Politically Incorrect

The issue of morality in personal relations

During this summer I had gone to India after a gap of three years and it was quite a roller-coaster. Most things aside what pleasantly surprised me was the growing out-in-the-open debate about issues previously considered a taboo. Anything and everything from working women, single women, homosexuality, marital rape, pre-marital sex, live-in relations, surrogate motherhood to communalism, poverty, unemployment all are up for debate. On the same hand, what disappointed me were the regressive themes in Indian media- both television and films- that is a strong mode of communication in the young country. Most of all, it was a summer that made me think a lot more than usual and as I say, it helped me move from “bhaarat maataa ki jai” to “vasudhaiv kutumbkam,” making me further more of a humanist, though without being apologetic of symbols and rituals of my existence- like being a woman.

Here I try to organize some scattered thoughts that randomly played on my mind influenced my thought process to the point where I grow beyond my belief system in a cocoon. Most of all, it confirmed my faith that when a person is blinded by hate, shame and prejudice, it is impossible to think just as a human being.

The overriding theme in Indian media was the issue of morality and it amuses me how it has become the reference point for people’s behaviors. Going by this the Shiv Sainikis, Mullahs and Bible-beaters would be the keepers of all morality and millions of people working on being just humans irrespective of societal sanctions would be immoral. Still new to the issue of homosexuality, it is something that intrigues me even when I teach courses in criminal justice and wonder if the government or the society has a constitutional right to instruct people in their personal life-choices. The easier answer in the West as compared too the East is no, but then somehow across the globe suddenly personal choices have become societal moral issues. But what exactly is moral?

I am sure that the first time a woman had the desire to go out and work, or when she actually stepped out, it was deemed as immoral. When the first woman refused to marry a person who demanded dowry or simply because she did not feel like it, she must have been immoral. We live in a society that has male-defined morality based on religious fears and societal sanctions… Going by this, the millions and millions of people living in non-socially approved relations both in India and abroad, must be immoral… even if they are emotionally totally devoted to each other for years and years.

The morality is a fear that keeps people in line like ants… And I hate to say it but it is the religious fanatics across the board who decide that though they have the same flesh and blood as you and me, but somehow “God” has decided to give them all the knowledge… I mean it’s the “religious” sanctions or lack thereof that tell women that it’s a sin to be involved even with a guy before marriage… or that its immoral for women to walk in skirts… it is “moral” for a wife to not file a police complaint when being abused by a husband or any other family member.

But it sounds more like a societal convenience of routine rather than morality. Not everything convenient is moral… its just that society sets into a rhythm and doesn’t want to get it disturbed… its like a big bureaucracy… where if people think or decide to go their own way, those who cannot feel that they are losing control… the whole idea is that if its like this for years, it must be right… but it’s a flawed argument- slavery existed for over 200 years… women and children are still bought and sold across the globe (1 to 4 million every year, with about 225,000 women and children under the age of 18 years just from Bangladesh) and they are blamed for “getting” into the trade because no “moral” person would do so…

Historically, homosexual relations have long been part of Vedic, Roman, Greek, Melanesian, Roman, Buddhist, Taoist, Christian cultures to name a few… just that at the time people did not see religion as a weapon to generate fear or do business of morality…

There was a time when it was immoral to be a woman and not wear a veil! The result? Millions of women were virtually under house arrest and now people think that if it has been like this for centuries it must be moral, it must be right- a huge of part of what still applies to women all over the world.

In fact, in the Hindu tradition none of the devis had their heads covered, sometime in the medieval India it was deemed immoral and given that people could easily be “scared” in the name of religion and morality, when the heads of idols were covered, women followed too… Guess what, it was the highest level of morality for women to be a sati! And the holders of male-morality decided to serve it as a religious duty!

One of the most convenient ways to put people in line with the societal-control is to play the morality card… because no one really knows what it is…

The other day, it was heartening to see a decent Indian film “My Brother, Nikhil…” that does not make caricatures out of gays etc and challenges stereotypes in its own subtle ways, without being preachy or sexual… It is not about physical aspect… its about emotional-human connection… not frustrations...

At the heights of Nazi rule in Germany, over 6 million Jews including “homosexuals” were killed by Hitler’s forces as they were seen people of a “lesser” God! They were seen as not of pure race or not “normal” enough! It was immoral to be one of “them.” It is like saying if you have blue eyes, while majority has black, there must be something wrong or “immoral.” Simply because its not the norm as most people know it… but that doesn’t mean that one should go blind…

Even by most conservative accounts, about 10% of the world population is gay. But because there is such fear of repercussions, no one really talks about it… I mean how often did we talk/hear about it? I just presumed that we connect to people… Even in the media there is nothing positive or regular about it… Do you, for instance, know that even in India there are regular conferences on how to break such taboos? Do you know that in India and many Islamic countries it is a crime, in many punishable by death simply because its “immoral?” It used to be so in most of the world… but as people evolve in their minds they realize that morality is nothing but time-defined tool to keep controlling people in order to feel comfortable… change or anything different is always uncomforting… but it is not that uncommon either… just that most of us don’t about these issues…

There was a time that child marriage was moral (it is still so in many parts of the Indian subcontinent). The widows of all ages were sent to aashrams for "prayer" and "penance" (while most of these aashrams turned into brothels) and if they were to have any desires- material, physical, emotional- that would be extremely immoral. Even today, a majority of girls in India (and many other countries) are brought up to think that its immoral to even contemplate any feelings for even guys… and yet one day out of the blue they are married off without much choice and expected to be “normal,” “moral” wives?

Homosexuality is not a “disease” or abnormality that you can somehow “fix” by doing what most people see as “normal.” There are people who do so and I am sure that they redefine happiness as “moral” and “normal” people expect from them, but does it give the society the right to control others’ personal lives?

Now, personally, I don’t care who does what in her/his personal life, but it makes me uncomfortable that personal matters have become such public slogan-shouting these days. In past few years, I have met a lot more homosexuals, bisexuals and for that matter heterosexuals and I find it disturbing that we as society label them as moral and immoral without knowing them as people, or if we cannot accept them for who they are then we should just let them be. I have come a long way from the time when I was really shocked to meet the first gay in my life in 1998 during my trip to Kenya. And what changed my perspective is not convenient prejudice but basic education on human emotions. I do not know everything about human relations, mind and body and I thus for one refuse to fall prey to my ignorance and judge people for who they are, just like I would not like to judged on any aspect of my life. It is a matter of having a sense of empathy rather than fear and religious ignorance.

Going back to the film, “My brother, Nikhil…” it just broke my heart towards the end when Juhi Chawla says something like everyone in the family finally became accepting, but it would have been nice if it had happened earlier… Do I understand everything? You bet not. Do certain issues, things, societal trends make me uneasy? You bet that they do. But when it comes to personal relations where people connect as people instead of based on gender, then how difficult is it to let people be just who they are? If I can accept, I do, else I just move on... and I am sure most of us can do the same, IF we develop a humanist approach that we are on this planet for a limited while and do not really know it all.

A few links:
Hypocrisy
Nivedita Menon
My brother, Nikhil

Shahrukh Khan on second hand smoking

I am particularly glad that Shahrukh Khan, the better known Indian film star, has come to speak on the ban on smoking in films. It is amusing to however read his interpretation of a hoarding sign in London- “But I do remember seeing a sign in London which said, 'Papa, when you smoke, I smoke too.' I don't know whether my smoking would make my child a smoker. But if you tell me that such a thing can happen, I'd like to take it seriously." He has clearly misinterpreted the issue of second-hand smoking that kills over 58,000 people every year. Though I am extremely glad to learn that the actor recognizes that the so called creative expression and smoking are not tied together by default and he makes a good case of portraying Churchill. But I am also left wondering how long it might take the anti-tobacco campaigns to penetrate the mindset of Indian masses that do not always have access to the best of information, and I do wonder if they can always interpret it correctly. Second, more than the emphasis on banning it in films (which I agree will be quite difficult if not impossible to sustain) the Indian govt. should consider banning it in public places. That is where more and direct harm of second hand smoking exists.

Another useful site: http://www.entnet.org/healthinfo/tobacco/secondhand_smoke.cfm