My Thoughts on Same-Sex Legalization in India
Indian Supreme Court is hearing petitions on legalization of same-sex marriage in India. Belonging to the community, I thought to put my perspective and thoughts on this. I am happy that the voice of India is becoming stronger with time on the issue of homosexuality, homosexual relationships, and now marriage. After the decriminalization of homosexuality, Indians have become more aware and accepting of alternative sexual orientation.
According to the Pew Survey 2020, 37% of Indians said that homosexuality should be accepted — an increase of 22% from 15% in 2014. Surely, bringing down Section 377 had a role to play in this as well. Societal thinking evolves with law, because everyone in general trusts the law.
And now the good fight is about legalization of same-sex relationships or giving them the right of marriage equality, looking upon such unions with respect and conferring the rights associated with the conventional heterosexual marriages. Thus, this fight is a fight of rights, अधिकार । The same rights that are given to a heterosexual couple, such as common bank account, health decisions in time of emergency, renting a place together, introducing each other as their significant other in the social settings, holding hands without any fear of repercussions, not being embarrassed due to societal non-acceptance of such unions.
The fight is not against anyone, any culture or tradition of India, but it is a fight of human rights, basic ones.
Many people are protesting against the legalization claiming that it is against Indian tradition and culture wherein marriage is between a biological man and a biological female. I am not arguing against it. Yes, marriages do happen between a man and a woman, and then their family expands. And the shashtras say a lot about marital progression, conduct, and rules. All well and good! So, these marriages are guided by some codes in some ancient books and shashtras. But then the marriages in which the debate is happening, they are guided by human rights. The willingness of people who want to live together, with all protection, safety, and dignity accorded to the others in the heterosexual marriages.
Why should we apply the same rules? I do not understand. Isn’t life all about expanding? Why this implicit assumption that same-sex unions will destroy the fabric of Indian culture and tradition? Every couple has their own life, struggles, things to take care of. Who has got time to malign this culture or tradition? Unless someone’s existence is construed as a threat to the culture and tradition of the nation. It remains to be seen!
Moreover, so many couples are already living together in India, and they are the ones who need protection because everyday they are at the receiving end of the social ire and humiliation. While living they have experienced certain problems they are facing, and felt it right to demand it from the government and law. What could be so wrong about demanding rights which have been unfairly denied to them?
I think it is not entirely fair to bring tradition and culture in the fight of human rights. If there are concerns, they can be debated, if there are doubts, they can be heard, but outright denial is not justifiable. I also do not want the fight to become this or that type. Both kinds of association are important, and none can be denied or infringed upon.
There are claims that same-sex marriages are lecherous, and the kids in these would grow up psychologically unhealthy and with development disorders. Well, I grew up in a conventional marriage and I still have my own set of mental health issues and developmental delays. So, I guess, this argument is not exclusive to same-sex marriages.
In fact I think that because there is an element of bravery and courage involved in sticking together despite the social and familial disapproval, children in these families may grow up more emotionally empowered and stable. Because their parents would be in many sense more conscious about various aspects of life, having fought their own battles in a nation that collectively disdains their association.
Erosion of culture and tradition is a very commonly thrown around term in India these days. But frankly speaking, I think that the common man is too busy meeting ends than to worry about these things, until insinuated to do that. And political fanatics and close-minded leaders are doing just that — they are manipulating people, rather than sticking to science, law, and objective debating. Even though India has grown in literacy levels, real education is still a distant dream.
Another common observation I have is that people are citing evidence from pristine culture both for and against the same-sex union legalization. Citing the evidence of shastras both for and against the same-sex unions is something I am not comfortable with it. Because, there will always be claims on both the sides, and these things cannot dictate human choices.
In fact, human choices, as diverse as they are, reflect the complexity of being human and being unique. Being human in all its shades has to be the centre of debate. But some people can stoop very low in their fight to defend their ideas, and bring in the arguments from books without reflecting on the world we are living in and the contextual reality of our times.
It is only a matter of time that same-sex unions will be conferred the legal rights if not the stamp of marriage. Also, law will improve our situation and visibility in India, but none of us are waiting for the law to live our lives. We are living anyway, navigating the waters in the homophobic, judgemental, and insensitive culture of Indian societies. But law is important because not everyone in this community is well-educated, empowered, financially stable.
Those who succumb to social rules while being in the community are the ones who cannot stand up for themselves because of their lack of education, financial independence or fear of repercussions on them or their family members and siblings. It is to these powerless, voiceless people that the law would lend support to. The minorities within the minority.
The rest of us, who are struggling despite the education and jobs, will take decisions. The decisions of how to live in a country we love to live in, while ensuring that our lives our not threatened.
The law, if passed, will make this smoother, but absence of it will not stop us.
