RSS softens stand on homosexuality: will BJP scrap Section 377?

The remark by RSS spokesperson Ram Madhav that the criminalisation of homosexuality is debatable appears to be among the remarkable surprises that the BJP-led NDA government has on offer. According to a report by Times of India, Madhav has reportedly said that “while he did not glorify certain kinds of behaviour covered by Section 377, it was debatable whether they should be considered a crime.” This is a significant departure from the stated position of BJP leaders, who supported Section 377 and the SC verdict in December 2013 that upheld the law criminalising homosexuality. RSS’s willingness to discuss the issue is a significant window of hope for gay sex activists and torchbearers of human rights. [caption id=“attachment_1378693” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Representational image. Reuters[/caption] According to Section 377, which is a 158-year-old British era law, homosexuality is unnatural and carries a maximum punishment of ten years in jail. In 2009, the Delhi high court had said that the law was discriminatory and that same sex relationship between two consenting adults should not be considered a crime. This move was widely welcomed by activists and academics who thought that at last India was opening up to the rights of sexual minorities. India is among 70 countries in the world where homosexuality is criminalised. Besides restricting normal life of thousands of people, both men and women, criminalisation of their behaviour also makes them vulnerable to denial of essential services such as employment, housing and access to health. It also renders them at risk to a host of illnesses such as HIV. According to a 2014 article in The Lancet, “recent developments in several countries such as India, Uganda, and Nigeria—where HIV/AIDS remains a pressing public health issue—to reintroduce or strengthen criminalisation of homosexuality holds deep ramifications for patients and health-care workers tackling HIV/AIDS.” In India, the campaign against Section 377 has happened at the highest level, both from the political quarters and civil society while within the UPA government there were dissenting views. In 2006, well known Indians including Nobel laureate Amartya Sen and writer Vikram Seth publicly demanded that the archaic law must go.They said the law perpetrated Victorian-era antipathy and bigotry towards gay people. “This is why we … support the overturning of [the law that criminalises] romantic love and private, consensual acts between adults of the same sex,” they said. Wtihin the UPA government, while the health ministry took a stand against the law, the home ministry was against scrapping of the law. The UPA government never came out with a unanimous view against the law even as the SC overturned the Delhi high court decision. The health ministry later seemed to have compromised with the position of the home ministry. In this context, Ram Madhav’s concurrence to a debate on the issue is a hugely encouraging step. Although the SC is slated to review its judgement, what cannot be overlooked is the need for a consensus view of the NDA government. Supporters of the SC judgement, such as former law minister Kapil Sibal - who said that the UPA government would respect the judgement - are of the view that what the court had done was only upholding Indian law. Some quarters of jurisprudence experts also say that as long as the Section 377 existed in Indian law, one cannot completely overlook it, while others are of the view that the supreme court could have simply endorsed the Delhi high court’s view. The supreme court decision came right before the elections and hence the issue went undebated. Some in the UPA were open to the idea of legislation to drop section 377, but perhaps it was a low priority item or a risky issue before a general election. A debate within the NDA is the first step towards the scrapping of Section 377, and the RSS’s willingness should be welcomed and harnessed by both gay and rights activists as well as sensible political leaders cutting across party lines.