Post modernist view of human rights.

The European culture is historically a product of biblical idea of human nature; humans are
created in the image of God, but are not gods, humans can reason but not beyond a point, from
where only divine revelation can take them on the right path, the path leading to the Kingdom of
Heaven. Despite these short comings, because humans are an imperfect image of God, they do
possess certain intrinsic dignity which comes with certain inherent rights as a package deal. And
that classical-biblical view was the foundation of the theory of natural rights of the mankind.
Modernists parted company with this medieval outlook on life. For the modernist, man was a
purely rational animal which did need truth, but this truth, according to him, could be crafted
independent of divine revelation, solely through reason. In the modern view, self was
autonomous. By autonomous was meant that individual self was the ultimate existence of the self
and the community of individuals i.e., society, was an ultimate self surviving unit which was all
powerful over it members. The idea was that reason being a universal and common faculty of
human race, all rational people will come to same rational conclusions and thus if human race
can effectively use its faculty of reason, it can live in peace and harmony. This idealist view was
completely shattered in the brutalities of the Second World War which lead to the revival of
idealism of Classical period andthe re-emergence of inherent, eternal and universal natural rights
in the shape of Human Rights.

However, in the decades following the end of the Second World War emerged what is now
known as the “Postmodern” world view. According to postmodern view, not only is there no
ultimate truth to be discovered, there is absolutely no concept of universal reason even. In fact
there is no objective reality. And since there is no objective criterion to be used as a bench mark,
there exists no universal reality; all reality is relative. In other words, every human concept is a
social construct and every human thought has contextual meaning. 13 Thus although origins of
Human Rights was in the natural law concept of universal rights inherent identically in every
human being, their actual effective globalization is the result of their getting local.14 Getting
embedded in each social context according to its needs and sensitivities is the actual triumph of
Human Rights today.

Fundamental Rights
'Part III - Fundamental Rights' is a charter of rights contained in the Constitution of India. It
guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as
citizens of India. These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, such as
equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association and peaceful
assembly, freedom to practice religion, and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection
of civil rights by means of writs such as habeas corpus. Violations of these rights result in
punishments as prescribed in the Indian Penal Code, subject to discretion of the judiciary. The
Fundamental Rights are defined as basic human freedoms which every Indian citizen has the
right to enjoy for a proper and harmonious development of personality. These rights universally
apply to all citizens, irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed, color or Gender.
They are enforceable by the courts, subject to certain restrictions. The Rights have their origins
in many sources, including England's Bill of Rights, the United States Bill of Rights and France's
Declaration of the Rights of Man.

The Seven fundamental rights recognised by the constitution are :

1) Right to equality, including equality before law, prohibition of discrimination on grounds of

religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and equality of opportunity in matters of employment,
abolition of untouchability and abolition of titles.

2) Right to freedom which includes speech and expression, assembly, association or union or
cooperatives, movement, residence, and right to practice any profession or occupation (some of
these rights are subject to security of the State, friendly relations with foreign countries, public
order, decency or morality), right to life and liberty, right to education, protection in respect to
conviction in offences and protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.

3) Right against exploitation, prohibiting all forms of forced labour, child labour and traffic in
human beings;
4) Right to freedom of religion, including freedom of conscience and free profession, practice,
and propagation of religion, freedom to manage religious affairs, freedom from certain taxes and
freedom from religious instructions in certain educational institutes.

5) Cultural and Educational rights preserving Right of any section of citizens to conserve their
culture, language or script, and right of minorities to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.

6) Right to constitutional remedies for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

7) Right to education which ensures that children up to the age of 14 get education. It can also be
free of cost.

Fundamental rights for Indians have also been aimed at overturning the inequalities of pre-
independence social practices. Specifically, they have also been used to abolish untouchability
and hence prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
They also forbid trafficking of human beings and forced labour. They also protect cultural and
educational rights of ethnic and religious minorities by allowing them to preserve their languages
and also establish and administer their own education institutions.

Right to property was originally a fundamental right, but is now a legal right.

Significance and characteristics

The fundamental rights were included in the constitution because they were considered essential
for the development of the personality of every individual and to preserve human dignity. The
writers of the constitution regarded democracy of no avail if civil liberties, like freedom of
speech and religion were not recognized and protected by the State. According to them,
"democracy" is, in essence, a government by opinion and therefore, the means of formulating
public opinion should be secured to the people of a democratic nation. For this purpose, the
constitution guaranteed to all the citizens of India the freedom of speech and expression and
various other freedoms in the form of the fundamental rights.

All people, irrespective of race, religion, caste or sex, have been given the right to move the
Supreme Court and the High Courts for the enforcement of their fundamental rights. It is not
necessary that the aggrieved party has to be the one to do so. Poverty stricken people may not
have the means to do so and therefore, in the public interest, anyone can commence litigation in
the court on their behalf. This is known as "Public interest litigation". In some cases, High Court
judges have acted on their own on the basis of newspaper reports.

These fundamental rights help not only in protection but also the prevention of gross violations
of human rights. They emphasize on the fundamental unity of India by guaranteeing to all
citizens the access and use of the same facilities, irrespective of background. Some fundamental
rights apply for persons of any nationality whereas others are available only to the citizens of
India. The right to life and personal liberty is available to all people and so is the right to freedom
of religion. On the other hand, freedoms of speech and expression and freedom to reside and
settle in any part of the country are reserved to citizens alone, including non-resident Indian
citizens. The right to equality in matters of public employment cannot be conferred to overseas
citizens of India.

Fundamental rights primarily protect individuals from any arbitrary state actions, but some rights
are enforceable against individuals. For instance, the Constitution abolishes untouchability and
also prohibits begar. These provisions act as a check both on state action as well as the action of
private individuals. However, these rights are not absolute or uncontrolled and are subject to
reasonable restrictions as necessary for the protection of general welfare. They can also be
selectively curtailed. The Supreme Court has ruled that all provisions of the Constitution,
including fundamental rights can be amended. However, the Parliament cannot alter the basic
structure of the constitution. Features such as secularism and democracy fall under this category.
Since the fundamental rights can only be altered by a constitutional amendment, their inclusion
is a check not only on the executive branch, but also on the Parliament and state legislatures.

A state of national emergency has an adverse effect on these rights. Under such a state, the rights
conferred by Article 19 (freedoms of speech, assembly and movement, etc.) remain suspended.
Hence, in such a situation, the legislature may make laws which go against the rights given in
Article 19. Also, the President may by order suspend the right to move court for the enforcement
of other rights as well.

Critical analysis

The fundamental rights have been revised for many reasons. Political groups have demanded that
the right to work, the right to economic assistance in case of unemployment, old age, and similar
rights be enshrined as constitutional guarantees to address issues of poverty and economic
insecurity, though these provisions have been enshrined in the Directive Principles of state
policy. The right to freedom and personal liberty has a number of limiting clauses, and thus have
been criticized for failing to check the sanctioning of powers often deemed "excessive". There is
also the provision of preventive detention and suspension of fundamental rights in times of
Emergency. The provisions of acts like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) and the
National Security Act (NSA) are a means of countering the fundamental rights, because they
sanction excessive powers with the aim of fighting internal and cross-border terrorism and
political violence, without safeguards for civil rights. The phrases "security of State", "public
order" and "morality" are of wide implication. People of alternate sexuality is criminalized in
India with prison term up to 10 years. The meaning of phrases like "reasonable restrictions" and
"the interest of public order" have not been explicitly stated in the constitution, and this
ambiguity leads to unnecessary litigant .The freedom to assemble peacably and without arms is
exercised, but in some cases, these meetings are broken up by the police through the use of non-
fatal methods.

"Freedom of press" has not been included in the right to freedom, which is necessary for
formulating public opinion and to make freedom of expression more legitimate.Employment of
child labour in hazardous job environments has been reduced, but their employment even in non-
hazardous jobs, including their prevalent employment as domestic help violates the spirit and
ideals of the constitution. More than 16.5 million children are employed and working in India.
India was ranked 88 out of 159 in 2005, according to the degree to which corruption is perceived
to exist among public officials and politicians worldwide. The right to equality in matters
regarding public employment shall not be conferred to Overseas citizens of India, according to
the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill'', 2003.

CONCLUSION

Postmodernism is a general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy,
architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a
reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence,
it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but
rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality.
For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all
groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In
the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through
our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete
experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience
will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.Postmodernism is "post"
because it is denies the existence of any ultimate principles, and it lacks the optimism of there
being a scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody -
a characteristic of the so-called "modern" mind. The problem with Postmodernism is that it
leaves us without absolute foundations for determining absolute truths about how we should
think and live wisely on earth. We can imagine pretty much anything as being true (human
imagination is endless) which is how our world is (and has been for thousands of years).This
freedom to imagine anything as 'relative truth' is another significant reason why postmodernism
has been universally embraced. Every culture, religion and diverse group on the planet can claim
that their truths are just as valid as anyone else's This has led to theconcept of 'tolerance'. In
conclusion postmodernism and modernism are somewhat intertwined and it’s in reality very hard
to draw distinct line between the two theories except for the fact that the later evolved from the
former.