When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

India

A Victory For LGBT Rights In India — Just Not A People's Victory

Blame for the failure to take legislative responsibility for LGBT rights must be squarely divided among political parties across the spectrum.

Rainbow Pride march in Kolkata, India
Rainbow Pride march in Kolkata, India
Mulay

NEW DELHI — While we have the Supreme Court to thank for the celebrations that will paint our safe urban spaces rainbow, let us be clear that this is not a result of a "people-power" movement. A legislative repeal of Section 377 in parliament (or through the promulgation of an ordinance) would have been directly associated with the extensive public advocacy campaign we have seen in India.

Thursday's event, meanwhile, was yet another instance of our legislators delegating the task to the judiciary to rule on an unpopular subject, allowing themselves the comfort of deflecting any criticism from the opponents of the LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual and other sexualities) rights movement and basking in the praise of its proponents.

Any layperson who has read the Indian constitution understands that the document goes a long way in outlawing discrimination. The grounds on which discrimination is prohibited was covered thoroughly by the makers of the constitution. And, while discrimination-based on sexual orientation doesn't find a mention, I believe it is fair to excuse the constituent assembly for this omission. After all, the LGBTQIA+ rights movement has gained prominence only in the past 50 years.

The lack of initiative cannot be pardoned.

However, the constituent assembly members were far-sighted enough to recognize the evolution of the rights and values governing society, which was why they structured the constitution in such a way that it would be open to progressive change. Thus, the lack of initiative shown by lawmakers in the past few decades in interpreting and expanding the anti-discriminatory clause in our constitution cannot be pardoned.

True, there have been attempts in the recent past to amend Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Congress party's Shashi Tharoor did attempt, on multiple occasions to introduce a Private Member's Bill addressing the issue. However, on every such occasion, even the mere introduction of the Bill was voted down. Spearheading the opposition was BJP MP Nishikant Dubey. But, let us also not forget that the Congress party had enjoyed ten years of uninterrupted power at the Centre. And, it was only two years later, after they had relinquished power, that Tharoor proposed the Bills. Therefore, he needs to explain why he neglected the issue during the tenure of the UPA governments.

A vestige of British colonialism

One would think that a party elected on the premise of "re-establishing" Indian values (read: Brahmanical Hindu values) would be keen on repealing Section 377, a vestige of the "Abrahamic" values imposed upon this country by British colonialism. However, the BJP had clearly indicated its stance on equal rights for the LGBTQIA+ community when it gave Arjun Meghwal — the party's MP who had introduced a bill in 2012 asking for re-criminalisation of gay sex after the Delhi high court had struck it down — a ministerial position, on multiple occasions. Therefore, it is a bit too late to put up a face-saving "the BJP-welcomes-any-judgement" discourse, if at all the party was aiming at creating one.

Pride parade in Chandannagar, India — Photo: Pacific Press/ZUMA

As for a party with absolute majority in the Lok Sabha — the lower house of India's bicameral Parliament — this has been yet another moment of disgrace. Judicial overreach has to be rightfully criticized. However, it is the meek fight put up by our elected lawmakers that has allowed, on numerous occasions in the recent past, the judiciary to encroach upon their right to legislate. On this occasion, the lawmakers more or less volunteered to cede their power of decision-making to the courts.

The victory that we now enjoy is not because our values have been recognized.

Blame for the failure to take legislative responsibility must be squarely divided among political parties across the spectrum. Their ignorance, in spite of countless civil society organizations working tirelessly to advocate the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, is shocking. While ten years down the line, these activists might laugh off the instances when they were accused of being "foreign agents' trying to "destabilize Indian society", defending pedophiles and promoting "unnatural acts', the price paid by a section of citizens cannot be expressed in words. They faced persecution from the immensely-powerful state machinery, they were ostracized by the society at large and often disowned by their own families, in their fight for equal rights.

Who to thank, and who to blame

And yet, while the goal has been achieved, the struggle of human rights defenders hasn't materialized to its rightful extent. Remember, the judiciary interprets the values it believes are enshrined in the constitution and adjudicates accordingly. It has to remain impervious to prevailing public opinion and that is the only reason it has the ability to come up with unpopular decisions time and again. Therefore, while it would be a big mistake to deprive the LGBT rights organizations and activists the credit of bringing the agenda in mainstream public discourse, it is their legal arguments that have led to Section 377 being struck down. Our lawmakers have been impervious to their widespread advocacy campaigns. The victory that we now enjoy is not because our values have been recognized and represented, since the legislators we elected to represent us have failed to reflect them.

Therefore, the very least we should demand from our lawmakers at this stage is for them to ask for forgiveness, as Justice Indu Malhotra rightly noted. Forgiveness for having failed to fulfill their duty of protecting minorities, of having made the LGBTQIA+ rights defenders endure hardship for years, of having denied an entire community equal rights. And since we are getting ready to choose as our members of parliament individuals who best represents us and our ideals come 2019, let us tell all politicians through this medium: Consider yourselves warned.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

How Ukraine Keeps Getting The West To Flip On Arms Supplies

The open debate on weapon deliveries to Ukraine is highly unusual, but Kyiv has figured out how to use the public moral suasion — and patience — to repeatedly shift the question in its favor. But will it work now for fighter jets?

Photo of a sunset over the USS Nimitz with a man guiding fighter jets ready for takeoff

U.S fighter jets ready for takeoff on the USS Nimitz

Pierre Haski

-Analysis-

PARIS — In what other war have arms deliveries been negotiated so openly in the public sphere?

On Monday, a journalist asked Joe Biden if he plans on supplying F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine. He answered “No”. A few hours later, the same question was asked to Emmanuel Macron, about French fighter jets. Macron did not rule it out.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

Visiting Paris on Tuesday, Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksïï Reznikov recalled that a year ago, the United States had refused him ground-air Stinger missiles deliveries. Eleven months later, Washington is delivering heavy tanks, in addition to everything else. The 'no' of yesterday is the green light of tomorrow: this is the lesson that the very pragmatic minister seemed to learn.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest