FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
This chapter attempts to understand
freedom of religion as a human rights issue. This is done in order to maintain
that the freedom of religion is universal and it is a globally accepted basic
human right. The amount of freedom of religion a nation exercises determines
its civilization. It is not to disregard the other existing provisions for
maintaining freedom of religion like constitution, secularism, freedom of
religion and minority rights. The main purpose is to gather wider and necessary
credentials to the issue of freedom of religion. In all forms it is repeatedly
reiterated that humanity cannot be discriminated on religious grounds.
7.1 Human Rights- Definition
Since freedom of religion is
identified as one of the basic human rights a graphical reflection on the
prevailing definitions of human rights helps understanding the gravity and
ambit of them. Although the gender
biased and mail chauvinistic language is quite explicit, the rights are
concerned with the whole of humanity. M.B. Dube states, “Human rights are the
rights and freedoms possessed by human beings.
These rights are often called as Fundamental rights. In earlier
centuries, European thinkers commonly referred to them as Natural Rights
or the Rights of
The real intensity of the meaning is echoed in
the definition “some rights are eternal to man and they are known as “natural
rights”.”[3] In
this connection natural rights are more relevant in that freedom of religion
takes roots in the eternal nature of those rights. This is further emphasized
in the following definitions.
Manoj Dixit and Trigun Bisen write,
“Human Rights in their simplest and widest connotation are the inalienable
rights that are bestowed upon or accrue to each individual person as soon as he
is born.”[4]
The unavoidability of accepting human rights is explicit in C.P. Barthwal’s
definition that “the expression ‘human
rights’ denotes that the individual as a human being enjoys certain basic
rights, which are necessary for the all round development of human personality
and, in the absence of which, no individual would be able to lead a happy,
moral, civilized and human life.”[5]
Often the human rights are blamed for
it’s being individualistic in nature. This may not be true as they reflect
individuals and their connection to the society. For example “the expression
“human rights” embraces the right of man both as an individual and as a member
of society, their aim is to promote individual welfare as well as social
welfare.”[6] It
is also clear that they are concerned with both individual and social welfare.
One without the other is incomplete and nonviable. The connection of human
rights with individuals and society is clearly stated, as “the state cannot
interfere with the natural rights of man. But the rights can exist in a society
only through duties.”[7]
From the point of government
obligations “Human rights describe the minimum entitlement that governments
must protect and secure and that governments must themselves respect. These
rights are often called fundamental and universal.”[8]
The wider spectrum of the definition of human rights is that “the term Human
Rights refer in general the civil rights, civil liberties, the political rights
and newly emerging social and economic rights.”[9] On
the basis of the above analysis it can be said that human rights are called
with various names. And humans are entitled to human rights and the states are
expected to protect the human rights of the individuals.
7.2
United Nation’s Human Rights Declaration
The concept of human rights is not a very
ancient one. There was no trace of it in the classical or early period. It was
not tangible even in the middle ages. Sanjay Gupta writes, “no concept of human
rights could develop in the middle ages as it was a “dark age” dominated by
monarchy, papacy and feudalism.”[10]
King John of
To move the history further “for the first time the word ‘Human Rights’ got the place was in the American Declaration of Independence of 1776. After this the French Revolution of 1786 contained the message of liberty, equality and fraternity. But on the international level for the first time the ‘human rights’ were given the legal form in the U. N. Resolution of 1945.”[12] Since then the concerns of Human rights drew the attention of civilizing societies.
The declaration was adopted ‘as a
common standard of achievement for all peoples’. To keep the spirit perpetual “subsequently, some 60 human rights treaties
and declarations were negotiated at the U.N. on the Universal Declaration.”[15]
The effort found much solidarity from many nations. For example, “the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the two international covenants of 1966
have been signed by number of states expressing their full faith in the
ideology of human rights.”[16]
As the globe is becoming a village Human Rights deserve special attention.
The significance of these continued
labors are hailed, as “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenant of Economic, social and cultural Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights constitute a trinity often
called the Magna Carta of humanity.”[17]
This again suggests that Human rights are so essential to the civilized world.
The reception for the new venture is
remarkable all over the world. For example, “at the world Conference on Human
Rights held in
One of the characteristics of this
human rights document is that it is not a legally binding one. It is said
“although the Declaration, which comprises a broad range of rights, is not
legally binding document, it has inspired more than 60 human rights instruments
which together constitute an international standard of human rights.”[19]
These are enough evidences to understand the importance of the human rights and
also to appreciate the response accorded to it all over the world. It is also a
reminder that the humanity is civilizing and it expects cultured way of dealing
matters at national and international levels.
In spite of all the positive aspects
of human rights, certain negative remarks are also on the rise. In the words of
Shimreingam Shimray “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights being a
non-legal adoption it is accepted by many but not respected and preserved its
commitments.”[20] This
comment is partially true. At the same time it needs to be remembered that many
human right organizations are establishing themselves and the governments of
nations are also becoming conscious about the protection of human rights. There
have been many human rights commissions established by the governments.
Another adverse remark is that “the universal
character of human rights thinking has led some to express fears of cultural
imperialists.”[21] But one
thing needs to be kept in mind is that preservation of culture is important but
at the same time the individuals need to have choice to express themselves in
ways acceptable to the standards of developed human life. No less significant
is the fact that Human rights underline the necessity of preserving the culture
of the minorities world over.
The same fact is explicitly stated as,
“the universality of human rights is often challenged- what is often referred
to as a ‘North – South’ divide- by States that seek to emphasize one set of
rights over another….Cultural relativists are of the view that while in the
West an individual and his/her rights are considered above group rights, this
is not universally applicable and that certain societies of the South are ordered on the lines of the community;
the rights and identities of individuals are subsumed by the larger interest of
the community. The aggressive promotion of a universal standard of human rights
is sometimes viewed as a paternalistic attempt to impose alien Western values.
In any event, human rights must be developed within understandings of specific
peoples’ culture, community, and traditions. The concept of human rights should
not, however, be frozen in time, but rather be a dynamic principle, capable if
adapting within a complex, varied, and changing global society.”[22]
This in a way is acceptance of the need of Human Rights but at the same time
listing the possible shortcomings of International Human Rights like
North-South divide, cultural dominance of a specific region and imposition of
certain values on every one.
The third world nations are pondering
over the viability of Human rights in their own situations. M.B. Dube observes,
“sometimes it is claimed that these rights are a luxury which third world
nations can afford only after they have achieved economic development and
national unity.”[23] It is
true that the economic constrains are the main hurdles in maintaining these
rights but from the inception of development the nations can take adequate
measures according to their ability to maintain, to implement and to protect
human rights. On the basis of economic
backwardness and disunity within a nation the citizens cannot be denied basic
human rights.
People who are concerned with the
Indian realities particularly caste discrimination are uncomfortable with the
individualistic nature of the human rights. James Massey writes, “due to the
historical relationship of human rights with these northern countries
revolutions we find, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948) is more individualistic in nature.”[24]
This cannot be fully justified because both individual and community rights go
hand in hand. If the community wanted to inflict undue authority on the
individuals it might curb the freedom of individual. If the individual is
deprived of basic human rights he or she may become victim to the parochial
interests of the community.
It is remarkable to notice, in the
midst of positive and negative remarks, that after the declaration of UN human
rights in 1948 “again on November 25,1981, the UN proclaimed a specific
declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination
based on religion and belief which virtually warned the human race that no kind
of discrimination / exploitation by any state, institution and group of persons
on the ground of religion or other beliefs of a particular ethnicity would be
tolerated.”[25] This is
the most significant aspect of human rights in relation to freedom of religion.
It is not to say that the UN declaration of Human Rights is concerned only with
the freedom of religion. It is outright always in suggesting that religious
intolerance cannot be accepted in a civilizing world.
This is a remarkable feature as the
chances are growing in
As the world perceives the increasing
possibilities of religious discriminations, Human rights is prudently rising to
the occasion and trying to protect the people and cement relation between
different religious and cultural communities. For example, again after a
decade, the UN on
It is obvious that discrimination
based on religions is unacceptable to all and it is against the interest of
human dignity. It is true and significant that “the right to profess and
practice one’s faith was adopted by an overwhelming vote in the UN Assembly as
all the countries voted in favour.”[27]
This is a victory point to the promotion of human religious freedom.
Many insights are drawn for the freedom
of religion from the human rights point of view. For example “it is significant
that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks of the “freedom of
thought”, conscience and religion all together. But these rights also extend to
those who do not profess a religion. Their thought and conscience enjoy the
same freedom.”[28] In
nutshell, freedom of religion is very essential in order to enjoy other
freedoms.
The reason is that a person’s
religious convictions are the result of his/her inner convictions. When this is
expressed openly then other things flow freely. Ninan Koshy refers to the
internal nature of spiritual convictions and reiterates, “in any case, it is
clear that religious convictions are part of the inner spiritual freedom of a
human being.”[29] Often
the mistake is that there is no chance to express one’s own real inner urges.
When this freedom is denied it amounts to denial of other freedoms. Thus
religious freedom belongs to the realm of basic human rights and that it needs
freedom to express itself. The UN declarations on human rights have time and
again reiterated this aspect.
The above fact is vividly and
emphatically stated as, “the external manifestations of that inner freedom
require political rights and privileges- the external or social aspect of
religious liberty.”[30]
One fact is clear that the international community is unanimous in upholding
and implementing religious freedom in all parts of the world. It is also
realized that religious freedom is essential to experience the other forms of
freedom. Now it is appropriate to see the effect of human rights in
7.3
Human Rights in India
To start with and to find roots of
human rights in
Some what to find a beginning of human
rights in
Following the above two great
stalwarts the substantial contributions came from Christian Missionaries. For
example “it was Carey and his colleagues at Serampore Mission who actually
prepared the solid ground in
From the political point of view “in
The remarkable feature of the Indian
constitution is that it has taken in to consideration the major propositions of
the human rights as the Indian Constitution, which protects
There is a real connection between
human rights and the Indian constitution. This reality is emphasized as “the
Preamble, Part III of the Constitution consisting of Fundamental Rights, part
IV comprising Directive Principles and Part IV (A) containing fundamental
Duties, constitute the human rights framework in our Constitution.”[37]
S.S. Tiwana endorses the above viewpoint as “it was in keeping with our rich
tradition that within a year of signing of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the Constitution of India has incorporated all the principles of Human
Rights in its Preamble, Part III – Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles
of State Policy.”[38]
There is no disagreement as to the content of human rights in the Indian
constitution.
The incorporation of human rights in
various aspects of Indian government is evident. It is not just incorporating
the values of human rights but also it is effectively facilitated to function.
For example “to show the importance of human rights and to protect it, the
President promulgated an Ordinance on September 18, 1993, with a view to
providing for the setting up of a National Human Rights Commission for better
protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith. Later on Parliament embodied the provision of
the Ordinance into the Human Rights Act, 1993.”[39]
This is an important proof for
Following
the above-mentioned presidential ordinance “the National Human Rights
Commission of India (NHRC) was established under the Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993.”[40] In
taking the human rights to every section of the society, “the Protection of
Human Rights Act, 1993, also calls for the establishment of State Human Rights
Commissions in order to complement the functioning of the NHRC as also to
ensure that redress mechanisms are within easy reach of complainants across the
country.”[41] Hence,
From the point of this research
freedom of religion is important and it is one of the fundamental human rights
and which precedes all other rights. Any violation of human rights from the
point of religion is inadmissible.
Safeguarding human rights especially
religious freedom is one of the main concerns of the UN declaration of Human
Rights. It is evident in its specific declaration proclaimed on
This concern is very grave in
Respecting human rights and allowing
space to practice human rights are the signs of a developed society. As
7.4 Human Rights, Fundamental Rights
and Duties
The concerns of the UN declaration of
Human Rights are well augured in the Indian constitution. In
The reasons for the substantial content of
human rights in the Indian constitution is not accidental one but quite
gradual. First, the demand for fundamental rights appeared in the Constitution
of India Bill.[47] In
fact “the Nehru Committee in 1928 stated
that the guarantee of fundamental rights should be in such a manner that it
would not permit their withdrawal under any circumstances.”[48]
This is evidence for the determined efforts of our constitutional makers to
maintain the dignity of the Indian citizens.
Demand for the maintenance of fundamental rights was not again just an
individual incident, but was the concern of many. For example, “the second
demand for fundamental rights was Annie Besant’s Common Wealth of India Bill in
1925.”[49]
The fundamental rights in the Indian
constitution like the universal declaration of human rights, is concerned with
the individuals. Giriraj Shah & K.N.
Gupta maintains, “the fundamental rights are mostly of individual character and
meant to protect individuals against arbitrary state action.”[50]
At the same time the interests of the communities are also given due
consideration.
Again in
Since the Human rights are implicit in
Indian constitution and freedom of religion is one of the main principles of
Human rights, the Indian constitution has taken adequate measures to protect
freedom of religion in
7.5
Human Rights and Religious Minorities
After the declaration of UN human
rights in 1948, the UN declaration on
Freedom of religion is a pertinent
Human right issue and it is essential to the religious minority communities.
This has been affirmed, as ‘the relatively old right that was enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to religion would seem to
belong to minority religious groups in
The UN perception of the problems and
challenges the religious minorities are undergoing is timely and it has taken
it up earnestly so as to see that nowhere in the world people will be
discriminated on religious grounds. Although it is unfortunate in
Another remarkable development is that
minority issues attracted same gravity as that of human rights. In the international
and national levels ‘minority rights’ are enjoying a special status along with
the human rights in general’.[56]
This is an evidence to conclude that the religious minority all over the world
suffers same difficulties and those difficulties are considered by all
civilized and good willed people all over the globe.
The Indian constitution does not give
any special rights to the minorities, but articles twenty-nine and thirty safe
guards the rights of the minorities.[57]
The respective governments are expected to see that the minorities are
protected and their rights are established. Very specific is the commitment
that the government seeks all the possible measures to develop the minority
groups in all realms of life. Such good efforts are often termed as minority
appeasement by the so-called religious majority and any such process is not
looked at positively. The communal forces desire that the minority should be
always vulnerable and subjugated.
7.6
Human Rights and Religion
It is established beyond doubt that
the international human rights activities are committed to eradicate religious
discrimination of all sorts. In other words the global family does not like any
form of discrimination on the basis of religion. To this effect the UN has
passed a few declarations.[58] Those declarations uphold
the basic principle of human dignity and equality.[59] Even in the original declaration of
the UN human rights this fact is repeatedly emphasized.
In the subsequent declarations UN made
it clear that humanity cannot be discriminated on religious or cultural basis.[60]
The seriousness of the significance of freedom of religion is vividly stated
from the point of the Indian constitution as, “religious freedom is a
fundamental right of Indian citizens, an entitlement that is available to
members of all religious groups. The Indian Constitution describes it as a
basic human right, which can be enforced by the Judiciary”[61]
It is gratifying that the
international human rights agencies have accepted freedom of religion as an
essential freedom of humanity. More satisfying is the phenomenon that the
Indian constitution has taken special efforts to enforce freedom of religion in
India
7.7
Human Rights and Development
As human rights and freedom of
religions are closely related “Human rights and development are interrelated.
They reinforce each other. Rights constitute the condition of a good life.”[62]
This is true. In this sense
There is also a common vision and common
purpose between human rights and human development. This commonality is stated as “Human rights
and human development share a common vision and a common purpose-to secure the
freedom, well-being and dignity of all people everywhere.”[63]
This is a well-said point. It is concerned with a high quality of life without
discriminations. Unity should mark the quality of life. Unfortunately the Hindu
fundamental forces want that disunity and hatred should reign and not harmony,
good will and well being. Freedom is the special mark of human development. In
other words “Human freedom is the common purpose and common motivation of human
rights and human development.”[64]
Thus it is correctly declared, “Human rights and human development are both
about securing basic freedoms.”[65] A
life without freedom specifically without freedom of religion is the sign of
external and internal suppression of basic human rights or fundamental rights.
The burden of the argument that
religious freedom is a basic human right and it precedes other rights; in no
way encroach on the sovereignty of the nation. This is succinctly stated as
“rights are essential but they are not unlimited.”[66]
This is a warning that no individual or community is above the interest of the
nation. And hence expected to claim freedom, including religious, within the
parameters of the sovereignty of the nation.
Not just development alone even the
mark of progress of a society is symbolized by the amount of freedom that
particular society or individual enjoys. The progress of any society depends upon
the extent of freedom that it allows to individuals.[67]
The clear connection between human
rights, democracy and development is well stated as, “many in the international
community believe that human rights, democracy and development are
intertwined. Unless human rights are
respected, the maintenance of international peace and security and the
promotion of economic and social development cannot be achieved.”[68]
It is again significant that unless human rights are respected other higher
ideals will look remote.
Denial of basic human rights including
religious freedom is a sign of backwardness in many aspects. Jurgen Moltmann
writes, “a society in which fundamental human rights are not acknowledged as
civil rights of the people, is an inhuman and intolerable society.”[69] It may be presumed that if communal forces
are unchecked there is a possibility of turning a developing society into a
traditional one.
Any political organization that device
such divisive and slavish ideology is disastrous to the society. In other words
“politics which do not follow the standards of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, is an amoral and often murderous politics.”[70]
This is again substantiation for the argument that freedom of religion is a
crucial human rights concern. Denial of freedom of religion amounts to
violation of human rights.
A
society bereft of freedom of religion is a slavish society. Parties who are
inclined to promote age-old slavery or caste discriminations alone shall be
able to propagate ideologies that go against the freedom of religion. Expecting
the religiously minority communities to subject to religiously majority
community reflects this notion. This has been rightly pointed as “for without
freedom of belief and the liberty to express oneself on questions of belief
with due regard for the feelings of one’s neighbours, the individual cannot
perfect himself or make an effective contribution to thought and action. A society in which undue restraints exist on
freedom of thought and expression, is a society not of free men but of slaves.”[71]
Humanity cannot be denied fundamental
rights; prime among them is freedom of religion. A systematic effort to reject
freedom of religion to minority communities amounts to human right violation
and also denial of full life with dignity. Sanjay Gupta maintains “all human
rights are basic rights in the fundamental sense that systematic violation of
any human right precludes realizing a life of full human dignity and prevents
one from enjoying the minimum conditions necessary for a life worthy of a human
being.”[72]
It is impressive to conclude that any violation of freedom of religion which is
one of the fundamental rights and human rights and which precedes all other
rights is against civilization. Otherwise the developing society will become
uncivilized one.
7.8
Issues in Human Rights
One of the issues commonly raised
while discussing human rights is “is there any agreement on the meaning of
human rights in an international context which would allow the establishment of
priorities?”[73] A
research focused on this issue came up with the conclusion that “perhaps not
surprisingly, our study revealed that no such agreement exists on the order of
priorities among conflicting “Human rights”. However, there is profound
interest in discovering a path to such an agreement.”[74]
Although there is not a universally accepted priority of human rights, it is
time to strengthen human rights initiatives and to move forward towards wider
and acceptable directions.
Another issue emerging from the Human
rights studies is that whether human rights perspectives differ in first,
second and third world countries?[75] The well-researched answer was for the first
or capitalist world countries “Civil and political rights become the standards
of liberty.”[76] In the second world countries “the socialist
democratic republic focuses on the rights of social participation in the
benefits of society.”[77] And in the third world countries ‘the basic
human rights are survival and liberation’.[78]
So it is certain that there are differences in human rights perspectives on the
basis of the economic strength of the nations.
A further issue raised in human rights
studies is about the difference between eastern and western persuasion of human
rights. It is commonly argued, “the Western countries tend to ‘individualize’
human rights, often neglecting in the process, the importance of fundamental
communitarian rights. For them, human rights basically entails freedom from the
state. Maximum individual liberty is the be-all and the end-all of human rights
with liberal democracy seen as the best means to achieve this goal.”[79]
It is necessary to strike a balance between the individual and group rights.
Without individual rights the group rights will become parochial and without
group rights the individuals become more carefree.
An additional note is that “the West
emphasized civil and political rights, pointing the finger at socialist
countries for denying these rights. The socialist (and many developing)
countries emphasized economic and social rights, criticizing the richest
Western countries for their failure to secure these rights for all citizens. In
the 1960s this led to two separate covenants-one for civil and political
rights, and the other for economic, social and cultural rights.”[80]
In support of the western notion of
human rights it is stated “underlying the concept of human rights is the
western liberal tradition with its unambiguous affirmation of the freedom of
the individual against systems and traditions that curtail it. The right of the individual is sacred.”[81]
Depriving individual rights for the sake of community rights may not be good
sign of freedom, particularly freedom of religion.
In spite of the above fact “in the
Third World countries, however, human rights is understood primarily in terms
of survival and liberation of the oppressed communities.”[82]
It may be suggested that individual human rights are as important as community
rights. One cannot overrule the other. One cannot be neglected for the
preference of the other. Unless the individuals in a society enjoy considerable
rights that society is not a free society. The society might try to impose
traditional and worn out ideologies on the younger generation. In the matter of
religious freedom individual is more crucial than the community rights.
Nevertheless the collective human rights also
find meaning. For example “today there is a wider recognition of the rights of
groups of people, especially those who were denied of their rights in the
past.”[83]
This remark is made keeping in mind the Dalits, tribals, women etc. But the
fact remains intact that individual freedom is essential from the point of
freedom of religion.
The advocates of collective human
rights hold “in the current scenario and the emergent situation, there is a
need to find new terrain; to explore new paths, to seek new insights, which
would unravel new horizons of human rights thereby furthering the discourse and
praxis from the notion of individual human rights of this liberal Enlightenment
Period to an understanding of the collective rights of the people.”[84]
In spite of all the theories and arguments it
is said with the spirit to uphold the human rights values that “if we have to
build up a culture of human rights, we need to justify them by reference to
morally relevant considerations, such as the need to value human beings because
there are very good reasons to doing so.
But if we reject the status that has been ascribed to persons by
political theories, we reject the idea that in a society we treat people in a
certain way and do not treat them in other ways.”[85]
In short societies need to mature to recognize the individual rights so that
there shall not be any conflict between the individual rights and collective
rights.
It is remarkably necessary that we
cannot sacrifice human rights for the sake of some political ideologies. It is
truer in a situation where the religious minorities are forced and threatened
to forgo their human rights or fundamental rights in the name of majority
politics and false nationalisms and tailored theories of national security.
Now it is very clear that the freedom
of religion for the religious minorities is a fundamental right and also a
pertinent human right. The freedom of religion is the basis and it paves the
way for the other freedoms and rights. It is also a sign of civilizing and
developing society. Since freedom of religion is a human rights issue denial of
freedom of religion means human rights violation. And hence freedom of religion
is a human rights issue as well.
[1]M.B. Dube, “Perspectives on Human
Rights,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, edited by M. B. Dube and Neeta
Bora (New Delhi: Anamika Publishers & Distributers (P) LTD., 2000), 9.
[2] B.S. Bisht, “Human Rights: An
Overview,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, edited by M. B.
Dube and Neeta Bora (
[3] Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century(
Diamond Pocket Books, 2002), 1.
[4]Manoj Dixit and Trigun Bisen, “Human
Rights in
by M. B. Dube and Neeta Bora (
[5] C.P. Barthwal, “Human Rights and
Dube and Neeta Bora (
[6] Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century, 2.
[7] Ibid., 3.
[8] M.B. Dube, “Perspectives on Human
Rights,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, 10.
[9] B.S. Bisht, “Human Rights: An
Overview,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, 45.
[10] Sanjay Gupta, “Conceptual
Controversies and the Crisis of Promotion,” in Perspectives on
Human Rights, edited by M. B. Dube and Neeta Bora
(
[11]Manoj Dixit and Trigun Bisen, “Human
Rights in
[Magna Carta (Latin,
“Great Charter”), document sealed by King John of England on June 15, 1215, in
which he made a series of promises to his subjects that he would govern England
and deal with his vassals according to the customs of feudal law. Over the
course of centuries, these promises have required governments in England
[12] Ibid.
[13] Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century, 1.
[14] Ibid., 8.
[15] M.B. Dube, “Perspectives on Human
Rights,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, 11.
[16] Sanjay Gupta, “Conceptual
Controversies and the Crisis of Promotion,” in Perspectives on
Human Rights,
29.
[17] B.S. Bisht, “Human Rights: An
Overview,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, 45.
[18] Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century, 9.
[19] Ibid.,), 8.
[20] Shimreingam Shimray, Theology of
Human Rights: A Critique on Politics (
Shimray, 2002), 16.
[21]M.B. Dube, “Perspectives on Human
Rights,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, 13.
[22]
[23] M.B. Dube, “Perspectives on Human
Rights,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, 13.
[24]James Massey, “Human Rights and
Minorities,” in Free to Choose: Issues in Conversion,
Freedom of Religion and Social Engagement, edited by Howell, Richard (
[25] N.S. Gehlot, “The Human Rights
Movement in
Perspectives on Human Rights, edited by M. B. Dube and Neeta Bora
(
[26] Ibid.
[27] I. John Mohan Razu and D. Samuel
Jesupatham, “Religious Rights as Part of Human Rights
when the Lives of the Minorities are at
Stake,” in Struggle for Human Rights: Towards a New Humanity, edited by
I. John Mohan Razu (
[28]
Ninan
Koshy, Religious Freedom in a Changing World, Risk Book Series No 54, (
Geneva: WCC Publications, 1992), 22.
[29] Ibid., 23.
[30] Ibid.
[31]M.B. Dube, “Perspectives on Human
Rights,” in Perspectives on Human Rights, 9.
[32]Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century 20.
[33] Ibid., 21.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid., 3.
[36] James Massey, Minorities and
Religious Freedom in a Democracy (
Publishers& Distributors, 2003) 9.
[37]
Including Issues of Gender Justice, Environmental, and Consumer Law, 66.
[38] S.S. Tiwana, “National Human Rights
Commission and Human Rights Violations in
Perspectives on Human Rights, edited by M. B. Dube and Neeta Bora
(
[39] Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century, 4.
[40]
Including Issues of Gender Justice, Environmental, and Consumer Law, 138.
[41] Ibid.
[42] N.S. Gehlot, “The Human Rights
Movement in
Perspectives on
Human Rights,
63.
[43] Ibid.
[44]Mathai Zachariah, “Introduction,” in. Freedom
of Religion in
(Nagpur: NCCI, 1979), 5.
[45] C. Raj
Kumar, “
[46] Manoj Dixit and Trigun Bisen, “Human
Rights in
[47] Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century, 3.
[48] Ibid., 3-4.
[49] Ibid., 3.
[50]Ibid., 2.
[51] Ibid., 2.
[52] N.S. Gehlot, “The Human Rights
Movement in
Perspectives on Human Rights, 63.
[53] Ibid.
[54] I. John Mohan Razu and D. Samuel
Jesupatham, “Religious Rights as Part of Human Rights
when the Lives of the Minorities are
at Stake,” in Struggle for Human Rights: Towards a New Humanity,
160.
[55] Ibid.
[56] James Massey, “Human Rights and
Minorities,” in Free to Choose: Issues in Conversion,
Freedom of Religion and Social
Engagement, 118.
[57] Ibid., 123- 124.
[58] N.S. Gehlot, “The Human Rights
Movement in
Perspectives on Human Rights, 63.
[59] P.D. Mathew, “Human Rights of Minorities,” Indian Currents XI/1
(
[60] N.S. Gehlot, “The Human Rights
Movement in
Perspectives on Human Rights, 63.
[61]James
Massey, Minorities and Religious Freedom in a Democracy, 9.
[62] Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century, 2.
[63]No Author, “Human Rights and Human
Development-For Freedom and Solidarity,” “Religious
Rights as Part of Human Rights when the Lives of the
Minorities are at Stake,” in Struggle for Human Rights: Towards a New
Humanity, edited by I. John Mohan Razu (
[64] Ibid., 204.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Giriraj Shah & K.N. Gupta, Human
Rights: Perspective Plan for 21st Century, 2.
[67] Ibid., 3.
[68] Ibid., 11.
[69] Jurgen Moltmann, “Christian Faith and
Human Rights,” in Adventurous Faith and Transforming
Vision, edited
by Arvind P. Nirmal (Madras: Gurukul
Lutheran Theological College and Research Institute, 1989), 62.
[70] Ibid.
[71]
P.N. Sapru, “Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties,” in Religious Freedom,
2.
[72] Sanjay Gupta, “Conceptual
Controversies and the Crisis of Promotion,” in Perspectives on
Human Rights,
29.
[73] Robert A. Evans and Alice Frazer
Evans, Human Rights: A Dialogue Between the First and
Third Worlds (
[74] Ibid.,
[75] Ibid., 8-12.
[76] Ibid., 8.
[77] Ibid., 9.
[78] Ibid., 12.
[79] George Mathew Nalunnakkal, “Human
Rights: A Biblical and Theological Perspective,” in
Struggle for Human Rights: Towards a New Humanity, edited by I. John Mohan Razu (
[80] No Author, “Human Rights and Human
Development-For Freedom and Solidarity,” “Religious
Rights as Part of Human Rights when the Lives of the
Minorities are at Stake,” in Struggle for Human Rights: Towards a New
Humanity, 206-207.
[81] K.C.Abraham, “Human Rights: Some
Theological Reflections,” in Struggle for Human Rights:
Towards a New
Humanity, edited by
I. John Mohan Razu (
[82] George Mathew Nalunnakkal, “Human
Rights: A Biblical and Theological Perspective,” in
Struggle for Human Rights: Towards a New Humanity, 1.
[83] K.C.Abraham, “Human Rights: Some
Theological Reflections,” in Struggle for Human Rights:
Towards a New Humanity, 16.
[84] I. John Mohan Razu and D. Samuel Jesupatham,
“Religious Rights as Part of Human Rights
when the Lives of the Minorities are at Stake,” in Struggle
for Human Rights: Towards a New Humanity, 159.
[85] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond Secularism,
the rights of Religious Minorities (
Comments
Post a Comment