Govt. should not give in to religious organisations and decriminsalise homosexuality

The Telegraph
June 30 , 2009

Govt soft-pedals on gay law change

Our Special Correspondent

Participants at a gay parade in Delhi

New Delhi, June 29: Vocal opposition from religious minority groups and consequent fears of a political backlash have forced the government into cautious — and hasty — retreat on removing the “illegal” tag from homosexuality.

Within 48 hours of indicating a bold move to amend section 377 and give gay people the right to profess their brand of sexuality, the Centre sent out clear signals it was backtracking.

While Union law minister Veerappa Moily claimed he had been “misquoted” as saying the government was planning to legalise homosexuality, health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad spoke of the need for “debate and consensus” on the issue before any move. This is a sure way of putting amendments to section 377 in the cold storage as consensus appears unlikely.

On the heels of objections from the Catholic Church yesterday, an influential Islamic seminary spoke out strongly against lifting the ban on homosexuality, saying “unnatural sex” was against the tenets of Islam.

“Homosexuality is an offence under Shariat law and haram (prohibited) in Islam,” Maulana Abdul Khalik Madrasi, deputy vice-chancellor of the Darul Uloom of Deoband said. Madrasi also asked the government not to repeal IPC Section 377 which criminalises homosexuality.

Terming gay activities as crime, Maulana Salim Kasmi, vice-president of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, said homosexuality was punishable under Islamic law and Section 377 should not be tampered with. Other prominent spokespersons for Islamic organisations too have strongly opposed any changes.

The law, home and health ministries are expected to meet soon to discuss the issue.

“We need more debate on the positives and the negatives... and there can’t be a better forum than Parliament,” Azad said. “We need a broad consensus within the government and [other] political parties. I don’t think my personal or anyone else’s personal thinking on this should prevail.”

Asked about his personal views on the issue, Azad said: “I don’t come in that category.”

The debate on Section 377 has simmered in India since the early-1990s but has intensified in recent years with health experts arguing it obstructs action to prevent the spread of HIV infection among men who have sex with men. Non-government agencies have also been calling for a change in the law saying it is used by police to harass individuals for their sexual orientation.

Azad said the debate on the proposal to repeal the law would be multifaceted. Some might link the issue with culture, while others may point out its implications for infections or the potential of the existing law to induce harassment. “We need a debate... and then a broad consensus.”

But lawyers who have campaigned for the repeal of Section 377 said history suggests that a majority view or consensus may not be easy to obtain on progressive laws.

“When Raja Rammohun Roy opposed sati and advocated widow remarriage in the early 19th century, there was massive opposition to it — specially from upper-caste Hindus,” said Leena Menghaney, a civil rights lawyer in New Delhi. “In every era, there are unpopular reforms to be made.”


o o o

Gay sex against tenets of Islam: Deoband

29 Jun 2009, 1353 hrs IST, PTI

MUZAFFARNAGAR, UP: A leading Islamic seminary on Monday opposed Centre's move to repeal a controversial section of the penal law which
criminalises homosexuality saying unnatural sex is against the tenets of Islam.

"Homosexuality is an offence under Shariat Law and haram (prohibited) in Islam," deputy vice chancellor of the Darul Uloom Deoband Maulana Abdul Khalik Madrasi said.

Madrasi also asked the government not to repeal section 377 of IPC which criminalises homosexuality.

His objection came a day after law minister Veerappa Moily said a decision on repealing the section would be taken only after considering concerns of all sections of the society, including religious groups like the church.

Terming gay activities as crime, Maulana Salim Kasmi, vice-president of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), said homosexuality is punishable under Islamic law and section 377 of IPC should not be tampered.

Maulana Mohd Sufiyan Kasmi, an AIMPLB member, and Mufti Zulfikar, president of Uttar Pradesh Imam Organisation have also expressed similar views on the issue.

Kasmi said it would be harmful for the society to legalise gay sex.

Buoyed by the news that the Centre is considering repealing the controversial section of the IPC, members of the gay community on Sunday held parades in several cities.

http://tinyurl.com/kqulab

o o o

The Telegraph
June 29 , 2009

Religious disquiet on gay law
Our Bureau
A participant at the Delhi parade.
(Prem Singh)

New Delhi, July 28: An attempt to decriminalise homosexuality has set up for the UPA government a sensitive test reminiscent of the Shah Bano case.

Some religion-driven organisations have opposed the government’s effort to build a consensus on repealing Section 377 of the Indian Penal code, which makes punishable “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”.

The government initiative for a meeting of its three relevant ministries to scrap or modify the section has rekindled hope among gay activists and liberal opinion-makers.

But two Muslim outfits — the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and the Jamaat Islami — and the VHP have categorically opposed any change in the law.

A Christian organisation — the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) — restated the Church’s objections but suggested that it was not against the repeal as such. The CBCI does not want homosexuality to be treated as a criminal offence but it will oppose measures, such as gay marriages, intended at “legalising” same-sex relationships.

Law minister M. Veerappa Moily and home minister P. Chidambaram are said to be in favour of repealing the 1860 law. Moily today said the concerns of all sections, including religious groups, would be taken into account before the final decision.

He said the department of law, home and health would soon meet on the issue but did not commit a date. Sources said health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, who hails from Kashmir, had not yet articulated his position. “He may want to gauge the mood in the Valley,” a Congress source said.

“Section 377 makes no sense,” said Ponni Arasu, a law student and organiser of the Gay Pride March in Delhi today. “You cannot deny people their basic civil rights.”

The younger section in the Congress appears to favour what one leader called “a liberal step in the right direction”.

But a veteran associated with minority affairs in the Congress said: “This cannot be a black-and-white decision. The party will have to discuss the issue in detail.”

Government sources stressed no decision had been taken to repeal the section that is also invoked to fight child abuse. The government could suggest modifications that will prevent harassment of homosexuals and squeeze in some clauses aimed at addressing the concerns of religious groups.

For the Congress, the controversy has brought back memories of the Shah Bano case. In 1986, the Rajiv Gandhi government, under pressure from Muslim organisations, had nullified a Supreme Court order awarding maintenance to the divorced woman.

The homosexuality debate comes at a time the Congress feels it has won back the support of minorities. The UPA government also takes care to project a minority-sensitive face.

o o o


Hindustan Times
June 29, 2009

Long march to real rights

Don’t be fooled by Sunday’s gay parades in India’s major metros. There is still a social stigma against sexual minorities in our country and the law is there to firm up this taboo. Add to this Law Minister Veerappa Moily’s remarks that the Cabinet would be ‘re-looking’ at Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises “voluntary carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal”, and the picture emerging in 21st century India is not exactly encouraging. The law states that even consensual anal or oral sex between two people — regardless of gender — is punishable by a fine and up to ten years imprisonment. That the government intends to take into account the concerns of all sections of society, including religious groups, suggests that it will be a good long time before this retrograde law is repealed.

A common argument against doing away with this law is that this would enable paedophiles to prey on young children, especially boys. This makes little sense. The protection of all children from sexual abuse cannot come within the ambit of an omnibus law that also governs adults. There has to a comprehensive law dealing with child abuse that includes issues like incest and domestic sexual violence. The existence of this law has driven the majority of the gay community underground. This means that, by and large, they do not have access to either information or healthcare when it comes to safe sex. As it stands, the law has been used to harass gays, transgender people and eunuchs. They are often targeted by the police who take advantage of the law being weighted against them.

Powerful religious organisations have already made it clear that they would oppose any move to dilute or repeal this law. Resistance to changing this law is evident from the fact that not much has moved from the time it was first challenged in the courts in 1994. Issues of sexuality are still very much taboo in India though we pride ourselves on having traditionally been an open society. Arguments that any discrimination on grounds of sexuality amounts to a violation of a person’s fundamental rights have not cut much ice with those opposing it. All governments have been wary of grasping this nettle and the current one seems to be no exception. Many other countries have moved ahead to the extent of openly gay people holding high office. In India, a beginning would be made if, for starters, legal discrimination was done away with.