Re: Does Indian tradition approve of homosexuality?
One must know that in this fast changing world, even the human values are also changing with the passage of time. But, however, one may argue that the Delhi High Court verdict on section 377 is a panacea for homosexuals. While one cannot and should not interfere in some one else's business, it should be admitted that homosexuality is unnatural. If we look at the nature and flora and fauna, there is nothing as homosexuality though all animals indulge in sex. Therefore, once Radhakrishnan wrote in his 'Hindu View of Life' that man is the only animal that drinks when he is not thirsty, eats when he is not hungry and indulges in sex all through the year. Homo sexuality is limited to satisfy their particular unnatural urge. Nothing beyond that, the Nature has produced opposite sex for pleasure and reproduction. The homosexuality satisfies only one part. Therefore it is a psychological problem. Therefore, there is no point in discussing and debating this issue. It should be buried and left to the people concerned. Maneshwar Nayak Reading `Hindu' as 'Indian', and vice versa, does not deny the reality of the sub-continents civilization and intellectual history. So-called non-Brahmanical Buddhist principles and practices are also part of vast hindu diaspora. The exchange with other religio-cultural traditions like Islam and Christianity does not change the core of our culture. Those who say `hindu' refer to Brahminism are only trying to divide Hindu society. Indian is a British colonial construct, i.e. a part of the Macaulayian legacy needs rejection. The question of "alternative personal, social, cultural and sexual options" has not direct relation to the above context and maybe `ignored' and 'not worthy of public discussion' because they are in fact, mainstream viewpoint; it is not a matter of depriving rights of `marginal'? The Homos were in Hindu past too (Khajuraho and in Karnataka one may see that on the face of temples) but society is an evolving phenomenon and all be Hindu, Muslim, Christianity denounces that. Court cannot make civic ways; it has limitations and that should be known. It does not mean fundamentally undemocratic perspective. Why you people are so much on Brahminical tag, was ram a Brahmin whom all revere as GOD and bhakti traditions has not opposed that Ram and Krishna. Sufis might have rejected Islamic obstinacy. Patriarchal or Matriachal both norms of moral conduct are acceptable in Hindu ethos which is abalanced one. True, The discourse of rights for Gays etc., is a contemporary discourse and requires both an openness and a focus" but defying social norms maybe individual's pleasure but not the way to say it is for equal rights, freedom of choice and expression of one's life. If one says he loves being naked would you allow?? The nature of contemporary law and criminality, maybe changed but legalising it will open a Pandora' box. Dr. Dhanakar Thakur
RE: Does Indian tradition approve of homosexuality?
Reading `Hindu' as 'Indian', and vice versa, denies the reality of the sub-continent's civilizational and intellectual history. The dominance of non- Brahmanical Buddhist principles and practice for at least three centuries is inextricably linked with our socio-cultural practice. Further, the long history of exchange with other religio-cultural traditions like Islam and christianity, has contributed integrally to our culture. The 19th C use of the word `hindu' to refer to Brahminism, and then to conflate this with the term `Indian' is a British colonial construct, i.e. a part of the Macaulayian legacy you so rightly reject. Are alternative personal, social, cultural and sexual options to be `ignored' as 'not worthy of public discussion' because they are in your so-called majoritarian, mainstream viewpoint, `marginal'? This fundamentally undemocratic perspective can never countenance reform or change, which by definition arises in opposition to prevalent mainstream ideas. Patriarchy was certainly the dominant form extolled in the ramayana, in Brahmanical texts and in other traditions over centuries; however, it cannot be ignored that the sufi and bhakti traditions were a major form of popular opposition to it. Uncritically upholding patriarchal norms of moral conduct in this day and age reveals a closed mindset. The discourse of rights for Gays etc., is a contemporary discourse and requires both an openness and a focus that the above positions deny in principal. The discourse is one of equal rights, freedom of choice and expression of one's life, on the one hand and on the other, the nature of contemporary law and what it defines as criminality, in providing legal protection of these rights. The `closet' approach that you adovocate as being the Hindu approach - i wont go into the merits of that claim! - seeks to silence rather than engage with diversity in order to understand that the so called `other' is in fact `one of us' with similar rights and concerns. Madhu Prasad To my mind, there are two major areas of concern in the present communication and which are as follows: Firstly, what is the philosophy and purpose of the Indian Law? Secondly, how does one address the divergence between law and practice? We have to understand that the purpose and philosophy of the Indian law is to modernise the Indian tradition. While a modernising India decided not to part with the humanist aspects of tradition, namely upholding family ties, celebrating the purity of certain emotional relationships and so on, what it really attacked was the various forms of unfreedom that did not allow individuals to fully utilize their talents and rights as individuals. Were it not for our pursuit of modernity, women would still be burnt as Sati, untouchables would be beaten up by sticks and lower castes would not be allowed entry into public spaces. That still happens in India but it happens without the sanction of the law and are thus illegitimate. In traditional India such things would have been legitimate but in today's India, these are illegal. The idea of law in India is meant to provide freedom to individuals irrespective of their caste, creed and community. Hence, matters that arise out of choice of individuals are to be free of the law. This is the sole point where the Indian law differs from the Western law because the latter is a disciplining and a normalizing effort that draws from a disciplinarian and often fundamentalist Christian Churches. Homosexuality is therefore free from law in India if it is between two consenting adults. But it does not have the sanction to have the same institutional sanctity of a "normal marriage". To my mind, it is the latter that the Delhi High Court Ruling has failed to challenge and I wish that it should be challenged. Susmita Dasgupta Economic Research Unit
Does Indian tradition approve of homosexuality?
S Gurumurthy, 05 Jul 2009 Homosexuals displaced the Economic Survey for the year 2008-09 from the headlines of most media on July 3, 2009. “Historic bench mark”; “Sexual equality”; “Landmark Judgement”. This is how the media had headlined the Delhi High Court judgment holding Sec 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts offences in law, partly unconstitutional. Sec 377 of the Indian Penal Code was not Manu's code. It was Macaulay’s. This colonial law made homosexuality punishable. In Judo-Christian tradition, homosexuality was seen an act against the law of God, punishable even with death. The Islamic rules also prescribed capital punishment for the offence. In all Abrahamic traditions, the hostility to homosexuality originated in the story associated with a city as Sodom (the etymological source of the world ‘sodomy’) where the sexual sin was first committed according to their texts, though the respective accounts varied. This is the philosophy of the law against homosexuals in Abrahamic societies. Macaulay’s law reflected their theological position. Earlier, there was no state law in India to punish homosexuality. Does that mean that the Hindu — read Indian — tradition approved of homosexuality? Read on. What was the position of the state and state enacted laws in India such matters? The king or the state in India had refrained from handling most issues which the society or families could handle. It is the colonial state, with its laws and courts, that began to intrude the sovereign domain of the family and society. The Indian discipline was always built around unenforced social and family norms; not state laws. Self-restraint and shyness were the tools to regulate the deviants from the norms, not the police or courts. Even today, it is this non-formal moral order — read dharma — not the laws of parliament or state assemblies, that largely governs this society. India is otherwise ungovernable; just some 12000 plus police stations in some 7 lakh towns and villages cannot regulate over 110 crore people. Thanks to this moral order, the Indian society had handled, and even now handles, such sensitive issues with great finesse than does state law. It is in stark contrast to the gross state law and media discourse of today. Historian Devdutt Pattanaik says that in Hindu literature ‘though not part of the mainstream, the existence of homosexuality was recognised, but, not approved’. Naradasmiriti prohibited marriage of homosexual men with women. Manu did suggest mild punishments for homos, but of an extreme type. The Indian tradition therefore neither encouraged nor punished lesbians or gays; nor did it celebrate them or despise them. It regarded them as a small, marginal fact of life, preferring to ignore them; and treating them as not worthy of public discussion for or against that might disturb the rest of the society. Homosexuals are, in numbers, marginal even in the West. In the US where the gay-lesbians are aggressive in the public discourse, the 2000 US Census data reveals that only 0.42% households are same-sex households. Studies in US or France and Canada show just some 1-2% admit to be gays or lesbians. The deviation from the mainstream behaviour is as marginal as that. Yet it is the geo-Christian hostility to even such marginal groups that turns them into vociferous action groups in the West. In the Indian — read Hindu — civilisational ethos, humans had never been seen as belonging to one uniform behavioural class. The Indian civilisation had recognised diversity in behaviour and morals. It therefore never imposed one moral value or rule for all. But it believed in a hierarchy of moral principles. It held out right conduct as ideal for the rest to imbibe and follow, but on their own volition. Even as it had evolved normative moral principles for the mainline society, it had subtly ignored, rather than focus on or punish, the deviants. Those who could not follow an ideal were never held as illustration for others to follow. For example, the Indian society had evolved one man-one wife as the ideal model for life, but never made it the law. It had indeed celebrated monogamy; but had never prohibited or punished polygamy. It did not even outlaw polyandry. Even today, regardless of the law, polygamy prevails in different parts of India. Even polyandry exists in certain communities in North India. It is neither proscribed nor accepted by others. But even those who did not follow the ideal of monogamy never disputed its virtue; nor did those who followed that virtue look down upon those who did not. Sri Rama was monogamous, but his father, Dasharatha, was polygamous. Yet, Rama revered him; obeyed him totally. Rama is therefore regarded, besides an ideal being, an ideal son as well. But Prahlada defied his father; he is regarded as an ideal person, though some may not see him as an ideal son like Rama. Likewise, Sita o
