More Important Things
Legalising Gayocracy
Govt soft-pedals on gay law change
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, June 29: Vocal opposition from religious minority groups and consequent fears of a political backlash have forced the government into cautious — and hasty — retreat on removing the “illegal” tag from homosexuality.
Within 48 hours of indicating a bold move to amend section 377 and give gay people the right to profess their brand of sexuality, the Centre sent out clear signals it was backtracking.
While Union law minister Veerappa Moily claimed he had been “misquoted” as saying the government was planning to legalise homosexuality, health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad spoke of the need for “debate and consensus” on the issue before any move. This is a sure way of putting amendments to section 377 in the cold storage as consensus appears unlikely.
On the heels of objections from the Catholic Church yesterday, an influential Islamic seminary spoke out strongly against lifting the ban on homosexuality, saying “unnatural sex” was against the tenets of Islam.
“Homosexuality is an offence under Shariat law and haram (prohibited) in Islam,” Maulana Abdul Khalik Madrasi, deputy vice-chancellor of the Darul Uloom of Deoband said. Madrasi also asked the government not to repeal IPC Section 377 which criminalises homosexuality.
Terming gay activities as crime, Maulana Salim Kasmi, vice-president of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, said homosexuality was punishable under Islamic law and Section 377 should not be tampered with. Other prominent spokespersons for Islamic organisations too have strongly opposed any changes.
The law, home and health ministries are expected to meet soon to discuss the issue.
“We need more debate on the positives and the negatives... and there can’t be a better forum than Parliament,” Azad said. “We need a broad consensus within the government and [other] political parties. I don’t think my personal or anyone else’s personal thinking on this should prevail.”
Asked about his personal views on the issue, Azad said: “I don’t come in that category.”
The debate on Section 377 has simmered in India since the early-1990s but has intensified in recent years with health experts arguing it obstructs action to prevent the spread of HIV infection among men who have sex with men. Non-government agencies have also been calling for a change in the law saying it is used by police to harass individuals for their sexual orientation.
Azad said the debate on the proposal to repeal the law would be multifaceted. Some might link the issue with culture, while others may point out its implications for infections or the potential of the existing law to induce harassment. “We need a debate... and then a broad consensus.”
But lawyers who have campaigned for the repeal of Section 377 said history suggests that a majority view or consensus may not be easy to obtain on progressive laws.
“When Raja Rammohun Roy opposed sati and advocated widow remarriage in the early 19th century, there was massive opposition to it — specially from upper-caste Hindus,” said Leena Menghaney, a civil rights lawyer in New Delhi. “In every era, there are unpopular reforms to be made.”
The Government surely should be having more important topics for legislation than legalising gayocracy, if I may coin the word.
This diversion is practised by about 0.01% of our population.
However, this percent is very vocal, made up of artist and media personalities and public school educated children who did not have the benefit of co-ed school but who control the media.
We already have sufficient divisions in society without adding this one.
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
New Delhi, June 29: Vocal opposition from religious minority groups and consequent fears of a political backlash have forced the government into cautious — and hasty — retreat on removing the “illegal” tag from homosexuality.
Within 48 hours of indicating a bold move to amend section 377 and give gay people the right to profess their brand of sexuality, the Centre sent out clear signals it was backtracking.
While Union law minister Veerappa Moily claimed he had been “misquoted” as saying the government was planning to legalise homosexuality, health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad spoke of the need for “debate and consensus” on the issue before any move. This is a sure way of putting amendments to section 377 in the cold storage as consensus appears unlikely.
On the heels of objections from the Catholic Church yesterday, an influential Islamic seminary spoke out strongly against lifting the ban on homosexuality, saying “unnatural sex” was against the tenets of Islam.
“Homosexuality is an offence under Shariat law and haram (prohibited) in Islam,” Maulana Abdul Khalik Madrasi, deputy vice-chancellor of the Darul Uloom of Deoband said. Madrasi also asked the government not to repeal IPC Section 377 which criminalises homosexuality.
Terming gay activities as crime, Maulana Salim Kasmi, vice-president of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, said homosexuality was punishable under Islamic law and Section 377 should not be tampered with. Other prominent spokespersons for Islamic organisations too have strongly opposed any changes.
The law, home and health ministries are expected to meet soon to discuss the issue.
“We need more debate on the positives and the negatives... and there can’t be a better forum than Parliament,” Azad said. “We need a broad consensus within the government and [other] political parties. I don’t think my personal or anyone else’s personal thinking on this should prevail.”
Asked about his personal views on the issue, Azad said: “I don’t come in that category.”
The debate on Section 377 has simmered in India since the early-1990s but has intensified in recent years with health experts arguing it obstructs action to prevent the spread of HIV infection among men who have sex with men. Non-government agencies have also been calling for a change in the law saying it is used by police to harass individuals for their sexual orientation.
Azad said the debate on the proposal to repeal the law would be multifaceted. Some might link the issue with culture, while others may point out its implications for infections or the potential of the existing law to induce harassment. “We need a debate... and then a broad consensus.”
But lawyers who have campaigned for the repeal of Section 377 said history suggests that a majority view or consensus may not be easy to obtain on progressive laws.
“When Raja Rammohun Roy opposed sati and advocated widow remarriage in the early 19th century, there was massive opposition to it — specially from upper-caste Hindus,” said Leena Menghaney, a civil rights lawyer in New Delhi. “In every era, there are unpopular reforms to be made.”
The Government surely should be having more important topics for legislation than legalising gayocracy, if I may coin the word.
This diversion is practised by about 0.01% of our population.
However, this percent is very vocal, made up of artist and media personalities and public school educated children who did not have the benefit of co-ed school but who control the media.
We already have sufficient divisions in society without adding this one.
|
|
