Kiss of love: open lovemaking

By: Shreepal Singh

I am provoked to write this piece by peculiar circumstances. My esteemed friend, and General Secretary of Indian People’s Congress, Shri Parmanand Pandey, Advocate Supreme Court, had published an article “Kiss of love” on this website. All material on this website is in public domain and some gentleman considered this article interesting and reproduced this article at his website. He seemed to find this article interesting perhaps in the context of an ongoing controversy on the subject of “right of people to kiss one another out of love publicly, or at public places”.

The article at that website evoked some public response and a number of comments were posted there. Many of these comments were severely critical of the viewpoint of Shri Pandey. Some of these critics even labeled Shri Pandey of having a mindset of bygone era of Stone Age.

We discussed the substance of these criticisms with an open mind and with an awareness of our world where it stands today. With the knowledge that we have at our disposal, we felt that we are more modern in our outlook than those who made the critical comments. We collated these criticisms with our understanding of widest spectrum of science (perhaps which could be the basis of terming a person modern or orthodox) and came to the conclusion that if a person makes love with another person in public place it does not make him or her a more progressive, modern or intelligent one.

In view of this, it became necessary to reply those criticisms and publish them. Shri Pandey wrote an article on the subject by way of our reply, and also quoted the present author there, to those critics.

In Europe or US making love is not a social issue but here in India recently the “Kiss of love in public” has evoked a huge controversy. It is raging on social media.

In such circumstances, the present author felt compelled to write these lines in justification of our stand on this subject. Let us go straight to the heart of the issue.

Kiss of love is an expression of love by one person to another. Love is one of the most natural emotions of humans. It is not limited to human beings alone. Love is equally natural to animals. In fact, love goes to the very root of life. It is inseparably connected to the protection and preservation of life itself, which is abundantly found in the living-world the form of love of parents towards their young ones. Love is the manifest form of the innate instinct of self-preservation. But love is not limited to its manifestation in the “care of parents towards their new-born young ones” alone. It is equally, if not more, manifested in the “sexual activity for procreation”. Here also it is inseparably connected to the natural instinct of self-preservation.

Let us come from the living world of animals and insects to the world of humans. When we come to love, humans are no different from animals and insects except that we are more evolved in comparison to animals and insects. As we have pointed out, love is the manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation; and love has a very wide range of spectrum. It seeks to strengthen group-bond in the strategic service of self-preservation. There may be love between mother and son; father and son; brother and sister; brother and brother and brother; man and woman; man and man; woman and woman. What is the common element among all of them? It is the mutual bonding to serve the goal of self-preservation. What is the difference among each of these relationships? It is the strategy to aid the goal, which is different in each case. This difference of strategy in the service of self-preservation is well reflected in the more evolved human society, which we call human civilization. Animals may have love culminating in sexual activity for procreation between brother and sister; mother and son; father and daughter; but it is not so in human society.

The context of the present controversy of “kiss of love” is about two adults making public expression of love. Nobody has ever raised an eyebrow over the mother making a public expression of love to her child; child to his or her mother etc. Why there is a social question only when an adult makes a public expression of love to another adult? Let us be honest: it is only because this love has an undertone of sexual activity for procreation. Those who deny this fact are hypocrites. Do we have courage to call spade a spade? If “kiss of love” has an overtone and undercurrent of sexual activity for procreation, what could be the reasonable objection to such lovemaking in public places?

If lovemaking between two adult humans has its spring out of the core of natural instinct of self-preservation with an undercurrent of sexual activity for procreation, let us go back to animal kingdom and compare ourselves with them. In animal kingdom, son and mother (or, father and daughter; sister and brother etc.) have sexual activity. What is wrong with it? With animals, it is not wrong. With humans, it is wrong. It is wrong because humans over the long time have come to evolved state; to a civilized social living; to a reasoned collective living. Open sex – and the open lovemaking ultimately leading to open sex – is per se unreasonable; and, there are thousands of reasons. Such public activity incites others to follow the suit. In modern society there are ill-motivated catalysts (like, corporates vested interest in promoting sex etc.), which make open lovemaking and open lovemaking leading to open sex an excessive and over-indulgent activity. Such activity spurs the breakdown of cultural restraints, which have been evolved by humans over the period of thousands of years.

Let us touch another point relating to this controversy. Nobody is raising any objection to lovemaking in privacy. Then, why at all there is concerted move to promote this act in public? Do you sense a rat? If you are aware of A, B, Cs of economics, you would not miss the culprit. The demand of the right to make love in public has nothing to do with freedom; human rights; gender equality; modernity; civilized temperament etc.

Those who have the means to promote the open lovemaking; those who have the vested interests in promoting the open lovemaking; and those who are so concerted in their moves to promote this open lovemaking, know more than you and me that the open lovemaking has everything to do with sex. They know that sex is the single most powerful motivator of human being. They also know that culture, religion, spirituality and their ilk are the single most powerful impediment to check, control and contain the human needs (in economics, called demands), which needs are very necessary for their manufactured products to sell. We all know Lord Jesus Christ has taught humans to limit their wants; Lord Buddha taught that control your desires. Hindu religious and spiritual books, saints andYogis all have taught to limit your needs and demands to achieve certain higher goals of human life. It all goes against those who want to sell their products and promoting consumerism, including open sex. But it is not easy to fight one’s culture, which is ingrained in human mind. So destroy culture etc. Those who are promoting open sex (openly or behind the scene) have destroyed the Christian culture of restraint in Europe and US. These same forces are today out to destroy the Indian culture to convert civilized humans into consuming animals. But culture is very difficult to be destroyed.

In power to motivate humans, sex is more powerful than culture. The family is centered around regulated sex. The family is the unit of civilized society. If you use sex as a weapon to destroy family, you destroy culture. And, with the destruction of culture, those who are promoting “kiss of love” aim to convert civilized humans into consuming animals.

If the open lovemaking is the indicator of human development and progress, then animals that make love in open are more developed than humans!


Kiss of Love movement: a sign of mischief and mental bankruptcy  

By: Parmanand Pandey, Advocate Supreme Court (General Secretary IPC)

I have received number of comments on my post ‘Kiss of Love or Kiss of Shame’. There are many comments, which are very enlightening, and their opinions cannot be ignored or lost sight of. Nonetheless, there are certain examples given by some of the commentators are outrageous and not in accord with the march of civilization.

I would like to inform that some Jain Sadhus certainly roam freely fully nude but they nudity hardly titillates any onlooker.
While kissing in the public certainly generates voyeuristic pleasure and sensuousness this cannot be said about Naaga Sadhus. I would also like to tell my friends that Jain Sadhvis (female saints) never go around naked in the public. At the same time, Naga Sadhus go in public only in groups on certain occasions. My information about them is that for nearly 360 days out of 365 days of the year they remain fully clothed. Except on the occasions like Shahi Snana, when they move in groups fully nude, they avoid going naked in public. While one symbolizes the complete control over sensuousness, the other eggs on that.

The example of women of some tribes who remain bare breasted is also very misplaced. These women mostly live in the impenetrable and impervious jungles, which are often secluded from other people. These men and women are still untouched with the breeze of modern civilization.

Do we also want to become like them? There are two paths left for us: one is either to go back to stone age and support for not wearing any clothes and the other, is to provide enough and appropriate apparels for everybody.

I do not find any cogent logic being advanced or put forward by some people for kissing in the public.

One-woman commentator has said that how can kissing in public be obscene and not pissing or open defecating? I really fail to understand how she has been able to draw any conclusion that I am justifying the kissing in public. I am as against pissing in public as anybody else but at the same let me hasten to say that pissing in open is not a matter of choice; it is a compulsion. Moreover, pissing in public hardly generates any tickling or tingling but on the other hand, kissing in public certainly does. Pissing in public causes repulsion among the people who see at it but kissing in public vitiates the minds of particularly youngsters.

While there is always, a choice to kiss in public or to kiss in private but pissing is not a matter of choice. Any person in his or her right mind would prefer not to make a spectacle of the lovemaking except, of course, by those who are of perverted mentality. Lovemaking is a pristine thing and those who are in favour of making an exhibition of it, I can only pity for them.

When I narrated these comments to my friend and my senior Shreepal Singh ,an Advocate in the Supreme Court, he told me that ‘these misguided young men and women are indulging into this shameless activity at the behest of some foreign agencies’. Another Advocate Subhash Sharma, who added that some foreign agencies were out to destroy the culture of the country, supported him. Both of them command respect for their independent and seasoned views. They say that once the culture of a country is destroyed, then it can easily be dominated.They have reasons to believe that the degenerating movement like, ‘Kiss of Love’ is being pushed with the same aim and purpose of crippling the cultural ethos of the country.

I tend to agree with the opinions of both learned Advocates. Indian culture talks very high of the Kaam(sex). The other sublime pillars of the life of the human being are: Dharma i.e., righteousness, Arth (wealth) and lastly the Moksh(salvation). The Kaam is one of the evolved pillars of the life. It contains the purity and that is why, it has been given so much importance. Nevertheless, like all other things in the life it must also be contained, controlled and regulated otherwise, it becomes licentious and creates perversion and law and order in the society.

Mr. Shreepal Singh was more blunt when he said that the difference between an animal and human being is of the ‘judiciousness’. Human beings always evolve to higher grades because of intelligence and mental capacity. An animal, a stray dog can copulate anywhere but not a human being because of the regulatory discretion of his/her mental faculty. He further elaborated that ‘every country is guided by the collective consciousness of the society. What is good for Afghanistan may not be acceptable in America and similarly what is practiced in America may be an anathema to India.

If the logic of the protagonist of the ‘Kiss of Love’ is accepted then why should there be any objection when two adults, say mother and son, father and daughter or brother and sister?Social mores and norms do not go only by the consents between two adults. The need is to awaken the public and when necessary the punishment should be given to those, who are going astray.

%d bloggers like this: