The coming out of sexuality is a significant development of post-liberalization India. Provoking outrage in some and getting approval from others, sexuality today is bitterly contested domain. It is the power of a government to define what is legal and illegal. If you look at section 377 of the IPC it makes a law that is unacceptable to almost 2.5 million Indians. The relevant section reads:
‘Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.’
It makes anything other than heterosexuality a crime. These 2.5 million people referred above are ‘homosexuals’. The question is whether a state can question a person’s sexuality and why define it illegal, because it is unnatural? What defines the order of nature? And why do we, the society shy away from it? There is increasing demand from activists to decriminalize homosexual relationships. On September 2006, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen and acclaimed writer Vikram Seth came together with scores of other prominent Indians in public life to publicly demand this change in the legal regime. The open letter demands that 'In the name of humanity and of our Constitution, this cruel and discriminatory law should be struck down.’
A person’s private space should not be encroached, unless and until it harms the society. How do these homosexuals harm the society? In fact the state has time to frame laws which would induce vote bank, but not work on that section of the population which has been targeted by so many social obligations. Homosexuality is not something which has erupted suddenly in our Indian shore or a product of western thoughts as some may think. It has been in the country since centuries. The Manusmriti, which lists the oldest codes of conduct that were proposed to be followed by a Hindu, does include mention of homosexual practices, but only as something to be regulated. The fact that Ancient Hindu scriptures, such as Rig Veda mentions sexual acts between women or the carvings and depictions in the famous temples of Khajuraho, Konark, Puri are proof that homosexuality is not a western trend picked up by few Indians.
Such a forced control over a man’s sexuality is totally uncalled for. It’s a man’s personnel choice and one should not interfere in it. Interference should only be entertained when ‘force’ is present. But this seems not too accepted as well. India must march in step with other democracies in removing legal restrictions on sexual orientation.
In 2008 Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra said: "Homosexuality is a social vice and the state has the power to contain it. [Decrimilazing homosexuality] may create breach of peace. If it is allowed then [the] evil of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm the people. It would lead to a big health hazard and degrade moral values of society."
Over here Mr. P P Malhotra stated that homosexuality is a social vice. Why? Because it is unnatural? By natural one means a power to procreate, as explained in one judgement ‘the natural object of sexual intercourse is that there should be the possibility of conception of human beings’. But is procreation always necessary? He further states that it would result in ‘breach of peace.’ In fact the only reason why so many homosexuals remain quite about their sexuality is that they fear of being shunned away by the society and also being traumatized.
Before being a man or a woman we all are humans. Section 377 is against the basic principles of human rights. The Human Right of the homosexuals are routinely violated by police, families and other state/non-state bodies and access to redressal mechanisms are hindered by their criminal status. As our laws recognize only heterosexual marriages, the right to marriage and family is denied to same-sex couples and transsexuals. The universal law of Human Rights states that social norms, tradition, custom or culture cannot be used to curb a person from asserting his fundamental and constitutional rights.
The Law Commission of India in its 172nd report (on reviewing rape laws) and recently the Planning Commission of India have recommended the repeal of IPC 377. Does our culture and tradition teach us to become inhuman to that section of people who bear a will to be in a relationship with people of the same sex? In addition to all of this our laws do not recognize even sex-change.
The government saying that Indians are not tolerant regarding homosexuality is not a ‘just’ excuse. If it is legalised, public awareness would follow. The India Today-AC Neilsen Org Marg survey 2008 consisting of 5,353 men and women, might put the government in a jeopardy regarding the arguments over section 377. 16% of the men and 6% of the women surveyed were homosexuals. Plus one out of five men and one out of ten women approve of homosexuality.
Slowly but surely homosexuality would be accepted. A state’s major job is to work for the people, so don’t these homosexuals deserve a chance? Laws and its governance are made for the society and section 377 is against the basic fundamental Right to life. As a whole, States right to interfere in a persons choice of sexuality is encroachment of a persons privacy, when there is not been a case to highlight if the very existance of homosexuality is lethal to the Indian society
well written....wow
ReplyDelete