There is no second thought as to how vague the titile sounds but may be after having gone through the article you would consent to it. The whole nation,especially the youth has some way or the other been disturbed by the final decision given by the Supreme Court of India on the 11th of December 2013 declaring the decision of the Delhi High Court ultra-vires. I am not writing this article simply to cite how blind love is and how everyone should be entitled to it! After going through the ninety-eight page legal report of this very judgement, the conclusion that I came upon is that homosexuality has been made criminal because it is against ‘nature’. It should be criminalized because it is against the Indian culture, it is against the institution of marriage. It should be criminalized because because it comes under ‘carnal intercourse’. The definition of carnal intercourse has been explained in detail but what about the definition of nature?What is nature?Is it something which deals only with ‘pro-creation’?I do not know how many of you would agree with this but I would better be unlnown to a word as ‘nature’ rather than accepting this very definition. Homosexuality has been basically discarded on the grounds that these activities would not furnish offsprings and even if the couple adopts a child;the child might be highly influenced with these ‘homo-sexual’ thoughts.
The scientific reason given for criminalizing homosexuality is that homosexuals are at a greater risk of HIV-AIDS than the normal heterosexual couples or the sex-workers. Back in 2001,the Naz foundation had filed a PIL which cosented with the fact that homosexuals were at a greater risk of HIV-AIDS but the reason given for the same was substantial.It said that because the homosexuals were discriminated by and large in their day to day life by people around;including the doctors,they fell prey to this deadly disease. Do we not agree with this? In the past six months of experiencing to live in Delhi I observed that hardly anybody accepts it. Some fraction of population considers it to be a ‘disease’while some are totally unaware of what it actually means. If this is the state of the national capital,then what must be that in the other cities of the country? Don’t the stigmatization of MSM(men having sex with men) and the LGBT community as a whole prohibit them from the entitlement to complete moral citizenship? Homosexuality or rather the ‘carnal intercourse’ has also been criminalized on the legal grounds of men loosing their manliness and not being useful to the society. If this is so then what about those youngsters who are under the influence of drug abuse? How useful are they to our society? If homosexuality is being dealt with these stern measures then why not the cases of drug abuse?
Homosexuality is not something new. It has been prevalent since ages.Dr. Devdutt Pattnaik in his essay ‘Homosexuality in India’ says that the term ‘homosexuality’ and the laws prohibiting ‘unnatural’ sex were imposed across the world through imperial might. Though they exerted a powerful influence on subsequent attitudes,they were neither universal nor timeless. Love of a man for a boy was institutionalized in ancient Greece. The medieval Arab travelers claim that women were for home and hearthwhile the boys were for pleasure.
When it comes to India,on visiting the beautiful Khajuraho temples one would find images of either women erotically embracing other women or men displaying their genitals to each other. Dr. Pattnaik’s take on this is that these images cannot simply be dismissed as pervert fantasies of an artist or his patron considering the profound ritual importance given to these shrines. Further considering the Indian mythology,the Tamil folklore narrative says that the Pandavas were asked to sacrifice Arjuna’s son Aravan in ordre to win the battle at Kurukshetra. Now Aravan was not ready to accept a virgin death and as no girl wished to be a widow in just a day after the marriage,he was not being married. To solve this problem lord Krishna took the form of a beautiful girl,married Aravan, spent a night with him. Nonetheless,’she’ even cried as a widow when Aravan was beheaded. We all must have heard of the amazingly beautiful form of lord Vishnu, which is ‘Mohini’. Lord Vishnu took the guise of a nymph ‘Mohini’ to distract the demons. Mohini was so exhorbitantly beautiful that even lord Shiva could not resist her. Do these examples not force us to ponder why lord Krisna and Vishnu themselves disguised as female sex when they could have appointed some nymph for the same?
The legal report says that Article 377 is correct because the offences laid under it has prosecuted not more than a two hundred people. Do these two hundred people not be entitled to their fundamental rights? Moving on, is it not high time that tha legislature should intervene? Is it not wrong on the part of the court by its nature to undertake the task of legislation? Should it not be left to the Parliament to decide whether or not homosexuality is immoral and decide the fate of article 377? If not, then their ought to be a detailed definition of what ‘nature’ is.
(image credts: ozhouse.org)