All of you would be aware of the raging debate in India in Dec 2013 about the recent Supreme Court judgement in relation to Section 377. This forum had also debated on the topic of homosexuality but I do not recollect this reaching to any firm conclusion. There are numerous articles being written almost daily on the topic speaking for homesexuality. Some of the prominent Hindu voices like Sri Sri have also spoken against the Supreme Court ruling though Baba Ramdev has spoken in favour of the court diktat. Writers like Devdutt Pattanaik and other so-called “informed” people have cited select writings from Srimad Bhagavatam, etc to state that this practice was indeed existing as a part of the society in the past (though mere existence does not really make a ground for promoting this). Arthasastra has listed home-sexuality as a punishable offence.

However, my interest is not this topic per-se (especially since I am not qualified to comment for or against this topic). I wonder whether we are making this debate in the context of our social conditions which have created a certain social order (at least in cities) and this is impacting the terms of our debate Our modern societies have created living structures that promote synthetic unity. Since the decision to buy a house is based on more practical reasons (like affordability, proximity to school, etc), you have a situation today where people of diverse interests come together and stay close to one another. They may or may not like their neighbours but they will live next to each other merely tolerating each others’ presence but may or may not connect with their surroundings since there are no common interests binding them with their neighbours. In India, there have been recent debates on prohibition of certain residential societies against Muslims or debates on whether “vegetarian-only” society can be allowed. These debates remain superficial and thereby do not lead to any firm conclusion.

Given that homo-sexuality has been in existence for a long time, what if we take this as a given that a society will always have people with certain innate mental orientations, one way to debate this is to get into the binary of whether this orientation of criminal or legal. However, given the words “inclusive society” is the buzzword today and if the role of the State is indeed that of a garland maker where flowers representing diverse interest pursuits are sieved together to make a beautiful society, is there merit in offering the solution of social segregation as a probable solution to making of this garland? Even today, there are Lawyer colonies, Central Government colonies (like ISRO, BARC, etc), Journalist colonies, Corporate colonies (like factory locations like ACC, Tata Steel, etc) but these do not invite the ire of media/ public since we have already assigned an air of naturalist order to these formations. However, if the solution to such problems is to actively promote separate colonies for people of different orientations while living together within the larger society, it becomes a win-win situation for all people. People who strongly prefer living in special colonies, e.g., vegetarian surroundings, Shaiva-Siddhanta, surroundings, architects, solar or car-free neighborhoods, organic farming neighborhood, etc can enjoy the benefit of such a neighborhood while at the same time, interact with the wider society in their secular dealings (like working in offices, creation of a parliament, etc). This promotes an inclusive society while at the same time allows people to select the neighborhood that allows each of them to further their natural inclinations and live life in situations that are considered more congenial to them. Equally, we may create societies where people are indifferent to any specific interest (who may be neither religious or have a specific strong interest) who may stay together and this may not be regarded as synthetic unity since the unity that binds these people is their lack of strong interest in any specific discipline/ mental orientation.

We proudly proclaim that India is a society that promotes “Unity in Diversity”. However, this has remained a statement of intent since the modern India dialogues seems to be more focused on promoting Unity than promoting diversity simultaneously. It becomes obvious the promotion of diversity which adds a lot of beauty to our society may only be possible with creating provisions of social boundaries of similar-minded interest groups. Will the above proposal divide the society? How does one really promote this and will State play an active role in promoting this? There will be numerous questions like these and answers may not be readily available; these will need to be explored. The age-old Jati structures have gone on for thousands of years and are based on this principle of grouping of interest groups while living within the wider society. Does modern society make such a proposal unviable or is it that our misconceived and mis-understood “fiberal” perspectives to life have prevented us from even exploring such alternatives?

Over to all of you….. if this debate appeals to you.