Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Mohan Lal's views on sex

The latest Malayalam India Today has an interview with Malayalam actor/super-hero and two-time national award winner Mohan Lal and I am just amazed by his broad-minded view about sex.

He says,

"Everyone in this world first walked nude. Even India had a lot of sexual freedom. The most authentic and beautiful books about sex were written in India. If we read Kamasutra, we will begin to romance everything we see. Kamasutra describes sex with minor girls and animals. We had that much freedom in sex. Then came other religions and they started preaching of trust and commitment in a relationship to attract people into their religions."

There are two things I noticed here. First his preaching about having sex with minors and animals. Next his hatred towards other religions than Hinduism. I haven't read Khoran, but where in Bible was it mentioned that sex is sinful? Instead, Bible has mentioned that sex is a divine thing and trust and commitment in a married life is important. It also helps to keep the family values. The Catholic church in Kerala conduct classes for the men and women who are going to get married (no, its not about religion - ask any of your catholic friends in Kerala), explaining about the sexual relationship so that they wont be having fake ideas about sex that they get from watching XXX videos. And the classes are not taken by priests, but professors from medical colleges. So what is Mr. Lal's point?

I also would like to know if we can justify all those people who were allegedly involved in minor-sexual abuse cases, because all of them were just experimenting the sexual freedom as suggested by the ancient Indian texts. And is it okay to try your overflowing sexual desires on the animals, pets and minor girls? Or is this to justify the actors like Jagathy Sreekumar who are accused of having sex with minor girls? Or is Mr. Lal aready doing this and just taking an advance bail before being caught? I don't know!!!


b v n said...


beg to differ. whatever mohanlal has cited here is not something new,it was the invasions from the north that made the indian culture so closed - it was not because of other religions but the hindus who moved to the southern plains became more orthodox *like invasions by the west making the mid-east more orthodox*. We were meat eaters and had an open approach to sex - juvenile and animal instances are not in reference to sexual exploitation - chk out kamasutra-other wise visit a few old hindu temples and chk out the carvings on stone.

i consider myself a catholic hindu 'cause of my education and respect catholic values .But isnt this the same church that is still ambivalent about condoms and abortion ? ...and for juvenile perverts why to look out for jagathy aren't there enough cases piled up and millions spend in vatican.

if it was about religion i wudnt have cared,but you know its about lal :)

aqua said...

Other Religions(From Lal's words) had utilised this to attract people. Its true for an extend. The videos has little edge over the pre-marriage courses.

Jo said...

it was not because of other religions but the hindus who moved to the southern plains became more orthodox *like invasions by the west making the mid-east more orthodox*.

But Lal claimed the other way.

We were meat eaters and had an open approach to sex - juvenile and animal instances are not in reference to sexual exploitation - chk out kamasutra-other wise visit a few old hindu temples and chk out the carvings on stone.

I am not against experimental sex in a committed relationship (i.e. Married relationship) on a mutual agreement of the partners. (I mean a person cannot force his/her partner to do it). I, therefore, do not disrespect those books or stone carvings in the temples. I haven't read Kamasutra hence no comments about the juvaline and animal references, but the context that Lal has used in his interview seems stupid and cheap to me. Perhaps he depicted the book in the wrong way?

I consider myself a catholic hindu 'cause of my education and respect catholic values .But isnt this the same church that is still ambivalent about condoms and abortion ? ...and for juvenile perverts why to look out for jagathy aren't there enough cases piled up and millions spend in vatican.

Very true. I think its stupid of Catholic church to campaign against the use of condoms, in this era of pre-marital sex.

But I completely support church's view on abortion. I believe its a crime, considering there are ways to have safe-sex then why this brutal murder a.k.a abortion?

As for the pervert/paedophile priests, I agree there too. But the reason I used Jagathy's name here is because this post is connected to cinema, particularly Malayalam cinema and the recent pervert example from this industry is Jagathy Sreekumar.

if it was about religion i wudnt have cared, but you know its about lal :)

Hehe... :-)

Jo said...

>> Aqua:

Other Religions(From Lal's words) had utilised this to attract people. Its true for an extend.

Could you please explain? Are you saying it's wrong to preach about the morality and its wrong of people to get attracted to a faith based on it?

Ullas said...

The fact that other religions said "it is immoral to not have trust and long last relationships" means they were criticizing the prevalant norms which were probably part of Hinduism.

I am not an authority on sexual practises in ancient India so I will not comment on it.

Just wanted to say that I am against any religion/group/sect which attracts others by trying to show that only their religion/group/sect is the best and folks who dont follow their edicts are bound to go to hell.

Oh and yes I am reading an interpretation of Bhagwat Gita and so far I see similar thoughts being expressed there too. The only difference being that Krishna is shown as the supreme GOD and my guess is the other Gods were also considered as Hindu gods. So there is no reference of other religions in the original but may have crept into modern interpretations.

Jo said...

>> Ullas:

The fact that other religions said "it is immoral to not have trust and long last relationships" means they were criticizing the prevalant norms which were probably part of Hinduism.

Why do you think the morale lectures of other religions are against Hinduism? There were other faiths existed during the time when Christianity emerged, right? Then why do you think its particularly against Hinduism?

And also one more thing - Didn't we have very orthodox moral values even before other religions came to India? Family system, Brahmacharyam (its not only for Christian priests, right?), trust and commitment in a family relationship etc? So how do you say its only the other religions that preached about these things?

I heard from a Catholic priest that Catholic church has accepted the God's presence in other religions. So its not completely "you-believe-in-our-faith-or-go-to-hell" thing. As for my personal beliefs, regardless of the religion or faith, it is one's good deeds that's going to save him/her and the heaven and hell are all here on this earth. And for that matter, I have seen some aethists (and some religious people too) involved in a lot of charity activities.

Arjuna_Speaks said...

brother - I am giving u my first request for song :)

Melle from Nottam..I want to listen to ur version - that song is an absolute gem of a song..Ur voice wuld really suit that..

BlueByrd said...

Belated Onam wishes Jo !~Controversial topic indeed ewwww!!

Now i ain't gaat no clue bout Pagan values and view on sex with beasts !!!...But I would like to turn your attention to the following laws from The Holy Bible( King James Version) ...These Laws are from The Lord himself. The book of Leviticus( Esp. verse 23 on sex with beasts !) Chapter 18 from the Old Testament....=>

Le:18:1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Le:18:2: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.
Le:18:3: After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Le:18:4: Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.
Le:18:5: Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.
Le:18:6: None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.
Le:18:7: The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Le:18:8: The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Le:18:9: The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
Le:18:10: The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
Le:18:11: The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Le:18:12: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.
Le:18:13: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
Le:18:14: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
Le:18:15: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
Le:18:16: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.
Le:18:17: Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
Le:18:18: Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
Le:18:19: Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
Le:18:20: Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
Le:18:21: And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Le:18:22: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Le:18:23: Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
Le:18:24: Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
Le:18:25: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Le:18:26: Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
Le:18:27: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
Le:18:28: That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
Le:18:29: For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Le:18:30: Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

May the reader decide from this moment on and May the Good Lord lead everyone in righteousness so that they sin no more !

Thanks for the window of opportunity so I could bring these powerful verses to one and all. Remeber The Good Lord sends his Love to ya'll today. Have a great life everyone !

kanya said...

Hey Jo,

I couldn't read all your comments but I read your blog post though... so here are my thots :

(1) about sex: true it involves people with mutual concent to indulge in the act.. i could be a simple heterosexual act or a homosexual act or even group activity.. who cares if people involving in it don't care

(2) about sexual abuse: I consider sex with animals as an abusive act as sex with kids or minor gals are... for all you know the animal under pressure may not like it!!! but frankly, the open sex concept was not meant to say that humans have the freedom to experiment and explore their sexuality.. rather, sex in those days was a mystery.. and fortunately or not humans started to rule and then they laid down their own rules..

so as apes we had a open sex rule while as we started wanting to have control over the others... it gave them a sense of power.. so they laid down rules like.. men can choose any number of women.. but a women shud server only one man...

I am not sure if religions laid these rules.. b'coz if i am right.. there was no concept of marriage in early days.. living together was the only thing ppl did.. but later the concept of marriage came in so they can leave a mark of ownership on each other... for eg: it is believed that the metti was supposed to have been for men and Thali was for women.. so when a women looks at a man's leg she knows someone else owns him and viceversa...

Coming to think of it.. all these rituals and rules and taboos came up only to gain control and power over the others..

(3) about lal: man i love him.. :P everyone has their own opinions abt sex... so does he.. but that does not justify sexual abuse.. and hopefully he is not justifying it either..

Note: surprisingly, some of us have started writing abt sex in the same time... I wrote something abt it too... visit my blog if u have time...

Ullas said...

The first week I was in US, a preacher came upto me and tried to introduce Jesus to me - a Don Boscoite at that. Anyways long story short, I told him I was born in a democracy and like everything else I like to have multiple Gods to choose from. So I choose to live with the pantheon of Hindu Gods than one Lord or Allah.

This episode has repeated itself umpteen number of times. At first I used to aggresively counter the arguments, but later I decided to listen and tell "I will get back to you".

Personally, I find such an approach to propagating religion unethical. The fact that someone believes his lord is best does not make him/her believe everybody else should follow him/her. It is not the Lord I question, but the fact that I have go by the word of "another mortal".

What right he/she has to tell me what I should do.

As for your argument about Christianity aiming at other religions, I agree. Christianity grew in the shadow of Islam and not Hinduism. The Bramacharya et al phases that you mentioned are Manuvadi philosophy which gave rise to class system too. This phiolosophy can also be seen as that brought by the Aryan invasion (something that is not being contested by scholars).

What Mohanlal was talking about is about the sexual mores that are prior to the so called aryan invasion.

Jo said...

>> Ullas: I think we are getting off the topic here. I will talk about the religion etc in another post, but my point here is Lal is not just right to say that its "other religions" which made people think about sex is a sinful thing. That's why I gave examples in this post to say he is wrong. And before the Aryan invasion and civilization, there would have had open sex concept regardless of mother, father, children, brother, sister concepts but do you prefer to live in that ape world? Morality is part of civilization. Also the thoughts Mr. Lal has projected on the basis of Kamasutra (I havent read the book yet), seems stupid and cheap to me. His statements reveal what kind of a man he really is.

And my argument was not that Chrisitianity was "aiming" at other religions. I said the morale lectures of Christianity is not aimed at Hinduism, for that matter not against any other religion.

And finally all these matter only if you believe in the concept of divinity of marriage, trust and commitment in a married relationship and importance of family. If you don't believe in any of these systems, you can discard this post. :-)

Keshi said...

All I know is that sex should happen

1.between 2 humans

2.between 2 developed brains - meaning adults.


SloganMurugan said...

Just like a minister's "eve-teasing" episode on a flight exposes the way woman are treated in Kerala , Mohan Lal's view on religion is the mirror of the hatred that exists between communities in Kerala.

Jo said...

>> Keshi: True.

>> Slogan Murugan: Sad, but true.

Anonymous said...


Why to bring religion in to this discussion at all ? He mentioned that sex was treated as a very simple part of life and looked in best detailed way. When western/middleeast culture came to our nation, natuarally we adapted some restrictions and rules which give sex a taboo image.


Ullas said...

Now Mohan Lal is getting crucified for saying out his beliefs loud ?

Better that people speak their mind than keep it hidden in their hearts.

Somehow sex and marriage got intertwined in Indian society. By looking at sex in that manner, we have reduced a basic human need to merely an act of procreation.

Infidelity and sex are not directly connected. I am sorry if people have that view.

SMALL :) said...

Agree with Mohan Lal, if we have-as we had i too think-ask history-sexual freedom, no rapes or sexual crimes will occur. Sex was and will be always great if both sides are getting pleasure out of it. It is never a one sided act. It is by mere ignorance or more possibly by purposeful effort to conquer a people, the other "teachers" were introduced.
And unfortunately still going on literating people. High time we voice for it.

sam, uk said...

What about Lal going nude in 'Thanmatra'? Does this action( ...and actions speak louder than words... ) and his views on sex mean that he prefers complete freedom in society on such matters?

SMALL :) said...

is he going nude in Thanmatra? I didn't know it. His recent interviews, for example the one in Madhyamam Onam weekend too, reveals his quest to open his heart. Let us give our ears to him. I am sure its for good for human kind.

ഉമേഷ്::Umesh said...


I don't think Kamasutra has description of sex with animals. It has positions imitating animals, conducted by humans.

The definition of "minors" was different in ages. In old times, a mensurated girl was considered too late for marriage. So, that is an issue of social definition. It is true that there were child-marriages and similar social evils in old times.

Finally, is Kamasutra the gospal of Hindu religion? Is Mr. Lal advocating going back to this?

First men on earth didn't have much social and moral values. Does that mean we should go back to that?

The discussion of "other religions" or any religion is nonsense here. There is no need to continue that, in my view.

Jo said...

>> Umesh: Thank you for your thoughts on this. I agree with what you said about the 'minors'. Then it makes clear that either Mohan Lal has gone cenile or he is ignorant enough to depict the ancient texts as he like, and his advocacy is utter non-sense. I also doubt he is advocating for some ideology that can only spread religious hatred. His statement about the 'other religions' prove where he stands. That's why I posted about this. I am only surprised that the interviewer (who is also a young and upcoming poet in Malayalam - Rupesh Paul) had not dared to question this or did not find any need to ask for an explanation on this from Mr. Lal during the interview.

They Call Me Trinity said...

I think too much is being read into Lal's comments...

The idea was to highlight then oppenness of the hindsu society of that age where everything - including sex - was viewd with curiosity.

The biggest difference between Hinduism and Abrahamic religions is that the latter are based on strict codes of conduct while Hinduism is extremely individualistic. So the code of conduct obviously covers sexual matters too (I have read case studies of men in Islamic countries who refuse to take off the burkhas off their wives completely even during intercourse. I have also read too much on the church's unreasonable anti-contraceptive and anti-abortion stand).

Its not that Lal wanted to have intercourse with animals and minors, unless someone's simply too narrow minded to make interpretaions as it fits him/her.

As for this: I heard from a Catholic priest that Catholic church has accepted the God's presence in other religions.

Really? Is that why St.Thomas fooled gullible Hindus into believing that their god's do not accept the showers of water thrown at them during pujas? Is that why we have inummerable cases of forced conversions - or for that matter conversions itself - in the country?

Why convert at all if they think god exists in other religions? After all the idea is to believe in some god, thats all!

Padmasani said...

Jo, with due love and affection to you I would like to pen down the following lines. (Since my attention is specifically drawn to this post. My first impulse was to ignore. Then your association with music has altered my response and the following lines)

There is a very big chaos going on in the name of religions all over the world. We are living in a cruicial time of what we can call as a dharma sandhi.

We have a lot of fanatics hanging on to certain words and sentances and engage themselves in offence and defence pratices.

The core religions be it Buddhism, Christianity, Islam or the Hinduism have never meant any such arguments or fights in the name of religions.

In fact a true believer of god ( be it any one from any of the so called prevailing religions) will never indulge in wars.

No single individual is expected to or can defend or protect Gods.Every religion is acceptable and followable during a particular time of the universe. Many religions have come and many have fallen out also. But the human life and evolution go on.

Jo you have music.Its a religion by itself. Dont waste your time on any such thoughts which could have been used far more fruitfully.

Such fruitless topics may draw traffic to your blog. But please dont fall into the pit.

Jo said...

Dearest Padmasani aunty,

Thank you very much for your comment and thoughts on this. First of all, its not the traffic to my blog that concerned me to write this post. If it was, I would never write anything about religion, politics, or any controversial topics thinking anyone who are on the opposite side might not visit my blog again. But from the Day 1 of this blog, I am not bothered about the hits or visitors, hence I voice out my thoughts openly and honestly. Be it religion, politics, society or sex. :-)

I know such topics can derive to other subjects which would be out of my intention and sometimes can get worse. That is why I didn't reply to some of the comments to this post. From the comments, I can see what kind of people comment on and if they have an open approach or a prejudiced approach. So I replied to genuine people like Umesh, for example, who came up with an open mind and even taught me a few things like for example, the reference to minors in Kamasutra and its relation with the age and time when the book was written.

What triggered me to write this post was the comment from Mr. Lal that can only spread more hatred in the already torn society (in the basis of religion). I would have ignored if he was just another person from the neighborhood who just say blah blah blah, but he is a celebrity who can influence atleast half of the people in Kerala. That is why someone has to write about this. I think nobody else were talking about this since it is published.

Your thoughts in relgion is beautiful and so very true. I totally agree to that. I only wish people like Mohan Lal give it a thought and holds back himself from making such stupid and false comments which can only help to spread hatred amongst the religion. Such people must be revealed before the society, hence this post. I am not meaning to change the world with this blog, but I can atleast let the readers of this blog know that this guy is on the wrong side.

Once again, thanks for commenting.

Anna said...


An interesting discussion. But, let me ask you, aren't we missing the forest for the trees here?

There are two aspects to this discussion. One is the so-called 'sexual freedom' of old days where, to quote 'sex with minors’ was permitted and the other is the influence of religion on morality.

Since the second one is the smokescreen that distracts everyone, let me deal with that first and get it out of the way.

1) The question is whether Victorian values of the English who ruled us during the 19th century affected our morality. Yes, it would have. No society can be subjected to a lot of new thinking and education implemented by an external force (in this case, the British) and escape completely unaffected. So, it is only natural that we took on overtones and shades of their moral thinking. And, let me stress, this has nothing to do with 'other religions'. It has become a fashionable fad to blame 'other religions' for any and every deviation from the 'Aryan' or 'Vedic' way of life of old days. Remember, this was a way of life suited to a few thousands of years ago. And if anyone thinks that we could have continued to live that way in the 21st century if no Christian missionaries had come in the way, they are being mighty foolish. Whether the British brought missionaries/another religion or not, their morality would have affected us - as with any association of two different cultures, there would have been 'give and take' and since we were the subjugated culture, we ended up 'taking' more than we 'gave'. Tough luck!

2) Now that this interesting point is out of the way, let us examine the rest of it. Yes, Kamasutra depicts and describes sex with minors and animals. Now, answer me the following:

- Just because a 13th century scholar/sage saw it fit to write a detailed treatise on sex, does it mean that everyone in that society practised it? If you think yes, you are being extremely ignorant of Indian thought. Indian philosophy is full of curiosity and the need to widen the boundaries of knowledge. So, Vatsyayana, as a seeker of knowledge, explored the limits of his subject to his heart's content. He didn’t intend it as a prescription for others to live by, nor did he intend it as a description of the way of life of his society.

And if you think it was a description of the way of life of the 13th century India - you are wrong. Going by that kind of thinking, you can expect people in 2800 AD to think that everyone in the 21st century practiced body piercing and tattoos - because there are thousands of books written in this subject today. Or that we all took up origami or that we all practised zen or that we all ate vegan food or that we all took up marathon-running. I rest my case on this point.

- Another aside: just because a 13th century scholar/sage saw it fit to write a detailed treatise on sex, do we all have to practice it?

Now to the more important angle here, and a more controversial one:

- Sex with minors is described in the 13th century treatise because this treatise is the product of an era where 'human rights' literally did not exist. Remember, this was a time when the elite lived and the others existed to make their living smoother. So, if you were a low-caste person, you didn't have any rights. If you were a woman, you didn’t have any rights and you could be owned like a piece of property. Similarly, children too had none. So, this is a period where the 'intrinsic' worth of human beings was not a fundamentally accepted principle of life (This is very strange and goes against a lot of Hindu teaching though). So, today, we condemn paedophilia because it wounds and destroys children and it is a crime because it disregards the 'right to understand and consent'. A child cannot understand the implications of sex, and s/he cannot consent to what s/he cannot understand. Simple!

So, the question is not about religions. It is about humanity and equality in being treated as humans. Do not confuse it.

Mr. Lal was wrong to bring in 'other religions' into the whole debate. And he shows marked inadequacy in thought when he casually condones all that is written in the Kama sutra (or he sounds like it!) without understanding the nuances in it. No text can be taken out of context, as, all thought is the product of its times. It is for us, the thinking beings, to bring 'vivechanam' into the way we read and understand it.

And, let us not bring religion into everything. Why are we allowing our intellects to be blunted by the bulwarks of religion? Do we have to see and debate everything in the light of our religious beliefs?

Jo said...

>> Anna: I hope your comment was in response to what Lal said. And I really wish he reads this. :-)

For your last question:

Do we have to see and debate everything in the light of our religious beliefs?

If this question is for me, I shall say me or any other human being should be aware of how some people goes on the religious extremism and spread hatred. Be it Narendra Modi or Praveen Thogadia who had once called Hindus to send out ALL the Muslims in India to Pakistan and then turn against the Christians and make India a Hindu country. Be it Osama Bin Laden who called for Holy(??) War against all other religions and make Islam the only religion in the world. Be it the Pope who once said his aim is the whole world to be baptized in Christianity, without trying to make the existing people in the Christian community to live life in the Christian way, or be it Mohan Lal who preached his wrong ideologies and was trying to fake people with his own depictions - One shall aways point out these. IT IS a matter to debate. And all others except Lal have been in the light of discussions or debates but not Lal, hence this post.

Anonymous said...

My comment on this is.. Mohanlal mentioned his views.. strictly his.But as a person who can exert influence on a community, he should be careful in saying things like this. Atleast explain what he means by saying so.

Anna said...


No, the comment 'do we have to see everything in the light of religion' was not aimed sqaurely at you. It was aimed more at Mr. Lal :)

I was just making a point that people (in this case, Mr. Lal) should think a bit beyond religion when they examine issues. There are centuries and millenia worth of thought in philosophy, sociology, anthropology, history and other humanities which can also be used to interpret and make sense of our modern world. We need to use those as well. No point in burning the entire forest to live in the shade of a single tree. This is what those who use only religion as their guide, conscience and reason do.

So long, and thanks for the discussion :)

BlueByrd said...

@ They call me trinity : A catholic priest's view does'nt count ! Catholics are against Jesus Christ ! The vatican and the black Sheep(pope) are Satan's very own advocates ! The truth is out there ! There is only one Master and That's Lord Jesus Christ Alone Amen !

vilakudy said...

Frankly, I never knew that such a Malayalam website existed untill I read the latest issue of Mathrubhumi weekly. Found the website interesting and different. It is true that the article was written by a Mohanlal fan. But the article threw light on some very interesting facts about Lal, whom I believe is one of the greatest, if not the great, actors in the country. I completely agree that Lal deserved a big award for his brilliant performance in Iruvar. That is true. He should have been given a National Award, at least, for that. So impressed was Maniratnam that he decided not to cast Lal again in his movies. Manirtanam told one of my friends in an interview, "I can't work with a man who I have become a fan." That was a huge compliment. Yes, some of the things in the article were exaggerated. The site also prompted me to discover the world of Malayalam bloggers. Thanks man. Keep such things posted.

Thor said...


i have real most of the posts here without much interest simply because they are totally counter to my line of thought.

I believe that religion should never ever involve itself in the way one lives life. It should never 'define' morality. People should life their lived on the basis of what THEY think is right or wrong, not whqt the religion tells them is.

Same for sex.

Abhay said...

Let me first say that i came to this blog to listen to some good music.

But this topic and the authors attitude really made me sit and jot.

Mallus are typically hypocritical; read the author repeating within ( ) that he has not read kamasutra !!

its so hypocritical that he refers to it and then take a bail as if its a great sin to read a book like that.
And this pseudo sense of portraying jagathy sreekumar as a pervert!

its mallus typical enjoyment in throwing stones at famous and successfull people.

Let me now not make it look like i am supporting the hindus.

Let me ask all those who read this discussion, one question:

why did all agree with the female who said that some one like PJ Joeseph tried doing some thing which is seen normal in a 3rd class un reserved compartment?
why are pseudo guys like jo feel that jagathy and joeseph or neelan is at fault.?

why did no single leader in this state stand up and say that a person of such public life, who was a minister, and who is know wont indulge in such a cheap stuff?

No, we wont, coz we enjoy throwing shit at people and like to see then suffer.

Let me tell you couple of my incidents in Dubai were i was residing.

A friend called me and said once, " hey kuncjako boban, is coming with a troupe, are you free this thursday."

then came the shocker: dai, nammal cristians is not represented much in movie, he is rising , lets support him.

howzaat!! from an educated christian.

and i was in a que in saritha theatre, for kalcutta news, 2nd show and a well dressed female - presumabily from a well to do family was on behind me and on mobile she was saying" adutha kalath oru christian payyan director aayi vannathalle, kandekkam"

I feel a real sense of hypocracy in your whole post Mr JO.

It feels so pseudo,

and it lowers that a person of such musical calibre criticise some one like LAL as to being a religious fundamental, and the reality is that you are takign up urself as the custodian of christianity.

Millions of hindus listen to yesudas, not becos he is a christian. no simgle hindu would have approached and asked him to convert to aryasamaj, even after his well published love for that religion.

Finally let me tell you, you didnt surprise me with your long discourse.

I always had my doubts about BLOGGING as a medium,

why do we find so much of mallu bloggers?

its the easiest medium, to criticise the world. to exhort change, and do nothing in real.

I believe it is basically used by mallus who can never ever come in terms with real life, who cant stand the real word, sit in the corner of the world in front of comp and CRITICISE ANYTHING UNDER SUN.
Your proved that, very much.

I am really ashamed that i use to really rever and enjoy the music of a person, but he too is inside nothing but a typical mallu who fumes for his religion.

i use to send forwards to many on ur blog. really feel sad i did.

Anonymous said...

hmmm...too late to comment on this..anyways...
as for Mohanlal...nowadays he's blurting out few things which are creating a big havoc..earlier it was about drinking...and now about sex..
Hes an actor, and as far as hes not doning the writer/director's suit we dont have to worry on what philosophies he follows and what his thoughts are on every other long as he makes the characters given to him believable he is doing his duty of entertaining us..
and its always dangerous to probe into an artist/creative persons' mind and its beyond a normal being's understanding.. cos its never going to be an orderly place with set boundaries..if it is so; u can never be an artist..specially when hes got an influence of Osho, its going to be hard for everyone to digest what he speaks..
what mohanlal needs to do now is to speak more about the characters in hand than himself.he needs to be careful while letting his mind loose in front of camera...
now as for would be more like people in the future seeing the present playboy magazine and wondering if "all women were that sexy".. its just another book..if ur interested in sex..its more like a guide..not much to hype about....its a part of a culture,as any book is today.. there were texts on all subjects back then..
science art literature spirituality and the culture which embodied all this was later named hinduism!
quite a long comment..sorry :(

Nandini said...

Jo, you have got quite a controversial topic here...First of all i adore the actor mohanlal - there is no question about his capabilities as an actor. But your last sentence 'Or is Mr. Lal aready doing this and just taking an advance bail before being caught? ' forced me not to leave without a comment.

I have heard from a trustworthy source , that lal's moral side is not very good. I don't want to go into details because then i have to drag many famous names here and i don't want to do that since i didn't see things those stuff only heard.

mogu said...

I think this is kind of a third rate journalism, where things are taken out of context and made Breaking News.

raisun john said...

you did not understand what he said. in india having sex and expressing sex and love in open public was never an offence and considered divine.
christianity said that sex is divine bit it is to be confined in the walls. its private and not to be celebrated as such.
And there are more complex issues associated with it. I am a christian and i have studies religions.
also what you have written is not his exact words. i have seen the interview and this is not what he said.