{ முகநூல் கருத்துக்கள்}{ட்விட்டர் கருத்துக்கள்}

Morality is not like a shifting goal post - that can be moved as the societies advance in other spheres. Morality - to most societies - is something derived from religion and thus not to be tampered with by men or women- to suit their own desires or the dictate of the times.

Many religions have tried to grapple with the moral issues - specifically adultery - for centuries. The Quran - for example - says in Chapter No.17 [Al-Israa], Verse 32 - "Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils)". The Ten Commandments - believed by the Christians as well as the Jews to be the words revealed by the God to Prophet Moses - has as one of its commandments - the words - "Thou shall not commit adultery". There is also another commandment - "... thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant... nor any thing that is thy neighbor's".

Amongst the Western Intelligentsia - as well as in certain Indian media outlets - it is fashionable to argue that we must learn to distinguish between the private life of an individual and his or her public life. Even if a person is an adulterer and a compulsive womaniser, the argument goes, as long as those acts remain in the personal domain, it is OK and ignorable. If - only if - his or her acts take the dimensions of abuse of power, his or her various acts are illegal and they affect his or her performance of the job he or she is assigned, we are told, we must care.

Logical that this argument may sound, there are many who wouldn't accept it instinctively. An adulterer or a womaniser never acts alone nor is he/she a stand-alone entity. It is never between just two people. An adulterer uses and/or creates a system wherein prostitutes are produced and thrive, pimps are produced and thrive. It is a straight-forward case of supply and demand. To isolate the issues (saying it is between two consensual adults) and see them separately is totally illogical. An adulterer directly corrupts the society.

British mathematician and Philosopher Bertrand Russel once wrote "Without civic morality, communities perish; without personal morality, their survival has no value". Our last poll question - "Is it necessary that people involved in social/religious institutions/organisations be of good personal, moral character?" - evoked a fairly good response - almost 90% of the voters saying 'It is necessary'. It was such a natural choice - that not many felt tickled enough to post their opinions. It is a given - after all. But - is Kayalpatnam such a society where people really care that people in their public spheres be of good moral character?

In reality, it is difficult to give a positive response to this question. From religious platforms, one can still hear those thundering voices of our Aalims - educating the masses on the evils of immorality. Yet - the moral decline in Kayalpatnam - seems to continue its impervious march.

It clearly is not enough to be personally moralistic. We must make Kayalpatnam an unwelcome place for those who are well known - and proven - to be immoral. To clean the society, work must be done to change the system - both at the supply level (prostitutes) and at the demand level (pimps, clients).

As a society, we must try to understand why some women get into prostitution. The main reason is poverty and there are some other additional reasons also. Institutions must be built that would address those issues (give loans, give work, take care of education, health needs, arrange timely marriages). Such a functional society would greatly (though may not wholly) tackle the supply side.

On the demand side - which involves the clients of those prostitutes - effective moral education can take care of some misguided men and women, but that is also something that Kayalpatnam has been doing rather ineffectively all these times. To make it more effective, Kayalpatnam must make sure - those who are involved in immoral activities - will not get its respect. When the rich and the famous indulge in such immoral activities, our societies have to be extra careful. Why?

If you catch many common adulterers and enquire, they usually would feel ashamed of what they did. They mostly would say they are sorry and would try to get out of the habit. There would be shame in it, element of regret in it. This ensures these immoral acts are always seen as something undesirable, something that would bring them shame. For many young men or women, this risk of shame is enough reason to stay away from such acts.

But a rich and immoral man does two devlish acts: he not only provides a lifeline to a thriving prostitution network, but emboldens others to think - if you have the money, no body would question you. How do we tackle such men? To start with, by not honouring them with attention and respect. Do not invite them to preside over your events, do not let them occupy any post in public organisations and finally - do not stand in their doorstep for financial support. When you stand in the doorsteps of such men, you let them make use of you. It is usually a trade-off - You give me money and I give you my silence. To move out of our dependence on the charity of such individuals, we must focus on strenghtening our institutions - strenghtening baithulmaals, providing jobs placement, providing affordable health care etc.

Our dependence on the charity of the individuals may provide quick solutions, but in the long term, it would weaken every institution and corrupt the society to the core. Organisations themselves must be careful in dealing with such men of shameful moral character. Do not let your organisation be managed by men who knowingly (for their personal benefits) or unknowingly would mortgage the welfare of their own community for the benefit of those rich and immoral men. An organisation that needs 50 lakhs of rupees to build a mosque and cannot find enough people to pool their resources together (instead of one big contribution from an individual or two) probably doesn't deserve such a costly mosque. Same goes for any other work or event.

It would be a healthy practice of an organistion to have a list of people from whom they wouldn't accept money (it is difficult, but can be done). It would also be wise to restrict contribution of individuals to not exceed - say 10% of the total requirement of a project. This would ensure wider participation and benefit the society in the long run.

An American ethicist Michael Josephson said "There's a hole in the moral ozone and it's getting bigger". He was speaking of the western society. Unfortunately, one could as well say the same about Kayalpatnam today.