I dunno, Ram, a "fundamental right" would suppose a fundamentalist right based on some doctrine. This could be based on citizenship but also religious doctrine. etc. Either way it is culture and custom that presuppose these rights and this seems to be a splitting of hairs question.
Fundamental rights are peculiar. These are the rights that diffentiate a citizen from a resident or a visitor. They are the basic rights neccessary for your existence as a member of a particular state. They determine your realtionship and responsibilities with and to the state and fellow citizens, residents and visitors including the limits of such relatioships and responsibilities. Human rights on the other hand are those inalienable rights that you posses as a human being. Sometimes fundamnetal and human rights do overlap as the latter serves as foundation to the former. The issue of context cannot be removed in the determination of fundamental rights but human rights enjoys a sort of universal context. For example the right to live is universal but the right to live in a state is fundamental according to the rules set up by the state to guide such right.
I agree with Olatunji Olateju. Now, the biggest problem is that public and media give less attention to fundamental rights violation. Human rights violation come into existence first in the media coverage. In the Indian constitution, Article 21 is the right to life but often neglected. See any development project like dam which displace thousands of indigenous people from their ancestral land (3 Gorges dam, Hoover, Narmada,etc.). I am commenting that fundamental right should be publicitized and recognized.......
But Ani, in the 21st risk society, our right is insecure and threatened because of the reflexive modernization which has its own self confrontation and self destruction. technological projects often violates WCD policy framework and recommendation.... democratization of technology as stated by Feenberg, is must........
Thank you Thounaojam Somokanta for your kind comments. The issue raised about the media givng less attention to the violation of fundamental rights is a reflection of the media ownership, profit-making desire and leadership of the state. The funciton of media to educate and sensitise the public has been overtaken by the desire to make profit as a business venture. They are to make profit in other to remain in busisness. Most of the people that violate these rights are the same people that give advertisements to the media, hence such violation are dumped in the dustbin of the news-room. Moreover it is now a trend for the political gladiators to own or have substantial interests in the media houses. Sometimes cross-ownership. This idea militates against the sustainance of the fundamental rights by the media, since the media owners are also are in control of the state. There is little the media can do in such situation unless the editor wants to lose his/her job. Where he/she opts to put the job at stake with the hope of starting his/her own, he will be frustrated by non-approval of his/her request for a licence (check the publishing industry in Botswana) or lack of advertisement.
One of the ways out of this is to prohibit the idea of politicians, state leaders or their associates from having shares in or owning media business. Ecah country must have a Media Monitoring Commission that will ensure the sustenance of the principle of neutrality by the media. Adverts rates are to be determined and reviewed from time to time by this Commission.
On our having rights not to have any right as suggested by Ani is a call for Anarchism which I thnik could be fully explored but his submission that human rights are violent may not be correct. There is nothing violent about human right but it could be applied violently by who ever decides to do such. This is where fundamental rights come in to determine your relationship with the state and other members of the state, and your obligations and duties to the state as well. I think you all make fantastic contributions. Tara