Human Rights Vs Individual Rights
- Part 1 -

JC Sanasam *

In a place, where there is an armed conflict situation, like in Manipur, many a time we experience another sub-conflict between the term Human Rights and the subtly existing term Individual Rights. When the term Human Rights emerged first, in the beginning, we took it for the rights that belonged to an individual as a spontaneous consequence of being human. The term came into wide use after World War II, replacing the earlier phrase 'natural rights', which had been associated with the Greco Roman concept of Natural Law.

As understood today human rights refer to a wide variety of human values and capabilities with no concrete demarcating lines in between or among them. It has also reflected a wide diversity of human circumstances related to his primitive-to-modern exigencies. Historically human rights, as sort of notion or a classification, has passed through three generations.

The first generation was of civil and political rights associated with events that originated from the English, American and French revolutions in terms of the rights to life and liberty and the rights to freedom of speech and worship. The second generation was more of economic, social and cultural rights dwelling on matters in terms of the right to work and the right to education.

Finally came the third generation, based on solidarity rights, in association with the political and economic aspirations of the developing and newly decolonized countries after World War II. It started to talk so much on the collective rights to political self-determination and economic development. With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, many treaties and agreements for the protection of human rights have been concluded through the auspices of the United Nations, and several regional systems of human rights law have been established.

The International Criminal Court, empowered to prosecute crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide and libertine war came into existence in 2002. Out of all proclamations of the kind, the most beautiful is perhaps the phrase, 'the protection of the Right to Choose.'

Initially the traditional or orthodox positivist view, a product of the nineteenth century, was that 'only States and not individuals are the subjects of International Law as International Law regulates only the relation between states which alone can have international rights and duties.' Much later, Lauterpacht refuted the view and said, 'What is much more important is the recognition of the individual by dint of the acknowledgement of his fundamental rights and freedom as the ultimate subject of International Law.' The individual is the unit of the human society just like what atom is for an element. At this stage of human civilization when the civil societies have apparently become matured, not even an iota of confusion is expected in the democratic norms of an individual.

Well, that is the entire gist about International Law versus the Individual, apart from our concern on Human Rights versus Individual Rights. Of course a better word should have been 'Unlegislated Collective Rights versus Individual Rights.'

When there is an armed conflict situation, there arises a necessity, from the end of the belligerent or insurgent people, of bringing their movement to the notice of international bodies, most of all the UNO, in terms of recognition of Belligerency and Insurgency. In this context, the observing International societies will start looking for aspects related with the integrity of the nationalism among the people to whom the insurgents belong, their history, language and culture, territory occupied by the insurgents, their ability of control, administration and governance in that territory etc. Most of all, as a first basic step, such a recognition by an outside third state (country) is a must.

Perhaps, it is for enabling themselves to validate in the eyes of the international bodies that they have their collective rights in these areas that they start their hard toil to build up a composite army with adequate arms, a nationalism, their history, language, culture, so and so forth. In doing so, the insurgent leaders very often turn into dictators; hold visible or invisible command-sticks in their hands, and tend the populace as a herd of dumb driven cattle. It is the monetary or financial requirement for sustenance of the insurgent army and their activities that they have to tax the public heavily; first the well to do group of people, then the middle group and ultimately the low income group.

In most of the revolutions that happened in the history of mankind it was always some ten-twenty of the rich among the public who were the steadfast financial sources of such a move. In a place like Manipur, where there are no such committed rich people, able to provide with whatever demands that come, the rebellion becomes a weak gun. It is at this stage when the rebels have to grind all groups of people including the low income group for money that the revolution is at a very serious stake. And it is also the money issue that emanates the stench of the rebels who also eventually get intoxicated with the luxury of money and turn out as the looters of the public sweat and stomach.

On the other hand many activists of language, culture, religious faith, literature, local organizations, who previously were in a low profile, suddenly jolt up in this conflict situation and become extra active and start working through for recognition in the limelight in the name of the new movement. They take the law in their hands and do whatever they intend to do, frequently violating human rights in the name of the up-rise for staging one collective nation, language, culture, so and so forth.

The human rights activists also do not sit idle; with the benevolent nod from the insurgent supremos they come out and show their importance pointing fingers to the other side when instances of human rights violation occur. Ironically they themselves violate individual rights in trying to make the collective rights as the supreme doctrine. Individual rights seem to melt away in front of the actions targeted for the collective rights. Then naturally one would like to raise the question, 'where is my right to choose?'

Many revolutions proved to be successful, many others did not. Certain individuals, whereas they are agreeable with the movement, or care a damn about it, may refuse to be a part of the dumb driven cattle. Boris Pasternak, the Nobel Prize winner with his novel Doctor Zivago, was one such who stood firmly with his conscience, concept of individual rights; and so he had to suffer quite a lot from the harsh repressions forced on him by Lenin first, and then by Stalin. He was not allowed to publish his works.

Such individuals naturally become victims of abuse and punishments, enacted by the cadres of the insurgent agencies. Instances of such human rights violation from the end of the insurgents towards innocent citizens in this pattern also, thus, have started to happen in Manipur; we see it and hear it every day now. On the other hand the incidents of human rights violation from the state forces become a thing of normal affairs of the state; they need not be mentioned again, it is well known in Manipur.

In the eyes of a normal or an ordinary uninvolved citizen the state forces or the armed insurgents have the same visage. But it is they, the usual innocent citizens who are on the receiving end of torture from both. Then where is the point of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its subsequent conventions and proclamations? Perhaps it is the lack of positive activities of the local and regional human rights body, whose interests are elsewhere, the commanding-sticks forcing them to look in one specific direction only.

Questions when this bizarre anarchy would come to an end had been asked from various quarters in Manipur; nobody comes out to answer the question. Some nine ten eccentric, comic looking jingoists appear on the TV screen daily and would mumble some gibberish socio-political sermon that helps nobody.

To be continued..