Many in India want that nation to be recognized as a modern, increasingly progressive and dynamic nation. Apparently, the Supreme Court feels otherwise and has issued a ruling that seeks to take India back to the mindset of the 1860's and British colonial rule. That's about the only conclusion that one can reach based on the Court's ruling that struck down a lower court decision and reinstated Section 377 (unnatural offenses) of the Indian Penal Code, the 1860's statute passed by the British, that criminalized gay sex. Now, India will be much like areas of Southwest Virginia that want to attract progressive new businesses, yet are so backwards that no one wants to locate there. Cheap wages are not always all that factors into corporate relocation and expansion decisions. While backward religious extremists may be applauding the Court's decision, many are not and a piece in the Times of India takes the Court and those who appealed the lower court ruling to task. Here are some excerpts:
Here’s a pop quiz. Which century are we living in? 21st you say! But it seems the Supreme Court of India doesn’t agree with this logical fact. What else can explain the dogmatic and regressive verdict of the SC today in which they have upheld section 377 of the Indian Penal code that says that sexual relationship against the order of the nature is an offence. They also ruled that the courts should not intervene and that it was up to parliament to legislate on the issue.
The 2009 verdict was hailed as a landmark judgment which saw ostracized gay and transgender communities erupt in celebration. But, as is the case with our country, a lot of people had a problem with this as it disrupted their way of looking at things. In a rare alliance, anti-gay right activists ,representatives of different religious groups , including the All India Muslim Law Board, Utkal Christian Council and Apostolic Churches Alliance , other Christian and church groups, and Hindu spiritual leaders, had come together to challenge the high court's order. They were offended and therefore challenged the judgment. Not to be left behind, one of the many custodians of Indian culture Senior BJP leader BP Singhal challenged the high court verdict in the Supreme Court. All of them appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which concluded hearings in March last year on the subject.
They had a problem because.. Lots of reasons. The BJP leader BP Singhal felt such acts (gay sex) are illegal, immoral and against the ethos of Indian culture. Dominic Emmanuel, spokesman of the Delhi Catholic Archdiocese said, "The church has a very clear stand on people with different sexual orientations. They are different from ... normal people. Other Leaders of India's Muslim and Christian communities argued that all homosexual acts were "unnatural".The general secretary of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Abdul Raheem Quraishi said, "We know that homosexuality is against nature.It goes against all its laws and it is what led to the spread of HIV/AIDS."
So the Supreme Court gave in to THIS? Sadly, yes. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhayay have clearly disappointed many with their tame and, judging by Twitter reactions, highly unpopular decision. They said that there was no constitutional room for change in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The bench, however, put the ball in Parliament's court to take a decision on the controversial issue, saying it is for the legislature to debate and decide on the matter.
Our Opinion
The verdict has been shocking on many levels.
Firstly, landing a major blow to India's claim of being a country with a modern outlook, the fact a law made by Britishers in the 1860's has been upheld in 2013 makes for a strange sentence.
Secondly, with many countries now equating gay equality with the rights for same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court ruling puts India back in the company of most nations in the Islamic world and many African countries which criminalise homosexuality. The only country in South Asia where gay sex is now legal is Nepal.
"It is highly embarrassing for the country because now we will be among the dirty dozens of the world," said Narayan, the lawyer from the Alternative Law Forum.
Thirdly, it is a blow to people's right to equality. Just because gays have made a different lifestyle choice, they do not deserve to be put in jail. They are also entitled to their privacy and dignity. They do face widespread discrimination and ignorance from a largely homophobic Indian society. And with this verdict, the law has also deserted them.
Fourthly, by putting the ball in the Parliament's court, the Supreme Court has now granted power to decide how India's citizens should lead their private lives, in the hands of those MPs who are yet to become sensitive even to the gender equality issue.
I have many clients of Indian descent and I have looked forward to visiting India some day. Not now, however. India is now on the list of nations that I will boycott until such time as anti-gay laws are repealed.
No comments:
Post a Comment