In the USA, there was this highly polarised trial which was called, "The Monkey Trial’. A widely acclaimed film, ‘Inherit the Wind” was made on the subject.
Well that happened in the twenties of the last century, at a time when Public
or government funded schools were prohibited from teaching or discussing the Darwinian
theory of natural selection and evolution. Americans, those days preferred to
fantasise in the creation of the World sometime in 6457 BC by a vengeful and omnipotent
person called God. Looking back those were antediluvian times in the American psyche,
(not that much has changed there in other matters).
However, back here in India, today, we have a Supreme Court
that prefer to rule on matters that touch our daily lives in a insouciant
manner and based on their beliefs and ideology rather than testing the subject
on the fundamental principles of the constitution. The two judges who ruled
that the Victorian era logic of the Article 377 is fine for them personally (sic) and
need not be struck down. Strangely for a judicial school that is often accused
by some of intemperate judicial activism in directing the executive on policy
matters, this new found revelation that sexual relationship between consenting
adults of the same sex, even in private violates the anachronistic Article 377 is strange.. In toto, the supposedly
learned Judges opined that one’s sexual orientation is not a personal matter
and can be directed by the executive. Isn't this contention ridiculous and
pathetic than the “Holy Inquisition” when dissent was termed heresy, when women
were branded witches and burnt at the stake?
This reminds me of the time I was an adolescent and a teenager,
when I withstood homosexual advances- from strangers inside the cinemas, and even a couple of friends.. Personally it was nauseating and
repulsive to me and I evaded such solicitations. The fact is homosexual
tendencies, at least transient ones do plague some during adolescence and teen. Wonder if someone would deny this. In some
cases they stay put in the person and I have known some who were socially well placed,who have lured young chaps to satisfy their carnal needs and in some case may have even sodomised young boys. Well here it is a different matter than from consensual liaison
between adults. It is a fact that there are heterosexuals who have gay flings
outside their homes. There are marriages that fall apart like cards because one
of the partners has homosexual orientation too.
I guess that homosexual orientation is a condition. Rather
than being sophist it is necessary that such inclined people are either helped
psychologically or let them be as they are with equal rights to privacy like
any other.
The question of morality is a fallacy here. When copulation
with multiple partners and virtual orgy is depicted in the explicit sculptures
of the Chandala era in Kajuraho, when
temples have artistic sculptures of high breasted goddesses baring their bosoms,
when scriptures elsewhere promises catamites in Paradise if a believer kills an
apostate , why this hypocrisy?
Transgender and Transvestism as well as bisexual orientation
is not a crime like rape, sodomy, murder or robbery. The right wing
Hindu groups who bray about the need to uphold Indian culture and that the
reversal of Article 377 is against Indian ethos must look back at the puranas and folklore wherein we have
number of instances of men and women with the so called unnatural sexual orientation.
There has been no instance in those works that tells us that such people were
hounded by the society. So we have to wonder if we are actually going forward
or into an age which evens the puranas
and scriptures cannot comprehend.
The Court certainly erred in their decision and by leaving
it to the legislature to amend or maintain the statute as they chose; it
abdicated its responsibility in safeguarding the right to privacy and of
something as private as sexual predilections.
The BJP, who claim to be the custodians of Indian Culture, ethos
and heritage have openly endorsed the anachronism of the Court. In their opinion
homosexuality is against Indian culture. Then tear down the sculptures in
Konark and Kajuraho. The Church is tactfully silent. Perhaps skeletons are
too many in their closets that any overt comment may vitiate the matter for the clergy.
Or the Church prefers to still endorse only the heterosexual relationships of
man and woman (husband and wife) - as
approved by God. All other forms are unnatural carnal acts - sinful , abominable and candidates for eternal damnation.
As for the Muslim clergy and politicians they are understandably apprehensive and
silent amidst the hullabaloo the Judgment has created. The reason is
not far away to seek.
The matter is not the question of erosion of morality, sin
or the abysmal depths the society is going into. Homosexuality has been an orientation
since ages. Anthropologists explain that even animals are oriented to
homosexual behaviour. It is the specious puritanical views that is the problem
and that which restrains from accepting something that has been, that is and
that will be.