This article has been written for Techkriti Blog for a Cause Contest. The topic was: Write an article on Section 377 of IPC that criminalises Homosexuality in India and tags it as “unnatural”. For more information visit: http://www.socialscribblers.in/techkriti-blog-cause/

1. Section 377: Homosexuality
Au naturel
The fiasco concerning the reinstatement of section 377 is a grim
reminder of how archaic Indian society is in certain aspects. I am not
going to argue against the overturning of the 2009 High Court verdict.
From a legal point of view, it was a perfectly logical move. However, the
issue lies with the fact that, in an age when India is launching
interplanetary missions, this 19th century, discriminatory law is still being
brought into the limelight. It’s not like the Indian legal system has a
dearth of cases. With a plethora of corrupted politicians, accused rapists
and their representatives frequenting the courts for unnecessarily
extended periods of time, it’s easy enough to stay busy in the maze that is

2. the Indian penal structure. Citizens represent a country and it is appalling
to find many such individuals who are applauding this decision, ignorant
of how it affects them. Even before trying to analyse the situation from
the point of view of the LGBT community, it is obvious that this restricts
all of our personal lives. The article criminalizes all sexual acts, which are
against the ‘order of nature’. It is ironic that the largest democracy in the
world, a country that was once defined by the phrase, ‘unity in diversity’,
a country in which sexual freedom was celebrated and treated as art, is
now so replete with derogation of fundamental rights, xenophobia and
sexual repression. We naturally fear things we don’t understand. It
helped our ancestors survive, maintained tribal societies and may have
led to civilization as we know it. But, we have passed that stage a long
time ago. We are no longer entirely constrained by the hiccups of nature.
We enhance our food using hybridization, selectively breed animals to
make ideal pets, build skyscrapers and reach other planets. Then why are
some people so keen on continuing to pursue obsolete standards? The
breach of human rights seems alarming when you realize that the people
who brought up this issue are educated people, responsible for passing
judgment on society. Where are we headed? A world where people’s sex
lives are controlled and confined by the government? Based on what?
Ignorance and double-standards? It is fairly obvious that the law and the
excuses being used to defend it are nothing but pseudointellectual
posturing and pretentious hogwash. After all, what is natural? One may
argue that anything that exists is natural. But, there is also a definition
which states that anything caused by humankind is not natural. Let’s take
the second one for the purpose of this exercise. Is homosexuality natural?
Yes! Homosexuality has been witnessed in hundreds of different species,
devoid of human influences. In fact, there are scientific explanations for
the persistence of homosexuality through natural selection, from
increased fertility in females to increased reproductive success during
gender imbalances. The reasons aren’t even important, given the
prevalence of homosexuality in nature. Then why is homosexuality tagged
as ‘unnatural’? It is the same reason why the emancipation of blacks was

3. considered ‘unnatural’. It is the same reason why a woman’s wish to
educate herself was considered ‘unnatural’ before the Middle Ages. It is
the same reason why strong-willed women in the Dark Ages were called
‘witches’ and burned for engaging in activities, which were, according to
the status quo, against the order of nature. Let’s come to the more
general criticism of the law. Apparently, sexual acts, which are deemed
‘unnatural’, even between consenting adults, is banned. Biologists
identify at least ten types of sexual activities, from procreation sex, to
pair-formation sex to exploratory sex; and this is visible in many species.
By that line of reasoning, sex isn’t only about procreation. Then, why are
some people concerned about which orifice other people use for coitus?
Even if we baselessly assume that all forms of fornication other than
simple penetration is ‘unnatural’, we must also consider the fact that the
lifestyle of modern humans is almost completely ‘unnatural’. From
wearing clothes to using toothbrushes, we indulge in ‘unnatural’ activities
every single moment of our lives. Where do we draw a line and why?
How does the use of inconsistent, fallacious arguments justify this stance?
Again, we come back to the hegemony. People, who are uncomfortable
about other’s ways of life, think they have the right to make everyone
else follow their delusions. How can anyone accept this in a democratic
country, where freedom is considered to be a constitutional right? We
can have all the education and technological developments in the world,
but, a nation is also judged by how its inhabitants are treated, however
outnumbered they are; and we have failed miserably in this regard. The
unfortunate situation is that, in a country with widespread poverty,
extensive female infanticide, corruption and debilitating superstitions,
people are more concerned about how people have sex. They irrationally
criticize consensual sex, while a myriad of rape cases remain unreported
and ignored. Why are these incompetent arbiters drawing arbitrary lines
to dictate what the citizens can or cannot do even when it doesn’t affect
anyone in a negative way? I look around me and, as a citizen of this
country, I dread the future. The issue of the in-born nature of
homosexuality has been the subject of a lot of debate. Though it has been

4. proved quite convincingly that sexual orientation is mostly genetic, I
would like to assume the opposite for my concluding statement. Even if I
choose to be a homosexual, I don’t see how that is anyone’s concern.
Even if I choose to engage in ‘unnatural’ sexual acts, I don’t see how that
is anyone’s concern. As long as the individuals are consenting adults, the
government, or anybody else, has no right to tell them what they can or
cannot do. To do so is a disgrace to the idea of a democracy and a
butchering of the constitution on which this country was founded.
-Tirthankar Chakraborty