Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/vikram-seth-slams-supreme-court-order-on-section-377-at-rashtrapati-bhavan-deeptiman-tiwary-23658.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Vikram Seth slams Supreme Court order on Section 377 at Rashtrapati Bhavan -Deeptiman Tiwary | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Vikram Seth slams Supreme Court order on Section 377 at Rashtrapati Bhavan -Deeptiman Tiwary
-The Times of India


NEW DELHI: The debate over Section 377 (unnatural sex) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) continues to dominate discussions in public forums. Author Vikram Seth, who has been vocal about his views since the Supreme Court verdict recriminalized gay sex last week, on Saturday used the platform of the Rashtrapati Bhavan to slam Section 377.

In the presence of President Pranab Mukherjee on the dais and senior leaders from both Congress and BJP, Seth said that intolerance was a kind of violence with acquiescence of the society and that young should learn to be their own self and choose their love according to what their heart says and not what the society or a law says.

Seth was speaking at a function organized at the Rashtrapati Bhawan by a TV channel that awarded 25 "living legends". After addressing the audience in his quintessential wit and humour, Seth referred to social worker and Seva founder Ela Bhatt, who had minutes ago said "poverty is violence with acquiescence of the society" while receiving an award herself.

Seth said, "I would say in a perfectly parallel mode that intolerance is violence. And accepted intolerance is violence with the acquiescence of the society. Basically, there is no point wrapping yourself up in a flag when you don't realize that the flag has more than one component. There are different colours in it, they mean different things and in the heart of it is the wheel ... the wheel of justice, the recycle of life, the wheel of law. We cannot have intolerance within the family... and we certainly cannot have intolerance in the country as a whole."

Though Seth did not mention Section 377, his reference was hardly lost on anyone when, in a message to the youth, he said: "You may as well be yourself because really there is no one else you can be. We are here for such a ridiculously short time in this ridiculously trivial corner of the universe that if we aren't ourselves, what's the point of doing anything at all? So I would say in all matters, whether it's your profession, whether it's your beliefs or the person you love, you must go at heart with who you are. Not what someone else tells you, not what your clan tells you, not even what an unjust law tells you."

The utterances were significant in the backdrop of BJP openly supporting the SC ruling on Section 377 and given that senior party leader LK Advani was present at the function. In the run up to 2014 polls, Congress has put its weight behind repeal of the Section with both Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi criticizing the SC order and asking for all parties to support its repeal.

Times View

Democracy needs to be large-hearted

A number of specious arguments have been advanced to argue against decriminalization of homosexuality.

That it is unnatural. There's a wealth of scientific evidence that suggests otherwise, and that it's part of the genetic coding of a section of the population (please refer to our edition of December 13).

That it is against 'our culture'. Again not true, because our ancient texts and our art are replete with instances of homosexuality (see TOI of December 12 and 13). Fact is, the anti-gay law was enacted by our erstwhile colonial masters 153 years ago and reflected their Victorian values, not ours. (Even the British have long since discarded it, and have now cleared same-sex marriage.)

That it is immoral. So, a man who is in multiple relationships with women would perhaps be considered "immoral". But are his actions criminal?

Ultimately, that's what it boils down to: Is it criminal? Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to consider the homophobic claim that homosexuality is "unnatural", "immoral" and "against our culture" - none of which it is - the question we need to ask is, is it criminal? Does it hurt anyone, except the sensibilities of our self-appointed moral police? Does it threaten public peace and order?

It does not.

Justice A P Shah, in his judgment of 2009, cut to the heart of the debate when he placed "constitutional morality" above "public morality" even if it was the public morality of the "majority". The Constitution guarantees its citizens liberty, equality and privacy - and Section 377 violates every one of these values.

Which brings us to another disturbing and dangerous argument that the Supreme Court has made, and which is being repeated by fundamentalists of all hues and religions: that homosexuals are a "minuscule fraction" of our population. First, that is incorrect: Given the estimate that they are 7-13% of our population, even if we were to consider just our adult (18+) population of 762 million (and not the entire population of 1.2 billion-plus), it adds up to almost 100 million at the upper end of the range, which is larger than the population of Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Singapore and Finland put together.

Even at the lower end, that's 7%, it's about the size of India's entire tribal population and half its dalit population. So, even if one were to accept a conservative estimate of the size of the country's gay population, it is by no means "minuscule".

But if, again for the sake of argument, we were to accept the "minuscule" argument, does that mean that our tiny Parsi community should have no protection under the Constitution? They are, after all, "minuscule" compared to Hindus, Muslims and several other religious and ethnic groups/denominations.

What if someone tomorrow were to decide that cremations and burials were the only "natural" way to dispose of the dead? Would that make the Parsi tradition of disposing of their dead as the "unnatural" acts of a "minuscule" community? Should it be declared "criminal"? Should their dakhmas (towers of silence) be shut down and should Parsis who bid their loved ones goodbye in their own traditional way be thrown into jail?

When Independent India was born, our nation-builders provided for two nominated seats in Parliament for representatives of the Anglo-Indian community - because they felt the community was perhaps too small to secure representation in a general election.

Our democracy needs to be large-hearted enough to accept people of diverse faiths, beliefs and orientations, as long as they do not subscribe to hatred and violence. Who and how they choose to love, consensually and in private, shouldn't be anybody else's business.