The rift between the Asian values and Western cultures and the

development of human rights

NECESSITY OF RESEARCH
This research work is necessary to know about the rift between the Asian values and Western
cultures and the development of human rights because of this. I have done this research for
answer of these questions.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
I began my research on the internet by using Google to get an understanding of exactly what I
would be discussing. I have gone through several journals to understand about the other people’s
opinion on my topic. I have read different article on my topic to understand it properly. I then
used search engines to search the relevant information about my topic. Soon after, I decided to
look through relevant books for information pertaining. Through all of these resources, I was
able to gather the information needed in order to justify my argument.

HYPOTHESIS

1. Rift between western culture and Asian values.

2. Development of human rights
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Etc:- etcetera

&:- and

Acc.:- according

Eg.:- example
TABLE OF CONTENT

1. What are human rights

2. Historical development of human rights
3. Introduction
4. The Asian values concept
5. Asian values advocates
6. The converging roots of Asian values
7. Asian values as a means of politicizing
8. West conceptions of human rights
9. Human rights during 17th and 18th century
10.Human rights during 19th century
11.Human rights during 20th century
12.Conclusion
13.Bibliography
WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?
Human rights are held by all persons equally, universally and forever.

Human rights are universal: they are always the same for all human beings everywhere in the
world. You do not have human rights because you are a citizen of any country but because you
are a member of the human family. This means children have human rights as well as adults.

Human rights are inalienable: you cannot lose these rights any more than you can cease to be a
human being.

Human rights are indivisible: no one can take away a right because it is ‘less important’ or ‘non-
essential’.

Human rights are interdependent: together human rights form a complementary framework. For
eg. your ability to participate in local decision making is directly affected by your right to
express yourself, to associate with others, to get an education and even to obtain the necessities
of life.

Human rights reflect basic human needs. They establish basic standards without which people
cannot live in dignity. To violate someone’s human rights is to treat that person as though he or
she were not a human being. To advocate human rights is to demand that the human dignity of
all people be respected.

In claiming these human rights, everyone also accepts responsibilities: to respect the rights of
others and to protect and support people whose rights are abused or denied. Meeting these
responsibilities means claiming solidarity with all other human beings.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Before the existence of state the head of the family enjoyed absolute rights over his family. He
fully exercised his authority over his family and members of the family also accepted it without
any resistance because of economic and social security. They felt secured in his shelter and did
not ask for any individual rights. Thus the scale of authority of one person over other individuals
expanded. The authoritative persons began to enslave the physically and mentally weaker
section. Gradually it leads to the slavery system. He became the master of his subjects and kept
the sources of income and power in his own hands and masses were his mere tenants having no
rights. Many philosophers and spiritual leaders all over the world made people conscious about
their rights from time to time. Many of them struggled for the rights and also bear the
consequence of their offence.

The concept of Human Rights is relatively new. Traditionally, it was known by the name of
natural rights of man. At that time natural rights mainly included rights of life, liberty and pursuit
of happiness. Darwin’s assumptions ‘Might is Right’ and ‘Survival of the Fittest’ have universal
connotations in the sense that might are likely to belittle and exploit weak. While the fittest will
survive at the cost of rights of other human beings in all times and ages. Human Rights came into
being since the advent of civilization. Man without society is unthinkable and rights are
meaningless out of society. With the development of civilization, Human Rights became an
integral part of society. There are number of factors and causes which are responsible for the
development of Human Rights like: the nature of society, the needs of the people, the values or
norms of the society, the social, political and economic conditions etc, and above all, the
inventions and discoveries of science which have revolutionized the very life style of human
beings.
INTRODUCTION
The International Chinese Newsweekly (Yazhou Zhoukan) has hailed the Senior Minister of
Singapore Lee Kuan Yew as the "new Asian warrior who hits back at the west"' and a Japanese
academic describes him as "an eloquent spokesman who can talk back to the hoitytoity, self-
righteous westerners".' Throughout the 1990s, Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad championed 'Asian values' as being at the root of Asia's remarkable growth
over the previous decades. Many Asian nations wish to have it both ways: to be modem and
traditional at once, to modernize but not westernize. Hence, 'Asian values' theory rallies opinion
in most Asian countries against Western attempts to teach Asians about democracy and human
rights. It is devised for the - purpose of challenging "Westem-style" civil and political freedoms.
It also serves as a discourse that insists on differentiating between the unified and virtuous "us"
from the external "them", in order to form self-identity. However, after the recent Asian
economic crisis, the validity of the. 'Asian values' argument was seriously questioned. In fact,
Asian values are considered to be a source of the crony capitalism at the heart of the crisis. This
article attempts to critically examine the cultural arguments and how Asian leaders have used the
'Asian values' argument as political instruments to legitimize authoritarian rule; and how
implausible their argument is.
THE 'ASIAN VALUES' CONCEPT
After the end of the Cold War, the United States had enlarged its scope of democracy and the
promotion of human rights in its foreign policy. This universalistic claim of human rights was
seen by the economically dynamic and increasingly self-assertive East Asian regimes as an
ideological compliment to Western domination. The economic success of Asia has given the
region a collective sense of confidence to challenge Western hegemonic thoughts and
civilization. 'Asian values' argument has important implication for many Asians who "harbor
deep resentment against the West for its past colonialism and who have an inferiority complex in
regards to Western civilization.”

Huntington describes this Asian assertiveness as the 'Clash of Civilizations', which he portends
that future global conflicts will be fought not along ideological fault lines but on cultural
differences.' Although this thesis " has attracted criticisms within the West as well as in Asia, it
has "complemented attempts by some Asian political leaders to insulate their regimes" from
charges of human rights abuses and to justify authoritarian rule by championing the superiority
of 'Asian value'. The prime tactical premise of the 'Asian values' argument is cultural relativism.
The argument is only comprehensible in relation to its 'Other'. The 'West' is essentialized and
seen as the homogeneous 'Other'. Consensus, harmony, unity and community are values that are
commonly proposed as the essence of Asian culture and identity. These are contrasted with the
values said to characterize the 'Other', namely, absence of consensus, conflict, disunity, and
individualism." Lee Kuan Yew is convinced that the economic decline of the West was part of a
larger crisis of moral values the root cause of which is an obsession with individual rights.
Similarly, Dr. Mahathir asserts that, "Many Western societies ... are morally decadent." Hence,
they believe that East Asian societies can provide an alternative development and political model
that may supplant those of the faltering west. With the concept of the fundamental differences in
culture between the East and the West, 'Asian values' theory was thus constructed.

The 'Asian values' theory, in brief, makes four claim. First, human rights are not universal and
neither can they be globalized. They emerge differently according to the context of particular
social, economic, cultural and political conditions. Second, Asian societies are not centered on
the individual but on the family. The nation is like a big family. It supposedly comes naturally
for Asians to let the combined interests of the family and the nation go before the interests of
each individual. Third, Asian societies rank social and economic rights over individual's political
rights. Finally, the right of a nation to self-determination includes a government's domestic
jurisdiction over human rights. This implies that other nations should not interfere with the
internal affairs of a state, including its human rights policy.

The concept of asian values gained prominence in many Asian countries especially as it is often
articulated in government rhetoric and official statement. In asserting these values, leaders from
the region find that they have a convenient tool to silence internal criticism

The relevance of basic political liberties and civil rights in some Asian countries is often
disputed on the ground that they hinder economic and social progress, which can be carried out
more effectively "when the government's effort are not frustrated by factional opposition". Both
Lee and Mahathir constructed the 'Asian values' argument by contending that the West's attempts
to disguised 'cultural imperialism' and an attempt to obstruct their development." Former Chinese
Premier Li Peng agreed that each country should be left to define its own concept of human
rights and democracy. The Chinese government, in its 1991 White Papers, adopted the
development human rights trade off thesis which states, "to eat their fill and dress warmly were
the fundamental demands of the Chinese people who had long suffered cold and hunger".
Therefore, the government contends that the. right to subsistence and economic development is a
precondition to the full enjoyment of all other human rights. The White Paper goes on to
challenge the international nature of human rights by stating, "the issue of human rights falls by
and large within the sovereignty of each state". Thus, to impose any human rights standards to
any nation is seen as an interference of its internal affairs.

'ASIAN VALUES' ADVOCATES

In advocating 'Asian values', traditions are being 'invented in many new Asian nations to support
a paternalistic type of authority. 'Asian values' advocates assert that a nation is like a big family,
the government is seen as the unchallengeable 'father' who is obliged to exercise both the
disciplinarian and custodial roles, and the impose universal standards of human society is
deemed to be the children rights on developing countries is a who ought to obey the father in all
circumstance. These governments introduced traditional patriarchal 'family values' into modern
states in order to strengthen their paternalistic rule and to guard against the influence of "Western
hedonism". Hence, state fatherhood legitimizes Asian governments to intervene into the daily
affairs of individuals and families such as their sexuality, marriage and reproductive rights by
implementing fertility control and gender policies in order to achieve national development. This
intrusion into civil society is justified by affirming the claim of 'Asian values' that social and
economics rights of the nation go before the individual rights. 'Asian values' are also used to
justify the governments' restrictions upon the freedom of press and media in China, Malaysia and
singapore. The parent-state argues that it will do whatever it can to protect its ignorant children-
subject from the exposure of potentially 'harmful' materials presented by the media. In Malaysia,
the government holds that media control is a necessary measure to maintain internal peace and
stability given that a proportion of its population is under-educated. Any conflicts with national
ideology can be sufficient ground for the government to withdraw a broadcast license. The media
are also regarded as having a meant control and censorship are deemed necessary. Lee asserts
that "the theory of the press as the Fourth Estate did not fit Singapore, which had to build one
nation out of four racial groups". Mahathir also advocates that the greatest media freedom must
be consonant with the vital interests of society. He believes that, "while the individuals must
have their rights, these must not extend to the point where they deprive the rights of the
majority". Some Asian governments cite the need for political stabilization as an excuse for
oppressing minorities and persecution of dissidents. They argue that 'Asian values' render
criticism of a government inappropriate and undesirable. China presents itself as a practical
example of this. The Chinese government has perpetrated repeated acts of state violence when
faced with domestic dissent. The Confucian tradition of parental governance remains the core
feature of political interaction in China. Parental governance entails two important principles
from Confucian thought. They are filial piety for children-subjects and firm benevolence for
parent-officials. Whatever dissent arises must come from "irresponsible malcontents", therefore
the state has a moral obligation to remove these deviants from society and restore order.
responsibility to the communitarian The 'Asian values' argument faces interest." Hence,
considerable govern- several serious challenges especially circumstance. These governments
introduced traditional patriarchal 'family values' into modern states in ~ order to strengthen their
paternalistic rule and to guard against the influence of "Western hedonism". Hence, state
fatherhood legitimizes Asian governments to intervene into the daily affairs of individuals and
families such as their sexuality, marriage and reproductive rights by implementing fertility
control and gender policies in order to achieve national development. This intrusion into civil
society is justified by affirming the claim of 'Asian values' that social and economics rights of the
nation go before the individual rights. 'Asian values' are also used to justify the governments'
restrictions upon the freedom of press and media in China, Malaysia and singpore.' The parent-
state argues that it will do whatever it can to protect its ignorant children-subject from the
exposure of potentially 'harmful' materials presented by the media. In Malaysia, the government
holds that media control is a necessary measure to maintain internal peace and stability given
that a proportion of its population is under-educated.' Any conflicts with national ideology can be
sufficient ground for the government to withdraw a broadcast license. The media are also
regarded as having a ment control and censorship are deemed necessary. Lee asserts that "the
theory of the press as the Fourth Estate did not fit Singapore, which had to build one nation out
of four racial groups". Mahathir also advocates that the greatest media freedom must be
consonant with the vital interests of society. He believes that, "while the individuals must have
their rights, these must not extend to the point where they deprive the rights of the majority".
Some Asian governments cite the need for political stabilization as an excuse for oppressing
minorities and persecution of dissidents. They argue that 'Asian values' render criticism of a
government inappropriate and undesirable. China presents itself as a practical example of this.
The Chinese government has perpetrated repeated acts of state violence when faced with
domestic dissent. The Confucian tradition of parental governance remains the core feature of
political interaction in China. Parental governance entails two important principles from
Confucian thought. They are filial piety for children-subjects and firm benevolence for parent-
officials. Whatever dissent arises must come from "irresponsible malcontents", therefore the state
has a moral obligation to remove these deviants from society and restore order. responsibility to
the communitarian The 'Asian values' argument faces interest." Hence, considerable govern-
several serious challenges especially after the Asian economics crisis. After the crisis, Lee Kuan
Yew denied that he had given prominence to 'Asian values'. Lee claimed that he had always
advocated 'Confucian' values, demonstrating the importance of Confucian ethics as essential
ingredients of East Asia's economic growth. Although Lee argument tended to be felt strongly in
sinicized East Asian societies, it was notable that Mahathir had put in a lot of effort in
convincing the Malays to adopt these virtues as their own, in order to be differentiated form the
West. It seems therefore dubious that if pure 'Asian values' could be devised without having to
equate it with 'Confucian values'. If so, Lee's version of 'Asian values' will be especially
problematic in Muslim societies such as Malaysia and lndonesia. Indeed, the proponents of
'Asian values' have been very selective in their approach to suit the argument to benefit their
authoritarian position. Although Confucianism does not incorporate the idea of human rights, its
basic tenets are compatible with human rights principles. Lynn Pan noted that, "The danger does
not lay in Confucian philosophy itself, but in its politicization". In practice, the central Confucian
view of filial piety and loyalty are blurred all too often into unthinking obedience and nepotism.
Yet even Confucius, - whose teachings are alleged to have instilled devotion to authority among
the Chinese, condemned blind obedience to the state. When asked how one should serve a
prince, Confucius replied, "Tell him the truth even if it offends him." However, those who dare
speak the truth to authoritarian governments in Asia were often threatened, beaten and jailed,
exiled and even executed by offended leaders. Not co-incidentally, Confucius' teachings about
paying respect and deference to one's government had been given special highlight by the
Singaporean press whereas one that teaches that a vicious, man-eating tiger is less frightful than
an oppressive Government had hardly been mentioned.

THE CONVERGING ROOTS OF 'ASIAN VALUES'

It is unjustifiable to depict Asia as Confucian civilization, as opposed to the Judeo-Christian

West. Other major traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have a comparable presence in
Asian spiritual practices. Furthermore, Christianity has also penetrated Asia and exerted strong
social and political influence, especially in the Philippines and arguably in South korea.
Opponents of 'Asian values' argue that 'Asian values' are a convergence of all these religions and
philosophies that teach about humility, tolerance, honesty and social justice." These virtues are to
be found also in other civilizations, in fact all over the worlde. Furthermore, Confucian ethics
such as frugality, dedication to work and competitiveness that are claimed to have brought about
economic success are not uniquely "Asian" but universal values that can also be found in
Western societies. Arguing from an economics point of view, Krugman contends that, "Asian
growth is mainly the result of the same things that drive growth everywhere." Hence, critics
claim that there is no such thing as a unique and superior set of 'Asian values' that the East has
produced.

'Asian values' assumes to embody a concrete distinction in the cultures of East and West. Hill
argues that the attribution of a set of cultural values to East and Southeast Asian societies
represented a Western project known as 'reverse Orientalism' was originated by Western social
scientists to contrast the recent dynamic progress of Asian development with the stagnation and
social disorganization of contemporary Western economies and societies.' This contrast was
subsequently adopted and further advocated by Asian leaders to serve their political legitimacy.
In promoting 'Asian values' they assert Asian cultural uniqueness based on the dualism of Asia as
the Orient and the West as the Occident, which was ironically a construct of Western imperialist.

Said claims the Orient as a 'European invention' that helps to 'define the West' as its contrasting
image By changing the "evaluative connotation" of Orientalism from negative to positive but
keep its "cognitive content" unchanged, 'Asian values' theory is constructed. Like Orientalism,
'Asian values' serve as a discourse that differentiates between the unified and virtuous "East"
from the decaying "West", in order to form selfidentity." This dualism also enables Asian leaders
to reject civil and political rights as being specifically Western and culturally inadequate to the
Asian context and make charges of "cultural imperialism" in response to Western interference of
their human rights abuses.

It is crucial to understand that 'Asian values' are not embraced by all Asian leaders. Asian leaders
such as the Dalai Lama, Lee Teng Hui, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Abdurrahman Wahid have
declared their rejection of the iIliberal and anti-democratic elements of the . "Asian values"
argument. " Pertierra notes that states with a strong tradition of civil society such as the
Philippines articulate different values from authoritarian states such as Singapore, Malaysia and
china. Similarly, Ng argues that freedom of speech and media have been essential tools for
monitoring government policies and performance in Hong Kong. She contends that,
"Government intolerance of opposition is without doubt the one thing the people will refuse to
tolerate", a paternalistic government is less than real possibility for Hong Kong.

One of the reasons that 'Asian values' advocates essentialize the differences between the West
and Asia in its social structures and economical development is to deny the need for Asians to
have individual rights. They claim that Asian societies were structured around duties, not rights.
And a society based on duties is communitarian while a rights-based society is individualistic.
This assertion often overstates the 'individualism' of Western society. Ironically, their criticisms
of Western society and attacks on liberalism are, in many respects, similar to the critiques of
liberalism by Western conservative.

Ghai contends that even within Western liberalism, "there are strands of analysis which assert the
claim of the community". As the common good takes precedence over individual rights, Asian
leaders contend that there is no need for governments to - respect rights of individual. Jiang
Zemin argues that the "right of survival of China's population is more important that political
rights". However, to reduce human rights to a guarantee of mere survival is a perverse betrayal
of any plausible conception of human dignity. A Filipino academic argues that political stability
obtained through authoritarian methods is not for the Philippines, he said, "We're not about to
trade our rights for better incomes."

'ASIAN VALUES' AS A MEANS OF POLITICIZING

There has been broad speculation that the paternalistic nature of Asian values lends itself to a
lack of transparency within government. This has resulted in more frequent incidences of
corruption when the government abuses its rights. Barr contends that it is ironical that in
Singapore, Lee claims that 'Asian values' upholds the virtue of clean government, whiIe in
Indonesia they have been used implicitly to defend nepotism and crony capitalism. The national
ideology of Indonesia, Pancasila, has also played. a critical role in delegitimizing non-state
political organizations. 'Hence it can be seen that 'Asian values' is not only used to differentiate
an Asian value system from the Western one, but also used to enhance authoritarian regime's
domestic legitimacy.

'Asian values' discourse of paternalistic governance often provides a convenient means of

justification for state oppression of political oppositions, separatists and minorities. Political
leaders often cite the need for political stabilization as excuses. However, such an oppressive
system does not dissolve but rather suppresses the discontented minorities. The hatred and
indignation of the suppressed will increase the instability of the system in the long run. Many
authoritative Asian parent-nations are not benevolent to their children-subjects as they claim.
Instead, as an Indonesian academic puts it, they are more like "monsters" than "the defender of
common good". Malaysia's former Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim has said repeatedly, "it is
altogether shameful to cite Asian values as an excuse for autocratic practices and denial of basic
rights and civil liberty." 'He should know, having been removed from office, jailed, beaten by the
police, and convicted of sodomy and corruption charges, when his real crime was challenging the
Malaysian's Prime minister. Anwar's case show that basic civil liberties can be disregarded and
charges can be trumped up to serve the goals of the national leader. In many Asian countries
"anyone who dares to challenge the authority is quickly labeled as 'bad' and discredited.
Conformity is of a very high order". Thus, consensus is just another meaning of conforming to
the wishes of the regime.

'Asia' itself is a difficult enough region to define geographically, let alone to cast in terms of a
coherent cultural entity. It is difficult to prove that Chinese values are the same as Malaysian, or
Korean values.'' The fact that these values are often related with diligence and discipline do not
represent the sum total of any Asian religion or culture.' Hence, this article rejects the claim of a
homogeneous body of 'Asian values' as a civilizational bloc. While recognizing the diversity and
differences in values within Asian societies, nevertheless, evidence is found showing that there
are some general differences between Asian and Western cultural tendencies and dispositions.
However, this does not mean that 'Asian values' as articulated by Asian leaders are any closer to
reality. Thus, Noor argues that, "Like the Arabian Phoenix of Mozart's opera, everyone knows
about Asian values, but nobody knows where they are." As Asian values are being politicized
and conceptualized by authoritarian leaders as an ideological tool for legitimization, "fewer and
fewer people seem to believe in them." It is therefore inappropriate to use the term 'Asian values'
"to denote a particuIar set of attitudes, beliefs and institutions which all Asian people share in
common", but rather to refer to the diversities which characterize Asian values as such.

WEST CONCEPTIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Human Rights from Western Perspectives

Now we will discuss Human Rights during different periods:

1. Human Rights during Greek and Roman period

2. Human Rights during 17th and18th Century

3. Human Rights during 19th Century

4. Human Rights during 20th Century

Human Rights during Greek and Roman period

The philosophy of the natural law is based on the principle that human being is a part of nature,
part of this cosmos and is born with some rights, which are the inherent rights and these rights
cannot be separated from human beings.

According to the Greek and Roman philosophers, there is one common law of nature, based on
reason, which is valid universally throughout the world. They developed a cosmopolitan
philosophy, founded on the principle of equality of all men and the universality of natural law.
Their ultimate ideal was a world-state in which all men would live together harmoniously under
the guidance of divine reason. An important element in the concept of natural law philosophy
was the principle of equality. The natural law philosophers were convinced that all men were
essentially equal and the discrimination between them on account of sex, race, class or
nationality was unjust and contrary to the laws of nature.

In the western political thought credit of first talking of ‘Man as the measures of all things’ goes
to Protagoras, a sophist thinker, while that of the ‘Equality of all men’ to Hippias. Socrates
discarded the examined life as not worth living.7 So it is clear that man is not only a measure of
all things but also a creator of things as he endowed with reason and infinite capacity to solve his
problems and determine his destiny.

Plato took justice as a right. It is a state who has to provide the citizens with justice. The justice
is the bond which holds a society together. For him the justice is that each of individuals has
found his life-work in accordance with his natural fitness and his training-the Republic. So it is
the right of every 12 individual. More than it he gives importance to education. In his opinion
law does not and cannot give everybody his due. Law has no meaning other than to give the least
bungling rule that will fit an average case; but a philosopher’s (a philosopher king who is
properly educated) wisdom gives to everybody what he deserves.8 So justice which is the most
important right should be given to every citizen in the ideal state, because justice is the bond
which holds a society together. Each person should do his appointed work in contentment. Plato
also gives importance to education in his ideal state. According to him ruler should be a
philosopher or an intellectual person who can provide everybody what he deserves. Plato made
systematic attempt to protect the citizens and non-citizens in his grand scheme of justice.

Aristotle advocates private property as an essential instrument of good life it is a means to the
development of human personality.9Aristotle defended holding of a private property as natural
right because property is essential to fulfill the human desires.

One of the basic tenets of stoicism founded by Zeno and later on developed by Cicero Marcus,
Seneca and Stoics. They uphold equality of all human beings. Cicero a great Roman thinker
spoke of cosmopolitanism, universal brotherhood of man and world citizenship. He talked of
equality of men.10 He thinks that man is the only living creature endowed with the faculty of
reason. In his views all men are equal despite the difference in language, nationalities and races.
According to him natural rights were universal and everlasting and it is sin to try and alter this
law. Seneca another Roman thinker talked in favour of Human Rights and said that slave or free
man all must be treated equally.

Stoic philosophers developed the natural theory of right and by virtue of it they explained the
nature of Human Rights that is rights which every human being possesses by virtue of being
human.11 Similarly like Cicero, Stoic also believed that the principle of natural rights were
universal in their nature. They were applicable to all irrespective of caste, colour, creed, sex etc.
In this way Stoic philosophers were able to preach idea of universal brotherhood of mankind and
laid stress upon the equality and freedom for all.

All these eminent philosophers emphasized the quality of all human beings. People should treat
equally without any discrimination. They should live equally under one law of nature. In this
way they preach idea of brotherhood of mankind and laid stress upon the equality and freedom of
all.

Human Rights during 17th and 18th century

The Theory of natural rights was very popular in 17th and 18th century. The social contract
theory was closely linked with the theory of natural law. According to the theory of natural
rights, the state does not grant these rights to human being. But they come from the very nature
of man, his own intrinsic beings. Before the formation of civil society certain rights were
enjoyed by man in the state of nature so these natural rights must be respected and protected by
the state. The social contract theory became popular during this period through the contribution
of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau etc.

According to Hobbes, the state of nature was thus, a condition of perpetual war, “Where every
man is enemy to every man” and where the rule of life was “only that to be every man’s that he
can get and for so long as he keep it.” When men in the state of nature were like hungry wolves,
each ready to devour the other, their lives were solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Thus
people in order to secure their life and property and to escape from the miseries and horrors of
their natural conditions, they entered into a contract with each other. Hobbes wanted the safety of
individuals from the anarchical state of natural through a contract.

According to Hobbes, I authorize, and give up my right of governing myself to this man or to
this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy in this like manner. In this way
state has been created and individual has resigned his natural rights and state assumed them.

The origin of the modern concept of fundamental rights lies in Locke’s concept of natural rights.
Locke gave a new turn to the social contract theory which was introduced by Hobbes. Locke
(1632-1704) gave law of nature, which means set of rules for human behaviour and how they
ought to behave. John Locke was one of the greatest individualistic thinkers in the history of
political thought. For him the earth and all its institutions therefore were made for the individuals
and not the individuals for them. According to him if state fails in its duty to provide security to
its subjects then they can resist or dissolve it. So he treats individual as the end and state as the
means.

Locke agreed that a social contract existed in which the ruled had to give up some rights in return
for protection. Unlike Hobbes, however, he argued that individual rights, including property
ownership, were best protected when parliament limited the monarch’s capacity to interfere with
individual lives. Moreover he believed that people’s liberty and innate rights stemmed from
nature, not from the sovereign’s grant. Thus According to John Locke natural right such as life,
liberty and property are inalienable rights of every individual and attainment of these rights is
made possible through the agency of the government.

Rousseau was of the opinion that the state is an artificial creation of individual or result of social
contract. He opined that man is born free but in society he is everywhere in chains. Rousseau
argued in the social contract that man surrendered his natural rights to the ‘general will’ in order
to find security and order.

Bentham rejected the both natural rights and social contract theory of government. According to
Bentham, therefore, there are no natural rights but legal rights; a man has no right by virtue of his
humanity but only by virtue of the law.

Thus supporters of social contract theory considered Human Rights as natural rights because
they are based upon a contract between the people and state. They were of the view that when
people entered into contract with the state, the people shed some of their rights like right to
freedom and equality preserved by them. These rights were called natural and inalienable rights.
Rousseau wanted people to enjoy their liberty, equality and fraternity within a political set up.

The concept of Human Rights originally evolved in England. The struggle for Human Rights
continued for centuries but the first victory was won through the charter of liberty, i.e. Magna
Carta of 1215 A.D, exacting some Human Rights from the English King John. The royal whim
of imprisoning and punishing the people was checked. The supremacy of law was put into
operation. The supremacy of law was established. It was said to be the first milestone on the
roads of liberty of the people of the England. Thus Magna Carta starts new trends with its
implications. Nobody was to be denied the right to justice.

The American Declaration of Independence was adopted on 4th July, 1776 by the Constitutional
Congress and it was declared that we hold those truths to be itself evident that all men are created
equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights government are instituted among
men, driving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it,
and to institute a new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing it’s
likely affect their safety and happiness.

The American Declaration of Independence was the first civil document that met modern
definition of Human Rights. It asserted Universal Rights that applied to the general population
include legal as well as moral obligations and established standards for judging the legitimacy of
the state’s action. So in this way, the American Revolution ultimately culminated into America’s
Independence in 1776, giving birth to a new nation, known as the United State America with
enforceable bill of rights in its Constitution. This was an upheaval in the sphere of Human Rights
and had a profound influence on the world history.

The French Revolution was based upon those principles which were set in motion by the English
and American Revolution and took place in 1789. It was the result of economic and social
inequalities and injustices of the ancient French regime. These inequalities were conspicuous not
only among the third estate, i.e. clergy but also among the second estate i.e. noble. Thus the
American Declaration of Independence and French Revolution both inspired the concept of
Human Rights.

Human Rights during 19th century

An international treaty to abolish the slave trade was concluded in 1890 and a treaty to abolish
slavery was drafted in 1920. By the end of 19th century, in Europe and North America, the
concept of natural rights was secularized, rationalized and demoralized and was reinvented as
what came to be known as the ‘Right of Man’. By the beginning of the mid-19th century, the
demand for economic security and social justice, in addition to civil and political rights appeared
in the forefront of the socialist movements. Thus the Bolshevic Revolution of Russia emphasized
that economic and social rights were as important as civil and political rights.

The capitalist society protects the rights and interests of capitalists at the expense of the working
class. Workers will have to over throw capitalists and socialize the major means of production in
order to create a new order that would protect the rights and interests of the working class. By
the time 19th century started many far-reaching changes took place which further helped in the
development of Human Rights. The discoveries and inventions of science were marked by
industrial revolution in Europe and particularly in England. The most important consequence of
industrial revolution was the emergence of two classes in the society, dominant and dependent,
oppressor and oppressed, exploiter and exploited classes. The development, which took place
after the industrial revolution had brought with it, lots of miseries and misfortunes for the labour.
They were being exploited by their rich masters and the gulf between the rich and the poor class
kept on widening .The plight of the labour class became worse as there were no laws to regulate
the working conditions of this class.

Karl Marx, the great 19th century philosopher was critical of natural rights of individuals. He
thought that in a society where the means of production and distribution are monopolized by the
capitalist, ideas like individual rights are illusory. These rights are meant to cater to the interest
of the ruling bourgeois class only. Marxist interpretation of rights is still considered to be one of
the most theoretical tools to analyze the Human Rights abuses in the developing societies. At the
same time a new concept of welfare state emerged as an aftermath of the America Revolution of
Independence of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789.The old concept of laissez-faire was
rejected. New laws like social security, social welfare and compensation for the working class
were framed and enacted all over the world. Thus more and more rights for the individual were
given recognition by the end of the 19th century.

Human rights during 20th century:

It was an evolutionary period in the spare of Human Rights. This century, being the century of
turmoil, has witnessed two world wars in 1914 and 1939 respectively. Steps were also taken to
establish international Human Rights after the First World War.

After First World War, League of Nations was established in 1919, development of Human
Rights started at fast pace. League made contribution in two areas, these are rights of minorities
and the rights of the working classes were put into practice through the International Labour
Organization.

The International Labour Organizations emphasized a new international concern in labour about
wages, working hours, working conditions and social security. The activities of League of
Nations reflect the growing acceptance of the concept that the affairs of labour were matter of
international as well as national concern”. While these beginning of international concern for
Human Rights were historically significant .The harsh fact is that the League failed to protect
Human Rights and international peace and perished in the gunfire and smoke of the World War.

The Second World War marked a turning point in the development of international concern for
Human Rights. The introduction of Human Rights into international law was an important
feature of the post-war years. The American President, Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘four freedom’
speech in his state of the union address in 1941, is often credited with laying the foundation for
the incorporation in Human Rights in the post-war international order. In fact, the second half of
the last century saw a universal acceptance of Human Rights in principle and general agreement
on its contents. International Charters and National Constitutions framed after World War-II
have shown an increasing realization of the truth that peace within and among nations can be
lasting, only if it is based on basic Human Rights socio-economic justice.

Thus the horrors of Second World War led to the birth and recognition of the modern Human
Rights movement.

When in 1945, the charter of the United Nations was formed, proposals were made that an
international bill of Human Rights should be drafted, but the task was only undertaken after the
United Nations had come into existence. A commission of Human Rights was setup in 1946, and
the draft declaration on Human Rights was prepared, which was adopted only by the General
Assembly on 10th December, 1948.

On 10th December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration was one of the greatest
achievements of United Nations which became source of Human Rights. Thus Human Rights
first became a significant part of international law under the charter of the United Nations, 1945
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. The Declaration consisted of 30 Articles,
covering both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights.
CONCLUSION
It can be seen that 'Asian values' argument has been partly motivated by the deep resentment
against the West for its past colonialism. Furthermore, Asia's economic success may well have
enhanced people's self-confidence to resist the continuing Western hegemony. To deny the
existence of cultural and societal differences between the East and the West is unrealistic.
However, to essentialize their cultural differences in stereotypes and dichotomies represents a
paradoxical reversal of Orientalism that the 'West' has allegedly contributed. Nonetheless, there
should be no friction between Asians retaining their own unique characteristics and believing
that all humans should be granted autonomy to exercise their individual rights. To relinquish
human rights by any means is inhuman. Sadly, the 'Asian values' argument has opened a
convenient door to justify some Asian governments' oppressions of minorities, abuses of human
rights and restrictions of freedom on information. Hence, it could be seen that when certain
values are politicized, they become instruments subject to the authorities manipulation.

Given the wide diversity of religion, language and culture in Asia, it is doubtful that a set of
common values could be devised. The proponents of the 'Asian Values’. Argument imposed this
concept upon the whole of Asia in order to give the West a holistic view of Asia. However, as
not all Asian leaders support the argument, ‘Asian values’ as a concept is not a reality. It is
merely a myth created by some Asian leaders as a political tool against challenges from both
within and outsides the states. Authentic human and social values cannot be imposed by
authorities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Daniel J. Whelan, Indivisible Human Rights; A History
 Peter N. Stearns, Human Rights In World History
 Carl Wellman, The Moral Dimensions Of Human Rights
 Dr. S.K. Kapoor, International Law & Human Rights
 Sayali Chintan Bandi, Human Rights