A few years ago,I saw two men walking on the street holding hands,their activities and their body languages suggested that they were lovers;they were laughing to themselves,poking each other when suddenly,an old man threw a paper ball at them;he roared at them with rage,"Get out of my neighbourhood!"
I was bewildered at this behaviour towards two people who meant no harm to him.What made him so angry?Their "unnatural love"?
Everyday I see some groups raising their jhanda against love,heterosexual or homosexual.A group named Bajrang Dal once pledged to marry off couples who were found celebrating Valentine's day.
Today when I raise my voice against Section 377,a law that criminalises homosexuality,I try to understand the situation first-what are we fighting against?This section 377 or any law that bans celebration of love that exists between two people who are sexually attracted to each other?
Before we understand the situation,I need to find out the reason behind such hatred towards homosexuality.
According to famous mythologist Devdutt Pattanaik,an overview of temple imagery, sacred narratives and religious scriptures does suggest that homosexual activities – in some form – did exist in ancient India. Though not part of the mainstream, its existence was acknowledged but not approved. There was some degree of tolerance when the act expressed itself in heterosexual terms – when men ‘became women’ in their desire for other men, as the hijra legacy suggests.
The range of erotic sculptures is wide: from dignified couples exchanging romantic glances, to wild orgies involving warriors, sages and courtesans. Occasionally one finds images depicting bestiality coupled with friezes of animals in intercourse. All rules are broken: elephants are shown copulating with tigers, monkeys molest women while men mate with asses. And once in a while, hidden in niches as in Khajuraho, one does find images of either women erotically embracing other women or men displaying their genitals to each other, the former being more common (suggesting a tilt in favour of the male voyeur).
Before the colonial rule,the idea of "same sex" existed in India,but later it was called "unnatural".It was infact a product of minds that were deeply influenced by sex is sin’ stance of the Christian Bible. With typical colonial condescension, European definitions, laws, theories and attitudes totally disregarded how similar sexual activity was perceived in other cultures.
In Indian epics and chronicles, there are occasional references to same-sex intercourse. For example, in the Valmiki Ramayana, Hanuman is said to have seen Rakshasa women kissing and embracing those women who have been kissed and embraced by Ravana. In the Padma Purana is the story of a king who dies before he can give his two queens the magic potion that will make them pregnant. Desperate to bear his child, the widows drink the potion, make love to each other (one behaving as a man, the other as a woman) and conceive a child.
On the other hand,The Manusmriti scorns female homosexuals. It states, “If a girl does it (has sex) to another girl, she should be fined two hundred (pennies), be made to pay double (the girl’s) bride-price, and receive ten whip (lashes). But if a (mature) woman does it to a girl, her head should be shaved immediately or two of her fingers should be cut off, and she should be made to ride on a donkey.” There are no kind words for a male homosexual either: “Causing an injury to a priest, smelling wine or things that are not to be smelled, crookedness, and sexual union with a man are traditionally said to cause loss of caste.” And: “If a man has shed his semen in non-human females, in a man, in a menstruating woman, in something other than a vagina, or in water, he should carry out the ‘Painful Heating’ vow.” ‘Painful Heating’ vow is traditionally said to consist of cow’s urine, cow dung, milk, yogurt, melted butter, water infused with sacrificial grass, and a fast of one night.
Pattanaik says “Note that there are no threats of ‘eternal’ damnation, unlike the dogmas of Judeo-Christian-Islamic scriptures. There is nothing permanent in the Hindu world. There is always another life, another chance.”
The fact is Christians declare homosexuality to be a sin, an act hateful in the eyes of their god. There are some modern Hindu commentators who, mimicking their christian mentors, concur with them.
A.L. Basham a well-renowned Indologist remarks; The erotic life of ancient India was generally heterosexual. Homo-sexualism of both sexes was not wholly unknown; it is condemned briefly in the law books, and the Kama Sutra treats of it, but cursorily, and with little enthusiasm. Literature ignores it. In this respect ancient India was far healthier than most other ancient cultures.
Hinduism was never at par with other religions practiced across the world,it was infact much more pragmatic in its approach;it evolved with time,space and circumstances.Often the views expressed by a section of pandits were not accepted by the others.So,there is nothing conclusive about any belief-whether it is right or wrong.
Homosexuality though considered a "sin" in the Western Ideology,it was much more popular in the East.
But then why such vehemence of hatred?
There are several problems that were cited in the ancient Indian law that were faced due to homosexuality.
The problems posed by homosexuality in the Dharma Shastras (Sacred Law) are not based on moral judgements but rather legal complexities with reference to offspring and inheritance of ancestral property.
Homosexuals, along with the impotent, the childless and unmarried sons & daughters are excluded by the Sacred Law from inheriting the paternal property. Preference goes instead to the married siblings who have sons. The reasonable need for family units in ancient India was to retain the property within the family and to have it passed down to the descendants. If a homosexual inherited, it means that on his/her death the property would pass to some other family or be acquired by the government.
The second problem presented is liturgical. The essential pre-requisite for participation in many rituals is marriage. Manu states that a man on his own is not whole — he only become so, when united with a woman and children. Unmarried men and women in general may not participate in certain ceremonies regardless of their being homosexual or heterosexual.
Apart from these two cases, homosexuals have never been discriminated against nor victimised in Hindu society.
So,when some religions as rigid as Christianity evolved with time,why didn't Hinduism,which is much more logical and scientific started to become primitive in its approach?When did a progressive religion turn into an orthodox one?
Today's youths find homosexuality a rather natural one,due to "Western" influence;popular t.v shows like Game of Thrones have made homosexuality a rather common affair.Love is celebrated on the 14th of February like the Western people;pre-marital sex is practised without inhibitions.
But then,homosexuality still faces the wrath of courts and some Hindu groups who call themselves the epithets of our India culture.But we need to choose which Hinduism we need to follow?
The one that has never banned love in any form or the one that censured homosexual conduct, but also institutionalized the caste system and approved the subservience of women.
Check my original post at :WatStory
No comments:
Post a Comment