By Aryaman Datta Chobey
Holding hands. It’s a simple and careless, intimate, private little gesture of affection really. Just as one moment slips into the next, your fingers slip into those of the one you’re glad to be spending that moment with. Your clasp each other for warmth, love, connection and they do so ever so subtly. That’s what makes it beautiful. It’s something all lovers should be able to enjoy, but the LGBT cannot. For them, it’s preceded by first looking out for the consequence that take shape of young and old, degenerate and upstanding alike. If it’s not lurking around the corner in the shape of men intoxicated besides bikes or outside bars, then maybe it’s okay. But then it’s no longer simple and careless, it’s complex and cautious. Perhaps in the face of it, they will silently decide to hold hands anyways. But then the gesture is no longer private and intimate but public and defiant. It can no longer reach for normalcy and it. Is. Ruined.
So when Justice Chandrachud states ‘We’re talking about two gay men holding hands on Marina beach and not being arrested’ as the supreme court hearing on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code begins, it carries a lot of weight. What this panel of judges is essentially tasked with, is to put on trial the law that’s held love on trial in India for over 157 years.
Let’s look at the origins of section 377 first. It’s a vaguely worded law that states “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Depending on how one interprets “natural order”, a whole lot else apart from gay sex could be criminalised. Not to mention that the term of imprisonment for it is longer than the term we have for rape. You may have also noticed that the number 157 is greater than 71, which is how long we will have been independent in august 2018. That’s right this law predates us being a free country and has been long cast aside by the government that imposed it upon us in the first place. So when you hear people say ‘All this LGBT nonsense is not Indian it’s a foreign influence’ and they lean to this law for support, they’re not just leaning on foreign influence, they’re leaning on outdated foreign influence. And those that do so put India in a collar and on a leash, and it’s a leash held by a skeleton whose flesh and substance has long rotted away; domesticating us as dead men’s dogs.
Interestingly enough, acceptance of the LGBT is not even alien to India. Hinduism has long depicted gods marrying gods, deities changing sexes, homosexual couples bearing children, and the list goes on. Hijra’s were even sought after for blessings. I only sight Hinduism as an example because it’s given rise to plenty of pre Mughal literature, history, art and culture in general that can testify to this. Even the many other religions that find a place in our secularity are currently debated amongst scholars as to whether really oppose homosexuality or not. So while religious groups should have no bearing on our collective human rights, they may themselves be disingenuous to their faith in supporting section 377.
The true tragedy of the situation is that the Dehli high court had once actually overturned this law in a historic trial in 2009. A trial, which was then used as precedence by several countries to decriminalise gay sex and was lauded in human rights and LGBT rights conferences around the world. But it made the most difference back home. It was the culmination of organised effort dating back to the 1990’s and gave rise to surge of LGBT Indians coming out and finding their place as equal citizens in their motherland. It was beautiful, but it was short lived. In 2013 the Supreme Court reinstated this law, citing the LGBT as a miniscule minority, thus resurrecting not-so-miniscule old problems and giving birth to new ones. It’s not uncommon now for corrupt police officers to go to gay people’s homes and threaten arrest if they don’t pay up. Conversion “therapy” gained even more prominence with known homosexuals being forced into it by their families. If it wasn’t shock treatments at hospitals, then it was parents having relatives or friends rape their children so that they may know what “true” sex feels like. All of these horrors found some legitimacy in the verdict of our supreme court.
So that’s how we ended up where we are today. The Supreme Court has held its hearing, and passionate arguments have been made from all sides. The government of India at the very beginning of the trial chose to not take sides and leave it up to the decision of the Supreme Court. A political move designed to allow it feel safe from criticism regardless of how the trial turns out. The trial itself now concluded, awaits the decision of the court later this year. The issue has also undergone a very vehement media trial. There’s probably judgement in every eye and sentiment in every heart with regards to this. Based on political analysis, I personally think future of homosexuality in India is ambiguous at the best. Best case scenario, the striking down of section 377 will be the first of many legal conversations, from marriage to adoption to much else, which we as a nation will undertake in protecting the human rights of all our citizens. Worst case scenario, the backlash from striking down this law may lead to the parliament adopting a similar or worse one. Realistically, we may find ourselves in grey area with regards to homosexuality within the vacuum left behind by this law. I don’t think that the law sticking around is a realistic possibility though, it’s almost entertaining to see how the arguments made for both sides of issue stack up to each other (hint: They don’t.)
There is one thing I’m certain off; homophobia has no place in anything supported by the lengthiest and potentially best drafted constitution of the world. I have taken a long time agonizing over this article and it is partly because in its previous drafts in sounded a little bit too much like an assignment I did for English in 9thIGCSE. I’m not selling myself short, the arguments were well made, they’re always well made when you’re on the right side of history. The problem was, I as political lead of newsroom believe that people should submit pieces with passion; arguments can easily be developed and sharpened but creating passion where it doesn’t exist is far more difficult. So I thought it’d be hypocritical to not give passion of my own. “I’m bisexual” those are words I once uttered in a trembling voice out into the dark, almost instantly wishing I could shove them back down my throat and forget about them. They made it real for me and I honestly wanted no part of it. But now I want these words to find a place in this article. So to anyone that reading this from a similar place I want you find a place in the heart of this article too. I want to share this freedom with you, because that closet maybe comfortable now but it gets cramped pretty quick with all the fear and over thinking. I want to share the comfort of knowing that we as a people are not diseased or inferior or joke worthy, that we are not this country’s shame but its strength. And when that verdict comes out I want to share the joy of true independence with you. Independence from section 377, independence from having our love on trial.
Comments