This year marks the 76th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a pivotal document that symbolizes humanity’s enduring commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms.

However, as we commemorate this milestone, it is crucial to engage in a critical introspection and stock-taking of its implications and effectiveness in addressing contemporary challenges ongoing war, geopolitical tension-led destruction and displacement, supply chain disruption posing severe challenges to energy and food security, not to speak of tremendous strain on an already under-resourced health system coupled with newer shockwaves under the guise of minority bashing, retreat of secular democracy and political instability around the world.

Also, what is crystal clear is the pervasive disappointment with the recently concluded COP29 outcomes that flaunt ambitious rhetoric while exposing shortfalls in addressing the spectre of an impending apocalypse. In this connection, the distinction between weak and strong versions of human rights becomes increasingly pertinent, particularly when considering how these rights are interpreted and implemented across different contexts.

While the UDHR sets forth cogent universal principles, the practical realities are conspicuous by the absence of any level playing field – especially in developing nations – that reveals a stark contrast between ideals and lived experiences. This dissonance raises significant surmises about the adequacy of the current framework regarding state capacity for protecting human dignity amidst escalating crises. This, however, does not mean the current crisis of human rights is confined to the developing world, which undoubtedly faces the brunt of structural exploitation, resource scarcity, and crippling debt exacerbated by neoliberal globalization.

Rather, the prevailing situation highlights a ubiquitous need to re-evaluate our understanding of human rights on a broader scale. The dilemma, however, emanates from the fact that the notion of visualising a level playing field among nations has become increasingly elusive. Despite the formal end of colonial conquests, which formally paved the way for equality among states, the prevailing legal frameworkswhat can be termed the “Nomos of the earth”-continue to favour powerful nations, a straitjacket of offensive realism resonating over and above an alternative constructivist vision.

This systemic imbalance suggests that rather than moving towards a Kantian ideal of perpetual peace and cooperation, humanity remains trapped in an intensified vicious cycle of conflict and struggle. The implications are profound: they challenge us to reconsider not only how human rights are defined but also who gets to define them and therein lies the danger of bias and attenuation. The glimmer of hope, however, lies with the protracted struggle that underscores the necessity for a more inclusive and grounded dialogue about human rights with diversity of voices that transcends geographical peripheries and economic boundaries.

The traditional frameworks often reflect the interests of hegemonic powers, leaving marginalized voices unheard and perpetuating inequalities. As we confront these realities, it becomes evident that reimagining human rights as a monolithic category has become an extremely difficult project in the currently diverse perspectives and sort of self-centric subjectivity save and except a veneer of a “certain dominant anthropology” or ideology. It is a function of highly sophisticated power structures with their tentacles of governmentality plus modern life’s increasing integration with the system at the global scale that inhibit true equality both within and without.

That’s why, the concept of human rights received traction with the narrative requirement to put human beings at the centre of the story when in the guise of technology, politics or techno-politics has emerged as a fierce domain of muscle flexing to imperil the human condition. As Hannah Arendt in the preface to her major reflective work “The Origins of Totalitarianism” noted, “We can no longer afford to take that which was good in the past and simply call it our heritage, to discard the bad and simply think of it as a dead load which by itself will bury in oblivion.”

Similarly, today, it seems that the notion of benign humanity is passé; we, much like robots, are senselessly moving towards an overly human-centric future that breeds overconfidence in our ability to manage and tame the lurking signs of environmental disaster. This trajectory fosters a dangerous illusion of resilience as if humanity can ensure smooth sailing through the tumultuous waters of the ecological crisis. In this context, we find ourselves ensnared in a web of spurious optimism, believing that technological breakthroughs and human ingenuity alone can vouchsafe our existence. Yet, even the insights offered by Michel Foucault in his theoretical formulation of biopolitics do not adequately measure up to address the larger existential question concerning the survival of our species.

As Professor Dipesh Chakrabarty aptly articulated, “Humans are not central to the problem of habitability, but habitability is central to human existence.” This perspective challenges us to reconsider our place within a differently oriented genre of ecological framework and recognize that our survival is intricately linked to the health of the planet itself. Rather than viewing ourselves as masters of nature, we must acknowledge that our fate is intertwined with the very system we often take for granted. The urgency for a paradigm shift in how we perceive our relationship with the environment has never been more critical.

This situation appraises us of a new stage of “unhappy consciousness” that humanity must reckon with, as it highlights a profound dilemma at the intersection of human rights and environmental sustainability. At the centre of this dilemma lies the realization that while human rights, in their maximalist sense, advocate for an omnibus nature of entitlements and freedoms, they simultaneously pose significant threats to vital ecosystems such as forests and water bodies. This occurs under the guise of unbalanced growth, where unscrupulous pursuit of individual rights often overshadows collective and deeply empathetic responsibilities towards our planet.

Therefore, it is not sufficient merely to cultivate “an ability to discern the vitality of the matter”; rather, it necessitates a theoretical maturity that transcends the presentism inherent in the vice of indulgent consumerism. Humanity must embrace a more holistic planetary perspective that prioritizes the sentient wisdom for course correction over short-term gains. This shift requires a prodigious acknowledgement that true progress cannot be measured solely by economic rights or personal freedoms but must also account for ecological integrity and intergenerational equity.

(The writer is Professor, Department of Political Science, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, Purulia, West Bengal.)