Just let them be happy and gay

In a landmark judgment in the Naz Foundation v/s Government of NCT of Delhi on July 2, 2009, the Delhi High Court struck down most of the provisions of Section 377 of the IPC, holding it violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The verdict came as a major relief to the covert and overt homosexuals in the country, who have been stigmatised by society and persecuted by the draconian law introduced during British Rule.
It was also hailed across the world by political leaders and human rights organisations as a right move in the direction of inclusive policy empowering minorities of all hues.
However, the revolutionary ruling was too much for religious leaders to stomach and they soon moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision.
The apex court sought the stand of the Central government on decriminalising homosexuality — and that is where the drama unfolds. Ever since the SC directive to seek its opinion, the Centre has been shuttling the issue from ministry to ministry, and has been delaying the decision. Opinions on the issue differ between ministries and there has not been a consensus yet.
At a hearing on February 28, 2012, addition solicitor-general PP Malhotra, who appeared for the Home ministry said, "Gay sex is highly immoral and against social order and there is a high chance of spreading of diseases (like AIDS) through such acts."
As civil society breathed fire over his ‘inputs’, the government distance itself from the controversial remarks — the apex court came down heavily on the flip-flop. Even a month after that, the Centre was not able to come out with a clear stand, and this angered the Supreme Court.
In a scathing observation, the SC on Tuesday rapped the Centre for its ‘casual approach’.
All across the world, countries are decriminalising homosexuality and giving legal recognition to same-sex unions. Such moves will ensure that they are not discriminated against and can enjoy their rights like any other person.
Homosexuality is a reality that cannot be wished away, whether the self-appointed guardians of social moral fabric like it or not. If an adult can make a choice to follow a religion, elect political representatives and take decisions on numerous life-altering choices, he/she can decide on what their sexual orientation should be. What’s the point in calling yourself a democracy when all voices aren’t allowed to be heard?
Nothing unnatural about it

Canadian biologist Bruce Bagemihl who has authored Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity has documented evidence of homosexual behaviour among at least 1,500 species of animals. Therefore the argument that homosexuality is ‘against the order of nature’ or ‘unnatural’ doesn’t hold ground. While we are still stuck in a time warp trying to call homosexuality unnatural and immoral, other countries have move far ahead — using scientific logic rather than emotion. In a 2003 landmark judgment, the US Supreme Court cited documented evidence of homosexuality among animals to strike down sodomy laws of Texas and 13 other states in Lawrence vs Texas. Sculptures and Khajuraho, which date back to 9th Century BC, vividly display several representations of homosexual intercourse among both men and women.

Salient features of Delhi HC verdict on Section 377

Criminalisation of consensual gay sex violates rights to dignity and privacy, which falls within the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 377 runs contrary to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution, because it creates an unreasonable classification and targets homosexuals as a class. Public hostility or contempt for a particular social group is not a valid ground for discrimination by State. Discrimination based on sex, prohibited by Article 15 of the Constitution includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. The right to life under Article 21 of Constitution includes the right to health, and Section 377 of IPC is an impediment to public health because it hinders HIV-prevention efforts. Section 377 is unconstitutional to the extent where it criminalises consensual sex between adults in private. None of the above exemptions apply to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.

  (This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on March 21, 2012)

Why I wouldn’t cry for the clan of the Tiger

The Rajya Sabha was yesterday forced to adjourn after the DMK and the AIADMK created a ruckus over a recently released footage of LTTE chief Prabhakaran’s 12-year-old son, who was allegedly executed by the Lankan army in the concluding phase of the civil war. They wanted India to take a pro-active stand against Sri Lanka over the alleged war crimes that took place.
While there is no justification of the murder of a boy who wasn’t even an adolescent, the gory fate of Prabhakaran and his kin were sealed when the rebel chief embarked on his inglorious path of ruthless violence for his cause.
From a small-time militant activist who shot to fame (or notoriety) with the assassination of the mayor of Jaffna in 1975, Prabhakaran grew into a megalomaniac warlord who dealt with dissent through brutal killing of his opponents and their families.
The LTTE chief did not believe in sharing ‘revolutionary’ space with any other organisation and systematically annihilated all other outfits. Tamil organisations based in the US and Europe allege that more Tamils have been killed by the LTTE than by the Sri Lankan army and Sinhalese violence put together.
In making its presence felt, the LTTE employed methods that would put world’s most infamous dictators to shame. The Tigers never had any qualms in attacking the civilian population and they never spared women, aged or children.
Thousands of civilians — a substantial chunk of them women and children —have been clubbed, axed, stabbed and shot by the Tigers to enforce their reign of terror and ensure allegiance to the outfit.
Anyone who questioned their methods were tried in Kangaroo courts and were either maimed or executed; even their families were not spared.
For a group that pioneered suicide bombings, which kill scores of civilians along with the intended target, LTTE stood little chance of mercy at the hands of their enemies.
The LTTE also forcibly took away children from their homes and used them as child soldiers and suicide bombers. Bullets will kill whether the hand that pulls the trigger belongs to a 12-year-old or an adult and bitter experience had taught the Lankan forces that hesitation will prove too costly.
Maybe our southern politicos who are crying hoarse over the war crimes of the Lankan army would like to explain the international procedure followed by the LTTE in 1990 when at least 800 Sri Lankan police personnel, who had surrendered on promise of safe passage, were executed.
Or they could try talking to the relatives of the Kattankudy mosque massacre where an LTTE squad mowed down worshippers as they knelt in prayer and lobbed grenades to finish off survivors. About 150 Muslims were killed in the attack.
The commuters at Anuradhapura bus station or the child monks at the nearby shrine were not combatants. Death toll; 150. Any explanations?
Why don’t the regional satraps explain how key state leaders, especially the Congress heavyweights, miraculously escaped the blast that blew Rajiv Gandhi to shreds?
The Rajiv assassination proved counter-productive to the Tigers as it pitted India’s entire machinery against them. Despite a ‘hands off’ policy since then in the island’s internal matters, India clearly switched sides to throw its weight behind the Lankan government — covertly though, owing to ‘regional sensitivities’.
Awash with cash from Tamil diaspora and various businesses across the world, the LTTE ensured that funds flowed to its paid barking dogs in the region, the minor chauvinistic groups who are open in their adulation for the rebels.
Let this be crystal clear. The Tigers were no saints. Their track record on human rights and war crimes would match any dictatorship. Prabhakaran was instrumental in ruthless execution of hundreds of civilians and dissidents — something that would come back to him and his family in an equally gory manner.
Note to the venerated parliamentarians: 
We have a lot of business in the House that is of paramount importance to national interests. Terrorism, corruption, education, food security, national budget, governance, infrastructure and economy are among the key issues that need to be addressed by the elected representatives. Those who want to woo vote banks with eulogies for the slain terrorist and his kin please do that outside the Parliament at their own time. The taxpayer doesn't spend Rs1.5 crore per day to keep the Parliament running to hear paeans to terrorists.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on March 14, 2012)

Think twice before you pull that trigger

When 75-year-old Sriramulu Patel was woken by the incessant barking of his dog, he knew something was amiss. The septuagenarian took his licenced revolver and went to check the source of disturbance. Barely did he open the door, a man tried to push past him into the house.
Patel fired twice and the intruder collapsed on the floor. After dragging him inside, Patel called the police.
The burglar survived the gunshot wounds and was taken into custody after being discharged from hospital. He was booked under Section 457 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code for ‘trespassing with the intention of committing a crime’.
So far, the police have refrained from filing charges against Patel as their preliminary investigation revealed that the act was in self-defence.
However, legal luminaries beg to differ. M Ranga Reddy and Justice Iyaapu Panduranga Rao, former High Court judges opine that Patel should be charged under relevant sections of the IPC. They are of the opinion that it should be the courts, which should judge Patel’s actions and no the police.
The whole episode calls our attention to the injury or death caused while exercising the right to self-defence. The Constitution provides us with the right to life. Naturally we have the right to defend it when someone threatens it.
When the threat materialises in the form of a physical confrontation, it is only natural that resistance to it will result in use of force — injury or death of assailant is always a possibility.
The question is; where do you draw the line between a desperate action to survive and intentional attempt to murder? Burglars or assailants don’t give notice before they strike. Under usual circumstances, the civilian gun-wielder has only a few seconds to react before pulling the trigger.
Therefore, following the legal procedure, of shouting out a warning followed by firing in the air and then, as a last resort, firing below the knees, is practically impossible.
One also has to take into consideration that the assailant/burglar is likely to be a hardened criminal with no qualms to kill you. He is likely to be better than you in close-quarters combat and use of knives/firearms — the worst part is that there is no way you can know.
Since most such incidents occur at night when visibility levels are low, judging the level of threat posed by the assailant becomes even trickier. The only option before the victim of an attack is to target the attacker with the intent to cause maximum damage.
All rules, though created with the best of intentions, can be bent and the laws providing for the right to self-defence are no exception to this.
Ours is a country (in)famous for ‘staged encounters’. Every year there are more exposes of the police, armed forces and intelligence agencies faking circumstantial evidence for illegal executions.
If those killing in self-defence are allowed to walk free even without the botheration of registering a case, it is only a matter of time before the rich and the well-connected start fabricating circumstantial evidence and bumping off their opponents.
Due course of law must be followed when injury or death is caused by an act of self-defence. Instead of taking the incident at face value, the investigative agencies must conduct an objective and thorough probe. Then it should be left to the courts to consider the merit of the case and arrive at a decision.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on March 7, 2012)