Same-Sex Unions

– is legalising the solution or opening the Pandora’s box

Introduction

The whole topic of alternate sexual behaviour is often clouded by jargon and complicated explanations. This has caused more confusion than understanding of the agenda of the rainbow community of LGBTQ (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-Queer) as each sub community has its own agenda that are sometimes conflicting but often common.

The heat generated by mild to severe condemnation by religious and moral bigots have only caused people to either clam up or begin quoting standard politically correcgt cliches without believing them. This article therefore seeks to consider the whole debate within in a secular framework with the hope that it would clarify various viewpoints and thus help readers to arrive at their own conclusions.

While the focus of the discussion is to understanding homosexuality and their current demand for formalizing such unions by way of same sex marriages, other alternate sexual behaviour (like incest, bestiality, sadism, and certain forms of paraphilia) would also get discussed. This discussion will not consider region specific topics (like relevance/ applicability of Sec 370 in India) or seek to promote specific religious/ culture norms.

Understanding Gender Identity/ Gender Orientation

Every person has both male and female characteristics (some say in 80:20 proportion) which could explain why some men develop breasts and some women develop facial hair should those proportions vary for any reason. While these are largely the result of physiology and thus can be addressed by medical intervention, there are other aspects of human identity, orientation and practice that are largely in the psycho-social domain. It is therefore most important to first understand the general terms used in discussion since some of them are used loosely and without understanding the confusion they are causing in communication

• GENDER was once a grammatical term used to identify objects by classifying them into male/ female and neuter genders. Now gender has often replaced 'sex' and is used in application forms to help identify the sexual identity of an applicant as male, female or neutral.
• SEXUAL IDENTITY is the biological sex of a human. It could be male, female, eunuch/ intersex/ hermaphrodite. This is determined by the shape of sexual organs. It is similar to the term “gender” and often used within the LGBTQ community to mean gender. This term should not be confused with gender orientation (like being man one day and intersex the other) or sexual orientation (like homosexuality, paedophilia, sodomy, paraphilia, sadism, masochism, incest, etc).
• GENDER IDENTITY is a person's personal/ private sense of and subjective experience of, their own gender. This is generally described as one's private sense of being a man or a woman, consisting primarily of the acceptance of membership into a category of people: male or female or androgyne (or intersex though I think the Indian term 'hijra' is inclusive though now used as a pejorative term).
• GENDER/ SEXUAL ORIENTATION is personal quality that inclines or orients people to feel romantic and/or sexual attraction to persons of the opposite sex, the same sex, or to both sexes. These attractions are generally labelled as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and even asexuality (i.e. the lack of romantic or sexual attraction to others).
• SEXUAL PRACTICES relates to the manner in which humans experience and/ or express their sexuality resulting in some form of sexual activity. Such sexual activity can be classified in a number of ways such as:
  > By Participant Numbers - May involve one or more persons... such as self satisfaction, sex between couple and group sex.
  > By gender/ sexual orientation - heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and even asexuality
  > By Relationship - marriage, friendship, casual sex partners, anonymous, adult-child (pedophilia), blood/ near blood relationship (incest) and animals (bestiality)
  > By Method - conventional (penile-vaginal or masturbation) or alternative (e.g. fetishism, paraphilia, sadism, masochism, sodomy, and/or BDSM activities)
  > By social norms - with or without force/ duress (consensual or rape), with or without payment (prostitution or devadasi system)

The difference between orientation and practice is that orientation does not necessarily mean acting out on the attraction. Practice implies the act taking place.

Understanding Same-Sex

The agenda for the promotion of alternate sexual orientation and practice was mainly led by the ‘LG’ part of the community (as homosexuals were far more vocal than the 'BT' community but now the 'Q' community also has decided to join the bandwagon.) One can, of late, observe increased sound-bites by the 'BTQ' community who are equally (if not more) marginalised on account of perceived sexual deviation from social norms. The usual arguments for decriminalizing Same-Sex relations center around the following lines of reasoning:

• It is natural

Often expressed by those coming out of the closet with statements like:

~ I have never been attracted to members of the opposite sex

~ I have always felt attracted to members of my own sex.

~ It is the only way I can express or experience my sexuality with another.

~ That is my sexual orientation.

• It exists in nature

Homosexuality behaviour has been noticed and documented by animal researchers despite the fact animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and still remain poorly understood. E.g. they have estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are between homosexual males. Similar paring have been observed among monkeys, mallard ducks, goats, etc.

• It is consensual and between adults

Implying and/ or questioning the society's right to interfere with the sexual practices of consenting adults who use their critical faculties to understand and make reasoned decisions.

• Its a lifestyle and not just a sexual practice

Meaning that, like heterosexuals, sex is just one part of the lives for homosexual couples. It is not the be all and end all of their lives though. Homosexual couples may come home, ask each other about their day, cuddle on the couch, listen to music, socialize, etc. There is much more to their relationship than just sex.

Arguments against same-sex unions

Some arguments that seek to demolish the arguments put up by defenders of same-sex are presented here:

• It is natural

Those who argue that human behaviour is genetic or defined by instinct do not know that the only behaviour that is instinctual is the sucking and the grasping reflex. Every baby comes equipped with these two reflexes from birth. All other human behaviours/ habits are learned – right from doing potty, eating and speaking are all entirely learnt that over time is converted to a habit. Once it become a habit it feels natural. Homosexuality is natural is yet to be proven.

• It exists in nature

The 'it exists in nature' argument has only one meaning for the entirety of nature is geared towards the propagation of species and its survival. If homosexual behavior exists in nature then there is a 'survival of the species' behind it. E.g. in the earlier section it was mentioned that 25% of all black swans pairings are between homosexual males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs. Animal researchers noticed that more cygnets (baby swans) survive to adulthood than those born to hetero-sex pairs. It was theorized that this may be due to the homosexual pair's superior ability to defend larger portions of land. This was also noticed in male flamingo pairs which raised chicks. However humans do not conceive and bring up the their children in this manner or for this purpose.

Another line of thinking is that there are many animal behaviours which nature uses to promote unusual ways of procreation like virgin birth (a.k.a. parthenogenesis), hermaphroditism and both polygyny and polyandry. That does not imply that nature want humans to use these as alternates methods for procreation.

Among the alternate sexual behaviors found in nature, none of them ensure that the female of the species experience sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure or orgasm is present only in human females. So those suggesting the 'it exists in nature' would also have to support their argument by explaining why the non-human female has not developed orgasmic capability. If it cannot be done then their argument is flawed.

• It is consensual and between adults

While the argument that society has no right to interfere in the sexual preferences of consenting adults appears legitimate yet it is the same society that we turn to to makes laws that ban/ restrict the consumption of drugs, tobacco and alcohol even by adults. Should society then allow the free sale and consumption of drugs, tobacco and alcohol to such consenting adults who can take matured reasoned judgement. Also there are no objective tests to judge if consent is free and knowledge is available hence the age of maturity & consent is based on some irrational and arbitrary number decided in law.

• Its a lifestyle and not just a sexual practice

Defenders of same-sex unions while passionate about supporting homosexual unions often become critical and defensive in extending the same enthusiastic support to alternate sexual behaviour like paedophilia, incest, sadism, masochism, bondage, etc.:

Double standards by those promoting same-sex

Lines of reasoning often change depending on the type of alternate sexual orientation and practice that is being discussed. Hence the arguments are being presented by classification of sexual orientation and practice:

PAEDOPHILIA:

It is not consensual or based on informed consent. It is not a social norm. Prepubescent children don't know what is sex. Children are incapable of deriving any pleasure from the sexual act since pleasure is one of the main reasons why people have sex. Consent without knowledge of what children get into does not count. The State should protect children with very stringent laws and their entitlements are sacrosanct.

Let us get real. I am sorry to be the one to break ‘romantic’ notions about children. Children, even as young as one year, are capable of activities that appear sexual. Normally such activities are displayed by way of self stimulation and NOT by way of sexual stimulation of another. Such self stimulation behavior, is actively discouraged by parents and relatives. Thus to assume children are incapable of deriving sexual pleasure is an unfounded notion.

Children may not know understand why girls and boys look different or what the final purposes of those body parts are. Generally by the age of three parents and relatives have completely brainwashed the children into believing that their groin and buttocks are a cause for shame and scandal. The fact is that children continue to explore their bodies but also derive pleasure from such exploration – though part of the pleasure is from discovery and part is from of overcoming the fear of touching parts that are deemed as shameful another part of their pleasure does come from realizing that such touch leads to 'sexual pleasure' not leading to orgasm.

While 'societal norms' as a basis for outlawing homosexuality is considered as unacceptable line of reasoning, this same argument is often strongly used for deciding age of consent and maturity.

Moreover in a secular discussion often an appeal is made to our sacred duty to a child which is no more than an appeal to god and religion and hence irrelevant. If we wish to use religion as a valid point, then indeed there are certain religious/ cultural groups that show no moral qualms in promoting paedophilia for their god/s and culture permits sex e.g. with pre-pubescent girls.

BESTIALITY:

Beasts are not citizens claim some. Some condemn bestiality as they are not satisfied about the response to the issue of obtaining consent from a beast. There argue that beasts cannot verbally tell if their consent was forced. Still other argue that to train beasts would involve initial resistance from the animal and such sex would be non consensual at least the first few times. And if the consent is dubious in the beginning itself, then there is no reason continue the sexual act.

If beasts are not citizens then why do States frame laws on ethical treatment of animals. It is known that animals will not do something that do not wish to do. E.g. a cow or a goat will not eat meat even if they are starving and near death. Then who can judge if the animal having sex with a woman has not consented or the animal is being forced into sex by a man.

Since animals can be trained to do that which is not their normal behavior (as often seen in circus)... including having sex with people. It is fundamentally a question of motivation (and not fear as some people are led to believe.) Displayed behavior could be considered as a form of non-verbal consent. E.g. if it eats what is offered, then it amounts to consent for the food offered likewise for sex.

Let us for a moment assume that overcoming initial resistence is forced concent and extend that logic to people. In almost every case people initially have resistance to sex before they accept sexual enjoyment as a source of pleasure. Hence to then say that all subsequent person-to-person sexual activity is non-consensual just because the person did not initially 'agree to sex' or 'initially found sex to be painful' or found sex 'enjoyable' only subsequently is false logic.

OTHER SEXUAL PRACTICES:

● If sadism, masochism, use of sex toys and sodomy are sought to be criminalized then they cannot be accepted as legitmate sexual practice between couples in homosexual lifestyles.

● If sadism, masochism, use of sex toys and sodomy are sought to be decriminalized then sexual incompatibility could never be the grounds of cruelty in heterosexual marriage.

POLYGAMY/ POLYANDRY:

Today, the State accepts marriage as being a union only between two persons. Why should not the State go beyond the two-some arrangement and legitimize relationships to include three-some and beyond in defining legitimate sexual lifestyle?

INCEST:

If same sex relationships should be decriminalised then why not extend the same benefit to incest? Why should incest be seen as a crime?

One of the arguments used against incest is that it could lead to birth of children with defective genes and social problems related to the upkeep and development. However homosexual votaries feel offended when they are presented with the reality that prevalence of AIDS/ HIV is higher among homosexual couples.

Homosexual couples also use the argument that today medical science has improved to curtail/ cure AIDS/ HIV. But this is true for detection of gene defects and incestuous couples could use this medical technology to detect and prevent such births.

Logic Surrounding Same-Sex Marriage

Till now we have considered the topic of same-sex relationship and considered arguments for and against decriminalizing such practice. However, votaries of homosexuality are not satisfied with that and want to push the social envelope and promote legal marriage as one between same-sex also. Their main argument is that the State provides financial and tax benefits for heterosexual couples and the same should be extended to homosexual couples.

If we accept the financial/ tax argument as a legitimate, then by the same logic the State should consider granting marital status to people whose sexual lifestyles include bestiality, paedophilia, incest, as also polygamous and polyandrous marriages.

Homosexuals refuse to accept that post death financial support for their partner could be done by written will or nomination or other well defined conditional legal documents.

Sex and Secular Morality

The topic of homosexuality and same-sex marriage is not just a decadent western cultural concept/ issue of developed countries but in the last 20 years has become a point of discussion across all cultures especially among liberal/ neo-liberal social groups.

Such discussions has come home to roost in the developing world too and is an oft commented topic in newspapers, magazines and prime time TV. There was a time, in the west, when homosexuality was frowned upon and to even consider it was not just a sin but a criminal offence and hence was not open for legislation to marriage. The times have/ are changing. Hence to imagine that this door will not open to other 'laxman rekhas' of alternate sexual behaviour like paedophilia etc. is to ignoring what's happening in society and the future it portends for our children.

Before some readers feel upset, do not even for a moment imagine to think I am being alarmist. My request to the reader is to understand that the logic of legitimising that which was once illegitimate and whether such logic could also be used to promote and legitimatize other alternate sexual behaviours/ relationships.

While some may argue that such thought should be left to future generations I think it is important for the current generation to understand its contribution in securing the value systems for subsequent generation to live by. To imagine that our generation does not owe future generations a better plant appears narrow, selfish and self-serving. When people use this argument to avoid a debate on a volatile topic I'm often reminded of this provocative poem attributed to pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Agreed that the world of our parents was different as is life today both by the overload of information and the time available to digest it. Hence the same methods of the past would not suffice in the present/ future. As parents, elders and in positions of leadership, we need to take a stand and have clear cogent reasons for it. Our children or their children will not accept "god said so" or "I said so" as a reasonable justification.

Since humans are not pre-programed by way of instinct like animals, children necessarily have to be taught what constitutes civilized behaviour. The basis of such teaching is available in the secular principles of the Golden Rules which are:

• One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself; and its converse
• One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.

These Golden Rules were known across human civilization from ancient Greeks & Egyptians in the West to Indians and Chinese in the East. Even age old religions such as the Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism right up to modern faiths of Humanism and Scientology use it.

The Golden Rules do not command us to worship a god or many gods or none at all. The Golden Rules are not based on fear or greed. Just because we find that certain religions and cultures incorporate it as their standard does not make the golden rules the domain of religion. In fact all human laws governing behaviour can be defined using these Golden Rules without reference to any religion, god or culture.

Hence first and foremost let us understand that while religion defines worship, it does not define morality. Religious morality, if any, is based on fear and greed. The motivation is either reward (place in heaven/ reborn as a higher life form) or punishment (place in hell/ reborn as a lower form of life). We can’t call this ethos morality.

Moral values based on fear, cannot be moral. A moral person is one who has inner control. If you put a gun on someone’s head you can ask for his wallet and he’ll hand it to you. Can you then conclude that this person is a generous person? Of course not! A person who gives you money under threats cannot be called generous, moral or virtuous. Higher qualities that define humanity are made relevant through freedom – freedom of choice and action.

Need for Moral values in Sexual Unions

Since all human behaviour is based on the Golden Rules it thus follows that human sexual practice also needs to be based on the Golden Rules. But first let us understand how does one have sexual relations with with people of the same sex? The only logical way possible is to use those body parts of the partner which are not designed for sex or use certain non-body parts as tools (like dildos or inflatable dolls) to achieve orgasm. And in so achieving that goal of orgasm, there is not much by way of giving since the focus remains largely on getting orgasm.

Let me explain that last sentence. In the heterosexual act of sex both parties can experience orgasm purely by the sexual tools nature has provided. If it does not happen then it could be the result of some physiological anomaly and/ or some psycho-social conditioning. However in case of homosexual act, only one person at a time can experience orgasm since the other person has to to use a tool not meant for the act of sex (could be tongue, fingers or other man-made tool).

Here are some questions that needs response at this point of our exploration:

► Why did nature ensure that only specific body parts feel sexual pleasure?

► Why does the human female get orgasmic pleasure but this capability is denied to every other species in the animal kingdom

► Is there is a larger purpose for these body parts apart from the obvious purpose of ensuring the continuation of the species?

► If there is a larger purpose, how does alternate sex relationships serve that larger purpose?

► Can one can still achieve the larger purpose on one's own by self satisfaction and without the support or help of another?

Promoters of same-sex often do not answer or wish to answer these questions since it is inconvenient and puts them in a spot. However it is possible to answer questions on sexual relationships using the Golden Rules. If the response are reasoned well then one can go to the next logical step of morally accepting and then legitimising such relationships.

Bypassing and/ or refusing to answers these questions lands us in moral morass. Mind you moral trouble does not imply religious quandary. All human relationships when guided by the golden rules (including what goes on in the bedroom) ultimately leads to healthy long term stable relationships.

The Morality surrounding Orgasm

This section attempts to answer the above questions from an anthropological angle to ensure understanding at multiple levels . Keep in mind following two facts during the discussion of this section:

[a] Among all the currently available species in nature, no female in the animal kingdom experiences orgasm except for the human female.
[b] The duration of development of the human child from conception to birth to maturity is between 15-20 years. This is the longest among all animals.

Consider point [a] again. The human female is capable of not just one orgasm per session but multiple orgasms in one session which may be felt in multifarious ways (fleeting, fluttering, deep, with or without ejaculation and in various combinations thereof). Not only that, the stimulation required to bring a woman into orgasm could be located at various parts and not just what is available between her legs. E.g. women are recorded as having orgasms by stimulation of their eyebrows, elbows, shoulders, neck, earlobes, toes and even a man's voice. This is by far impossible for a man who is both incapable of multiple orgasms and can hope to get only one kind of orgasm from only one part of the body.

So the relevant question is why did nature (whether through the act of supreme creative delight OR the dull accident of mutation OR by way of natural selection of the fittest) provide the human female such singular advantages of sexual pleasure (from a man's viewpoint) if her main job was to produce babies? Readers please keep in mind this capability is not present even among our closest relatives in the animal kingdom - the apes/ monkeys. Among the apes the female would just mate (a session not lasting beyond a minute) and then wanders off to forage.

So why has creation/ mutation/ evolution provided multiple orgasms from multiple sources to the human female? Unfortunately, misogyny prevents most men (including preachers of various religion and upholders of religious morality), to comprehend this or let alone answer it. Sadly cultural and sexual inhibition prevents most women to figure this out for surely they would demand better sexual service from their mates. (This is an un-explored dimension of misogyny but that is completely another topic).

Anthropology answers this question. The combination of 'in vivo fertilisation' and the evolution of human species to bipedalism demanded that women remained supine which could happen only post a soul satisfying session of sex. Such need to remain supine would automatically ensure an exponentially higher chance of conceptual success than if she were to take any other position or go about wandering conducting her various tasks immediately after some singularly lackluster sexual encounter. Hence nature (or if you prefer the good Lord in His wisdom) designed the human female to enjoy sex as much if not more than her mate.

From an evolutionary/ creation angle orgasm in women ensured improved chance for conception and thus the continuation of the human species. But it still does not satisfy another question viz.

Why do human females across cultures have an overwhelming preference for monogamous relationship as compared to human males? And what part does biology address that need?

Once again the ability of 'multi-orgasmic sex' by a woman provides a clue. Since conception, birth and ensuring maturity of a human child largely falls within the responsibility of a woman she is predominantly invested in this activity of ensuring the furtherance of the human race. No woman, in her right mind would want to take up this responsibility of her free will if she knew in advance that her mate would wander off with another should he lose interest in her nor be available to support her in the bringing up of their progeny. A woman thus uses a man's ability to help her achieve one or more orgasms as her measure of the attachment her mate to her and to gauge her mate's sensitivity to her needs.

Conversely from a man's point of view a woman who is sufficiently attached/ devoted/ loyal to him would ensure that their joint progeny's greater chance of survival and development. This also explains why men have a preference for multiple females as mates since it ensures greater chance of success for the survival of his genes.

So in the context of a heterosexual relationship the Golden Rules work as follows:

► a man treats a woman as he would like her to ensure the birth to maturity of his offspring.

Conversely:

► a man knows an ill-treated women could very well cheat (or find love) behind his back and it would be too late if he discovers that the child that he helped take care of did not further his genes. The 15-20 years of his effort in the birth to maturity of the child were wasted on what is not his.

Hence the focus of a heterosexual relationship which is to ensure that the partner is not just a baby producing robot but is sufficiently sexually satisfied to be able to overlook her mate's many shortcomings (pun intended) and thus ensure the continuation of his genes. Thus a woman's capability for multiple orgasms gives rise to healthy long term heterosexual relationships which are based on the Golden Rules and so ensuring that children's development and societal growth also take place.

Interestingly this overwhelming but mutual biological need that is based on the Golden Rules is just not present in same-sex couples because their need for investment on a common genetic offspring is neither present nor available. The focus for homosexual couples thus remains only on getting sexual pleasure. To put it crudely – the need to undermine deep seated insecurity and expand on trust remains biologically unaddressed among same-sex couples.

Societal Acceptance & Legitimacy

'Societal acceptance and legitimacy' granted to same-sex relationships/ unions does not ensure support of the Golden Rules. This is true for all other forms of alternate sexual behaviour. While this could be used to argue against granting 'marriage rights' to same sex-couples I would not go so far as to judge that all alternate sexual orientation and practice as being immoral or unnatural or wrong. It would be similar to judging people on their orientation/ behaviour on their pathological need to lie or cheat or steal.

Also the focus on 'societal acceptance' is a red herring. Till about 1000 years back people readily accepted notions like the earth is flat or the earth was at the centre of the universe. Now people would scoff at those who still believe in these ideas. However this does not mean that those who have a preference for or indulge in the practice alternate sexual behavior should be condemned. Just as we notice that nature uses homosexual behavior to the advancement of the species, humans to can find creative ways to ensure that rainbow people to find a place in society and help in the advancement of societal goals.

[Note:

This is my current understanding of this highly volatile and sensitive but relevant topic and is based on his discussions with people supporting and opposing same-sex marriages. It is hoped that the topic is presented in a non-judgemental and open manner.   I hope this article will encourage a reasoned debate and insight so that people can make their own well informed views.  I do not feel compelled to condemn or despise people based on their expression of sexual orientation and/ or sexual practice.  I believe that every person deserves acceptance and respect and it should not be based on anything other than the fact that they exist and also give others the same right to exist.]

What is Jihad?

A Controversial Topic

Jihad can be a painfully controversial topic but I will attempt to steer clear of them and base this article as completely as possible in the way Mohammad understood jihad and as Allah revealed it.  This, hopefully will help us avoid all controversies and keep us to the subject, after all the Quran declares very many times and very clearly too that Mohammad was not just a perfect Muslim but a perfect model for Muslims to follow:

• Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in the Meeting with Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.  [Quran 33:21]

• You (Muhammad) are not, by the Grace of your Lord, a madman.  And verily, for you will be an endless reward.  And verily, you are on an exalted standard of character. [Quran 68:2-4]

Islam is Peace

Who has not heard prominent Muslims and world leads say that Islam means peace?  But is this true?  I do not suggest that Islam means war but that actually Islam means is “submission”.  Submission to the will and mercy of Allah as mentioned in the Quran:

• The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.  [Quran 3:19]

Hence a Muslim is slave of Allah [Quran 19:93] and submits to the will of Allah & his Prophet and would be failing in his duty if they do not ensure that all kafir/ infidel/ non-Muslim also submit to Allah and do as his prophet revealed:

• Remember when your Lord inspired the angels, Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes. this is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and his messenger. And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, then verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. [Quran 8:12-13]

But in contrast, we also have the Quran stating very clearly, powerfully and potently:

To overcome evil with good is good, and to resist evil by evil is evil

• The good deed and the evil deed cannot be equal. Repel the evil with one which is better (i.e. Allah ordered the faithful believers to be patient at the time of anger, and to excuse those who treat them badly), then verily! he, between whom and you there was enmity, will become as though he was a close friend. [Quran 41:34]

No compulsion in religion

• There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut (false deities, Satan, etc.) and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower. [Quran 2:256]

To you your religion and to me mine

• Say O Muhammad: "O disbelievers in Allah! I worship not that which you worship, nor will you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you are worshiping. Nor will you worship that which I worship. To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islam)." [Quran 109]

Islamic Scholars on Jihad

The Al-Azhar University, founded in early 10th century, as a center of Islamic learning is the longest continuously operating  universities in the world and is today the chief center of Islamic learning in the world.  Despite all evidence to Islam being peaceful and without compulsion, Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti writes:

“The Holy war as it is known in Islam is basically an offensive war, and it is the duty of all Muslims of every age, when the needed military power is available, because our prophet Muhammad said that he is ordered by Allah to fight all people until they say ‘No God but Allah,’ and he is his messenger.”

Excerpted from "Jurisprudence of Muhammad’s Biography", Pg. 134, seventh Arabic edition, published by Al-Azhar University of Egypt.

So let us assume for a moment that the best of Islamic scholars are all wrong. Perhaps knowledgeable Muslims can explain why their Holy Quran is peppered with so many commands to kill anyone who does not believe in Allah, the prophet or in the last day?  The next portion of this discussion leads us directly there.

Taqiyya or Truth?

There are those who say Muslims are permitted to deceive non-Muslims and quote the following verse:

• Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. [Quran 16:106]

This is also called taqiyya - an Islamic law/ sharia that permits Muslims to deceive people, break the law or even commit blasphemy. According to them, while it is true that the Allah did reveal the following verses in the Quran:

~ ayah 41:34 (To overcome evil with good is good, and to resist evil by evil is evil)

~ ayah 2:256 (No compulsion in religion)

~ sura 109 (To you your religion and to me mine)

But they also say that top Islamic scholars are unanimous that these verses were revealed when Mohammad was in Mecca and Islam was weak.  After Mohammad went to Medina and gained political and military strength, Allah abrogated [Quran 2:106, 13:39] those earlier verses with something better.

That something better is none other than the Sura 9 (At-Tawbah also known as the Sword-Verses) some of which reads as follows:

• This is a declaration of disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists. So travel freely, O disbelievers, throughout the land during four months but know that you cannot cause failure to Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. And it is an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and so is his messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment. Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term has ended. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous who fear Him. And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.  [Quran 9:1-5]

• It is he who has sent his messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions, though the mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate it. [Quran 9:33, 61:9 and 48:28]

Incidentally Chapter 9 is considered to be the last of the words of Allah revealed to Mohammad and has since not been revoked/ abrogated.  This should be sufficient to provoke us to find out what exactly does Quran say about Jihad?

Allah encourages Jihad:
Normally people do not have to be encouraged to fight to save their own life in defense so it is obvious left to themselves they would be unwilling to fight an offensive war.  Allah had to repeatedly Muslims to wage offensive wars:

• Those who believe say: "Why is not a Surah  sent down for us? But when a decisive Surah explaining and ordering things is sent down, and fighting (jihad) is mentioned (i.e. ordained) therein, you will see those in whose hearts is a disease of hypocrisy looking at you with a look of one fainting to death. But it was better for hypocrites, to listen to Allah and to obey Him.  Obedience to Allah and good words were better for them. And when the matter preparation for Jihad is resolved on, then if they had been true to Allah, it would have been better for them.  [Quran 47:20-21]

• Among the believers are men true to what they promised Allah. Among them is he who has fulfilled his vow to the death, and among them is he who awaits his chance. And they did not alter the terms of their commitment by any alteration - That Allah may reward the truthful for their truth and punish the hypocrites if He wills or accept their repentance. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful. [Quran 33:23-24]

Jihad is not for ransom but slaughter:

• It is not for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war and free them with ransom until he had made a great slaughter among his enemies in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires for you the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. [Quran 8:67]

Call on Peaceful Muslims to fight:

• Then fight in the Cause of Allah, you are not held responsible except for yourself, and incite the believers to fight along with you, it may be that Allah will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah is Stronger in Might and Stronger in punishing. [Quran 4:84]

• Do you think that you shall be left alone while Allah has not yet tested those among you who have striven hard and fought and have not taken helpers (advisors and consultants from disbelievers, pagans, etc.) giving openly to them their secrets besides Allah and His Messenger, and the believers. Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do. [Quran 9:16]

• Do you consider the providing of drinking water to the pilgrims and the maintenance of Al-Masjid-Al-Haram (at Makkah) as equal to the worth of those who believe in Allah and the last day, and strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah? They are not equal before Allah. And Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers).  [Quran 9:19]

Paradise Guaranteed:

• So their Lord accepted of them their supplication and answered them, "Never will I allow to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female. You are members one of another, so those who emigrated and were driven out from their homes, and suffered harm in my cause, and who fought, and were killed in my cause (jihad), verily, I will remit from them their evil deeds and admit them into gardens under which rivers flow in paradise; a reward from Allah, and with Allah is the best of rewards." [Quran 3:195]

• Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the paradise. they fight in Allah's cause, so they kill others and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Quran. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success.  [Quran 9:111]

Jihad is compulsory:

• And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.  [Quran 3:85]

The above does not appear to make Islam optional for any kufur/ non-Muslim and when we combine such verses with those like the following then it appears frightful to kufur folk:

• So, when you fight Jihad in Allah's Cause those who disbelieve, smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter is the time either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection, but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them without you. But He lets you fight, in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,  [Quran 47:4]

Jihad is a Spiritual Struggle

Now, many peace loving Muslims have however tried to explain Jihad in ways other than the traditional way it has been understood often associating Jihad as a personal or spiritual struggle.  However if jihad indeed were a spiritual struggle, as many pacifist Muslims claim it to be, then why did Allah give special grant of exemption to the permanently or temporarily physically disabled (blind/ lame/ etc.):

• Not equal are those of the believers who sit at home, except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit at home. Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit at home by a huge reward; Degrees of higher grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.  [Quran 4:95-96]

Conclusion

No doubt there are verses of peace and forgiveness in the Quran but there also appears an overwhelmingly presence of verses that speak of vengeance, hate and war against the kufur, i.e. one who is not a Muslim .  If one listens to those who blow up  bombs in the streets, trains and shopping malls or those who kill the innocent in the name of god, one can hear them quote these and other such Quranic texts.

Is this Hate Speech?

For those who think that this article is no better than hate-filled speech then they should know that neither the Quran has been misquoted (check note in the end) nor does this article contain the author's personal opinion/ explanation.  What is quoted are the words from Allah which Muslims sincerely believe is given verbatim in the Quran.

Hence people who make make a charge of hate speech, are really claiming that quoting Quran equals hate speech.   Probably they should first ask Muslims why they believe in it, follow it and act according to its dictates?

Either Muslims agree that Quran contains hate speech or they do not. If its the former then why believe it as the holy word of god and if it is not then the least one could do is point out the error so that it can be corrected with humility, grace and grateful acknowledgement.

Is Quran Quoted without Context?
For those Muslims who think that this article quotes Quran out of context then I ask them to clarify three things:

1. Muslims should remember that Allah was neither telling bed-time stories nor giving history lessons to Mohammad.  Allah was revealing his commands to Mohammad to do or not do something or by way of guidance to his followers.   We all know that commands do not require context but action.
2. Islam makes it clear that Quran is the uncorrupted word of Allah.  It is the only religion that is known to make this claim.  Reading Allah's word makes it clear that his words were written in the Quran without context (i.e. it contains no historical context for the revelation) thus making Allah's word timeless.  If it were not so, Muslims would not be reading, quoting or following that which was relevant 1400 years ago. 
3. Let us for a moment accept that actually there is some context to the word of Allah; then where can the context be found?  Islam experts say it is found in the Hadiths.  Islamic historians say the first Quran was compiled within 60 years of Mohammad's death but the earliest known Hadith were written some 200 years after Mohammad died.  So how does anyone believe stories written two centuries after Allah revealed his eternal words could have any relevant context?

In conclusion: I have yet to come to any conclusion even if it appears glaringly obvious.

NOTE:
There are many websites that translates and explains the Quran in a language that can be understood by non-Arabic readers.  Two, among the many are quran.com and quranbrowser.org.  One can just copy paste the quran chapter and verse mentioned in this article to verify the authenticity of what is quoted.  

For those who would like to get into greater detail, quranx.com is recommended for it provides contextual detailed exegesis (tafsir by noted Muslim experts) and related hadiths.

A Hindu Convert

Let us acknowledge that the greatest advantage of Hinduism is that it has no conversion/ re-conversion rituals whatsoever — one is free to worship any god/ gods/ or none at all and follow any philosophy or belief one fancies. Religion for a Hindu is a path to the final destination of Moksha/ Mukti (मोक्ष/ मुक्ति) i.e. the Liberation of Self or Liberation of Soul from the endless birth-rebirth of the soul. This is inherently the karmic philosophy of the religion: you will reap what you sow.  In many ways, this concept of karma is a built in feature of almost all religions.  You do the right thing and you win a reward and when you do a wrong thing and get punished for it or have to atone for it.  It seems so very logical!

Hinduism conceives the whole world as a single family - “vasudhaiva kutumbakam” (वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम) and therefore it accepts all forms of beliefs and dismisses labels of distinct religions which would imply a division of identity. Hence, Hinduism is devoid of the concepts of apostasy, heresy and blasphemy.  Some academics and many practitioners refer to Hinduism using the Sanskrit phrase “Sanatan Dharma” (सनातन धर्म), meaning "the eternal law", or the "eternal way".

Who is a Hindu?

But let us first understand who exactly is a Hindu.  This term originates from the Old Persian word Hindu which in turn was derived from Indus.  The word Hindu stems from the Sanskrit word Sindhu, which was the historical local term for the Indus River.  The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi, which translates as "the people of the Indus".  “Hindustan” was originally a Persian word that meant "Land of the Hindus" and came into use around 13 century. Around this same period of history the term “Hindu” was used to distinguish ‘Vedic People’ from Yavanas (Greeks) and Mlecchas (barbarians/ non-vedic people – i.e. those outside the caste system).  The term Hinduism was introduced into the English language in the 19th century to denote the religious, philosophical, and cultural traditions native to India and Hindu was a person who practiced such tradition which now denotes religion.

The geographical term Bharat (भारत), is recognized by the Constitution of India as an official name for the country.  Bharat comes from the mythological figure, Bharata (भरत), which some Indian scriptures describe as a legendary emperor of ancient India.

In summary:

·         Our country is called ‘India’ in English and ‘Bharat’ in native language.

·         Our citizens of India are called ‘Indians’ in English and ‘Bharatiya’ (भारतीय) in native language though majority still prefer to use the foreign term ‘Hindu’.

·         Our religion is called ‘Hinduism’ in both English and native language (some prefer to use the term Sanatan Dharma)

Generally Hindus include followers of Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, though many of the adherents to such faith may not accept that they are Hindus.  Most notable among them was Mr BR Ambedkar who attempted to shed his tag of being an untouchable by embracing Buddhism.  What he did not realize then was that post Independence Buddha would be incorporated among the 10 avatars (dasavatar) of Vishnu.  When one comes to think of it, neither Guru Nanak (or the subsequent Sikh gurus) nor anyone of the 24 Tirthankara's from Jainism got that advantage.

Hindu vs British & Islamic Morality

Unfortunately many of my Hindu friends are not very well tuned to their own history and culture and tend to consider the views of Europeans (Max Müller, George Frederick William Thibaut, Sister Nivedita, to name a few) as fundamental truths about Hinduism.  The views of white men should not come as a surprise, after all the initial European interaction with the local populace was largely limited to the then ruling class.  Hence there should be no doubt that the British understanding of Hindu culture was mainly through their interactions with the Brahmin/ Kshatriya and to an extent Baniya orthodoxy with whom they had politico-economic transactions.

First the Islamic Rule and subsequently British Rule brought in a new moral compass to the then sexually liberated Hindu.  Islam introduced Hindus to the purdah (पर्दा) system – veiling of women, segregation of sexes, and child marriage (it is part of Shariah).  The British taught Indians the Victorian notion of morality e.g. nudity in any form is unacceptable, marriage after 18 years for a girl and monogamy are now not only accepted but legally established though quite the opposite was the standard norm till a few centuries ago. 

Sex was not a taboo topic in the ancient past and the promiscuity of our Hindu gods, goddesses and even venerable sages was really never considered as a sign of their moral degradation.  Recreational sex/ Sex for Spiritual Growth (Tantric sexual rites) are concepts found largely in Hinduism.  Sex for fun/ recreation was forbidden by both Islam and Christianity.  Hence Islam & Christianity considered sex to be valid only within marriage and that too for procreation purpose.   On the other hand, sex was celebrated and even worshiped – whether in the form of the worship of the Shivalingam; or the Androgynous God - the half man/ half woman avatar of Shiva as Ardhanarishvara or Shiva’s sexual union with Vishnu (as “Mohini”, the only female avatar of Vishnu) resulting in the birth of “Ayyappan”, etc. 

If we consider the reactions of today’s current right wing Hindu groups to certain painters, films and western festivals one would think Hindus thought otherwise.  Despite this, our Hindu sensibility is embedded to deeply and therefore we are more forgiving of sexual transgressions of our leaders and artists than would be possible among the West.  Consider the easy acceptance of a porn star (Sunny Leone) as a main stream Bollywood artist in India or some of the polygamous relationship of famous Hindu actors/ actresses something that is not only scandalous but unthinkable in the Christian West.

Hindu & Caste are inextricably linked

One thing that today’s Hindu do not readily or openly acknowledge is that that we Indians are a deeply divided society... not just superficially by language or religion but also by caste (varana) and sub-castes (jati).  Testimony to this is the lack of 'social anger' on reports on Khap Panchayats and a very low acceptance of inter-caste marriages. 

We must remember that anyone outside of the four varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras) was termed as an untouchable (or the currently acceptable term for Dalit is SC/ ST[1]).  This definition includes all foreigners (i.e. anyone who not a Bharatiya) since they did not and could not belong to any caste as prescribed in Manusmriti (मनुस्मृति - Laws of Manu). In the good old days (say not as far back as 500 years ago) no respectable (euphemism for high caste) Hindu would travel overseas since he/she would most likely be treated as untouchable (a-varana or Panchama or achoot or the new pejorative Dalit) on return.  This was because there was no way of ascertaining that the such person was able to ensure continued purity of his/ her caste tenets in matters of food, clothing, sex and other such day to day matters.  Purity of caste often demanded that not even the shadow of an untouchable should fall on the high-caste. 

Even today in rural India, Dalits are sometimes barred from using wells used by non-Dalits, forbidden from going to the barber shop and entering temples. In schools, there are instances of Dalit children being asked to clean toilets and to eat separately, although with greater awareness, stricter laws and recruitment of larger number of Dalits the government comes down strongly in these cases and punishes the offenders, as soon as these are highlighted.

Conversion within Hinduism - Past

Hindus often feel smug satisfaction in the erroneous belief that Hinduism was never propagated by violent means like Islam or by material allure as done by Christian missionaries.  Why do I say erroneous?  Here is a short history where Hindus did convert one another whether by influence or by force.

Conversion of Jains to Shaivism:

Around the 8th century CE, Hindu philosophers Kumarila Bhatta and Adi Shankara tried to restore the orthodox Vedic religion, and Shaivite singers introduced Jains to Shaivism. Under these influences, Jain kings became Shaivite. Sundara, a Pandaya ruler, is known to have persecuted about eight thousand Jain monks who refused to convert along with him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madurai_massacre).  During the 11th century Brahmana Basava, a minister to the Jain king Bijjala, succeeded in converting numerous Jains to the Lingayata, a Shaivite sect hostile to Jains. They destroyed various temples belonging to Jains and adapted them to their use.

Conversion of Jains to Vishnuism:

Vishnuism appeared around the same time as Shaivism; the Hoysala king Vishnuvardhana, also known as Bittideva, became a follower of Vishnu under the influence of Ramanuja. It is said that he ordered the Jains to be thrown in an oil mill and crushed if they did not convert. Events such as these resulted in the growth of Hinduism to the detriment of Jainism. Jains compromised by following Hindu rituals and customs and invoking Hindu deities in Jain literature

Conversion of Buddhists to Hinduism:

Historian S. R. Goyal opines that the decline of Buddhism in India is largely the result of the hostility of Brahmans. Hindu Saivite King, Mihirakula (who ruled from 515 CE), suppressed Buddhism as well. He did this by destroying monasteries as far away as modern-day Allahabad.  The Hindu Saivite ruler Shashanka of Gauda (590–626) destroyed the Buddhist images and Bo Tree, under which Siddhartha Gautama is said to have achieved enlightenment. Pusyamitra Sunga (185 BC to 151 BC) was hostile to Buddhism, he burned Sutras, Buddhists shrines and massacred monks.  At least two Pallava rulers, Simhavarma and Trilochana, are known to have destroyed Buddhist stupas and have had Hindu temples built over them.

These examples of conversion within Hinduism were largely restricted to the period when Buddhism and Jainism flourish between 100 BCE and 500 CE and died out once Jainism was restricted to few belts and Buddhism was largely banished overseas.

Conversion in Hinduism - Present

Hindu revival and interest in protecting its own, more or less coincided with the introduction of the present modern egalitarian form of Indian education system which is largely a gift of the British.  Prior to this formal education was restricted only to the upper castes.

Thought 1 – Understanding Vasudhaiva kutumbakam & Sarva Dharma Sambhava:

Now consider two concepts within Hinduism that are considered key to the faith:

·         “Vasudhaiva kutumbakam” meaning the whole world is one single family.

·         “Sarva Dharma Sambhava”, which literally means that all dharma (truths) are equal to or harmonious with each other. This statement is also taken as meaning "all religions are the same" - that all religions are merely different paths to God or the same spiritual goal of moksha.

If these two statements are accepted as truisms within Hinduism, then it implies that everyone in this world is Hindu (as we all belong to one single family) and the various paths that we follow all lead us to the same spiritual goal of salvation/ moksha.  Then Hinduism clearly negates the need to convert to achieve one’s spiritual goal.

Thought 2 – Understanding Sanatan Dharma:

Many Hindu practitioners refer to Hinduism using the Sanskrit phrase “Sanatan Dharma”, meaning "the eternal law", or the "eternal way".  This definition makes Hinduism to be inclusive of a wide spectrum of laws and prescriptions of "morality" based on “karma”, “dharma”, and “societal norms” unlike Christianity or Islam.   Hence once again we need to ask ourselves, if the way or law is eternal and inclusive, why does it matter to a Hindu, which path another fellow Hindu follows – believing in a god, in many gods, in no gods, in a god of this world, in a god in some other world, or even in a god not of Indian origin – ultimately the goal is salvation/ mukti/ moksha.

Thus it does not matter to Hindus which “Dharma” they follow as long as they seek “परम ब्राह्मण/ परम आत्मां” i.e. god or “मोक्ष” i.e. “Liberation of the Self/ Soul”

Thought 3 – Overcoming Caste:

The necessity to maintain caste purity could be one of the reasons why for many centuries Shankaracharyas never went beyond the socio-cultural-political boundaries of India to propagate and they would be seen as defiled.  The other could be that they preferred to travel by foot rather than travel by any 'vahan' (carriage) which was considered inappropriate.  Could a Brahmin (in the olden days) imagine himself travelling in the company of low-caste people whether with a caravan, or in a bus/ train/ plane or even a ship?  It was only sometime in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that people like Swami Vivekananda and Shankaracharya of Govardhan Math, Swami Bharati travelled overseas to spread the message of Hinduism. 

When converting a non-Hindu to Hinduism, we have also to decide which caste he/ she should be convert into?  No one can be a Hindu and be without a caste denomination!  After all being caste-less is equivalent to being an untouchable – a Dalit – an Achoot.  Just imagine, you are recently converted to Hinduism and then discover the awful reality that you are now at social order that is lower than that of a Shudra?  You now have the unenviable task of climbing up the Hindu social ladder which can only gained by series of births-rebirths. 

Does it then make sense to convert to Hinduism?  The answer is self evident.

One interesting question that any true blooded Hindu must ask – why almost all neo-Hindu groups try to propagate Hinduism only in white-man’s country?

Hindu Renaissance

Interestingly much of the converts to Islam and Christianity from Hinduism came from the lower castes/ sub-caste largely as a response to rejection of their lowly status among Hindus and perceived benefits and treatment as social co-equals among the followers of these religions. 

Post Independence winds of change can be seen blowing across the caste dominated Indian landscape.  Affirmative action for the benefit of lower castes along the lines of American laws for the benefit of ‘non-whites’ were getting passed.  Laws transferring land ownership to the landless (read Dalit farmers) and reservation of government jobs to members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have now been grudgingly accepted.  Much of the response has been from the upper castes and political aware with the passing of Mandal Commission's report which confirmed practice of affirmative action under Indian law which recommended increasing job quota from 27% to 49.5%.

The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted by the Parliament of India, to prevent atrocities against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes has definitely contributed to reduction of overt atrocities against Dalits.

Greater job opportunities in metros and large cities have attracted people of all castes to congregate.  Economic necessity has forced people to live in multi-story buildings. People are now no longer finding it taboo to stay with a neighbour who till 50 years ago would have avoided.  Greater access to education, spiritual and political philosophy via internet; easier anonymity available in a city as compared to a village; and low cost communication via mobile telephony all contribute to greater mingling of sexes and lowering of caste distinctions. 

With growth in the political fortunes of the Dalits, many right wing liberal Hindus have realised the need to integrate the Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes and now even the Other Backward Castes (OBCs) into the mainstream.  However the response sometimes take on a violent character as can be seen in the murderous attack on Dr. Graham Stuart Staines or the rape and murder of nuns or the demolition of Babri Masjid and at other times seeks to reconvert those already converted.  However such efforts to re-conversion have been restricted to Christians.  Attempting to reconvert Muslims back to Hinduism will have a swift and violent response – both on the apostates and those sponsoring apostasy.

It may of course take another 3-6 generations before Hindu society becomes more egalitarian which alone would be the one true way to ensure that its adherents don’t lose faith in the religion to which they were born.

---

[1] SC/ ST are an acronym for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.  The Scheduled Castes (SCs) and the Scheduled Tribes (STs) are two groupings of historically disadvantaged people that are given express recognition in the Constitution of India. During the period of British rule in the Indian sub-continent they were known as the Depressed Classes

A Constitutional Question of Morality

The Trigger

Few days ago one of my nieces referenced a newspaper item about implementation of a law / rule that is being used to restrict women’s freedom.  She then went on to mention that discrimination against women is enshrined in the Indian Constitution while referring to Article 15 (3), which is a provision, meant to PROTECT women.  She complained that Article 15 (3) is being used to PUT LIMITS and RESTRICTIONS on a woman’s freedom to movement which goes against a woman’s freedom to EQUALITY. 

Fundamental Right to Equality

This incident made me refresh my 40+ year old Civics lessons and here is what I found in the Article on Fundamental Right to Equality:

15. (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.

Well, an initial reading of Article 15 (3) looked pretty innocuous.  The provision of section 3 in Article 15 of Fundamental Right to Equality seeks to permit the State to make special provisions for women and children. Right, but then let us read it again.  Does this section inform us what would be a clear and cogent reason that could trigger such a provision? 

Does it seek to prevent harm to women and children?  If yes, then how, where and from whom?  Let’s consider drinking alcohol or smoking/ chewing tobacco.  Agreed, there is no doubt citizens are required to be of a certain age (to indicate maturity – and agreed it is arbitrary but is uniformly applied) before they are permitted to cause potential harm to themselves by such consumption.  Accordingly the State has ensured that citizens of both sexes are covered by a uniform ban, limited by age, to consume alcohol and tobacco!  No discrimination against women.

Now let us consider other aspects of a citizen’s life – like eating certain foods, reading certain books, watching certain kind of films, staying out late at night, wearing certain kinds of clothes, etc?  Could such activities also be classified as causing potential harm to women? If yes, then how, where and from whom? Oh, you mean from unruly/ uncultured men? Then why not cover gentlemen in this provision, since gentlemen also need protection from unruly/ uncouth/ gangster kind of citizens.  Sorry, you did not mean “unruly/ gangster elements” but the need to protect the dignity of women from sexually depraved men who are unable to manage their libido? 

So this last suggestion would mean that we are actively considering the ‘decency/ moral’ angle of a woman’s behaviour to decide what could trigger the “special provision for women and children” under Article 15 (3)?  But does section 3 of Article 15 really permit this:

A careful re-reading would make us realize that Article 15 (3) neither requires the State to consider the pre-requisite of “morality or decency” to decide course of action nor ensure that those actions have to be restrictive when instead they could be liberating in content and deployment.  Simply put, it means that Article 15 (3) is an enabling provision making it incumbent on the State to provide for protection of women and children from untoward harm in situations where the State feels that the guaranteed freedom of equality is likely to be hampered.

Is Absolute Equality Possible

As आम भारतीय नागरिक (common Indian citizens) we are programmed to think in relative terms and not absolutes (which probably explains Hindus belief in the many paths to the truth, but I digress).   We thus take it for granted that our fundamental rights are not absolute and it is okay for the Indian constitution to incorporate provisos, exceptions, etc. thereby giving the State over-riding powers, as and when required.

So where does the Indian Constitution provide for the ‘decency or morality’ angle which makes it possible for the Indian State to use it to control citizen behaviour?  To understand this, we need to read another article of the Indian Constitution. 

Let us now read Article 19 on Fundamental Right to Freedom

19. (1) All citizens shall have the right—

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

(italicized by author)

Decency or Morality

Yes you got it!  Article 19 (2), for the first time, introduces “decency or morality” into the constitutional paradigm, with the sole purpose and intent of controlling ‘citizen behaviour’ with respect to speech and expression.  Under Article 19 (2) the State has arrogated the right to decide how, when and where to curb your freedom for expression if you have, in their opinion, violated “decency or morality”.

Is it then a wonder that the Indian State does precious little to curb self proclaimed groups that take to moral policing be it -  

·         in markets (breaking up stores selling valentines day material);

·         in public parks (breaking up couples on account of their youth and physical proximity);

·         in film content (through Film Censor board); or

·         where you stay or earn your lively hood (no action/ penalty levied political parties bashing up residents of UP & Bihar, etc. from working in other states). 

Sometimes the State itself chooses to becomes an accomplice when it uses the law enforcement machinery to curb speech and expression that it considers as a blemish on भारतीय संस्कृति (i.e. Indian Culture) by joining hands with fringe right wing moral groups in putting in jail innocent citizens for acts like publishing cartoons and making comments in cyber space (refer to the cartoon case of Ashim Trivedi and the Facebook comments on the death of a political leader); conducting raids at private residences in the hopes of catching celebrities and influential people at parties; etc.

Beholder’s Eye Decides Beauty

We all are likely to acknowledge (if we really think through) that concepts like “decency or morality” cannot be static either in societal time or space. What were considered ‘moral and/ or decent’ few years ago are no longer considered the in the same way today and vice-versa.  Similarly what is considered “decent or moral” in a city may not be considered so in a rural areas.  Then there are strong differences in understanding about what is “decent or moral” from a youth’s view point and those who are past retirement age.

Get few people randomly and attempt to score the following activities on a 0 – 10 scale of “decency or morality” (where 0 = NA or no and 10 = highest, remember no discussion within the group to obtain consensus):

1.       picking your nose in the bathroom at home or at a public library

2.       watching nude sculptures and painting on temple walls moral or appreciating nude paintings in art galleries

3.       watching ‘choli ke peeche’ or ‘shiela ki jawani’ on TV with your children or watching a live dance floor show

4.       reading “Kamasutra” on the internet or watching reading a racy sex novel like “50 shades of Gray”

5.       giving a quick hug to a member of the opposite sex in private vis-à-vis doing it in public

6.       would your response change to question 5 if the member of opposite sex happens to be a minor relative

Compare your scores with that of your group – could be your friends, uncles/ aunties, sons/ daughters, colleagues.  Do they have similar scores to yours?  No?  Are you surprised?  Surely this simple exercise shows how decency and/or morality lie in the eye (i.e. intentions) of the beholder.  Even for the same person, progress of time and better knowledge impacts the way decency / morality is perceived.

The Touchy Indian

The Indian Constitution in its wisdom does not clarify the meaning of “decency or morality”.  This vagueness has been used by the extreme fringe right wing moral minority to impose their personal version of what is ‘decent or moral’ on the majority. 

We are constantly inflicted by moral policing by the State and right wing moral fanatics about the dress we wear, the artwork we see, the book we read, the food we eat, the comments we make, etc. These groups have one sole intention: to so hyper-sensitize the average Indian that he/ she becomes a walking-talking bomb ready to explode at the slightest suggestion of a hurt.  It is no surprise that we regularly see trigger happy rights groups who need nothing more than just a hint of hurt and use it as a license to become violent and create public order problems – be it a broken statue of leader or a torn holy book or the painting of a goddess or even an opinion in a book about a historical figure.

Some talk of the great Hindu Culture vis-à-vis Western Culture to justify the need to keep strict watch over the ‘decency or morality’ of the younger generation just so they do not go astray.  Would we still consider the following Hindu Cultural practices as decent or moral?

·         Perpetuation of caste system for centuries, if not millennia

·         Continuation of bonded labour (slave system) as a form of cheap labour

·         Committing widowed women folk to the funeral pyre as per tradition of Sati-pratha

·         Child marriage

The answer is an obvious and emphatic NO, if not one of diffident embarrassment.  We therefore had laws to ban it not just because they were exploitative but against all sense of decency and morality of a modern country.  Thankfully those laws were agreed to and reasonably well implemented too.  It is not, as if we have, as a nation not agreed to change our customs and traditions when revealed as offensive in the light of modern philosophy of humanity and ethics.

Yet culture status-quoists (typically extreme fringe right wing moral groups) vehemently protest against any change that goes against their understanding of decency and morality.  They invariably raise the false ruse of “Hindu Cultural in danger” to prevent India from joining and forging ahead in a globalized world.  To use Hindu Cultural Traditions as a benchmark to define what is ‘decent or moral’ is going to put us in a fix since we know that everything within it is not perfect. Hindu Cultural Traditions is work-in-progress; we still need the intelligence, courage and willingness to fix those parts of our culture and tradition which are neither decent nor moral. 

Else we just need a neutral benchmark or yardstick to decide ‘decent or moral’.

PIL to the Rescue

The sad thing is judges do no see themselves as the THIRD PILLAR OF INDIAN DEMOCRACY.  Probably they are so used to playing second fiddle to the Parliament and Executive, that they set aside their logical mental faculties and use their personal biases to entertain a flood of frivolous cases of imagined “hurt feelings” to decide whether to ban some event or book or play or artwork or censure an artist or publisher/ producer.

Probably someone has to give the JUDICIARY a wake up call; file a PIL - public interest litigation – and seek clarification on the purpose of ambiguous terms like “decency or morality” in our Constitution and if the terms cannot be defined or there is possibility of mischief in the purposes then to strike it down as contrary to the intent of the Article on Right to Freedom.

Till then the State and right wing moral fanatic minority would be EQUAL partners in preventing FREEDOM of expression for the majority of Indian Citizens.