Question

Q. It is time to stop talking of ‘free will’ in order to justify tradition, custom and other forms of direct or indirect social coercion done by ‘face veil’. Comment in light of the recent face veil ban in Sri Lanka.

Answer 1

APPROACH:

• A brief introduction providing the context of the qsn
• The free will arguments given
• Analysis of ‘free will’
• Arguments in favour and against such bans on personal practices
• Way forward
• Conclusion

Introduction

The face veil ban in Sri Lanka — which, like a similar ban in France, is aimed at all religious groups, not just orthodox Muslims — has caused liberals to try to oppose the veil ban in the name of free will.

Excuse for the orthodox: free will

• For instance, a Hindu can take up the old institution of Sati, or widow immolation. Sati was sanctioned by some Hindu religious traditions and it was argued that widows who committed Sati did so of ‘their own free will’. Reactionary Hindus might still make this claim, but most Hindus, even religious ones, would not want to reintroduce Sati.
• Or let’s move to Christianity in 19th century Europe, when divorce was mostly impossible for women (and poor men) to obtain. Once again, there was scriptural sanction for this, and it was argued that ‘good wives’ always choose to stay within a ‘heaven-made’ marriage — no matter how uneven or abusive — of ‘their own free will’. Today, almost no European would subscribe to this view.
• Even slavery was justified not just by slave-owners but also, on historical evidence, by some slaves as the ‘best of all choices’ for a particular and hugely exploited branch of humanity.

Analysing “free will”

• If a group of people are under pressure to comport in certain ways, then they cannot be said to choose that particular option. Even if the option is ‘freely’ chosen, it is not a free choice.
• For a choice to be free, other options need to have equivalent prestige and acceptability, both within the community and around it. This is seldom the case for anyone, and never the case with subaltern groups such as women in a patriarchal set-up. For example, an Indian widow faced with neglect and possible abuse after her husband’s death had no choice but to ‘freely’ become a Sati.
• Liberals invoke ‘free will’ to defend practices that are considered obligatory and pre-ordained by their proponents!

Why not to ban personal practices?

• There are two good reasons not to ‘ban’ personal matters, whether it is the consumption of food or drink, or the wearing (or not wearing) of a particular kind of dress.
• First of all, such bans often create a bigger backlash, at least in the future.
• Second, and more importantly, any such ban introduces the public into the private: there are very good (liberal) reasons to keep governments out of drawing rooms, toilets and kitchens.

Way forward

• It is time for liberals to stop talking of ‘free will’ in order to justify tradition, custom and other forms of direct or indirect social coercion. It might make them feel good to be so generous and accepting, but it is neither the truth nor politically useful.
• In the longer run, it is even detrimental to whatever ‘beleaguered’ community liberals choose to champion along these lines, for it provides that community with superfluous febrile crutches to hobble on when it actually needs to put its two feet to the grounds of reality and start walking.