On Wednesday, a new controversy was concocted by some feminists online and picked up by the media. Widely respected preacher Premanand Maharaj made some comments about the degeneration of moral values in contemporary society. He especially spoke about the concept of ‘live-in’ relationships and how detrimental that is to the ethical health of society.
This was enough for feminists to tag him as a ‘misogynist’ and for some in the media, like Chitra Tripathi of ABP News, to paint him as possessing a ‘regressive and anti-woman’ mindset.
So, let’s ask a simple question: Is opposition to live-in relationships objectionable? Are people not allowed to have an uncharitable view of this new system that has gained ground among the youth of the country? And why should a criticism of this system be seen as targeting women only?
Premanand Maharaj was speaking about ‘vyabhichara (morally-corrupt conduct)’, which included, as per him, cohabitation without marriage. Now, the liberals may view live-in relationships and lack of sexual piety as a fully justified act on part of individuals but that shouldn’t make it the most widely accepted view in society.
People have a right to have their own opinions on such matters, and, as a spiritual preacher, Premanand Maharaj is bound to look at the matter from a different point of view than Westernized liberals.
Also, to say that criticism of relationships outside the purview of marriage specifically targets women is downright incorrect. It also castigates men who are involved in such bonds.
One can go into great lengths to explain why the institution of marriage is crucial for maintaining the structure and moral rectitude of society. The inclination to use another individual for psychological and physical gratification without making a solemn oath of lifelong companionship is downright perverse. However, this debate doesn’t need to go that far.
It’s a simple case of a religious preacher presenting his point of view from the vantage point that he is supposed to have. To run a campaign against him for his opinions is against tenets of liberalism itself.