|
Magazine
THE SHRINKING UNIVERSE
Sense & sensibility
VIJAY NAGASWAMI
|
Recent incidents demonstrate that we as a nation need to have a rational debate on subjects like tolerance and morality…
|
Photo: PTI
Irrational intolerance: Sri Ram Sene activists assaulting people at a pub in Bangalore.
You could not help being an observer of the recent events in Mangalore and Bangalore, as well as the ensuing raging debates in newsprint, on national television, at cocktail parties, coffee shops or street corners and I am sure you possibly cannot he
lp being struck by the sheer intensity of peoples’ responses. Everybody has a definite opinion and is prepared to state it unequivocally and even stridently. Of course, it is becoming apparent that, in recent times, “moral policing” has assumed a strongly political dimension, and has been an easy plank for marginal political parties to acquire a national presence. Leaving aside for the time being politics, dramatics and rhetoric, it appears that at the root of the intensity lie two distinct but related behavioural phenomena — tolerance (or, in this case, intolerance) and morality (or, in this case, immorality).
Are we tolerant?
Let us first explore the phenomenon of intolerance. Traditionally, protagonists of Indian culture have harped on how tolerant we are as a people, tolerant enough to permit ourselves to be repeatedly invaded by foreign conquerors. Where, then, has all this tolerance gone, one may wonder, when images of pub invasions, violently manhandled women, vigilante policemen and hostile middle-class faces flash across our television screens or are splashed in our morning newspapers? It does appear that we are no longer as tolerant as a nation as we used to be. And not just when it comes to national or societal issues! Even in personal relationships, we are less tolerant than ever before of each other. Husbands and wives are ready to approach the Family Courts over what would have been considered trivialities just a few decades ago. Parents and children position themselves on opposite sides of a rather thorny fence, brothers and sisters spew venom at each other through civil litigation, neighbours erect impenetrable walls against each other, strangers resort to fisticuffs to settle traffic slights and so on.
Does this mean that civil society as we know it in our country is breaking down? Far from it! After millennia of passive tolerance of all kinds of indignities, we, as a nation, have finally come to understand that we do have voices and are beginning to realise that we do not have to take things lying down. The more tolerant we have been, the more like cattle we have been treated. In other words, intolerance by itself is not a bad thing, for, it forces us to act. However, how we act will determine whether we practise rational intolerance or irrational intolerance.
We respond with rational intolerance when we launch an awareness campaign and engage in dialogue, debate and other civil action about or against something that distresses us. We respond with irrational intolerance when we use rhetoric, whip up mob frenzy, burn effigies, attack stores selling Valentine Day cards, physically assault hapless young women who go to a pub or talk to young men and so on. Whether the cause is religious or civil, in a democracy there are several methods of redressing grievances and even if imperfect, these are the only methods we can use if our intolerance is to be responded to appropriately. Had, for instance, the protestors (who, in a civil society, certainly have the right to have their say) resorted to street theatre or debate or press releases or television interviews to articulate their counterpoint, then the process of conflict resolution could have begun; the general public could have examined both sides of the argument and reached its own conclusion. When instead they responded with irrational intolerance, they obviated the possibility of resolving the conflict, for, irrational intolerance serves to further polarise an already heated conflict. Of equal importance in conflict resolution is how the protestors are responded to. If irrationally intolerant protests are to be countered by more irrational intolerance, the only cause to be advanced would be that of tabloid journalism.
Question of choice
The other related phenomenon under exploration is that of morality, which, whether you are a philosopher or a psychologist, boils down to an issue of personal choice. Of interest is the fact that issues pertaining to morality evoke the most irrationally intolerant responses. Of greater interest is the fact that when we refer to morality we think not of values like integrity, probity in public life, family connectedness and the like, but more often than not to sexuality and related sexual “transgressions”. We are blasé about corruption but “morally outraged” about sex-related matters, and when we bemoan degradation of values, we are usually talking only about phenomena like virginity, chastity and pre-marital sexual behaviour. Coming from the land of the Kama Sutra, this is indeed paradoxical, more so when we, as a nation, frequently, whether publicly or in private, venerate our past. It is almost as if our 5,000-year-old culture did not include an actively sexual past.
While I have no doubt that attitudes towards sex and sexual behaviour are indeed personal choices that individuals make based on whatever value systems they subscribe to, these attitudes need to be tempered by the recognition of sexuality as an important, though not pre-eminent, element of contemporary life. When we continue to exist in a state of repressed sexuality as we today do, we run a huge risk of engaging in sexually puerile behaviours that usually have malignant repercussions such as child sexual abuse, eve teasing, rape and public as well as domestic violence against women. Also, the targets of “immorality busters” are invariably women, not men. Which just means that as a society which apparently deifies women, our repressed sexuality results in sexual violence being perpetrated on their vilified avatars.
I am certainly no advocate of unbridled sexual behaviour, nor am I blind to the possibility that alcohol and drug consumption at younger ages can increase the risk of alcohol and substance dependence in later life. However, I certainly do see the scope for more rational debate on this subject, which does legitimately concern many urban middle class families today. But this can only happen when we approach matters with sense and with genuine respect for others’ sensibilities; when we stop equating morality with female sexual liberalisation; when we start using rational intolerance as our guiding force, thereby taking full advantage of the systems and processes that the democratic founding fathers of our nation have left behind as their thoughtfully considered legacy.
The writer is a psychiatrist and author of ‘The 24x7 Marriage’. He can be contacted at: vijay.nagaswami@gmail.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
|
