As the Utilitarian school of thought in Europe became popular, the concept of individualism started rising. It basically initiated with Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, which proposed the separation of economic units from government authorities and on micro level calculated each and every product as per its utility. In the political environment the question that whether individual is for the state or the state is for an individual started getting dominance. The political thinkers like J.S. Mill and Montesquieu, after much deliberation concluded that it is the individual liberty and pleasure that counts the most. State is the machinery which must assure individual rights and liberty and not the vice versa. Liberalism, secularism, rationalism and democracy all got unified for the prosperity and welfare of an individual. Resultantly, the seeds of individualism were sown in the soil of Western politics and it was agreed by many that individual does matter and has great importance.

Every individual on the planet earth whether young or old, male or female, black or white, weak or strong, rich or poor, or religious or non-religious, has the privilege to live and to follow the pleasure, unless and until he harms others. In easier terms, it can be stated that a person’s liberty ends at the spot from where the second person’s nose starts, provided that the second person does not interfere in the affairs of the first. In fact, the concept of individualism is miscomprehended by many people. They fall short to realize some very essential concepts regarding individual and the connections of the individuals with the society. It is indispensable for them to answer some of the basic questions in this regard, “Doesn’t every individual have the privilege to live, to earn and to express himself? Aren’t the states shaped to safeguard the rights of individuals? Shouldn’t every individual have the privilege to have a share in creation of government? Doesn’t every individual have his own mind to imagine; his own tongue to converse, his own food to eat and his own contribution of oxygen to inhale? Doesn’t every individual think about the welfare of the mass unless it hampers and coincides with his own? Doesn’t an individual save drowning man because of his inner mercy for him? Doesn’t a mother nourish a baby because of the motherhood existing in her true nature? These are very basic questions and their proper analysis would definitely prove that their answers are in positive, which proves the fact that it is vital to consider an individual before considering social and collective matters. As it is rightly said by Charles M. Schulz, “Snowflakes fascinate me... Millions of them falling gently to the ground... And they say that no two of them are alike! Each one completely different from all the others... The last of the rugged individualists!”   These sacred words have been frequented infinitely by different writers and scholar that killing one person means killing the entire humanity and saving one person means saving the whole humanity. Have we ever tried to reach the very profundity of this adage? This adage, if followed with its true nature will ensure the security and survival of whole humankind. Self-esteem, honor and respect of every individual will give birth to a group of honorable human beings. It can always begin from an individual. Sacrificing individuals for collective reason will never lead to an unwavering and just community; rather dignifying every individual will surely give rise to just, stable and unconquerable community.

Every individual living on the planet earth influences it by his mere existence. His being there in the society may play a role in changing some outlooks, some behaviors and some decisions and may as a result be the cause of an obvious change.

Some of the saints and Sufis have great worth for the individual. They have even gone to the extent of calling an individual a universe and have always educated the individuals to search into their beings and find out the mysteries of the universe. They believe that it is the only way to appreciate the individual and eventually the universe. They believe that the words like We and Us are used to form groups that are actually very unclear and do not have the true sagacity and meaning and in reality defy the individuality of the individuals forming them. As cited beautifully by Ayn Rand, “The word “We” is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?

But I am done with this creed of corruption.

I am done with the monster of “We,” the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.

And now I see the face of deity, and I raise this deity over the earth, this deity whom men have sought since men came into being, this deity who will grant them joy and peace and pride.

This deity, this one word: “I”.”

Giving significance to an individual does not essentially mean to invite chaos and disorder; conversely it is to urge every individual to respect every other individual as the other has the parallel rights as one oneself has. We human beings do not require to be governed as long as we oversee our own individuality and respect all other individuals.