Every Sin Need Not Be A Crime

July 23, 2012

‘Sin’ is a religious term. ‘Crime’ is a constitutional term.

Religion forbids certain things. Touching the forbidden thing is called a sin. But every sin need not be a crime.

July 23, 2012

‘Sin’ is a religious term. ‘Crime’ is a constitutional term.

Religion forbids certain things. Touching the forbidden thing is called a sin. But every sin need not be a crime.

For instance, consuming non-vegetarian food is forbidden for some communities. If they eat, they can be called sinners but not criminals. A religion forbids interest (Money paid for the use of money lent) business. But if any one from that religion does that, he will not be imprisoned. Constitution of India and Indian Penal Code cannot imprison on the charge of a sin. Jails are meant for criminals but not sinners.

Nityananda, who was branded as a god man by his followers got into shackles of crime two years ago for committing an act. Media, people and system got confused between sin and crime in his issue. Indeed, Nityananda and Ranjitha were also not an exception.

Media has over shown the voyeuristic video on TV channels. Majority people got entertained and the rise in TRPs is the proof for that. Police, those are part of viewers, arrested Nityananda for the first time on the charge of failing to answer bail for criminal charges regarding allegations arising after the video got telecasted.

First, how it can be called a crime, when a man is in love making with a woman with mutual consent at his own place of living?

Second, should god men keep away from such acts? If yes, why it’s not forbidden for Gods and devotees?

Third, who is the real criminal? Whether the pair in the video or the one who recorded that voyeuristically?

Even the devotees are confused. There is a fixed opinion that all the so called god men those spread the word of God in their own way are super human and stay far from sexual desires. Why should they feel so when God Himself and devotees themselves are not abstaining from that? I say God Himself, because it is believed to be in a religion especially. When poets like Jayadev and Annamacharya wrote songs explaining the sexual acts of Gods, people took them very pious and branded them as the verses of ‘madhur bhakthi’. But if any one does that in present scenario, he will be kicked under the roof of blasphemy.

As long as a person is not harming the society, his personal life is nothing to be bothered about. Well, some people those talk on moral terms may say that a person of popularity becomes a role model and hence he needs to behave idealistic. How can the preachers like Nityananda can be role models? They are clad in ochre and lead lives in ashrams preaching the message of God or Good. It’s a business on a whole. I feel there is nothing wrong as long as someone is doing business by engaging and entertaining people/devotees in their own way.

Some ashrams of other god men were indeed found to be the dens of drugs and flesh trade. Constitution and police can enter there and interrogate as drugs and flesh trade are forbidden by law. But targeting a man for the intimacy he had with a lady is something to thought about.

I know that I get blasting mails for this article, from many, as they wrongly assume I wrote in support of Nityananda. No, here I’m seeking answers for these questions with my ignorance:Should god men keep away from sex? Why?

• If the voyeuristic videos are made on every unmarried couple and telecasted in TVs, will the police arrest and put them behind bars?

• Will the treatment be the same for any film or political celebrity if he is found intimate with other woman who is not into flesh trade?

• Is religious/spiritual business detrimental to India?