In the first phase - the term ?Human Right? itself is a very vague and ambiguous term, with no clear-cut definition. Due to the elusiveness and ambiguity, the term has, time and again, been misinterpreted in the ways that benefit organized crimes and political parties. What leads people to not just kill another human being, but to inflict pain and torture before killing, and then mutilate the bodies afterwards? Several recent hair-raising incidents beg an answer to a question that has been raised over the centuries, whenever people have abandoned their humanity and behaved worse than the animals they claim superiority over.

No one nation or community appears to have a monopoly over barbarity, the victims of which can be of any age, gender, race, nationality or political persuasion. The Human Right organizations seem to have failed to understand that, apart from big political issues, human rights are being violated in several other core areas such as gender, economic growth, social and cultural practices, governance, to name a few. They have least or no interference in promoting the fundamental human being self-esteem and culture in the society, which need more indisputable focus. Just having a stingy arrangement of political democratic state, does not refuge actual human right in a correct sense. The unselfish, standard and practice of Human Right need more complicated philosophy than we have now.

In the context Pakistan, some areas lack even the basic rights to eat, drink water, required to live with dignity. Where is the human right of a woman when her existence is questioned by asking her husband's name when issuing citizen certificate or passport for their children? And where is the human right of people of Nepal when a majority of genuine citizens are denied their citizen certificate on the pretext of some mere technicalities. As if it is not already shameful, the same voters without citizen certificates are made to vote but denied from very basic citizen rights.

However the Human Rights Organizations see no roles in such area of human right. They are stereotype focusing only on political issues. These are just a few examples close to home, apparently involving the depravity and sadism, perhaps revenge, of non-state actors. Such brutality might stem not so much from poverty ? which is in itself a form of violence ? but from the general brutalization of society, which itself stems from many factors...

Its time to redefine the term ?Human Rights? by changing it to Human Rights and Responsibilities, which would correctly connote the true role and spirit of human right. Every Human Right Organizations should start operating as Human Right and Responsibility organization in name and spirit also. It would fairly minimize the malpractice of using the Human Right forums to cover some biased political issues.

Logically also, human rights should always come accompanied by human responsibility (actually the human rights be earned by fulfilling the human responsibilities) to prevent disorder against each other. If this is the definition and scope of work of the Human Rights Organizations includes supporting and even actively propagating violence, the relevance, need and scope of these organizations must be revisited in the larger social and national context.