Source of Fundamental Rights: Traces in Hindu Mythology

When someone asks us about the source of Fundamental Rights that enshrined in the
Constitution of India, we confidently, better to say proudly reply him/her – it is taken from
Bill of Rights of the United States.

Bill of Rights of The United States Bill comprises the first ten amendments to the United
States Constitution. The Bill of Rights amendments add to the US Constitution specific
guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power
in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically
granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

But how satirical and paradoxical it is to say that, the Fundamental Rights (mentioned in the
Part III and Article 12 to 35 of the Indian Constitutional) has been borrowed from the United
States. I rephrase it for your easy understanding, even in today’s time, the maximum number
of cases of the racial discrimination (at every walk of life including in the employment) can
be seen in the United States.

However, I won’t be sharing any link or other such footnotes to corroborate my point in
reference to racial discrimination in the United States because there are not one or two
sources where you can get such information, but rather – just google racial discrimination in
the United States and see yourself, how many official websites give report on such cases.
Story does not end here, if I talk about gender discrimination that is also perceptibly
prevalent there. The cases of sexual harassment at workplace are quite common; it recently
portrayed in the Hollywood movie “Bombshell.” So, this is the story of a founder who
drafted and enacted the concept of human rights (Bill of Rights) about two hundred thirty
years ago.

However, for a while, ignore this fact that the concept of Fundamental Rights has been
borrowed from the US and pay a little attention towards our monumental texts described in
many of the religious books, and now answer the following question:

Do we really need to borrow any such provisions from a foreign land?

So, in order to answer this question, let’s have a brief account of each provision of
Fundamental Rights and its traces in Hindu Mythology:

Article 14: It is read as:

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of India.”

Traces of such provision can distinctively be seen in Valmiki Ramayana. Lord Rama, when
returned back to Ayodhya with wife Sita and brother Lakshmana, people of Ayodhya started
gossiping about the Character and Chastity of Sita, as she was kidnaped by Ravana and lived
in his custody; so, it was not acceptable for them that Lord Rama lives with Sita. Since, Lord
Rama was a king, he could have easily suppressed such rumor. Secondly, it was very well
known to Lord Rama and all other authoritative people of the State that Sita’s chastity is
unquestionably spotless.
So, he could have proven this fact to the people of Ayodhya, but he did not do anything like
that rather when he came to know about it, he, followed the provision of Article 14 and
penanced himself by sending Sita back to Jungle. It proves that, in front of law, everyone is
equal (Page No. – 524-525, Uttar Kand, Valmiki Ramayana; read the underlined text in the
image given above).

Further, I would also like to quote here the concept of ‘Rule of Law,’ which means, every
person is subject to the law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials,
and judges.

In Lord Rama’s one arrow, there was tremendous power, as it could have dried out
hundreds of oceans simultaneously, but instead of using his such power, Lord Rama
preferred to implore the Ocean to give him way so that he and his sepoys (Army) can cross
the Ocean to reach the Lanka (page no. 109, Sunder Kand, Ramcharitmanas – Tulsidas; read
the underlined text in the image given below).
Lord Rama’s such disciplined act illustrates that in spite of having unlimited power, he did
not prefer to misuse that rather followed the “Rule of Law.”

Next provision is prohibition of discrimination:

Article 15: it is read as:

“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste,
sex, place of birth or any of them.”

Besides, Article 17: it is read as:

“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any
disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
Traces of these two provisions can be apparently seen at many places, but I would like cite
Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas.

Lord Rama while crossing the river Ganga with his wife Sita and Brother Lakshmana, the
respect he gave to a lower cast boatman namely Kevat; it reflects his indiscriminatory
practices.

Besides, Lord Rama’s visit to lower cast old lady namely Shabari’s home and accepting food
there also reflects that he never practiced discrimination and untouchability (Araṇya-Kāṇḍa –
Ramcharitmanas, Tulsidas; read the underlined text in the image given above).

Next Provision is –
Article 16: it is read as:
“No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence
or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or
office under the State.”

The evidence of practice of “equality of opportunity in matters of public employment” can

noticeably be seen in Tulsidas’ Ramcharitmanas, as Lord Rama appointed armies and given
post based on their talent and capability and essentially not on the basis of cast or class
system. Secondly, in sage Vedvyas’ Mahabharta, prince Duryodhana and Karna’s relation
brazenly illustrates practice of equality. Duryodhana not only had given the top most post to
Karna, but also accepted him as his friend and gave the place beside himself; in spite of
knowing the fact that Karna was the son of a lower cast couple (note: don’t confuse about
the original story of Karna, as Duryodhana did not know that – the only fact known to
Duryodhana was, Karna was the son of a lower cast couple, so no need to discuss that fact
at this point in time).

Next provision is -

Article 19: it is read as:

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Besides, Article 21 that read as:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.”

All such provisions (both Article 19 and Article 21) were implied in the governing system of
ancient India, as there is hardly any evidence that distinctively points out any such repressive
practices regarding any of the provisions of Article 19 or even Article 21 of the Constitution.

One of the noticeable examples of such freedom (specifically freedom of speech and
expression – Article 19 (1) (a)) can be seen in Valmiki Ramayana, Uttar Kand, page number –
515; read the underlined text in the image given below).
When Lord Rama returned back to Ayodhya after killing Ravana; the people of Ayodhya
were started gossiping about Sita’s chastity. It reflects the level of freedom of speech and
expression. People had the freedom to discuss their views and raise questions even against
the queen and king of the State. Likewise, if I start enumerating such provisions, it is simply
endless process.

So, if I compare both, then I can conclude like this that the concept of human rights in the
United States or in some other such developed countries, had been adopted, incorporated
through newly drafted texts and provisions, as it was not there from the beginning; on the
contrary, in India, the concept of human rights was already there right from the beginning;
so (in fact), we don’t need to proclaim any such thing in our text rather such acts are in our
behavior carrying from the beginning itself. The practices of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”
(the meaning is – world is one family), and “Atithi Devo Bhava” (the meaning is – the guest
is god) reflect the profoundness of our practices of human rights and fundamental rights.
The learned thing can be unlearned; the provision that imposed to follow certain acts, can
be easily ignored, manipulated, and broken. This is the reason that we can see more often
people ignoring, manipulating, and breaking all such provisions. Another aspect of such
provision is – if the provision made, it also gives clue to break it or commit the crime. But the
thing that is in practice that cannot be unlearned nor manipulated and broken in a normal
circumstance.

Moreover, there is no evidence of any sort of discrimination practice (of such level that it
required to legislate rules to curb that), until the advent of foreigners on Indian land;
therefore, there is no evidence of such provision; such provision evidently required to those
political entities where discrimination was prevalent. And, in India, the practices of
discrimination and suppression of humans and then talking about the human rights
provisions; everything is started and imposed by foreigners only.

Meliora Legal Center is the ultimate destination of civil dispute resolution through mediation
process. Its specialty is to offer on-site as well as online dispute resolution service in
reference to matrimonial dispute, NRI deserted wife issue, property dispute, business
dispute, etc. Besides, it is also the center that provide online internship-cum intensive
training to law students.

By Mukesh Kumar