Opinion Which tale to tell?

The problem with this ‘freedom’ frame is that while it appeals to upper-class Indian liberals,it also accommodates some of the basest prejudices against homosexuality. Some of the stereotypes against gays: that it is a western fad or as former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Yadav put it: “are obscene things which our country and culture do not permit,” work within this narrative. For,opponents of gay rights argue,if gay sex is simply a matter of choice,then surely it is curable. After all,we don’t have the freedom to smoke cocaine or commit incest (even though,strictly speaking,these choices don’t harm anyone else). The class composition of gay rights activism in India also fuels suspicions that these are westernised rich-boy perversions (never mind that only the well-heeled can speak out against such prevelant social stigma). Bentham’s own essay in defence of homosexuality,written in 1785,could be published only in 1931,for fear of inciting social wrath. Even legally,India’s Constitution does not unequivocally protect our right to make harm-free choices. The list of freedoms we enjoy (enumerated within Article 19(1)) are subject to ‘decency or morality’,even when they injure no one.

The Delhi High Court verdict on section 377 tells a different story,operates within a different frame. It’s not about ‘freedom’,it’s about ‘equality’. Since scientific data conclusively proves that sexual orientation is determined at an early age and is unchangeable,being gay is like being born a woman,a Dalit or a Muslim. Just as there can be no discrimination on the basis of race,caste or religion,those with alternate sexual orientations cannot be discriminated against. This is what the high court meant when it said that the constitutionally protected identity of “sex” in articles 15 and 16,includes “sexual orientation”.

It’s not an intuitive point to grasp,but the ‘equality’ frame is far more effective than the ‘freedom’ frame. As George Lakoff says of Americans: “while a lot of Americans don’t approve of gay sex,that doesn’t mean they want to discriminate against gay people.” The same goes for the Indian public. While there can be limits to freedom,the right to ‘equal dignity’ cannot be ever subject to ‘decency or morality’. In fact,Indians do accord some semblance of dignity to certain sexual minorities. Transgenders (Hijras) might be treated rottenly by the Indian system (and harassed by cops under section 377). But public opinion is more attuned to their travails,and in states such as Tamil Nadu,Hijras even enjoy welfare benefits. This is because Hijras — unlike gays who are seen as choosers of debauchery — are viewed as victims of fate.

Unfortunately,the “equality for sexuality minorities” argument,so clearly propounded by the court,has not been made strongly enough in the public arena. Which is why backward caste parties like the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Samajwadi party,as well as some religious minority groups,have opposed the judgment. This is ironic,since the ‘equality’ frame is likely to resonate so much more with them.

The most iconic image of ‘equality’ and ‘dignity’ in India is Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati,a Dalit and a woman. What if,and it’s a big if,Mayawati publicly stated that gays are sexuality minorities who need to be protected from social discrimination in much the same manner as Dalits. That is pretty much what the Delhi High Court has said,and that is what’s at stake in the Supreme Court right now. That’s the frame that needs to be frozen,that’s the brand that needs to be built. And what better brand-ambassador than Behenji?

vinay.sitapati@expressindia.com