[ad_1]
At Kitty Su, a popular nightclub in a central New Delhi hotel, the atmosphere was inspiring. The club was packed, with a long line of people waiting outside to try their luck. Rainbow-themed posters decorated the walls, a rainbow-colored strobe light appeared on the dance floor, and young men swallowed clichés in the colors of the rainbow. Rainbow at the bar. Kitty Su's owner, Keshav Suri, is a leading LGBT rights activist. This party was celebrating the overthrow of Section 377 of the Indian Supreme Court, a colonial-era law that criminalized consensual sex between adults of the same sex. From that night, after a battle of nearly two decades, it was finally legal to be gay in the world's largest democracy.
After the judgment of 6 September, Indu Malhotra, a member of the jury who delivered the verdict, noted in his summary that "history owes LGBT people an apology for ostracism, discrimination". Another panel member, Rohinton Fali Nariman, called on the government to make order widely known to counter the stigma associated with being gay, lesbian or bisexual. "Homosexuals," he said, "have the right to live in dignity." Article 377 was indeed a black mark of India's constitutional values of democracy, equality and personal freedom. . It has no place in a country that is trying to change things culturally and in the midst of a sexual revolution that has seen the roles of men, women, dating, and love evolve dramatically during the last years.
The disappearance of the law has guaranteed freedom and security to hundreds of millions of Indians. In interviews conducted by the New York TimesIn India, being homosexual or transgender was high: "fleeing parents, social isolation, limited protection in the workplace and frightening vulnerability to both police abuse and sexual assault with limited legal recourse" . threaten to expose LGBT couples to their families and communities or to detain them for violation of the law.
Police harassment was of particular concern for health. According to Chapal Mehra, Senior Director of Global Health Strategies, in an article for Scroll"In the past, the police used and often reserved HIV peer outreach officers under Section 377. They used Section 377 to try to stop the activities of the police. HIV prevention, harass outreach workers and confiscate condoms. proof of sex work ". Since section 377 is no longer in force, harassment will be terminated, although all persons already convicted under the law will have to serve the remainder of their sentence.
Beyond controlling police brutality, it is hoped that the end of section 377 will also improve health outcomes in the Indian LGBT community. According to Mehra, "Public health data shows that, regardless of social class, there is a clear link between lack of social acceptance and legal rights, high rates of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, mental stress, addiction and mental illness. It is not surprising that suicide rates are also "much higher among sexual minorities in societies where they remain criminalized". Decriminalization will give the public health sector and various Indian non-governmental organizations the opportunity to do their job better and respond to needs with legal freedom.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but the verdict in Article 377 is also very positive for the ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Under Modi, the BJP has earned a reputation for social conservatism and playing with its Hindu religious base. The party is zealous about protecting cows – a sacred animal in Hinduism – and, from its first year in power, it has announced a national ban on beef. (India is home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the world and beef is an important source of protein for them in a country where malnutrition is plentiful.) Among the prominent members of the party are monks Hindus, one of the most popular sages of the country. Yogi Adityanath, who is now the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh.
The verdict in section 377 will allow the government to appear more cosmopolitan and inclusive before the general election next year. By letting the courts reach this verdict rather than pushing for a parliamentary vote, the government had all the benefits of repealing the law without irritating its voting base. For its part, Modi has not yet issued an official statement on the verdict. The opposition party of the Indian National Congress, whose leader, Rahul Gandhi, openly supported the rights of homosexuals, also made no statement, probably because he made a pilgrimage two-week religious at Mount Kailash in China.
However, not all reactions were neutral or positive. Many religious organizations – Hindu, Christian and Muslim – stand up against the verdict. Imam Umer Ahmed Ilyasi of the All India Organization of Imams of Mosques said the Supreme Court should have consulted religious leaders before making a decision. And Stephen Fernandes, secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India, said in a statement that "because homosexuality is no longer a crime in the CPI [Indian Penal Code] does not mean that homosexual acts or behaviors are morally acceptable or justified. Arun Kumar, who is affiliated with the far-right Hindu organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (ideological parent of the BJP), pointed out that also does not consider this criminal. But we do not support homosexuality, because marriages and relationships between people of the same sex are not in sync with nature. Traditionally, Indian society does not accept such relationships. The negative reactions, however, focused on the Supreme Court, not on the BJP government, which is probably what Modi wanted.
The decriminalization of homosexuality has been the happy conclusion of a long legal battle, but the fight is not over. Although there are occasional references to gays in Bollywood films and in Indian media, homosexuality, especially among women, remains a taboo subject for much of society. Despite the isolated celebrations that followed the announcement of the verdict in Delhi, Mumbai and some urban centers, in most other Indian towns and villages, there is no flash of the Rainbow pride. The general public has little knowledge of the judgment or has decided to look away.
There is also the question of the legal rights of LGBT people. There are no laws on marriage, inheritance or property, and the battle to acquire them will likely be long and controversial. But the repeal of Section 377 is still a big step and probably should not have waited much longer. As I explained in my book India in love: marriage and sexuality in the 21st century, India is going through a sexual revolution and, for the first time in hundreds of years: in urban India, sex comes out of the bedroom and enters the living room. Public conversations about sex – including sexual violence – and displays of (heterosexual) sex in mainstream media such as books, movies and television have normalized. Sex outside of marriage is no longer a major taboo and some people start to feel legally empowered to manifest and explore their sexuality.
The end of Article 377 shows that at least a part of India is ready to talk about LGBT sex now. That said, the road is long – and although homosexuality has been decriminalized in books, to destigmatize it in the minds of most people, India still needs time. At the evening in Kitty Su, the night of the Supreme Court judgment, I asked a drunken young man, shaking hands with his boyfriend, if his parents were aware of their relationship. "No way," he said with a nervous, sarcastic or frightened laugh, it was hard to say. He seemed sober for a second, then they left me to return to the dance floor. Tonight they are free and that is what matters.
