Public Theology of Vinoth Ramachandra

Public Theology of Vinoth Ramachandra

As the Public theology investigates the religious concepts or thinking that underlie political, social, economic and cultural discourses, it has a strong impact on human rights (Public Theology, 2010). Vinoth Ramachandra's concern on the status of women in Asian society leads to investigate how women are treated in Asia, particularly he discusses the status of women in Pakistan.

Ramachandra's public theology revolves around two points; firstly the ordinary people cannot deny the importance of fighting for their rights because fight for their right is not only the job of a politician. Secondly, the ordinary people are affected more than the ruling class of a country since the ruling class is more protected by law and power than the ordinary man. Quoting the example of Mokhtaran Bibi who was gang-raped in Pakistan, Ramachandra emphasizes who a weak woman's dedicated efforts to get the justice lead her to finally getting it. Ramachandra advocates that the successful fight for one's right has double advantages. It does not only help a person get his or her rights but also the person becomes a light and example for the others.

The rights, Ramachandra claims can be of many types. The rights of achievement make a person entitled to an honor or reward. The rights of contract are written and the violation can be challenged in the court of law. It is the social laws that help people be respected due to age or cared due to their youth. Ramachandra says that some societies will even feel that some groups have natural right to rule (Ramachandra, 2008). However, what authors debate is that despite all the rights of people of different ages, status and demographic profile, the human rights stand alone and demand to be given to people no matter which gender they belong to no matter which socio economical class they live in and no matter how educated or un-educated they are. The human rights, Ramachandra says are not someone's property rather every single human being is entitled to human rights since he or she belongs to the human race.

Ramachandra is critical of the belief that the rights are only given to those that fulfill their responsibilities. He says that although human beings have rights to life and property there are cases when the rights cannot be claimed in the court of law but can be claimed on society as a whole. Yet there are other rights that cannot be claimed at all. His point is a little tricky yet understandable as he gives examples to make his points clear. As ten people are waiting to be rescued from a building on fire, not all of them can be rescued yet everybody has right to be rescued, the ones left cannot claim that they had the right to be rescued first.

The human rights debate could never be better described without example of the tribal and feudal setups. The feudal lords and the tribal leaders have actually the so called rights to make the decisions of their people. Ramachandra's choice of feudal mindset tells how aware he is of the Pakistan-India's social and public issues (Ramachandra, 2008). He argues that the feudal decide not only their family issues but also those of the people of tribe. He says that the tribal people are treated as the subject of tribal leader where he can punish them by any way. The author is well justified associating lack of education and having excessive powers with the problem of violating the human rights.

When Ramachandra gives the example of Mokhtaran Bibi, he makes the right choice based on two reasons. She was also a victim of a tribal decision that is so wild that it can decide a woman to be punished for what her brother did. Also he selected the case rightly since Mokhtaran knew the importance of education and opened a girl's school with the money she received. Hence Ramachandra did not only discuss the problems of an illiterate powerful feudal system and leave the reader in confusion but he also gives the solution. Education is the solution he concludes.

Ramachandra believes that the freedom of speech and the right to select religion are also basic human rights. Yet he makes a point little tricky to understand. He says that the religious freedom is much more complex than the freedom of speech. He believes so because he says that the religious beliefs define a person's coarse of actions in life (Ramachandra, 2008). He believes that the right to freedom for assault is more important than the human right to be left also in deciding things. Hence he says that a person should first be protected against the evil and only then can he lead to better life that offers him rest of the human rights.

The human right fight was not universal in history but biased believes Ramachandra. He is under the impression that the historical movements for human rights advocated the rights of particular groups, societies or nations. These rights did not ask the freedom of every human being despite their race, gender or color (Ramachandra, 2008) but focused on the key area of operation of the philosopher. He believes that though the canvas of human rights is broadening today, yet the children and the insane are seldom counted among humans with their social rights. He says that the categorization of humans into groups is what ruins the human rights.

Ramchnadra is not just critical of the conservative thoughts of illiterate or power-spoiled funeral's thinking on the human rights but he also criticizes the modern liberal theories presented by philosophers. He believes that the human were based on mythologies by John Luke to the scholars like John Rawl (Edgar, n.d.). He says that the social contract is a myth where all the parties in the involved are basically independent, freedom to make choices and is uninfluenced. He says that primary good seems a myth where people achieve mutual advantage by acting ways that the rights of other parties are inherently not violated. He says that's social contracts suggest that people are free as well as equal but the theories are not actually practices because what is actually seen is that even in the most liberal societies, the elder people are considered weaker than and not as human as the young are (Ramachandra, 2008).