wundermonk
23 March 2012, 01:10 AM
Story here (http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/51899-pre-colonial-india-embraced-homosexuality-govt-tells-sc.html).
For social and religious groups opposed to gay sex and homosexuality as being anti-Indian and anti-cultural, this piece of news should warrant concern.
Gay sex, oral sex, and group sex were not unheard of in the Indian society prior to 18th century and no guilt was attached to such erotic sexual tendencies, according to the Government.
Stating this before the Supreme Court on Thursday, Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati packed this detail with proof to strengthen Centre’s stand for supporting the Delhi High Court decision to decriminalise gay sex.
With the Court hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of IPC Section 377, Vahanvati discussed the socio-cultural setting that existed in India at a time when the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was drafted.
The Attorney General said: “Before the enactment of the IPC, the Indian society had a much greater tolerance for homosexuality than its British counterpart.”
Erotic art sculptures and paintings in temples depicting group sex, oral sex, sex in every conceivable position, buggery and masturbation demonstrated that homosexuals in India “were free to satisfy their fancies”.
In Britain, the act referred to as buggery was punishable with death and for this reason Lord Macaulay, while inserting Section 377 in the IPC, reflected the British moral system that condemned such acts as “deviant and depraved”.
“Introduction of Section 377 in India was not a reflection of existing Indian values and traditions. Rather it was imposition of ‘sexual imperialism’ upon Indian society due to the moral views of the colonisers,” the Attorney General said.
The bench of Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhyay, however, sought more proof from the shastras, Vedas and existing literature of the period to be fully convinced that such acts were not viewed as “aberrations”. On the flip side, the Court wondered if such acts were accepted in the society, what prevented the Government from changing the law to reflect our culture and traditions.
“Why is it that for 62 years, we have not been able to come out of the shadow of British law-making? It has been one of the banes of our system today,” the Bench remarked.
Though English had never been the language of the masses in India, the Court wondered how litigants in rural areas could be aware of their legal rights when the law is written in English.
Suggesting a change in the basic law drafting process, the bench added, “If our law had been simply filed in our own language (and) in the understanding of our own local customs and traditions, of course with a touch of modernity, these problems would not have occurred.” Vahanvati was cautious to add in the end, “We are a conservative society. I should not be seen as advocating a license for such acts.”
In my personal opinion, appealing to scripture to condone or condemn an act [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual behaviour] is the wrong way to go.
If at all an argument is to be made for or against a position, it should be made on rational basis without appealing to scripture.
Thoughts?
For social and religious groups opposed to gay sex and homosexuality as being anti-Indian and anti-cultural, this piece of news should warrant concern.
Gay sex, oral sex, and group sex were not unheard of in the Indian society prior to 18th century and no guilt was attached to such erotic sexual tendencies, according to the Government.
Stating this before the Supreme Court on Thursday, Attorney General Goolam E Vahanvati packed this detail with proof to strengthen Centre’s stand for supporting the Delhi High Court decision to decriminalise gay sex.
With the Court hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of IPC Section 377, Vahanvati discussed the socio-cultural setting that existed in India at a time when the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was drafted.
The Attorney General said: “Before the enactment of the IPC, the Indian society had a much greater tolerance for homosexuality than its British counterpart.”
Erotic art sculptures and paintings in temples depicting group sex, oral sex, sex in every conceivable position, buggery and masturbation demonstrated that homosexuals in India “were free to satisfy their fancies”.
In Britain, the act referred to as buggery was punishable with death and for this reason Lord Macaulay, while inserting Section 377 in the IPC, reflected the British moral system that condemned such acts as “deviant and depraved”.
“Introduction of Section 377 in India was not a reflection of existing Indian values and traditions. Rather it was imposition of ‘sexual imperialism’ upon Indian society due to the moral views of the colonisers,” the Attorney General said.
The bench of Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhyay, however, sought more proof from the shastras, Vedas and existing literature of the period to be fully convinced that such acts were not viewed as “aberrations”. On the flip side, the Court wondered if such acts were accepted in the society, what prevented the Government from changing the law to reflect our culture and traditions.
“Why is it that for 62 years, we have not been able to come out of the shadow of British law-making? It has been one of the banes of our system today,” the Bench remarked.
Though English had never been the language of the masses in India, the Court wondered how litigants in rural areas could be aware of their legal rights when the law is written in English.
Suggesting a change in the basic law drafting process, the bench added, “If our law had been simply filed in our own language (and) in the understanding of our own local customs and traditions, of course with a touch of modernity, these problems would not have occurred.” Vahanvati was cautious to add in the end, “We are a conservative society. I should not be seen as advocating a license for such acts.”
In my personal opinion, appealing to scripture to condone or condemn an act [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual behaviour] is the wrong way to go.
If at all an argument is to be made for or against a position, it should be made on rational basis without appealing to scripture.
Thoughts?