May 11, 1998

Even freedom presupposes an ethical dimension.

Swapan Dasgupta

For the chatterati, Information and Broadcasting Minister Sushma Swaraj is fast becoming a hate object. If they were riled by her bid to ban condom advertisements and impose a dress code for newscasters during the 13-day government in 1996, they are horrified by her latest proposal to curb liquor advertising on television. Saffron watchers have detected a link between the suggestion and the BJP manifesto that seeks a "moral code" for the preservation of the "normative moral order". Read with Shiv Sena minister Pramod Navalkar's exuberant crusades in Mumbai against obscenity and immorality, they have deduced an emerging doctrine of sanctimonious correctness. To the ordinary middle classes, Sushma may be the archetypal "aunty next door", the politician they would readily invite to the prize distribution at the local school. To the creamy layer, however, she is a meddlesome prude, a moral busybody.

The issue is not really the viability and technical feasibility of a proposal that could deprive television of Rs 100-crore worth of advertising at a time of near-recession. The concerns of Sushma's detractors -- who, incidentally, hate her even more because she is articulate and TV-savvy -- are a little more profound. Should the state play moral guardian? Should governance intrude into personal lifestyle?

These questions have been deliberated ad nauseam in the West. In India, however, choice never really figured on the public agenda prior to 1991. In the high noon of dynastic socialism, India was a regulated, shortage economy. The state was the ultimate arbiter of both limited supply and relentless demand. The government was the rationing authority. This explains why liberalism -- a doctrine prefaced on the availability of options -- was a fringe pursuit. There was always a genuine tolerance of dissent and accommodation, but within the bounds of convention.

With a growing market economy and global influences, there is a relative multiplicity of choice. Apart from brands of whiskey jostling for preference, there are competing social influences. This competitiveness has contributed to a phenomenon that is often described as moral relativism. It implies that all choices are equally valid and subject to individual rights and personal autonomy. Its proponents -- found in the ranks of the chattering classes and foreign-funded NGOs -- believe, for example, that marriage, cohabitation, homosexuality, bisexuality and single parenthood are equal options. In short, neither society nor the state has the moral authority to prefer one against the other. "Progressive" education is marked by the principle of being non-judgemental. Teachers are told to refrain from guiding students in choosing between good and bad. Obscenity and pornography are similarly elevated to the realms of legitimate choice.

The biggest casualties of this moral anarchy are the ordinary decencies of a community. Inherited values and tradition are constantly decried and subjected to avant garde sarcasm. Lifestyle, far from being a pursuit of family happiness, has been transformed by TV into a never-ending pursuit of the Baywatch babes. There is genuine disquiet. Sushma may be faulted for her choice of targets, but her concerns strike a responsive chord. India needs to recover its ethical composure. The question is not "why", but "how". Without succumbing to an over-bearing state that deems itself the final arbiter of taste.

Issue Contents | Write to us | Subscriptions

© Living Media India Ltd