The term ‘orthodox’ in itself is very ambiguous. It can mean different things to different people. For some, who believe in scriptural orthodoxy, it is sticking to what is written in the scriptures. For others, it is just following the established and tested path. However, an orthodox approach is mostly linked to religion and India, being the haven of almost all the religions of the planet, will always have orthodox people forming the majority. But, is this approach righteous because after all, the scriptures are written by mortals only? Those people were also influenced by the constrained imagination of their times and society. So can we really afford to follow that approach in modern times?
India is a young country. Our median age will be 29 by the year 2020. This will account for nearly half of our total population. We can’t afford to follow the orthodoxy that our earlier generations used to follow. But at the same time, we need to be careful in this transformation. We conveniently adopt things from West, imitating only what we want, without any steady education to keep pace with this change. Consider for example, we want freedom in the way we dress, but we don’t have enough gender sensitization which will allow a girl wearing mini skirt to roam freely. We are ready to eat the fruit but not ready to pay the price of it.
Bringing forth the issue of Article 377, can we say that only orthodox approach is responsible for this? If yes, then how can we explain the fact that even a liberal country like US considered homosexuality a criminal offence until a court overturned a ruling in 2003? We can’t blame our reluctance to change to an ambiguous term like ‘orthodox approach’. Article 377 criminalizes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” but who has decided that order of nature? Is it our culture which gives us ample examples in form of “Ardhanarishvara” (Lord Shiva whose half is woman) or “Shikhandi” who was born as girl while raised and lived as a man? Even KamaSutra describes sex between all kinds of sentient beings. With so many examples from past, how can we blame this reluctance to change on “orthodox approach”.
We have examples of Rishi Vishravas marrying Kaikasi, a Rakshasa and Bhima marrying Hidembe. Are they not enough to justify inter-caste marriages?
I believe that we are using “orthodox outlook” just as a fancy term to cover all our sins that we commit in the name of religions and customs. If we need to grow then we need to stop behaving cowardly and welcome the change. But at the same time, we need to learn from our past because it also is equally important. As pointed out earlier in this article, we need to learn new things from West but also keep our ethics and values intact. After all the nation will grow only if people from every group will grow.