CAUGHT IN THE MORAL DILEMMA…

Tanvi Sirari

Is there a place for moral policing in a plural democracy like India?

The debate engages me as it affects my life as an individual and more so as a woman. I realised this when grandma told me consuming alcohol is immoral for girls. I was aghast at the ‘immoral for girls’ remark. I started on with my need for breaking gender stereotypes argument. Later the reference to morality struck me.

The moral argument is often used to dissuade a woman from exercising her will. If a woman is promiscuous she is labelled a slut but a man is called a stud for the same. The moral connotations apply only to the woman. Modesty and chastity are two virtues a woman’s morality is judged on. Both of them aim at controlling a woman’s sexuality. The same test of morality is not applied to a man.

Yet moral policing is often justified on the grounds of protecting women. For instance imposing dress code in colleges. Female students are told to dress modestly to discourage eve teasing and sexual abuse. It makes a convincing argument as it reinforces stereotypes. A man is born with needs and has no control on his actions. He will molest a woman if she dresses in an ‘inappropriate’ manner. It is easy to blame the victim. If the victim is female casting aspersions on her moral character makes the deal easier. The perpetrator is absolved of responsibility for his action. The argument reduces men to animals who have no rational control over their actions. A little show of skin is enough to make them commit sexual crimes.

This enables the moral police to impose restrictions on a woman’s dress and conduct. Individual liberty is suppressed in the name of protecting the individual.

The Indian state uses the same logic to make laws that go against personal freedom. Maharashtra government imposed a ban on bar dancing. They claimed bars have a corrupting influence on public morals. The government also tried to portray bar dancers as morally deviant women of loose character. Dance is a creative expression and we have been guaranteed freedom of expression by the constitution. These women danced to earn money. They have a right to choice of profession. Dancing is not illegal. Moreover they are not forcing people to see their performance. They cater to a niche of willing audience. Their right to livelihood is jeopardised by the law.

The government overlooked these facts in name of protecting public morals. The question is who defines public morals? Even if majority of people think that bar dancing is an immoral activity, should it be banned? Should majority values be imposed on everyone? We are a democracy. Democracies thrive on dissent and diversity. It is unfortunate that the state chose to ignore this in its moral campaign.

A distinction between private and public is often made to mark the sphere of state authority and societal sanction. All civilised nations accept a person’s right to conduct his/her personal affairs independent outside intrusion. However we often see our personal conduct being judged on generalised moral principles. This is what happened in Meerut. Police assaulted young couples for meeting in a public park. They called it ‘Operation Majnu’ and attempted to justify it in name of stopping eve teasing. Actually they beat up couples present in the park in full media glare. They defended it in name of protecting the sanctity of a public space. They claimed public display of affection even by mutual consent was immoral and thus punishable. By large the action was condemned. Yet many people while condemning the police violence condoned the need for educating the youth against western cultural influence.

What is western cultural influence? Is it a man meeting a woman in a public place? The moral police seem to think so. Thus they chose to make an event out of a common occurrence in Meerut. If we were to extend this same logic even love can look like something we imported from the west. The idea seems ridiculous but if you ask a moral policeman he might tell you Indian concept of love indeed is different. Perhaps that is why self-appointed moral policemen went on harassing young couples in Mumbai on Valentines Day.

On a serious note moral policing is often justified in name of protecting our culture. Globalisation and media are blamed for promoting Western values. Emphasis on individuality of cultures and resistance to modernity perceived as western cultural hegemony is getting stronger. This sentiment is often expressed in terms of ‘our culture against their culture’. Amartya Sen in his book, ‘The Argumentative Indian’ says, “The growing tendency in contemporary India to champion the need for an indigenous culture that has ‘resisted’ external influences lacks credibility and cogency.”

Individual liberty is seen as centred in Western cultural thought while Indian culture is based up on communitarian values. Yet many examples from history state otherwise. Ashoka in 3^rd century talked about universal rights. Sen feels, alleged sharp contrast between Western and Indian traditions are based on very poor history.

India is home to diverse cultural traditions. Even these cultural communities are not internally consistent and local customs differ. Thus a pan Indian culture will always be based on over generalisations. There is no homogeneous Indian culture. Besides communitarian classification is based on a particular criteria. It can be religion, caste, class, region and various other categories. Each can yield different results. Thus those who talk of preserving Indian culture capitalise on a few of these and ignore others.

Sen says, “Our decisions about the future need not be parasitic on the type of past we have experienced but what will make sense in contemporary India.” We are living in a globalised world. It gives us the opportunity to take the best from everywhere without losing what we have. Democracy is seen as a western form of governance. It does not means we should go back to monarchy.

Moral policing is a threat to individual liberty. It also threatens cultural diversity. Indian culture is reduced to dominant values. Individual conduct is being judged up on generalised behaviour ideals. It has successfully used state coercion to its advantage. It is time to fire the self appointed moral policemen and embrace freedom.