Talk of real diseases Mr Health Minister and not of people's sexualtiy

The India health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad says homosexuality is a disease and it is unnatural.

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

More - a few years back, the government of India - fighting a case against toning down of Section 377 of Indian Penal Code to help prevent spread of HIV/AIDS among the homosexuals - filed an affidavit in the court. The affidavit read - ``Homosexuality is a social vice. Descriminalisation 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.''

The case had been filed by a group of some human rights activists - who had pleaded the court that ``homosexual act among consenting adults should not be treated as a criminal activity''.

Even the then Director General of NACO (National AIDS Control Organisation) Sujatha Rao had stated in 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.

A senior advocate in the Supreme Court, Anil Divan, too, in one of his articles, had 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.

And then Even the Delhi High Court in 2009 had observed -- "Moral indignation, howsoever strong, is not a valid basis for overriding individuals' fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. In our scheme of things Constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public morality, even if it be the majoritarian view." Going even further, the court had found that Section 377 went against the Indian tradition and guiding political principle of inclusiveness.

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

In matters of sex, the stress should be on ``consenting adults''. Any sexual act becomes a criminal activity if it takes place without the consent of the both involved - irrespective whether these two are men or women or man woman both.

Besides, more important point is - should or should not a country --

which despite all developments and scientific achievements still tops in maternal mortality, infant mortality, where women delivering their babies on the footsteps or in the corridors of hospitals is common (it does not become a matter of national concern as no minister discusses that), where immunisation of children to save them from deadly diseases is considerably low and many children die of common preventable diseases, whichis still fighting to eradicate polio, where majority of growing girl and expecting mothers suffer from acute anaemia, where a person dies of diabetes every ten second, where the number of people suffering from mental problems is remarkably high, where the number of Alzheimer disease is increasing --

should such a country concentrate on such a trivial and personal matter as its people's sexuality rather than making all our efforts to improve the pathetic health scenario of the nation ???