The Covid-crisis has led to concern more than the return of ‘nanny states’, with governments across the planet taking unusually stern measures to restrict public mobility and social interaction. In India, judging by current and pending legislations, the nanny state is currently right here.
The term is normally employed in an financial sense to denounce more than-regulation, but primarily implies undue interference by government in the day-to-day lives of citizens. State intervention is needed exactly where public very good trumps person freedom, but it should really have no function to play in the private sphere, especially exactly where marriage and reproductive, well being or dietary options are concerned.
Recent situations of nanny-ish policies include things like these on surrogacy, assisted reproductive technologies (ART), religious conversion (‘love jihad’) and electronic nicotine delivery systems (‘vapes’). Censorship of books and films and social media content and the try (by two successive governments) to ban non-iodised salt are other examples.
Public security
The line amongst freedoms and public security is often crystal clear. The ban on smoking in public, for instance, tends to make sense for the reason that it can have adverse well being effects not just on the person but these about him and is, additionally, a public nuisance and a possible fire hazard. Likewise, the ban on plastic bags is deemed an environmental crucial.
On the other hand, the line may possibly often be a bit fuzzy. There’s small doubt that vaccination serves the prevalent very good, for the reason that it reduces the probabilities of ailments spreading across communities, just as wearing a mask provides protection against Covid-19. Vaccines against life-threatening ailments are regarded as ‘compulsory’ and India’s immunisation programme has had considerable accomplishment in controlling or eradicating them.
Yet, the manifest ‘public good’ of vaccination has encountered parental scepticism and a substantial quantity are opting for option medicine rather than government-mandated vaccines, citing the ‘freedom of choice’ argument.
‘Public good’
The common test of any policy that overrides person freedom should really be that of ‘public good’. In current years, we have had a clutch of Bills and laws that do not pass the test. Take, for instance, the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020, which limits the eligibility not only of these searching for to take benefit of it, but also that of egg donors. (Peculiarly, an egg donor ought to be married, with at least one particular kid, and can only donate after in her life.)
Equally awkward is the Surrogacy Bill of 2019. In its initial avatar, the Bill averred that only childless heterosexual couples married for 5 years and with “proven infertility” could engage a surrogate, who had to be a close relative, herself married and with a kid. Homosexual couples and single ladies have been denied the possibility of becoming biological parents, as a result raising the query of the constitutional validity of the Bill.
Passed by the Lok Sabha, the Bill was referred to a pick committee just before it could grow to be law. The panel recommended adjustments which have been an improvement on the original. Single ladies and all Indian (married) couples could opt for surrogacy and the surrogate mother did not have to be a ‘close relative’. However, identical-sex couples, live-in couples, transgenders, widowers and bachelors have been nonetheless left out.
Right to parenthood
The Bill was justified on the grounds that ‘commercial’ surrogacy was exploitative and in any case, only a tiny quantity of Indian citizens opted for it. Whether the stakeholders – surrogates, individuals of option sexual orientation, infertile ladies and egg donors,for instance – have been element of the consultative course of action is doubtful.
The reality is that the ART and surrogacy laws will impact all citizens, regardless of gender, for the reason that the state will have correctly arrogated to itself the correct to make a decision who is certified to grow to be a parent, and how. It is not just a query of ladies saying “hands off our wombs (and eggs)”, but of citizens standing up for basic freedoms.
Equally damaging is the religious conversion law, at present in force in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand and most likely to be introduced in other BJP-ruled states – ostensibly intended to ‘protect’ ladies against ‘love jihad’. The party appears blithely unaware that infantilising ladies in this manner exposes its patriarchal disposition.
The controversial laws have been very carefully worded, so as not to outlaw inter-faith marriage or religious conversion totally, but make them far more challenging and give law enforcement agencies lots of space to harass alleged violators.
Double requirements
State paternalism is normally accompanied by double requirements. Take for instance the selection to ban vapes – arguably much less harmful than cigarettes – though imposing no deterrents against smoking or chewable tobacco. This is not new – back in the day, cannabis was banned as a harmful narcotic, though alcohol consumption went on to became a big income-earner for the government.
India is accustomed to the paternalism of ‘mai-baap sarkar’, but it is higher time that government overreach became element of the public discourse.
The writer is a senior journalist with 35 years of encounter in working with big newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author.
1 Comment
Once again, it is easy to see why this is one of the finest information sites on the entire web, keep pumping out the great content!