Protest for the sake of protest

The recent uproar over the proposed telecast of Obama’s back to School speech seems to be protest for protest’s sake. The content for the speech is being made available prior to the telecast and all school districts are at complete liberty to show the speech or no. Then why are the Republicans calling it an attempt by the US President to covertly influence young children?

Seriously, do most parents really think that a single speech is enough to color the political thoughts of their children for the rest of their lives? And if the President can’t address the future makers of his country why does he hold office in the first place? All public schools are government bodies and therefore from time to time will be subject to policies sent down from the administration. These will include such things as curriculum decisions and Teachers’ wages and messages from members of the administration. They must engage in active debate if they disagree with policies rather than wasting time protesting against a short speech.

So far the Obama administration has not done anything to show that it is out to corrupt the minds of the young and manipulate them. Then why are Republicans creating this psychosis? Surely for most children capable of understanding the content of such an address it is not the most important thing. They will more likely than not be thinking of their next date, television program or snack even as Obama makes his proposed speech.

Having lived in the US I will hazard so far as to say that this kind of exaggerated fear is typical of the society where concern over personal freedom can sometimes get out of control and border on the ridiculous.

Accepting homosexuality is about accepting that nature is random

As expected, the repealing by the Delhi High Court of Article 377 (that made homosexuality a crime) has been met with both cheers and overwhelming concerns about how this affects the country’s “Sanskriti” and morality. Driven by a deep-seated fear of homosexuality and a belief that it is unnatural and therefore a threat to the cultivated and safe order of our society, a motley crew of people has filed Public Interest Litigations asking for the law to be reinstated.

To many of us who consider ourselves liberated enough to accept homosexuality, their arguments sound pitifully petty. “Different is not necessarily wrong” we say and point out that even the sculptures at Khajuraho hint at homosexuality as a prevalent practise back in the ancient days. That said, if we want to save the rights of homosexuals, we cannot simply wish away the dissenters. We must make an attempt to understand where this fear and disgust for homosexuality stems from and eliminate the root cause.

In modern society we have endless rules to bring order and control to a world that is otherwise quite unpredictable. We try to measure and judge everything by these norms and if there are uncommon or exceptional phenomena that break the norms, we deal with them by either putting them in a museum or they become the object of our amusement at freak shows. There are several examples of conjoined twins being dragged around the world to be displayed to a bemused audience and don’t we all love to see that five foot giant pumpkin that a farmer in UK pulled out of his field? Why don’t we just leave it alone and ignore it? We can’t, because it is different.

To those who are against it, homosexuality is much like the conjoined twins or the giant pumpkin- something that breaks the accepted and cultivated laws of society. It is a deviancy, a freak manifestation. But what they do not realize is that Nature is neither straightforward nor predictable. Shapes in Nature are never straight lines or perfect circles. There are millions of species of animals, insects, birds and all other kind of creatures where maybe just a few would have done. But this is Nature’s way. It is far more complex and adventurous than we are ready to acknowledge. Therefore a deviancy is neither unacceptable nor unnatural. What is unnatural is our controlled and limited view of the world and a wish to reign it in.

At some level even the concept of marriage (passionately defended by the anti-gay lobby) is a man made attempt to control the natural spirit of sexuality. No species other than human beings has such an institution. All animals simply find an appropriate mate, procreate, and stay together till such time as the off spring needs. After that the male and the female will move on to build new groups and start afresh. Even those animals, such as cranes and penguins, that “mate for life” and maybe argued are together for reasons beyond just procreation, have no such ceremony. It is only us humans as a “highly developed” species who feel the need to control and institutionalize everything. It is no surprise then that most of us with our limited view of things, believe heterosexuality is okay and homosexuality is wrong simply because the latter is a deviancy and the former a more commonly occurring phenomenon.

To conclude, homosexuality or any unusual behavior or phenomenon will only find wide acceptance or understanding amongst us when we are ready to shed our limited worldview and accept that nature is a creative genius and a free spirit. It is not limited by culture and creed and its only rule is constant change and creativity. Homosexuality is a manifestation of just that free spirit where sexuality cannot be defined in one singular way.