Human Rights and the Question of Universality: Between Dominant Paradigms and Indian Ontological Ethics

Direitos Humanos e a Questão da Universalidade: Entre os Paradigmas Dominantes e a Ética Ontológica Indiana

Abstract

This article critically interrogates the dominant conceptualisation of human rights and its universalist claims by tracing its epistemological and historical foundations in modern European liberal thought. It argues that the dominant view roots the notion of rights in a particular understanding of personhood—defined through autonomy, reason, and self-awareness—and emerged in response to the experience of oppressive institutions. While liberatory within its original context, the global imposition of this framework introduces significant philosophical and cultural problems, particularly when applied to societies with alternative ontologies and moral orders. In contrast, the article explores the classical Indian worldview, which does not distinguish between human and person, nor does it perceive all institutions as inherently oppressive. Rooted in the interconnected principles of Ṛta (cosmic order), Dharma (duty), Ṛṇa (debt), and Dāna (generosity), this tradition presents an organic, holistic, and relational understanding of life. The Indian perspective emphasises self-reliance over independence, and sees human flourishing as emerging from harmony with social, natural, and cosmic structures, rather than resistance to them. Through this comparative philosophical analysis, the article makes a broader case for epistemic pluralism in human rights discourse. It contends that the future relevance of human rights depends on pluralising its originary narratives and recognising alternative frameworks that offer equally valid conceptualisations of dignity, autonomy, and justice. The work concludes that genuine universality in human rights can only emerge through intercultural dialogue, not through the dominance of a single civilizational paradigm.

Keywords: Human Rights, Universality, Dominant Paradigms, Ethic.