I don't understand the difference. Why shouldn't be Human Rights fundamental?

Fundamental rights are guaranteed by constitution of India to all citizens of India... Human rights are global

GUPTA IS RIGHT, CONSTITUTION IS MADE FOR POLITICIANS NOT FOR COMMON MAN. IT IS STORY OF EVERY POOR COUNTRY DEMOCRAZY

@Pankaj Tomar

Thank you for information. Nevertheless I don't understand any differrence. It could be that "fundamental rights" of Indian Constitution are quite more limited than human rights - tthis is testable in comparative analyzing of the texts - or not. If they are strong limited, than it is important for non Indian people to know in which regard.

But if Constitution rights and human rights are about equal in the text than the question deals the difference between written rights and reality - surely, an important issue. But it should be said. And perhaps helpful woudl be to give a ranking in the different kinds of mis-respecting, and the problem that violations of the law - such as rape of women - are reported, but the perpetrators are not brought to justice. I think the question should be asked in a more differentiated way so that a worldwide discussion in RG is possible.For instance: What is the first and biggest problem?

Fundamental Rights to Indian Citizens are:

(1) Equality before the law, (2) Freedom of religion, (3) Freedom of association and peaceful assembly, (4) Freedom of speech and expression, (5) Right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights.

Human rights are moral principles or norms that describe certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected as natural and legal rights in municipal and international law. They are commonly understood as inalienable, fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being" and which are "inherent in all human beings", regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal, and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone. They are regarded as requiring empathy and the rule of law and imposing an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others, and it is generally considered that they should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances;[3] for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture and execution. [Wikipedia]

hi. it is a fact in many countries. written fundamental rights look nice and fair but practically they are not respected. human rights are the basic needs of human beings as well as some of their wants like freedom of speech. but, in reality the story is different. politicians want to persuade others that they are intellectuals but they do not concern about people's basic rights of shelter and security let alone freedom of speech and views. best

Human rights are inherent rights of human beings promoted by UN: Fundamental rights in India guaranteed by constitution of India to all citizen of India. Ideology of both have similar in principles and basically borrowed from constitution of USA by UN and constitution of India.

The science of rights:

https://www.academia.edu/37021128/Scientific_Proof_of_Our_Unalienable_Rights

The rights which are fundamental to the life of the citizens of a country are known as fundamental rights. ... The main difference between fundamental rights and human rights is that the fundamental rights are specific to a particular country, whereas human rights has world wide acceptance.