Reddit reviews Shikhandi: And Other Tales They Don't Tell You
We found 2 Reddit comments about Shikhandi: And Other Tales They Don't Tell You. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
> the concept of homosexuality here in India
Really? Ancient india for an instance was waay too leet in terms of in the concept of homosexuality in India
Like
Kama shastras (kama sutra)
Khajuraho Temple and
Many countless other temples
Just last month I read quite exciting book in this genre
Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex
Understanding Homosexuality, Transgender Identity And Intersex Conditions Through Hinduism
https://www.xlibris.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?Book=587197
And
Shikhandi: Ánd Other ‘Queer’ Tales They Don’t Tell You
https://www.amazon.com/Shikhandi-Other-Queer-Tales-They/dp/9383074841
And this video
https://youtu.be/iplGW7MNNmI
And about the SC decision I think it it's latest right to privacy decision it's clear now LGBTQ is going to be legal in India very soon.
I think that it is worth everyone's while to read this fantastic article by Devdutt Pattanaik on historical references and attitudes towards homosexuality in India. It is clear that the law prohibition intercourse other than PIV types was introduced by the British, in the penal code, as an extension of their Victorian Protestant moral sensibilities. We had no such laws before they came, and we know proudly uphold their rules, saying at the same time, we are "resisting Western culture".
Devdutt Pattanaik, "Did Homosexuality Exist in Ancient India?"
The same author has a book called "Shikhandi" (I read it in Hindi but it was originally written in English) that documents narratives in Indian history that contained homosexuality, and queer narratives.
Another good reference that uses historical sources and material to document that homosexuality existed, and was not criminalised, historically is Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidwai's book, Same Sex Love in India.
I know for a fact that this last book was given to the bench in the SC during the Naz case. BUt their conclusion was that if the rights of a "miniscule minority" are violated they, as the SC didn't have to interfere. I feel this could be a dangerous precedent.