Conditional victory
In all the euphoria (and vitriol) around the Delhi High Court’s verdict in the Section 377 PIL, the noise in public discourse has been about the court’s view on protection of sexual minorities.
In all the euphoria (and vitriol) around the Delhi High Court’s verdict in the Section 377 PIL, the noise in public discourse has been about the court’s view on protection of sexual minorities from discrimination because of the inclusive nature of the Indian Constitution and the emphasis on Constitutional morality rather than the majority’s view of what is “immoral” or “unnatural”. Yet, strangely, the religionists and “moralists” in this debate were first encouraged by law minister Veerappa Moily’s pre-verdict statement (even if it was after being provoked by a journalist) that all religious groups, especially
Christians, would be consulted on decriminalising homosexuality. You can always count on politicians to fail you and try and divide society, whether on lines of religion, caste or sexual orientation. Does the minister really believe that the religious groups would be all for gay rights? Anyone with some sense knows that those who take it upon themselves to be spokespersons of religion (usually male chauvinists) are never progressive or even rational. India has a stellar record of trampling over the rights of marginal groups like women and Dalits at the behest of such spokespersons (and again, politicians).
Did Moily expect any good sense or fairness from such people? Weren’t these the same moralists who have put to death people for espousing scientific ideas that were contrary to their idiotic ones such as the world is flat or, in present-day India, spread fear that decriminalising homosexuality will lead to all men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women? Such is the irrational fear of such people, exemplified in the government lawyer in the Section 377 case.
Aren’t these just the sort of people who have killed countless people in the name of their god simply for not agreeing to their idea of God and religion? And how do religious beliefs enter the picture on what is not just a question of human rights but perhaps more gravely, the right to health (nay, life) of a large number of men (who-have-sex-with-men-and-often-with-their-wives)? It would not only be naïve, but also dangerous, to believe that such a discriminatory law as 377 can prevent the spread of HIV. Rightly the judges of the Delhi High court questioned this view of the government lawyer.
On the contrary, India concurred with the world community in a United Nations special general assembly on HIV/AIDS in 2001 that laws targeting MSM (men who have sex with men) prevented programmes on HIV/AIDS prevention from being a success. Yet, take a look at the bravado of the government lawyer. He declares in court that after just six days of study he had come to the conclusion that gay sex causes HIV (and hence the need to maintain the Section 377 in its original form). It matters not to him that a UNAIDS report release in that very year (2008) clearly says that “lack of knowledge, societal factors such as human rights violations and socio-cultural norms” are factors that make MSM vulnerable to HIV.
That marginalisation and stigma is clearly a factor in vulnerability is borne out by National Aids Control Organisation (NACO) numbers on its web site. Less than 0.5 per cent of the general population is living with HIV. The number is up to nine times for MSM and more than 40 times for eunuchs (and probably higher for commercial sex workers). These sections of society are therefore the main audience of NACO’s latest National AIDS Control Policy.
Yet the first thing Moily did was to call for religious groups to tell him what the stand of the government should be! Moily has become something of a media darling, what with it going gaga over his past achievements. If the honourable minister has found the time to really apply his mind to the Section 377 issue and the Delhi High Court verdict, we will know his true worth from the stand that he now takes. Had he not involved religious leaders or not diluted his original statements approving the striking down of Section 377, the encomiums may have been more palatable.
Unfortunately, the government’s stand has been mixed and the government lawyer even made the former home minister Shivraj Patil and the government look like fools with his ridiculous, unscientific arguments in the Delhi High court. Now, the three concerned ministers of the new UPA government — law, health and home — are to announce the government’s position on the verdict soon. It appears that they will not be as divided as the last lot of ministers but one can only hope that Manmohan Singh’s cabinet does not come out looking like a confused bunch once again. This is a chance for it to clear its blemished record on Section 377.
The writer is a gay rights activist and editor at large of Bombay Dost magazine
Christians, would be consulted on decriminalising homosexuality. You can always count on politicians to fail you and try and divide society, whether on lines of religion, caste or sexual orientation. Does the minister really believe that the religious groups would be all for gay rights? Anyone with some sense knows that those who take it upon themselves to be spokespersons of religion (usually male chauvinists) are never progressive or even rational. India has a stellar record of trampling over the rights of marginal groups like women and Dalits at the behest of such spokespersons (and again, politicians).
Did Moily expect any good sense or fairness from such people? Weren’t these the same moralists who have put to death people for espousing scientific ideas that were contrary to their idiotic ones such as the world is flat or, in present-day India, spread fear that decriminalising homosexuality will lead to all men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women? Such is the irrational fear of such people, exemplified in the government lawyer in the Section 377 case.
Aren’t these just the sort of people who have killed countless people in the name of their god simply for not agreeing to their idea of God and religion? And how do religious beliefs enter the picture on what is not just a question of human rights but perhaps more gravely, the right to health (nay, life) of a large number of men (who-have-sex-with-men-and-often-with-their-wives)? It would not only be naïve, but also dangerous, to believe that such a discriminatory law as 377 can prevent the spread of HIV. Rightly the judges of the Delhi High court questioned this view of the government lawyer.
On the contrary, India concurred with the world community in a United Nations special general assembly on HIV/AIDS in 2001 that laws targeting MSM (men who have sex with men) prevented programmes on HIV/AIDS prevention from being a success. Yet, take a look at the bravado of the government lawyer. He declares in court that after just six days of study he had come to the conclusion that gay sex causes HIV (and hence the need to maintain the Section 377 in its original form). It matters not to him that a UNAIDS report release in that very year (2008) clearly says that “lack of knowledge, societal factors such as human rights violations and socio-cultural norms” are factors that make MSM vulnerable to HIV.
That marginalisation and stigma is clearly a factor in vulnerability is borne out by National Aids Control Organisation (NACO) numbers on its web site. Less than 0.5 per cent of the general population is living with HIV. The number is up to nine times for MSM and more than 40 times for eunuchs (and probably higher for commercial sex workers). These sections of society are therefore the main audience of NACO’s latest National AIDS Control Policy.
Yet the first thing Moily did was to call for religious groups to tell him what the stand of the government should be! Moily has become something of a media darling, what with it going gaga over his past achievements. If the honourable minister has found the time to really apply his mind to the Section 377 issue and the Delhi High Court verdict, we will know his true worth from the stand that he now takes. Had he not involved religious leaders or not diluted his original statements approving the striking down of Section 377, the encomiums may have been more palatable.
Unfortunately, the government’s stand has been mixed and the government lawyer even made the former home minister Shivraj Patil and the government look like fools with his ridiculous, unscientific arguments in the Delhi High court. Now, the three concerned ministers of the new UPA government — law, health and home — are to announce the government’s position on the verdict soon. It appears that they will not be as divided as the last lot of ministers but one can only hope that Manmohan Singh’s cabinet does not come out looking like a confused bunch once again. This is a chance for it to clear its blemished record on Section 377.
The writer is a gay rights activist and editor at large of Bombay Dost magazine