March.26 : Self-proclaimed defenders of public morals, in other words agony aunts, usually find themselves thrust in that position as they have little better to do and are not averse to grabbing a little publicity on the side.
This possibly explains the harassment of South Indian actress Khushboo by the gung-ho morality brigade, who began frothing at the mouth when she said in an interview that she had no objection to live-in relationships or to sex before marriage. The do-gooders filed criminal cases against her at different places across Tamil Nadu. It is no credit to the Madras high court that it dismissed Ms Khushboo’s plea for quashing these absurd cases which plainly amounted to harassment. But relief has come to the outspoken filmstar through the Supreme Court, which not only upheld her plea on Tuesday but also gave the pushy morality-wallahs a tongue-lashing. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan made two clear and separate points. The bench said the views expressed by the actress were her “personal” views, and asked the counsel for the busybodies plying the morality argument: “How does it concern you?” This blunt question strikes a blow for the freedom of expression, a key element of our Constitution, which in recent times has been sought to be subverted by vigilante groups operating usually under the pretext of upholding India’s cultural values. It is typically this variety that mimics the Taliban, attacks painter M.F. Husain, and continually creates a nuisance come Valentine’s Day every year. The other clear point made by the country’s highest court is that no law prohibits a live-in relationship or premarital sex. Indeed, striking a poignant tone, the bench observed: “Living together is a right to life.” The argument of the morality-mongers was that live-in relationships and premarital sex would adversely affect the minds of young people, leading to a decline in moral values and dissipating of the country’s ethos. Expressing their impatience with such reasoning, the court asked the counsel for the culture-afflicted: “How many homes have been affected, can you tell us?”
While it is more than clear that physical intimacy before marriage, or a live-in relationship, violates no law in this country, there is no gainsaying that until very recently a live-in relationship was far from being the norm. But so was women living on their own in big cities, women working, or women working nightshifts in pursuit of a promising career. Experts will also have little difficulty establishing that women, in many instances, are indeed the family bread-winner, not the so-called man of the house. It is plain to see that such tectonic sociological changes have come about across the board, not only in respect of matters concerning women or the family. The proof is all round us, and not just in the big cities. Rapid changes in technology, communications, and the rearranging of economic life and modes of production across the globe (whose effect was felt even before globalisation) have brought in their train an overhauling of life as we knew it. Culture and values are notions that are not static and those who think they are batting for Indian Culture have themselves been conscious or unconscious agents of change in their time. While the idea of culture arises from everyday practices gathered over time, the idea of morality fundamentally goes hand in hand with the idea of order and stability, and in that spirit delineates codes of thought and conduct at given moments of time. But who can say that the injunctions of morality in a period can be totally at variance with the broad notions of culture? And with very rapid material changes in the world, this culture is changing rapidly, internationally and nationally. If the agony aunts can’t keep pace, they just go out of the window.