Ban the Cheerleader, Save the world.

Welcome to India. Land of the Kamasutra, Tantric Sex, 2.5 million HIV cases and the only “ developed / developing “ country to show a 600% increase in rapes over the past 20 years. The funny part is it is also home to a self professing and hypocritical moral police brigade, hell bent on showing that sex has no place in the average Indian’s culture. The latest stunt has been to ban cheerleaders from a popular sporting event.

Sex … We all do it, people suffer from doing it without protection, people do it without mutual consent and people do it well if the book is anything to go by. Yet most Indians would prefer to keep the origin of life a secret not to be alluded to in public.

Over the past month the following incidents have all happened at the same time. The chasm between fact and perceived moral standards is glaringly obvious. While these events are not chronological, they are all within the last few months.

1. Introduction of Sex education in schools is stopped and deemed to be unnecessary and against Indian culture.
2. Video Message of under-aged college students having sex is circulated.
3. Ban on women cheerleaders wearing inappropriate clothing, since it is demeaning to the image of a woman as per Indian culture.
4. Molestation case of 40 men molesting 2 women in Mumbai.
5. Tourists raped in several Indian tourist destinations.

Clearly the moral standards we apparently aspire to are not being met. In most cases this would be a good enough indicator that the social outlook toward sex has inherent problems. However there is and has always been a huge wave of denial regarding India’s social problems with sexuality. It almost as if we were saying “If we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist.”

So where does this need to hide sexuality come from?

How is this connected to acts of sexual hostility?

Why does moral policing specially in case of sexuality find a fairly significant wave of support even in a time and age where social development, interactions and outlook are being pushed toward more “progressive” ideas?

The first question has no single definitive answer. It is important to remember that India is only India since 1947. Before that it was a fragmented collection of Kingdoms and princely states collectively colonized by the British; each kingdom and state with its own social structure and hence its own social outlook toward sex.

The beginnings of social regulations on sex can be traced back to Manu Shastra. Where in the “rights” and “wrongs” of sex, were defined. The place of a woman in society was defined as one where a woman would have no will of her own. These tenets introduced the idea of certain sexual acts being shameful. They also set a precedence and justification for a gender bias which was not socially institutionalized prior to Manu shastra. It is also important to note that Manu Shastra stated that a woman was to be considered “holy” and was to be respected as such. This enabled a largely patriarchal society to systematically dictate behavior that was becoming of a “holy” figure. The hypocritical ideology of a “respectable” woman thus comes from the fact that the woman had no role in defining the idea of what was considered respectable.

Most Hindu kingdoms and states followed this ideology and with the introduction of shame and guilt, it did not take long for the guilt to permeate to other aspects of sexuality. Women were converted into possessions and figureheads rather than active social partners. Needless to say Islam and Christianity also have had definitions of “right and wrong” with regard to sex and sexuality, which continue to influence societies to this day.

However religion and gender bias alone is not to blame for India’s sexual repression. Social structuring, parental relationships and education or the lack there of, play a huge role. Dr. Erwin Haeberle’s article, draws an interesting comparison between human capacity for language and sexual behavior.

Human beings have an innate capacity to learn a language and communicate effectively through it. Chomsky’s work in linguistics largely revolved around this premise. It is however important to understand that while the capacity to learn a language is innate; the language that is learnt is determined by the society the child is born into. Similarly while the capacity for sexual expression in innate the method of expression depends on the society a child is born into.

“Some societies have different "secret" languages for males and females, and children will learn these too, according to their sex. Furthermore, if they have intelligent parents and good teachers, they may learn to speak exceptionally well. By the same token, harsh and ignorant parents may keep their children mute or inarticulate, or may cause them to stutter. On the other hand, some mistreated children may develop a "loose tongue" and use it to vent their hostility; others, who are more fortunate, may choose their words carefully to express only love and devotion. Finally, some people may voluntarily give up the pleasures of speech and, for some religious or moral reason, take a vow of silence.


Human sexual behavior develops in a very similar fashion. Children learn to adopt that behavior which is acceptable to their particular culture. They also acquire different masculine and feminine qualities according to their sex. If they have tolerant parents, their erotic capacities will grow, but a puritanical education will make them feel guilty and block or cripple their sexual responses. On the other hand, some frustrated children develop "loose morals" and use sex mainly to express their hostility; others, who are well satisfied, choose their sexual partners carefully and shower them with affection. Finally, some people decide to give up the pleasures of sex and, for some religious or moral reason, take a vow of chastity.


However, the comparison need not restrict itself to this individual level, i.e., to personal idiosyncrasies, failures, or successes. Human sexuality and language are also comparable on a general level and can be examined for their collective implications. After all, as every linguist knows, different languages express different basic philosophies. They paint different pictures of reality and reflect different approaches to life, in short, every language preforms the perceptions of those who grow up with it. Quite apart from specific personal opinions, large groups of people together learn to view the world differently according to their different "native tongues" “

Thus through a systematic repression of sexual behavior, through constant reprimand of any form of sexual expression and through a very puritan view of acceptable social standards for sexuality, India continues to doom its future generations into growing up as a sexually repressed society. Failed marriages, rapes, molestation, sexual harassment, child abuse are all prevalent problems in India and they will continue to be so until people actively make it a point to stop policing themselves and the people around them with regard to natural sexual expression.

Now this brings us to the last question. What I have stated is not an unknown insight into social behavior. Then why is it that in a day and age where Indian media and metropolitan youth show a remarkable increase in sexual expression, there is still a significant wave of support for moral policing?

The answer can be attributed to another well observed social phenomenon. As a society progresses financially it is known that power structures change. Political, social and religious establishments hold sway over masses through systems of political propaganda, a depiction of power through numbers and through religious indoctrination. As the financial independence of the individual increases ( specially in a capitalistic environment ), these establishments start losing their power to control these masses. Education and social interaction becomes more accessible to the individual dispelling the control exerted upon him/her.

In an attempt to entrench themselves into the social system, these institutions take to extremism and fanaticism. Every affluent country has its share of extremist groups and organizations. This becomes far more pronounced in India due to the glaring gap between the affluent and poor sections of society. Amartya Sen said that India was under a very real threat of simultaneously developing into New York and sub-Saharan Africa. That statement is socially pertinent as well.

It is easy to blame the politicians, religious groups and extremists. It is important to realize it is we who give them the power they wield. Unless people make an effort to understand and recognize their own repression, Indian society’s problems with sexuality will continue to plague its mental and social development.