What do art students use for bags to carry supplies around campus?

Is disciplinary action against students for sex/alcohol use on and off campus equivalent to moral policing? Why or why not?

• Moral Policing is the practice of enforcing one's own moral/ethical code through intimidation or abuse of power. I have heard of couples at BITS being caught in "objectionable position" and be suspended for a semester. Alcohol consumption is banned even if students are drinking it in their hostel rooms and not drunk driving or troubling others. Not only is drinking and sex condemned on campus, but students are not allowed (atleast per insti guidelines) to do the same at Sarla-an off-campus bar. Hence, can these institute guidelines be viewed as moral policing?

• Answer:

  For correctly addressing the issue, I think it is important to examine the arguments at hand here. Moral Policing is the act of a group of people imposing their views on cultural values or "ethical code" on the society. There are several examples to it all over the world. From Modesty Patrol of Israel, Islamic police in several muslim countries, to vigilante groups in India. Islamic police agency Mutaween enforces sharia law as defined by  government in Saudi Arabia. They arrest unrelated males and females socializing and anyone engaged in prostitution and homosexual behavior[2]. The Mutaween is supported by thousands of volunteers. The fact that this is considered moral policing implies that even if the legal authority with majority support shows a bias to one set of cultural values, it can still be considered moral policing. Wiki page on moral policing in India has an entire category for moral policing by the government. This is why I disagree with 's answer. As http://www.virsanghvi.com/put it:  "Our problem in India is that we have no standards, no barriers and no sense of what is acceptable and what is not. Each time the issue erupts we engage in the same finger-pointing debates, and call each other names."[4] In general the law does not clearly specify what is acceptable and what is obscene. Take section 110 of the Bombay Police Act for example. It states "Behaving indecently in public. No person shall willfully and indecently expose his person ill any street or public place or within sight of, and in such manner as to be seen from any street or public place, whether from within any house or building or not, or use indecent language or behave indecently or riotously, or in a disorderly manner in a street or place of public resort or in any office station or station house."[5] During the Richard Gere-Shilpa Shetty kissing incident, arrest warrants were issued for a kiss in public. Former Attorney General Sorabjee described it as "reminiscent of Taliban moral police"[3]. However, a 2 judge supreme court bench headed by Chief Justice of India himself threw out the suit and warrants. This sets a legal precedent that public kissing in India is NOT a crime. Before this, that decision was left to the local constable! In India, because of the recent economic growth, the social and cultural gap between the urban youth that embraces the western culture and the traditional older society has widened. Which means, the definition of acceptable behavior is different to different people. This brings us to the conclusion: if you are from the part of society where social drinking and consensual kissing among unrelated people is acceptable, institute policy is definitely equivalent to moral policing. BITS-Pilani is a deemed university and hence legally a public authority[1] and therefore cannot justify such biased rules in a secular and democratic country. On the other hand, Indian constitution also protects the right of every religious/cultural group to promote it's values in a peaceful manner. Thus, if BITS-Pilani identifies itself as part of any such religious/cultural group, it can legally and ethically justify the rules as being motivated by it's goal of instilling those cultural norms. This is the same reasoning given by several religious madrassas and other minority schools that require compulsory veil (burqa) and/or declined to accept compulsory yoga classes. Their rights too were defended by the Supreme Court of India[6]. References: [1] http://www.legallyindia.com/Blogs/Entry/are-private-deemed-universities-within-the-purview-of-right-to-information-act-2005-html [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_religious_police [3] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2007-04-27/india/27884503_1_arrest-warrant-hollywood-actor-richard-gere-aids-awareness. http://Articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2007-04-27. Retrieved 2013-11-11. [4] Mukherjee, Krittivas (23 May 2007). http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/05/23/uk-india-intolerance-idUKMOL34834320070523. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters. Retrieved 11 November 2013. [5] http://mahapolice.gov.in/mahapolice/jsp/temp/html/bombay_police_act_1951.pdf [6] http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/28/yoga-religious-indian-court-mulls-mandatory-school-exercises/