After all this time? Always

The first Sunday of August, as most of our generation would know is celebrated world over as friendship day. Like most of us I too wished almost all my friends a happy friendship day and thanked them for being there in my life. Their presence has undoubtedly taught me a lot and their support in the various ups and downs has been of utmost importance.

But among all my friends, there was someone who I forgot to wish, or better put it as deliberately did not wish. It is not that we were not close enough so as it was easy to ignore the person simply, but things somehow turned out in such a manner that I could not bring myself to forget and forgive all that had transpired, and truth being told not wishing hurt me much more than letting go would have.

There is one question that has been eating me up, being whether this was the first and the last friendship day that I did not wish that someone or whether there are going to be several others over the years which would pass without my not taking any attempts to go forward and reconciliate. People might mistake this to be the result of my highly inflated ego (which God knows I do possess), but fact being, it is not so. I for one am ready to go back if only the other person takes the first step (for everyone gets tired of doing that at some point or the other).

Situations keep changing, but the sentiments that are attached with someone do not alter as drastically. I might have been hurt in the process, but if you ask me, I wouldn't like to go back in time and obliterate that part when we came to know each other, started talking and subsequently became friends. Things might never turn round to the way they had been…but that would never mean that the person would be any less important to me; not now not ever. Quoting Severus Snape (an all time favourite character from the Harry Potter series) “After all this time? Always”

Vikruti Evam Prakriti

Yesterday the Supreme Court of United States gave two historic rulings strengthening the rights of gay couples. In one of the decisions, it was held that married same-sex couples were permitted to federal benefits, and in the other same-sex marriage was allowed in the state of California, when the Supreme Court declined to decide a case from there. The happiness and overwhelming support which the verdicts have received in the US, by the public as well as by the President, reminds me of the much more mixed reaction which was seen here in India, when the Delhi High Court by a 2009 ruling decriminalized homosexuality as an offence under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Delhi High Court’s decision was met with more condemnation than praise and the self appointed moral preachers of the nation saw this decision as one dooming the age old Indian customs and traditions to an era of uncouth and wicked practices. No big supporter of homosexuality myself, I still don’t find any of these protests worthwhile or correct. While speaking of how such acts are sinful and are against our social norms, we forget the sculptures at Khajuraho, Shiva Temple (Ambernath), Rhajrani Temple (Bhuvaneshwar), Padhavli and many other similar ancient works of art which involve scenes of same-sex sexuality. Also the Kamasutra (which without any question can be considered as one of the most important works on Kama Shastra) deals with the topic of homosexuality and describes it to have been practiced at many places. Though such relations are described to be wrongful by Vatsyayana, considering their deviance from the accepted procedure, the author does acknowledge that love and trust was present in these relations too. References of homosexual marriages in cases where one partner assumed the role of a woman have also been mentioned.

The Mahabharatha, the Ramayana none are void of indications towards the presence of homosexual relationships in those times. Even the Hindu Codes of Conduct, Manusmriti and Narada smriti, though admonish the practice of homosexuality the punishments prescribed are very mild…..thus stating loud and clear that despite the question of morality of the act, it was not considered to be of a criminal nature. In some versions of the Krittivasa Ramayana, it has been stated that King Bhagiratha (who is credited with bringing the holy Ganges to the earth) was born out of the union of two women.

Mythology apart, when you think of it, homosexuality was no offence before the formation of the Code of 1860 and so its decriminalization should not have been made such an issue in a country which has got more serious problems to face than this. Despite the High Court’s decision on decriminalizing homosexuality, cases can be heard of where same-sex relation was treated as an offence, if not by the law then by the community. People belonging to the LGBT community, regardless of our entire modern outlook, are still branded as being queer. This discrimination against them, based solely on their sexual preference is nothing but violative of their Right to Life as guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 21 and also of their Right to privacy.

Section 377 of the IPC dealing with Unnatural Offences, states “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and should also be liable to fine.” This section is driven by the basic presumption that natural sexual act is that which is performed for procreation. Any sexual act which is non-procreative in nature thus comes to be seen as an offence under it. If consensual sex between two men or two women is criminal merely because of its non-procreative nature, isn't it only proper that any sexual relationship between a man and a woman which does not happen with the intent of procreation also be criminalized (and with all sorts of contraception available in the market, I doubt that sexual activities are always indulged in keeping procreation in mind).

Prejudice against homosexuals also violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution which prohibit any kind of discrimination based on sex (which naturally extends to discrimination based on sexual preferences and orientation). Decriminalizing it as an offence under 377 does not make things all rosy for same-sex couples, as various other laws such as relating to obscenity (Section 292 IPC), The Workman’s Compensation Act 1923, The Provident Fund Scheme 1952, The Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 still display bigotry against them.

One movie I would recommend watching to everyone is Philadelphia which deals with two very controversial topics at the same time, homosexuality and AIDS (a disease which was associated with the same for a very long time). If nothing else, the film would work towards reducing some prejudice against both (and Tom Hanks is always a treat to watch).

Homosexuality very obviously considering the un-naturality of the process has been condemned and frowned upon since the very beginning of times, but what needs to be realized is that despite all the scorning, it was still accepted as an alternative even in the early ages…..and hence the unchanged or rather even worse attitude harbored by many of us even today, raises the question on whether our society is actually progressing or not.

The Rig Veda which is one of the earliest sacrosanct manuscripts of Hinduism in one of the verses says “Vikruti Evam Prakriti” which would translate to ‘what seems un-natural is also natural’. And time demands that we bring ourselves to accept this un-naturalness (or whatever we refer it as) however hard it appears at first. Decriminalization of homosexuality as an offence is no longer the solution of their problem….what is needed as of today, is the legalization of same-sex relationships in India as well, so that discrimination and inequity against them stops and they are provided with the proper dignity and respect each person deserves.

Acceptance...too much to ask for?

Amrita Pritam, as many would know was a prominent Punjabi writer and poet, perhaps most known for her poem “Aaj Aakhaan Waris Shah Nu” (Ode to Waris Shah). She won the Sahitya Academy Award for her magnum-opus Sunehe (Messages), the Bharatiya Jnanpith for Kagaz Te Canvas (The Paper and the Canvas) and later came to be awarded with the Padma Shri followed by the Padma Vibhushan. I have not been very familiar with her writings, but I do remember reading the Hindi translation of her novel Pinjar, around 6-7 years back. Being young, at that time I couldn’t gauge the complete worth of the work and now even the details of the story have pretty much faded into oblivion. Despite this forgetfulness the character of Puro is still etched somewhere in my memories and I’m reminded of her each time I read something about women being subjected to brutality. Her pain, the struggle for survival and the ultimate surrender to fate, all brought to life by Pritam; makes Pinjar one of the best piece of work on the Partition and its aftermath.

It is not Amrita Pritam as an author which I want to talk about…. in fact I am not to speak of her at all. To put it correctly, I would rather say that she is just acting as a medium to get to the point I want to make. What makes her my muse is a TV program which was being broadcasted on Rajya sabha TV, titled Unki Nazar Unka Shahar, where in today’s episode they portrayed the life of Amrita Pritam, both the professional and the personal. There is nothing to speak of her professional life except all good, but the personal life, had it belonged to a normal woman, would have been enough to raise eyebrows.

To phrase it very bluntly, so as to create a better understanding of the situation (as eloquent words sometimes cover up facts which a person wants to present), Pritam had left her husband for the poet Sahir Ludhianvi (who has to his credits songs such as Mai Pal Do Pal Ka Shayar, Chalo ek Baar Phir se Ajnabee…, Man re Kaahe Tu Na Dheer Dhare and many more). And later on when Sahir fell in love with singer Sudha Malhotra, Amrita found solace with a much younger man, the renowned artist Imroz, and stayed in a live-in relationship (might as well be read ‘in sin’) with him for the last 40 years of her life.

I am duly and truly apologetic for my choice of words here, but come to think of it, had it been another woman in her place who did not have such stature in life, wouldn’t similar reproachful sounding statements be written and said for her? If you ask my opinion, I would call Pritam to be a brave woman, who had the courage to make her life’s decisions for herself 50-60 years ago, when women would thing a zillion times before taking any such bold step. Even today, not many women would be having that fiber in them, to break the social norms and live life in the way she desires to. And hence a woman who stood up for herself and her beliefs when the society was not ready to accept them surely deserves our respect, and Pritam I can confidently say commands it. Her relationships with both Sahir and Imroz are viewed not as anything undignified, but as an embodiment of the love and adoration she had for them.

It is not true only of Amrita Pritam, but for any woman of position who lived and loved the way she wanted to. The trouble is when a woman of ordinary circumstances defies the societal rules and dares to do a similar action. The same action which would have been lauded as a path breaking effort becomes frowned upon if a commonplace girl attempts it. She is treated as a pariah, an outcast becoming the butt of jokes and ridicule. Her act no longer remains valiant rather she is a pollutant to the society, an unwelcome presence who’s living and dying has no effect whatsoever on anyone.

Despite all the modern values and approach we claim to have adapted ourselves to, it would still not be possible for us to accept a woman who leaves her husband for another man, or who has a child out of wedlock, or is living with a man without marriage, or is breaking any other similar norm (if only it was a man who had indulged in this, the society would have had no problems forgiving and forgetting; but let’s leave it for another time). A society which has problems accepting a woman who faced the most inhumane crime which could be inflicted against her, can very definitely not be found keen on welcoming someone who willingly overstepped the boundaries. And yet, when someone famous attempts it, absolution comes easy and so does regard.

Is it as simple to bend rules for a member of the same sex just based on her social standing? Isn’t it time when we need to let go of our hypocritical attitude and accept the fact that women too have desires and also the right to fulfill them. For there are many out there, not as accomplished as Amrita Pritam, but in identical situations, hoping for recognition and approval...nothing too much to ask for, is it?