In the long list of the problems associated with free speech, one is when to reverse the direction of support? And this is not only with freedom of speech but with any other kind of support we give to any cause. Most of the times as long as these so called democratic ideas suit us we are supporting them and one day we realize something wrong is going on however it becomes too late to change anything then.
For example when vulgarity entered reality TV the pseudo intellectuals and like minded buffoons gave “there is a demand there is a supply” kind of ridiculous arguments. Then when Jane Goody’s death was supposed to be telecasted live, the same guys had cold feet and clamored that it’s gross and disgusting. Now being a human being we are bound to support those ideas we believe in and oppose those which we do not. However things are never that easy as once you take a position it becomes a trap of escalating commitment. So if a lip locking couple is manhandled by some people the “educated class” like us, come forward bemoaning the “cultural and moral policing”.
Now as culture and moral are not written down anywhere and evolve based on the social needs, it’s very easy to play with them. However in this argument of natural cultural evolution (or may be decadence) we forget that a particular custom or subtlety or cultural aspect in a society evolved because when it was evolving it was not opposed.
A profound example is the development of religious beliefs across the globe in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. We would find how much important the inherent belief of the King of those times played in evolution or destruction of some ideas in these religions in a given region. Therefore these Kings intervened when certain sects like say Sufism in Islam or Methodist in Christianity or Hadism in Judaism were evolving and suppressed these ideas and they never caught public imagination in the way they might have had, had the King not intervened.
The argument above is to make a case that saying culture evolves naturally and in itself, is not entirely correct. You would see kissing couples at Bandra Banstand in Mumbai (India), Carter Road in Mumbai and many other places and it has been broadly accepted. However if these couples start kissing in trains what are the co-passengers supposed to do? Should they keep silent or report the matter to law? If they do nothing then next time the couple may be having sex in the local train and then what would you do? You never intervened when they were kissing near Bandstand and it got accepted as “Mumbai Culture” and now what, when they are kissing in the train? Again if there is no intervention it would become “Mumbai Culture”. Arguing whether any kind of culture is good or bad is not the issue here. Issue is development of a so called culture more often than not is dependant on inaction of the general public.
Now if you are traveling in a train and do not approve of this kissing and public display of affection would you take the trouble in reporting this to police or taking matter in your hand? 99% of people would simply move on to their work as they have other things to look after. And this tacit acceptance is taken as “public acceptance” and no one attempts to understand that it is due to “compliance or acquiesce by force or apathy” and not by choice. In these circumstances if some other organization takes matter in its hand and handles the matter well without violence should that be condemned?
Tomorrow if you do not believe in some idea then you would want the same organizations to take matter in their hands as yourself cannot take protest to the intended people. When a 13 year old boy became father in UK, UK media and people were shocked out of their consciousness. However they have to blame themselves as when moral decay was creeping into their society they chose to remain silent under the garb of “new age evolution”. But where do we draw a line between evolution and a complete lack of any sense of right or wrong? Now the argument could be “what is right and what is wrong”?
Problem comes when we tend to answer these questions of right and wrong and quibble around the niceties of a civilized argument rather than doing anything. I am sure many so called moral policing instances would have had significant mass support, may be tacitly. A typical example would be development of authoritarian regimes. As long as the dictator is doing things which we approve of his approval rating sour, but then one day the tide turns.
So how to decide which social development needs to be opposed at mass level? The foremost question is who should decide what to oppose and what not? One thing for sure is the law and the Government. If these agencies believe in opposing or supporting something that idea generally develops or is nipped the way these agencies want. But the question is what about the idea of general public? How should the general public, say one person convey his or her acceptance or rejection of an idea.
Being a democracy ideal condition would be those ideas should prevail which have acceptance (tacit or explicit) of the larger pubic. But the issue is the one stated above that general public hardly cares for any idea apart from perhaps something which is developing in their immediate vicinity.
So how to generate a broader consensus over certain issue which is really important. Now there are certain issues which are of national importance (like say reservation, nuclear deal etc) which are generally raised and resolved in the parliament. However the problem is with those issues which are very local in nature or those issues which are indeed national but perhaps could not be taken in the parliament unless a critical mass of support is there (for example opposing vulgarity on reality TV like Shweta Tiwari bathing almost naked in some Sony TV’s reality show).
In these cases how a single individual register his opinion to those social institutions which matter. May be first of all that person should have that kind of illuminated drive which forces her out of the slumber so that she can act. So feeling reprehensive about a development is one thing but getting a drive to register a formal legal protest (say by a PIL etc) is an altogether different issue. This kind of activism needs serious drive and is different than drawing room criticism of some television program.
For example when vulgarity entered reality TV the pseudo intellectuals and like minded buffoons gave “there is a demand there is a supply” kind of ridiculous arguments. Then when Jane Goody’s death was supposed to be telecasted live, the same guys had cold feet and clamored that it’s gross and disgusting. Now being a human being we are bound to support those ideas we believe in and oppose those which we do not. However things are never that easy as once you take a position it becomes a trap of escalating commitment. So if a lip locking couple is manhandled by some people the “educated class” like us, come forward bemoaning the “cultural and moral policing”.
Now as culture and moral are not written down anywhere and evolve based on the social needs, it’s very easy to play with them. However in this argument of natural cultural evolution (or may be decadence) we forget that a particular custom or subtlety or cultural aspect in a society evolved because when it was evolving it was not opposed.
A profound example is the development of religious beliefs across the globe in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc. We would find how much important the inherent belief of the King of those times played in evolution or destruction of some ideas in these religions in a given region. Therefore these Kings intervened when certain sects like say Sufism in Islam or Methodist in Christianity or Hadism in Judaism were evolving and suppressed these ideas and they never caught public imagination in the way they might have had, had the King not intervened.
The argument above is to make a case that saying culture evolves naturally and in itself, is not entirely correct. You would see kissing couples at Bandra Banstand in Mumbai (India), Carter Road in Mumbai and many other places and it has been broadly accepted. However if these couples start kissing in trains what are the co-passengers supposed to do? Should they keep silent or report the matter to law? If they do nothing then next time the couple may be having sex in the local train and then what would you do? You never intervened when they were kissing near Bandstand and it got accepted as “Mumbai Culture” and now what, when they are kissing in the train? Again if there is no intervention it would become “Mumbai Culture”. Arguing whether any kind of culture is good or bad is not the issue here. Issue is development of a so called culture more often than not is dependant on inaction of the general public.
Now if you are traveling in a train and do not approve of this kissing and public display of affection would you take the trouble in reporting this to police or taking matter in your hand? 99% of people would simply move on to their work as they have other things to look after. And this tacit acceptance is taken as “public acceptance” and no one attempts to understand that it is due to “compliance or acquiesce by force or apathy” and not by choice. In these circumstances if some other organization takes matter in its hand and handles the matter well without violence should that be condemned?
Tomorrow if you do not believe in some idea then you would want the same organizations to take matter in their hands as yourself cannot take protest to the intended people. When a 13 year old boy became father in UK, UK media and people were shocked out of their consciousness. However they have to blame themselves as when moral decay was creeping into their society they chose to remain silent under the garb of “new age evolution”. But where do we draw a line between evolution and a complete lack of any sense of right or wrong? Now the argument could be “what is right and what is wrong”?
Problem comes when we tend to answer these questions of right and wrong and quibble around the niceties of a civilized argument rather than doing anything. I am sure many so called moral policing instances would have had significant mass support, may be tacitly. A typical example would be development of authoritarian regimes. As long as the dictator is doing things which we approve of his approval rating sour, but then one day the tide turns.
So how to decide which social development needs to be opposed at mass level? The foremost question is who should decide what to oppose and what not? One thing for sure is the law and the Government. If these agencies believe in opposing or supporting something that idea generally develops or is nipped the way these agencies want. But the question is what about the idea of general public? How should the general public, say one person convey his or her acceptance or rejection of an idea.
Being a democracy ideal condition would be those ideas should prevail which have acceptance (tacit or explicit) of the larger pubic. But the issue is the one stated above that general public hardly cares for any idea apart from perhaps something which is developing in their immediate vicinity.
So how to generate a broader consensus over certain issue which is really important. Now there are certain issues which are of national importance (like say reservation, nuclear deal etc) which are generally raised and resolved in the parliament. However the problem is with those issues which are very local in nature or those issues which are indeed national but perhaps could not be taken in the parliament unless a critical mass of support is there (for example opposing vulgarity on reality TV like Shweta Tiwari bathing almost naked in some Sony TV’s reality show).
In these cases how a single individual register his opinion to those social institutions which matter. May be first of all that person should have that kind of illuminated drive which forces her out of the slumber so that she can act. So feeling reprehensive about a development is one thing but getting a drive to register a formal legal protest (say by a PIL etc) is an altogether different issue. This kind of activism needs serious drive and is different than drawing room criticism of some television program.
