Get out of my bedroom
Published by Yazad Jal January 2nd, 2004 in Libertarian, Culture and Society, LawOn first read I found this very funny. Rahul Gandhi decides to take his girlfriend with him to the family vacation. A retired professor takes umbrage at the fact that the couple are not married and files a case under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The funny part is that he was upset at their alleged “extra marital” actions but not finding a relevant law he filed a complaint under an act passed primararily to punish those who kidnap girls and sell them into prostitution. Mr. Itty seems to equate making love to your girlfriend with prostitution.
[He] had observed in his complaint that man and woman not bound by marriage staying together in a room is being interpreted as prostitution
What makes me angry is the supposed “high morality” that jokers like John Itty like to brandish. In what way does Rahul Gandhi and his girlfriend’s private acts harm anyone else? What gives Mr. Itty a right to pontificate about what happens in a private bedroom? Get your nose out of business that does not concern you, you dirty voyeur!
BTW, the police threw the complaint out.
Thanks for the link Jivha. But I’d rather praise the TOI for publishing the story instead of pillorying it. Let me explain why.
In your crusade against the TOI, you seem to have lost an essential quality: perspective. Let’s take this as a case in point.
1. Do a search on google news with the keywords “rahul”, “gandhi”, and “immoral”. You’ll see that the Times is not the only one reporting this. A case filed against the son of a future Prime Minister does seem newsworthy.
2. Newspapers often look at a secondary source for verification. Note the comment by Kottayam’s Superintendent of Police
“Maybe he is trying to get some cheap publicity and that is why he resorted to raise such a complaint. I did not take any action because there was no offence,” Gopinath said.
3. Authority and pedigree is taken as a substitute for seriousness at times. John Itty is a visiting fellow of the Centre for Socio-Economic and Environmental Studies, Kochi, and retired as professor at the Kerala Institute of Local Development. Impressive looking credentials.
4. The Times was reporting on a complaint filed (not “tried to file”, the case was filed) with the police. To get a complaint filed is not easy. I know of umpteen cases where the police have refused to file legitimate complaints.
I think your ire is misdirected. Reporting absurd events is essential as it helps the rest of us take a stand and protest against the absurdity. This was not a page 3 party, but a professor wanting to impose his antiquated views on the rest of us. Why do you want to let off the half-senile, jackass who wants to foist his twisted ‘morality’ on others so easily? It’s dangerous because if we ignore the Ittys of the world today, they may become the Modis of tomorrow.
Yaz - I agree that it is ridiculous for people to try and impose their version of morality on the whole society. This is the biggest problem I have had with the VHP-wallahs and their Valentine crusades.
Though John Itty cannot be condoned for having tried this stunt, I’d like to ask a broader question. Is it possible that Mr. Itty is trying to bring some degree of coherence in his weltanschaung, I mean could have prescribed such behaviour as socially unacceptable for his own children and in order to remain consistent with his existing views, he seeks to extend them to society at large.
It might be easy to dismiss him as a kook, or a fear him as a potential Modi, but what about the many people out there who really beleive that the norms they follow should be followed by everyone else. Are they exceptionally unreasonable or unusual in this regard?
Also I don’t think dismissing Mr. Itty’s ideas as antiquated really does anything for Yazad’s argument, I don’t think antiquity has anything to do with the strength or weakness of an argument, but the internal logic and its implications on the problem at large do.
Pre-marital & Extra-marital affairs are of private concern; the good Professor had no business imposing his morality on others. I should think Rahul Gandhi should sue Itty for invasion of privacy/libel.
A respected national newspaper can do service to the nation by focussing on policies and issues. (The Rahul Gandhi escapade can probably fit in as a small snippet on the gossip pages, not Page One)
Morality is not the business of the state, and this is a country where even the government of India says that homosexuality should not be legalised because society disapproves of such behaviour.
Sadly, I don’t think that the tendency of our people to impose their own moral views on others is going to change in a hurry.
Hey Yazad, Point well made. I thought there was too much ’spleen venting’ too, if you know what i mean.