Yeah I've seen it


As all bloggers are busy reading comments for their post about Vetayadu Vilayadu I'm just writing about it. I'm neither a die hard Kamal fan (respect him a lot though) or Gautam Menon (I hate that idiot). So there's no reason why one would say he/she liked this stupid movie.
I just have this to say to all the bloggers who praise the movie - YOUR FINGERS SHOULD BE CHOPPED AND HUNG LIKE A CARROT IN FRONT OF A MULE, imbeciles.

Of course it's just my opinion, I might have missed out all the "artistic aspects" of the movie. I'm not going to type a lengthy analysis like I did for Pudhupettai, I think VV isn't worth it. I instead recorded my comments then and there as I watched the movie and put it in a podcast. If you hate VV and want to hear some one tear it apart (in Tamil), listen to it.



or download it from here

Homosexuality is still illegal in India


A few months ago I was involved in an exchange in a forum. The exchange started with something and I jumped in when a few started talking about homosexuality. We had the usual set of people, one side[1] arguing that “it’s not natural” and the other side saying “it’s been genetically proven, so it’s natural indeed”.

A lot of us have had these conversations before and I have been on both sides of the issue and now in a different dimension altogether; because both the parties have inherently prejudiced or rather insular views on the topic. While the former was explicitly biased (at least in my opinion) the other side, in retrospect, isn’t any better. Why does it have to be “genetically proven” or “natural” to “accept” homosexuality? Even if homosexuality is favored by certain social setups than others (as has been shown by a few studies) and a person turned in to a homosexual or a bi-sexual simply because of socialization, what’s wrong with it?[2]

There hasn’t been any observed, let alone proven, social malfeasance that is originated by proliferation of homosexual individuals or households in a geographic area (however large or small it is). On the contrary, because of ostracizing homosexuals AIDS and other STDs have been left unchecked in India[3].

None of this might be new to you, but what I’m going to point might surprise a few (may be not). In the heat of exchange, in the forum, I was about to say something like “The Indian law doesn’t seem to have a problem, what’s yours?” But for some reason I felt that it may not be true. I remember seeing news reports indicating that homosexual behaviour is illegal in India, and I found that it is. I ran through the wiki article on this and found the IPC article (Sec 377). This is what it says

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Given the rare indictment and rarer conviction it’s not surprising that this article is about 150 years old – completely untouched. This is one of the many articles that were retained from the ‘British Raj’. It’s interesting to see that Ambedkar let this one slide when he along with other “scholars” framed the Indian constitution. He sure seems to have had his prejudices, or to put it softly “he was a man of his times” in some regards.

Anyway, I was stunned by the loaded innuendos in the article with conspicuously biased and contemptuous tone – at least under a critical lens. I wanted to see if anyone had deconstructed it already and I found this article by Prof. Joseph,


This section raises interesting questions like what is 'natural'? What is the 'order of nature'? 'Nature' conceived by whom? And 'Order' perceived by whom? Even if one assumes that the 'order of nature' is penile-vaginal intercourse between a man and woman, Sec 377 remains ambiguous about which sexual acts it seeks to prescribe. For some reason, sodomy between males and male and female and bestiality has been considered 'carnal intercourse' against the order of nature. But there is no reported judgments of the High Courts or the Supreme Court declaring that cunnilingus or fellatio would consider an offence punishable under Sec. 377 of IPC.
And as she adds
Heterosexual couples engaged in sodomy can also be indicted under this section. Marriage is taken as an implied consent by the wife for 'normal' intercourse and not for anal intercourse. If the wife consented, both are guilty, if she did not, the husband alone is guilty. Under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1855 and Sec, 11 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 a wife can apply for divorce if the husband has been guilty of sodomy/bestiality.
so anal sex is illegal too.

Not that I'm a great expert or a fan of these topics but I'm just wondering how unclear the IPC rule is (and who know how many articles are like this). As Joseph says, since there has been next to no case related to homosexuality in the past 50 odd years the wordings have gone unquestioned. Someday they will be and then we'll have an interesting debate in the court.

But as of now there's been little attention given to this topic in the blogosphere (Indian bloggers that is). Sure there are several posts that argue favouring "equal treatment" of homosexuals, but they hardly dissect the theoretical underpinnings. I think it's high time the self proclaimed liberals got in to discussing whether the binary classification of normal and abnormal is appropriate and get out of why something is normal or abnormal. There were few discussions in and few odd reports on this issue in NDTV; one of them mentioned that more human rights groups have become active in order to revise this article 377. But I don't care if they revise it or not because India is not run by the judicial system but the long nosed social system.



[1] This side uses several arguments including “animals don’t do it so it’s unnatural”.

Why are we even comparing animals and humans when the issue is more social than biological? Especially when animals themselves aren't composed of a set of species that conform to the same patterns of living.

First point: Few animals do it, others don't. So there's no way of classifying that no animals do it or all animals do it (whatever the 'it' is).
Second point: Social evolution is common for both animals and humans, only the degree varies. The same species in different geographical locations have different food and sexual practices (ex: cannibalism, inbreeding etc.). Genes and memes both, in various levels, play a role.

So the notion of nature isn't that definite when it concerns living beings. Check the section titled 'The natural and the artificial' in this page (if you are interested that is).

[2] Some of you might be enraged by this question. “What do you mean what’s wrong? It’s immoral” – if that’s your reaction, we should probably redefine morality. That aside, there’s no evidence to support the argument that homosexuals “destroy” the moral fabric of a society (whatever it means).

[3] There are no less than 70 million homosexuals in India – Stats India. It is suggested that at least 10% of Indian men have had sex with other men (MSMs) – NDTV report.

Sema nose cut!


If you know me a bit you’ll know how much I love taunting people. After a long time I was reading a few random blogs and I ran in to this blog (the post titled 'To sell your mangoes..'). It was an ok post, nothing particularly awful but still had the "flair" to tip me off. I’ll paste a small section; it seems alright but has all the irritable qualities one can find in an average blog,

As Infosys chief mentor Mr. Narayanamoorthy was stepping down as the CEO of the company, he was questioned by one reporter
“So are you feeling sad, just like every other CEO, as you are stepping down today?”
He replied with a warm smile,
“Yes I’m! My daughter was born. I caressed her and she has grown as a lovely, beautiful and matured girl today. Its hard for every parent when their daughter gets married and moves away, but I’m happy that she is in the safe of hands of a young lad – this generation that has far more potential, confidence than what I had. We need to create opportunities for young people and trust them. That can only happen, if we leave and make room for others to grow more than what you can even think of”
Isn’t that great! Now that is what I call “Attitude” and that’s what differentiates great people from the normal ones!
If I represent each alphabet with a number, starting with ‘A’ as 1 and ‘Z’ as 26, and If I were to sum-up all the individual letters in the traits of life – here’s what I get
Love – 12+15+22+5= 54%
Education – 5+4+21+3+1+20+9+15+14 = 92%
Wealth – 23+5+1+12+20+8= 69%
Hardwork – 8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
Attitude – 1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5= 100%
I always keep reminding myself – you may have a lovely garden, and wonderful mangoes, but if you need to “Sell your mangoes – First Wear a Smile!!!!”


I replied with a comment that I really enjoyed, so much that I decided to post it here.

Oh the clichés...1 out of 20,000 asteroids that cross the earth's orbit has the possibility of striking the earth. I wish that ONE strikes the earth now. Why? Well at least it wouldn't be as clichéd! (now how about that for attitude?)
Let's see what else has better "success" rate,

crookedness - 3+18+17+17+11+3+4+14+5+19+19 = 130%
dishonesty - 4+9+19+8+15+14+5+19+20+25 = 138%
corruption - 3+15+18+18+21+16+20+9+15+14 = 149%
thievery - 20+8+9+10+5+22+5+18+25 = 122%

Should I list more words--if applied your explanation--that seem produce better results? nayy I'm sure you get the point. You want to say "oh you're such a pessimist"?...hmm let's see

pessimist - 16+5+19+19+9+13+9+19+20 = 129%
optimist - 15+16+20+9+13+9+19+20 = 121%

oh no, looks like pessimists have a better chance of being "successful" (whatever it means) than optimists.

It's an 'ok' post, but it got irritatingly clichéd as I proceeded down (I know, you didn’t ask me to come and read it, so going by the "hey! I'm going to defend myself" logic I should shut up and get lost, I understand).

What's the point I'm trying to make? You have used words and contexts that are homogenized to fit a lifestyle that is celebrated as the best. It's the 'rosy lukewarm sweater wearing smiley face plastic doll' welcoming the customers in GAP. It seems to say something but it doesn't, does it? But yeah the customers above...oops the fellow bloggers don't seem to care, they are happy with the smile, who cares if it's from a ‘who’ or a ‘what’.


Did he reply? Of course he did, but who cares (it was another cliché) ? This and several blogs like these are filled with trite truisms of everyday life, not just the ideas the language too. Of course mine may not be any better and it might be just as bad in its own way, but I expect those who comment to have some insight or perhaps honesty (it's a different thing that I don't get any comments :)). Whatever man!

 
©2009 english-tamil