Collective good before individual freedom

Is post modern in the real sense anti modern? Yes, in a way, since the quest for transcending the limits of modernity is insatiable, we seem to unlearn what we began to learn with the beginning of time in order to become civilised. From stone-age to the industrial revolution, human civilisation is the history of the uninterrupted process of social evolution. Wild to civilised has all-along been a gradual process.

The building of a society is based upon the cardinal principle of collective good (always) getting precedence over individual interests; restraint and consideration have been the guiding principles. Tamper a little with the principle of collective good and the edifice of the entire society will come down crashing. That seems to be happening now. Every progression is necessarily not a healthy development. Modernity also can prove to be regressive in case restraint is allowed to melt away under the heat of wild behaviour.

The criminalisation or decriminalisation of homosexuality has been made such a big debate by the media as if it is the only burning issue that occupies the minds of the people in this country. The media crying hoarse on the issue has flummoxed the central government to such a bizarre extent that it is afraid of taking a firm stand on the basis of evolved traditions and values of this society before the Supreme Court; lest it be accused of having a conservative mindset. One wonders how this government functions. Initially its counsel took a principled stand before the Supreme Court hearing the appeal against the 2009 verdict of the Delhi high court that decriminalised homosexuality as provided in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code: “Indian society is different from other countries and it cannot imitate the practices prevailing in foreign countries.” Additional solicitor general PP Malhotra’s plea before the Supreme Court that “gay sex is highly immoral and against social order” gels fully well with the traditions of our society, being practised by the majority. The government within minutes buckled and retracted, saying that the “matter was considered by the cabinet and the decision of the cabinet was that central government may not file an appeal against the judgment.”

Courts are meant solely to deliver justice and interpret the law and not to set new moral standards. The law of the land too has to be inconsonant with evolved traditions and moral systems of the given society. The fast erosion of value systems in West should not be a compelling reason for the judges to set new standards of social behaviour in our society. Why does the West have to be imitated in every sense? They have their own moral standards and we follow our own. On the contrary, the societal crises and moral debauchery that the West is faced with today should have made us wise not to fallow blindly the creeds of ill-perceived modernity. The United States presently is faced with deep social unrest; David Brooks, a leading New York Times columnist makes a profound observation: “The social fabric has deteriorated. Social trust has plummeted. Society has segmented. The share of Americans born out of wedlock is now at 40% and rising.”

If homosexuality is decriminalised based on the logic that the behaviours ‘which were earlier unacceptable have become acceptable with passage of time’, this may eventually lead to complete moral waywardness. If the courts do not properly define that the decriminalisation of homosexuality does not necessarily mean the legitimisation of homosexuality, it will cause further erosion of the family structure. Decriminalisation of homosexuality is laden with the risk of providing social sanctity to a fully barren and abnormal attitude. Sex only defining a relationship between a man and man or woman and woman annuls the concept of collective good. Individual gratification has no value in comparison to the overall welfare of the society. A few individuals cannot be allowed to tarnish the ethical behaviour of the society. Homosexual unions demanding the sanctity of marriage will turn the society’s equilibrium topsy-turvy. Marriage is a sacred institution; it bestows some privileges but at the same time demands a few responsibilities. Survival of the human race is solely dependent upon the institution of marriage. Individuals keen to have sexual fulfilment without the responsibility of reproducing is not only lustful but also highly individualistic behaviour. Individual freedom indeed is the hallmark of modern times, yet sex wholly defining the present era is unacceptable. If sex determining the values of a society is not regressive, what is?