There was grim news from India this week, when the nation’s highest court reinstated a draconian law outlawing sexual relations between consenting same-sex adults (the law, which imposes long prison sentences on violators, was struck down by a lower court in 2009).
India remains a deeply socially reactionary country, in large part due to fundamentalist Hinduism, Islam and, to a lesser extent, Christianity. Despite being officially outlawed, the caste system, deeply rooted in Hinduism, remains a major determinant of success and social standing (and who socializes with whom). And with its ties to “honor killings” and other murderous violence often given sanction by a corrupt judicial system, caste discrimination makes contemporary American racism look benign. In a sense, caste legitimizes a culture of discrimination. (All those American and European hipsters who trekked to India beginning in the 60s to get enlightened from authoritarian Hindu gurus hadn’t a clue about this, or much of anything else, it seems.)
Fortunately, in the wake of international outrage, there are signs the Indian government could seek to get rid of the anti-gay law.
We are not accustomed to perceiving India in the same disparaging way we view Russia or Uganda; but if the law remains it will be necessary to do so and to engage in the full range of boycotts and other actions that express international outrage.
25 Comments for “India’s Step Backward”
posted by Doug on
It’s interesting that you, Stephen, don’t seem to have a problem with Christian anti-gay discrimination in this country per your posting “Blessed Are the Persecuted”, but such discrimination in India requires boycotts, again something you oppose here.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I note, without irony, that the senior attorney for ADF-Global, Benjamin Bull, endorsed India’s decision criminalizing sodomy, and lambasted the United States Supreme Court for its decision in Lawrence v. Texas. ADF is the legal “ministry” that defends discrimination in almost every lawsuit involving “equal means equal” in the United States.
The rest of the anti-equality crowd wasn’t far behind in praising India. Notable was Bryan Fischer: “It shows that this cultural trend that we’re dealing with can be reversed, because for four years it was open season for homosexuals in India and now that drift away from cultural norms and moral norms, that’s been reversed in the country of India.” No doubt at all where the hard-core social conservatives would take the United States if we let them get away with it.
posted by Jorge on
We are not accustomed to perceiving India in the same disparaging way we view Russia or Uganda; but if the law remains it will be necessary to do so and to engage in the full range of boycotts and other actions that express international outrage.
I cannot agree. Not yet. Where was the intranational outrage and boycotts and other actions in this country at Bowers v. Hardwick? At Texas and other states that criminalized gay sex right until 2003?
That there was outrage and activism and boycotting in this country is plain for all to see. Do you remember what was it directed at? How strongly people chose to stand? Where the horror stories came from? Does anyone think gay rights and gay pride in this country have failed at their objective, either from overreach or underreach?
Then what is needed is not more action but more light. India has recently had some terrible crimes in the news that. They have highlighted that it is not safe at all in some places for women to travel, and that there is no accountability when crimes are committed against them.
We have seen much the same in Russia recently with respect to gays–hence the current fear. In Uganda it is outright terrorism. And Tom Scharbach is right to point to the need to shine a spotlight on the forces of evil and evil-abetting in this country.
Make the truth clear and the forces of good will do exactly as they should.
posted by ernie on
The good news is that now we know that homosexuality is not genetic but environmental, We can say no to this practice that quikly becomes an addiction. Join me and thousands of others who have quit this perversion most of us without professional help and are living wonderful rewarding family lives. After all, the only “right” anybody ever has is to do the “right” thing. YOU TOO CAN DO IT. Love e
posted by Houndentenor on
We know no such thing. Please cite sources.
posted by Jorge on
The good news is that now we know that homosexuality is not genetic but environmental.
It is difficult to come up with a bolder lie on any topic than you just have. You may disprove at your leisure.
posted by J. Bruce Wilcox on
Ernie- you get to live your life in whatever way you want. SO DO I. You don’t get to take my FREEDOM TO EXIST away from me-
even if you and your kind think you do. I like/love who I am as a not/heterosexual. You are a sheep following a dysfunctional pattern created to control you by the powers-that-be concerning a perceived norm that is a horrendous mostly moralist/religionist piece of BULL.
I DON’T BELIEVE IN YOUR PERCIEVED NORM. I DON’T BELIEVE IN YOUR RELIGION. I DON’T HAVE TO.
posted by Houndentenor on
I remember in 1986 when SCOTUS handed down the heinous 5-4 Hardwick v Bowers decision. I challenge you to read the decision and the dissent. the decision is repugnant. That wasn’t that long ago. It wasn’t until 2003 that the court overturned it. I also still hear right-wingers bemoan Lawrence v. Texas, btw. And it should be noted that the Bush administration filed a brief in defense of sodomy laws in the Lawrence case!
I agree this is terrible but the Indian government can repeal the law (or laws) any time they want. I understand that’s hard at least a dozen states still have sodomy laws on the books and refuse to remove them in spite of them having been ruled unconstitutional 10 years ago. (Holding out hope that a future court will overturn Lawrence no doubt.) This is a setback but we were right here where they are not that long ago. There is hope to push this forward. We had to do this over the objection of our religious fundamentalists and India will too. Perhaps they can wrest control over their political parties from religious extremists. We certainly haven’t managed that in the US yet.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Perhaps they can wrest control over their political parties from religious extremists. We certainly haven’t managed that in the US yet.
A fundamental difference between India and the United States is that India has a parliamentary system and numerous political parties.
As is the case with other parliamentary, multiparty systems (e.g. Israel), India’s political environment has room for religious extremists to dominate one or several of the smaller political parties without the potential for doing much damage.
That is not true in the United States, which has two viable political parties at present, and probably will have no more than two, or perhaps, three during the next several decades.
In the United States, religious extremists effectively control the primary process of one of the two political parties, and that situation is, at best, several election cycles from breaking, if it does then.
The implications of that fact are profound. Imagine, for a moment, the addition of social conservative justices like Scalia and Thomas (or, perhaps, Alito) to replace Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kennedy, all of whom are likely to resign or die during the next decade.
We could easily find ourselves in that situation if social conservatives have significant sway in the White House before the stranglehold of social conservatives over the Republican Party is broken.
posted by Jorge on
I remember in 1986 when SCOTUS handed down the heinous 5-4 Hardwick v Bowers decision.
Okay, I can’t say that.
I challenge you to read the decision and the dissent…
That is not relevant. My question is on what things were the gay rights and gay pride movements focused on? Whatever they were, those priorities surely did good and righted some wrongs where they were needed.
Anyway, I read the case in my freshman year of college (which was before I realized I was gay), some parts later more often than others. I remember well that I really enjoyed reading Justice Stevens’ odd, but compelling logic.
posted by Houndentenor on
My point is that this is more a setback than a reversal. I’m far more afraid for what is happening in Russia and parts of Africa. I used the US as an example of what could well happen in India. The court could well reverse itself in a few years. I realize that’s frustrating. Setbacks always are. Nor do I wish to diminish the significance of such a ruling. Sodomy laws in the US were used to rationalize discrimination and no doubt they will be used for the same purpose in India. Here it was a real problem because there were health organizations that would not put out safer sex guidelines because in doing so they would have been “promoting criminal activity.” I wish that were an exaggeration but that’s what happened. We can only keep pushing forward.
posted by Jorge on
Oh. Okay.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
–India remains a deeply socially reactionary country,
In some ways yes, and in other ways no. Since the 1990s their has been a trend in the direction of India developing a modern economy, along with a better developed infrastructure and commitment to democracy, civil and human rights. To be sure, some of this progress has gone further then others.
The Constitution of India — which I managed to track down and read — is actually a progressive document and would seem to offer broad protections for ALL citizens.
Religious fundamentalism is — in general — going to get in the way of respect for civil and political rights. India is no different in that regard.
One of the problems is that the BJP party often panders to the more reactionary/intolerance sentiment. From what I hear they were also really big on “macho” policies like nuclear power and war with Pakistan.
Indians with money and businessmen generally liked the BJP because it pushed for greater private investment and more (cough, cough) “market reforms” The main opposition party – the Congress Party — was a socialist party (much like the Labor Party UK), but has since moved to the political center….also like what the UK Labor Party did in 1997.
Yes, the caste system in India is technically outlawed but it now exists as a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ (which ties in to another tread about American civil rights laws).
The Indian foreign exchange students I met generally ignore the racial/ethnic caste system, although they tend to follow a pretty strict CLASS system (mostly when it comes to marriage).
I suspect that — overtime and do to historic discrimination — the caste system has become a class system.
It should be noted that not all Hindus (or Buddhists) are religious fundamentalists. The 1960s Western celebrities and middle class ‘hipsters’ who went to Asia for enlightenment basically got a much more laid back version of the faiths.
Honor killings — or vigilante justice is a problem in most nations.
Even in America (cough, cough) where a man can stalk and kill an unarmed, young person.
Heck, much of our blockbuster movie/comic book culture is very much an endorsement of vigilante justice. A topic that I been diving into via my Sociology class.
India does have a fairly vibrant ‘gay scene’ in the large urban cities as well as some NGO human rights groups.
Granted, its a far cry from how things should be (or how their own Constitution says they should be), but (unlike in Russia) the government generally allowed a gay rights movement to exist.
India also has a cultural tradition of an institutionalized ‘third gender’.
Now, the BJP party generally panders to the reactionary/intolerant far-right. So I doubt that they would be especially keen on reforming the anti-gay criminal law to bring it in line with human rights standards.
The Congress Party — was willing (after a bit of grumbling) to accept the lower court’s ruling as being Constitutionally valid.
With the election coming up, it will be interesting to see how much homophobia is used in the campaign.
One of the possible issues in India is that their is actually quite a bit of same-sex sexuality taking place, much of it involves (basically) straight men or issues of sexual violence/harassment or public sex acts.
Russia (in contrast) does not have a cultural history of a third gender, has a much weaker Constitution (when human rights are concerned) and has (recently) tried to prevent any sort of gay pride or gay rights movement from existing in Russia.
posted by Jorge on
Honor killings — or vigilante justice is a problem in most nations. Even in America (cough, cough) where a man can stalk and kill an unarmed, young person.
And vigilante justice gets prosecuted, as in the case of a DV victim firing a warning shot in the air at her abuser. A more significant problem in my view is where our “caste” system is manipulated, and people’s heritage falsified as an excuse to ruin the reputation of someone for defending himself while he is being beaten to death. But so long as the rule of law prevails, that is only a social problem.
posted by Doug on
So you consider a victim of domestic violence defending herself vigilante justice? Seems more like self defense to me or are DV victims just supposed to lay down and get beaten or killed.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So you consider a victim of domestic violence defending herself vigilante justice? Seems more like self defense to me or are DV victims just supposed to lay down and get beaten or killed.
The facts are tricky.
The estranged husband trapped the estranged wife in a bathroom. She shoved past him and went to the garage. The estranged husband did not follow, but instead stayed in the house. She retrieved her weapon from the glove compartment, reentered the house, confronted the estranged husband and fired a warning shot, prompting the estranged husband and the couple’s children to run out the front door and call the police.
The jury convicted her and she was sentenced in 2012.
The conviction was appealed, and the conviction reversed because the lower court issued “fundamentally erroneous jury instructions pertaining to the issue self-defense.”
The case will be retried.
posted by Doug on
Regardless, domestic violence does NOT fall into the vigilante category definition. They are not the same crime.
posted by Jorge on
So you consider a victim of domestic violence defending herself vigilante justice?
–The facts are tricky
Do you or do you not think it is appropriate to oversimplify a media story in order to fit a subjective and unfair narrative?
Since you don’t share my objection to Tom Jefferson’s post, the answer is obviously yes. Thus, you have no objection to mine. Your post merits no other answer.
posted by Doug on
You obviously do not know the difference between domestic violence and vigilantism. You might want to check a dictionary. The two are not interchangeable and have no relation to each other.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Do you or do you not think it is appropriate to oversimplify a media story in order to fit a subjective and unfair narrative?
I do not think it appropriate to misstate the nature of a controversial case. I believe that you did so. Your post didn’t even bother to identify the case, let alone give any of the essential facts, or note that the facts were tricky, or note that the conviction was overturned on appeal and the case remanded for retrial. You simply cited the case as an example of “vigilante justice“. The facts as known, under any stretch of the imagination, do not support that interpretation.
Since you don’t share my objection to Tom Jefferson’s post, the answer is obviously yes. Thus, you have no objection to mine. Your post merits no other answer.
TJ did not mention the case. I was responding to your misuse of the case. My comment had nothing to do with TJ’s comment. As noted above, I have a clear objection to your characterization of the case as “vigilante justice”.
posted by Jorge on
Nobody likes a cheap shot, Doug. Neither is it very classy for you to try to make a red herring of something while not addressing the point at which the response is intended.
Since you don’t share my objection to Tom Jefferson’s post, you have demonstrated that you do think it is appropriate to oversimplify a media story in order to fit a subjective and unfair narrative. I am not impressed by your attempt at selective morality. You have no grievance or complaint to speak of.
I say the same thing to you, Tom Scharbach. I find it a little astounding that you refuse to recognize that my post is intended to mirror a like offense in Tom Jefferson’s post. Since you will not so much as acknowledge that, I will not acknowledge any offense you point to in mine; the dire principle will stand. Live by the sword and die by the sword.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I say the same thing to you, Tom Scharbach. I find it a little astounding that you refuse to recognize that my post is intended to mirror a like offense in Tom Jefferson’s post. Since you will not so much as acknowledge that, I will not acknowledge any offense you point to in mine; the dire principle will stand. Live by the sword and die by the sword.
Whatever, Jorge.
I read your response again, and I see nothing at all in it to indicate that your “post [was] intended to mirror a like offense in Tom Jefferson’s post”. It doesn’t make the point that TJ III oversimplified a media report on its face. In fact, it doesn’t make any point on its face. Sometimes, if you want to make a point, it is best to make it, rather than obfuscate it, leaving the rest of us to try to figure out the inner workings of your mind and intentions.
In any event, whatever your intent and the point you intended to make (and whatever my culpability for failing to understand your intent, unstated as it was), the fact remains that you misrepresented the nature of what has become a controversial case in Florida, which is bad enough on its own facts without mucking it up by dragging in “vigilante justice”.
I stated the facts of the case. I didn’t attack you. I didn’t even mention you. I wasn’t even responding to you. I was responding to Doug, who I quoted at the beginning of the comment, characterizing the case as a domestic violence case. The facts are “tricky”, and the case does not appear to have involved self-defense. The case, in fact, was tried under Florida’s “stand your ground” laws.
I simply stated the facts of the case.My comment wasn’t and argument. It was an observation, an attempt to give Doug the facts.
With respect to your characterization of the case — a false and (I hope) unintentional misrepresentation of the case — I didn’t raise it until you responded to me, bringing your characterization of the case into play. I stand by what I said in my second comment with respect to your misuse of the Florida case. It is accurate.
With respect to TJ III’s alleged oversimplification about honor killing in India, now that I finally understand how your comment, my response and your frankly curious insistence that my somehow not responding to TJ III’s post supposedly endorses your view that TJ III “oversimplif[ied] a media story in order to fit a subjective and unfair narrative” connect up in your head, let me restate: I have not responded to TJ III’s post. I don’t intend to. I don’t know enough about the subject of honor killing in India to have an opinion about whether his comment “oversimplifies” media reports or not. I don’t know enough about Indian culture to know whether or not TJ III’s post is “a subjective and unfair narrative”. I have no comment at all on TJ III’s post, and my non-comment should not be taken as either endorsement of his views on the matter or yours.
I think that more than enough has been said about this particular tempest in a teapot.
posted by Mike in Houston on
A few years ago, at the Out & Equal Workplace Summit, I attended a workshop on global equality issues.
One of the most interesting observations was that, overwhelmingly, the modern map of anti-gay laws (outside of the former SovietUnion) most closely correlates to British colonies… which nearly all retained sodomy statutes even after independence.
Former Spanish and Portuguese colonies are more likely to approach LGBT equality as an opportunity to show modernity (and independence from the Catholic Church)… Nor do they view homosexuality as something ‘imported’ or being gay as a white, Eurocentric invention.
posted by Jorge on
Former Spanish and Portuguese colonies are more likely to approach LGBT equality as an opportunity to show. . . independence from the Catholic Church
That follows pretty naturally from their national and religious heritage. People descended from British settlers don’t have a Catholic Church to show independence from.
So what’s their excuse?
I am well aware this does not explain Catholic immigrants.
posted by Houndentenor on
A great deal of what is going on is the influence of missionaries from fundamentalist churches (Baptist, Pentecostal, etc.). There is also a great deal of current influence (including in Russia) from anti-gay social conservatives lobbying various African governments. Some of them, like Rick Warren, flat out lie about what they are doing in Africa when they are back in the US.