Equality Is Not Just About Equal Rights—It's About Equal Standards
The recent controversies surrounding the ₹370 biryani comment and Dr. Sejal's remarks have sparked intense debates across social media. Within hours, the internet had split into familiar camps. Some defended one side while condemning the other. Others compared the two incidents to prove the existence of bias. Very few people, however, stopped to ask a more fundamental question.
The real issue is not whether one controversy was worse than the other.
The real issue is whether we, as a society, apply the same moral standards to everyone.
Equality is often discussed in terms of rights and opportunities, but there is another aspect that receives far less attention—equal accountability. If we truly believe that every individual deserves equal respect, then we must also accept that everyone deserves to be judged by the same ethical standards. Principles lose their meaning when they change according to the identity of the person involved.
The ₹370 biryani controversy was disturbing because it appeared to suggest that paying for a meal creates an expectation of physical intimacy. Whether the amount spent is ₹370 or ₹37,000 is completely irrelevant. Consent is not a financial transaction. A dinner, a gift, or any other gesture of generosity does not create an obligation on the other person. Relationships built on mutual respect cannot be reduced to a calculation of expenses and returns.
The criticism this statement received was therefore justified because it challenged a principle that should never be negotiable. Every individual has complete autonomy over their body, and no financial investment changes that reality.
The controversy involving Dr. Sejal raised a different ethical concern altogether. As medical professionals and students, doctors work with human bodies that have been voluntarily donated for education and scientific advancement. These donations represent an extraordinary act of trust. Families consent to donate the remains of their loved ones with the belief that they will be treated with dignity, professionalism, and respect.
When conversations about donated bodies become material for public entertainment, many people naturally question whether that trust is being honored. Regardless of whether the comments were intended as dark humor or casual storytelling, the controversy was not simply about a joke. It was about maintaining public confidence in a profession that depends heavily on ethical conduct.
These incidents are fundamentally different in nature. One concerns consent and personal relationships. The other concerns medical ethics and professional responsibility. Comparing the actions themselves is neither useful nor necessary because they violate different principles.
However, comparing the way society responds to such incidents is both fair and important.
One simple thought experiment exposes why.
Imagine that a male doctor had publicly joked about comparing the bodies of female cadavers during anatomy classes. It is difficult to imagine that such remarks would be dismissed as harmless humor. Most people would immediately recognize them as disrespectful, objectifying, and inconsistent with the ethical standards expected of medical professionals.
Similarly, imagine a woman openly saying that because she paid for a man's dinner, she expected physical intimacy in return. The principle of consent would remain exactly the same. Spending money would still not create entitlement over another person's choices.
In both hypothetical situations, our ethical judgment should remain unchanged because the underlying principles have not changed.
Unfortunately, this consistency is often missing from public discourse.
Social media has developed a habit of evaluating controversies based less on principles and more on identities. Before asking whether something is right or wrong, people first ask who said it. If the speaker belongs to a group they identify with, they immediately begin searching for explanations, context, or reasons why the statement should not be taken seriously. If the speaker belongs to a group they already dislike, condemnation arrives almost instantly.
This selective application of morality is perhaps one of the greatest weaknesses of modern public discourse.
We frequently speak about equality, yet our standards fluctuate depending on whether the person involved is a man or a woman, someone we admire or someone we oppose, a celebrity we enjoy or one we dislike. Our principles become negotiable, while our loyalties remain fixed.
That is not equality.
That is selective morality.
Some people have defended both controversies by arguing that they occurred during a comedy show and were never meant to be taken seriously. Comedy has always challenged social norms, pushed boundaries, and explored uncomfortable subjects. A healthy society should certainly protect the freedom to joke.
However, freedom of expression does not imply freedom from criticism.
Every comedian has the right to tell a joke, and every audience has the right to question what that joke normalizes or communicates. Public criticism is not censorship. It is simply another form of free expression. The existence of criticism does not threaten comedy; it encourages conversations about where society wishes to draw ethical boundaries.
At the same time, those conversations must themselves remain principled. If we defend a joke because it was delivered by someone we sympathize with but condemn an identical joke when told by someone else, we are no longer defending comedy. We are defending our own bias.
This is why I believe the bigger story is not about the ₹370 biryani comment or Dr. Sejal's remarks individually.
The bigger story is about us.
These controversies have acted like a mirror, revealing how quickly we abandon consistency when our emotions become involved. Instead of asking, "What principle has been violated?" We often ask, "Whose side should I be on?" Once that question is answered, our moral reasoning frequently follows.
But justice cannot function like fan clubs.
If dignity matters, it must matter for everyone.
If consent matters, it must matter for everyone.
If professional ethics matter, they must matter for everyone.
And if accountability matters, it cannot become lighter or heavier depending on the gender of the person standing in the spotlight.
A society demonstrates its commitment to equality not by repeating slogans or celebrating symbolic victories. It demonstrates equality by applying the same standards to everyone, especially in situations where doing so is inconvenient.
The ₹370 biryani controversy and the controversy involving Dr. Sejal will eventually disappear from public discussion. Another viral incident will replace them, and the cycle of outrage will continue.
What should not disappear is the lesson they leave behind.
Equality is not merely about ensuring equal rights or equal opportunities. It is about ensuring that our principles remain constant, regardless of who challenges them. The day we stop changing our standards according to gender, popularity, or personal bias is the day equality becomes more than just a word—it becomes a value that genuinely guides our society.
Chandramouli Singh
Web Developer
AeroSoft Corp
Asiatic International Corp
LinkedIn :
linkedin.com/in/chandramouli02
Link tree:
https://linktr.ee/chandramouliii
Vcard:
https://linko.page/chandramoulii
No comments:
Post a Comment