PERSONAL LIBERTY OVER PUBLIC GOOD

There is a disturbing trend that is witnessed in the country today where people feel that individual freedom should take precedence over the overall interest of the society whether it is personal consumption, sexual orientation, or entertainment.

At the time of vandalisation of Mangalore pub there was prolonged discussion and debate in public domain over the women’s liberty to consume alcohol. Any protest against pub culture was rubbished as Talibanisation and one of our former loud-mouthed Ministers was in the forefront leading this campaign. Though there were allegations of “other” activities on the premises of the pub and the media’s role as an abettor of the crime came under cloud, they were all dismissed as of no consequence when confronted with the issue of women’s liberty to drink and their right to imbibe Western culture.

Now, the same world’s most powerful English daily, which ran a campaign for women’s right to drink, reports two case studies while discussing the side effects of “Emergency Contraceptives”. This is what a girl in her twenties confided to her doctor. “I was stone drunk when I was with my boy friend and I must have had sex with him. Since I have been regularly taking “Emergency Contraceptives”, I did not bother afterwards. Now I have a nagging doubt because of the uncontrolled bleeding”. Obviously, her periods stopped after she had sex with her boyfriend after getting drunk.

Another case study was about a girl who says that she prefers to have sex with her boy friend without condoms. When asked about the complications of pills, she says without any inhibition “So, what, I may put on weight. That’s all”. But what she did not say in so many words was that there was no thrill in condomised sex especially when “pills” are readily available. By the way, why the pill is called “Emergency Contraceptive” is not known. Surely, it is not meant for married women who do not have any emergency and can always go to gynaecologists for consultation in case of any problem. There is a surfeit of advertisements for these emergency pills in all the media. Is it meant for those who frequent pubs with boy friends? If so, should it be allowed? May be, the neo liberals will argue “Why not? It is their individual right to get drunk and have sex with anyone of their choice?” That is the level to which individual freedom has descended.

35.7 percent of all births were to unmarried women and there are 1.5 million children being born to unwed mothers in the United States. Now, the question is : Are we going to build a similar society where unwed mothers and teenaged pregnancies will constitute the majority as in the West? All because, we have to concede their individual freedom without any thought for the health of the society?

Recently, the nation also witnessed the demand for the individual freedom of people with different sexual orientation. Almost the entire intellectual class and the media were defending their right which, according to them, was guaranteed by the Constitution. The judiciary was also not averse to granting their plea though the government, for political reasons, was found to be equivalent on the issue.

Gay sex is not something new and it has never been recognised as a natural phenomenon throughout the history and all the organised religions were opposed to it. Now that the people in the Christian West are drifting from religion and pursuing fiercely independent way of life where utter selfish interest and enjoyment are equated with individual freedom at the cost of overall health of the society, there is an increasing emphasis on the rights of homosexuals. This is what is catching up with our society as well. The fact that the primary cause of HIV/AIDS has been proved to be the gay/lesbian sex has not deterred the upholders of gay rights.
Let’s take the case of two lesbian women in Andhra Pradesh who got married. The one who played “wife” could not get over her natural instinct to be a mother whatever her sexual orientation. She got a sperm donor and with artificial insemination she became pregnant. If such instances increase, we will have quite a few children whose biological fathers will not be known to the world. Since mother instinct is so strong in her, counselling would have brought her to normal sexual orientation. But, the hype for gay rights was so loud that nobody would have thought of counselling her.

If the Constitution has guaranteed freedom for gay sex, why should we not allow the sex workers to have their right to livelihood? Why should there be SITA? Why should we not allow brewers of hooch to have a field day as after all it is the right of everyone to consume what gives him pleasure? We can go on citing such instances. But in all these cases, the health of the society was given importance rather than individual freedom. And that is what seems to be changing now.

The latest instance of individual freedom overtaking societal interest is the controversy over the reality show “Sach ka saamna”. There was a howl of protest from the liberals questioning the wisdom of our Parliamentarians to waste time on discussing television shows in Parliament. The Gen Next started saying why should the government tell us as to what we should watch on television. Parliament represents the collective will of the billion plus people of this country and if they can’t discuss what is good and what is not for the society, who else can discuss. No freedom is absolute and every right has reasonable restraint. If a section wants to watch hard porn on television can it be permitted just because they have individual freedom to watch what they want.

In the ultimate analysis, any individual freedom should be in harmony with the overall interest of the society. If selfish interest, voyerism and carnal pleasures are equated with individual freedom and if there is an increasing trend to assert that kind of freedom as sacrosanct, then such a society will be heading towards a social disaster.