Is RSS more liberal than BJP on section 377 of IPC?

Whether homosexuality should remain a criminal offense under Section 377 IPC,  RSS Joint General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale had said that sexual preferences are a personal matter and the organization doesn’t hold any view on it.“I don’t think homosexuality should be considered a criminal offense”.
“sexual preferences are private and personal. Why should RSS express its views in a public forum? RSS has no view on that. It is for people to have their way. Personal preference of sex is not discussed in RSS and we don’t even want to discuss that.”  Dattatreya Hosabale
Ram Madhav also reiterated this belief,  “As for Section 377, let us see what stand the government takes on this issue. But I can say this - the penalizing and criminalisation aspects need to be looked into. Whether to call homosexuality a crime and treat it as one in this day and age is questionable.”
But unlike vocal RSS, the Bhartiya Janta Party has maintained his noble silent on this issue, although many in BJP like Arun Jaitley support decriminalization many don’t which is not unlike other parties. Sashi Tharoor was shushed not just by BJP but his own party members.
Does BJP lack any cohesive ideology? What is Integral humanism in BJP anyway?

Is homosexuality objectively and scientifically natural?

"Nature had created sexual organs merely for reproduction and hence naturally they should be used merely for reproduction" I believed that I've grown immune to this sentence, years ago when I started writing about homosexuality I would often get these type of comments from conservatives. I would get agitated easily and ask them to tell, what is so natural about airplane technology and so on (read my earlier ranting here)
Recently I was given the same reason, but the difference was that the person who stated this was pro-LGBT. Needless to say, that person agreed that airplane technology is unnatural but acceptable nonetheless.
The argument put forward was that homosexuality should be accepted because of the free will of individual rather than it being a natural thing. The purpose of sex is the reproduction and homosexual relationship doesn't fulfill this purpose, we have to look into the matter in an objective and scientific way without getting emotional on the issue. Masturbation and contraception are equally unnatural and even though it is unnatural it is accepted as a person is exercising the free will of an individual.
But I have several problems with this stand which I would like to point out here,
Firstly, the argument of homosexuality being unnatural historically is put not to explain the sexual behavior of human under scientific curiosity and there is hardly a question of objectivity but more about that later. That 'Homosexuality is unnatural' was put to dehumanize and demean homosexuals as Deviant or sick people. Using the word 'unnatural' today would still have a negative impact and would not generate acceptance in society.
On the other hand, saying one have free will and one becomes deviant is an ideology that is appropriate for church.
The god does not like homosexuality but gave us free will and due to satanic temptations, some come to like it and hence they are evil is the Christian theology. Homosexuality is a sin, we don't hate sinner who having free will have fallen to Satan's plan but hate the sin which is satanic' this is an age old logic put forward by the conservative.
When the western world became disillusioned with the church, the state and church were separated and so was the people approach to look at things, but it couldn't be said that it cut the chord that instant with the culture, which the church governed and imposed its ideology upon for centuries. They desperately needed a new vocabulary to justify their innate homophobia and invented words like unnatural, Deviant etc. homosexual were not sinner now but diseased and homosexuality was not satanic but sickness. The conservative felt validated by these scientific 'findings"' and quickly adapted to this rational sounding argument.
What was it, if not a mere change of words?
Somehow a person could still accept the homosexual as equal healthy being just because they have free will within this unnatural framework is very surprising, I must congratulate the person, but I doubt many would be able to do the same.
Secondly, In terms of being objective in our approach to discover what is the purpose of sex, I must say this is a futile work. Nature being inanimate, it could not validate any objective reason for purpose of sex which then is given to it by the human being without its consultation subject to human understanding.
Even so within human understanding, an objective approach would want for evidence which would not support the theory that the sex is essentially for reproduction. Throughout history sex has been used for several purposes, expression of love, fulfilling the marital duty, a manipulating tool, an intimidating threat, reproduction, sexual gratification, violence and harassment, spiritual awakening, religious rituals and even as a currency are few examples among many others. Choosing one as the real purpose of sex is oversimplifying the complex nature.
Another way to look into it is to ask whether anything is unnatural at all? The human psyche itself is the product of nature. If natural selection has not eliminated homosexuality should we question the "naturality" of the way human beings are evolved? A better approach to it would be to try to understand how homosexuality has a part to play in human existence which may make us realize it is not the only reproduction that is responsible for our species continuous existence.
A homosexual relationship is real, in terms of existence, I will go back to my original stand if it exists it is natural just because it does not fulfill the expected notion of the purpose of relationship in direct way would not mean it serves no purpose at all. A Scientific approach would mean to look for evidence, and the existence of heterosexual relationship could not discredit the existence of homosexuality. They both exist, they both must have a purpose, in strictly scientific terms of course.
Should homosexual accept the label unnatural even when many negative connotations are involved in it? Do you think there would ever be an objective and scientific response of what is the purpose of sex? Is free will? and individual freedom enough to grant rights to an individual? Let me know what readers responses are to these questions.

The Gay Debate

Some say, “Homosexuality is unnatural!” (Do notice the exclamation mark). भाई जान, “हाथ कंगन को आरसी क्या?” Don’t they exist? Our great ऋषि जैमिनी said, “Perception is the best proof of Dharma.”
So मित्रों, before you start refuting logic tell me, what is so natural about airplanes, artificial intelligence, spaceships and beautiful girls.
One of my girlfriends asked me once, “Hey! Do you like my makeup?”
“Yes! You do a good Pikachu” I said.
When Neil Armstrong set his foot on the moon, that incident was as natural as Rakhi Sawant’s face (no offense).
राखी सावंत से याद आया, बाबाजी कहते हैं, “अगर आपके पूर्वज समलैंगिक होते तो क्या आप पैदा होते?” बाबजी और अगर वे सन्यासी होते तो दही मठ कर बच्चे निकालते? Maybe but those dahi-mathi kids always grow up into certain Raksashas, Apsaras, and Kinnaras.
I was watching a Hollywood movie with one of my girlfriends, I could not remember the exact dialogue but it might have gone like this –
“Hey, Sebastian! Where are you going?”
“To the yoga class”
“The yoga class, why? Are you gay?”
Not anymore my stereotypical friend, because Babaji says he can cure gays by yoga! Hurray………. Shushrut couldn’t do it, Patanjali failed, Charka also failed but this manifestation of Dhanwantari can.
Babaji also says, “ये हमारी संस्कृति के खिलाफ है।”
कहने को तो बाबाजी की योग संस्कृति है।. But this बाबाजी की संस्कृति is ‘the last novelty left in India.’ The legacy of our great white masters only flavored for Indian palate. मसाला मार के you see.
I was walking around with one of my girlfriends when she said, “Hey what is this ugly pungent smell?”
“What you call ugly, people are intoxicated by it. Look there it is ठेका देसी शराब।’”
“Well indeed Mr. Philosopher, but can you tell what stinks worse than this and is still more intoxicating?” She asked.
“I’ve no idea”
“Get Idea, its ‘ठेका देसी संस्कृति’”
It is often said, east or west India is the best. But sahib India has not only east and west but also north and south and all the in-betweens. यहाँ तो संस्कृति का जमघट है। वैदिक संस्कृति, अवेदिक संस्कृति, मौर्य, गुप्त, मुग़ल, चौल, अहोम, अंग्रेजी राज, राजस्थानी, पंजाबी, मद्रासी। Southeast Asia is the only sub-continent which has a language dedicated to a queer subculture. The Hijra-Farsi of Hijra people of India. राजस्थान की लोक कथाओ से लेकर पौराणिक और आगमिक मिथकों तक क्या फिलिस्तीन की संस्कृति है?
Someone asked Mamdhatri, “Hey Mady! How is your mother?”
“He is fine,” Mandy said.
“No Mandy, I’m asking about your mother”
“Define Mother.”
“The women who suckled you.”
“I'm suckled by a man Sakra, he is fine.”
“No Mandy, umm how is the woman who gave birth to you?”
“Well I'm born of a man, King Yuyanashwa and he is also doing well”
“No Mady. How is your father’s wife?”
“He married thrice, about whom you ask?”
“The one you call your mother Mandy!”
“I told you! He is fine.”
Marriage is a union of two selves it is said. Abhinavagupta tried producing Manas Putras, he failed so the poor guy has to marry.
Apparently one marries because one has to beget. The gay couple can never beget so they should never marry.
If a gay couple does marry, they can always adopt, can’t they? Dattak putram! Well not as per law. A gay couple cannot adopt but a gay person can adopt as a single father beside the point of his relationship status. So in a certain way, they can still adopt. Each one of them can but not together. There is a reason the LGBT group takes Indian constitution too personally.
बाबासाहब बता तूने ये क्या किया?
Talk about rights, जानवरों के पास भी ज्यादा हकूक है।. Elementary rights you know. But the article 377 is not at all discriminatory. It oppresses as much the ‘straight couples who are into non-missionary positions’ as the gay couples. It is a secular oppression. It is a law of a secular republic, its secularism is an axiom. Isn’t it?
परन्तु प्रजापति की माया देखो। In some way gay marriage is not illegal in India, child marriage is. One has to decide what is more anti-social and immoral and what is more abundant.
One of my girlfriends asked me a totally out of the context question, “who made these morality laws anyway?”
All of a sudden Brahma appears, “I did” He said.
“Brahma Dev Ji, didn’t you lusted after your daughter and married her?”
“Yes...” Brahma confessed, “I made laws after that.”
Notwithstanding, Indian is the only society that has recognized the third gender for ages. The recent amendments in law also recognize their marriages and rights. It took years to protect those who were socially acceptable and religiously divine. How much time would it take for dubiously social people who are held demonic?

Pepper Spray

Pepper Spray

………With becoming a republic; a free and dynamic nation in 1947, India’s parliament was established with a hope of building a country for liberal and democratic values. The parliament witnessed proselytized and thought provoking debates. The house once echoed with the voices of political giants like Pt. Nehru, Maulana Azad, Lohia, and Bajpai. Now our elected members prefer ‘Bhagat Singh’ style of self-expression over normal (read orthodox) way of speaking at the allotted time…(Which Singh was not provided duh…..).. With this new and quite effective way of functioning, Lok Sabha TV may even catch up with Goswami’s TRP.
‘Why would an MLA require pepper spray?’ I think this is not a justified question.
    But of course, our story has nothing to do with any of these things.

Everyone writes a story about small cities, one of the reasons for this being that nobody checks on the background details- the history and geography of those cities mentioned. So the writer could create its fabled version of the city, romanticizing or demonizing his land. (and yes! ‘ye mere vyaktigat vichar hain’).

My story is about a wannabe metro city, Lucknow.  This also is a story about its inherited dance style and of the dancer.

“Was not Wazid Ali Shah a dancer?”
And here is shiraj, a dancer. One of the Kathakas…. arguing with his elder sister who propositioned him to leave his ‘effeminate’ style.
“Was not Wazid Ali Shah a dancer?”, he shouted. “and he also wrote a treatise on dancing!, Kalka-Binda, whose dheory is a pilgrimage to performers around the world and the whole Maharaj lineage Pt. Chitresh Das and all…..”
“And then there are you!” Kulsoom interrupted. “you are not them and they are not you! They are gurus and probably do not have a sister who has to face the entire taunt her friends throw at her.”
“I do not dance for them!”
“That is one of my concern, who do you dance for?”
This had been a troubling question for every dance enthusiast, “Who do they dance for?”. The dancer would be thrown into retrospect. ‘God’, ‘Audience’, ‘Friend’ and ‘Soul’ are but deceiving answers, superfluous indeed. Yet our Shiraj will not stop arguing, he is not going to back up, after all, it is not easy to have a Kathak guru for a boy even in a Gharana city.

Once his friend asked, “Is it really hard being a male Kathak Dancer?”
“Not at all, the only difficulty is to find a master”, he politely answered.
“why is that?”
“The male gurus are a little hesitant to admit a boy.”
“and female gurus?”
“Please do not make me start!”. He grinned

Even though his usual detestation of Feminist women gurus, he was a disciple of Chitrangda. She was a beautiful lady in her early thirties. One should look at her while she dances. Her hair was straight but curled down the waist. She had a wheatish complexion, a near 5 feet 8 inches. Her tatkar was lightening speed. She seemed to manifest Gauri in Lasya and Bhairava in Tanadava. Her face was perfect, light brown eyes that would lighten anything she looks at and a smile to die for.
Shiraj was fond of her, and she was of him.
Now when enough bhumika is made, I shall return to the story.
Shiraj was not in his usual self that day, he was feeling uneasy. Uneasy but also relieved. ‘No school today’, he thought and called on to his sister.
“Didi, I’ll not go to school today”
“why so?”
“No one teaches there!”
“why is it called school then?”
Anyway, he did convince his sister. After watching movies and incessantly changing channels for hours he got bored. So he called Chitrangda, ‘Maybe I can go and see what she does in working hours’
She picked up the phone, “yes Shiraj?”
“May I come there now?”
“right now?”
“yes!”
“yeah, anytime dear!” she responded.
So Shiraj informed her sister and went.
“Hello dear! No school today?”, children are used to this kind of greeting.
“Na, just bunked, what’s with you?”
“Over with morning classes!”
“Tiresome ha?”
“yeah”
So Shiraj and Chitrangda chatted for a while.
“we may practice”
“yeah sure”,  and then they danced.
Starting from gat, then to badi gat. Fierce tatkar on teen tal of table and on pakhawaj. All chakkars encapsulated into a choreography tukda by tukda.

“I’m tired”, Chirangda confessed
“Me too”, said Shiraj. “Should I go now?”, he asked.
“Not at all”, she smiled, “you can rest here”

so Shiraj slouched on the couch while Chitrangda went to make him a Sherbet. She returned with a glass full and gave it to him sitting beside him.
“I’m so tired”, she exhaled.
“so am I”, Shiraj said without much interest.
“My shoulder hurts”
“Maybe because of swift turns”, He hypothesized
“Yes maybe”, She looked at Shiraj with the corner of her eyes. “Will you massage me?”
“hmmm” Shiraj just murmured.

“It hurts a lot”
“okay”, Shiraj agreed.
So Chitrahgda sat with her back towards Shiraj and Shiraj kneeled on couched for better orientation and started pressing her shoulder.
“A little left, a little right, rub near the neck, yes there”, and Shiraj just followed her direction.
“Is it more dark near the neck area?” She asked
“No, why?”, Shiraj enquired
“behind is usually darker”
“It’s okay”
“You are so fair, your hand contrast my shoulder so much”, She sighed. “people do not like dark girls”
“You are not that dark” Shiraj further assures, “In fact some people like me, like darker complexion”
“You like dark girls?”
“Not too dark but a little”
“Like me?”
“yes”
Chitrangda puts her hand over Shiraj’s and started patting. Shiraj was feeling a little uneasy now.
She turned over and looked into his eyes, “you are so beautiful”, she said
“yes I’ve heard people saying that”, Shiraj who was now sweating acknowledged. “I should probably go!”
“Why?”, Chitrangda contested.
She touched her face and started rubbing, “Why are you so afraid?”, Shiraj was trembling, and when Chitrangada with her fingers stroked his lips he broke.
“I’ve to go”, he got up and hasted towards the door.
“What are you afraid of?” Chitrangda shouted. “You haven’t finished your Sherbet!”
Shiraj returned to his home. After calming himself for an hour or so, he went to his sister who was working in the kitchen.
“I’ll not go for Kathak class”
“Enough practice for today? Huh”, His sister asked.
“No I mean I’ll never go for kathak class, and I may need a pepper spray”
There was a confused look on His sister before she smiled and returned to her work.
=============X==========X==========X============

On Article 377

Hold My Hands Friend.........

Man Holding Hand

Three is a photo regulated and shared around FB on LGBT pages, it says " Why society prefer Man holding guns than man holding hands." and my Indian friends related with it. `Related' are they blind fold?
Isn't man holing hands a common sight in India,but not in west!
and this is what one foreigner has to say , " Two burly guys saunter down the street, their chest hair exposed, their faces scowling, their muscles bursting out of their one-size-too-small shirts. Everything about their appearance screams ‘I want to kill you with my bare fists and then have sex with lots of women’ – everything, that is, except for the fact that their hands are locked tightly together in an intimate embrace reminiscent of young lovers on the seashore"
In India Male holding man hand is not at all a taboo also unlike in west they are never stigmatized, still western people an their Indian urban ghulams always give creepy theories about why man hold hands in India.
Indian guys are found of holding hands. When western visit they surely put it there blog. It's funny, weird and fascinating according to them. In there culture man do not hold hand until they are romantically involved.
Read this most biased but real post
http://www.stuffindianslike.com/2008/04/170-holding-hands.html

Why the hell Indians hold hand? They ask themselves and many put up this bizarre theory ''because of sexual repression of Indian man, they could not hold hand of girl so hold do best they can'' interesting enough many Indian say that it is in lower society and small cities not in urban and civilized part.  Another theory among Indians themselves (if I dare call them Indian as they are blind folded slave of great west white masters) "they are unaware of stigma" truth may be but this is a screwed up analysis.
Holding hand has nothing to do with sex or sexuality in 'uncivilized' world. It is human nature to hold hand of his friend or relative irrespective of sex/sexuality. Holding hand is about relations. Romantic, bromantic, friends and all not just romance. Holding hand is natural not holding hand is cultural. Naturally man is inclined to hold hand of another person but due to culture one is stigmatized either way.
holding hands are common human behavior nothing to do with sexuality. Establishing this the question like 'why Indian men hold hand' is stupid instead it should be 'why western men do not hold hand?'. Still they and there gandchatu Indian slave have given nonsense theories. 1st theory of sexual repression only seems logical to a fragile impotent mind unable to reproduce his own thoughts. Because even a slight examination of this theory clears that it is based on a screwed up analysis.
To say man hold hands as they can not hold hand of women is evidently wrong. Yes I believe that in traditional Indian society man holding hand of women is despised. But this only strengthen the view that is is 'non holding' of hands which needs speculations not the common natural thing man holding hand or holding hand in general. In India love was a taboo, but if it was only conditional then why boys or child hold hand? Or why married friends hold hand? This theory works on a logic that western society is ideal, natural. Since men holding hand is not common in west or north american they see all straight men hand holding as aberration. Since they do not see man-man intimacy apart from romantic association, they assume that it is common across he world. Well, Men hold hand in many other culture too, in south east Asia,china and in tribal culture where sexual liberalism is high. So this theory is stupid and works on same logic which once dictated man-man sex un natural. The thing is holding hand has nothing to do with sex or sexuality, like child hold hands without any sex/sexuality consideration. Instead not holding hand has deep sex, moral and stigma playing behind.

This theory of sexual repression falls but still the 2nd theory of 'unaware of stigma' by our growling slaves is also a product of blind faith.  Does unaware of stigma means unaware of man to man sex? If so nothing can be far from truth. I hear similar things from fellow gay who say that there parents or forefathers are/were unaware of homosexuality. Are words like gandu, gandwa, gand maru, landura, manahara western? The common form of apology like 'ab gand lega kya' or 'chal ab gand mar le' is found  in west or among  urban civilized Indians? One can in an ask there grandmom about gandu, or dohna or hear about folk lesbo stories. It is not unaware of stigma but absence of it in hand holding. M2m sex is of course taboo but not m2m hand holding because sex is out of context in hand holding in India at least for men.
since both nonsense theory are thrown and it is established that hand holding is human behavior nothing to do with sex and sexuality, the question why men hold hand in India? Is as meaningless as existence of god. Instead the question should be about why men do not hold hand in west? And why men-women not in India? The later's answer is love taboo in India which is slowly vanishing as me can see bf-gf hand in hand and the former's answer is obvious but it is not seen to be lessening, instead it is being imported here in India none other than our 'om namo westernization' group. Although I'm grateful that this new wave of sexual liberty has entered through west. But it also brought up western stereotype and has produced deadly combo of east hypocrisy-west stereotype in urban educated people. I want to hold hand of my friend, boyfriend and brothers and let my sex/sexuality remain out of this as it is today in India. India is changing, sad urban Indian follow anything west as. But is west also ready to change?

                                                                                    Why not hold hands?


Holding hands if so natural then why in west men do not hold hands? and in India why not man-woman hold hands? they say that because men in West are conscious of their sexuality or better to say insecure. the stigma is very much prevalent and no one wants other to think they are gay unless they actually are. This of course has a stereotypical view behind that hand holding is romantic or even erotic. this explains a lot but still something is missing. two girls are seen holding hands and stigma is not strong there.  So something else is also playing here and that is idea of manhood as like possession. Common belief is that gays are not manly or lack muscularity. The men insecurity about his manhood plays vital role here while girls continue to have intimate relationship. two girls hand in hand are not called manly in fact hand holding itself is deemed girly. Hand Holding with assumed association to girls and gay make western men avoid hand holding . The situation in India is different. In India while Men hold hand, Hand holding among man-woman is not liked. This also seems to have something to with romantic assumption of hand holding. But this again is not a complete picture. If in India hand holding was romantic then men hand holding would have been a greater taboo, which it is not. So here an universal myth that 'A man and  a woman can not be friends' is working, also it has been fueled up with the hypocritical eastern mentality which fails to see man-woman relationship apart from blood/sex. In brief, the main reason for not hand holding is it's imagined romantic/ erotic association, and different taboo/dislike of romantic/erotic relationship in different culture is thus reflected in Hand Holding.

The stereotype import

This is really worrying that in modern Indian urban society men holding hands are now a rare sight. It's even despised. The reason for this can be increasing awareness of homosexuality among urban masses, but I do not think so. Girls in India are not unlike for their hand holding. The non-urban area homosexuality is not associated with feminine guys instead with truck drivers and pathans. 'Teri gand mar lunga', 'aa chuppa de', 'aaj chikne ko chodunga', 'chal aaja mar le meri aur age barh', 'ab kya gand maroge?'  like sentences are found among gundas and bhaiyas. Men in Urban India are just Importing western stereotype. That the women still can hold hand while men can not, just like in west proves this. Even mixed with eastern hypocrisy, which helps them to blind fold their thoughts from self evident perceptible truths, they are an interesting hybrid. Once an English entrepreneur (stationed in south east)  said, 'east is very good in copying, good labors but they are unable to produce any original thoughts'. I've no wonder accepting his thoughts as he was seeing our urban, educated and civilized eastern guys. In India, the civil engineers and all just prove his point. BT- brinjal is just another example. We see west developed, so anything in west is seen ideal. We forget to see that development in west is not by Infrastructure or orthodox western culture but it came with, universalism, liberalism and socialism. They are trying there best (the intellectual west) to eliminate the stereotype present in western society, but in educated Indian society there is a tendency to idolize west and import any such cheap thoughts.

The Optimist me

I've a hope, not with our 'om namo westernization' Indians who think nothing in west can go wrong, but from west itself. The society there is growing more secular, socialist and developing a sense of communism and  tolerance. Being in a secular socialist republic nation these are the things I like. Our educated urban thought slave if keep on following their white master will surely come to this too. I just hope that, if eastern hypocrisy do not play then even our urban Indians while following their western ideals who are shedding stereotype, will also shed their's.

Appendix

I also never liked some LGBT actions. They kinda promote many natural human thing as exclusively to gays. On the line of west. Mature activist like kavi, vanita, kidwai, bandhoppadhya do work on Indian context. It is the amateur activist who kind of piss me off. They do what biologist did with bt brinjal and its result will also be similar. It does not take a deep research but a common sense and open mind. Nobody worship Thor in India, so abusing him will not cause blasphemy. So things will work when done in context or either they will in neglected or worst worsening the situation. I somehow feel sexual communalism is inevitable, I try to remain secular.