Universal Human Rights or Cultural Relativism? Reassessing the Universality of Human Rights in the Indian Context

Introduction: Human rights are generally understood as rights inherent to every human being by virtue of being human. They are not conceived as privileges granted by the State or as entitlements dependent upon citizenship, social status, nationality, religion, or cultural identity. This conception received its most influential international articulation through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The Declaration proclaimed a common standard of achievement for “all peoples and all nations” and affirmed the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Its significance lies not merely in enumerating particular civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, but in establishing the idea that certain fundamental standards of human dignity possess universal significance. The claim of universality, however, exists within a world characterized by profound cultural diversity. Human beings live within different religious traditions, customary systems, social structures, moral frameworks, and historical experiences. Concepts concerning individual autonomy, family, community, gender, religion, property, authority, and social responsibility may therefore be understood differently across societies. This creates a fundamental theoretical question: can human rights be genuinely universal while their interpretation and implementation occur within culturally diverse societies? The tension forms the foundation of the debate between universalism and cultural relativism. The universality of human rights is sometimes criticized as reflecting predominantly Western philosophical and political assumptions. Such criticism, however, risks presenting the history of the UDHR as a simple confrontation between a homogeneous “West” and a homogeneous “non-West.” The drafting process was considerably more complex. The Commission on Human Rights and its drafting bodies included representatives from countries and traditions spanning different geographical, political, cultural, and intellectual backgrounds, including China, Lebanon, India, Chile, France, Australia, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The United Nations itself describes the Declaration as having been drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from different regions of the world. Non-Western participation also materially influenced the text. Peng-chun Chang of China contributed to the philosophical and conceptual development of the Declaration, while Indian delegate Hansa Mehta played an important role in ensuring that Article 1 referred to “all human beings” rather than language that could be interpreted as referring only to men. Representatives from Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, and other regions likewise contributed to debates concerning equality, social and economic rights, cultural rights, and human dignity. Consequently, the universality debate cannot be reduced to whether Western values should be imposed upon non-Western societies. A more nuanced inquiry is whether universal human-rights principles can coexist with legitimate cultural diversity while preventing culture from being invoked to justify violations of human dignity and equality. This question becomes particularly significant in the Indian context, where constitutional commitments to dignity, equality, liberty, religious freedom, and cultural rights operate alongside a pluralistic society containing diverse religious, linguistic, customary, and social traditions.