TOPICAL ISSUE
Vanishing distinction between gay sex
and animal sex
Man, it is said, is a social animal. It is also
said that sex is an animal instinct and a natural one too. Even animals do not
go beyond the dictates of nature. Mutual consent is a precondition in
consummation of a marriage and even among animals. Sex between two individuals
of the opposite sex is the law of nature. Animals religiously abide by the law
of nature; it is only human being who infringes it.
The reaction of different sections of society and
political parties on the Supreme Court (SC) of India upholding the
constitutional validity of the section 377 ("Whoever
voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man,
woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.") of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) borders on our liberal, permissive bent of mind influenced by western
thought and culture. There is hardly any reason for so much hue and cry.
Section 377 was inserted in the IPC because the
unnatural sex between individuals of the same sex, even if with consent, was
considered to be a crime against the "cultural and religious values of the
country". It was introduced just in keeping with the cultural and
religious ethos of the Indian society.
While legalizing the gay marriage upsetting the
provisions of Section 377, the Delhi High Court had erred in quoting to the
speech of the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in the Constituent
Assembly in which he had said that equality before the law meant inclusiveness.
First, Pandit Nehru is not a member of judiciary whose opinion should be quoted
and followed. Political views need not overwhelm judicial judgement. Two, which
law — social, religious or cultural — gives sanction to such an unnatural act? Third,
there could be no "equality before the law" for the one who violates
the law of the land and society and the one who respects it.
On the analogy of this logic, sex
between a prostitute and her client in a kotha is as much with mutual
consent as much in a hotel or some other place. Both involve some kind and
element of consideration. Then how is prostitution a crime and other not? Is it
not hypocrisy to call one a prostitute and the other a 'sex worker'?
Our courts have given consent to
live-in relationship. Even this relationship is not free from the element of
consideration whatever it may be.
In fact, our legal system and law of
the land amount, in some form or the other, to an infringement or curtailment of
human rights. If we give license to gay rights, one must, then, have the
uninhibited license to freedom of speech, thought, action and reaction. But
which society or government can afford to allow this unlimited freedom?
Gay rights can in no way be called
human rights because gay sex transcends the contours of humanity to delve into
the realm of animals. How can one distinguish between the sex rights of gays
and those of animals?
Section 377 also prohibits "carnal intercourse against the order of
nature with any man, woman or animal". Would the government extend the freedom
to have sex with animals if a person feels natural or unnatural sex with human
beings is, to him or her, not satisfying and does not lead to ultimate bliss?
It is for political and electoral considerations that our
political class can go to any extent. Gay rights are one. It is an instance
where the will of a miniscule minority is going to overrule the majority
opinion.
Secularism does not mean irreligiosity.
It is on the unanimous petition of all the faiths in the country that the SC
has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 377 of IPC on the grounds of
"cultural and religious values of the country". Nothing can be secularly
more sacrosanct than this instance. If our government, political parties and
society is secular in the real sense of the term, it should stand by the SC
verdict.
***
