Thursday, March 25, 2010
The Supreme Court of India’s observation on “living together” has disconcerted many moralist and pedagogues of Indian culture, tradition and values.
Fatwa against premarital sex and cohabitation cannot be inflicted or imposed on individuals. And a society that value fundamental right and personal freedom to lead life as suited to ones thoughts and feelings will not hinder. If one does not appreciate cohabitation and premarital sex one is free to do so as the person who sees nothing malevolent in the opposite. The moralist and puritans who raise their brows and are outraged by the Courts observation must remember the quote “morality is best practiced in a nudist society”.
And though the analogy of Krishna and Radha is a romantic myth, the life of Dhrupadhi cohabitating with five men is definitely not the point that was ever raised by actress Kushboo or the Supreme Court to decry the contention against premarital sex and cohabitation
If the values the moralist hold for support is the essence of Indian culture and lore then there are ample instances in the Hindu mythology where Gods and Godesess have repeatedly engaged in sex outside wedlock. We have parthenogenesis in Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism where Gods and warrior men were born outside wedlock. And followers of those religions worship such men as Gods and messengers of Gods .This is not an argument in favour of such acts of promiscuity or liberality. But the right of two adults. Man and woman to cohabit without the sanctity and approval of the institution called wedlock or have physical relationship, is basic fundamental right and no personal predilection prompted by any thoughts , be it culture , heritage or morality should be allowed to infringe.
Purist who cries foul and term the Court’s observations as outlandish has a point
Though. redefining morality may put the mind and thoughts of the young in jeopardy and they may incubate erroneous ideas about cohabitation outside the nuptial fence. It can also be argued that the institution of the family will be at peril. And social upheaval and disorientation in due course of time will be quite bad.
I agree absolutely about the value and life family can provide to the young and the adult alike. And the corner stone and bulwark against bewildered and lost child hood is the comparative protection one gets in the cocoon that is family.
But the question is, if my son or daughter opt to not accept the legal sanctity of marriage and decides to cohabit with their companion, partner or spouse – what should be my reaction? I do not want to discuss the other part of the contention i.e. premarital sex. Because that may be best left to the individual. And I do not have any volition to dictate, instruct , coerce or debate an adult son or daughter to abstain from physical relationships . Ones private life need not be of upheaval to the society.
The lighter side of the subject in discussion is a brief statement of my childhood friend who lives with his family in the USA. He apparently told his daughter and son that he definitely will hold no prejudice and objection to their marrying or living with somebody be it a black, an arab, a hispanic or Chinese, be it a muslim, a jew, or an agnostic as long as the member is of the opposite sex! You can laugh it away as an apt discourse in the American world.
Posted by Anilkumar Kurup at 4:39 PM