Supreme Court, having overturned the judgment of the Delhi High Court and upholding the supremacy of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, has given a clear verdict that anything that was not acceptable and is not in sync with nature cannot be sanctioned in the Indian society. Believe me, the jurists have all the acumen in this world when they consider arguments and also are they reasonable and fair while making a decision. They do not just view any situation with the eyes of the defendant or the plaintiff; they assess the event in light of the society at large, past positions and future consequences. Then should we not evaluate the verdict of the Apex Court on homosexuality with much broader and prudent perspective? Isn’t it in the open? Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender are vulnerable tosuppression in the society, are disowned by parents and relatives, and are rarely considered acceptable for a job. Many would argue these harsh facts quoting few examples from the media, fashion and film industry; but once you approve this notion of unnatural sexual orientation, the number will see such a hike that depression for the homosexuals and augmentedsuppression will be the only outcomes.
Type ‘parents disowning homosexual child’ on the internet and you would come across an endless list for across the world with parents justifying their measure. I could also come across ‘Being Gay, A Life of Misery’ by a gay activist and could know the social unacceptance on the account of being a homosexual. Physical as well as mental health issues are also a significant part of concerns they face, leave aside the social ones. The Prince of one of the princely states of India accepted being a gay, was disinherited by the family, though was later recalled; heacknowledged that he tremendously regretted for ruining his ex-wife’s life and held himself guilty. How many people from among the activists, apart from LGBTs, asking for legality of this issue would readily accept a son or a daughter when he/ she admit of being a homosexual? Harsh and blunt this may sound, but accept the truth; when we ask for some rights, they shall be tolerable to the right-seekers themselves and to the society at large. This same equation was paid heed to by the Supreme Court that did not find unnatural sexual orientation in line with the national and social consensus; hence its criminality stands erect. If people, other than the LGBT activists themselves, can validate how Indian society, or for that matter any society or faith around the world, will be a better place with homosexuality as a legal notion, I don’t think that even the prudent judges of India will have any concerns.
Eyes open and with ears listening to the agony of homosexuals, it is not that tricky to note that though we crave for social equality and freedom of sex between consenting adults as is enshrined in our constitution, basic veracity is impossible to be changed. And this basic truth lies in the element that rarely anyIndian family would welcome a situation when their child would seek permission to marry someone from the same sex. Openly mocking at the sexual orientation and also at the public conductof homosexuals is a regular scenario, even in the films that represent them as something to make fun of. Many activists supporting this unnatural orientation claim that historical literary evidences do exist that are an indicative of the prevalence of homosexuality across the Indian subcontinent, also asserting that homosexuals were never considered low-grade in the past, something that is happening in the present world. But can I ask them as to whether the movement is against ill-treatment of LGBTs or for according the same as lawful, and if someone believes that according a legitimate status to an immoral and unnatural act would change the outlook of the society and resultant suppression, that person is heading towards a mistakenaim.
When the decision of the Delhi High Court, which rendered Section 377 of the IPC as unconstitutional, was challenged in the Supreme Court, the petitioners were from all the faiths, this substantiates that none of the religious leaders or associations would ever approve the concept of homosexuality. The protestors of the judgment of the Supreme Court were either the LGBTs, or a few activists and politicians. Isn’t it true that the general public would have never retaliated to the ruling of the prudent judges in case the LGBT activists had not projected the ruling as a violation of the fundamental rights of some citizens, which in true sense is not since freedom can never be unconditional, or with nil restrictions? Same applies to this issue, which surely demands fair treatment of those who develop feelings for the same sex; but legalization of the same is nothing less than promoting homosexuality, a situation that would only enhance the miseries of these people rather than providing them with a dignified life. What would have happened in case even the Apex Court had held the Section 377 as unconstitutional? Would we be then prepared to willingly accept the confessing of our son/ daughter of being homosexual? Are we then ready for such a situation where something that finds no place in nature, science and culture is openly endorsed?
Remember, the outlook of the society can never be changed by sanctioning any unacceptable act by means of a law; laws, however, are made in consensus with the acceptable norms of society. Hence, the need is not a homosexuality-favoring verdict or repealing of the section of IPC, rather it is time to prudently assess the ongoing events and come to a conclusion as to whether our society can ever accept homosexuality. Need is to analyze the problems, social, health, and all others, faced byhomosexuals and to make endeavors to lessen them. Plus, need is to stop the promotion/ sanctioning of homosexuality; I am sure that with the kind of harshness and unacceptance faced, social, not legal, not even any one of the lesbians/ gays would ever ask for furtherance of homosexuality from the very heart.
In the end, though controversial and politically handled, this recent row is worth paying heed to. When one of the state ministers of Goa advocated establishing centers for the LGBTs, protests raised from almost every corner, but did anyone truly and scrupulously consider the harsh reality of the society thatacceptance of homosexuals will always remain far than achieved? Will it be that wrong and unjust then to have counselling centers that can promote LGBTs towards standard social and health norms? Shall I not call the same as self-destruction on the part of those who just are looking at one side of the coin; the other, however, can help them lead an honorable and acceptable life. The issue surely demands astute assessment by honest people to ensure right to dignified life of all Indian citizens, including LGBTs.