'That depends on what your meaning of "is" is', famously retorted Bill Clinton during the witch-hunt trial on his improper relations with Monica Lewinsky, trying to turn an already absurd situation even more bizarre. And it was a perfect repartee to the idiotic question, 'Is that correct?', posed by the public prosecutor in his lawyerly way probing the timeline of the relationship. When the Supreme Court of India struck down the Delhi High Court ruling that decriminalized homosexuality citing that it went against the spirit of fundamental rights, with the now famous statement that 'it, homosexuality, is not natural', how one had wished Bill Clinton to be the defense lawyer adding the rejoinder, 'The depends on what your meaning of "natural" is'. Hiding behind an antiquated law from the colonial times and ruling homosexuality as 'unnatural' may not go against the natural order of procreation (and survival), but it certainly stifles that part of the human spirit that pushes past the boundaries and limitations erected by nature, something that mankind has been doing from time immemorial in the name of evolution. For example, what is farming if not unnatural, when nature intended (and ordained) all along for creatures with mobility to hunt and feast upon other creatures on foot in that whole food chain setup? So isn't man transgressing the rules of nature by turning his sights on other living things that have no mobility and hence can't protect themselves, like plants and trees, essentially embracing and alternative lifestyle of laziness and convenience? To stretch this 'unnatural' argument further, every single step of man in the evolutionary ladder has been to turn against nature, like domesticating animals, unearthing things that weren't meant to be found, inventing things by 'unnaturally' combining two different things, medicines, science, genetics, the near endless list that is the hallmark of human ingenuity, perseverance and his sense of endeavor and wonder are all achieved by nudging nature a few inches from the status quo. So could some wise lawmaker or a scholarly sitting judge take it upon himself and first define the word 'natural', so that the homosexuals could then be denied the legal, constitutional and moral recognition, protection and identification under those pretexts? Oh, and as long as biological acts that don't involve procreation are being criminalized, care to add some more to the list, like bachelor(spinster)hood, couple's conscious choice of not begetting children and masturbation, as none of these are aimed at advancing the cause of mankind forward?

'Carol' is yet another tale of mislabeling of love (here it happens to be between two consenting women) set in the 50s, a period when this biological variant of fondness wasn't just looked down upon as a licentious lifestyle choice, a social deviancy, but even a psychiatric disorder that required some serious mental health (or a religious head) counseling. Like the Holocaust stories that still keep popping up with consistent regularity, so are these tales of the genetically differently wired highlighting the trials, tribulations and travails of a section of population whose only fault is, biologically and scientifically speaking, not even their fault in the first place. The recent poignant movies from Hollywood like 'Boys don't cry', 'Brokeback Mountain', 'Milk', 'Matthew Shepard Story' make no bones about hiding the progressive tilt of the industry doing everything it can from mobilization to legislation to positively impact practically every aspect of life in the modern society for those marginalized and near ostracized variants of genetic disposition, from legal and hereditary rights, spousal privileges, insurance coverages, medical benefits, and above all, the inalienable right of every living being to love another being, regardless of the gender. How did it get this worse though? While historical evidences strongly indicate that early civilizations - Greek, Roman, Persian, even Indus, had a healthy appetite tolerating the mingling among genders, it was the rise of the societal religions (Christianity and Islam) under the umbrella of royal seal of powerful empires that derided, abolished and hunted down practices and practitioners of the alternative lifestyle citing scriptures and sayings of unseen Gods.

While every other aspect of human evolution - advancements in human endeavors, ever widening boundaries of knowledge, overall quality of life - all continue to grow in leaps and bounds, when it comes to the simple matter of allowing an alternate idea or tolerating a different behavior, that in no way is detrimental to the human cause, man seems to be regressing further and further away from the path of normal and logical. And so, year after year, art continues to espouse the cause of the cursed and the damned, shedding light on these many many stories of two people who simply want to be together but weren't allowed to, because the society around arrogantly assumes the role of the moral arbiter and refuses to look past the gender, all in the name of 'staying true nature'. There are 6 billion humans already in the world drying out mother nature's teat from every possible direction. How many more are needed to fulfill this religious obligation and get off this unholy obsession of generational show of hands?

All said, 'Carol' is a sad, grim, moving, beautiful and a tragic reminder of how backwards societies around the world continue to move, seriously out of lock, step and phase with the forward march of time.

checkout http://kanchib.blogspot.com for Srinivas's Blog.