'Our country is homophobic' - Ayushmann Khurrana.... - Page 9

Again, adding my two cents here.

When people say that ancient India was "inclusive" (that is considered to be a majority of Hindus), it does not mean that the society was "100% accepting" OR that every human being lived in peace OR there was no suffering at that time.

I agree that "Existence" does not mean "Acceptance", but the mere existence of "The Bad" does not mean "The Good" did not exist.

The good, the bad and the ugly have ALWAYS existed, even from the times of Devas and Asurs.

Another confusion on this thread is between the mythos of Hinduism and those of ancient Indian history.

They are being seen as one entity. And to an extent, they are. But Hinduism goes beyond the times of when Manusmriti or Arthshastra were written.

Asurs aka the demons existed alongside Devas and did terrible things, but it does not mean the Hindu religion approves or glorifies their actions.

Women were treated miserably during the TretaYug and the DwaparYug. And we all know about the social evils that have been happening in 'KalYug'. But it does not mean the religion is partial to women or promotes ill for women.

Because within the religion, the Goddesses (Laxmi, Saraswati, Parvati) are ALWAYS shown to be as powerful as their male counterparts. And they precede the existence of Seetas and Drapuadis who were the 'human incarnations', and had to go through the sufferings inflicted by humans upon humans.

Human Being is a flawed creature, acknowledged by God himself (in almost every religion.) These epics and scriptures have been interpolated and re-illustrated OVER TIME.

Coming back to my point, there was never a "vanilla" time and there never will be.

It's all about making progress. Something similar has been said in Bhagwad Geeta, but I can't claim to be an expert on it, as I haven't got the chance to read it yet.

Getting into the historical flow of Hinduism may deviate slightly into uncharted waters. 😃

AK may be unfair, for trying to typecast the whole country of India.

Originally posted by: rckRadhe

Getting into the historical flow of Hinduism may deviate slightly into uncharted waters. 😃

AK may be unfair, for trying to typecast the whole country of India.

He could be bitter about his latest box office 😂

Originally posted by: diasingh2

Again, adding my two cents here.

When people say that ancient India was "inclusive" (that is considered to be a majority of Hindus), it does not mean that the society was "100% accepting" OR that every human being lived in peace OR there was no suffering at that time.

I agree that "Existence" does not mean "Acceptance", but the mere existence of "The Bad" does not mean "The Good" did not exist.

The good, the bad and the ugly have ALWAYS existed, even from the times of Devas and Asurs.

Another confusion on this thread is between the mythos of Hinduism and those of ancient Indian history.

They are being seen as one entity. And to an extent, they are. But Hinduism goes beyond the times of when Manusmriti or Arthshastra were written.

Asurs aka the demons existed alongside Devas and did terrible things, but it does not mean the Hindu religion approves or glorifies their actions.

Women were treated miserably during the TretaYug and the DwaparYug. And we all know about the social evils that have been happening in 'KalYug'. But it does not mean the religion is partial to women or promotes ill for women.

Because within the religion, the Goddesses (Laxmi, Saraswati, Parvati) are ALWAYS shown to be as powerful as their male counterparts. And they precede the existence of Seetas and Drapuadis who were the 'human incarnations', and had to go through the sufferings inflicted by humans upon humans.

Human Being is a flawed creature, acknowledged by God himself (in almost every religion.) These epics and scriptures have been interpolated and re-illustrated OVER TIME.

Coming back to my point, there was never a "vanilla" time and there never will be.

It's all about making progress. Something similar has been said in Bhagwad Geeta, but I can't claim to be an expert on it, as I haven't got the chance to read it yet.

OK. What is the evidence of inclusivity in ancient India? If the claim is there, the evidence also has to be there. Every text *purported* to be from ancient India has shown evidence of prejudice against queer people.

As I said before, Manusmriti specifically cites punishment for homosexuality. if we dismiss these as later interpolations, the earliest evidence of homosexuality in India is from 900s AD, and there is evidence of prejudice then as well (al-Birani's notes). Where is the evidence of the prior acceptance? There is none.

Shiva was Ardhanareeswara. A number of Greek and Roman gods were bisexual. Ancient Chinese literature is chockfull of anecdotes of gay men. Japanese homosexuality has been documented from ancient times. There are Mesopotamian PRAYERS for blessings on homosexual relationships. There is a well-known story from Egypt about gay men whose families buried them together when they died.

And yeah, India had Konark and Khajuraho temples from the medieval period which show homosexuality. Homosexuality in pictures and sculptures exist still from ancient Europe. In fact, there is more textual argument made in favor of homosexuality outside India than within.

David and Jonathan were supposedly a gay couple. So were Ruth and Naomi. Yet Bible has laws against homosexuality.

Every one of these societies can claim they were more accepting of LGBTQ because of their individual anecdotes.

But they weren't. Nor was India.

With re: women.

There were a number of goddesses in Norse, Celtic, Egyptian, Sumerian, Native American, Chinese, Japanese mythologies as well. Romans worshipped Juno, Minerva, Diana, Bellona, and more.

If India had Panchali (Sita was queen, not a working empress like Panchali), Egypt had Hatshepsut, China had Fu Hao, Greece had Artemisia.

Is that evidence of the entire ancient world being more accepting of women in power now? They were exceptions, not the rule.

The story about India being more accepting before *they* came in makes modern Indians feel good, but it's not true. India was as good and as bad as the rest of the world toward women and minorities.

Anyway, belief without evidence is actually faith, and I try not to debate faith. I gave my 2 c as well, and that is that.

Religion is a strange beast - Revere Lord Ayyappa on one hand and in same breath quote texts that forbid homosexuality.

I do not disagree with him, but he cannot blame that issue solely on the basis of his movies failing. India as well as many other countries, have a plethora of issues, but yes, that isn't why his film hasn't done well. I get what he is saying though..

It’s typical to blame the audiences when one’s films don’t do well. Maybe the content simply didn’t appeal to the masses? While I don’t completely disagree with the homophobic part, that’s such a generic statement coming from an actor because the country has a vast population and the concept isn’t really alien anymore. And AFAIK, his film Shubh Mangal zyada savdhan had the same concept and it did do well.

We indians are everything-phobic😆.

The reason why most of the movies are failing though isn't because of homophobia but the new phenomenon called Bollywoodphobia.

Also didn't CKA had an attractive female lead playing a transwoman? Unless you guys are bold enough to cast an actual trans person, do not lecture the rest of the nation.

At this juncture with India's 'socio-political' climate, these type of movies WILL NOT WORK.

It's ALL about timing, and these sort of 'CINEMA' movies don't/won't sell. 👎🏼

His comments come across as if being made by an entitled little brat.

By being different in each of his film he has become repetitive, the novelty has worn off. Instead of blaming the entire country for his failure he should look for the actual reasons for his failures.

Audience do not owe him anything.