Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
In his recent parliament speech and subsequent interviews to various news outlets including The Print, Sushil Modi denied marriage equality for sexual minorities and gave some reasons that do not seem coherent or addressing the topic in hand.
One of his responses was that no Asian country except Taiwan has done it, only the US and other Western countries have done it. He even veered into the Abortion debate in the US, which is totally not relevant to this topic.
The question for the honorable MP of the ruling party, who is an Indian legislator, is that whether he and his party are willing to grant marriage equality to the sexual minorities of India, set an example for other countries in Asia and rest of the world and be the “Vishwa Guru” that they aspire India to be.
Another bizarre or unsubstantiated argument he made was that it is against “Indian Ethos”, “sanskaar”, “tradition”. Can he clarify on what basis he is making this statement? The Hindu religion based on which his party runs its political business, acknowledges not just same sex relationships but also marriage. To quote an example for him is the marriage between Lord Krishna and Lord Aravan (Iravan) from the Mahabharata. There are at least two sects within Hinduism (Koothandavar and Draupadi) that believe and follow this tradition to the day. It is not only transgenders, but also heterosexual men, for their prayers to come true, ritualistically marry Lord Aravan and then mourn his death by dressing up as his widow and crying. Does the honorable MP not acknowledge these beliefs and sects as part of Hinduism or Indian tradition? Even if not, can he clarify how Indian tradition denies marriage equality to any individual?
To add to it, ancient Hindu tradition recognized at least 7 different types of marriages including one in which a man can battle a girl’s family, abduct, and marry her which according to today’s laws would be a criminal offence. Same goes for polygamy. Laws are made based on the current social structures and circumstances in a democracy, based on people’s will, not based on age old traditions or sanskaar.
He also mentioned that marriage is a “Pavitra Sammandh”, and it is needed only for adoption of children and inheritance by children which does not apply for same sex partners. I’d like to point out to the honorable MP that inheritance right is not only for the children but also the spouse is entitled to inherit when the other spouse dies. And what is this “Pavitra”? It is an adjective to describe this social acknowledgment of the relationship between those two people, glorify it and thus discourage infidelity etc. Why can’t the relationship between two people of the same gender be acknowledged and glorified by the society if they wish to pursue a monogamous relationship? Or does he state that the relationship between two people of same gender cannot be “Pavitra”? If so, he should state that explicitly.
He also insults by saying that after decriminalization of Section 377, this has become a “personal maamla” and that the police cannot do anything about it. It looks like he still wants to persecute sexual minorities and he also seems to suggest that it was gracious enough to decriminalize Section 377 and nothing more is required. I’d like to inform the Honorable MP that a person is much more than his/her sexuality and not to only think about the act of sex while talking about marriage equality because marriage is not only about sex. Marriage is an acknowledgement of the relationship between two people, a social contract, so they can together open a joint bank account, or one partner can make a medical decision for another in cases of illnesses, or even claim the dead body of the loved one, etc.
Finally, he lectures that marriage is not just a legal issue but a social one and that a few judges sitting in a court room cannot interfere. The Indian society at large have accepted the decriminalization of Section 377, welcomed with open arms movies and other entertainment depicting same sex relationships and public conversations around this topic. The people of India not just accept, but lovingly embrace their sons and daughters, friends and colleagues without any discrimination of whom they choose to love. It is the honorable MP that needs to wake up to the reality of the 21st century Indian society. If legislators like him sitting in the parliament fail to do their job, then the well-informed courts of this country have every right to address a grievance of a citizen who knocks its doors looking for justice.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.