ARE THE RULES JUSTIFIABLE?
"Rules,” I said, ”are necessary things. Some are hard and fast rules, like the rule of the road, which cannot be broken without danger to life and limb. But some are only rules for your guidance, like that rule about the dogs. You can use your common sense here. They are meant to be observed in the spirit, not in the letter for the comfort of the passengers. You have kept the rule, but broken its spirit. You should mind your rules with a little good will and good temper."
In the above paragraph, the British Journalist and writer, A G Gardiner, clearly explained how the spirit of the rule is broken. It is an excerpt from his essay, All About A Dog. In the story a young woman gets into a bus. The conductor of the bus forces the woman to travel on top of the bus because she carries a little Pekinese dog. In the biting cold the woman suffers travelling on top of the double-decker bus. Though co-travellers have no objection to her travelling in the bus, the conductor has. He thinks he follows the rules. He doesn't care who suffers by the rules. By making the woman go on top of the bus, he feels victorious. The conductor has no humane concerns. His mind is completely filled with rules and nothing else. What is man if he cannot understand his fellow beings?
Are the rules justifiable? Most of the time it is upto our convenience and comfort. Who make the rules? Who are they meant for? Why should we follow them? Who do they benefit? Are the rules made for the greater good of the greater number of people? What are the rules based on? Is the same rule applicable for all the people of all the places all the time? The whole country is now under lockdown. Does it mean ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’, Bentham's Utilitarian theory?
It was during the lockdown period that all the people were confined to homes. However, I was to travel from a district headquarters to another district headquarters in the first week of May, 2020. I was stopped by the police on my way to Karimnagar from Nirmal. A sub-inspector of police asked me to show the permission letter issued by the police of the place I was coming from. I introduced myself and said, " Sir, I got an injury in my leg. I need to go to hospital. It's very urgent for me to get treated." I showed the bandage to him. I also showed the medical prescription to him. He neither looked at the prescription nor looked at the bandage. His voice was neither harsh nor soft-but simply uncaring. He said, " See, sir, you are a teacher. Many people come with these silly reasons. I give you two options- one, go back where you have come from or I will have to seize your car." His words hurt me deeply. My injury and my medical reports were a silly reason? How could a man be like this? He didn't have the heart to show sympathy nor the mind to understand. What all he knew was rules. He was to see that rules were implemented. I thought it was no use talking to a man with no heart and no mind. I reversed my car and started the return-journey of about fifty kilometers, cursing the rules that doubled my pain. I knew that even the government mentioned in the lockdown restrictions/rules that in case of medical emergency, people could be allowed to move. But the policeman was not ready to hear my plea. As a teacher I convinced thousands of students to follow what was there in the lessons. As a man with university education, I made my points understood by many people. What went wrong in my explanation?
The very question of the impact of implementing rules arises in everybody's life. The spirit of the rule is always good. Every rule has some exemptions to it. The law of the land must be respected by all. But it must not cause pain or double the pain. What is lawful and what is unlawful? If all the people who stay home are law-abiding ones, are the people who go out of homes on emergency law-breakers? Hospitals are permitted to be open but patients are not allowed to go to hospital. What does it mean? Where does our system go wrong? Who will pay for the damage caused? If it were unrecoverable who would be accountable? Moral and emotional concerns too make an individual. We may think that If an individual commits mistakes, it should not be attributed to the entire system. We should not find fault with the system. Is the system spoiled by some individuals? Or are some individuals spoiled by the system? Why cannot every individual be free from inhumane rules? Can rules crush an individual’s freedom, safety and security? Don't we need a better governance and a better system that protects all the people’s rights - freedom, safety and security - emotionally and materially?
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon