[The BJP has finally come out, in tune with the sentiments of its "core constituency", while others are raising their reasoned voices.]
III. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131214/jsp/nation/story_17679913.jsp#.Uqw13NIW33E Saturday , December 14 , 2013 BJP comes out, vows to oppose homosexualityRADHIKA RAMASESHAN *New Delhi, Dec. 13: *BJP president Rajnath Singh today said his party “unambiguously” endorsed the re-criminalisation of gay sex — the first conclusive statement from the party that makes the legislative option difficult for the UPA. “We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported,” Rajnath Singh told *The Telegraph* tonight. The BJP has been fighting shy of articulating its position since the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Section 377 did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. The BJP has now dropped its circumspection, probably on the assessment that the gay community is not electorally significant and the party stands to suffer a dent in its traditional base if it is seen to be supporting “unnatural acts”. The Congress is the only party that has so far come out unequivocally against Section 377. It is now up to the UPA to decide if it will float an ordinance and let the next government deal with the issue after six months. BJP sources said Rajnath’s statement was a “carefully considered” view, influenced by political “realities” prevailing on the “ground” and not by “simulated discussions in TV studios”. First, they said, the opinion of the RSS and its affiliates could not be ignored even if a section of the BJP wished to project a “liberal worldview”. Second, the BJP had factored in the prospect of facing “brickbats” from the “secular-liberals”. “It is a flawed assumption that ratifying homosexuality is equal to being progressive and broad-minded. The present discourse has been largely generated by a niche of the elite, which reflects the Bharat-India divide,” a source said, ignoring questions on the harassment homosexuals go through in many towns and villages. Another BJP leader said provincial India would not be persuaded by the argument that same sex was rooted in Hindu culture and mythology. “India is largely status-quoist. Fiction is fiction, the reality is different,” he said. Given the opposition from not just Hindu clerics but those from Islam and Christianity, BJP sources said Sonia Gandhi and Rahul might have “erred” in feeling the “popular pulse” by openly speaking out against the Supreme Court judgment. “Maybe the Congress wished to deflect attention from its in-house problems but we wonder if religious leaders from other faiths would shower kudos on Sonia and Rahul,” a source said. Privately, a section of the BJP did not concur with Rajnath. This section felt that there was nothing unnatural about homosexuality, and Section 377 should deal only with bestiality and forced acts. But nobody would go on record. II/III. *NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS* *National Office : *6/6 Jangpura B, New Delhi – 110 014 . Phone : 011 2437 4535 E-mail: [email protected]<https://mail.google.com/mail/h/8dy72w72bhtk/?&v=b&cs=wh&[email protected]> | Web : www.napm-india.org<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.napm-india.org%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF1MIbDJSvNWgHgCXxdkjCcOH4oig> *For Immediate Release 14th December, 2013* *Apex Court verdict re-criminalizing consensual same sex relationships unconstitutional and inhuman* *NAPM demands legal recognition of the natural right to life and love of lakhs of gender diverse individuals* *New Delhi, December 14 *: As lakhs of individuals and groups across the country, celebrated the 4th anniversary of the historical judgement by Justice (Retd). A.P. Shah and Justice (Retd). Muralidharan of the Delhi High Court, recognizing the natural right to life and life of gender diverse persons on the International Human Rights Day, the verdict of the Supreme Court, just a day after, on 11th December, comes as a serious blow to and blot on the Constitution of India which guarantees social, political, economic and cultural equality to all citizens and upholds the dignity of every individual as sacrosanct. In a unjustifiable order, the Apex Court, overturned the Delhi High Court’s Judgement which held Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be unconstitutional and upheld the right to consensual sexual relationships of lesbian, gay, transgender, bi-sexual and other gender variant individuals. Drawing from Gandhi, Marx and Ambedkar, the Delhi High Court judgment re-introduced the idea of inclusivity, which is at the heart of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court’s verdict rejecting the High Court’s judgment is blow to the lofty constitutional values and inalienable fundamental rights. We, at the National Alliance of People’s Movements are deeply disturbed by this retrograde move of the Supreme Court, an institution, which continues to enjoy the faith of millions of people of this country and is looked upon as a beacon of hope in our democracy. We are of the clear opinion that the not just Section 377, but even the present order of the Apex Court, is in stark violation of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution and will be challenged by all progressive forces of this nation, through the Parliament and also on the streets. We also strongly think that struggle of gender diverse individuals is not just for the right to consensual sexual relationships, but is for their very right to life and is inseparable from their personal, political, emotional and social well-being. It is not just a ‘personal issue’, but an intense issue of political and human justice, which every one of us are deeply concerned about. For gender variant persons, every day is a struggle and we stand by the brave community of gender variant people who face violence and discrimination at homes, in the society and in their dealings with the State. We would also like to note that any agency of the State, including the Judiciary, does not have the right to interfere with the right to life of any individual, except in accordance with law, that must be based on a clear constitutional premise. The right to live ones own life with dignity and without interference with the rights of others or without any disturbance to the society cannot be taken away by any law of the legislature, Parliament or order of the Courts. In a State and society, which is not outraged enough even after the rape of thousands of women, where women and other gender diverse individuals still do not have the real freedom to move and express safely, where tribals gets displaced from their traditional land and resources in the name of ‘development’, where thousands of struggling urban poor are under-paid, sleep on the pavements, where a whole community gets killed because of their religious identity, violence on lakhs of gender variant individuals cannot be perpetuated in garb of ‘abstract morality’ ! This is neither a moment of sorrow nor defeat. It’s a moment for collective reflection and action, for us, as a nation. Just as thousands of farmers, adivasis, fish workers, labourers and others, refused to accept ‘defeat’ after the Supreme Court’s Judgement on Narmada in 2000, and intensified their legal and mass struggle for the right to life, the community of gender diverse individuals also shall stand up in this moment and assert their right to life, which is integral with the Constitution of India. Continuing with the resolution adopted at our 8th biennial convention in Badwani, Madhya Pradesh, * (given below after this statement) *NAPM joins hands with our friends celebrating diversity, plurality calls for a rainbow of resistances against injustice and violence. We also urge the gender diverse community to join hands with other social and political movements to built a nation beyond caste, class, creed, gender, race, religion and regional differences and challenge corporatization, communalism and corruption in every walk of life. *NAPM also urges and demands the Indian Parliament of India to completely remove Section 377 from the IPC, uphold the right to life of all gender diverse individuals and enact a comprehensive law for their social, political and economic well-being. UPA govt. should take urgent step to save LGBTQ rights file review petition in Supreme Court immediately .* *Resolution on the LGBTQ Issues adopted at 8th bi-ennial Convention of NAPM, Badwani, October 26, 2010* We oppose persecution and discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender orientation in all forms and strive towards full social and political equality of all individuals who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Intersex and Queer (LGBTQ). While welcoming the July 2nd 2009 judgment of the Delhi high court to decriminalize homosexuality NAPM recognizes that the LGBTQ community continues to be discriminated against in schools, colleges, workspaces, homes, the streets and before the law. We affirm that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate and cannot be consciously changed and we oppose attempts to convert LGBTQ individuals into heterosexuals or force them to conform to dominant notions of masculinity or femininity on the grounds of morality, religion or nature. We call for an official recognition of the LGBTQ community and demand changes in policies and laws that guarantee their rights not only to identity and dignity but also to welfare, protection from persecution and self-determination. These include affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity for LGBTQ individuals in relation to education, employment, health, housing, livelihood and people oriented development. We strive to ensure that the LGBTQ community joins the political mainstream on the same level as other groups in society and value the empowerment and participation of the LGBTQ community in all fields including organizing within our own movements. Therefore, we also call upon the movements, constituents of NAPM and other concerned friends to move towards greater sensitivity and awareness on LGBTQ issues; by incorporating greater inclusiveness of LGBTQ voices, perspectives and concerns to the understanding of our struggles and the framing our demands. NAPM affirms that this is the way forward in the alliance building process we set out to do sixteen years back. More importantly it is the only way towards truly building a just society, which guarantees dignity, human rights, equality and people oriented development, which forms the heart of the struggles that come together in NAPM. *Medha Patkar* - Narmada Bachao Andolan - National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM); *Prafulla Samantara* - Lok Shakti Abhiyan, NAPM, Odisha; *Dr. Sunilam, Aradhna Bhargava* - Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, NAPM, MP; *Gautam Bandopadhyay* – Nadi Ghati Morcha, NAPM, Chhattisgarh; *Vilas Bhongade, Suniti SR, Prasad Bagwe Suhas Kolhekar* - NAPM, Maharashtra; *Gabriel Dietrich, Geetha Ramakrishnan* – Unorganised Sector Workers Federation, NAPM, TN; *C R Neelakandan *– NAPM Kerala; *Ramakrishnan Raju, Saraswati Kavula, P Chennaiah* – NAPM Andhra Pradesh*, Bhupender Singh Rawat,Rajendra Ravi, Anita Kapoor* – NAPM, Delhi; *Arundhati Dhuru, Sandeep Pandey* - NAPM, UP; *Sister Celia* - Domestic Workers Union, NAPM, Karnataka; *Sumit Wanjale, Madhuri Shivkar *– Ghar Bachao, Ghar Banao Andolan, NAPM, Mumbai; *Manish Gupta* - Jan Kalyan Upbhokta Samiti, NAPM, UP; *Vimal Bhai* - Matu Jan sangathan, NAPM, Uttarakhand; *Krishnakant, Anand Mazhgaonkar*, Paryavaran Suraksh Samiti, NAPM Gujarat;*Madhuresh Kumar, Seela M Mahapatra, Meera - * NAPM -- =============================================== *National Alliance of People’s Movements*National Office : 6/6, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110014 Phone : 011 26241167 / 24354737 Mobile : 09818905316 Web : www.napm-india.org<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.napm-india.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFaAkn8Pt53dpg0drgftU16Wc0OcA> Facebook : www.facebook.com/NAPMindia<http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FNAPMindia&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEbtu4aZkiqNV1Z3z_GoTyHRkZXGQ> Twitter : @napmindia III. http://kafila.org/2013/12/14/an-anti-constitutional-judgement-johannes-manjrekar/ An anti-constitutional judgement: Johannes Manjrekar DECEMBER 14, 2013 by Nivedita Menon <http://kafila.org/author/nivmen/> *Guest Post by JOHANNES MANJREKAR* The ruling by a two-member bench of the Supreme Court, striking down the judgement of the Delhi high Court which had held that Article 377 – a pre-Constitution, 19th century colonial-era law – violated the spirit and directive principles of the Indian Constitution, seems to break new ground in jurisprudence. In an era where governments worldwide have been engaged in systematically rolling back hard-won civil liberties and individual rights and violating constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and principles, one might be excused for believing that the most urgent duty of an independent judiciary endowed with a reasonable degree of conviction and courage, would be to curb the transgressions of governments against the principles laid down in their own constitutions. The recent ruling of the SC does little to encourage such a belief. Ignoring some of the language in the SC judgement, which in itself might be worthy of closer scrutiny, there are at least three lines of argument that strike a layman like me as deeply worrisome. The first of these is the claim that it is the prerogative of elected governments to make laws, while the duty of the judiciary is to oversee adherence to these laws. Aside from the fact that, in other instances, the SC has seen fit to issue fiats and ultimatums in executive matters, this seems fair enough. What, however, is left out in this assertion is that it is also the duty of the judiciary to look into the constitutionality of laws, and this is what was at stake in the present case. By passing the buck to the government, the SC has neatly abdicated this crucial responsibility. The second point of great concern is the reference to “traditional” social values in judging the merits of a case. It is highly debatable whether discrimination against alternate sexual orientations and identities is indeed a “traditional social value”, but even if one were to concede that it was, should that be a guideline for determining the merits of a case? There are innumerable traditional social and religious values that are profoundly inegalitarian and oppressive of certain sections of society by design, and some of the directive principles of the Indian Constitution are meant precisely to guarantee basic human rights and dignity that are denied by such social arrangements and practices. To appeal to the weight of “traditional social values” is to embark on a dangerously slippery slope. One might have expected something better from the highest court in the land than such craven obeisance to dominant social pressures, which do not even necessarily represent the feelings and opinions of a huge part of the population in a rapidly changing social world. Lastly, there is the downright casual and cavalier reference in the SC judgement to the “miniscule” number of citizens affected by Article 377. Now what would “miniscule” be? Would, say, 10 million people (countries with less than 10 million seem to take themselves quite seriously) be a miniscule number? And on what do the judges base their assessment that the number is “miniscule”? Surely not by extrapolating from how many people in their personal circle of acquaintances have confided in them about their alternate sexual orientations? But let’s not quibble about the numbers – perhaps there are “only” a million people, perhaps 50 million. Does their “miniscule” number render them irrelevant, not numerically significant enough for serious judicial consideration? Is jurisprudence and the determination of right and wrong going to be determined by the numbers of people involved? The judges might just as well have said, in plain and straightforward language: “Who the hell cares? We’re just talking about a small bunch of weirdos here who refuse to be like the rest of us. Let the government worry about what to do with them.” The flip side of the coin is the importance of large numbers in determining judicial outcomes. Thus the SC saw fit to declare in an earlier case, in which the evidence was dubious at best and the prosecution had clearly indulged in dishonest practices, that a death sentence should be upheld to assuage the wider “social conscience”, a term which might fairly be substituted with “lynch mob bloodlust”. To spare their Lordships unnecessary bother in future, perhaps we could do away with a lot of court cases by simply having referendums on major cases. Thumbs up you live, thumbs down you die. ‘Democracy for Dummies” – maybe it’s time for another title in the Dummies series. *Johannes Manjrekar is a Faculty Member at Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Microbiology Department and Biotechnology Centre.* -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
