Morality and us.....

The Delhi High Court's judgement on the case of the 'obscene' kiss (makes it sound like a Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes novel....) is a bold way of taking the mickey of all these xenophobic and patently narrow-minded monkeys living in God knows which century and which country.

That a married couple should be arrested and subjected to such mental trauma over a period of nearly six months for a simple kiss or even for overtly displaying their mutual affections puzzles me. Don't the police have better things to do than watch out for couples kissing or holding each others' hands in parks and public places? Whatever happened to the good old days when the police had actual criminals to apprehend and punish? Surely not everyone of the delinquents is in jail? Or have all of them reformed, trembling in their pants at the 'machismo' of the Indian police who will arrest a couple over a mere kiss? I can't even think what they will do to someone who perpetrates a murder!

Morality is a highly subjective and personal issue, especially more so in a country like India where cultural influences and beliefs differ in every locality. What may seem unacceptable to one section of the populace may be perfectly normal to another; so how do our lawmakers decide what is best for the entire society? A good option would be to leave the morals to the people themselves; if they are mature enough to decide who's good enough to represent them in legislative bodies, surely they ought to have the sense to decide what is moral and what is immoral in their lives.

But no, we have these self-appointed guardians of morality, of a Indian culture that frowns upon kissing, holding hands and drinking in pubs. Bravo! So may we presume that the titans of Bollywood would now be expected to scale down on all the modernism that they are wont to show, because even if it's the reality in our society, it simply isn't 'right'? No more singing and dancing, eh? What next, the purdah? Dressing and grooming regulations for males? Shouldn't the pant be deplored as a foreign garment, meant to enslave poor Indian males into a sense of bondage, as opposed to the grand dhoti which is the very essence of liberty and freedom?

In conclusion, I am reminded of George Bernard Shaw, who very succintly put it, "When you prevent me from doing anything I want to do, that is persecution; but when I prevent you from doing anything you want to do, that law, order and morals." The Sri Ram Sena and all their brethren should bear this in mind.

Offensive to whom...?

The arrest of a celebrated postgraduate graphics student, Chandramohan Srilamantula, for allegedly obscene artwork involving representations of Hindu deities et al, and the suspension of the faculty, Acting Dean Shivaji Pannikar, who ‘dared’ support him in Gujarat is a sad state of affairs.

The arrest has motivated by a complaint by a local BJP leader, who then proceeded to remonstrate his ‘anguish’ at the artist’s work by barging into the Institute concerned and lambasting the student and his supporters for their insensitivity to ‘Hindu’ sentiments. The local Government being of the same party, the Vice-Chancellor turned a blind eye to what was essentially a case of unwarranted and illegal trespassing in a private area. The ‘notable’ also chose to sit twiddling his thumbs as the police carted of the ‘offending’ student to gaol.

While public sentiments and morality may have been offended, and I stress on the ‘may’, this was not the manner in which the matter should have been pursued. No one has empowered the BJP or any singular political party to behave as the moral code enforcement brigade for anyone. For one thing, I was unaware India ever had a singular moral code which could be enforced in this manner. Morality is a matter of personal beliefs, and should be ideally left to the individual to deal with in his/her personal domain, rather than be mandated by the State or by anyone aspiring to such a status.

The BJP leader, in his zeal et al, conveniently forgets the temple complexes at Khajuraho, which depict the same Hindu deities in perhaps the same poses which he finds objectionable today. Maybe he will tomorrow have them demolished as well?

Hinduism per se doesn’t have a code of acceptable virtues and unacceptable behavior, at least not of the likes of Islam and Christianity, who have their hadiths and their Commandments to guide them. So to say that something is offending to the Hindus would mean implying such a code exists, a fallacy of the greatest order if there was any.

The State cannot bring upon itself to adjudicate whether a certain object can be deemed offensive to a certain section of society, without that society rising up to say so. But it is obliged to protect the freedom of expression of an individual, especially when the expression is done with an aim to enlighten, to spread knowledge.

True, the freedom of expression is limited by the predilection of those who hide behind its protective arms to foment trouble by mischief. When it is so, I say pull the offenders out and punish them in a manner befitting their tomfoolery.

If it can be proved that the student concerned created the ‘offensive’ work with the intention to titillate the sentiments of a specific commune or of the people in general, I say the arrest is valid. But due process should have been followed, that is my plea and entreaty. Morality must be preserved, but then follow the dictum of 'each according to the dictates of his own conscience'.

Reference: Student in jail, Chancellor is upset but the V-C rules.

Be reasonable, please!

A recent incident in Chennai over teenagers and young adults kissing and hugging, and such photos being splayed all over the newspapers was shocking and disturbing, to say the least. And the responses even more.
Indian society has always been non-committal about sex education, and has been rather coy about inter-gender relations prior to marriage. Of course, this coyness was often a mask for much deep rooted hypocrisy. And that such hypocrisy emerges out of the coyest societies isn't unusual. After all, the most restricted souls most desire of even the most depraved of excitements. But for the sake of maintaining a sort of holier-than-thou posture, such societies choose to don a "conservative" outlook. They frown on any deviations from their traditions, their customs, and their beliefs. So, the general uproar about the couples kissing, hugging, and fondling each other was really expected.
Not that I am supporting the uproar, but really, the so-called miscreants should really have done whatever they were doing then in more private confines. Admitted, they being citizens of a free India are permitted the freedoms of expression, but surely this freedom cannot be presumed to be absolute. Maybe in this particular case, there weren't families i.e. children around to witness their frolicking; however there is emerging a general tendency to brazenly ignore societal concerns on morality and general good social behaviour in public places.

But what I found even more disgusting was the tendency of the print media to splay the pictures of these blokes on the front page, as if encouraging people to see their brazen behaviour, and maybe even emulate it. Admitted, of late the print media has considerably lowered its standards, especially to counter the influence of the television news media, but surely, one could have expected better behaviour from individuals calling themselves the vanguards of democracy, as the guardians of the reader.

There is also a very heated debate on whether or not practices such as a live-in relationship should be encouraged. A recent televised discussion on this listed one of the live-in arrangement's advantages as that any one of the partners could easily leave the other without having to resort to messy legal procedures should he/she find himself/herself unwilling to accept the other partner's style of living. And I watched amazed. For me, such a relationship is a farce, one that should never be termed a relationship in the first place, because it is based not on trust or on love, but on a sort of uneasy compromise to be broken as and when one feels.

No relationship can be deemed pure and unblemished unless it is based on trust and love. If you choose to hide details of your life from the ones whom you claim to love, then you sadly do not love them, you merely tolerate them. Hurting those who love you is the greatest sin imaginable, and cannot be washed away for all eternity. But these kids simply have abnegated the feelings of shame, and responsibility to a greater being than themselves - their family.

This incident and many more like this brings to fore the confusion of the so-called westernized populace of the urban classes, who whilst insisting on their rights to privacy, persist in doing all sorts of depraved displays of affection in public. Someone ought to wring their ears and yell in them, "Care to be reasonable, pal?"