Appropriateness

The verdict of the Delhi High Court on homosexual unions is a judicial outpouring of even-handedness, a principle that has been elucidated eloquently by our rather comprehensive constitution. The enactment of the patently undemocratic and illiberal Article 377 in 1861 by the colonial Britons, then lording over India is one of the spiteful legacies of British imperialism. This legal declaration with the religious undertones of Christianity was an imposition of the prudish and hypocritical Victorian mindset on predominantly Hindu India, a subject country of the Britons then at a time when the arrogance of British imperialism, symbolised by the haughtiness of the then reigning queen, was at its summit. Hinduism has traditionally been less vitriolic towards homosexuality and lesbianism as is evidenced by the Vedic and other holy scriptures.

Dissertations on themes such as homosexuality and the third sex have been held frankly in Hindu holy books in a manner that is neither vituperatively condemnatory of queer relations nor openly accepting of them. The respected texts of Christianity and Islam, two religions that controversially transformed world history, officially vilify homosexuality and its various types, including pederasty. But the truth is that, historically, many famous people of all fields from these two religions have behaved homosexually. Even today, there are credible reports of homosexual practices between mature Afghan / Pakistani males and their slave catamites in the tribal zones separated by the borders of the two countries. The historical sentiment of political Christendom on the Ottoman Turks homosexual ways is legendary, loaded as it was with cosmically derogatory conclusions and abusive generalisations. Pederastic ties were common in the Ottoman Empire attracting derisiveness from neighbouring Christendom. The Chronicles Of the Moldavian Land refers to this issue. Homosexual arts, poetry and literature have been present in every religion. Renowned Judeo-Christian examples associated with homosexuality are Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi, Daniel and the court official Ashpenaz, and, most famously,David and King Saul's son, Jonathan.

Descriptions of same-sex unions as a malady or a disorder that can be rectified by counseling and exercises hold no water personally. The Indian Constitution does not endorse discriminatory treatment of any group of Indians. Legalisation of carnal intercourse between two people of the same sex and linking it with bestiality is an abominable act. India certainly shouldn't be grouped with blatantly regressive theocracies such as Saudi Arabia , Iran and immature democracies such as Sierra Leone and some other ex-British colonies in Africa, where homosexuality is a sin constitutionally.

The constitutionalisation of consensual anatomical and carnal relationships between two members of the same sex is the basis of the verdict of the High Court of Delhi. The pronouncement has not suggested the institutionalisation of pederasty or sodomy, which shall continue to be a felony. Denial of homosexuality and lesbianism is not going to make the issue evaporate. The Government should utilise this opportunity presented by the judicial verdict to legalise consensual homosexuality. We must not ape the prudishness of the Victorian mentality, which we fought against. A long-lasting societal institution such as marriage, with all its pitfalls and blessings, will not be threatened by the decriminalisation of same-sex unions. Alarmism is not an appropriate solution. The Government should not succumb to the diktats of hyper-orthodox elements of various religions.

I fear though that it will eventually.