MAHATMA GANDHI IN THE CHANGING TIMES

Mahatma Gandhi and Human Rights

Mr. Raj Dave

BA-LLB Student
GLS Law College, GLS Campus
Opp. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad – 380006, Gujarat State.
E-mail [rajkumardave03@gmail.com]

Abstract: - India is a country with largest population in context of area across the world which
says about 130 cr people. It is the largest parliamentary democracy which is governed under the
largest written constitution of the world. If we analyze the jest of the preamble of Indian
constitution then we will get the proportion of protection of human rights more as compare to other
tools of governance. In past centuries that is before thousands of years the emergence of human
rights was born in the Cyrus cylinder which again was observed and followed by the roman concept
of natural law. British crown has also played remarkable part in the contribution of human rights.
But in 1931 the world observed the impeccable infringement of human rights with death of
approximately 90 million lives. World had never experienced highly intensified extenuation of
human rights. But it also united the majority of the countries to take a stand on behalf of
individual’s human rights protection which resulted into the universal development of human
rights. Gandhiji also played a vital role in this affirmative results. His thought was about the
entitlement of individuals rights not only in country of India but across world. Thus the fight for
protection of human rights raised which made whole population the understanding and
substantiality of duties of individual. There are still existence rights but not all of them. Because
the concept of democracy prevails then it’s obvious that it is all dependent on the social discretion.
Laws and rights changes with accordance with society because law is for the society. 21st century
brought very unique changes in the human rights in context of social demand.

Key words: - Human Rights, UDHR, Democracy, Cyrus cylinder, Gandhian Ideology, DPSPs,
Constitution of India.
Introduction: - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was an astute anarchist who was responsible
for the Indian independence (1947) and substantially known as a promoter of human rights not
only in country called India but at the international platform. The only reason gandhiji was given
a prefix of 'mahatma' (mahana atma in Hindi - great soul) was he gave awareness to everyone
about the individuals recognition which may be called human rights of a person. The change in
the process of the society after this all recognitions which actually started in 21st century is
analytically contradictory to the gandhiji's era. It just gave a boost to the individual to demand and
give importance to his or her rights. But what actually human rights is? Who decided or declared
human rights? And what is the relevance of it with 21st century social change? All this questions
will be answered in the particular submission.

History- human rights: - According to united nation there are total 30 rights which are
unanimously called human rights. Which is world’s most widely accepted document on the
particular subject. But it was a long time in coming.

At just in 200 BC there were no human rights. If you are in with the right crowd you were safe, if
u weren’t then you were not. But then a guy named Cyrus the great in 539 BC decided to change
all that after conquering Babylon. He did something completely revolutionary. He announced that
all slaves were free to go, he also said that people had the freedom to choose their religion no
matter what crowd they were a part of. They documented his words on a clay tabel known as the
Cyrus cylinder (539 BC). And just like that human rights were born. The idea spread quickly to
Greece, India and Romans in 272 BC and 277 BC respectively.

They notice that people naturally follow certain law even if they were told to. They called that
natural law. But it keep getting trampled on by those in power. Until thousand years later in
England. They finally get a king ' magna carta ' in tear 1215 AD to agree that no one can overrule
the rights to people not even the king. People rights were finally recognized and they were now
safe from those in power kind of. It still took a bunch of British rebels debarring their independence
before the king at the point that all men are created equal. In Britain a petition of rights was filed
in year 1628 and following that petition the bill was introduced in the year 1689 the bill pertaining
to rights.
On that year America was born. The French immediately followed with their own revolution for
their own rights. Their list of rights was even longer and they initiated that these rights weren’t
just made up they were natural. The roman concept of natural law become natural rights in 1789.

Unfortunately not everyone was so thrilled. In French, general Napoleon Bonaparte decided to
overthrow the new French democracy and crown himself emperor of the world. In the year 1800.
He almost succeeded but the country of Europe joined forces and defeated. Human rights was
again a hot topic. They drew up international agreement broadly guaranteeing many rights across
Europe. The rest of the world somehow still didn't qualify instead they got invaded conquered and
consumed by the Europe’s massive empires. But then a young lawyer from India named Mohandas
karamchand Gandhi decided that it’s enough of resistance by individual in year 1915.

In the face of violence he instead that all the people of earth had the right not just Europe.
Eventually even Europeans started to agree but it wasn’t going to be that easy that time. The most
important infringement and value retarding thing or war happened were whole world was divided
into two divisions. Yes the Second World War 1931. Adolf Hitler exterminated half of the Jewish
population on earth in horrifying Nazi death camps. Never had a human rights been so terrifyingly
close to extinction and never the world been more desperate for change

So the countries in the year 1945 of earth handed together and framed a united nation. Basic
purpose for formation was to “reaffirm faith fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person".

But question still remains unanswered that were they the proclamation of Cyrus? The natural law
of Rome? And the declaration of French. Everyone seem to have differentiated views upon this
choice. But under the supervision of Allan or Roosevelt they finally agreed to set every one of
rights and applied to absolutely everyone at the universal declaration of human rights. Finally the
French concept of natural rights have become human rights 1948.
What is human rights? - The fundamental idea of human rights is that each individual of us
no matter what or who we are or where are we born, is entitled of the same rights and freedoms.

In the modern Indian context: - 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. This is indeed how it was in the colonial period
and in the 50 years after national independence. 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 Gandhiji’s ideology as far as human rights
are concerned? As the leading person of the national freedom movement, Gandhi’s aim was to
fetch independence, but his other objective was to save and protect Indian society, and more
specifically concept of Hinduism. 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.

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.
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 instead of insisting on rights everyone dies
his duty, there will immediately be the rule of order established among making.
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 behavior 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 contentment.

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. “The resistance will become a crime against man
in terms of duty if it takes the form of murder, rapine, and plunder.”
When H.G.

Conclusion: -Wells With respect to the above submission we can conclude that the rights and
duty go hand in hand. If there is right of individual then there is an existence of duty too. Every
individual must be bound by the duty if he or she is fighting for his rights against state (article 12).
Yes everyone has a right to enjoy their rights but they cannot ignore duties when it comes to the
question of its performance. In 21st century the individual is fighting for his rights in very
insensitive matters but when nonperformance of duty is observed there is no provisions or power
lies with government to sue that person. According to gandhiji rights are properly enjoyed only
when performance of duty and enjoyment of rights are balanced. And if that is the case then in
present scenario of India in 21st century imbalance of rights and duties are observed. The
assignment development in industrial area, IT, economy, international market, and what not, it is
just a result of privatization, liberalization, globalization policies in the year 1991. Here it is the
time to perform the doctrine of eclipse on the hidden duties. Mahatma Gandhi was himself not
sure of working of his ideals ,due to this he took help of other freedom strugglers for establishing
a free India where every person is aware of his/her rights as well as duties. But there were many
freedom fighters who during the verge of independence did not agree with the ideals of Gandhi,
thus the government only is bound to enforce rights and exercises there powers for the welfare
state and so could not enforce duties which is the drawback of the democratic nation.