Duty over Rights
“Hard times create strong men, strong
men create good times, good times create weak men, and
weak men create hard times.”
– G. Michael Hopf
The hallmark
difference between the Eastern and the Western societies is in the emphasis of
duty over rights. However we are also becoming a rights based society which is
unbecoming of us.
Asian societies have
always prided themselves over social stability. They believe that it is a sense
of duty towards family members, fellow social beings, and the nation at large
that will ensure social cohesion and prosperity for posterity. For this reason,
they are ready to sacrifice individual whims and fancies for what is good for
all. In Sanskrit we call this sreyas over
preyas or in other words choosing
that which is good in the long run over that which is pleasurable at the
moment. It is this stress on duty and duty alone which is the sole reason for
the healthy survival of Eastern societies while we see the West falling apart.
Whereas the West dominated the global landscape for the last four centuries, we
shall be seeing the new world order being established by the East in the 21st
century.
This article is not about
comparing the East with the West. Rather it is to use them as a model to show
that valuing duty makes stable societies while valuing rights will guarantee social
degeneracy. The more and more rights-conscious we become, there will be less
and less social stability. We are not going to occupy this world forever. We
are going to pass it on to the next generation, so, let us start with talking
about our duties rather than our rights.
A depressed generation…
The present generation is
the most blessed as well as the cursed. Blessed for all the easy access to
information and freedom to make our life as we choose, but cursed for the lack
of responsibilities and commitment in life. This generation is the beneficiary
of the work done by our fathers and grandfathers. Even when they shouldered so
many responsibilities, may it be financial or social obligations, they were
never unhappy. They worked for providing a good future for us. However, if you
see the mental health of the Millennials and Gen Z, they are a very unhappy
generation. They owe so much to the Gen X, yet are ungrateful. The only responsibility
they have is to take good care of themselves and leave behind a healthy society.
Handling themselves and their emotions being a huge struggle, the question of
creating a stable order for the next generation is out of question.
The problem is lack of
responsibilities and a closed mind that thinks only about the self. Being only
trained to study well, eat and sleep properly, get a well-paying job and
overall take good care of oneself, life becomes mundane. The answer to this
problem should come easily. Lead a less self-centric life. A life lived for
others is more fulfilling than a life lived satiating one’s own needs and
wants.
There are many factors as
to why we have become like this – colonization and invasion of the past has
distanced us from our roots, consumerism brought on by the past generation that
induced acquiring of material things over simple living and high thinking, and
presently, the heavy influence of the West on our minds. For the sake of this
blog I will restrict myself to studying the influence of the West on our
culture and mindset.
The West heavily stresses
upon individual rights and liberties. It measures the progress of a society on
the parameters of how free an individual is to do what he wishes. Wearing this
lens if they study the Asian societies it will appear restrictive to them. There
would have been no problem if they had just studied us and passed their
judgments. No, it was not to be that simple! Instead they went on to sell their
narratives to our own people and have managed to convince us that we live under
tyranny and oppression. And there is nothing sorrier than people being ashamed
of their own country to the extent that they buy stupid, agenda-driven story
sold to them. We have been made to believe that we need the Western ideals to
be emancipated from our backward traditions.
Each and every
traditional practice of ours is weighed against the rationality and logic of
the West and deemed unworthy if it fails their standards. The Western standards
are really mindless and simple to understand – equal treatment of all, freedom
for all, and zero accountability. These are very nice that it is appealing to
live by the standards they deem proper. However, we can all have a look for
ourselves as to where it has led them – broken homes, divorced parents, high
dependence on drugs, and depression. Cheap things are easy to follow and they
provide shallow happiness which doesn’t last– preyas. While our culture which is difficult to understand for the
untrained mind knows how to create everlasting bliss - sreyas. To be more precise, Western ideals
will tell you happiness lies in hedonism but the East will tell you the direct
opposite. True happiness lies in working for the welfare of all.
Often things said in
support of actions that are preyas is
that it is one's freedom to be as he chooses. It is but that freedom should be
coupled with responsibility. “Life is short, so, let's make it happy while it
lasts!” Actually, no! Life is not short. It's excruciatingly long and
repetition of same lessons until you become that! Being born in this culture
you should not say that we have one life, so, let's make it memorable. If you learn
to live right, you can lead a short life, burst the bubble and dissolve into
nothingness.
Our ancestors knew better…
I recently read someone’s
status on women’s day which asked to celebrate the woman for the individual she
is instead of the clichéd mother, daughter, and sister roles that she plays. It
seemed odd to me that a person exists as an individual in a society. We value
another person for the relationship we have with them. Womanhood is the sum of
all these relationships. How can you be a detached entity in a society and
expect others to value you? You are valued for the work that you do for others
through the roles you play!
It is for this reason
that human rights also appears most absurd to me. Human rights is nothing but a
demand for individual rights. I am going to be very candid and say that there
is no individual in a society. You don’t and cannot exist as a separate entity
unless of course, you take up sannyasa.
Even then you live at the mercy of others by asking for bhiksha.
Demanding rights is a
failed exercise. Please understand that when I put down the relevance of human
rights, I am doing so only in the Indian context. There may be countries in
desperate need of human rights but India is not one is my point. Keeping with
our cultural ethos which has always stressed on dharma, I am resistant to the forced projection of foreign
ideologies to our problems.
I believe that stressing
upon duty that a person owes to those around him will make a healthy society.
Hindu society has always acknowledged the interdependence of people and that is
perhaps why we had the varnashrama dharma
wherein no class of people had everything. While the Brahmins were well versed
in the Vedas they could only live off the charitable offerings of others. While
the Kshatriyas were men of great physical prowess, they were guided by the
Brahmins in statecraft. So no person belonging to any Varna could claim to be
having it all because he was dependent on others.
The problem that is our law…
If you take our Constitution
it has a part on Fundamental Duties of citizens towards the state.[1] Unfortunately, it is not
legally enforceable. This means that the state cannot bring an action against a
citizen for the breach of any duty enlisted under Art. 51A like the way a
citizen files a writ to remedy any breach of duty on the part of the state
under Part III. As of now Part IVA remains a mere moral obligation which no one
bothers to look at seriously. We need to ask ourselves why duties are secondary
to rights when we say they are two sides to the same coin. When we live in
society, how can the government alone be duty-bound and accountable but never
the citizens?
In my first year of law
school it was made clear to me by a faculty that we need rights because not
everyone is equal. He said there is an imbalance of power which may result in a
less powerful person being dominated and exploited by someone in the higher
rank. Hence, it is to curb the possible exploitation that we need to guarantee
rights for the weaker sections. But I would like to present an alternative way
of looking at things. What we need is a
remedy to rectify the wrong done by the person occupying a position of
power because he is guilty of breach of
his duty. For me to be eligible to claim the remedy why is it not enough to
show that the person had an obligation towards me and his conduct was in breach
of it? Why do I at all need to establish my rights here other than showing that
we have a legal relationship?
I would like to narrate a
small story here. In my hostel mess, people have the most disgusting habit of
washing their hands in the water dispenser because they are too lazy to go to
the wash area. While I was filling my bottle a girl asked me to excuse her so
that she can wash her hands and that it will only take a second. I refused to
let her have her way and said she can wash her hands in the wash area. She was
furious and asked me who I am to dictate to her and fled away before I could
respond. Now that I think about it, it is funny why she asked that question. I
was simply telling her what was the right conduct but she was more interested
in knowing what authority I had to tell her what she is to do. My question is
who should have told her for her to do right? So the message is not important
but the messenger is important? Is this our slavish mentality to be dominated
by others at display here?
The nature of rights is
aimed at self-preservation of oneself from the exploitation of others whereas
the nature of duty is about service mindedness towards others. Simply said
rights is all about what you can get from others while duty is about what you do
unto to others. I am not saying that the world is free from exploitation.
Rather I am saying let us change the lens and look at things more positively.
To me the concept of rights has the most negative connotation because it makes
it look like the individual is up against the world. It is as if power and
position is something to be wary about. It appears to me that the entire
Constitutional structure spelling out fundamental rights is there to protect
unfortunate citizens from the wicked people in the government. This
exploiter-exploited binary is purely a Western construct. Why can’t difference
in power rather be seen as people being vested with responsibilities that
matches their capabilities? This is the dharmic
way of looking at things.[2] We believe in the inherent
goodness of people and hence, see people performing their duties and in breach
of it when they fall short.
Part III could have been
framed as Fundamental Duties of the State towards its citizens. Just replace ‘right
to equality’ with ‘the duty to treat all equally’ and likewise ‘duty to treat
all religions equally’ instead of ‘freedom of religion’. Isn't there a stark
difference in the meaning? The first is an affirmation to the citizen of his
rights while the latter is a dictate to the government officials of his duty.
Nature of the mind...
I came upon a lecture series called 'The Science of Happiness' in YouTube last year. Pravrajika Divyanandaprana Ji there makes a comparison between Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Yoga Psychology on Happiness. We all know about Maslow's chart which talks about moving higher up the pyramid towards self-actualization after satiating basic needs such as biological needs, social needs etc. At the top of the pyramid is the goal of self-actualization - doing best what one is best at which she calls the flow. Hence, the highest happiness that Maslow talks about is the intellectual happiness an individual gets from doing his work. But the ladder of happiness that yoga talks about has one more rung above intellectual happiness i.e. spiritual happiness. One can attain this enduring state of mind only by doing seva to others.
Seva is selfless service.[3] It means one is detached
from the fruits of his labour. Any work may be a seva if the intention is to serve others over and above personal
gains. So one doesn’t need to give up his money-making job to be doing seva.
Also, let it not be mistaken that activism championing the rights of the
so-called oppressed is seva when the
actual intent is to globalize the problem and not seek a solution for it.
Just like we are enjoying
the fruits of the work done by our ancestors, we must work not for ourselves
but for the health and happiness of the future generation. This is life – you
live off the work done by others and you give back to restore what you have
taken. If you live by this philosophy then there is no place for rights.
The way forward…
In rights there is an individual, but in duty and responsibility there is a relationship. Are we building an individualized society or a web of human relationships is upto us. We are part of many social institutions like family, marriage, education, work place etc. where we have a duty towards our fellow beings. Not everyone gets to serve the nation in the capacity of a government servant, but everyone can sincerely do their duties as part of the small social groups. That will go a long way to building a stronger nation.
Do your duty and what is
due to you, you shall get - dharmo
rakshati rakshitah!
[1] Part IVA on Fundamental Duties was inserted
by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 at the time when Emergency was in
place. The article was inspired by constitutions of Russia and other socialist
countries.
[2] Both Communism and Dharmicism hold
individual duty and responsibility in very high regard. However, the
differentiating point between the two ideologies is in how they treat responsibilities
undertaken by classes of individuals. Communism believes in the equality of all
despite huge difference in the work done by varied people. They believed this
forced equality will curb oppression of one group over another. However, in the
Vedic society work was distributed to classes of people and each class was
given due respect for the work they rendered. The nature of work being
different, the prominence of people doing the work in the society was also to
be different. Hence, Brahmins were held in high regard for their spiritual
knowledge but they were bereft of any power and wealth. Abuse of power was
intelligently countered by a prohibition in the pursuit of other worldly
ideals. This system knew how to build stable societies.
[3] See RAJIV MALHOTRA &
SATYANARAYANA DASA BABAJI, SANSKRIT NON-TRANSLATABLES: THE IMPORTANCE OF
SANSKRITIZING ENGLISH 169-171 (2020). This book puts in correct perspective the
meaning of various Sanskrit words which has no proper English equivalent.
Comments
Post a Comment