Dormant Anti-Gay Laws Are Still Bad Anti-Gay Laws - A Romantic Realist

Dormant Anti-Gay Laws Are Still Bad Anti-Gay Laws

Raju Narisetti - Monday, August 25, 2008 9:25 AM

A recent Romantic Realist blog on gay rights in India titled Words Mean Little When It Comes To Gay Rights in India (Read it here) as well as a recent Mint editorial on the topic Homosexuality Is Not A Crime (Read it here) generated two very contrasting comments from readers.

"I read the article on Homosexuality in Live Mint and wanted to post this view. I am a student at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and received the Traub-Dicker Fellowship to research gay rights in India. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes homosexuality, is unconstitutional. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty. Furthermore, the law is a remnant of British colonialism and remained on the books after 1947. The law has been used to bribe, threaten and extort money from the gay community, while also hindering efforts to stem the spread of HIV and AIDS in the gay community. As India wrestles with issues that surround modernity, there is no reason to revisit the homosexuality question. Numerous examples can found in Hindu texts that describe same sex love. That India would even need to wonder if tolerating and allowing for same sex marriages is a throw back to colonial times."  Sheila B. Lalwani Harvard University, Traub-Dicker Fellow.

"You have blogged about a law against gays. It is an exaggeration to claim that this law in today's context is used to discriminate against gays unless you can show that the cops actually use this law to harass gays. This law exists because it was put in place by the British and no one has bothered about removing it.

There are thousands of such laws and the Americans have got it right. They are not going to waste their time on reviewing such laws until someone is actually injured by it and challenges the law. It is a waste of public resources to go about digging into laws that were framed 150-200 years ago. Laws should not be reviewed just to please activists who can then lobby for some prize with the Westerners. Let an injured party challenge the law and overturn it. That is the way to go. So if the law *is* used to harass gays, a harassed person needs to challenge the existence of the law and get rid of it.

The key is that there should be an INJURED party. And, I am no armchair theorist. I serve on the board of an organization that has filed a lawsuit challenging the content of textbooks in California (see www.capeem.org) and have come to appreciate this point on an injured party filing the lawsuit. Otherwise, you will open a can of worms and thousands of laws will be challenged by all and sundry who want their 15 minutes of fame."  Arvind Kumar

I am by no means an expert on this issue but I clearly have the sense, just as Ms Lalwani does, that even if the police aren't formally using Section 377 in India, the very threat of prosecution has given a lot of police the opportunity to selectively harass, threaten and blackmail alleged homosexuals. While Mr Kumar is indeed correct in noting there don't seem to be formal "injured" parties--there have been virtually on convictions on Section 377 in  years--the very fact that such an outdated law exists gives the police the power to victimize homosexuals. Indeed, Human Rights Watch and others note that the law is sometimes used to stop HIV/AIDS prevention efforts in India (See more details on the issue here)

The larger issue is the need to raise awareness and build more tolerance in the Indian society. But it is clearly time to repeal Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code even if it is not being formally enforced.

Share this post: email it! | del.icio.us! | digg it! | newsVine!

From sonali raj

August 25, 2008 8:27 PM
There is no law that says that two people of opposite sex cannot hug in a stationary car in a parking lot (unless one sees hugging as indecent behaviour and the inside of a private car as a public place), but the police harasses such couples nevertheless. Do these laws count if the police just feels like harassing people anyway? Especially since the people who get harassed are weak - teenagers and so on and have no clue about the law book, plus are nervous about the police irrespective of whether they know they've done nothing illegal...

From Raju Narisetti

August 26, 2008 3:37 PM

Email from Arvind Kumar:

I am not against killing this law. Nor am I saying that we should leave all laws alone. I'm saying that they should be challenged when it is worth doing so, and the affected people must be the ones challenging such laws. Otherwise, it is asking for trouble with the amount of laws that can be challenged. You're going to see thousands of frivolous lawsuits challenging some law or the other. Many of these will be filed by those who wish to get a feel of the system.

In India, laws mean nothing. It is no rule-of-law state. Laws are just words on paper and if activists hadn't dug out this law, no one would have heard of it. This law is a remnant of the 19th century British policy. It is no more than that.

I have appreciated those who file PILs and am grateful to them for achieving at least some things that have benefited me, but I have reservations about PILs too! First, they are acts of frustration and instead of fixing the system, they seek the intervention of the court. Second, it blurs the lines that define the separation of powers.

A real case: In Bangalore, a magistrate ruled that the proceeds from the sale of tickets in Cubbon Park should be used to take care of seniors. Sounds like a noble thing, but this decision is not the business of the judiciary.

A more famous case: The Tamilnadu legislature once sentenced the editor of a magazine to two weeks in prison! This was an example of the legislature doing the work of the judiciary (in a bad way too)!

The executive does the job of the legislature all the time. IAS officers suggest and draft policies that politicians are supposed to think of.

If you want a strong system, you should set down rules and follow them. You're opening up the system to chaos if you are flexible with implementing the rules. In this specific case, it is not as if the rules do not permit an injured party to challenge the law.

Arvind

Guess I am going by myriad news reports and well respected groups.

I still don't understand your defense of the law except on principle that we should leave all laws alone. There have been numerous cases filed in public interest and the government has also said--at least key ministers--it is a problem. So what has imitating western counterparts got to do with it?

It isn't like killing this law would create precedence. If it did, the law would be long overturned

Anyway these are just viewpoints I suppose.

Raju

From Arvind:

I mentioned the West because the issue of gays is an obsession for

Western liberals and conservatives. To be fair, it is not the entire

Western hemisphere but just USA. Other anglophone countries and

Western European countries tend to imitate the politics of USA with

various degrees of amplification. e.g.: Canada has claimed to be more

liberal than the US in the last 15 years.

Americans are obsessed with abortion, gay marriage and gun control.

None of these issue strike a chord in me. Other Asians, East

Europeans, Caribbeans and South Americans don't seem to care either.

Although the media in the West uses political terms like left and

right to refer to politics in India, it is inappropriate to do so as

he issues are food prices, corruption, caste of the candidate, Hindu

vs. Muslim (this is a straight religious clash and has got nothing to

do with left or right), water problem, power outages, etc.

Interestingly, while the issue of abortion is a hot issue in USA, no

one cares one way or other in India. The bureaucrats decide something

and that stays as the rule. If they change the rule to be the exact

opposite, no one would care!

It is the same on the issue of gays. Half the voters in USA will get

agitated if a law regarding gays is passed, the other half will get

agitated if the law tilts the other way. In India, someday a

bureaucrat might suggest a law that gets implemented and no one would even notice it. It might get changed the other way and no one would

still care!

POST YOUR COMMENT

:
(required)
 
Email Address
(required)
   
(optional)