One should not use the name of God mechanically and superficially without the feeling of devotion.
— Ramana Maharshi
Of late media is rife with information regarding public demonstrations of kissing couples and their multitudinous onlookers. There is also so much in the news about several young men and women (?) who have also taken upon themselves the role of moral policing. As urban centres are the hub of these intense activities there has also been instances of skirmishes and state interventions. As with everything else much might be said on both sides; nevertheless the issue is one that needs to be taken seriously.
There are several factors at work here. To begin with, the visual media is so ubiquitous these days and the young people behind and off the camera are on a rush to feed the dragon always and all times. Thrillers like kissing wars are the right type for these to latch on for hours together. There are also enough and more spectators who switch on their televisions for these sort of sensational news: they are willing to watch and wait for equally long hours. After all ticklers like these make life worth living. There is this other factor of small-time hatchers — people who are otherwise-talented and who might be involved in many other fields like the arts or sports. They find this sort of arenas the right kinds to latch on to and swing on to the bandwagon: automatically the limelight falls on them. Take any issue related to the environment, or violence against women, we are sure to find such barbs and hatchers who latch on for dear life and rise with the tide of popular media hypes. After some days they are hardly there in the field, simply because they have made enough notoriety to get by in their chosen fields of expertise by then.
The most significant factors involved in the kissing wars are of course the demonstrations and demonstrators themselves along with the moral police who oppose them. Public demonstrations are of course intended to raise public awareness with regard to issues of significance. The Mahatma had resorted to soul-force or satyagraha as one genuine mode of resistance and protest. The kissers of the present have by all means a genuine reason to protest: they are demonstrating for raising mass- awareness of what we have as a civil society sidelined and repressed.
It is significant that several young men and women have come to the open to protest and demonstrate against the slow closing of the civil mind. We need to wake up and recoup our society and safeguard its health and well-being. This of course needs to be done on a war footing, no doubt. They have resorted to demonstrate by making a public event of kissing. What is there if two willing people get to embrace and kiss in public? Why should it cause offence to the others? And anyway why should the other get involved? Why not learn to turn a blind eye as we often do when we see two animals coupling in public? Is a public kiss that offending? Why this dramatic emergence of a Hanuman Sena all of a sudden? Our social mores are so stilted and ossified that there is hardly any sensitivity when genuine issues crop up. We have been repressed into subhuman beings never to respond to those subtle issues: we have been taught to turn a blind eye to all and everything except ourselves. And now all of a sudden our moral insides are churning when two people embrace and kiss. But then, we need to pause a little here and reconsider the issue a little more in depth.
Anthropology and History tells us that human beings have evolved considerably (or that’s what we are given to think) from the level of mere animals (not meant to demean the animals in any way!) and in this process developed a social system and a civil society (perhaps, several systems and several societies at the same time) which actually has imposed several self-imposed or hegemonial restraints on our behavior with ourselves and in relationship with the other. In many ways we are not simple biological entities existing as mere life forms, growing, breeding and dying. We have constructed innumerable but invisible complex structures all about us which control and manipulate us: sometimes we are conscious of these but mostly we are unconscious of these factors. Making love as we understand in the present in civil terms is a private affair. In sociological terms love and sex are definitely separate factors and could exist as mutually exclusive categories.
There are of course innumerable dimensions to sex and love. Nevertheless, sex or its “higher evolved” version of love is something which we as civil and social beings have accepted as a private affair. Violators of girls and women might resort to any level of physical abuse seeking gratification by any and all means: there is hardly any point in theorizing these to such inhuman beings; their acts need to be condemned and such offenders severely punished. But to make what is a private affair as a token of demonstration may not be quite right. What happens when two people kiss is certainly a private affair, but it is often held that kissing is an act of sealing genuine love and relationship. Young people certainly would recognize the thrill attached to a kiss, those furtive glances and that tender touch. To make of that a mere tool for display and protest might be taking things a little too far. As they say, streaking or display of nudity in public also would a little later appear to be a fair play in this direction.
Just imagine the simplicity and prowess of a Bahubali or an Akka Mahadevi who shed all clothing in the face of a society that was built on external trappings and seeped in self-delusions. Theirs was a mode of subversion that was self-inflicted in order to inculcate a different set of values. If the kissing demonstrators had wanted they could certainly have chosen a different path or a different mode of public protest rather than resorting to a genuine and intimate affair like kissing and turning it into a public event. They are perhaps doing a gross injustice to the sacred art of loving. Have we suddenly landed in a system where the very meaning of sacred has eroded away? Don’t we hold anything, not even love as sacred? Now, this definitely was not the reason why those self-styled protectors of social values took to the streets to harass the demonstrators. They were on the other hand, only mere pawns revealing the larger process at work in our repressive culture—that of sidelining genuine issues and harping ceaselessly on the trivial.
Now how could the self-styled moral police call themselves Hanuman Sena? What has that eternal brahmachari got to do with these issues? In the Ramayana and elsewhere Hanuman is portrayed as a monkey who is extremely chaste and wise. Even at their first meeting Rama remarks on his clear sightedness and the clarity of speech. The Vayu Putra whom every genuine devotee is used to meditate on in his or her hearts is a sacred soul extremely devout and intensely benevolent. After all even his physical prowess needs to be evoked and incited by external agencies before they manifest through him. To invoke such a sacred name in a putrid war of moral impositions is certainly to cast dishonor on that noble soul. Erudite scholars of religion and philosophy have reminded us time and again that the god one worships externally is a projection of one’s own ambition and desire. Bhagavan Ramana has cautioned us that: One should not use the name of God mechanically and superficially without the feeling of devotion.
If those noble souls who parade themselves as self-styled moral protectors of society hold any faith or belief in their insides they have little business to drag the name of a unique soul into the public sphere. To quote Nietzsche, where the rabble also drinks all waters are impure! Do we have any right to such acts of violence against all that we hold as good, true, and beautiful? And anyway who stays long enough in the highways of profound reflection inquiring into the deeper significance of religion and spirituality?
Even if the kissers were simply allowed to show their act of protest everything would have gone fairly unnoticed even, because our present society is fed day to day with new sensational news that we have forfeited our memories. Alas! Our self-styled arch defenders of a public morality have to take arms against such offenders who tickle their sexual energies, and our voyeuristic society thrives on such traumatic sado-masochistic sexuality. The visual media is our new eye and heart. Whither is sped the inner eye?
Comments on this Article
'Kiss of love' - what exactly do they mean and want to achieve by it? To kiss and make love and exhibit wherever they want - like the celluloid hero and the heroine and their respective gangs? Do they want to kiss and love in public, on the college campuses, in the classrooms, at the hospitals, at the police stations, in the court rooms? And these lovers are supported by Leftists who paradoxically keep denouncing the bane of global/Western culture but at the same time without accepting any aspect of our Indian culture as well; and the activists of their women organisations take to streets every now and then and tear off the 'obscene' posters, and decry the depiction of women as symbols of sex and the beauty contests as well. Would the leaders of the Leftist parties and groups and the self-styled Liberals & Moderns keep quiet if men and women engage themselves in amorous position in the conclaves and public meetings organised by them?|
After all, what's the primary duty of students? Is it not studies which need a serious focus - especially in the contemporary competitive environment? Is it their primary obligation to go on agitating and fighting at the drop of a hat and under the banners of their political masters - against the faculty, against the managements, against the authorities, as if the students are the management themselves? If students of this type have so much of ebullience and energy why don't they use it to participate in some constructive activity, or to help the needy members of the society - in one way or the other?
When someone advises the girls against wearing seductive dresses, pronto they say it is their unfettered freedom and no one has any business to object to it. But do they realise that freedom comes only with a concomitant responsibility? They ridicule their critical well-wishers as the moral police, conservatives, reactionaries, fanatics, et al. Do they mean that no moral code is required and that everyone should have just unbridled licence to do whatever they fancy? After all, the statutory police themselves seek the cooperation of the public in many aspects of law & order, stating that the police themselves can't set right the situations fully on their own.
It pains a lot to see that a number of boys and girls, men and women are misguided and exploited in the name of love, which in fact in most cases is impulsive fascination or beastly lust that is powered by the permissive sections of various types of media. Otherwise, why do acid incidents occur against the unwilling girls? Why are girls seduced, entrapped, video-graphed and blackmailed on almost every day? Why are the rapes of the fair sex (including even children and grannies, shamelessly) and even their butchering going on unabated?
Can the things be set right without studying the moral situation and without imposing any code? Will the things get right on their own without any effort to keep our senses in control? To give full reign to our raw emotions is primitive and barbarian. To keep them in check is civilisation and culture... this is what I believe.
By all means, do love a person of your choice, and if reciprocated, go ahead; but you need not exhibit it before all and sundry and bare your bedroom thoughts, dialogues and scenes. Exhibition of your personal and private romantic love is only an act of weakness stemming from a youthful bravado rooted in apprehension whether the love would firm up or not.
Demonstrative effect and peer comparison having their role, these acts of public exhibition of one's private romantic love would have their chain effect. Not only that, such acts have also attracted goons like the snake gangs who thrashed the male partners and raped the female ones. These perversions are mostly limited to fringe metro groups only, with the rest of the Indians being sanely away from it.
In the ultimate analysis, I opine that the article by Prof Murali Sivaramakrishnan could have been more objective and dispassionate.
Amorous kissing in public is definitely a western influence, a legacy of Hollywood that has crept into Bollywood, therefore is instinctively morally reprehensible in the context of diehard traditional Indian norms of social behaviour. In the west the analogy to a feeling of social taboo is amorous kissing between like gender couples. You attempt to rationalise the 'feeling of revulsion' that is spontaneously felt by people in Indian society where amorous kissing is traditionally viewed as a sexual act, a foreplay to sexual union that is therefore the act that is identified and objected to on moral grounds. You make a telling analogy between 'animals coupling in public' and amorous kissing - where it is not so much the difference but the like to which one is oibliged to turn a blind eye. Your perception of amorous kissing is limited to what it it physically entails at the time with no imaginitive projection into what it signifies as a sexual act that stirs the moral indignation of public witness. It amounts to saying, 'What is the harm in amorous kissing?' Only in a decadent social context where amorous kissing is knowingly the short form to full sexual union can it be passed off as non-offensive; perhaps it says much for the moral sensibility that sees through this and feels indignation, which even if it is considered overdone, nevertheless is valid on principle. There again, in a democracy, acts are defined as to their legality, and it is only within this context that amorous kissing can be defined as permissible because it is deemed acceptable by the majority. Social morality it seems is determined by democratic principle, and all forms of implicitly immoral behaviour strive to attain to viability on the democratic principle of freedom of expression, many, though not all, succeed.