When a few flout rules, all pay the price

A recent conversation with my wife and daughter proved revealing, bringing together observations from within our residential society. My wife had taken the initiative to set up an in-house compost plant within the condominium, aligned with state regulations that mandate bulk waste generators to process their own waste, failing which penalties may be imposed. Yet, what followed was resistance. Several residents opposed the move, citing concerns about foul odour.

One argument was that the government itself is failing in its duties, and that the sight of uncollected garbage in public spaces stands as evidence of this apathy; in such a scenario, our own lapses seemed inconsequential. The estate management staff remains indifferent; for them, the plant exists more in form than in function. It is convenient because when responsibility is diffused across a system, accountability tends to disappear. What is perhaps overlooked in such resistance is that these measures are not merely regulatory burdens, but responses to a growing environmental crisis. When a few choose not to comply, the consequences do not remain confined to them but are passed on to everyone else.

This is evident not only in how we handle waste, but also in how we engage with shared resources such as water, reflected in steadily declining groundwater levels. A neighbour had once suggested that there was a need to ration water supply within the society. My immediate response was shaped by a different expectation - that one of the reasons for moving into a builder apartment was uninterrupted water supply.

My daughter was direct in her assessment, arguing that rationing would eventually become inevitable, because without restraint, survival itself would be at risk. Her view, though uncomfortable, carried a certain inevitability, and it raised a larger and more difficult question, one that extends beyond water to many such instances of rule-flouting: should a few be made to bear the consequences for the actions of others?

There is a tendency to justify violations simply because others have done the same. A number of residents, including some office-bearers of the Residents’ Welfare Association, have chosen to cover their kitchen balconies despite builder guidelines prohibiting such modifications due to fire safety concerns and stipulations from the gas supplier. When one such office-bearer was requested to rectify the alteration, the response was not one of compliance, but of deflection - suggesting that the matter be taken up first with another senior member who had committed a similar breach.

What makes this more concerning is that such disregard rarely remains an individual act; it gradually alters the system itself, where the consequences are no longer limited to those who default, but are borne collectively, often by those who have complied. Systems exist to create order, but they depend on individuals to sustain them, and when rules become negotiable, the system itself begins to erode. The answer, then, may lie in recognising that individual responsibility and systemic reform must operate together. When responsibility is shared without accountability, the consequences are borne by all, even when the failure lies with a few.

The writer is founder of Kala - Krazy About Literature And Arts, is an author, speaker, coach, arbitrator, and strategy consultant; Views presented are personal.