- News>
- Newspapers
Sex on your mind? Don`t just do it: Times of India
New Delhi, Sept 17: Burn the Kamasutra. In the land of ancient erotica, a 143-year-old British law makes illegal any sexual activity that is not procreative.
New Delhi, Sept 17: Burn the Kamasutra. In the land of ancient erotica, a 143-year-old British law makes illegal any sexual activity that is not procreative.
Unbelievable? The law is in your bedroom and there is little you can do about it. A homosexual can get a life term in jail for indulging in consensual sex. This when punishment for rape is seven years.
Not just that. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, says Vivek Diwan of Lawyers Collective, is interpreted to suggest that if even a man and woman, married or otherwise, indulge in anything but the straight and narrow required to produce a child, they could be hauled up if caught in the act. Even in their home. So no oral sex unless you are sure you won't be busted. Actually, no sex for pleasure at all. Social workers appealing against the provisions of Section 377, an 1860 Christian law on "unnatural offences", say it is being used to exploit homosexuals. Proponents of the law point out that it is also used in cases of child abuse and sodomy. That of course begs another question. When child abuse is rampant, why is there no separate law to deal with it?
Section 377 says: "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 a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
A hot debate on the law has brought gay rights in focus again, but in India it is not about marriage or religious rights. It is about the basic right to exist. The Centre asserted last week that homosexuality cannot be legalised in the country as society does not approve of it and that it goes against public morality. The government's statement is a blow for gay rights activists as well as non-governmental organisations battling HIV/AIDS. Shaleen Rakesh, gay rights activist and project coordinator at Delhi-based NGO Naz Foundation, finds it amazing that a 19th century British law can be applied to a sexual minority in a way that outlaws an entire community.
"It is about the fundamental rights of gays to indulge in sexual activity of their choice. The fear of being illegal takes away the every identity of homosexuals, so any other rights cannot even be conceived of," says Shaleen. Naz Foundation has appealed in court about the use of Section 377 against homosexuals.
The NGO says work on AIDS, like condom distribution among homosexuals, is severely hampered as these people refuse to come forward. "They fear the police as there have been cases where gays have been rounded up under Section 377 and threatened with imprisonment," says Shaleen, adding that these cowering individuals are often victims of extortion or even forced to have sex with policemen.
Naz had in the past also appealed to the National Human Rights Commission in a case where a homosexual was subjected to "aversion therapy" by a psychiatrist to "cure" him of his "malaise". The petition was dismissed. Globally, a significant 10 per cent of the sexually active male population is homosexual. Shaleen quotes a random survey among 2,000 Indian conducted by the Institute for Economic Growth where 34 per cent men answered in the affirmative to a question on whether they had ever had a sexual experience with another man.
Vivek Diwan junks the use of 377 pointing out that the law cannot just be used against consenting homosexual adults, but also against heterosexuals who have sex that is not procreative. "The law has been interpreted to exclude all but procreative sex between man and woman as legal."
Thus, he points out, even the government's family planning programme can be questioned as it encourages non-procreative sexual activity through the use of contraception.
The man who is putting forth the government's view in court Additional Solicitor General KK Sood, stoutly defends the use of Section 377 against homosexuals: "We must uphold some moral standards," he says, equating homosexuality with obscenity. "We have to guard the health of future generations."
But he also points out that though a sexual act between two men or indeed even "deviant" sex between man and woman are punishable by law, it is unlikely that the law will be applied unless one partner complains or they are caught indulging thus in a public place. "Then, other laws like those for obscenity in public places or rape would apply in any case."
Sood admits that procreative sex is the only kind that will not qualify as "carnal intercourse" as described in Section 377. And that the government has had to give in for the larger good as far as family planning is concerned. For the rest, he says, it is "absurd to term Section 377 a British law" because the very grain of ancient Indian ethos is contained in it.
So where did Vatsayayna's 64 positions and the erotic carvings in Khajuraho come from?
Sood gets the last word: "Those are only an artistic display of the fact that deviations exist. So that you can make the rules to control them."
Unbelievable? The law is in your bedroom and there is little you can do about it. A homosexual can get a life term in jail for indulging in consensual sex. This when punishment for rape is seven years.
Not just that. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, says Vivek Diwan of Lawyers Collective, is interpreted to suggest that if even a man and woman, married or otherwise, indulge in anything but the straight and narrow required to produce a child, they could be hauled up if caught in the act. Even in their home. So no oral sex unless you are sure you won't be busted. Actually, no sex for pleasure at all. Social workers appealing against the provisions of Section 377, an 1860 Christian law on "unnatural offences", say it is being used to exploit homosexuals. Proponents of the law point out that it is also used in cases of child abuse and sodomy. That of course begs another question. When child abuse is rampant, why is there no separate law to deal with it?
Section 377 says: "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 a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
A hot debate on the law has brought gay rights in focus again, but in India it is not about marriage or religious rights. It is about the basic right to exist. The Centre asserted last week that homosexuality cannot be legalised in the country as society does not approve of it and that it goes against public morality. The government's statement is a blow for gay rights activists as well as non-governmental organisations battling HIV/AIDS. Shaleen Rakesh, gay rights activist and project coordinator at Delhi-based NGO Naz Foundation, finds it amazing that a 19th century British law can be applied to a sexual minority in a way that outlaws an entire community.
"It is about the fundamental rights of gays to indulge in sexual activity of their choice. The fear of being illegal takes away the every identity of homosexuals, so any other rights cannot even be conceived of," says Shaleen. Naz Foundation has appealed in court about the use of Section 377 against homosexuals.
The NGO says work on AIDS, like condom distribution among homosexuals, is severely hampered as these people refuse to come forward. "They fear the police as there have been cases where gays have been rounded up under Section 377 and threatened with imprisonment," says Shaleen, adding that these cowering individuals are often victims of extortion or even forced to have sex with policemen.
Naz had in the past also appealed to the National Human Rights Commission in a case where a homosexual was subjected to "aversion therapy" by a psychiatrist to "cure" him of his "malaise". The petition was dismissed. Globally, a significant 10 per cent of the sexually active male population is homosexual. Shaleen quotes a random survey among 2,000 Indian conducted by the Institute for Economic Growth where 34 per cent men answered in the affirmative to a question on whether they had ever had a sexual experience with another man.
Vivek Diwan junks the use of 377 pointing out that the law cannot just be used against consenting homosexual adults, but also against heterosexuals who have sex that is not procreative. "The law has been interpreted to exclude all but procreative sex between man and woman as legal."
Thus, he points out, even the government's family planning programme can be questioned as it encourages non-procreative sexual activity through the use of contraception.
The man who is putting forth the government's view in court Additional Solicitor General KK Sood, stoutly defends the use of Section 377 against homosexuals: "We must uphold some moral standards," he says, equating homosexuality with obscenity. "We have to guard the health of future generations."
But he also points out that though a sexual act between two men or indeed even "deviant" sex between man and woman are punishable by law, it is unlikely that the law will be applied unless one partner complains or they are caught indulging thus in a public place. "Then, other laws like those for obscenity in public places or rape would apply in any case."
Sood admits that procreative sex is the only kind that will not qualify as "carnal intercourse" as described in Section 377. And that the government has had to give in for the larger good as far as family planning is concerned. For the rest, he says, it is "absurd to term Section 377 a British law" because the very grain of ancient Indian ethos is contained in it.
So where did Vatsayayna's 64 positions and the erotic carvings in Khajuraho come from?
Sood gets the last word: "Those are only an artistic display of the fact that deviations exist. So that you can make the rules to control them."