Freedom of the individual is a myth
 

FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS A MYTH

[Rousseau believed that "man is born free but everywhere he is in chains." and that is true to a great extent. It would be appropriate even to say that man is not born free.]
As a child is born, he is bound in relations. He is born as someone's son and someone's brother. Then he belongs to a particular religion, nationality, cast and sect; all these factors affect him during his birth and after it. All the relations and connections are chains though not realized by him as he is too little to understand them. So, an individual cannot be free from the very beginning of his life till the end.
Now, can it be assumed that it is not possible for an individual to be free? The answer to this question lies in the way the word 'free' and 'freedom' are defined. If the term free is taken as being able to do what an individual wants and being able to remain independent of anyone or anything else, then such a freedom cannot exist in this world. Man is born in this world and he is bound to be dependent on it. He is bound to be ruled by different phenomena and different systems that exist in the world. He needs to breathe in oxygen from some source and find food from other sources. Then there are other human beings, who have to be in relation with him as he lives in a society and he is a social animal. In short, absolute freedom in unattainable and is a myth and can only be found in space.
However, there can be relative freedom. An individual can be free to a certain extent. He can be free to choose from amongst the choices set for him by different factors if he has not the potential to choose everything that he wishes. This relative freedom is defined for an individual by social, economic, political, cultural, religious and some other factors. One of the reasons that an individual is influenced by all these factors is the process of his nourishment. For a long period of time, an individual is highly dependent on family and other institutions and is conditioned through them; before he is old enough to make his own decisions, there are already certain beliefs, behaviour and thinking installed in him.
On most of the occasions, a person's family religion defines what religion an individual will believe in and practice. It is difficult to find a Muslim in a Christian family and vice versa. Therefore, a person belonging to a family with a particular religion will not have freedom to choose any of the religions from amongst all the religions in the world. However, he would have certain relative freedom and he would have choice to choose from certain behaviours and beliefs that are in the religion he is brought up into.
Same is the case with economic and financial backgrounds. A person belonging to a particular economic class would be bound to choose from the options that are granted to him by his class. Suppose a poor person would not be able to buy anything he wants. His choices will be highly dependent on his budget. The concept of this sort of relative freedom can be best understood through a nice example; for example, a father takes his son to a shop to buy him toy. Now, definitely, the boy would not have the absolute freedom to choose any of the toys from the shop as his choice will be dependent to his father's money. On the other hand, father cannot give his son the choice to choose any of the toys. Therefore, he asks his son to choose from amongst the toys that are rated to a certain amount; let's say, PKR 1000. Now, the son can choose any of the toys that are rated PKR 1000 or below it, but he cannot choose any toy that is rated above 1000; that is his relative freedom.
A person belonging to a family with a particular religion will not have freedom to choose any of the religions from amongst all the religions in the world.
In similar manner, the freedom for an individual is also dependent on political system, as well. An individual within a state is highly influenced by the policies and practices that are promoted by the political system. There are certain kinds of political systems wherein individuals are given a say and they participate in the formation of the government; the example can be taken of a democratic system. In such systems, the individuals cast their votes and elect their representatives who form government. On the other hand, in a political system, like dictatorship, there is no room for an individual to cast vote and choose from amongst the different leaders or parties. They there are certain other types of freedom that are highly dependent on the political system - the freedom to criticize the government, the freedom to launch political campaigns, etc.
Though the absolute freedom is not achievable for an individual, it is always better to widen the relative freedom. It would be desirable to have a wider range of choices to choose from, and different alternatives to opt. However, it is debatable whether all the individuals living in a society can have such a privilege and whether extending the limits of freedom for an individual influences other individuals negatively or not. It is said that a person's freedom ends at that point from where another person's nose starts; suggesting that when an individual's freedom becomes disturbance and trouble for others, it does not remain freedom. Not getting farther into this discussion, it can be conveniently said that it is possible to widen the circle of freedom for individuals through proper economic, political and social systems and religious leniency. It is possible to let most of the people choose from what is best for them from amongst larger sum of choices, without creating hindrances and hurdles for others.