are all related to each other. The argument lies between the rights of following types:
• Absolute rights (compared to Universal rights) as opposed to contingent rights (compare relative);
• Imperialism in daunting rights (compare universal) as opposed to self determination of peoples (compare relative).
With the development of the human rights, the competition between these also continued to enter in a nascent level. Although the process is slow but one cannot deny the depth of the debate. In simple words, let us take the proponents of the universalism on one hand claiming the international human rights like right to religion, speech, expression, security against torture, free association are and should be uniform everywhere. But this claim applies least as to the rights in general content when the question the basic rights raise questions over the uniformity. Advocates of the relativism claims that some of the rights like morality are deeply coded in cultural milieu. The term culture if applied broadly may reach beyond the aboriginal traditions and customs, which may include both political and religious dogmas. Therefore the conceptions of moral rules may vary from place to place as the culture varies from place to place. This relativist pose can then be understood simply to emphasize as an experiential matter that the world contains a notable multiplicity in views about right and wrong that is allied to the varied fundamental cultures. But the strong traditionalists go ahead of this philosophy of relativism. It attaches an significant result to diversity, that no uplifting or transcultural ideas of the right can be found or agreed on, and hence that no culture or state is justified in endeavoring to inflict on other cultures or states what must be understood to be ideas linked predominantly with it. On this basis, the cultural relativism necessarily opposes a basic foundation of the human rights movement.

According to the relativist, the landmark instrument like universal declaration of human rights and their pretentiousness to universality may principally the haughtiness or cultural imperialism of the west like Christianity and liberalism. The urge of west to see their culture and ideology as universally accepted is nothing but a push to imposition of culture over the other. The cold war period saw such a glimpse of debate between non religious communist nations and western capitalist. The latter accused the former for violating certain basic rights like civil-political rights. on the other hand they retaliated the western countries for violating basic rights like socio-economic rights.

Anthropologists have long had to struggle with these concerns, in the framework of their ethnographic writings about miscellaneous cultures whose practices and values go away from the west. These practices are more often subjected to huge disparagement based on moral grounds. The anthropological writings have sought principally to clarify, portray the alien ethnicity within one hypothetical and mechanical perspective. The role of the anthropologists has always been different from that of human rights monitoring advocates. To be sure, investigators and advocates may also look for to comprehend and to illustrate the cultural perspectives in which they are functioning. But those operational with the large human rights organizations, typically combine their description of moral and legal appraisal of a state’s behavior adjacent to international human rights standards.

Call for tolerance

Melville Herskovits and Ruth Benedict were the only two outstanding proponents in United States of America who articulated over this debatable discourse. Both of them were the student of Boas. Two different versions of ethical relativism have been sophisticated by these anthropologists. A line of demarcation is necessary to differentiate them. As they have their separate qualities and errors. One is ethical skepticism that has been denoted as Boasian Relativism by scholars. Ethical skepticism suggests that nothing is wrong or right. There are no honest philosophies with a rational claim to authenticity. According to Boasian Skepticism, there is some validity of the principles of right and wrong, but that is limited. They are legitimate only up to certain members of the society.

The most remarkable opposition from the side of the east against the western notions of the human rights has been expressed in Bangkok Declaration. Article 56 of which have explicitly declared universal declaration of human rights as western oriented. Amartya Sen denotes this as an Asian Value of human rights. While on the contrary Vienna Declaration declared Human Rights as universal. In this conflict of two heads, we will find several protagonists speaking on cultural diversity. Some proponents like Jeremy Bentham said it as simple non sense. The contribution of Edmund Burke cannot be even ignored. The contention on the side of the relativist has also been that the universality of human rights is Christian biased and an ethno centric construct. Based on the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin, another proponent, Herbert Spencer said that evolution is a cosmic process. All culture throughout the world developed spontaneously. The culture progresses from simple to complex form. Based on the Darwinian concepts, the universality proponents believed that the survival of the fittest is the sole end and those who are fit and righteous to rule over the weak. They regard it as natural collection process, where the incapable will be eliminated. Boas on the other hand gave birth to the concept of Enculturation, which mean every person from the initial days of his life; learns from his/her surroundings. This principle has been analyzed beautifully in three shelves:
• Learning directly from culture;
• Consciously watching the person surrounding him/her;
• Unconsciously gather some of the traits.

Melville explained that evolution depends on the cultural background. While John Locke has tagged cultural relativism as an ethnocentric notion. Ruth Benedict has elucidated this concept on abnormality-normality concept. He said, what is abnormal for me may be the cornerstone for them (universality followers). This is undeniable that a universalist who criticize a culture’s practice as contradictory to the norms of universal declaration may be criticized in turn for not understanding and not knowing that culture from death. In simple statement, “How can you criticize my culture when you don’t even know my culture at all?”


As mentioned in my hypothesis, I believe the weak radical culture relativism will stand balanced in between this whole turbulence. The co-existence of both universalism and relativism is inevitable. A harmonious approach is necessary to bring equilibrium. I would like to conclude my discourse answering the following:
Is this concept of Universal Human Rights, western?
Yes, it is.
Is Universality of Human rights are on the verge of fragmentation?
No! It isn’t.

To lead an ordinary life in this sophisticated world of technology, Human rights are essential. This is because the development of the concept of human right is bound up with and given its meaning by sluggish progress. The compatibility between with the development and individual survival is matter of concern. But in the modern-day world, the political showground as defined by socio-economic and ideological inclinations affirms safeguard of human rights a prime and sanctified duty. Hitherto it should be kept in mind that the introduction of human rights in a new culture even before the prologue of the techniculture will amounts to technological invasion. A space should be made for other traditions and cultures. Other traditions and cultures should be given the space to formulate their homeomorphic views equivalent to the conflicting to the Western rights or they should make their own space when no one is going to make them. This is necessary for survival of these diverse cultures. In my concluding statement I wish to quote one of the scholars statement,
“The need for human pluralism is often recognized in principle, but not often practiced, not only because of the dynamism which drives the paneconomic ideology, linked with mega machine, to expand all over the world but also because viable alternatives are not yet theoretically worked out”.



• Arvind Sharma, Are Human Rights Western? (New York, Oxford University Press 2006)
• Christian Tomuschat, Human rights between idealism and realism (New York, Oxford University Press 2008)
• J.S.Verma, A new universe of human rights (New Delhi, Universal Publications 2004)
• Upendra Baxi, Human Rights in Post Human World (New York, Oxford University Press 2002)
• Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (New York, Oxford University Press 2002)
• Arvind Sharma, Letters, Notes & Comments, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Spring, 2000)
• David R. Penna and Patricia J. Campbell, Human Rights and Culture: Beyond Universality and Relativism, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Mar., 1998)
• Louis Henkin, The Universality of the Concept of Human Right, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 506, Human Rights around the World (Nov., 1989)
• Maura Leen, Human Rights: The Crisis and the Challenge, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, Vol. 88, No. 350 (Summer, 1999)
• Michael Goodhart, Origins and Universality in the Human Rights Debates: Cultural Essentialism and the Challenge of Globalization, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Nov., 2003)
• Michael Ignatiff, The Attack on Human Rights, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 6 (Nov. – Dec., 2001)
• Paul Greedy, The Politics of Human Rights, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Aug., 2003)

Web Sources:


Print this

Related posts:

  1. Concurrent Jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court over violation of Fundamental Rights