Homophobic brothers in arms: India's vote against same sex relations in UN is regressive

“It was a complex issue,” says Syed Akbaruddin, the MEA spokesperson. He was talking about a recent vote in the UN where India found itself on the same side as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, Syria and China on a human rights issue. Now that must have stung. And that’s why Akbaruddin is twisting himself into a pretzel to explain India’s vote. At issue was a Russian proposal that would stop the UN from treating employees with same-sex spouses on par with employees with opposite-sex spouses. 40,000 UN staff come under the policy’s purview. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General wants the UN to recognize same-sex marriage of UN staffers and allow their spouses to receive UN benefits. This would be irrespective of whether same-sex marriage was recognized in the staffer’s country of nationality. It’s also being seen as part of a larger Washington-Moscow fight over calling the shots and gay staffers have been caught in the crossfire. The move failed. 43 countries supported it. 80 countries opposed it. 37 abstained. Saudi Arabia at least was upfront about why it supported the proposal. Same-sex marriage was “immoral” in its view. Others took cover behind more procedural reasons saying their objection was that member states should have been consulted before making these kinds of entitlement decisions. It was according to them a “sovereignty” issue. [caption id=“attachment_2174793” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Representational image. Agencies.[/caption] But sovereignty is just a convenient fig leaf for some old fashioned homo-uneasiness if not homophobia. India can claim its hands are tied. Whether the government approves or not, Section 377 is the law of the land. India has used that as an excuse to refuse to extend diplomatic privileges to gay partners of foreign diplomats. Some diplomats have refused to serve, some have come alone, some have had to have their partner come in other capacities sometimes as attendants. If Section 377 is the problem the government can show some spine and deal with it. The Indian government has adopted a queer attitude with 377 often speaking in two voices or maintaining a studied silence. If Rajnath Singh says his party “unambiguously” endorses Section 377 and criminalization of gay sex because “homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported”, then his cabinet colleague Arun Jaitley sings a different tune on English language talk-shows saying he does not think homosexuality should be criminalized. Ram Madhav of the RSS also said while he did not want to glorify homosexuality it was debatable whether it should be considered a crime. After the Supreme Court verdict the Congress came out strongly against it but its own history with 377 has been checkered to say the least as it has argued for and against it in court. This vote would only apply to UN employees. It would not mean India would have to recognize same-sex marriage for its citizens. Yes, it will lead to knotty legal questions about whether extending these privileges puts India in violation of its own law. And it will have to figure out answers about why it should not do unto other gay foreign diplomats what it does unto gay UN diplomats. But these are all problems it faces because it has been sitting on the fence on this issue, keen to not sully its image as the world’s largest democracy but nervous about dealing with this regressive law on its books. Instead of actual tackling the elephant in the room ministers in India are coming up with innovative solutions that would wish it away. The Shiv Sena’s Dr. Deepak Sawant, the Maharashtra health minister thinks the LGBT community was in need of “psychological treatment and counselling”. Goa’s Sports and Youth Affairs minister Ramesh Tawadkar proposed centres to “administer treatment to LGBT youths to make them normal.” Baba Ramdev invited the gay community to his ashram and guaranteed to yoga their homosexuality away. And Ghulam Nabi Azad as health minister opined that men having sex with men was a “disease” and “unnatural” and not “good for India.” Perhaps these men who want to create detox centers and yoga camps and “cure” homosexuals are a small step forward from those who want to lock up homosexuals as per Section 377. But the fact that even health ministers say these outlandish things shows how much work needs to be done and cannot be done because of Section 377. The government does not want to overtly endorse 377 and face a worldwide backlash for backsliding on what, as the UN vote showed, is quickly becoming accepted as a bona fide human rights issue. But on the other hand it does not want to take 377 by the horns and deal with it either. It’s only when a UN vote like this one comes along that it stands exposed. India could have abstained from the vote like neighbouring Bhutan and Nepal. (Sri Lanka, by the way, voted against the Russian move.) But by opting to line up behind Russia and voting “Yes” India chose to make a statement loud and clear.