DC debate: Time to right a wrong

Jaitley and Chidambaram are right: SC needs to overturn its ruling on Section 377

Amitabh Parashar Vs Satish Kumar Singh

===================================================================================

Amitabh Parashar: It is a part of human rights

We need to recognise that only regressive states like Saudi Arabia continue to criminalise same-sex unions. So we stand along with the most conservative societies in denying sexual rights to our citizens.

Homosexuality has always been present in our society and denying its existence will only cause further trouble for the already marginalised community. The existence of homosexuality cannot be wished away and needs to be addressed. Sexuality has always been an individual’s private matter and this needs to be respected. A theory in liberalism says that in a relationship between two consenting adults, no third person has any right to raise a question. If persons of the same sex want to enter into a sexual relationship, as long as it is not forced and both are adults, it is their private matter and should not be discussed by others.

Interestingly, while we claim to be the world’s largest democracy and take pride in this fact, we also need to recognise that only regressive states like Saudi Arabia continue to criminalise same-sex unions. So we are standing along with the most conservative societies in denying sexual rights to our own citizens. The United States, most democratic countries in the West and across the world have recognised same-sex unions, enabling their homosexual citizens to play an active and productive part in nation-building.
Our government and political class needs to come out openly in favour of gay rights as there are a lot of legal and financial issues that arise out of same-sex relationships.
For example, if a same-sex couple adopts a child they would need a legal status to protect their own as well as their child’s rights. The government needs to bring in provisions to protect the financial and legal rights of such families.

Moreover, the definition of family would also need to be changed to accommodate same-sex unions, otherwise gay couples would not be able to claim any part of the government’s numerous welfare programmes for its citizens. Negativity against the gay and lesbian community in our society needs to be tackled and addressed immediately. The criminalisation of same-sex unions will only create more trouble for this vulnerable community. The gay and lesbian community needs the solid backing of our political class as the conservatives have again taken out their knives and are claiming same-sex unions as unnatural. Interestingly, while all the major religions of the world have been fighting amongst themselves, they all seem to have taken a united stand against homosexuality. All religions have been denouncing same-sex unions on the pretext that these unions cannot produce children and, hence, they hold no prospects for the growth of these respective religions.

It must be understood that if gays and lesbians were unnatural, history would not have recorded their existence. It is not the government’s business to intrude in the bedroom of its citizens. The Supreme Court of India needs to urgently revisit its order on Article 377 as democracies have been recognising gay rights as part of human rights world over. In fact, homosexuals are the most vulnerable minority, which needs to be supported by the government and its agencies, as they seem to be constantly under attack from religious and conservative elements.

Amitabh Parashar is a documentary filmmaker and member, Delhi Advisory Panel, Central Board of Film Certification

Satish Kumar Singh: Law is in sync with societal norms

Homosexuality is unnatural as same-sex unions do not fulfil the societal need for reproduction. That is why homosexuals are referred to as the third gender or napunsak (who cannot reproduce).

Homosexuality is one of the most taboo subjects in Indian society. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code makes sex with persons of the same gender punishable and the Supreme Court of India has rightly decided to let this practice remain criminalised. Over the millennia, religion has played a role in shaping Indian customs and traditions. None of the religions practised in our country — like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or Judaism — promote the idea of same-sex union. Hinduism’s basic tenets are dharma, artha, kama and moksha, which are also known as purusharth. Among these tenets, kama pertains to the sexual life of a person. According to Hindu beliefs, kama is not just meant for sexual enjoyment. Its primary goal is fulfilment in the form of giving birth.

And this concept of reproduction through a union between a man and a woman is not confined to Hinduism. Hence the aversion to same-sex union by most religious groups, as it can never lead to childbirth and would not contribute towards the growth of society and humanity. In fact, Christianity and Islam consider homosexuality a sin. All practices and rituals in established religions across the world emphasise, and mandatorily require, the involvement of a man and a woman. For example, a yagna in Hindu religion can never be considered complete without the presence of both male and female householders. Vedic hymns and prayers ask for growth of family, which is only possible in a heterosexual relationship and not a homosexual one.

Gays and lesbians would never be able to reproduce, leading to the decline of moral and societal values. Even in Hinduism, the practice of homosexuality is an exception throughout the ages. Gay rights activists wrongly point towards the Ardhnaarishwar avatar of Shiva and the Mohini form of Vishnu, as an acceptance of queer sex in ancient Indian culture. While Vatsyayana (the creator of Kama Sutra) also writes about asanas involving same-sex union, it should not be forgotten that it mainly uses asanas that are heterosexual, to depict kama.

These examples prove that while the practice of homosexuality was noted in India, it was an exception and not a rule. It was considered to be a deviation and never a general practice. Historians have never, through our vedic history, seen an example of a king completing a yagna with his male companion. For such religious rituals, only female consorts were recognised. The concept of homosexuality is unnatural and it can be easily proved as same-sex unions do not fulfil the natural and societal need for reproduction. That is why people involved in same-sex unions are referred to as the third gender or napunsak (who cannot reproduce).

Any dilution in the Section 377 should not be allowed as it could have a very dangerous and far-reaching impact on Indian society. If we alter the current legislation, we would, in fact, be pushing our young generation towards an immoral activity which would only lead to troubles for our society.

(As told to Nitin Mahajan)
Satish Kumar Singh is an assistant professor of philosophy at Banaras Hindu University