“Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapereaude! ‘Have courage to use your own reason!’- that is the motto of enlightenment.” – Immanuel Kant Enlightenment is a walk up movement from the self-imposed immaturity of human beings that encourages and motivates them to rely on their own understanding and rational faculty. In the article ‘Enlightenment’, written by Immanuel Kant, it is explained that enlightenment is not an immediate or quick process that can be acquired at any time within a short span of time. It is a slow and time taking process, and its nature fluctuates from one society to the next. Even its growth or development depends on the mental approach and literacy of a society. The western world also progressed in the result of enlightenment that shook tectonic plates of all its spheres. Yes, one must obey orders but should not reasonably be banned from making observations, thinking independently, and drawing conclusions. Their reasoning, observation, learning and conclusions will give space to enlightenment, sharing all before the public, and then, the directives will be a source of guidance for the upcoming workers and generations One of the most important things required for enlightenment is “freedom”. It is known as the basic requirement in the acquisition of enlightenment. Generally, all and sundry talk about freedom, but they allare the actors, in reality, who create the hindrance to suppress freedom. Everybody swipes at others’ attitudes and actions by not changing their own mental and behavioral dynamics toward the same patterns of their guidance or teaching. They will always act in the way that can benefit them by extracting their departmental, professional, or personal interests. That is the dualistic and hypocritical approach that is the main impediment in the evolution of change or revolution. The developing world has been clinched badly with the hypocritical thinking pattern, from top to bottom, and that is the reason of their decline in social, political, economic, and moral spheres. Furthermore, Kant enunciates the preposition and psychological dictatorial setup of feeble people, “do not argue”, in his article. That is the most repeated point in their minds, maybe because of their dictatorial nature. However, on the other hand, they present themselves as the real proponents and protagonists of freedom by motivating others to argue freely about others but not about themselves. For instance, religious leaders say, “do not argue”. Officers remark to their subordinates, “do not argue”. Heads of political parties adopt the policy of “do not argue”, females are taught to “not argue”, children have been taught the same preposition, and so on. So, man is not free and looks in the chain of the “do not argue” restriction everywhere. Now the question arises, how to counter and address the barrier of “do not argue” in the process of enlightenment, to procure and sustain human development? The right usage of a man’s rational faculty, according to Kant, is the solution of the adverse and hypocritical approach. Rational ability must be allowed to develop freely, providing new paths and directions of enlightenment in a society, state or country. A backlog of questions, complexities and objections springs up while discussing the most important subject of human beings; as a member of an organisation, one has to follow rules and regulations of that organisation, and any sort of violation may expel them from the job. So, freedom is restricted under the sway of severe laws in the name of privacy and organisational interests. What should be the paradigms of behaviourbe for such people, and what should be their priority in this situation: job or freedom? Also, where do they, actually, stand in this situation, morally and politically? Is it possible for enlightenment to grow under such a passive and adverse atmosphere, in which no body is permitted to speak up for their legal rights and against oppressive policies? Meanwhile, another point of view about following rules and orders working in organisations is obedience. This is an imperative, and workers must follow the directions set by the rules and regulations. For more, they develop their premises that the element can disrupt an organisation or a society entirely if a junior does not obey orders of his senior officers in the name of freedom. Hierarchy of institutions and powers will collapse if everybody adopts one’s own path in dealing with official matters. Yes, one must obey orders but should not reasonably be banned from making observations, thinking independently, and drawing conclusions. Their reasoning, observation, learning and conclusions will give space to enlightenment, sharing of all before the public, and then, the directives will be a source of guidance for the upcoming workers and generations. Freedom, liberty, freedom of speech, fulfillment of duties, and altruistic behavior lead to the climax of enlightenment. This awareness and rational ability will corroborate enlightenment. Similarly, religious leaders and clerics teach in religious institutions with outdated contents, which are devoid of ethics, reasoning, logic, scientific knowledge, in order to sustain their own sectarian narratives. Talking about Pakistan and the rest of the world, the left wing and right wing are on their extremes. They must be ready to adopt a moderate way to figure out challenges, in order to weed them out collectively. They should adopt a moderate path for peaceful cause of their societies. The state must provide freedom of speech and a free-hand to work by sharing their thoughts, but in sophisticated ways, according to Immanuel Kant. All these elements ensure climax and social welfare of enlightenment. But as far as I am concerned, Kantian views about enlightenment are acceptable and at the same time objectionable, to some extent, following the harsh realities of the third world countries and newly born states, which do not take even a step towards freedom as they swelter in the heat of sectarianism, intolerance, terrorism, and skyrocketing violent attitudes – particularly in religious affairs. In short, they are devoid of sense, reason, ethics, aesthetics, religion, culture, and humanistic values. In the contemporary era, there is a dire need in the developing countries to empower people with the right to think independently for progress. Looking at the dynamics and harsh realities of Pakistani politics, political parties must empower their subordinates and public to speak up against their political manifesto, policies and decisions with critical thinking, to disseminate freedom of speech. State institutions ought to play their constructive role in this journey to procure freedom. The author is a student at the Department of Philosophy, University of the Punjab, and a member of the Youth Parliament. He can be reached at ch.changezi.sandhu111@gmail.com Published in Daily Times, June 7th 2018.