Recently, the Attorney General of India, Mukul Rohatgi, was in court defending the Government’s stand on making Aadhaar mandatory. Never mind that the BJP, when in opposition, had put up fairly robust arguments against Aadhaar, based on privacy and security considerations. What was interesting about Rohatgi’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 stories of our great grandparents meeting on the day of marriage. They were never consulted on their interest in getting married to a certain person or even getting married at all. The same was the case with professions. One followed the profession of his ancestors. No one was asked if they enjoyed their vocation. Rigid caste barriers made sure that one 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 1900s, things began changing. Not just in India, but worldwide. People began demanding the right to be who they wanted to be. The right to follow the profession they wanted. The right to pray everywhere. They began rejecting age-old norms. These demands increased in the post World War II era, which also coincided with enslaved people gaining independence. In fact, the freedom movements of most nations are based on the simple premise: “We don’t give our consent to be governed by the imperial master.” Discourses on 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 US is a prime example of entrenched conservative Christian values driving a stake into the woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. This is not just groups agitating, but 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 is under siege.
Look at the arguments around the triple talaq. By defending this practice, its advocates are interfering with a woman’s right to deal 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 or be it the triple talaq and the beef ban, the assumption is that collective will can be imposed on individuals, depriving them of the right to choose. We need to internalise that consent is intrinsic to 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 the rights of groups to choose for us. The rights of the individual cannot be trampled upon by groups or even by the Government, which tends to decide what is right for us.
And, while we may not have absolute rights over our body, our consent is paramount before the scalpel makes the first cut.
The author works at the intersection of digital content, technology, and audiences. She is also a writer, teacher, and film-maker
