image source : here
I am not sure we get consent – as individuals, society, or as State. I write for the dna
Recently, the Attorney General of India, Mukul Rohatgi, was in court defending the Government’s stand on making Aadhar mandatory. Never, mind that the BJP, when in opposition, had put up fairly robust arguments against Aadhar based on privacy and security considerations. What was interesting about Mr Rohtagi’s defence was his argument that “the concept of absolute right over one’s body was a myth”.
Let us talk about consent.
One of the most fundamental ways in which modern societies are different from traditional societies is in the right of an individual to agree or disagree with a set of options presented to them. We have all heard storiesof our great grandparents meeting on the day of marriage. No one asked them ‘do you want to get married’, or even ‘is this the person you want to marry’.. The same was the case with professions. You followed the profession of your ancestors. No one asked, if you liked doing this. Rigid caste barriers made sure that you couldn’t do anything else. A potter could not become a priest. A priest could not become a doctor. Women, of course had no choice. They did what they were told to. And, much of this lack of choice was imposed by family, society, and religious code.
Around the start of the 1900’s things began changing. Not just in India, but worldwide. People began demanding the right to be who they wanted to be. The right to agree with what was being done to them. The right to follow the profession they wanted. The right to pray everywhere. They began rejecting age old norms, and demanded the right to agree with what was being proposed as the path they need to follow. These demands increased in the post second world war era, which also coincided with enslaved people gaining independence. In fact the freedom movements of most nations is based on the simple premise “we don’t consent to be governed by the imperial master’. conversation about rights, freedoms, and consent are interlinked. And, threats to one, pose danger to the other.
In the 21st century, the right to consent is being challenged worldwide. The abortion debate in the USA, for example, is a prime example of entrenched conservative Christian values driving a stake into the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy. This is not just groups agitating, it is elected representatives forcing the woman to have a child, through legislation.
It is happening in India, where conservative social groups are challenging the rights of individuals to choose their partner. Call it a khap directive, or a love jihad agitation, the effect remains the same. People’s right to marry who they want. Look at the arguments around the Triple Talaq. What the defenders of this are doing, is interfering with a women’s right of agreeing with what is happening to her.
And, this concept of consent is what Indians need to internalise. It is not just about your right to make choices, but that of others too. Whether we talk about noise pollution emanating from religious structures; or khap strictures; be it Triple Talaq or the beef ban; the assumption that collective will can be imposed on the individual, depriving them of the right to choose. We need to internalise that consent is intrinsic in our compact with the State; and that our individual right to choose, and agree with what is being done to us as individuals, is greater than rights of groups to choose for us. The rights of the individual to be, to consent, trumps the right of groups, or even the Government, to decide what is right for us.
And, while we may not have absolute rights over our body, we still need to consent to what is demanded of it.