Indian ethos endangered by adultery?

To all those considering the idea that since we’re in the 21st century and way past the stone age and shouldn’t act on our primal instincts, then this op-ed is not for you. To our dear Member of Parliament Mr Subramaniam Swamy, we wouldn’t want to make tongue-in-cheek comments as you might as well find that sexual and offensive.

So here’s our admonition about adultery, sexuality and everything under that umbrella and oh, we do not mean what happens under a Bollywood movie umbrella (as you might take offence!)

A report on the NDTV newsportal read, “Adultery must remain a punishable offence so the sanctity of marriage can be protected,” the Centre told the Supreme Court today after a petition called for gender equality in the punishment for adultery. The British-era law on adultery says a man having sexual relations with another man’s wife will get a jail term of five years and a fine. A five-judge bench is expected to hear the case.

The petition challenges the 157-year-old law on adultery and contends not just the man, but the married woman he has a relationship with must be punished, since she is the abettor and not a victim of the crime.

Pushing for a dismissal of the petition, the Centre said, striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code and the Section 198(2) Criminal Procedure Code “will prove to be detrimental to the intrinsic Indian ethos which gives paramount importance to the institution and sanctity of marriage”.

A quick overview of the paragraphs above might help in establishing the fact that heterosexual bigots seem to overpoweringly stand out like a misplaced eggshell in a meringue.

This undeterred outrage after suggesting that, “It is not a normal thing. We cannot celebrate it. It’s against Hindutva,” ANI quoted Dr Swamy as saying, whilst being a vehement deterrent against Hindutva itself at one point in time spells hypocrisy right there. In 2013, he called homosexuality a “mental disorder”. In 2012 he called it a “brain disorder”.

In 2015, Swamy had tweeted, “Issue is not respect. We respect handicapped people. Homos are genetically handicapped.” “In Kautilya’s Arthasastra [4.13.236] “ayoni” sex [Homosexual intercourse] is an offence and attracts a fine. Where appropriate, “danda” or prayaaschit,” he had said in 2013.

For your kindest information, the thing about homosexuality being a mental disorder has luckily been resolved by the Indian Psychiatry Association earlier this year.

The medical fraternity has joined hands with the #LGBT community & lawyers to get rid of #section377. Indian Psychiatric Society has issued a statement supporting decriminalisation of #homosexuality. https://t.co/cn9eNs45VM pic.twitter.com/VMSw2Rp2RF

— Dr Prasad Raj Dandekar MD, DNB, EPGDHA (@drprasadraj) July 8, 2018

The Indian Psychiatric Society President Dr Ajit Bhide had reiterated the thoughts of most liberals in an attempt to try and shed some light on bigots like yourself.

Also Read: Dear millennials: Is mental illness your alibi?

“To oversimplify, a priming process in the brain which determines one’s sexual orientation. Certain individuals are just not cut out to be heterosexual. We don’t need to castigate them, punish them or ostracise them,” he had said.

There goes your science backed claim of “impurity” to your Harvard degree owned, twisted, pious self.
This isn’t Clockwork Orange and it definitely could amount to Brokeback Mountain but your snobbish hedonistic ideologies for heterosexuals need to see a downfall.

Unless we adorn the roles of praying mantises and bite our mates’ heads off, our problems might just be minuscule. While everything may not be fair in love and war, the perimeters and parameters for discussing what remains on the tightrope of sexuality is merely a matter of concern to those involved.

Also Read: Freedom of expression: Boon or Bane?

Consent is key and particular attention focuses on claims concerning the “religion” at which the fixity of sexual identities is established which shouldn’t be dealt with haphazardly. Throughout the dark ages, the conscious attempt at a distraught view on hegemony of homosexuals over heterosexuals thinly disguised as a debate over the filibuster, cloaked in religion, politicians as utterly bereft of moral bearings comes the literate Subramaniam Swamy.

How about going through the good old days in explanation of what “Advise and Consent” comprise of whilst trying not to make a valedictory performance as a Member of Parliament who ultimately puts patriotism over partisanship and cutting the crap whilst coming out of the closet as “homophobic” instead?