Queer but why....

It is widely believed that a society is valued by the social norms it upholds and values as being core to its cultural identity. India, by this standard, stands out as an oxymoron in the ideological identity it recognizes. India, as the ancient scriptures suggest, is the birth land of eroticism. Kama Sutra, is widely considered to be the standard work on sexual behaviour was written by an Indian scholar, MallanagaVatsyayana. The sculptures at Khajurao also suggest a rather tolerant and progressive society we were. Today, sexuality in any form is rarely discussed openly.

Homosexuality is largely seen as taboo not only in India but in many countries across the world. The reason to this is attributed to religion. While homosexuality is has not been explicitly mentioned in the religious texts central to Hinduism, the largest religion in India, many believe that homosexuality was both prevalent and accepted in ancient Indian society.

Many scholars and philosophers like Renaud Camus have written extensively on this subject. Camus' strength comes from his militant refusal to cast moral aspersion on sexual behaviour, to define homosexuality as something secondary to the dominant praxes of heterosexuality. He made homosexuality banal so as to subscribe a new thought of social acceptance.

In the Indian context, homosexuality is seen as severe perversion of the Indian value system. Not only is it regarded as social, moral, ethical deviation from the normal, it was, by law seen as a criminal act. Article 377, a 148 year old colonial law described the same sex relationship as an “unnatural offense.” Homosexual acts were criminal acts punishable by a 10-year prison sentence.

It is rather interesting to note that the “criminalization of homosexual act” owes its origin to the colonial aspiration to clean the Indian society of its archaic ideologies and way of living. The Roman Catholic Church traditionally condemned same sex act. Propagating the same, the ruling was institutionalized in 1861 and was followed up until now.

Their sexual orientation is considered “deviant” and adjectives like “queer” are attached to it. All of this is done under the disguise of culture protection. But is the society the judge for what is normal and attach moral justifications to it. After all the largely believed absolute truths of a society are mere ideologies and beliefs of a majority of people. The failure of “majority wins” concept lies in the fact that mass culture breeds mass acceptance and mass acceptance forms the norms for all.

its a strange phenomenon that people are deprived of their Right to life primarily on the basis of societal conventions... now that is queer.. isn't it?!?

open my eyes!

you hold yourself in such high regards,

its a real shame cause you re blind enough to only see yourself,

your bright clothes and fancy shoes create your identity,

you re not twisting in your straitjacket,

but look around...

you re a nobody!!

the vacuum of self pride has swallowed your empathy,

you see nobody, you hear nothing,

what has become of you,

an ever consuming parasite.

but is it just you?

i would be lying!!

ideological conflict!!

As the stream of sunlight sneaked into his dilapidated room, you could easily see dust, dancing in the stream, conspicuously settling on his face. He had not left his squalid space in more than a month... he lay dull on his rickety queen size bed only to change positions every once in a while... he ate nothing and alcohol came to consume him.... tabloids wrote about his much awaited trial- he had managed to construct, outside the realm of human imagination and traditional authority, a structure that created a furore. a furore over the indignation his building posed to the
"greatness" that men revered. His repugnance towards the "mob" culture eventually led to his existent state....

Ayn Rand creates a hero, a martyr out of the quiet rebellion.. obviously, she draws inspiration from Neitzsche's ubermensch or the 'over man' who in turn draws inspiration from Heidegger's Nazi influence. The ape creates a sense of disgust in man and obviously evolution is inevitable. therefore man will and have to evolve into something greater which will be superior than man- 'overman'. Overman does not refer to an individual but rather a group of highly evolved, devoid of tactile palpable emotions. Reasoning and logic will exist in its might and God will no longer provide moral justification and thus the famous line- "God is dead".

Speaking realistically or rather defiantly of my ideological conflict, i suspect the overman a tad bit... my only grievance with the concept is that it inculcates a sense of supremacy and repulsion to the 'last man'. Infinite power breeds egotism and class differentiation... now my question is, does evolution necessarily imply conceited power play and veneration of mortals?

The man in the room was once considered a leader... he was not even militant or defiant of his utter selfishness... no dramatics, no hysteria, no selflessness primarily because he had no doubts... So what got him to his present state?? ideological conflict and inability to separate his needs and his wants!!

When I was young, I asked more of people than they could give: everlasting friendship, endless feeling. Now I know to ask less of them than they can give: a straightforward companionship. And their feelings, their friendship, their generous actions seem in my eyes to be wholly miraculous: a consequence of grace alone - Albert Camus

The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly roll a rock up the mountain only to see it roll back down. The gods believed that hopeless labour was the most outrageous punishment for mankind.

I believe (obviously reeling under the influence of Albert Camus) the contrary. Since childhood we are told that life has a hidden meaning and it is our ultimate aim to find that meaning. We spend our entire life looking for the mystical purpose which would lead us to nirvana. If you look at it objectively, this is the worst punishment for men. To wander in the web of metaphysical purpose… It’s like breathing into space madly hoping to find that one non existent gulp of air.

Isn’t it obvious that life has no hidden meaning. It is evident that finally man accomplishes nothing. There exists a sense of absurdity in men. An absurd man does not negate the eternal but does nothing for it either. He prefers his courage and believes in his reasoning and existence more than a point of existent culmination. He merely lives out his adventure within the span of life. He lives outside ‘God’.

It is almost impossible to reduce this world to a single point of rationality and that is where the absurd man derives pleasure but the most harrowing of all. Once the world is stripped of its creatively crafted romanticism, it is a rather inhuman, strange place to be. In an attempt to counter the feeling of the absurd, many great thinkers have either abandoned reason or turned to god or ubiquitous creations. That according to Camus is “philosophical suicide”.

Where most falter is when they are unable to accept the contradictions. It is imperative, therefore, to acknowledge the contradictions. The contradictions must be lived and false hope should be killed.

When the false hope of better tomorrow dies, only then can man be free. Free to perform his actions without thinking of consequences and live passionately without expectations weighing him down.

Acknowledging the truth is the path to freedom. Sisyphus accepted his fate and performed the drudgery without thinking of its consequence, understood the absurdity of the situation and reached a state of contented acceptance.

Am I or am I not?

Through the vicious chasms of insanity, comes a voice... the shrill siren stirs the consciousness.. It’s the voice verses the consciousness... the aspiration verses the reality.

Society is a rather strange almost obscene web of ideologies and ego. It has a queer habit of opposing all that is rebellious and accepting all that is subservient. Individuality is seen as a force to defeat because it speaks its mind and acts according to its own whims.

Obviously, there exists a dichotomy and a rather violent one. There are those who colour within the lines and then there are those who refuse to even acknowledge the poor line. The former are servants of the system while the latter are outsiders.

Let’s forget the servants because there is nothing stimulating to talk about anyway. Let’s talk about the outsiders. Albert Camus in The Stranger said, “Mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I don’t know.” For Camus life has no rational meaning or purpose. We have trouble dealing with this notion and continually struggle to find rational structure and meaning in our lives.

An Outsider is not someone who lives outside the system; he is merely an outsider or a stranger within the system. Their actions should not be accepted as irrational evil but rather conscious and maybe out of sync with what is perceived as normal.

But most of us who claim to be outsiders are the ones in ideology and not in reality. I, for one, am a perverse example. This is where the conflict begins which eventually drives us to insanity. My voice is a direct manifestation of what I would ideally like to be, an outsider. My actions are carefully crafted to create an aura of being what I am unable to be. But the ecstasy of pretense is a vilifying one for the consciousness. It gnaws viciously on your false identity.

So then who takes the responsibility of entangling my identity? And if man was planned to be a confused one, then why is my appearance in tandem with nature. Why do I not have 3 eyes and no mind? If societal frameworks are absolute then why am I trying to break away? Cut out the consciousness and keep the mouth.

I don’t know and frankly I don’t care. Or do I?