Be gay and happy but respect Indian morals

The Delhi High Court has reinterpreted a 149-year old colonial law and held that a homosexual in India is no longer a criminal. In a historic judgement the court held that "Section 377 of the Indian penal Code insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private violates personal freedom and liberty.

So does the attaining of legal sexual freedom by homosexuals mark progress and social reform in India, or is the court upholding values that the majority of Indians simply do not identify with?

CNN-IBN debates on issue on a special show Gay and Indian with renowned Indo-Canadian photographer, HIV positive and gay, Sunil Gupta, gay rights activist and lawyer Aditya Bandhopadhyay, actor Samir Soni, Editor, Manushi Madhu Kishwar, Delhi Catholic Archdiocese spokesperson Dominic Emmanuel and All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Kamal Farooqui.

Is this judgement a major milestone in making India a modern and progressive society?

Sunil Gupta claimed that homosexuality was not a criminal act and there has always been a place for a place diverse sexuality in Indian culture.

“Indian culture historically has been quite pro- diverse sexuality. The very idea of a single heterosexual norm has been imported from the Middle East through Islam and then through Christianity. The law itself is a British law and not Indian. We should not keep it. If we are Indian let’s go back to our roots,” reasoned Gupta.

Dominic Emmanuel quickly countered Gupta saying just because something exists does not mean that it should be accepted as being right.

“Not only in India but it (homosexuality) exists everywhere just like blindness. People have certain disorders either from birth or they make themselves so. It is mentioned in the Bible – some people are born eunuchs, some make themselves and some choose to be eunuchs for the kingdom of God. It is universal but because it has been there does it make it right. The church has no serious objection to Section 377 being repealed to begin with. It has been reinterpreted and not the whole of it but only a section of it. What we are basically saying is that it is unnatural as far as we understand. What is natural is how God has created man and woman for a certain purpose. We consider it as some kind of disorder,” said Father Emmanuel.

PAGE_BREAK

Aditya Bandhopadhyay challenged the religious leaders saying that being a homosexual was not a disease.

“Every kind of religious discourse that we have heard so far is not based on present day scientific knowledge. It is not a disease; it is not a mental condition. International Classification of Diseases has taken it out of its purview. It has been proved scientifically over and over again for decades now that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. India is for every one – people who are religious, atheists, secular etc. As a liberal person I may find a woman wearing burqa equally offensive,” said Bandhopadhyay.

Madhu Kishwar congratulated the judiciary for coming out with what she called a “carefully crafted and logical” judgement.

“I think the careful crafting and logic that the judges used does our judiciary proud because they have shown that Indian Constitution allows endless expansion of notion of freedom and personal liberty. It is one of the best judgements ever crafted,” said Madhu.

All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Kamal Farooqui agreed with Madhu but added that sexual preferences should be kept inside the house.

“The judgement has been good as gays were treated as criminals and harassed. My Constitution does not allow it. My problem is exhibitionism. Privately you can do whatever you like. But don’t try to do it in public,” he added.

“Between the extremes lie millions of people and their rights are at stake here,” Gupta said while replying to the point that gay parades were more about exhibitionism.

Is homosexuality in India too elitist? It is failing to look at the average Indian homosexual?

Gupta added saying, “The law and society should be looking at the average person.”

Bandhopadhyay supported Gupta and said that whatever religious leaders say may not be always right and offend certain sections of the society.

“The judgement says that morality is not social morality but morality is constitutional morality. It is not what the majority thinks. It is what the Constitution says about Human Rights, about Fundamental Rights,” argued Bandhopadhyay, who is also a lawyer.

Actor Sameer Soni joined the debate and promptly agreed with Bandhopadhyay.

PAGE_BREAK

“The common man does not have the courage to break norms, come out in the open. He is scared about what parents are going to say, what friends are going to say. Perhaps the so called elite feel more confident about themselves. I am happy about the decision. It is about a more tolerant society. I don’t know what is natural and unnatural and what is agreeable or disagreeable with religion got to do with what is legal or illegal,” said Soni.

Madhu once again took on the religious leaders saying, “Exhibition of rage and violence is far more objectionable than exhibition of love.”

Moral Chaos

The feeling is that this is a slippery slope down to moral chaos. There is a real anxiety about the overt sexuality that will now exist in our public space.

Kishwar said that it was not homosexual men who liked to see women stripped, but heterosexual men instead. "Heterosexual men go to dance bars, strip shows etc. The foundation of family moral values is caring for each other, including for those who may follow a different path or who may have different sexual preferences. Family values are those which don't discriminate against a daughter because she is too dark or a son because he is homosexual," she said.

"The key point to me is that do not expect the law to reflect your personal prejudices," she added.

Farooqui said that he agreed there should not be any violation of human values and that everyone should be cared for equally in a family, but added that Islam and Christianity do not allow homosexuality.

But the fact is that there are a number of moral laws which Indians are living with which are making people unhappy like the right to question a marriage, question parents, the right being rebellious to parents. Maybe we need to question the social conventions that we all live by.

Bandhopadhyay said that there are certain rights which were in the personal domain and certain rights which were in the collective domain and the problem arises when we confuse between the two. "I agree with Dr Farooqui that if a person is a believer in the Islamic faith, and if the Koran very categorically states that homosexuality is something abhorrent to Islam, then that person has got every right in the world to continue to have that faith. But these are private rights of an individual and should not be projected upon society as a whole."

He said that the social structure had been such so far that gay people had never had any possible expression in society. "Many people have never even met a gay person. There is a demonisation in peoples' minds," he stated.

PAGE_BREAK

Father Emmanuel agreed saying that homosexuals should be accepted without discrimination and with compassion.

Religion and the Modern World

The question that now arises is does religion not need to change with the modern world? To this Father Emmanuel said that religion sometimes bases itself on natural law, at least as far as Catholic Church was concerned.

Madhu interrupted at this point saying that nature created homosexuals as much as it did normal people. "If nature had thought they were unnatural, they would have been weeded out," she stated.

"That's why we are accepting them," Father Emmanuel said, but Bandhopadhyay retorted saying that calling homosexuals unnatural was hardly acceptance. An upset Gupta said at this point that he would walk out of the debate if he was referred to as "them" again by the rest of the panelists.

"We are not 'them', we are a part of 'us'. We are citizens of this country and we are 'us'. You cannot call me 'them'. I am not different, I am you. You are looking at a reflection of you," he stated angrily.

HIV AIDS

One of the criticism that has been made about the amendment of Section 377 is that it is going to lead to an increase in incidents of HIV AIDS.

Sunil Gupta said that it was laughable because just the opposite was true. "In the early years of AIDS, in New York a slogan had appeared - silence equals death. It meant that if you don't talk about it then you are in trouble. This country has already suffered HIV AIDS for two decades now by being completely silent about it. In 1986, I had made an art work about gay men who wanted to talk about HIV AIDS, but guess what, nobody wanted to know. People used to say it is a foreign disease and Indians don't get it. See what has happened now," he said.

So maybe it was the time when religion should enter into more informed dialogue with people instead of imposing prejudices.

Father Emmanuel said, "Let me tell you that the Church holds counsels. The second Vatican Counsel made great headway into coming out into the world. And we accept homosexuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity."

Overt sexuality in public

Gay pride parades and exhibitionism by homosexuals in India was bound to be offensive to conventional moral family values of Indians but Bandhopadhyay said that as long as an activity was not harming anyone, then these things were fine.

PAGE_BREAK

However, he agreed that everything had limits. "If someone goes nude in public, that is harming peoples' sentiment and offending their morality and that is unacceptable. But then what I characterise as morality and what others characterise as morality may vary. The thing is that it has been three days of legality for gay people in India. We have just started communicating with people from religious communities and other communities openly. There is a need for mainstream interaction and only then will we reach a comfort zone."

He said that just like religions which were struggling for freedom and from discrimination, so were gay people in India.

Kamal Farooqui agreed saying, "They should not be treated as criminals and they should definitely be given equal rights. They should be counselled."

Sunil Gupta interrupted here saying that this was the first time in post-colonial Indian history that gay people in India had heard something good from a source of authority. "The court has said that we may live with dignity and we like that."

Bandhopadhyay added, "Look at me. I am not going to disappear whether you like me or not. I am going to be here, I am citizen of this country and I am proud Indian."

Soni jumped in at this point saying, "I have been listening to this whole debate and it is frustrating for me because the gay community in India is a soft target for people. Also, it is a minority community and thus more killings and destruction aimed at the community have happened in the name of religion. I have never heard anyone say this religion is illegal because it is misguiding people and encouraging them to kill others. What about that? If two gay people want to be together and be happy together, how does that kill anybody else?"

"I don't think religions should re-define themselves for the gay cause. They are entitled to their beliefs but they should not enforce it on anybody else - least of all the legal system," he concluded angrily.

There was at the end, consensus in the debate was that gay people need to be accepted with respect and sensitivity and at the same time there has also been acknowledgment that homosexuality should be in tune with India's morals and have dignity, not flaunt itself or be exhibitionist.