Many people describe India’s Independence movement as ‘India’s Freedom Struggle’. After 1947, we may have been ‘independent’ in the sense that we were free to elect our legislators, but not really free — not in the truest sense of the word.
For the longest time, we needed ‘licences’ (read bribes) to set up business enterprises. And then of course, the Indian consumer isn't really free — choice to the consumer was never high up on the priorities list of the government’s economic agenda. The government didn't allow us the freedom to run an airline, an insurance company or a bank for several decades — they still don’t trust us to operate a railway service.
Even today, we fight for our freedom — the freedom to consume the food of our choice, the freedom to express our sexuality, the freedom to be left alone, the freedom to stay ‘off the grid’. Large sections of society still struggle for freedom from class oppression. Women everywhere fight for the freedom over their own bodies. And female foetuses, in wombs all over the country, struggle for the freedom to live. The sad truth is that we (or governments elected by us) have crippled our individual freedom in the name of knowing and doing what's best for us ‘as a nation’. ‘Protecting/Safeguarding our Culture/Sensibilities/Ethos/National Interest’ has become synonymous with oppression. I have come to dread any combination of those words used in the same sentence.
It brings the focus sharply on many of our laws that are archaic, sexist, discriminatory and downright prudish (some of them still reflect the ignorant prejudices of Victorian English society, rather than the modern reality of 2017). It is, in my opinion, inaccurate, foolish, oppressive and insensitive to describe homosexuality as ‘deviant’ or ‘perverted’. The Right to Privacy could potentially blow this archaic legislation to bits. 70 years after Independence, the LGBTQ community can finally live with the dignity that is theirs by right, and it is to our collective discredit as a democratic society that it took as long as it did.
The most important thrust of this Right to Privacy is to do with the Aadhaar card. The judgment brings into focus the safeguards — or lack thereof — that govern the gathering, using and sharing of information in the Aadhaar exercise. Unlike marital rape or LGBTQ rights, this is a more nuanced question. The BJP government (and the Congress government before them) argue that unless the Aadhaar card captures specific demographic data and is linked to a bank account, subsidies and benefits will be dissipated and may not eventually reach those for whom it was intended. It is an ironclad argument and makes perfect sense. Similarly, the move to link the Aadhaar with a mobile phone makes eminent sense, from the point of view of leveraging technology to drive efficiency. In a country wearied by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians, the concept of a babu-less/tout-less subsidy, where unofficial commissions need not be paid, seems almost too good to be true. The idea of a subsidy that is automatically and promptly wired to a bank account without one having to spend days following up with a clerk/peon/officer is extremely seductive. And its efficiency and efficacy is in direct proportion to the amount and extent of personal data that it demands for each citizen. If ones goal is only to maximise efficiency, therefore, it is logical that all government benefits are linked to this database.
Advocates of the Aadhaar exercise question how ‘private’ our lives really are anyway. Once you are on the internet, your life is no longer truly private, they say. And they do have a point. The most powerful companies in the world aren't necessarily the ones with the most products, or the most sales — they are the ones with the most information. Amazon isn't a behemoth because you can buy almost anything on its website — they are powerful because they know exactly what, when and how you buy. Facebook knows more about you than your spouse does, and Google knows more about you than you do, if that’s even possible. You willingly gave up your privacy when you signed up — you decided to use their products — products engineered by the world's best minds to make your life more convenient and more efficient, even if it meant that your life was consequently less private. Somewhere, floating around among masses of data, is your life, expressed in terms of the data that your online behaviour generates. And that data is making these companies richer and more powerful every day. So, why do you protest when the government’s Big Brother Algorithm watches you when you willingly allow Google’s Big Brother Algorithm to watch you? You are a willing cog in the wheel — a tiny morsel among billions that feeds this capricious monster.
The concept of nationalism reflects an ideology or movement which upholds the interest of a particular nation in order to strengthen its sovereignty and integrity.
The need for nationalism in India arose during the Indian independence movement when the sovereignty of Indian territory was vested in the British Empire. The sovereignty of India territory came back after a great struggle where thousands of freedom fighters sacrificed their lives for Indian independence. So, in order to cherish the sacrifice of those great martyrs, uphold the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India the Indira Gandhi Government on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh committee brought the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act introducing certain duties for the citizens in form of Fundamental duties in Article 51A under the Constitution of India.
The Fundamental Duties are the bundle of duties that are supposed as obligations over the citizens and they need to be followed in order to nurture nationalism. A famous leader Gopal Krishna Gokhale has referred to these duties as the “poem embodying noble ideals, rhythm, and harmony”, with the impression of “the hand of the Prime Minister”. Earlier in the draft of the Committee’s recommendation, the fundamental duties were said to be made obligatory on the citizens but later while amendment such recommendation was discarded.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Many people describe India’s Independence movement as ‘India’s Freedom Struggle’. After 1947, we may have been ‘independent’ in the sense that we were free to elect our legislators, but not really free — not in the truest sense of the word.
For the longest time, we needed ‘licences’ (read bribes) to set up business enterprises. And then of course, the Indian consumer isn't really free — choice to the consumer was never high up on the priorities list of the government’s economic agenda. The government didn't allow us the freedom to run an airline, an insurance company or a bank for several decades — they still don’t trust us to operate a railway service.
Even today, we fight for our freedom — the freedom to consume the food of our choice, the freedom to express our sexuality, the freedom to be left alone, the freedom to stay ‘off the grid’. Large sections of society still struggle for freedom from class oppression. Women everywhere fight for the freedom over their own bodies. And female foetuses, in wombs all over the country, struggle for the freedom to live. The sad truth is that we (or governments elected by us) have crippled our individual freedom in the name of knowing and doing what's best for us ‘as a nation’. ‘Protecting/Safeguarding our Culture/Sensibilities/Ethos/National Interest’ has become synonymous with oppression. I have come to dread any combination of those words used in the same sentence.
It brings the focus sharply on many of our laws that are archaic, sexist, discriminatory and downright prudish (some of them still reflect the ignorant prejudices of Victorian English society, rather than the modern reality of 2017). It is, in my opinion, inaccurate, foolish, oppressive and insensitive to describe homosexuality as ‘deviant’ or ‘perverted’. The Right to Privacy could potentially blow this archaic legislation to bits. 70 years after Independence, the LGBTQ community can finally live with the dignity that is theirs by right, and it is to our collective discredit as a democratic society that it took as long as it did.
The most important thrust of this Right to Privacy is to do with the Aadhaar card. The judgment brings into focus the safeguards — or lack thereof — that govern the gathering, using and sharing of information in the Aadhaar exercise. Unlike marital rape or LGBTQ rights, this is a more nuanced question. The BJP government (and the Congress government before them) argue that unless the Aadhaar card captures specific demographic data and is linked to a bank account, subsidies and benefits will be dissipated and may not eventually reach those for whom it was intended. It is an ironclad argument and makes perfect sense. Similarly, the move to link the Aadhaar with a mobile phone makes eminent sense, from the point of view of leveraging technology to drive efficiency. In a country wearied by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians, the concept of a babu-less/tout-less subsidy, where unofficial commissions need not be paid, seems almost too good to be true. The idea of a subsidy that is automatically and promptly wired to a bank account without one having to spend days following up with a clerk/peon/officer is extremely seductive. And its efficiency and efficacy is in direct proportion to the amount and extent of personal data that it demands for each citizen. If ones goal is only to maximise efficiency, therefore, it is logical that all government benefits are linked to this database.
Advocates of the Aadhaar exercise question how ‘private’ our lives really are anyway. Once you are on the internet, your life is no longer truly private, they say. And they do have a point. The most powerful companies in the world aren't necessarily the ones with the most products, or the most sales — they are the ones with the most information. Amazon isn't a behemoth because you can buy almost anything on its website — they are powerful because they know exactly what, when and how you buy. Facebook knows more about you than your spouse does, and Google knows more about you than you do, if that’s even possible. You willingly gave up your privacy when you signed up — you decided to use their products — products engineered by the world's best minds to make your life more convenient and more efficient, even if it meant that your life was consequently less private. Somewhere, floating around among masses of data, is your life, expressed in terms of the data that your online behaviour generates. And that data is making these companies richer and more powerful every day. So, why do you protest when the government’s Big Brother Algorithm watches you when you willingly allow Google’s Big Brother Algorithm to watch you? You are a willing cog in the wheel — a tiny morsel among billions that feeds this capricious monster.
Hope you like it.
Answer:
The concept of nationalism reflects an ideology or movement which upholds the interest of a particular nation in order to strengthen its sovereignty and integrity.
The need for nationalism in India arose during the Indian independence movement when the sovereignty of Indian territory was vested in the British Empire. The sovereignty of India territory came back after a great struggle where thousands of freedom fighters sacrificed their lives for Indian independence. So, in order to cherish the sacrifice of those great martyrs, uphold the unity, integrity, and sovereignty of India the Indira Gandhi Government on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh committee brought the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act introducing certain duties for the citizens in form of Fundamental duties in Article 51A under the Constitution of India.
The Fundamental Duties are the bundle of duties that are supposed as obligations over the citizens and they need to be followed in order to nurture nationalism. A famous leader Gopal Krishna Gokhale has referred to these duties as the “poem embodying noble ideals, rhythm, and harmony”, with the impression of “the hand of the Prime Minister”. Earlier in the draft of the Committee’s recommendation, the fundamental duties were said to be made obligatory on the citizens but later while amendment such recommendation was discarded.