FE Today Logo

A CLOSE LOOK

Understanding liberty, liberation, independence and emancipation

Nilratan Halder | May 17, 2025 00:00:00


Amar mukti alloy alloy ei akashey,/ amar mukti dhulai dhulai ghase ghase. Poignant and elevating, the song cannot but resonate with all receptive souls. Now what kind of 'mukti'---liberty, freedom or emancipation---Rabindranth is referring to here? Or, is there any hint to salvation? The poet in his poem of the same title "Mukti" announces, 'Bairagya sadhane mukti se amar noi/ asankha bandhan majhe mahanandamaoi/ lavibo muktir swad. In the song, the canvas of the sky brightly lighted is there but at the same time the dust and grass below have not been ignored. So the brightly lit sky above and the dust and grass that lie below hardly demanding attention are components of the poet's liberty. Then the liberty is also in the universal mind (amar mukti srabojoner moner majhe). The same poet then announces his liberty in an unambiguous and reinforced assertion where renunciation is not the means to his salvation of soul. Amid numerous ties, he likes to savour the taste of freedom.

Clearly, the emphasis in the song is on the emotional attachment with Nature in its varied expressions while the poem also celebrates the inalienable relations with this mundane world. The joy and enrichment of soul come from sights, sounds and smells all around. Yet the liberty is not easy to enjoy for common people, particularly the poor and the marginalised who have to toil for managing two square meals a day. The poetic enlightenment and leisure are not for this class of people even though simplicity and less demanding they may be.

John Stuart Mill has propagated the theory of liberty at its ultimate sense in a mundane context. According to him, liberty means the freedom to do anything one pleases until it does not infringe on other's liberty. It must not harm in any way others' right to enjoy the same freedom as one likes to have. From this point he transcends to the theory of utilitarianism. But the interesting point here is the subordination of rights to utilitarianism. Why? Because, there is a need for foregoing or surrendering some rights for the greater good of society. The problem with this is that people are not angels and they try to take advantage of their positions and privileges to advance their interests. It is exactly at this point, action-based liberty and morally judged utilitarianism come to the fore. Action is subjected to punishment if it is negative and does harms to others. Thus arises the obligation of action that creates the most happiness. Here liberty in its mundane sense and utilitarianism have a meeting point.

In a world polarised on account of distribution of wealth between persons and nations, even Mill's liberty has ever remained elusive. In fact, no doctrine has been universally acceptable in order to get liberty and utilitarianism in a happy combination. Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutierrez, considered the pioneer of Liberation Theology, has combined Christian theology with Marxist theory aimed at addressing social and political injustices. The theory propagates liberation of the poor and marginalised people in society from all kinds of oppression. He advocates active role by the Catholic Church in order to create a social system where everyone enjoys political, economic and spiritual freedom.

Here the combination is quite interesting. Religion and Marxism do not make strange bedfellows. Did Marx anticipate anything of this order when he compared religion with opium but then as the cry of the soul in a soulless world? All religions have salvation of the soul as their ultimate goals with the exception of ancient Charvaka philosophy which puts emphasis on maximising happiness on this world, not on an afterlife unlike most religions.

The theory of minimalism is also put forward as a precondition for happiness. But is it not a counterargument against equalitarianism? Why do people try to amass wealth tens of thousands time more than they need for living a considerably affluent, if not happy, life? Consumerism has to be stoked beyond all proportions in order to maintain the flow of wealth acquisition. But it may not be the only criterion of living a happy life, not even a free life. Let alone emancipation of the soul in the religious terms, the rich and superrich are always tense and concerned about their security of life, investment and business affairs. Much as they may satisfy their material demands including the sensuous and sensual, there is no guarantee they can be happy in absolute terms. Their liberty is curtailed because of the cocoon they spun around them in their high security ambience.

Simple, dignified and easy way of living on the honest earnings that provide for families a modest lifestyle with sound health would rather be more preferable to many. They are not disconnected from the common masses and are not arrogant to communicate and mix with them as equals. They feel for the needy and the poor and try to alleviate their sufferings as much as they can. If only those who have basketful of money felt the same way and tried to lift the wretched from the awful and miserable conditions!


Share if you like