Strictly speaking in legal terms, the July 2 judgment of the Delhi High Court on Section 377 of the Indian Panel Code, which bestows legal sanction upon homosexuality, is correct, as it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21.
We all know Article 14 guarantees equality before law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth, while Article 21 ensures protection of life and personal liberty.
The said correctness is rooted in the language used by the otherwise well-intentioned framers of the Constitution, who, perhaps, in their utter innocence, never thought of the scenario in which the ace practitioners of law as well as its interpreters might ignore the “spirit” and go with the “language”.
APEX COURT ROLE
That is why the Supreme Court always, as an unwritten rule, took wider and catholic view of the things. The late Mr H.M. Seervai, the renowned constitutionalist, had elaborated this important point when the Muslim minority was fighting a legal battle for the retention of Muslim character of Aligarh Muslim University.
The case of the government, led by Mrs. Indira Gandhi, was: as the government awards recognition to the degree, it has a right to regulate the institution as well. The Judges of the highest palladium of justice refused to buy the extraordinary official thesis.
As to us, the protagonists of anal-sex, who can be shown reason through counselling coupled with psychological and medical prescriptions, constitute an aberration, we have honestly failed to appreciate what is good in the legal permission to the perverts to indulge in sodomy in private.
ABSURDITY
The beauty or absurdity of the petition is that it had been filed by the Naaz Foundation, dealing with the treatment of AIDS and HIV, arguing that Section 377 was causing hindrance in the treatment of the patients.
On the contrary, the informed world believes it is these perverts who practise unnatural sex, and thus are responsible for the said diseases.
To the decent people the world over, there are certain values, certain postulates and certain principles, which are sacrosanct and not negotiable. Fidelity, faithfulness, chastity and virginity are some of them. They draw a distinct line of demarcation between man and animal. These virtues deserve to be preserved in full till eternity. These qualities happen to be a distinct mark of character. Their violation has in the past, provoked the God Almighty, to just wipe off the violators from the surface of the earth. Today the Dead Sea flows over such a lewd nation.
If the “historic” judgment is read and re-read in the context of the basic fact that India is a multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-cultural society and the Constitution of the country envisages a plural polity, not a free-for-all anarchic state, the sheen of the well-argued judgment, delivered by the Chief Justice, Mr. A.P. Shah and Mr. Justice Muralidharan melts into thin air. Their lordships have, perhaps inadvertently, taken a narrow technical view of the heterogeneous Bharat.
SECOND FLAW
The second unfortunate flaw of the verdict is its intrinsic aversion to morals and morality in an important legal matter. Need one remind their lordships that humankind is not a herd of animals from an animal farm, neither its male members are monkeys nor their female counterparts bitches. The verdict ought to have been delivered keeping in view the dignity of man and the elegance of woman and innocence of children who, we feel, would be the worst sufferers.
THIRD FLAW
The third flaw lies in the short shrift given to both individual and national character, whose salient features happen to be man’s fidelity, and chastity and virginity coupled with faithfulness of women. Will this “path-breaking” judgment not further popularise promiscuity? Is extramarital sex including the perverted sex that this judgment upholds and defends, not looked down upon by each and every noble-headed and noble-hearted Indian? And, do even the male and female prostitutes not abhor the sleaze they are in. Do they ever recommend their “profession” to their children? Does a drunkard recommend drinking to his daughters and sons?
FOURTH FLAW
The fourth and the saddest flaw of the verdict is its failure to anticipate its impact upon women, children and under-teens and their relatives. As we see in the West, more often than not, the husbands are free to lead freer life. So happens to be the case with the free-wives of their freer husbands. Then, the day daughter attains puberty, either she leaves her parental home herself or the parents, tired of her boy friends, request her to find a place elsewhere. That simultaneously she is supposed to earn her livelihood is a different story. This too-free atmosphere, despite various measures to check unwanted birth, produces unwelcome progeny.
Today the American population has – this is what an American survey has, not long ago, told the world in so many worlds – more illegitimate than the legitimate ones. Did their lordships envision this shameful scenario before writing their judgment?
The spirit of the Constitution of India, which is secular and socialist, is not-positively atheist. It does not encourage immorality, nor is it for total amorality or complete neutrality between the good and the evil. It quietly encourages healthy, moral life.
That is why our internationally celebrated Fundamental Rights are subject to moral and public health, blissfully ignored in the verdict. It is a universally held view that no right is absolute. The proverbial lady’s right to swing her umbrella in the air while walking on a street of free United Kingdom, ends where a passerby’s nose starts.
FIFTH FLAW
The fifth and final flaw is that if you see the far-reaching effects of the judgment, it is an antediluvian, retrograde step, a step which can also be described as anti-State, its noble ethos, its healthy traditions and admirable values. It is anti-family life, which is bound to cast a shadow on the much-needed equilibrium and tranquillity of social life.
Our Constitution does not envisage a frivolous, characterless, lascivious, depraved and lecherous society, given to genitals.
FILE A PIL
Let some think-tank file a PIL in the Apex Court and simultaneously put pressure on Parliament to amend the Constitution to give it an explicit, clear-cut reorientation of morality. If secularism does not mean immorality, let it be very clear that we Indians are a plural nation, are a state that believes in and practises ethical postulates on which there are no two opinions among the various minorities.
It there is any ambiguity or loophole, let it go lock, stock and barrel.
The Section 377 upholds: “Whoever has carnal intercourse voluntarily against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished for imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall be liable to be fined”.
NAUSEATING
If looked into this background, the “consenting adults” is not the point in question. The point in question is the hateful, the nauseating unnatural act, which in larger sections of humanity is considered against the order of nature, or against the explicit injunctions of God in various, particularly the three Abrahamic religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
Some leaders of Hinduism and Sikhism have positively spoken in the superlatives on the subject. Only Jews are silent, but we know their frequently edited and rewritten book of divine guidance. The Talmud particularly strictly prohibited sodomy and lesbianism. No Divine scripture permits sleaze.
CURABLE DISEASE
Notwithstanding the deviants and the waywards’ so-called arguments, paedophilia is a disease that is curable. Go through any authentic Unani Medical treatise to be enlightened on the subject. For a few days, a goat’s leg-bones, having sufficient marrow, have to be kept in the rectum of the patient. The germs, fond of marrow, rush to the bone. And the patient becomes normal within a week.
It is nice to hear that an eminent Hindu yoga expert, Mr. Ramdev, who is also Chairman Bharat Swabhiman Trust, has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP), challenging the Judgment. His argument is also based upon the basic reality that homosexuality is a disease that is curable. To quote him: right to privacy as a facet of right-to life, cannot include the right to enjoy deviant sexual behaviour.
The truth is the mean and degrading act, called sodomy is fashionably described as alternative sex. Paedophilia is not only a religious sin but is also a social crime. Additionally, it proliferates several diseases.
A DOCTOR SPEAKS
In an exclusive interview to this scribe, an eminent heart and diabetes specialist of the National Capital, Dr. Virendra Jain said, we do not know what more diseases are waiting in the wings to infest mankind following the legitimacy mindlessly bestowed upon homosexuality. First of all, the risk of sexually transmitted diseases is manifold higher among the homosexuals, who spread the disease to their partners as well. In this transmission one-hundredth of a drop of blood, semen or genital fluid is sufficient to cause the disease.
That the gays develop resistance to medicine is too well-known a fact. He said and added: A higher lethal form of pneumonia was found to be transmitted principally among the homosexual men. It led to the discovery of HIV/AIDS in 1985. Dr Jain recalled: Gonorrhoea which was well-controlled with the usual antibiotics, has recently been found to be resistant among homosexual men. He added: the fourth disease, besides other factors, is also created by homosexuality. It is Hepatitis B.
Dr. Jain also bemoaned the impact of the verdict on the general human relationships in the context of neighbourly trust and family members’ confidence. They have till now been trusted for their good, decent behaviour towards children and teenagers. This judgment, he said, proliferates dark suspicions. Now our children would start fearing our neighbours and relatives. Thus, mutual-respect and mutual-trust have been replaced by mutual-mistrust and mutual-suspicion. It is really sad, sad for individuals and sad for the society, he concluded.
MYSTIFYING
Before this interview, till date the medical fraternity has, for reasons best known to themselves, not spoken on the subject openly. This silence is mystifying.
So have done the politicians. The first to condemn the implications of the verdict was Mr. Lalu Prasad and the first to appreciate the verdict was CPI(M).
The Communists have a history of supporting the low causes. After the establishment of the Soviet Union, many atheists started having sexual relations with their sisters. The extraordinary trend compelled the leadership to confirm whether the incest has medical implications also. The immediate response that came from the Russian doctors was a big “no”. Satisfied with this “positive” reply from experts, the Soviet government gave a big green signal to incestuous marriages.
The Congress is either ambivalent or quiet. The BJP wants to keep mum. But a progressive section in the Saffron is for yes. But significantly the entire Sadhu Samaj, various recognised Bhagwans and accredited Shankracharyas are silent, totally silent.
EXPECTATIONS
However, there are exceptions also. A Veda Dharma scholar, Mr. Sundararama Bajpai has recalled that both “Sruti” and “Smriti” are against unnatural sex. The Kamasutra is opposed to unnatural sex including oral sex. All the Shastras warn that if the semen falls out anywhere, but in its rightful place, the ancestral sprits will be outraged and refuse to accept panda daan or funerary offerings. It is a crime of such severity.
Reverting to the subject, the Samajwadi Party, the Telugu Desham, DMK and all the significant organisations of the North East are quiet. But the Church is against gay sex. So have done the Shrimoni Akali Dal and other Sikh parties.
The Muslims and their all-India parties have not shown slackness in response to the sleaze. The All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, and the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, in the light of their statements are opposed tooth and nail. The regional Muslim parties have also condemned the legal sanction to sodomy in superlatives.
2 MONSTROSITIES
It has to be, and is accepted, on all hands that family-life is bedrocked into a legal, open matrimonial alliance. The same sex does not serve the societal objective of procreation. Talk to a childless, married couple about the ever-devouring vacuum and the depthless void in their otherwise happy matrimonial life. And then think about the legitimacy bestowed upon sodomy, and lesbian ties, the two monstrosities that are threatening to engulf our nation.