“Human Rights Is Latest Religion Of Western Nations” – Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith – A Comment
P. Soma Palan
I refer to the above captioned news Report in the Daily Mirror of 24thSeptember, and two subsequent reports (a)“ Cardinal Clarifies” of 26thand (b) “ People shaped by Buddhist civilization do not violate Human Rights” of 28th September.
With due respect to the Rev. Cardinal, I wish to comment on the views expressed in these reports, as an independent and objective analyst, sifting the truths from the untruths. I am not a VIP or an intellectual opinion maker, but a humble citizen analyzing what is written, and presenting a correct view point, from my understanding of the subject matter.
Human Rights is the latest Religion
The Rev. Cardinal, by saying that Human Rights are the latest Religion, wittingly or unwittingly, belittling the universally declared concept of Human Rights. Human Rights, is a Secular Concept and not a religious doctrine. By saying it is a “new religion”, the Cardinal is being derisive of Human Rights. Human Rights are about Human beings, unlike Religion, which is about unknown and unknowable God. Religion cannot be a substitute for Human Rights. Human Rights and Religion are separate and different. However, there is a commonality of moral value, in both.
Rev. Cardinal has said that “if we practice religion properly, there is no need to talk about Human Rights”. In other words, what he is saying is that “Human Rights” are dispensable and superfluous, when religion prevails. Is this standpoint tenable? Human Rights encompass a collection of rights and not solely the right to life. Isn’t it preposterous to think that practicing of religion, properly, will bring about the multiple and various Human Rights to humanity?
The Cardinal, further states that “those who do not practice religion are the ones who crow over Human Rights.” On the contrary, I would say, those who seem pious and practice religion and crow about religion, as an external display, (for populist and political reasons) who are seen more in temples around the country and South Indian temples, are the great violators of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws, and alleged to have committed “War Crimes”, amounting to genocide of unarmed civilian Tamils, and for abductions and killing people ,who disagreed with them, through the “ White Van” culture. Scuttling freedom of expression by silencing journalists to death and attacking Media Institutions. Thus there is a miss-match between Human Rights and Practice of Religion. Therefore, the notion that practicing religion properly, will have a humanizing and harmonizing influence on people and will serve Human Rights, and therefore render Human Rights redundant, sounds nonsensical.
Rev. Cardinal is reported to have said that, “although the Western Nations attempt to teach lessons on Human Rights to Sri Lanka, it had a multi religious society that had upheld Human Rights for centuries through their religious practices”. Isn’t this grandiloquent statement, hollow and contradictory, in the light atrocities committed by people, and sometimes with the complicity of the State, against racial and religious minorities from 1915 Muslim riots onwards, and 1958, 1983 communal riots against the Tamils, and recent riots against the Muslims in Aluthgama, Digana and violent attacks against evangelical Christian churches, a gross violation of Human Rights? To decry Western Nations giving Sri Lanka lessons in Human Rights, as we are religious puritans and beyond reproach of Human Rights violations, and to claim that we know our Human Rights more than them, is just rhetorical empty talk. But the Cardinal and the Church has no qualms about accepting a Western religion, Christianity, and its religious teachings, which is alien to our Buddhist/ Hindu Culture, but only averse to the Secular Human Rights values which are of Universal significance, although initiated by Western nations.
Rev. Cardinal argues that “ if people practice their religion properly”, Human Rights will be upheld, automatically. According to the Cardinal, in ancient and medieval times, people practiced their religion properly and hence there was no need for Human Rights. Is this view true? I would say no. In ancient and medieval times, in their ignorance, people suffered social practices, which would now constitute violations of Human Rights. Under the feudal Landlord System, there was serfdom, which was willingly accepted. The working people were mere chattel. The system of Rajakariya, compulsory labour, was a violation of Human Rights. People yielded to these social mal-practices as there was no awareness of the concept of Human Rights. There were no Institutional mechanisms to create awareness of Human Rights and their protection. Under the Despotic Monarchism, there were gruesome torture of wrong doers and barbaric executions of people by beheading and pounding their Heads in mortars. Under the colonial Rulers, particularly the Portuguese, there was forcible conversion of Buddhists and Hindus to Catholic religion. Violations of Human Rights were happening all the time. But there was no protests and articulation of Human Rights. The Politico-SocioEconomic Order of the day was taken for granted, as the norm. To say this apparent conflict-free harmony of the Social Order, was due to the practice of religion centuries ago, without any intervention of the Western Human Rights regime, is sheer intellectual dishonesty.
