Email
Print
ShareHomosexuality has done what wise men through the ages have not managed to do -- it has brought the worthies of all religions together. Christian priests, Muslim mullahs and sundry Hindu swamis are all in high dudgeon over the ruling of the Delhi High Court that effectively decriminalises homosexual behaviour. Against the law of God and nature, says one; un-Islamic, says another, while the third brings up the trump card -- it is against Indian culture.
When was the last time one heard all the religions speak in one voice? Gays should be proud of themselves.
But while these high-minded people spew fire and brimstone and talk about the end of civilisation being round the corner, we have to stop and ask -- is this judgment about religion or about the laws of a sovereign nation?
India does not work according to religious laws but according to the Constitution. The honourable judges, who have come up with one of the most brilliant and nuanced judgments in recent years, have made it abundantly clear that the writers of that wonderful document had spoken of equality under the law. They have quoted Jawaharlal Nehru to remind everyone that he wanted that spirit of equality to be universally applicable -- homosexuals as citizens of India deserve that equality.
The judgment has not thrown in any dollops of Indian culture or religion. Yet, all the major objectors so far have been from the religion/culture sector. Murli Manohar Joshi, who despite being a physics professor keeps science firmly out of his thinking, has said that a "couple of judges cannot be above Parliament or the people". He has not so far invoked God, but give him time.
To be sure, no society can function without its culture and traditions, and judges, like everyone else, work within that environment, from which social mores are drawn. The Chinese, who are anti-religion and atheistic, are steeped in Confucianism which has Buddhist connections. The French, despite their abhorrence for religion, cannot escape their Christian past. And Hinduism in its various forms has played a big role in what we are today.
But the prevailing attitudes of an era and of its ruling classes also put their stamp on our norms. Section 377, which expressly calls all forms of unnatural sex criminal, was the brainchild of TB Macaulay and his Victorian mind.
The Victorians were not without their perversions, but functioned within repressive social conventions. Those Victorian values -- and, therefore, laws -- have influenced generations of Indians, as Macaulay predicted. Our police force today is still run by the mentality of looking at fellow citizens as seditious criminals. Successive governments of independent India, whether by lethargy or design, have chosen not to amend many archaic laws. Considering that homosexuality is hardly a priority and it fitted well with cultural mindsets, there was no compulsion to apply any thinking to it.
But the world has moved on. Discriminatory laws are being amended. By section 377 of the Indian Penal Code; all these years a gay person could be thrown into jail for his sexual preference. It has taken over a decade of hard work and lobbying to get gays out of its ambit, though the section can still be used against paedophiles and rapists.
The courts have once again shown that they lead the way in virtually imposing progressive legislation on our hide-bound society. Now that the gays have crossed the first big hurdle, they have to take the next steps carefully. Celebrating with song, dance, and outrageously camp behaviour is all very well, but any strategy to fight off challenges to this ruling cannot fall into the trap set by the religion- and culture-wallahs.
I remember, when a bunch of violent loonies went on the rampage against the screening of Deepa Mehta's film Fire a decade and a half ago, lesbian groups hit back by declaring that homosexuality was "very much part of Indian culture". That is totally the wrong way to go about it.
Any number of examples of references to homosexuality can be dug up in Indian mythology or, for that matter, from other religions. But that is a reductionist idea that immediately allows the religious groups to shift the battle to their chosen arena. It is a no-win situation -- the other side will always win. Moreover, the scriptures and our myth and lore have many references to incest or sati; should we just accept them blindly?
Most important, invoking culture and tradition will deeply offend a vast majority of Indians, who are still ambivalent, even hostile, to homosexuality. The gay community needs their support.
No, the battle has to be fought and won on legal grounds. In any democratic republic, with a functioning Constitution and a strong legal system, the law is the best weapon and can be used as a brahmastra. The political classes have largely welcomed the judgment; those parties which are unsure have wisely chosen to keep quiet. The prime minister is taking an interest. Signs of major changes are in the air.
The priest, the mullah, and the swami must be told that they have a right to hold and express views, but their writ does not run in this country. We have allowed these elements to get away with a lot in recent times and they have become emboldened. Now they must be shown their place.
One day, perhaps, the fires of hell will consume all sinners, but for the moment we must live by the laws of the land.
