|
|
||
|
Home | Hindi | Kabir | Poetry | Workshop | BoloKids | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact | Share This Page! Shop Online |
|||
|
Society
In 2000, the
Law Commission of India issued its 172nd report - a review of rape laws
in the country - within which it recommended the deletion of Section
377, Indian Penal Code. In 2002, a public interest litigation (PIL)
filed by the Naz Foundation, an NGO that works on sexuality, health and
gender, challenged the same law - an archaic 150-year-old provision that
criminalizes consensual, private sexual activity between same-sex adults
on the grounds that it is "against the order of nature". Just last week,
Section 377 again came under attack by the Planning Commission in its
official recommendations to the prime minister for the 11th Draft Plan. These arguments are not new - we have heard them many times before in response to the women's movement, widow re-marriage and any other movement that seeks to challenge the status quo, especially when it comes to the 'private' terrains of gender, sexuality and the body. Yet, the response exposes a telling difference in the way politicians and judges think. The government's response does not speak of equality, or rights, or the constitution. It speaks of public morality and of social attitudes. Its argument rests on the logic that social disapproval is sufficient to criminalize an activity. Let alone the absurdity of this logic in a country that banned dowry and caste discrimination - though they still hold wide (if now more silent) public moral sanction - or that the role of law is to lead social opinion under the guidelines of equality rather than follow what it claims is majority opinion, the important point here is that we must, as activists and concerned citizens, learn that our responses to the government's homophobia must also be in the same language. The Law
Commission and the Planning Commission members are not
directly-elected public figures. While it is true that they too need to
balance political goodwill and play power politics, they are certainly
not as accountable to the general public as, say, the NDA government.
With radically different stakeholders, the lawyers are able to respond
to Section 377 in an entirely different way than the public face of the
government. What does this tell us? The obvious conclusion stares us in
the face - the fight against homophobia cannot be won in the courtroom
alone. It has to be waged and won by challenging the perceptions
surrounding gay, lesbian, bisexual and hijra lives in larger
society. The Planning Commission's recommendations, therefore, are a first step in the right direction to equity and justice for all. But they are not enough. As long as they remain within the formal echelons of the corridors of government and the judiciary, they never will be enough. It is the silence around sexuality in our society that is passing judgement on us, not just the existence of Section 377. Unless this debate is brought out into the open, unless the government can no longer claim that Indian citizens do not care if gay people are harassed and beaten by the police, or discriminated against in the workplace, or made to feel sub-human in their own country, we will not win this battle, even if the courts strike down Section 377 tomorrow. By arrangement with Women's Feature Service
The Week of October 30, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
Analysis |
Architecture |
Astrology |
Ayurveda |
Book Reviews |
Buddhism |
Cartoons | Cinema |
Computing |
Culture |
Dances |
|
Home | Hindi | Bolography | BoloKids | Kabir | Poetry | Quotes | Workshop | Writers | Contribute | Search | Contact |
|
(c) Boloji.com :
1999–2006 : All
Rights Reserved |