Lesbians vs. Gays vs. Hinduism vs. Modernity?

[...Govind Nihalani, who has been dragged to court for his film ‘Dev’ (by a Hindu who claims it is anti-Hindu!)...]

the court case claimed that the film can offend both hindus and muslims and has the potential to ignite communal passions.

jawhara

i agree with you regarding molestation stats. indians deal with extreme sexual frustration (with urban migration, later marriages and all makes it worse). One redeeming feature is that crowded societies with everyone peeking into every thing tends to make molestations kind of fleeting (different from sustained type in woods of Minnesota).

And FV, i dont agree that Hindus are any more against modernity because Shivsena protested against girlfriend. I have explained shivsenas modus-operandi in a previous post. Also, do you think RSS shakhas are gay orgies? Where do you get this information? This can be very interesting.

Stukay: I know some real life homosapien (Chowk would not accept the prefix alone :)- stories from Bhaun, maybe I can run it as series Tales of homosapiens((Chowk would not accept the prefix alone :)- from Bhaun. The only problem is that assess would not be too thrilled about it... :)-

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

+++

The horde of people who went on a rampage were doing so in the name of their culture/religion; just as we bunch terrorism of a kind with another religion.

I do not think a comment like Hinduism is against modernity is really out of place.

+++


is anyone surprised that Farzana is ready to trash hinduism and play equal equal stuff with terrorism at the flimisiest of grounds that she can hold? after all, ABVP is worse than SIMI for her. and of course, panun kashmir is a dangerous concept while we must be reasonable in dealing with the kashmiri terrorists.

typical stuff. that is what I call e-jehad.

stuka:
``What are you implying? That Shakha activities consist of homosexuality?``

FV`s insinuations are not new.
When the sanghis came to our street to collect fellow-sanghis to go to their shakhas, I remember some kids raising the follwoing heckles:
sangh ki jeb mein taash hai
sangh launday-baaz hai!

...you should remember that sanghi pracharaks are supposed to be celibate, much like the catholic christian missionaries.

FV

I do not have much to say on the subject of homosexuality since the discussion has already deviated from its main topic of ``homosexuality among modern Hindus`` to a general discussion on homosexuality.

Anyway, it is my assessment that you have two points of view on the subject that you hold, and I disagree with both of them:

1. Either you beleive that homosexuality is a personal business and should be allowed as an acceptable, legal, righteous, and as one of the mainsteam behaviour, or

2. Even if we do not subscribe to a homosexual behaviour we should remain indifferent to it so as to remain politically correct, enlightened, and tolerant.

I am sorry but I cannot accept either of these scenarios. Accepting either one of these means that I have converted from my own system of beleif. In other words, a homosexual has a right to convert me because it is ``enlightening`` but I do not have right to convert him/her because it is ``intolerant``. This is ridiculous and unacceptable.

My direction is very clear. Homosexuality is not a ``personal`` behaviour as it is touted to be, it is a social behaviour. If it is a personal behaviour then why bother with its legality, marriage, and rights etc. All these things indicate that it is a social phenomenon. In other words directly or indirectly it effects me, my family, my neighborhood, and my country. And the way it effects them is un-acceptable to me.

So now that we have recognized the problem we have the solution to deal with the issue. Sharia has prescribed a method to deal with the issue and that is to execute both active and passive partners engaged in the act. Since, it is not a crime that falls under the category of Hadud, the standard for evidence and testimony could be pretty lax in execution of the verdict and punishment. But this of course can only be done in the countries where Sharia is in effect. In other countries where Muslims live as expatriots they should adopt the methods of teaching (talqeen), preaching (tableegh), and awareness (taleem). We must join forces with those voices who oppose this scourge on humanity. We must organize these forces, become majority, and help enact and enforce laws that curb this behavior. We must tell this to all, how this behavior attacks like a cancer on the basic unit of the society i.e. family and thru its malignancy destroys the institution.

Personally, I think the perpetrators of this inhumanity must also be inculded in our talqeen, tableegh, and ta`leem. They must be told that what they are doing is not only self-destructive but also will destroy all others close to them. I don`t think we should, harass them, shame them or shun them but they be told with compassion and compromise. However, in Muslim countries this method cannot be applied. Since they know the word of God and His verdict. They must immediately be reported to authorities and must be executed after due process of law.

``I think an out-and-out gay film on men will not get such a reaction. The RSS will keep quiet, considering its shakha activities…"

What are you implying? That Shakha activities consist of homosexuality? That is why I am against giving an inch to the gay agenda. They will pervert everything they come in contact with. Do you have any solid proof of RSS shakhas being the centre for homosexual activity or is it just innuendo? How many RSS Shakhas have you visited?

Hellbound: ``A`` is the right answer...

What is the connection between Jawahara and Mushy.

a: They quote numbers? ...which are outta whack. Sorry if that did not come out in the original post.

Hi FV *waves*: Interesting post and yes, I totally see what you are saying. Being gay, out and flamboyant in hip, urban areas is definitely in. But those are not usually the people facing the larger problems of being gay.

Just two clarifications of my previous points. I am not going to engage in this degenerating debate any more but I wanted to say this:

My 99% percentage was as I said, from people I know. The percentage outside that group can be 1% for all I know. All I`ve found is you start talking with people in a safe environment and in a safe way and discover that most of them come out with some story of molestation. Not experimentation among kids but being molested by an adult...a servant, a family friend, a distant relative, etc. etc.

So, it may not be 99% in the world outside my own. Read this excerpt, it is still a startling number: ``Around 70.5 per cent of the DU students have disclosed about their incest and childhood sexual abuse (CSA) to their friends, reports a recent survey conducted by a city based NGO Rahi (Recovering And Healing from Incest).`` This is from a June 23 report of a study in New Delhi. *That* is truly shameful for all us Indians, not whether two consenting males or females have sex with each other. Or if they dance lewdly in a parade. Still don`t agree? Read the stats on this page:
http://www.shaktiproductions.net/isa_stats.html.

At least in larger urban areas people are talking about it. In smaller towns and villages, no one is doing studies about this as far as I know.

Second, there is a clear difference between two adults indulging in a consensual, relationship (straight or gay) and an adult abusing a child (again a child of the same gender or not than the adult). Consent and age are important...crucial in any sexual relationsip.

And as far as abuse is concerned, (and yes, these are actual, researched facts, not drawn from my personal sample size) most abusers are heterosexual (or living as) males. There are reams of material substantiating this fact. Look it up.

Bottomline, this is one of those issues like abortion or the legalization of marijuana that people are either on one side or the other. I am comfortable on my side and I guess others are on their side. So, there`s really no point nitpicking on this any more.

FV, post another article we can all sink our teeth into.:)

Urstruly:

Laloo is not considered a genetic anomaly, just a guy who does not know when to stop...and Manji is considered an intellectual anomaly, not a genetic one:)

Btw, what are your views on the subject in general? These days you just don`t say anything to me!!

FV

``Irshad Manji, a Toronto-based writer, whose book on Islam created waves, is a Muslim. Laloo Prasad Yadav, a Hindu, has nine kids. Hope this helps. ``

Isn`t it true that just as Lalu is considered a genetic anamoly among mainstream hindus, Manji is thought to be among Muslims?

A few replies…have read until #75…

#21 by rahul_capri:

[``The sad fallout of this is that young boys, who probably do not know which way they swing, are initiated, as also eunuchs who, of course, do not have a choice.”
I did not get this line.]

There are many young boys who are forced into homosexual relationships. The most vulnerable are those who come to seek employment from villages. During the course of one story I was doing, I went to the Chowpatty beach around midnight (before the clean-up operation) and met the ‘maalishwallas’. They told me about how the sahibs would come there to get a massage and then force them to either go with them (if the men had the means) or ask them to give a hand. This had become such a common practice that even the cops had got into the thick of things… “if you don’t want to be rounded up, then it is my turn next” sort of thing.

Re. eunuchs, they- the ‘natural’ ones do not have a choice because of how they are made. Being sodomised is the only way out for them.
- - -
#39 by dost-mittar:
Dear dostmittarji,

As I have said and is obvious, this is not as review of the film. But its trashiness does not take away from the trashiness of the response to it. Incidentally, Govind Nihalani, who has been dragged to court for his film ‘Dev’ (by a Hindu who claims it is anti-Hindu!) has himself stated that he is not against the legal form of protest applied wrt to his film. If Karan Razdan has got into publicity overdrive with this gimmick, then those indicting the film (including the media) are also helping to publicise it. I have refrained from commenting on such cinema. It is attitudes that interest me. The other day I thought we had tickets for ‘Dev’, but ended up watching ‘Hum Tum’ which is being promoted as clean family entertainment. The ridiculously sexist remarks in this film do not bother anyone it seems because it is cute… or maybe because a big newspaper house is involved.
- - -
#51 by Jawahara:

Hi Jawahara…good to see you back and in full force. Thanks for making this board so alive.

[It`s weird isn`t it, that in a country where men roam arm in arm and are physically so close, there remains this phobia about gay men. It`s only in the murky area of same sex sexuality that I personally think, women are somewhat safer in India than are men. So, while there has been a `Fire,` and now a `Girlfriend,` there has never really been a film about unambiguously gay characters. I shudder to think of the Sena reaction when/if that happens.]

Interesting observation. I think an out-and-out gay film on men will not get such a reaction. The RSS will keep quiet, considering its shakha activities…also, the male construct will see it as a personal aberration, not a religious sin.

[I have to confess that terms like ``the limp wristed kind,`` and ``the gay cult,`` troubled me.]

Again, we are talking about India. And urban India at that. In cities like Mumbai and Delhi, passive gay men revel in being ‘pretty’. Their parties get publicised in the media…one well-known such ‘do’ got major coverage for how the queens were dressed etc. They themselves believe in the cult. They fancy themselves as icons and a small segment has become legitimised precisely for being gay, and little else.

One friend of mind is in the papers only because of his cross-dressing and is invited at the toniest parties to add colour. He told me he was playing along because that kept him in the news. He was like any other Page 3 socialite.

Often, this does result in glamourisation and many young men who are not yet aware of their sexuality find it cool. The ‘hormonal imbalance’ has been slowly replaced by the iconisation of the gays. Why do we suddenly see the ‘best’ designers as gay? Whatever happened to the darzi of old…was he gay? My beef against the movement in India is that the gays are quick to brand you homophobic (heck, I was invited on TV panels as the homophobic voice only because I did not agree with ARK on certain issues, like most gays not addressing the paedophilia and promiscuity problems that beset them as much as heteros).

Some of the other queries you posed have been addressed in the general post.
- - -
#52 by Urstruly:

Irshad Manji, a Toronto-based writer, whose book on Islam created waves, is a Muslim. Laloo Prasad Yadav, a Hindu, has nine kids. Hope this helps.
- - -
#63 by nooralain

[``There is rarely any talk about Christianity vs. modernity. . . .``
perhaps not all so publicly, but this is something that churches have been grappling with for quite a while now.]

The discussion rarely takes on the enormity of a phobia. However, I had written in an earlier article the following, “Scandals about their involvement in adultery, child abuse and homosexuality are constantly reported. In the early days of the church, priests did marry because Christianity did not lay down celibacy as a rule. In fact, even the Pope acknowledges it when he says, ``Jesus didn`t make a law, but proposed an ideal of celibacy for a new priesthood that he was establishing. This ideal is affirmed ever more in the church.`` He even went to the extent of admitting that celibacy did not belong to the essence of priesthood.”

Regards to all…
F

PS: I am having problems with my dial-up and server, so my active participation would depend on these…

It is good to see an interesting and educative discussion taking place here. Thanks for your comments, positive, negative, iffy…

What I set forth in this article is essentially about same-sex coupling in the Indian context; I know that the West has of late become more open to such alliances. This is still not true in the Indian subcontinent. The horde of people who went on a rampage were doing so in the name of their culture/religion; just as we bunch terrorism of a kind with another religion. A few voices may stand up against it, but the implication invariably is that it has to do with one religion. A whole industry and even a political credo have been spawned as retaliation.

Therefore, let me address the two issues as set out in the title:

1.Is Hinduism against modernity?

I do not think a comment like Hinduism is against modernity is really out of place. In the context in which I speak. Ashok Row Kavi’s letter to the RSS chief harks back to history. It does not address the contemporary state of the culture. Why were there no Muslim protest groups, Christian protest groups…and at least of the former we do not have a dearth? If they had come out in the streets, they would have been added to this group.

Why has there been no follow-up regarding the recent allegations against the famous baba who had sexually assaulted a boy? Because he was sanctified by religion? Therefore, was I making a blanket generalisation against one religion? For the purpose of this article and the ‘inspiration’ for it, yes. As I wrote, “But if we wish to take this recent example, we will realise that Hindu culture is completely insensitive to anything close to modernity. At every point in time, modernity ought to include sensitisation towards marginalised groups.”

This is my definition of modernity vis-à-vis the subject at hand. Sensitisation towards women, towards scheduled castes and tribes, towards minorities and towards LGBTs. Modern does not mean being hip and with it. It means awareness and acceptance of such groups, whether we agree with them or not.

While the West may get uptight over some issues on the basis of religion (I have given an example), they cannot make an issue of it on those grounds at the political level. In societies like ours religion makes most social decisions. And the marginalised groups I speak about are a victim of them, from within or without. ARK is falling into the same trap when he uses religion to buffer his position, which is sad. Again, I have said in my piece, “But must one bring religion-centred culture into it at all? If the intention of the gay community is to turn its back on organised religion, which makes it a victim, then why can it not seek a path outside of the ambit of such religions?”

2.Lesbians vs. gays

I had asserted, “The only reason I am glad about the ‘outing’ is because it concerns women. Lesbians have always been the secondary sex among gays. It is really more about a brotherhood; the connotation of sisterhood in this context is invariably seen as the result of some spiritual bonding or a protest against male battering.”

Again, I am talking in the Indian context, although I would not be surprised if this phenomenon existed across the globe. Somebody suggested that in the film the gay woman is a victim of child molestation and therefore her sexual proclivities due to it were not an accurate portrayal. There are research studies and there are research studies…my findings indicate that the ‘born gay’ theory does not hold true across the board. (This resulted in a newspaper battle with ARK and me in the 90s. We have since made up!)

There are lesbians who do not call themselves so in large joint families and among certain communities it is now even looked down upon. But it is tough for women to come out and seek a space for themselves. I do know of several cases where women have gone for women as a reaction against severe battering and/or emotional battering by men. But some choose to do so simply because they are so inclined.

The problem is that gay men talk of rights, about going cruising, but do not take into account the problems of their lesbian sisters. They just do not think they are an issue as such. Probably because they can lead two lives more comfortably, can remain hidden without being noticed much (‘tomboys’ do not produce as much of a smirk as the ‘pansy’). But it remains an area that is riddled with male patriarchal notions. ARK had himself told me in an interview that only a woman would be able to sit and suck a woman’s breasts for two hours!

Now that the Girlfriend controversy is making news – even if there are several other agendas at play – the spokesperson of the gay community is a man.

can we please remember that the sexual molestation of jawahara`s cousins and friends is NOT the topic of this article? and that whatever the percentage is, to ridicule sexual molestation or deny that it is a possibility really stinks.

farzana ji,
was lord allah gay?if somebody asks you that question what will you say?and by the by why don`t moslem females also get a circumcision ?does this mean they are lesser `moslems` as compared to their male counterparts?
plz do not take offence.just a thought which crosses a perverted mind i guess!