Reactive Laws
There’s no denying it. We’re a nation of reactive laws. Take for instance, the age old rule against serving liquor on domestic flights -
Long ago, liquor was, in fact, allowed onboard domestic flights. However, it was stopped after one Maharashtra minister, who could not control himself after gulping a few drinks, misbehaved with airhostesses.
Why is it that we react to situations like these and penalise the other 99% well behaved citizen? The rule itself makes no sense. What would the same minister when he’s had a couple of drinks more than he can handle on an International flight, or for that matter, in his favourite-neighbourhood-bar? I am sure that for every such incident reported in the press, there are a hundred others of drunk men harassing women. Just the fact that it involved a high-profile personality at a out-of-layman’s-reach place, entitles it to a ban?
This attitude to law making / enforcement is seen everywhere you look, another example being the sudden reappearance of the tinted glass law. Its akin to treating a symptom rather than the disease. In these scenarios, would the laws actually stop drunken misbehaviour or all forms of rape? Why make laws against specific instances of the crime? Why not curb all drunken misbehaviour or have strong laws and enforcement as a deterrent against rape.
In most cases, these laws are reactions to events sensationalised in the press. I wonder what this approach to lawmaking would lead to.
General 
1 Comment 