Ramadoss is right to call for legalising gays

We have to endorse Anbumani Ramadoss on this one. The health minister has acquired a reputation as a maverick in the UPA cabinet, moreover one who’s so taken up with administrative politics in New Delhi’s elite All India Institute of Medical Sciences that he has little time to address the rot in the country’s public health-care system. Ramadoss, however, has done the right thing in arguing for decriminalising homosexuality, contradicting the home ministry’s stand on section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Delhi high court is examining a public interest litigation on the subject, which says that private consensual sex between adults shouldn’t be considered a crime. Section 377 renders certain kinds of private consensual sex — those which allegedly “go against the order of nature” — a crime. Homosexuality is deemed to fall under its purview. Punishments can be draconian, going up to 10 years in prison. This law has colonial and theological origins, having been incorporated by the British into the Indian Penal Code in 1860. It’s time now to take a fresh look at the law.

The problem with section 377’s antiquated provisions is twofold. Firstly, if one doesn’t go by theological certainties, how does one determine what is natural and what goes against the order of nature? Contraception can, from a certain point of view, be seen as going against the order of nature. But we don’t ban contraception for that reason. More fundamentally, however, banning private consensual activity between adults is a way of restricting personal choice. It’s a throwback to times when state and society were considered sacrosanct and the individual had no rights.

The government’s case against homosexuality doesn’t carry much logic. It has argued that homosexuality results in the spread of AIDS and decriminalising it can lead to breaches of peace. But soaring crime graphs haven’t really been recorded in the many countries that have decriminalised homosexuality. And as Ramadoss has observed, it’s precisely when gay populations are forced to go underground that AIDS control programmes can’t reach them, creating the greatest threat to themselves and others. Section 377 may have some validity as far as protecting the rights of children and minors are concerned. But with growth of the sphere of personal choice and alternative lifestyles, as well as increasing recognition of the rights of gays, the state should no longer concern itself with what consenting adults choose to do in private.