This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/opinion/making-naughty-in-the-new-india.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Making Naughty in the New India | Making Naughty in the New India |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| MOIRA, India — A ripple of glee went through the classroom of my school in north Bombay when our teacher, nervously adjusting her spectacles, said a sex-ed seminar was scheduled for after recess. This was at the end of the ’90s; we were a class of 15-year-olds; cable television had just arrived and American soap operas had caused much moral anxiety among our elders. I don’t remember much from this sex seminar, except that we were ordered to feel our testicles once every two weeks. To demonstrate this, an unconvincing replica of a scrotal sac was passed around, with fondling instructions. Our teacher appeared to shrivel. She had to pass the sac back from the grinning boys to the sex-ed instructor, who had just pulled out of his prop bag a plaster-of-Paris model of an erection. | |
| But the sex-ed seminar was not a success. Some weeks later the school head boy confiscated an item from a girl’s bag, declaring it contraband, much to her embarrassment. He proudly dumped the suspicious article on the teacher’s desk. She dragged the head boy out of class, whereupon she slapped him, saying, “Don’t ever put a sanitary napkin on my desk again.” | |
| While it’s glib to make light of Indians’ national awkwardness in speaking about sex, there is something deeper simmering. In December the Indian Supreme Court upheld Section 377, a colonial-era law forbidding intercourse “against the order of nature.” This outlawed all intercourse other than peno-vaginal sex. Homosexuals, rightfully incensed, took to public protest. In a show of support, thousands of well-meaning Indian heterosexuals removed their photos from their Facebook profiles. What many of them may not have realized at the time was that this heroically stupid law affected them, too, as, contrary to what the Supreme Court seems to have strangely supposed, rather a lot of heterosexuals — even that is understating it — stray from strictly peno-vaginal sex, and as such would be culpable under this law, which does not specifically criminalize homosexuality, as largely perceived. Put plainly, the law is anti-sex, and inhumane. | While it’s glib to make light of Indians’ national awkwardness in speaking about sex, there is something deeper simmering. In December the Indian Supreme Court upheld Section 377, a colonial-era law forbidding intercourse “against the order of nature.” This outlawed all intercourse other than peno-vaginal sex. Homosexuals, rightfully incensed, took to public protest. In a show of support, thousands of well-meaning Indian heterosexuals removed their photos from their Facebook profiles. What many of them may not have realized at the time was that this heroically stupid law affected them, too, as, contrary to what the Supreme Court seems to have strangely supposed, rather a lot of heterosexuals — even that is understating it — stray from strictly peno-vaginal sex, and as such would be culpable under this law, which does not specifically criminalize homosexuality, as largely perceived. Put plainly, the law is anti-sex, and inhumane. |
| The Supreme Court’s reinstatement of Section 377, which had been struck down in a progressive Delhi High Court ruling in 2009, is seen as a triumph of conservatism. Many deem this a hallmark of the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party government, whose head, Narendra Modi, is India’s new prime minister. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing group which many believe represents a more hard-line Bharatiya Janata philosophy, recently said both live-in relationships and homosexuality should not be tolerated, declaring them Western imports (as if they were items well-heeled Indians might pick up from duty free). | The Supreme Court’s reinstatement of Section 377, which had been struck down in a progressive Delhi High Court ruling in 2009, is seen as a triumph of conservatism. Many deem this a hallmark of the conservative Bharatiya Janata Party government, whose head, Narendra Modi, is India’s new prime minister. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing group which many believe represents a more hard-line Bharatiya Janata philosophy, recently said both live-in relationships and homosexuality should not be tolerated, declaring them Western imports (as if they were items well-heeled Indians might pick up from duty free). |
| In April the Supreme Court agreed to hear a final appeal on Section 377, filed by the Naz Foundation, a sexual-health organization. But under the new government, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s vocal demand to preserve the law, the appeal was served its first roadblock. | In April the Supreme Court agreed to hear a final appeal on Section 377, filed by the Naz Foundation, a sexual-health organization. But under the new government, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s vocal demand to preserve the law, the appeal was served its first roadblock. |
| Perhaps this is where India’s new government should beg caution. What if sections of India’s urban citizenry, through exposés on blogs and via private investigations, cast light on the private lives of its politicians? Abroad, the bedroom shenanigans of politicians is tabloid fodder. Not so in India. Before our politicians support laws considered inhuman and retrograde in other civilized societies, they ought to wonder whether their own actions fall within the scope of Section 377. | Perhaps this is where India’s new government should beg caution. What if sections of India’s urban citizenry, through exposés on blogs and via private investigations, cast light on the private lives of its politicians? Abroad, the bedroom shenanigans of politicians is tabloid fodder. Not so in India. Before our politicians support laws considered inhuman and retrograde in other civilized societies, they ought to wonder whether their own actions fall within the scope of Section 377. |
| The most significant transformation in our urban youth is a growing refusal to subscribe to standard sexual classifications. Many from my generation believe the sexual self is essentially variable — only a kind of clothing, a performance. If you are a biological man who likes to deck himself out in satin gowns and have intercourse with a trans man, then what, exactly, is your sexual denomination? These questions are being asked more and more, and one suspects that it’s this conversation that has driven the recent expansion of the legal definition of gender: In April, the Supreme Court wisely recognized transgender as a third gender. | The most significant transformation in our urban youth is a growing refusal to subscribe to standard sexual classifications. Many from my generation believe the sexual self is essentially variable — only a kind of clothing, a performance. If you are a biological man who likes to deck himself out in satin gowns and have intercourse with a trans man, then what, exactly, is your sexual denomination? These questions are being asked more and more, and one suspects that it’s this conversation that has driven the recent expansion of the legal definition of gender: In April, the Supreme Court wisely recognized transgender as a third gender. |
| Now, as the Supreme Court reconsiders Section 377, Mr. Modi’s new government must remember that the conservative constituency that voted him in is also the one whose sexual rights are up for confiscation. For in principle, Section 377 does not discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals; as hateful laws go, it takes an equal-opportunity approach. (The law’s backers bring to mind my school head boy, who had no idea what exactly he was declaring contraband.) | Now, as the Supreme Court reconsiders Section 377, Mr. Modi’s new government must remember that the conservative constituency that voted him in is also the one whose sexual rights are up for confiscation. For in principle, Section 377 does not discriminate between homosexuals and heterosexuals; as hateful laws go, it takes an equal-opportunity approach. (The law’s backers bring to mind my school head boy, who had no idea what exactly he was declaring contraband.) |
| So, if the Bharatiya Janata Party truly wishes to convince us of its secular, sensible, worldly, youth-friendly, pro-business, tourism-encouraging, liberty-loving credentials, it must put Section 377 where it belongs: in the bin. In the bargain, Mr. Modi would get more than our vote; he would win a young nation’s love. | So, if the Bharatiya Janata Party truly wishes to convince us of its secular, sensible, worldly, youth-friendly, pro-business, tourism-encouraging, liberty-loving credentials, it must put Section 377 where it belongs: in the bin. In the bargain, Mr. Modi would get more than our vote; he would win a young nation’s love. |
| Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi is the author of “The Last Song of Dusk” and was recently a visiting fellow at FIND: India-Europe Foundation for New Dialogues. | Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi is the author of “The Last Song of Dusk” and was recently a visiting fellow at FIND: India-Europe Foundation for New Dialogues. |