Delhi high courst supports Indian culture of Pluralism minus 377
Delhi high court has strike down the section 377 of Indian Panel court. This is a colonial rule that made any kind of "un-natural" sex criminal offence. There is mix reaction in the society, human rights activists and AIDS workers are supporting it and some religious organizations are condemning it and may challenge in the Supreme court.
No doubt some of the laws may not fit well with the religious philosophies and the tradition of the society to support human rights but in this case situation has not gone too far. Everyone has a right to lead his/her life in a free society and sex is private affair and the state or the court should not interfere between the two consensual adults. This is the argument that court has given in decriminalising the homosexual behaviour.
On the other hand, some organizations are planning to challenge this ruling on the basis of Indian tradition, culture and religions. They fail to understand that they are supporting a colonial rule. As the word "un-natural" comes from a catholic religious philosophy and it does not have much value for the Indian philosophy and traditions. The purpose of the sex in Europe was for reproduction only and not for creation or entertainment.
Firstly, Indian culture, pre-colonial era, does not have any indication that same sex relationship is offensive or people should be punished for having homosexual urg. In fact, it has been shown in Khajuraho and some south India temple exlicitly. If it was so offensive then it would have not found place in those art works. Not only that, there is mention of same-sex love (Krishna and Arjun) and gender change (e.g. Shikhandi in Mahabharta and Narayan during Samundra manthan). Though this love might not mean physical relationship but it is clear that these behaviour were acceptable though not glorified.
Secondly, Indian culture has been a plural society. It has accepted and respected people of different believes and non-believes. There is not question for Indian society to reject some people who want to live with people of same-sex.
Bigger questions are the marriage between same-sex partners and right to adopt children. As marriage is mainly an act to protect the rights of partners and property so if the law allow this even without marriage (through a will or power of authority) that can work in a similar fashion as marriage. (Marriage in the court is also a contract anyway). They are consenting "adults" who have right to live as they wish to but they should not be allowed to impose their will on some children by adopting them or by producing through surrogate mothers and sperm donation. As the same-sex partners have right to liberty and live, they should allow others the same rights and freedom.
No doubt some of the laws may not fit well with the religious philosophies and the tradition of the society to support human rights but in this case situation has not gone too far. Everyone has a right to lead his/her life in a free society and sex is private affair and the state or the court should not interfere between the two consensual adults. This is the argument that court has given in decriminalising the homosexual behaviour.
On the other hand, some organizations are planning to challenge this ruling on the basis of Indian tradition, culture and religions. They fail to understand that they are supporting a colonial rule. As the word "un-natural" comes from a catholic religious philosophy and it does not have much value for the Indian philosophy and traditions. The purpose of the sex in Europe was for reproduction only and not for creation or entertainment.
Firstly, Indian culture, pre-colonial era, does not have any indication that same sex relationship is offensive or people should be punished for having homosexual urg. In fact, it has been shown in Khajuraho and some south India temple exlicitly. If it was so offensive then it would have not found place in those art works. Not only that, there is mention of same-sex love (Krishna and Arjun) and gender change (e.g. Shikhandi in Mahabharta and Narayan during Samundra manthan). Though this love might not mean physical relationship but it is clear that these behaviour were acceptable though not glorified.
Secondly, Indian culture has been a plural society. It has accepted and respected people of different believes and non-believes. There is not question for Indian society to reject some people who want to live with people of same-sex.
Bigger questions are the marriage between same-sex partners and right to adopt children. As marriage is mainly an act to protect the rights of partners and property so if the law allow this even without marriage (through a will or power of authority) that can work in a similar fashion as marriage. (Marriage in the court is also a contract anyway). They are consenting "adults" who have right to live as they wish to but they should not be allowed to impose their will on some children by adopting them or by producing through surrogate mothers and sperm donation. As the same-sex partners have right to liberty and live, they should allow others the same rights and freedom.
Labels: Delhi High Court, Homosexuality decriminalised, Indian tradition and same sex relationship, section 377
posted by s gupta | 2:58 AM
|
0 comments
links to this post
