Dr John Mohan Razu
Freedom is one of the most important fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. It does resonate as part and parcel that figures in the Human Rights Charter. All of us want to be free and enjoy the freedom that we are embedded with. Hence, to be free and to enjoy the freedom fully has been the basic urge and pursuit of the humans all along. Towards this end, setting the slaves free, granting freedom to the enslaved colonies, releasing the bonded laborers and prisoners have become the major pre-occupations of many since the time immemorial. As the civilizations progresses we keep adding and improvising clauses and provisions respectively to the very notion of freedom.
Within the whole gamut of freedom, ‘Right to Choose’ or ‘Right of Choice’ occupies is considered as a vital and most crucial at this point of time. All of us have the freedom to choose what we want such as: what type of education we should have, what to wear, who to be in love and to marry, what to eat, which religion to embrace, have the choice to accept or reject the concept of God and to adhere to any political ideology, view and so on. Within the canopy of ‘freedom’ we have an array of choices that forms as the basic human right. Recently, the Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgment along with the Right to Life, it added Right to Die as a fundamental rights.
As the societies and nations move on from phase to phase the societies and nations should progress in its provisions and governance vis-à-vis extending freedom of choice for its citizens. The measuring rod would be based on the parameters the concerns freedom choices. Whether a country or a society is progressive or regressive could perhaps be measured on some of the parameters. In that in recent times India shows its regressive character. For instance, in a recent public pronouncement, Union minister for skill development, Ananth Kumar Hedge, said that “secularists, thinkers, and those who did not believe in ‘caste and religion’ were of questionable parentage thus implying that such people were illegitimate.” Whether he used it as metaphorical or literal is not the question but the regressive mind-set of this person holding a ministerial portfolio who had the guts to pronounce such a nonsensical statement in the public.
The present regime at the Centre and the government ruled by the BJP should know that belief in any religion or not believing in god or having view on something or even in political ideologies belong to life-choices. I may have been born in a particular faith, but have the right to question and to embrace another faith or abandon faith totally ought to be my freedom and my choice. No one has the right including the state to question that choice. I derive these choices from the Constitution which has extended to me. My choice and my freedom within the boundaries of the Constitution that I enjoy should not be questioned or tampered or tinkered. Nowadays, all my choices are questioned, interrogated and intervened. The so-called ‘moralists’ tend to moralize everything that I choose out of my freedom and choice claiming their moral superiority. Their moral superiority has no right over my choice and in the process cannot be trampled upon. Within the strands of Hindu there is also freedom to choose gods, traditions and practices. This is the right strand and yours is not right cannot be uttered. Likewise, my religion is superior and your religion is inferior and therefore in order to live in India you should convert to my religion or leave the country cannot be sensible, rational and moral. There are people who think and act like Hegde who want to impose their morality on others. As we advance in our civilizational heritage and value systems, respecting one’s choices ought to become the core governing principle. The zenith of civilization and progress of society is dependent on the ways that freedom of life-choices is not trampled upon, rather protected and promoted.
As Marcus Aurelius commented that “Life is flux; all is opinion.” Everyone have the right to hold on to their opinion such as religion or ideology or politics or on education, attire, culture, economy, caste-class-gender so on and so forth. Nevertheless, no one has the right to justify or try or influence their life-choice by adducing to it a moral legitimacy greater than that of other life-choices. The following are a few questions that emerge: What is moral and immoral; what are the elements constitute morality and immorality and how to determine these are morals and others are immoral? For example, LGBT represents particular life choices, but their life-choices ought not to justify by staking claim to a higher morality than that of someone who has chosen others as a life-choice, based on consenting adults.
India used to represent progressive ideas and respect freedom of choice in all its totality. However, in recent times it manifests regressive ideas particularly when it comes to freedom of choice. Recently we have had two incidences—1) Priya Prakash Varrier’s wink and 2) Kerala teacher’s sexist remarks triggering ‘watermelon’ protests. How can the so-called moralists claim ‘moral’ high grounds that what they think is the moral and what they prescribe are the moral codes and so everyone should follow?
The two incidences candidly show the levels of mind-sets and thus exhibit their skewed ‘morality’. What they are doing is the deliberate and aggressive ways of imposing their moral codes upon others by forcing others to embrace. ‘New India’ ought not to be premised upon skewed priorities and ‘moral order’ that tramples upon the freedom of choices. Their understanding of ‘morality’ is causing lots of problems because it violates freedom of one’s choices and aggressive imposition via violent means is tearing apart the society. This is what happening in many countries. Imposition of one moral yard-stick should be resisted and never be allowed. People should have be allowed to listen to diverse views so that a variety of ideas, choices and views shall flourish so that people would choose whatever they want freely. Do not interfere when it comes to the freedom of choices by offering a kind of morality that deters choices. Allow people to make their own life-choices. Do not make it as a standard of morality for everyone else. Ideas and choices should not be imposed.
