By Saif Khan,
The recent Supreme Court ruling which re-criminalized homosexuality in India by setting aside the landmark judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court wherein they struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional has evoked sharp reactions from rights activists and the common populace. The protests which followed the judgement were indeed taken very seriously by the government as someone as high and mighty as Sonia Gandhi came out and supported the right of consenting same sex individuals to make love.
However, the point of discussion for me is not about safeguarding the rights of sexual minorities nor is it about discussing whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural. No matter what the sceptics say, homosexuality has come up as a universal phenomenon. Be it human beings or penguins, both have tendencies of homosexuality within them. In an egalitarian society, every religious, linguistic and sexual minority should be protected by means of the Constitution. The fact that India is among the few conservative nations which is yet to take such a step is extremely appalling considering the tall claims which we keep making about our inherent plurality and heterogeneousness.
In a secular democracy, religion should have no bearing on the decision making process in a country. Yet it is amazing how religion has been brought up to defend homosexuality. Instead of scientifically substantiating the phenomena of MSM, public intellectuals have resorted to defending homosexuality the Hindutva way. The argument goes like this: the indigenousness of homosexuality cannot be denied because of the existence of an entire chapter on homosexuality in the Kamasutra (Ancient India’s self-guide on sex life), depiction of same sex lovemaking in the form of engravings on the walls of temples in South India and the tales of homosexual characters in Hindu mythology. It is further said that the proscription on homosexuality was a result of the intolerance and bigotry of the foreign races who invaded India.
While I do agree that the British are to be held responsible for de-legitimizing homosexuality, I fail to understand why people resort to invoking religious imagery while supporting gay rights. I saw this happening twice. Once on Karan Thapar’s show The Last Word when noted sociologist Ashish Nandy referred to gay characters in the Mahabharata and then again on Ravish Kumar’s prime show on NDTV India where gay rights activist Laxmi could be seen castigating the culture given to us by the British, Turks and Mughals while simultaneously exalting the indigenous Indian attitude towards homosexuality.
An editorial published on the website Firstpost titled ‘SC Verdict on Section 377: Why is BJP on the wrong side of history’ had claimed that the BJP’s support for Section 377 is an attempt to woo the minorities. The media shouldn’t deliberately communalize this debate when conservative elements belonging to all sections of society are somehow involved in stonewalling the aspirations of gay people.
When people talk in such a tone then they fail to realize that they are committing the cardinal sin of mixing religion with politics and law-making. It would certainly set a terrible constitutional precedent if an issue as serious as homosexuality is dealt-with by referring to religious texts. Besides leaving an indelible stamp of majoritarianism, it would successfully draw a line of separation between the so-called indigenous culture of India and the culture of the Semitic or foreign races. In fact, it is also unjustified on the part of Bishops and Maulvis to cite the teachings of the Church and the Islamic law, respectively to oppose homosexuality.
The composite culture of India as also the constitutional balance enshrined within our foremost law-making document requires that we stand up for individual liberties and give people the right to choose. Let the people call the shots and decide whether they want to drink, cast their vote or practise homosexuality. Compulsion and democracy do not go hand in hand. No issue should be judged by the scale of sectarianism because there are a host of concerns to be deal with be it caste discrimination, women empowerment, tribal rights, linguistic fascism or religious liberty. Religious laws and customs often overlap on all these issues.
Today, if we initiate this historic debate by raking up religion then we are setting ourselves up for a catastrophic confrontation in the coming future. After all how can we forget that it was Gandhi’s constant usage of Hindu-centric terms like Ram Rajya which cost Congress mass support of Muslims in the freedom struggle and they ended up siding with Jinnah which culminated with the tragic partition of India.
(The writer is presently a student of journalism at the University of Delhi and has contributed articles to various newspapers and news portals.)
Related: