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...

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).
Ramachandra tries to offer a 360 degree perspective on the human rights and includes the perspective of most consercatives to the most liberal secualr societies. He says that the fuedals are concerned only about the rights of the previleged or the HAVES and on the other hand the liberals are often more concerned with the animal rights than the rights of few human beings. Ramachandra is sure and convinced that the atheist societies seem more concerned about human rights yet he doubt if the sustained provision of human rights can be ensured by those lacking a religious theology (Ramachandra, 2008). This is the whole point in the article where th writer is found a little subjective. Religion is connected by him to soemhow ensuring human rights too and by religion he agrees to the human right concerns of Christianity, Islam and all other religions that are followed in the civilized world. otherwise he presented objective points throughout his article.

References

Edger, B., (n.d.). "Asbury Theological Seminary the Apostolic Ministry

Of Thinking Theologically and Publically," Public Theology Notes, thinking theologically

Edgar, B., (n.d.), "Life in God: The Experience of the Trinity in Personal and Public Life,"

The Trinity in Public Life

Public Theology, (2010), Retrieved from:

http://www.princeton.edu/csr/current-research/past-research/public-theology/

Ramachandra, (2008), "Vinoth. Subverting Global Myths: Theology and the Public Issues

Shaping Our World." IVP Academic, ISBN: 9780281060238