When Love and Hate collide

Faggots, homos, unnatural, weird and queer. These are the many names used to label people of an ‘unnatural’ sexual preference. But who is to say what is natural and what isn’t? History and science can prove otherwise. So why is the decision left in the hands of religious clerics and the State to decide whether or not to permit the union of two men or two women who consider themselves worthy of the each other’s companionship?

This debate has continued to nuanced levels. It is no more restricted to just the union of the couple but also the starting of a family, maintaining a steady job, living within one’s faith and most of all living within the legal terms of the State. With the family’s acceptance towards the individuals sexual preference being the most primary requirement, everything else is still at a far reach.

Is it natural?
There is always the much asked question on justifying the issue on scientific grounds. It is the question of ‘nurture v/s nature’. Research claims that the presence of an extra chromosome in the body or the secretion of a hormone from the hypothalamus gland situated at the back of the neck. Research also suggests that when the baby is in the mother’s womb, hormones could augment certain sex-typical characteristics. Psycho analysts like Sigmund Freud suggested that children who did not experience the ‘Electra’ or ‘Oedipus’ complex because of various reasons, could end up becoming homosexuals. He also believed that the continuous exposure to people of the same sex or the lack of exposure to the people of the opposite sex could give rise to the person having homosexual tendencies.

There is proof that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom as well. Research has shown that three out of every ten rams display homosexual behaviour. It is only unfair that humans discriminate on the grounds of sexuality.

Discrimination at academic and corporate levels:
The Indian society was once considered to be one of the most liberal societies in history. Documents and architecture can prove the same. The coming in of the Moguls and then the British altered our ways of thinking. What was seen as a way of life soon became evil and was looked at in bad light. We started seeing things from the western perspective and somehow things haven’t changed since.

School students have also faced excessive bullying for being something ‘out of the ordinary’. On discovering the students sexual preferences, some even have to face suspension or worse; they become soft targets for teachers not well versed with handling such cases. Many have to face taunts that have the ability to scar them for life. Many professional counsellors are not equipped to handle such tense and delicate situations. It is the individual who ends up paying the price for what he is.

Many top companies are not open to homosexuals at the work place. They are being looked at as sexual predators. Top companies have fired their employees since the employee in question was a homosexual. Some have even tried sending them to counsellors to convince them that they are not gay or worse, to ‘convert’ them into heterosexuals. The discrimination is not limited to the Indian society. Recently software giant Microsoft withdrew its support from the Washington State equality bill. The Bill stood for ensuring equality in employment, housing and insurance issues but failed to make it after Microsoft voted against it. Sources said that the multi-national did so following threat from Seattle based Evangelical pastor who threatened to nationally boycott Microsoft.


The road to discrimination:
There is a law in place that makes it illegal to be a homosexual. Our constitution is a ‘beautiful quilt’ made out of laws hand picked and borrowed from both written and unwritten constitutions around the world. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), under section 377 makes the practice of any kind of ‘unnatural’ sex illegal. The law clearly states that "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with man, woman or animal" is punishable by up to ten years in prison. Thus the law bans oral and anal sex amongst heterosexuals as well. ‘Obscene behaviour’ displayed by a homosexual couple can land them into deeper trouble than that displayed by a heterosexual couple. The recent case where a young gay couple was picked up and arrested by police officials in Lucknow when they were caught holding hands, angered activists throughout the country. Questions were raised to their treatment in custody. Many a times it has been reported that gay couples arrested by the police have often been sodomised by the law keepers themselves.

The afore mentioned law, has been adopted from the British. Their equivalent to our Session 377 IPC is their Section 28. The law had been abolished all over Britain in September 2003 except in Kent County. The amendment stated that a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship". The law was abolished amidst hue and cry from various orthodox Catholic groups and the respective churches. Kent County has been trying to repeal the law but with no avail. Parents feel that this law would keep teenagers and the youth from indulging in homosexual activities.

At teenage, people tend to experiment with their sexuality. Many do not know how to justify what they feel and what they are going through physically and mentally. Fear grips these youngsters as they do not know whether what they feel is alright or is completely wrong. It would only make sense to include homosexuality in sex education. It would be necessary to teach parents and their children that it is acceptable to be attracted to someone of the same sex.

This has always been viewed as a highly problematic area. AIDS, a global epidemic has been long viewed as a homosexual disease. But this does not hold true with a large number of heterosexuals contacting it through unsafe sex, use of syringes, exposure to drugs and blood transfusion. Anal sex has been treated as damaging and unnatural. This ‘breaking of the ice’ will help in creating a tolerant and liberal society.

The politics behind the law:
Everything circles around politics. It is a vicious circle; you never know what is ahead of the other. This has become a hot topic of debate in and around political circles. Politicians are using this tool very carefully and effectively to suit their needs.

The republicans of the United States of America are right wing conservatives. The party was against doing away with discriminatory laws against homosexuals and has managed to stay firm on not legalising gay weddings. In Britain, the government did away with the law allowing gats live together but not to get married. Issues of property and legal rights have come under focus as the couple cannot distribute their property or own any under joint names. The four main parties of Britain; the conservative party, the labour party, the green party and the liberal democrats; feel that they can bank on the votes of this minority group.

India has had a tradition of being an open society. The era of imperialism has made Indians rethink their stand on issues pertaining sex and sexuality. With Christian and Islamic organisations strongly opposing a repeal of Section 377 of the IPC, the Hindu organisations haven’t been left too far behind. The Hindu fundamentalists, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Shiv Sena, strongly oppose not only public display of affection but also the act of homosexuality. It is surprising that even though homosexuality finds itself a prominent, respectable place in its scriptures, it has somehow lost its essence through the years.

The movement in India:
Amidst bitter vehemence towards gay right activists, the latter have tried their best to be heard. Gays over Mumbai took to the streets, in December 2005, with pink balloons in their hands and body paint that read “I’m proud to be gay”. The march went off smoothly with no police intervention or violence.

The gay movement is struggling to get the government repeal the law that clearly segregates the homosexuals from the ‘others’. On the 19th of September 2006, International Human Rights groups and gay rights advocates in India wrote an open letter to the government to repeal its law criminalizing homosexuality, saying the law is affecting the fight against HIV/AIDS. Amongst its signatories were members of academia, writers, lawyers and artists and was spearheaded by author Vikram Seth. It also included names like former U.N. Under-Secretary General Nitin Desai, a former attorney general of the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party Soli Sorabjee, and author Arundhati Roy. The group said that section 377 (IPC) literally translates to making it illegal to distribute condoms to gay men and men in prison. The letter stated that the law has "been used to systematically persecute, blackmail, arrest and terrorize sexual minorities," and the law has "on several recent occasions been used by homophobic officials to suppress the legitimate work of HIV prevention groups, leaving gay and bisexual men in India even more defenceless against HIV infection". The repeal was ineffective like many such implorations being denied in the past.


In conclusion:
While many liberals feel the future lies in accepting gay marriages, the walk towards that end seems long and enduring. Although the fight has gained no momentum, it looks forward to gaining support and acceptance in the Indian society. A liberal society would only make for a tolerant one.

Afzal Guru: To Hang or Not to Hang; that is the Question

Five years ago on December 13th, the Indian Parliament was attacked by five armed men in a white Ambassador car which was fitted with explosive devices. The car managed to get past the gates of the Parliament House. The five armed men jumped out of the car and opened fire. Eight security guards and a gardener lost their lives in the cross fire. The police declared that the terrorists had enough explosives to blow up the Parliament.

Two days later, the police claimed to have 'cracked the case' and said it was carried out by two Pakistani terrorist groups, LeT and JeM. Three Kashmiri men were arrested : S. A. R. Geelani, Shaukat Hussain Guru and Mohammed Afzal. No Pakistanis were held responsible for the attack.

S.A.R. Geelani was subsequently released on basis of false charges. Shaukat Guru's fate took a turn with the Supreme Court reducing his punishment from the death sentence to 10 yrs of rigourous imprisonment; but Afzal Guru has faced both pressure from the media as well as pressure from the opposition party making the situation highly political.

Afzal Guru has become the source of serious political debate. The verdict that announced his fate (that he should be hanged) has been part of much political discussion in various political circles and pressure groups. With his family pleading for mercy and the date of his hanging postponed, the plot gets thicker and the discussion heats up further.

On the 4th of August, 2005, the SC mentioned the lack of evidence in nailing Afzal so his verdict has been based on highly circumstantial evidence. The verdict was given based on the pressure from the 'collective conscience of the society'. Moreover, while the Indian Constitution provides for every accused to have a lawyer of their choice. Afzal wasn't allowed one. The lawyer he was provided did not interact with his client (Afzal) before or after the court hearing of his case.

Kashmir feels highly victimised with the police pointing fingers at Pakistani militants but instead arresting some innocent Kashmiris. People took to the streets violently asking for justice. His family sent a petition asking the President to have mercy on him. They requested for the government to blind him instead of killing him.

While the government of Kashmir asks for the Indian government to reduce the punishment and avoid invoking hatred in the hearts of the Kashmiris against the State; the opposition accuses the government of being 'soft' on terrorists.

What has Afzal Guru been reduced to? An object of political mud slinging or an innocent Kashmiri caught in the web of the complicated Judicial system? Is he a symbol for the anti capital punishment activists or the face of another agitated Kashmiri or the basis of the next election propaganda?

With the victims family returning their medals to the government on the fifth anniversary of the Parliamentary attack, it only puts more pressure on the government to take a firm stand and pay close attention in the favour of the majority. With all these aspects, it only becomes harder to seperate the right from the wrong and predict the fate of this man or Kashmir.

What is India going to lose? Her head or her soul? I, for one, have no answer...

Indo-China Relationship: A reflection

The conflict continues. Tibet wants to break free from the rule of the People's Republic of China ever since they were annexed in 1950 when the People's Liberation Army entered Tibetan area of Chamdo and crushed all resistance from the ill-equipped Tibetan army.
In 1959, a mass exodus took place led by the 14th Dalai Lama (the current one) to India while resistance towards the Chinese government continued on a large scale. Prior to this in 1951, the Dalai Lama signed the Seventeen Point Agreement with Chinese representatives from Beijing which affirmed Chinese sovereignty over Tibet with a joint administration under representatives of the central government and the Tibetan government. But soon Tibet was engulfed by the Chinese. The Tibetans exiled as their religion and their lives were under constant threat. The Chinese has been trying to do away with the Tibetan style of Buddhism while at the same time, many Chinese are actually adopting the Tibetan style of worship in other parts of China.
World over camps have been set up for the Tibetan cause along with the 'Government of Tibet in Exile'. One of them is in the Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh, India.
So what has this got to do with India? The Chinese president has left India. The relationship between the two emerging powers of south-east Asia is ought to strenghten for the better and the worse. How much things could possibly change on the political front, one can only surmise.
As economicaly powerful neighbours, the relation between India and China has been inevitable in order to avoid the outbreak of a cold war and to avoid an outburst of a heated border dispute.
China has, time and again, claimed its 'legal' rights over Arunachal Pradesh, calling it the Southern part of Greater Tibet.
Tawang monastery is the birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama, born in the 17th century. The Chinese want control of what is the biggest monastery of India 'reminding' the Indian government of what 'belongs to them'.
There are a lot of nuances to this issue.
As many worldwide are critical of the Chinese stance on Tibet and what we Indians know to be Arunachal Pradesh, lets just have a much deeper insight into the issue.
Tibet consisted of the traditional provinces of Amdo, Kham and U-Tsang; all taken over by the People's Republic of China. The Tibetan cultural circle extended to Bhutan, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. Many Tibetans moved into Arunachal Pradesh which was under the loose control of Bhutan and Tibet before India was annexed by the British. The British and Tibetan governments came to a consensus and agreed upon a border which ceded Tawang into British India. Sikkim, which was only recently recognised by the Chinese government as an Indian state, chose to become a part of the Indian democracy in 1975.
Most of the north eastern states and Sikkim haven't recieved government attention at all. Infrastructure, development, basic necessities like primary education, hospitals housing facilities have been neglected. What makes matters worse, is the use of the Armed Forces Special Provision Act (AFSPA). The act puts a number of restrictions on an individual stealing away their fundamental rights to freedom. The army is allowed to fire or use any amount of force if needed to on 'suspected' persons, they are also allowed to search and invade any premise without requiring a warrant.
So how different would things be if Arunachal Pradesh was handed over to the Chinese government? Development would probably reach them like it reached Tibet. But what if they are going to be wiped off thier own land like the Tibetans? Today Arunachal Pradesh, tomorrow Kashmir, the Ngas for Bodoland and the Maoists of India would revolt for a seperate nation; land of their very own. Where will India be then?
Although I am personally for a free Kashmir, I realise that Pakistan will be no less hesiatant than it already is to annexe it. I also wish there could exist a Bodoland because the Indian Government does not seem to be interested in their welfare. But the entire thing would result in a tremendous chain reaction leaving us back in square one.
India's talks with China are only justified. Tibet should get freedom if India is willing to free Kashmir and the rest of the north east, however much we really need a 'buffer' state in between China and India. The appeals of freedom may be limited to this part of the sub-continent but it doesnt make them less relevent. We will have to give up for Tibet while China continues its sophistry. And the conflict continues...

Indo-China Relationship: A hypocrisy of sorts

So Chinese President, Hu Jintao, arrived as per planned on the 20th of November in India. He, somehow, managed to make it in the news before he stepped into Indian soil. Just days before his arrival, Hu announced that the entire mass of Arunachal Pradesh actually belongs to the Chinese.
The Chinese managed to get a hold of Aksai Chin that once belonged to India but lost it miserably in the 62 war. This all because of the government sleeping over it, announcing 'Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai' while China cunningly built a road connecting Tibet to Xinjiang, and set up military posts in Aksai Chin. All this as the Indian government napped over the issue that could have been well avoided. All said and done, India has to accept the fact that Aksai Chin is no more India's territory and 'rightly' belongs to the Chinese.
Since then, India has kept China at bay only opening avenues recently with the clearing of the Nathu-La pass for trade to take place between the two countries. China finally accepted Sikkim as a legitimate state of the Republic of India and in return India must have made one of its biggest mistakes by accepting Tibet as a legal part of the People's Republic of China. Free trade with the compromise on Tibetan freedom.
India is home to a very large number of Tibetan refugees including their spiritual leader, The Dalai Lama. In pockets all along India, one can find little Tibetan towns with banners reading sharply against China and striving hard for a 'Free Tibet'.
The entire western world, because of fear of the growing economy of the Chinese, has entertained the Chinese government and made provisions for the government to visit their country. India stood tall all this while, not bending to its economic and political rival. The leftist of the country are only happy about friendly ties with the land of Mao. But is it as clear and hunky dory as it seems to be? I strongly feel otherwise...
It goes without saying that the Chinese, irrespective of what comes of this relationship, will always stand to help Pakistan more than India. Frigates continue to change hands, arms and ammunition continue to cross borders. China is threatened by the sudden friendly gesture of the United States with India as it gives India negotiating power. Something the Indian Government is failing to see. India has no compulsions whatsoever to settle on a compromise on Tibet or for that matter Arunachal Pradesh.
China refuses to take back its word on Arunachal Pradesh, greedily setting its eye upon Tawang Monastery, the largest Buddhist monastery in India and the birthplace of the sixth Dalai Lama. As the Tibetans of Tawang pledge their loyalty towards Tibet first, India next and refuse to submit themselves to a communist China; India refuses to take advantage of her neighbour's vulnerable state. China will continue to look upon India as a 'poor neighbour afflicted by bureaucracy and democracy' with a 'hydra headed' government at power.
India is nothing more than trying to balance a double-edged sword, with one side slightly less sharp than the other. By opening its borders to China, banning Tibetan protestors from taking to the streets India is not only losing face in the outside world but is falling in the eyes of its own citizens as well.
Where do these Tibetans go? Why should they take Indian citizenship? Is it wrong if they demand to get back what is rightly theirs? They are Tibetan refugees in India but Indians in China; who are they really? What's going to become of them? Are they going to perish never to see their home again? What about Dalai Lama, afterall, he cant live forever! As all these questions remain unanswered, we can only leave time to do the talking...
FREE TIBET!
CONDEMN CHINESE GOODS!
PROMOTE INDIAN GOODS!