Pre-colonial India embraced homosexuality, Govt tells SC

[wundermonk]

Story here.

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?

[wundermonk]

Homosexuality explained via reincarnation?

Watch video beginning 4:21.

[Jainarayan]

Namaste all.

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?

Appealing to scripture to condone or condemn sexual behavior is a western invention. If eroticism and love in all its myriad forms was a non-issue in India before the invasions of Christians and Muslims, there must have been a reason. Perhaps it's because the sages and rishis knew it to be a scriptural non-issue. They are the ones who knew scriptures inside and out.

Ancient Greece had its pederasty... an older man taking on an eromenos, a younger man with whom he may or may not have had sexual relations, but the idea was to teach the young man what a man's duty was. And very often it did involve sexual relations. Homosexual relations were not unknown in ancient China either. In Papua New Guinea (I believe it is PNG), there was a tribe in which a rite of passage for an adolescent male was to perform oral sex on an older male of the tribe, in order to be invested with the older man's male essence. None of this is unknown in ancient times, before the perversions of Christianity and Islam.

I lay almost all of humanities psychological, sexual hang-ups, and neuroticisms squarely on the doorstep of Christian and Muslim literalists (of their scriptures). They are the ones with the prurient and puritan interest and fascinations with sex. I deliberately leave out the Jews because they keep to themselves and don't really care what anyone else does.

I also believe no appeal should be made to any scripture to explain, condemn or condone what two people do consensually with each other. I never thought there was anything theologically in Hinduism that addressed sexuality explicitly. If it becomes an obstacle to spiritual progress, like gambling, drinking, or any other activity of that kind, then of course it is to be controlled. I think the same holds true in Buddhism... any distraction to spiritual progress is to be at the very least, minimized.

[charitra]

Kamasutras were scripted by wise hindus (vatsayana) and as for as physical symbols are concerned , one quick a look at Kajuraho structures (google) is all thats needed. Yes hindus have never condemned some of these tendencies, at the same time we must underline that restrain was advocated very strongly.

[Believer]

Nmaste,

Yes hindus have never condemned some of these tendencies, at the same time we must underline that restrain was advocated very strongly.

+1

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.

Did not know that it had originally been classified as criminal behavior.

An average person does what he does per the urges/desires (s)he is ingrained with. It is beyond his/her control. The degree to which they flaunt their behavior, which is termed off-normal by the society at large, depends on the tolerance level of the majority. But to have it classified as criminal behavior on the books is insane. It is time to right this wrong without bringing in the usual scapegoats - muslim and Xitian invaders - or the scriptural references to validate this behavior. If any proof is needed in support of this behavior, behavioral scientists/psychologists/sexual orientation experts should be presented before the court and not the scriptures, as it is a behavioral issue and not a moral one. The constitution was framed for free India, by free/independent Indians. No one was holding a gun to their heads to keep the influences of foreigners intact, as part of the constitution. I am not sure why we don't move on, and never miss an opportunity to try to put the blame for all our stupidity on others.

Pranam.

[sm78]

To criminalize how and with whom one has sex is barbaric and perverted. What logic is used to eradicate such outdated barbarism should be the least concern here. I was happy homosexuality was legalized and we don't stand with Saudi Arabia on another issue.

[Jainarayan]

It was only as recently as 2003 that the US Supreme Court overturned state sodomy laws and decriminalized homosexual sex. Only within the past year was the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy prohibiting gay men and lesbians from openly serving in the armed forces repealed.

Yet to this day there are people who clamor for the laws to be reinstated. On another forum one poster said his wish was for homosexuality to be outlawed. So much for the Land of the Free.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Often I wonder about pre-colonial times, not just on this issue, but on many. Wish I had a time machine. The way it is now, you're often questioning, "Is that actually Hinduism, or was it just British influence?"

Aum Namasivaya

[Sahasranama]

Vannakkam: Often I wonder about pre-colonial times, not just on this issue, but on many. Wish I had a time machine. The way it is now, you're often questioning, "Is that actually Hinduism, or was it just British influence?"

Aum Namasivaya

Most of the time, you don't have to wonder, because it is often very clear how the British influenced Hinduism if you compare post colonial apologist and reformist ideas of Hinduism with pre-colonial Hinduism. Written documents can serve as a time machine.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Wish I had a time machine. The way it is now, you're often questioning, "Is that actually Hinduism, or was it just British influence?"

Yes, educated Indians who know the words, Victorian, Elizabethan, Edwardian, Jungian, Shmuck-ian, Stupid-olian or some other non-descript ZZZZian, often make them scapegoats for everything bad in Hinduism. If one is not strong enough in his/her conviction, then one gets swayed by all kinds of influences. The fact that we still cling to 'influences', is due to the lack of conviction on our part that is to be blamed and not the foreigners. Sure, we reacted to external stimuli during different periods, but to keep blaming them even after the passage of time is sheer stupidity. And it is justified by throwing in ZZZZians into the conversation. What a hogwash!

Pranam.