Is Morality Confusing?

(Published in Banking Services Chronicle July 2003)

There can hardly be a more confusing issue then morality. It varies from one generation to another. Within a generation it varies from one person to another. And even for a person morality depends on the mood he or she is in. Or on the circumstances. Or on the will to justify one’s own actions.

Films in India have often experienced the scissors of the Censor Board. And this has led to debates on ‘What is proper?’ and ‘How much is too much?’. It marked a watershed for our films when kisses were allowed on the screen. Today we have come a long way from that.

But the debate still rages. On the one hand, we have men like Mahesh Bhatt, who shouts at the top of his voice, “To watch pornography is my right.” Contrast him to Arvind Trivedi, the new chairman of the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC). Says he: “I want to draw a thick line between modernity and obscenity.”

Gambling is another controversial area. There is an anonymous quote: “Gambling has always been an integral part of our cultural heritage and without the game of dice, the Mahabharata would not have been the epic that it is.” Apart from culture, the monetary benefits can’t be ignored either. Lottery, a form of gambling, has been instrumental in serving charitable causes. The money earned from it played a vital role in setting up an institution as prestigious as the Harvard University.

It is perhaps this monetary factor that influences administrators to go in favour of gambling. No wonder Amarinder Singh, the chief minister of Punjab, says: “If Punjabis can enjoy casinos in other states and countries, why should they not be provided this fun in their home state?”

On the other hand, gambling is seen as the squandering away of one’s hard-earned money and later that of others too. Millionaires are made few and far between but there are millions who lose the fruit of their labour. Said Mark Twain: “The lottery is a government institution and the poor its best patrons.”

Politics has seldom been based on morality. And this is evident from the frequent use of the German word realpolitik. It means an approach to politics based on the actual circumstances and needs of one’s own people, not on morals or ideals. There is nothing wrong or right; it is our needs that make it so.

The US is the best example of this phenomenon. Be it the Gulf War or the attack on the Taliban, the US interferes only where its own interests are involved. Terrorism becomes an issue only after 9/11, not before that. Iraq is a rogue state, but Pakistan is not. And once it decides something is wrong, you must accept it to be so. It hardly matters if the UN takes a contrary view. The US diplomacy leaves no room for neutrality either. You are for US or against it; there is no middle ground.

Pakistan has its own version of morality. It promotes wickedness. But at the same time it must play the good boy if the US demands so. It is this confusion that has nearly ruined the country. Says G Parthasarathy, former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, on Musharraf’s stance towards Afghanistan: “Musharraf’s policy of running with the hare and hunting with the hound is coming home to roost.”

Even India, for long an advocate of non-alignment, appears confused. The policy did not pay any dividends and in fact became a liability after the end of the Cold War. India now has to choose between pragmatism and abstract morality. It is a difficult task but the ministry of external affairs seems to be learning it.

As for the country, so for the individuals. It is difficult to straitjacket morality. But there are a few values universally cherished — knowledge, love, work and so on. Instead of getting confused by the semantics of morality, let us go for these values. A true practitioner is bound to find happiness as the result.