Who is Celebrating the Judgment on Article 377
Orthodox of All Religions Unite
Subhash Gatade
Our India is a religious
country whose overwhelming majority believes in religion and upholds traditions
of the east. All religions emphasize on construction of a family through
marital relation between men and women, on which depend not only the existence
of human race and lasting peace and tranquillity in the society but it also
establishes the respected and central position of woman in the society. The Constitution of the
country has rightly described homosexuality as a punishable offence. It is
because homosexuality not only prevents evolution and progress of human race
but also destroys family system and social relations. Moreover, it is a great
danger to public health. Medical research has also found it as a basic reason
for the spread of AIDS...
( Signatories : Maulana
Syed Jalaluddin Umari – (Ameer (National President), Jamaat-e-Islami Hind,
Maulana Mufti Mukarram Ahmed – Shahi
Imam, Fatehpuri Masjid, Jagat Guru Swami Omkar Anand- Sanatan Dharm, Gyani
Ranjit Singh-Chief Priest, Bangla Saheb, Fr. Dominic Emmanuel, Lokesh Muni-
Jain Dharm,
The
recent judgment by the Supreme Court
which has recriminalised homosexuality might have baffled a broad section of
peace and justice loving people but it has definitely emboldened many a self
proclaimed leaders of religion and purveyors of morality who today feel
vindicated. For them it is a moment of celebration It was only last month that
few of their representatives had held a press conference proclaiming their
support to the decision of the Supreme Court on Section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code as it was '[n]ot only in line with the eastern traditions of this country,
moral values and religious teachings but it also removes apprehensions about
invasion of western culture and disintegration of family system and fabric of
social life – the inevitable fallouts of the Delhi High Court order of 2009
wherein it decriminalized homosexuality."
The
bonhomie exhibited by the 'holy of different
faiths' then was for everyone to see. Rare have been such occasions when they
exhibited similar eagerness to come together over any real material concern of
their own followers or when hatred oozing out of their own understanding of
faith filled out on streets dividing people into camps of 'us' versus
'them'.
Definitely
they were not concerned over the
curious fact that there was nothing 'western' about same sex relations and like
most ancient societies; here also it was accepted as one dimension of a wide
erotic spectrum. As Ruth Vanita in one of her write-ups gives instances
from pre-colonial Indian literature and art which depict incidents of
sex-change (now termed transgender/ transsexual) and erotic love between two
men or two women (now termed gay, lesbian or bisexual). According to her :
One
version of the 14th-century Krittivasa Ramayana tells the story of two women,
Chandra and Mala, who make love in the rainy season, inspired by Kamadeva; one
becomes pregnant with divine blessing and has a heroic son. Major poets, such
as Mir Taqi Mir and Najmuddin Shah Mubarak Abru wrote about male-male romances
and sexual relationships, while others wrote about female-female amours that
were explicitly sexual.
In
fact, anti-sodomy laws were a western
import which became a part of jurisprudence here, as part of Victorian morality
which was much in vogue then. The British introduced Section 377 during those
times as they feared "their army and daughters would be tainted by
Oriental vices" and it has been around fifty years that they themselves
removed this obnoxious provision from their statue books. Today gay sex by
consenting adults is not a crime in all of Europe and the US.
It
is a different matter that
today, India has joined some sort of bizarre competition with countries which
are ready to embrace state sponsored homophobia, thanks to the Supreme Court
verdict which, instead of affirming the fundamental constitutional principle of
non-discrimination between citizens has decided to re-criminalise
homosexuality. In fact it need be mentioned here that India today is an
important member of the emerging club of 'homophobic' countries represented by
Russia, Nigeria and Uganda. While much is known about Russia's new anti-gay law
banning "homosexual propaganda', which has rightly raised concerns over
the safety of gay athletes in Russia who would be there to participate in
Winter Olympics at Sochi, developments in Nigeria and Uganda have largely gone
unreported. It was on January 13 that Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan
signed a decree criminalising same sex relationships which is much harsher than
India's Section 377; the Ugandan legislation seems to the most draconian one,
where under the bill punishing "aggravated homosexuality" which was
ratified by the Parliament in December itself, one can face a life sentence. Two
years back Ugandan gay rights activist Pasikali Kashusbe was brutally murdered
by one of those fanatic groups which opposed homosexuality.
While
the 'holy men' are entitled to
their views on what does or does not constitute a sin, they seem to have faint
realisation of the fact that in a democracy punishments are only prescribed for
crimes, not for sins. Thus while a theocracy or a country where particular
religion seems to play a larger role in the state functioning, can condemn
someone to death supposedly for committing the 'sin' of declaring
herself/himself an atheist, a secular democracy moves in an utterly different
domain. It was a pity to see that their limited world view (weltanshauung)
prohibited them from even comprehending the fact that how the high court
judgement which decriminalised homosexuality had tried to reinvigorate the
principles of constitutional morality to expand freedoms, choices available
under constitution and tried to counterpose it with the ideas of public
morality which is a carrier of the dominant viewpoint in the society.
This
coming together of the 'holy
men' of their communities against a step which had the possibility of expanding
human freedoms reminded one of a similar episode which unfolded before us 80
years back when India was still under the yoke of the colonial government. While the context is definitely different and
the issues at hand are different but the manner in which 'religious teachings,'
tradition and culture' and 'opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people'
is invoked seems quite similar.
It
was a period when there was
talk of enacting Sarada act - which prohibited marriages of girls under
fourteen - and this idea itself had agitated a large section of religious
minded groups and individuals. A section of the nationalists had also felt
agitated and had claimed that 'outsiders/Britishers' have no right to interfere
in the internal affairs of the people. Not very many people would remember
today that the initial impetus to enact the act had come from the revulsion
felt by the articulate sections of our society over the death of Phulmoni, a
child bride who had died after her marriage to a man much elder than her age
was consummated. While the conservative section of the nationalist opposed the
act in their own way, the 'pious' and the 'holy of both faiths' namely Hindu
and Muslim had then come together to declare that they would not allow this
'outrage on their deepest convictions and their most cherished rights..'. They
had even declared that they would not allow the colonial government to infringe
upon their 'glorious tradition and culture'.
Here
is an episode of those times
described by Jawaharlal Nehru himself which had appeared in 'Modern
Review' ( December 1935) which discussed how representatives of the clergy
had behaved then.
'Some
years ago I happened to be in Benaras... We saw Brahmins..marching shoulder to
shoulder with bearded Moulavies .. and one of the standards they carried in
triumph bore the flaming device 'Hindu-Muslim ekta ki Jai (Victory to
Hindu-Muslim unity)! Very gratifying, we thought. But still, what was all this
about ? .. This was a joint protest by the orthodox of both religions against
the Sarada act'
He adds "Offensive
slogans were hurled at us and there was some jostling about. Just then, the
procession arrived at the Town Hall and, for some reason or other, started
stone throwing. A bright young person thereupon pulled some crackers and this
had an extraordinary effect on the serried ranks of the orthodox. Evidently
thinking that the police or the military had opened fire, they dispersed and
managed (this) with extraordinary rapidity. A few crackers were enough to put
the procession to flight..' (Social and Religious Reform, Amiya P Sen, OUP,
Page 118)
Nehru
further describes how the British
government in India surrendered on this issue and how a little shouting was
'enough to kill and bury the Sarda act' and how 'child marriages continued as
before, and government and magistrates looked the other way while the Sarda act
was torn to shreds and cast to the dogs'.
There
is no doubt that times are different. The Britishers are long gone and we have
ushered into a republic more than sixty years back.
But
a similar moment awaits us.
It
has been more than sixty years
that we decided that henceforth there won't be any
discrimination
on the basis of gender, caste, race, religion, nationality and similar other
categories which have been made a basis of discrimination against minorities of
various types. But of late we are realising that there seems to be a great
hiatus between our noble intentions and the situation on the ground. If
yesterday or the day before or the day earlier than that, dalits, women,
religious minorities etc were at the receiving end, today seems to be the turn
of the sexual minorities of various kinds.
Whether
we will be able to transcend what Fahad
Hashmi calls the ' ironies of democracies' where 'minorities of all shades
are always in the crosshairs of majoritarianism.' that is the crucial question
before us today.
No comments: