1)Hinduism 1 and Human Rights: Basic Statement

Martha Tarasco MD PhD

1)Hinduism[1] and human rights: basic statement

Hinduism is not a religion with a single vision but moreover a gathering of philosophicaltheories or a group of unified system of beliefs and ideas. It is a phenomenon and represents a broad spectrum of beliefs and practices, which on one hand you can find a type of pantheism: Polytheism, and on the other, very profound, abstract, metaphysical ideas.One cannot say that there is onlyone Hindu perspective. One of the troubles when we are talking about religions is the status of the beliefs. In the Catholic perspective, the Magisterium covers a great deal of moral issues. In this way the doctrinal interpretation of different matters is concealed in the discussion of any particular problem. That does not happen in other religions; that lack of the exclusive direction of understanding the primary principles in the changing social problems, so that different answers are possible for the same problem. This fact is acceptable because of religious beliefs. But on the contrary, if we examine it in the Logic philosophical system two –or more-, different statements cannot be true at the same time. That is, A and B cannot be Y at the same time. For example, if the matter of abortion should be discussed, Logics tells us that it can be right or it can be wrong always, but not both of them or depending on the case.[2]Everything depends on the position adopted, because the range of possibilities is wide open: to accept abortion in almost all cases, or to not accept any at all. I think that this is one of the troubles when we are talking froma Hindu perspective[3], because there are not teachings to resolve the different interpretations[4]. From the point of view, of Human Rights, it is clear that Hinduism will also take them in a relativist interpretation.

I will try to demonstrate that Hinduism is incompatible with only a Human Rights view and that because of its inner structure and beliefs, especially those that tend to accept Karma and the Vedic antique point of view, it will not understand the violation of Human Rights as a problem.

To do so, I will use the Logical Method establishing a Major premise based on the Human Rights Declaration, and then discuss it with the concept of Samsara and Dharmaas foundation for the minor premise.[5].

2)Conflicts of human rights claims and accepted religious practices in this tradition

One of the most difficult matters withHinduism and Human Rights is the reencartion theory, called Samsara[6]. It is important to notice first, that all religious beliefs, if there really are beliefs, have implications with daily practices. That is, religious beliefs convert themselves in actions that can be evaluable by a third party observer, without analyzing the “inner spaces”, or “mental states” that only the believer has.

The basic principle of Human Rights is the idea that all human beings “belong” to it, and “participate” in it: as stated in the Declaration, it says: “that ethical issues… should be examined with the respect to the dignity of the human person and universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedom”[7].

All these terms: “universal”, “fundamental” etc implyin some instances needand recognition of duty, in a Kantian senseunconditionally and without exceptions. Following the document, we can find, undoubtable evidence of that interpretation: “1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected” [8]. It is important to point out the term “fully”, because it cannot mean that in some circumstances, they should not be completely followed. It would not be sufficient to give exception, for example, to a religious ritual that separates females because they belong to another class in a religious context.In the case that we are analyzing it is the same. With this examplethemajor premise of the argument established in a syllogism form, could be:

If you accept a Human Right it has to be applied in all circumstances.

3)Samsara and human rights: Exceptions of the rule?

3.1 The concept of Samsara and the statement of the problem by a syllogism

“As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change”[9]. This text of Bahgdag Vita Ilustrates the basic idea of metempiscosis: the human being, the real one, interchanges space and time with other “bodies”. Of course the note is very brief, so to have an interpretation of it,the master Srila Prabhupada comments:

Since every living entity is an individual soul, each is changing his body every moment, manifesting sometimes as a child, sometimes as a youth, and sometimes as an old man. Yet the same spirit soul is there and does not undergo any change. This individual soul finally changes the body at death and transmigrates to another body; and since it is sure to have another body in the next birth—either material or spiritual—there was no cause for lamentation by Arjuna on account of death, neither for Bhishma nor for Drona, for whom he was so much concerned. Rather, he should rejoice for their changing bodies from old to new ones, thereby rejuvenating their energy. Such changes of body account for varieties of enjoyment or suffering, according to one’s work in life. So Bhishma and Drona, being noble souls, were surely going to have spiritual bodies in the next life, or at least life in heavenly bodies for superior enjoyment of material existence. So, in either case, there was no cause of lamentation.[10]

It is possible to extract the key of the second premise, in this passage, that is, the minor premise in traditional logic. Transmigration has a moral value, the value of perfection, in the sense that you must transmigrate to evolution. The problem of the degree of suffering orenjoyment according to our past life is that it appears like a justification of the suffering, a sort of necessity for it. If in order to grow,one needs to suffer those consequences, the reason to defend basic Human Rights is not clear, or else it would depend on the moral new status of the new human transmigrated soul. It is counter intuitiveto accept that anyone should accept their condition of life, even in the worst circumstances, without trying to change their destiny, only for the good of their souls.

With the explainedelementsthe syllogistic form of the argument could be as follows:

(Major Premise)If you accept a Human Right it has to be applied in all circumstances.

(Minor Premise) Dharma cannot apply Human Rightsin all circumstances, because it contradicts the basic principle of Karma and Samasara.

Therefore,

In some cases the Dharma cannotaccept Human Rights.

Nevertheless there is another aspect about Dharma, which is that itdoes not imply an absolute lack of action and that one must act with compassion in every situation. Even so, in Hinduism all soulsare meant to be equal, but to be consistent with the notion of maintaining the universe order, the individual must follow their own Dharma and that implies to some extent the negation of Human Rights.

Another possible option is to distinguish the concept of “Human Right”. For example, Raimundo Panikkar, a Theologian, argues that the Hindu notion of dharma requires: 1) that Human Rights are not only the rights of individuals or even humans, but of every living being 2) that Human Rights involve duties and relate us to the whole cosmos, and 3) that Human Rights are not absolute, but are relative to each culture[11].Sofor the serious believers of Hinduism, a disequilibrium in the universe is made when one interferes the personal Dharma. And of course, there is the difficulty in defending the prosecution of Human Rights violations[12].

3.2 Samsara and Consent

Another way to show the difficulties in the discourse of Human Rights and Hinduism is the problem of consent. The principle of consent, appears in the articles 6th and 7th of the Declaration. It was developed later in the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO and published in a document that shows the following:

Initially drafted in a very simple fashion, the crucial principle was subject to profound discussion during the entire process of elaboration of the Declaration, especially during the intergovernmental meetings of experts, resulting in two full articles in the declaration devoted to the principle of consent…. Considerable lack of clarity exits when it comes to the question of how the principle of consent can or should be applied in practice and in various contexts of application. [13]

Thissets a problem with Hinduism, and other religions[14]. In medical decisions, it is well known and clear for everyone, or at least for the vastmajority, that a patient must be consulted about the treatment and interventions. But how much information should be given?Should the family be considered or not?And how to manage the consent in the case of children? It is not tooclear. That is, the principle is “clear”, but when appliedto particular cases, adjustments need to be made, or it is easy to fall into the extreme positions of over-consent or paternalism.[15]

Because of this fact, the UNESCO Report explains wisely that:

A principle cannot simply be affirmed without examining the conditions of its implementation and the consequences of its application…. –the content of the information, -the conditions of obtaining consent, -the manner of expressing consent, -specific difficulties in the application of the principle of consent[16]

Anyway, I think that even if accepting that the principle requires adjustment to particular situations, clear difficulties appear again with the tenets of Hinduism.The original dilemma showed above appears again.

The Report clearly points out the conditions for a real consent. But in Hindu tradition, the circumstances of application show again the difficulty to adjust the principle. For example, one critical area is Public Health[17]. Some diseases require interventions to control them or at least, to limit their propagation. Implementation of public health measuresshould be made.

With the addition of the fact that Health is a Human Right[18], a new problem with Hindu tradition appears, asthe Samasara suggests situations that are clearly unhealthy and contrary to human rights.

There is a famous Templein which the rats are object of veneration. The temple is named Kami Mata:

The legend says that Karni Mata, a mystic matriarch from the 14th century, was an incarnation of Durga, the goddess of power and victory. At some point during her life, the child of one of her clansmen died. She attempted to bring the child back to life, only to be told by Yama, the god of death, that he had already been reincarnated. Karni Mata made a deal with Yama: From that moment forward, all of her people would be reborn as rats until they could be born back into the clan. So in the Templefull of rats, shoes are not permitted, tourists and worshippers hope to have rats run across their feet as a sign of good luck.Eating food or drinking water previously touched by a rat is considered to be a supreme blessing. [19]

This has been used to demonstrate as a high risk for zoonoses[20]. The rats are capable of transmitting diseases that are harmful to humans, such as the Rat-bite fever[21].

Public Health authorities should eliminate the rats or at least control their propagation. In the case of the children exposed, we could consider if it is the parent’s right to expose them to harmful situations.

4)Conclusions

The difficulty that the believer should recognize is that there are situationsin which the religious statementsof Hindu Tradition are incompatible with Human Rights[22].

Maybe it would be better to accept the differences, and consistently affirm that for the specific religious creeds, Human Rights are sometimes incompatible and that it is difficult for the believer to choose, especially if he has to decide for an entire population, as in the case of social, political or economical leaders.

I agree with Dr. Gomez[23] that in some cases of religious dilemmas it is preferable to recognize that the expression and freedom of beliefs and convictions is also a Human Right and that they have the right to object actions and medical procedures, as the Public Health, that can be considered Human Rights.

It is necessary to admit that sometimes the Human Rights create real conflicts between goods that do not give completely rational options to resolve them[24].

In those cases in which Human Rightsface thesereligious types of dilemmas, the Conscience Objection can be followedas the only way to preserve the best of both positions: the dignity of the religious practice and the need to compromiseto preserve Human Rights in a liberal society.

References

• AAVV. Report of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO. UNESCO, 2009.
• AAVV. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. UNESCO, 2005. In: portal.unesco.org (revised on may 21st 2013).
• AAVV. “Animal Diseases and your Health”. Medline Plus: 2013.
• Aquinas, T. Summa contra Gentiles. Translated by Oneil, Charles. New York: Hannover House. In:
• Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics. Roos Tranlation. In:
• Bhagavad Vita.Text in English and commentaries. In:
• Díaz, Carlos. El Hinduismo. Fundación Emmanuel Mounier, Madrid, 2002.
• Gomez, J. “Autonomy, bioethics and religión in children: source of paradoxes”. Boletín Médico del Hospital Infantil de México. Vol. 67, 2010, p. 227-228. From:
• Llorca, J. Zoonosis. Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública. Universidad de Cantabria: España,
• Panikkar, "Is Human Rights a Western Concept? A Hindu/Jain/Buddhist Reflection," Breakthrough 10, nos. 2-3 Winter/Spring, 1989.
• Schiff, Daniel. Abortion in Judaism. CambridgeUniversityPress, England, 2002.
• Thompson, Mel. Philosophy of religión. Teach yourself , London, 2007
• WHO. Constitution.

[1]. (Cf. Díaz, Carlos. El Hinduismo., Fundación Emanuel Mounier, Madrid, 2002, pp. 10- 13).

[2] Cf. Schiff, Daniel. Abortion in Judaism. CambridgeUniversityPress, England, 2002.

[3] Considering that there are some canonical texts that are accepted in a vast community, I am making an interpretation of the Upanishads text in this way. Of course, there are differences in the interpretation of the texts, but we can find common topics, like the Samsara. It might appear as objectable that, in other texts, like the Rig Veda the individuality of the selfis maintained, but in any case, most of the Hindubelieve in Dharma and the connection with Samsara.

[4] Cf. Díaz, Carlos. Op. Cit., pp. 19 y ss.

[5] “Dharma”, the central doctrine of Hindu thought. This word is derived from the root dhr and means to uphold, sustain and nourish. It is a comprehensive term, which includes duty, morality, ritual, law, order and justice. (Patel, Dipti. The Religious Foundations of Human Rights: A Perspective from the Judeo-Christian Tradition and Hinduism)

[6]In Buddhism and Hinduism, the endless circle of birth, death, and rebirth to which all conditioned beings are subjected. Samsara is conceived as having no perceptible beginning or end. The particulars of an individual's wanderings in Samsara are determined by Kharma. Cf. The different types of Kharma in Díaz, Carlos. Op. Cit., pp. 40-42.

[7] Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. UNESCO, 2005. In: portal.unesco.org (revised on may 21st 2013).

[8]Ibid. Article 3.

[9]II, 13. In:

[10] Ibid.

[11] Panikkar, "Is Human Rights a Western Concept? A Hindu/Jain/Buddhist Reflection," Breakthrough 10, nos. 2-3 (Winter/Spring 1989):33-34.

[12] Cf.

[13] Martínez, Palomo, A. In Report of the International Bioethics Committee on Consent. UNESCO, 2009. p. 7.

[14] See this curious argument from Thomas Aquinas against the resurrection: “There is more. It happens, occasionally, that some men feed on human flesh, and they are nourished on this nutriment only, and those so nourished generate sons. Therefore, the same flesh is found in many men. But it is not possible that it should rise in many. And the resurrection does not seem otherwise to be universal and entire if there is not restored to every man what he has had here.”(Summa contra Gentiles, IV, 80, 5). The manner in which Aquinas tries to resolve the dilemma is similar to the case that we are discussing here: “In this way, then, one must answer the first argument that the power of nature fails the divine power, as the power of an instrument fails the principal agent. Granted, then, that the operation of nature cannot bring it about that a corrupted body be restored to life, the divine power can bring it about. …. Hence since the divine power remains the same even when things are corrupted, it can restore the corrupted to integrity” (Ibid, IV, 81, 5).

[15] This is not new. Arsitotle says something similar:“We must, however, not only make this general statement, but also apply it to the individual facts. For among statements … those that are general apply more widely, but those which are particular are more genuine, since conduct has to do with individual cases, and our statements must harmonize with the facts in these cases”. (NE, II, 7). RossTranslation.

[16] Report… p. 15.

[17] The major issue here is the fact that public health measures, aiming at preventing, eradication, or alleviating problems of importance for the whole population or groups within it, might interfere with the self determination of individuals. Such restrictions on the freedom of people to choose for themselves should be strictly regulated and be in accordance with Article 27 of the Declaration on Limitations on the application of the principle2. For example, the threat of an epidemic legitimates the public hand to order compulsory measures”. ( Report, 55).

[18] The States Parties to this Constitution declare, in conformity with theCharter of the United Nations, that the following principles are basic to the happiness, harmonious relations and security of all people: Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent upon the fullest co-operation of individuals and States.)WHO Constitution, In

[19] Sharon Guynup and Nicolas Ruggia National Geographic Channel June 29, 2004. In: 04/06/0628_040628_tvrats.html

[20]“Animal diseases that people can catch are called zoonoses. Many diseases affecting humans can be traced to animals or animal products. You can get a disease directly from an animal, or indirectly, through the environment.” Medline Plus.