“The Indian Penal Code as it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.”  These words in the Delhi High Court judgment of 1st July, 2009 have put the whole position clearly and unambiguously.  Indeed, it is surprising that an outmoded colonial law introduced during Victorian times should have remained on our Statute Book for so many years since independence.   The motivation for the law by our former colonial masters was clearly to prevent any physical contact between the young British civil and military officers who came out to administer India and the ‘natives’, and it was repealed in the United Kingdom decades ago.  We   are perhaps the last democratic country in the world to have decriminalized gay sex, and now join 126 countries around the world that have already done so. This will come as a long awaited relief to a particularly vulnerable section of society which, even if it is pegged at 2% of our population against the generally accepted figure of 10%, would involve over 20 million people.

.

The judgment has sparked off a lively debate on television which, along with the printed media, has been largely supportive.  Some points need to be clarified.  The judgment in no way propagates gay sex; all it does is to ensure the fundamental right of equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty guaranteed to every Indian citizen under our Constitution.  It is also important to note that it does not decriminalize non-consensual sex or pedophilia, which will remain cognizable offence subject to severe punishment.

.

The argument that some religious leaders are against the judgment cannot become a deciding factor.  I recall that when in the early 50s, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar piloted the Hindu Court Bill through Parliament, there were a large number of Hindu leaders including some Shankaracharyas who were strongly opposed to it, as was the then President.  Nonetheless, they pushed it through, thereby ensuring that 800 million Hindus in India today live in a much more equitable and fair society than heretofore.  Similarly, all Christian denominations are not against gay sex.  The Roman Catholic Church certainly is, and it is also against contraception, but that does not mean that we should stop our family welfare and condom distribution programmes. As far as the Muslim community is concerned, the conservative leaders will certainly take a rigid attitude, but younger people are likely to be less dogmatic, and if one looks at the great Sufi tradition within Islam, we find that they celebrated love, both human and divine, in all its multifaceted glory.

.

The argument that this is against nature is also not viable.  To begin with, for the gay or LGBT community, their particular lifestyle is apparently as natural as heterosexual relationships are to the rest of society.  Also this argument of nature can be pushed to extremes.  It is not ‘natural’ to wear clothes; or to eat cooked food. Nature is much more varied and inclusive than many realize, and alternative sexuality has been found in almost all cultures, ancient and modern, around the world.

.

It is often forgotten that some of the greatest artists and musicians, rulers and conquerors, philosophers and poets in history have been gay or bisexual.  Same-sex love formed the basis of the ancient Greek civilization that produced such great thinkers as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who laid the philosophical foundations of Western civilization.  In India also, the Kama Sutra clearly mentions same-sex love in a very matter of fact manner, and the Khajuraho sculptures depict it graphically. In our magnificent iconography, the ultimate integration of the masculine and feminine archetypes is found in the great concept of Shiva Ardhanareshwara, while in the broader philosophical context, the Vedanta believes that the divine resides in all human beings, in which case discrimination on any basis including sexual preference is unacceptable.
.

To conclude, therefore, one can say that the historic judgment of the Delhi High Court marks a positive step in widening the scope of our inclusive democratic structure, and rescuing millions of citizens from the shadow of an archaic and outmoded colonial legacy.

29 December, 2008 - Published in The Asian Age

The Prime Minister’s statement that nobody wants war, echoed by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Gilani, has come not a day too soon. I have been aghast at the manner in which, over the last few weeks, a virtual war hysteria has been worked up, mainly through television news channels. Our media is certainly one of the most dynamic anywhere in the world, and we are proud of this, but in this particular instance our anchors, many of whom are personal friends, seem to be trying to outdo each other in war like programmes. One of the straw polls purported to show that 70 percent of Indians were in favour of war with Pakistan, while in others, various retired defense personnel have held forth upon the options before us and generally supported ‘surgical strikes’ which could well lead to an all out war.

Nothing can assuage the terrible trauma caused by the fidayeen attack in Mumbai which cost so many precious lives, Indian as well as foreign, and held the nation in horrifying thrall for three days. No words are too strong to condemn this gruesome attack and certainly we have every right to press that the perpetrators and planners of this event, all of whom undisputedly belong to Pakistan, should be brought to book. It is also true that Pakistan’s attempt to deny any responsibility, direct or indirect, for the attack is disappointing and extremely irritating. This said, however, we need to maintain a sense of balance in our response. We should certainly try and mobilize international opinion in our favour, and the UN Resolution has been an important achievement in this regard. The United States, Great Britain, Russia and even China have supported us in our insistence that Pakistan must act to dismantle the terror groups function from its soil. However, talk of an all out war or for “surgical strikes” that could well spark of a massive conflagration, is unwise.

Do the people who talk of war have any idea of the sort of consequences that could flow from an all out conflict between two nuclear and missile armed countries? Do they have any idea of the unimaginable risks of such a conflict which could destroy large parts of both the countries, jeopardize millions of lives and destroy all our efforts for economic growth and poverty eradication? Does the chatterati in Delhi really grasp the outcome of what could result from an all out war between India and Pakistan? Regretfully, it seems to me that the answer to all these questions is in the negative.

The irony is that the terrorist infrastructure has become even more of a threat to Pakistan itself than to India. The situation in that country, particularly in Baluchistan and the Frontier Provinces is spinning out of control and the Taliban are threatening not only Kabul but also Peshawar.  It is they, not India, who are threatening the sovereignty of Pakistan. In such a situation, one should hope that instead of a media war between us, Pakistan would take urgent and effective steps to rein in the terrorists operating from their soil. Without going into details, the UN Resolution specifically names four persons in Pakistan whom it holds responsible for the Mumbai terrorist attack. We should press that these four should be tried in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, so that the broader infrastructural details can be unraveled. If there is no response from Pakistan at all, we could consider a break of diplomatic relations and also some economic sanctions, but the loose talk of war going around needs to be firmly checked.

Finally, it needs to be restated that if India is to attain is full stature as a world power it will have to sort out its problems with its neighbours, particularly Pakistan. As I said in my intervention in the Rajya Sabha debate, the peace process should, under no circumstance, be jettisoned despite a serious set back. In the final analysis, the destiny of India and Pakistan remains intertwined, and it is only if we are able to build up a harmonious and mutually supportive relationship that both countries can hope to flourish in the years and decades ahead.

From the Indian Express in the past week:

“Senior Congress leader Karan Singh’s combative posture at the recent Congress Working Committee meeting took many of his colleagues by surprise. While many CWC members and those especially invited to the meeting like Union ministers Kamal Nath and Kapil Sibal were training their guns at Shivraj Patil on the plea of accountability, Karan Singh was reportedly blunt: “Mr Shivraj Patil, I think you must resign and leave it to the Prime Minister and the Congress President to decide whether to accept it or not.” While his tough stance did reflect the mood in the party, the style of delivery did take many by surprise.”

You can see this article at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/resign-mr-patil-said-karan-singh/395452/.

I have been following the U.S. Presidential Elections now for exactly 60 years. In 1948, as a boy, I was in a New York hospital during the Truman/Dewey’s election, and in Washington for President Truman’s inaugural parade in January 1949. Since then I have followed each American election with much interest. This year’s one has, by far, been the most exciting and one of the most historic in American history. That a man of African descent, Barrak Husein Obama, could overwhelmingly win the election to the highest office in the United States is itself an astounding event, given the appalling history of cruelty and discrimination against blacks for centuries.

Each century produced one outstanding President, George Washington in the eighteenth, Abraham Lincoln in the nineteenth and Franklin Roosevelt in the twentieth. Will Obama be the one in the twentyfirst? Here is a man who comes across not only as an eloquent and mesmerizing speaker but as one possessing maturity, compassion and steadfastness. I was particularly impressed that at the height of the battle he took fortyeight hours off to visit his dying grandmother in Hawaii.  His campaigns, first against Hillary Clinton within the Democratic Party and then with Senator McCain were a model of how such exercises should be organized.  Obama never once lost his temper or raised his voice, and reacted with amazing grace to the often vicious attacks and smear campaigns of the opposite camp. Apart from the racial aspect, which has for so long bedeviled America, there are some other aspects of this campaign that are of special interest.

Firstly, although Senator Obama comfortably outspent his opponent, his funds have been mostly made up of small donations from a very large number of people. Unfortunately in India we have not adopted this practice, as a result of which huge funds for our elections are far from transparent. Indeed this whole question of funding our elections is one that needs closer attention. The Election Commission has tried to make some improvements, but they do not seem to have demonstrably changed the situation on the ground. Perhaps the Obama model could be attempted in India also.

Another point that impressed me was the manner in which, for two whole months, both the candidates crisscrossed the country, speaking directly to people from all walks of life, addressing huge public meetings as well as small Town Hall and village square gatherings. This requires each candidate to answer questions and to spell out clearly the policies that they intend to adopt. Here again, while our MLAs do go virtually from door to door, senior leaders from all parties are confined to large public meetings where they cannot be directly questioned. Perhaps a series of television debates could help fill this gap.

Senator Obama represents a major transition in American leadership in terms of demography, race and public participation. The President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world, and therefore to see a person of such caliber being elected in these very troubled times is a matter of satisfaction far beyond the boundaries of his own country. Without going in the specifics of Indo-US relations, which will need a separate in-depth analysis, it is worth noting that as a key player in the emerging global society India has a vested interest in the U.S. projecting a progressive and visionary leadership. Obama’s pro-poor, inclusive agenda is in line with our own approach, as is the pattern of a mixed economy that is emerging from the debris of the global financial meltdown.

I recall the thrill that my generation felt when Kennedy was elected President way back in 1960. I was attending a Governors’ Conference at Rashtrapati Bhavan when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru got a message and made the announcement. Now, almost half a century later, there is again a thrill of anticipation and hope generated by Obama’s victory as the President of the second largest democracy in the world. With Indo-American relations having strengthened over the years, including a strategic relationship, one can look forward to a new dimension in which our two nations could together become a major force for peace and harmony in a troubled world. An aggressive unipolarity must give way to a more inclusive and enlightened paradigm that can effectively meet the challenges of climate change, global warming, terrorism and poverty elimination that are faced by the emerging global society.