What would you like to have? Tea, coffee or perhaps a ban?

My heart cried at each yank of the sun control film as my luxury car got stripped in deference to the Honourable Supreme Court’s ruling of ‘no films on automobiles’ in the wake of the anti-rape law.

Neither am I a rapist, nor do I carry out any illegal activities in a moving car – whatever I did in the car, in any case, was visible to the outsiders as the film complied with the legal limits of transparency – 75% visibility in the front and 50% visibility on the sides. Yet it is banned because it is a film – a sticker on the car.

By the way, the court says if the glass of the car passes this visibility test, it is alright but not the film! The ruling did not go down well with me especially when I had spent close to Rs40,000 of my hard-earned money in a responsible way that reduces emission and increases the efficiency of the car, saves precious fuel besides giving me relief in the sweltering summer months. Today, I was guilty of committing a crime for that very responsible act. Even auto enthusiast Roshun Povaiah, who wrote about this ruling on an auto blog, said, “It’s like saying demolish all walls in a city just because some men urinate on some walls.”

Does a blanket ban always work? There are good bans and there are bad bans. If the ban in any manner helps a social cause, in my mind, it is a good ban. Like banning plastic is good, so is a ban on killing endangered species or pre-natal sex determination etc. If the ban is affecting all of us other than the people carrying out the banned action or using the banned product, then it is an exercise in futility. For example, the court has yet not decided about the films on VIP cars and cars of politicians.

Banning books like Satanic Verses, Taslima Nasreen’s Dwikhandito, movies like Water, Fanaa etc are bad bans as they do not help anyone. I would not be surprised if some of you may be ‘guilty’ of reading some banned book or watching a banned film. It happens the world over. A beginner in psychology can tell you that banning something is almost a sure-fire way of piquing an interest in it. And governments across the world are guilty of imposing such bans that defy any logic, thereby encouraging people to flout the ban.

In China, if you do not have the government’s permission, you cannot seek reincarnation! Nor can you use time travel as a concept in movies and television. That is why Bruce Willis-starrer Looper was a bigger hit in China than anywhere else. Closer home, we have examples that abound. The new ‘fungible’ FSI to introduce transparency in FSI rules, has actually resulted in builders interpreting it as a ban on balconies. No new residential projects will have balconies any longer!

Banning taking a camera into the malls is the most illogical ban that pretends that mobile phones are devices that only make calls. And the latest, of course, is banning lingerie on mannequins to reduce rape rate!

To use the law to ban something is not to invoke some magical power to prevent it from happening. In fact, banning things often creates new problems. If it is a bad ban, it just means that the legal system will be engaged in a way it otherwise would not be.

Enacting the prohibition is not an end in itself. There should be regard to both – the likely effects of the ban and to the ramifications it may have on those who uphold the laws and values in a liberal, civil society.

So those calling for something to be banned should therefore ask two simple questions. First, what will the prohibition do in respect of the undesired behaviour? And second, what other consequences may flow from the prohibition? Answers to both these questions will inform the political/legal powers as to whether such a ban should be implemented and, if so, how.

Hence, an urgent plea to Vinod Rai, the CAG honcho, so what if he’s just retired – can we please have an audit of the bans the government has imposed thus far?

(Shalini Rawla is managing consultant, The Key Consumer Diagnostics Pvt Ltd, a Mumbai-based qualitative research company)