US raps India on SC cop-out on gay sex

WASHINGTON (TIP): The Obama administration on December 11 came out sharply against the Indian Supreme Court‘s decision that has led to re-criminalizing gay sex, and urged New Delhi to advance freedom, including rights for LGBTs. There was no ducking the issue with the boilerplate “it’s an internal matter for India to consider” when the Indian apex court’s ruling came up at the state department briefing. “We oppose any action that criminalizes consensual same-sex conduct between adults. LGBT rights are human rights … we call on all governments to advance equality for LGBT individuals around the world,” spokesperson Jen Psaki said bluntly.

The United States, she added, places great importance on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people, and that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons around the world. Unlike the Bush administration, which was weighed down by conservative values, and the Clinton administration before that which was constrained by social mores of the last century, the Obama administration has been in tune with the changing public sentiment on LGBT issues. Opposition to same-sex marriage in US is dropping all the time and polls now show a majority of Americans (52 per cent in a recent poll) would vote in favor of a law legalizing gay marriage in the country. Even US lawmakers, including many Republicans, are starting to change their tune. It came as no surprise that the Indian Supreme Court decision figured in foreign secretary Sujatha Singh’s exchanges on Capitol Hill with New York’s democratic congressman Joe Crowley, co-chair of the India Caucus, who has a strong record on LGBT rights, raising the issue.

There was also widespread dismay and condemnation of the SC ruling from USbased LGBT groups and even advocates of Indian cultural values, most notably the Hindu-American Foundation (HAF), which saw the decision as a legacy of India’s colonial past rather than any religious stricture. Expressing disappointment at the apex court decision, HAF spokesman Harsh Voragunti said Section 377 of IPC which criminalizes even consensual gay sex is “based on arcane, Victorian mores … and does not reflect the understanding of many contemporary Hindu lay and spiritual leaders who emphasize the teachings of every individual’s inherent divinity — be they heterosexual or homosexual.”

HAF, he said, has repeatedly taken a stand in support of equal rights for LGBT individuals in the United States, from joining an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA) to advocating for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which is current making its way through the US Senate. The Foundation’s policy brief on the subject maintains that Hinduism provides no spiritual basis to discriminate against homosexuals and also does not provide a basis for broad-based punishments. “The essential core of Hindu teachings is that an individual’s value is not based on his or her sexual orientation, but on one’s ability to transcend the body, senses, and ego,” says Swaminathan Venkataraman, an HAF’s Director who developed the brief. “And unlike many interpretations of Abrahamic scripture, Hinduism does not provide a fundamental spiritual reason to reject or ostracize homosexuals.”

The brief says it would like to evolve a uniquely Hindu perspective on this issue rather than follow existing social mores blindly and end up aping the Semitic religions. “We feel comfortable anchoring ourselves to the eternal truths of our religion and letting social practices change with time as they indeed have on so many other matters,” the brief said. Change with the times is also what a growing South Asian LGBT community in the US is chiming. Candlelit vigils are planned before Indian missions by South Asian LGBT organizations, including the oldest of them, Trikone in the Bay Area, which said in reference to the Supreme Court judgment that it wanted “to show light to those who have lost their way.” There was also editorial condemnation. New York Times called the Supreme Court’s decision “disgraceful,” and said its statement inviting Parliament to amend the law is “disingenuous.” “Given the fractious nature of India’s Parliament, the conservative views of many of its members, and the political stakes in the run-up to general elections next spring, the Legislature is unlikely to take up this issue on its own,” it said. “Prime Minister Manmohan Singh now has an opportunity to leave a lasting legacy of progress before his government steps down next spring. His cabinet should act immediately to seek a repeal of Section 377. This 1861 law has no place in a 21st-century democracy,” it added.

Be the first to comment

The Indian Panorama - Best Indian American Newspaper in New York & Dallas - Comments