Ever since the issue of decriminalization of homosexuality has gained more prominence in public imagination and more importantly, ever since the Delhi High Court judgment has been delivered, there is a sort of avalanche of posts in various foras denouncing opponents of the judgment.
While it is understandable that any person feeling threatened by someone would resort to such denouncements, what escapes notice is the cause behind the striking absence of objectivity in the readers' denouncement of critics.
Almost all supporters of judgment have heaped scorn and vitriol on saffron backsides, knickerwallahs, hindutvavadis etc. Have these people venting their spleen on the abovementioned even paused to think if their frothing is justified?
Since the judgment has been delivered, the most vehement reactions have been from the clergy of Abrahmic religions, precisely those religions which have their holy books denouncing homosexuality and precisely those which ignite and fan a strong anti homosexual sentiment across the western and Middle Eastern world. Coming to Indic religions, the Sikh clergy has officially condemned homosexuality while refusing to tar it as criminal behavior. Regarding others, I have not come across any Buddhist monk coming out against the judgment though there has been one Jain muni who has been speaking out against it from available foras. That leaves Hindu clergy to deal with. The strongest opposition has come from Baba Ramdev, who is neither a part of the clergy, i.e. math or monastery nor is he a Godman in the sense of the Sathya Sai Babas or even Asaram Bapus of the world. In fact, no Hindu religious leader of any standing has come out against the judgment even remotely as strong as the reaction of the Abrahmic clergy. Nor have there been petitions by Hindu religious leaders to the PM or any minister asking that the Parliament overturn the judgment or appeal it in any fora. It might have escaped notice of these critics, either by design or default, but even the much maligned RSS, VHP or Bajrang Dal have had nothing much to say about the judgment
Coming to the political parties, it was the Samajwadi Party, the RJD and the LJP (the last in Rajya Sabha) which have been most vehement in their protest against the judgment. The BJP has remained silent and even the Shiv Sena hasn't reacted the way as it did against Fire. (By the way, people forget that the ostensible reason for Sena's protest against Fire was the usage of the names Radha and Sita for the protagonist and not the film itself)
Some may point out that BP Singhal, one of the parties to the Naz petition and an outspoken critic of homosexuality is a BJP member. But then, he never joined the case on behalf of the party. If we apply that logic, then Ghulam Nabi Azad, who is a much more senior member of the Congress party, having occupied ministerial and senior party position, is against the judgment. The ex Home Minister, Shivraj Patil was a strong opponent of the call to decriminalize homosexuality. Does all that mean that the Congress is opposing the judgment?
People ignore the fact that previously, NHRC, then headed by JS Verma, one of the most respected judges in the history of the country had refused to support the movement. He was not a Hindu right sympathizer by any extent. Ashok will concur that the strongest opposition to a seminar on gay rights, many years ago, had come from Vimla Farooqui, the then Head of National Commission of Women, and a card carrying member of the communist party
Even now, the NWC has given a guarded reaction to the judgment without supporting even the concept and has only said that it will need to study its impact on the family life in the country. Likewise, there is no squeak of support from either the NHRC or the Minorities commission. None of these are headed by anyone who is remotely associated with the Hindu Right.
It stretches credulity to the extremes to believe that the Hindu right must be condemned for opposing homosexuality. Even if we give more than required weightage to the Hindu organizations opposing the judgment, we would still find their reaction muted as compared to the opposition coming from the Abrahmic clergy, something more noticeable when you realize that their population is only between one-sixth and one-fifth share of the entire population of the country
Why can’t people criticize where it is due and just? Why do they forget that criticism just because of one’s ideological blinkers or because one is scared to protest against those who protest the loudest, is an act of cheating on oneself. If one is so convinced of his / her correctness, why this display of spinelessness in taking all the opposers headlong?
Let us not forget that the Indian society has never denounced homosexuality. Though not accepted it was never persecuted and only ignored. For most Indians, while decriminalizing it may be welcome, they may not be equally comfortable in legalizing it. We are in a country where public displays of affection among heterosexuals can invite obscenity laws and sexual liberation hasn't yet prevailed.
The struggle for equal rights in any arena is a long journey and always has potent foes. It can do well without imagining foes and ignoring perils where they actually exist.
While it is understandable that any person feeling threatened by someone would resort to such denouncements, what escapes notice is the cause behind the striking absence of objectivity in the readers' denouncement of critics.
Almost all supporters of judgment have heaped scorn and vitriol on saffron backsides, knickerwallahs, hindutvavadis etc. Have these people venting their spleen on the abovementioned even paused to think if their frothing is justified?
Since the judgment has been delivered, the most vehement reactions have been from the clergy of Abrahmic religions, precisely those religions which have their holy books denouncing homosexuality and precisely those which ignite and fan a strong anti homosexual sentiment across the western and Middle Eastern world. Coming to Indic religions, the Sikh clergy has officially condemned homosexuality while refusing to tar it as criminal behavior. Regarding others, I have not come across any Buddhist monk coming out against the judgment though there has been one Jain muni who has been speaking out against it from available foras. That leaves Hindu clergy to deal with. The strongest opposition has come from Baba Ramdev, who is neither a part of the clergy, i.e. math or monastery nor is he a Godman in the sense of the Sathya Sai Babas or even Asaram Bapus of the world. In fact, no Hindu religious leader of any standing has come out against the judgment even remotely as strong as the reaction of the Abrahmic clergy. Nor have there been petitions by Hindu religious leaders to the PM or any minister asking that the Parliament overturn the judgment or appeal it in any fora. It might have escaped notice of these critics, either by design or default, but even the much maligned RSS, VHP or Bajrang Dal have had nothing much to say about the judgment
Coming to the political parties, it was the Samajwadi Party, the RJD and the LJP (the last in Rajya Sabha) which have been most vehement in their protest against the judgment. The BJP has remained silent and even the Shiv Sena hasn't reacted the way as it did against Fire. (By the way, people forget that the ostensible reason for Sena's protest against Fire was the usage of the names Radha and Sita for the protagonist and not the film itself)
Some may point out that BP Singhal, one of the parties to the Naz petition and an outspoken critic of homosexuality is a BJP member. But then, he never joined the case on behalf of the party. If we apply that logic, then Ghulam Nabi Azad, who is a much more senior member of the Congress party, having occupied ministerial and senior party position, is against the judgment. The ex Home Minister, Shivraj Patil was a strong opponent of the call to decriminalize homosexuality. Does all that mean that the Congress is opposing the judgment?
People ignore the fact that previously, NHRC, then headed by JS Verma, one of the most respected judges in the history of the country had refused to support the movement. He was not a Hindu right sympathizer by any extent. Ashok will concur that the strongest opposition to a seminar on gay rights, many years ago, had come from Vimla Farooqui, the then Head of National Commission of Women, and a card carrying member of the communist party
Even now, the NWC has given a guarded reaction to the judgment without supporting even the concept and has only said that it will need to study its impact on the family life in the country. Likewise, there is no squeak of support from either the NHRC or the Minorities commission. None of these are headed by anyone who is remotely associated with the Hindu Right.
It stretches credulity to the extremes to believe that the Hindu right must be condemned for opposing homosexuality. Even if we give more than required weightage to the Hindu organizations opposing the judgment, we would still find their reaction muted as compared to the opposition coming from the Abrahmic clergy, something more noticeable when you realize that their population is only between one-sixth and one-fifth share of the entire population of the country
Why can’t people criticize where it is due and just? Why do they forget that criticism just because of one’s ideological blinkers or because one is scared to protest against those who protest the loudest, is an act of cheating on oneself. If one is so convinced of his / her correctness, why this display of spinelessness in taking all the opposers headlong?
Let us not forget that the Indian society has never denounced homosexuality. Though not accepted it was never persecuted and only ignored. For most Indians, while decriminalizing it may be welcome, they may not be equally comfortable in legalizing it. We are in a country where public displays of affection among heterosexuals can invite obscenity laws and sexual liberation hasn't yet prevailed.
The struggle for equal rights in any arena is a long journey and always has potent foes. It can do well without imagining foes and ignoring perils where they actually exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment