In India - we are still living in stone age

Chapter XVI, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalises homosexual activity.

The legislation was drafted by Lord Macualay in 1860 durng the British rule, and was introduced to Indians. Even more than 150 years after - the legislation is a matter of disputes and discussions. However, the British themselves have reformed their legislation and have allowed same-sex couples to form civil partnerships. In England, homosexual behaviour between consenting adults, in private, was decriminalised in 1967.

Last December the legendery singer of England - who had been awarded knighthood by the queen of England - married his long-time partner David Furnish. Byt the way, Furnish is known to have helped Elton John to get rid of his addiction to drugs.

Who followed Elton's footsteps, was hollywood actress Lindsay Lohan, who boldly announced her future plans to live with her long time woman friend Samantha Ronson.

Both the stars made international headlines and their moves were lauded and celebrated by people who strongly believed that the age has come to take off the hypocracy cover from our faces, at least in the matter as intimate as our sexual preferences.

But, India - where epics like Kama Sutra - depicting various positions of sexual act and deliberating upon the topic telling how to make it more aesthetically enjoyable - and places like Khajuraho - where each every possible sexual act is etched on the walls of the temples - is still battling with this one and half century old legislation. the Indian Government still finds homosexuality ``an act of perversion'' and ``a social vice''.

The government of India - fighting a case against toning down of Section 377 of IPC to help prevent spread of HIV/AIDS among the homosexuals - filed an affidavit in the court in September. The affidavit read - ``Homosexuality is a social vice. Decriminalisation of homosexuality may cause breach of peace. If it is allowed, evils of AIDS and HIV would further spread and harm people leading to big health hazards. It would degrade moral values of the society.'' Phew.......

Incidentally, those fighting for a change in the legislation, are non voluntary organisations and civil societies - busy in raising awareness about safe sex to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS - have only demanded that ``homosexual act among consenting adults should not be treated as a criminal activity''. And why it should?

Director General of NACO (National AIDS Control Organisation) Sujatha Rao had stated at one of the international conferences - "Section 377 places a huge constraint on Government's HIV/AIDS programme. By criminalising any behaviour, we increase the chances of it going underground.''

Her statement was buttressed by famous Indian writer Vikram Seth and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen.

Two years back a senior advocate in the Supreme Court, Anil Divan, in one of his articles, quoted the American Psychological Association - ``Despite historical views of homosexuality, it is no longer viewed by mental health professionals as a `disease' or `disorder'. But obviously, neither it is simply a matter of deliberate personal selection. Homosexual orientation may well form part of the very fibre of an individual's personality."

The big question is : Shouldn't we be allowed to pursue our sexual prefernces in our own way rather than being dictated by the government or being governed by the law???

In this 21st century that too in a free country we are allowed to follow any religion we want and we can pray anyways we think is the best. Same way a man/woman should be allowed to have sexual intimacy in wahtever way he/she likes it. What happens between two consenting adults should not be a problem for others and also it should not be decided by any third person - especially not by the government or by any law.

Of course, the rider is : a man/woman is free to follow any religion and free to adopt any sexual prefernce as long as he/she is not offending his fellow human beings. I think its high time when we should treat sexual preference in the same vein as we treat religious preferences.