BALOCHGATE OF MANMOHAN

When Dr Manmohan Singh started his innings in 2004 as Prime Minister he enjoyed tremendous goodwill not without reason. Under PV Narasimha Rao’s tutelage he gave a turn around for the Indian economy making reforms irreversible. Singh’s personal integrity was impeccable and his understanding of Indian and world economy was superb. But, during the fag end of his first term in office, when he was ready to sacrifice his chair for the sake of Indo-US nuclear cooperation, there was criticism in some quarters about his obsession with the US and particularly George Bush. We are yet to realise the tangible benefits of the controversial deal and there are apprehensions about the fuel reprocessing and enrichment, especially when India is not signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Well, Manmohan Singh starts his second term on a highly controversial note which makes everyone, barring a section of the Congressmen, of course, doubt his intellectual honesty and diplomatic skills, though his personal integrity remains intact. He has never been a politician who can lead from the front and mobilise public opinion in favour of his political ideology. Otherwise, he would not have opted the Rajya Sabha route all the time and even after five-year stint as Prime Minister. He has to be dependent on his party chief and he can be in office not with the pleasure of the President of India, but the party President. Politically he is very weak and now he has demonstrated that even in diplomacy he is not quite assertive and easily yields to the other side. We have seen it with Bush and we are seeing it now with Pakistan.

However, Sharm-el-Sheikh has another dimension to his personality. It casts a shadow on his intellectual honesty as well. There is no correlation between his joint statement at the sidelines of Nam summit and what he said on the floor of Indian parliament on July 29. Anybody who understands simple English can say that what he said on the floor of the House was diametrically opposite of what he signed on the dotted lines in Egypt. On one hand Singh says that dialogue process should go on so that there is no role for third party interlocutors. Immediately he says that dialogue is possible only when there is proof of action from the other side to contain terror which is not the spirit of the joint statement. The actual wording in the joint statement is that action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and that these should not be bracketed.

Curiously, what was delinked by our Prime Minister in a joint statement in Sharm-el-Sheikh was linked by his party chief who said “We support the resumption of the dialogue process with Pakistan, but only after it has demonstrated its seriousness to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks to justice and to prevent its territory from being used to launch terror attacks on any part of our country”. Does this support the signatory of the joint statement who wanted the dialogue process to be delinked from terror? But that is what newspapers friendly with the establishment say. They could see the long term strategic vision of the Prime Minister.
But, another signatory of the statement, Gilani has a different interpretation of the statement. He says “delinking means India should not keep the composite dialogue in suspense because of its perception that Pakistan has not taken strong action against terrorists. This is a loaded statement. He is of the view that it is only India’s perception that Pakistan is not taking action against terrorists, whereas Pakistan has been talking action. But our home minister P Chidambaram has a different story. He is so tired of Pakistan whose foreign minister says that Pakistan can’t arrest people merely on hearsay without solid proof which, according to him, is not forthcoming from India. Hafeez Sayeed, the mastermind of 26/11 is a free bird. What did Pakistan do on terror front to warrant resumption of peace talks, unless the United States wants it in its own selfish interest? Even our dull-witted External Affairs minister S M Krishna talks about uncooperative Pakistan. India has been asking Pakistan to hand over 42 fugitives including Dawood Ibrahim, but it has refused to cooperate. There is nothing on the ground that suggests Pak sincerity for us to resume talks.

Even if Manmohan wriggles out of semantics of the joint statement, he cannot wash away the blunder he committed on Balochistan. Look at the different versions on Balochistan which speak volumes about the blunder.

Prime Minister : We have nothing to hide. So, nothing wrong in discussing.
Pranab Mukerjee: It was a unilateral inclusion by Pakistan. We don’t share Pak perception.
Shashi Tharoor: It was not a legal tready, but a diplomatic statement
Chidambaram : Baloch is Pak’s internal problem. What do we have to do with it?
SM Krishna : (He had nothing original to say except to repeat PM) We have nothing to hide.
Sonia Gandhi : DEAFENING SILENCE

If it is a unilateral inclusion by Pakistan why should India be a party to the joint statement? If it is Pak’s internal problem why should it come up for discussion at the summit meeting between the Prime Ministers of two countries? If Pak insisted, India should have pointed out ISI role in the insurgency in North-East. Undoubtedly, it is our Prime Minister’s too much of a gentlemanly approach, if not timid, in diplomatic affairs that helped Pakistan to crow over its success in opening an entirely sordid chapter in Indo-Pak relations.

Ironically, it is the US which has to bail out India on Balochistan even as our Prime Minister was claiming to be not in favour of third party interlocutors. Obama administration’s special envoy on Af-Pak Richard Holbrooke has made it clear that Pak has not provided any evidence to the US on India’s involvement in Balochistan. Why then did we agree to include Balochistan in the joint statement? Peace with Pakistan is possible only on the basis of our experience in the past and not our Prime Minister’s expectations or pious wish to have a friendly neighbour.
“Delinking” of talks has been linked to terror atleast from our side thanks to alert public opinion and Opposition. But Pakistan is bound to convert Balochistan as an albatross on the neck of India.

Former External Affairs minister Yashwant Sinha says that the nation is not safe in the hands of Krishna when it comes to diplomacy or diplomatic wrangles. Is he barking at the wrong tree? Is Manmohan Singh any better? One shudders to think what faux pas he would commit in his next foreign sojourn.

STATEMENT OF SHAME

You don’t need seasoned strategic analysts or diplomats to dissect the joint statement of our Prime Minister and his Pakistani counterpart and say that that our Prime Minister has bungled and bungled very badly at the Nam summit in Egypt. UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi may not have said in so many words, but her direction to her party spokespersons and leaders not to comment on the Indo-Pak joint statement and the End-use Monitoring Arrangement with the US, says it all. It is a tacit admission of a bizarre mess up. Our Prime Minister may tie his blue turban alright, but in Sharm-el-Sheikh he tied himself up in knots. Obviously, smelling the growing dissent within the party and apprehensive of such a dissent rubbishing the image of her chosen man for the top post as most incompetent to deal with bilateral issues , she cracked the whip to silence her partymen. Congress being one-woman party whose writ alone prevails with no scope for differing view point, spokespersons of the party fell on line and were merely repeating that they stood by whatever clarification given by the Prime Minister on the floor of the House.

If Indian Prime Minister’s clarification on the floor of Parliament is to be the gospel, why should there be a joint statement hammered out after hours of debate and discussion. Is the joint statement not to be taken for what it reads? We may talk about clarification of the PM. But Pakistan may not and will stick to the letter and spirit of the joint statement. After all, it is a statement signed by two sovereign states.

According to news reports both the Prime Ministers spent more than three hours discussing the bilateral issues and if what was produced after such a marathon effort was such a crap, why then did we agree for such a high-level meet. We had a big contingent of our External Affairs Minister, who is uninspiring, our Foreign Secretary, our National Security Advisor. Is this the kind of statement all these worthies could produce? Shockingly, our Foreign Secretary admits that the joint statement was badly drafted. What does it imply? The statement was heavily loaded against the interests of India. Foreign Secretary now says that India would not start the process of composite dialogue with Pakistan unless there is progress on its actions against terrorism. If this is not an after-thought, what and who prevented him from incorporating this in the joint statement. On the contrary, the joint statement is loud and clear. It says “Action should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”. Atleast, the Foreign Secretary, if not the Minister, should own responsibility for such a stupid drafting which bartered the interests of the nation.

Hardly a month ago our Prime Minister was accused of diplomatic gaffe in Russia when he told President Zardari in the presence of media that he had come with a mandate to ask him to end terror activities on Pakistani soil for any meaningful talks to follow. That meeting itself ended in a fiasco. There were reports from across the border that slighted Zardari did not want to have any more meeting with India and hence Yousaf Raza Gilani was the signatory to the joint statement.

The two issues in the joint statement worrying India are the delinking of terrorism from composite dialogue and mention of Balochistan. The only issue that has been troubling India since 1947 is the hostility that Pakistan displayed towards India from its first attempt to grab Kashmir with the help of tribal intruders. This was followed by three wars and every time it is India which yielded to its neighbour. Subsequently, with Pakistan emerging as the hub of Jihadi terrorism, India became the victim of cross border terrorism with 26/11 mayhem in Mumbai becoming the flash point. Even after 8 months of the tragedy and inspite of mounting evidence of Pak involvement, the country stonewalled all our efforts to apprehend the handlers of 26/11 attack. At one stage, Pakistan disowned Ajmal Kazab, the lone surviving terrorist who was caught on the act. Pak’s non-cooperative mindset can be discerned from the fact that it refuses to hand over Dawoom Ibrahim inspite of repeated demands from India. How can you trust such a nation and agree to delink terror from composite dialogue?

If terrorism has to be delinked from the talks, what is there to talk? Composite dialogue, like composite culture, is a myth. May be we will talk about fashion, music, Hindi films, cultural exchanges or may be our neo-liberals may lead a delegation for people-to-people interaction and come out with reports of tneir nostalgia as most of them have their roots in West Punjab and Sind. Or, they may have candle light vigils on Wagah border on the eve of Pak Independence Day. For this, should we have to delink terror talks from the rest?

After Sharm-el-Sheikh fiasco, a clear picture is emerging. Whatever noise UPA government made after 26/11 about tough action, the impending elections and public outcry were the prompters. Public outcry, as ever, was short-lived and it was quite evident in the election results in Mumbai constituencies. Another election is five years away. Now, we can afford to act under US pressure. That seems to be the attitude of the UPA government.

However, this does not explain the need for Balochistan finding a mention in the joint statement. Our Prime Minister says that we have nothing to hide and all our actions are transparent. So, he was not unduly worried about the mention of Balochistan. Is he so naive? Or is he trying to cover up his bungling? ISI chief who refused to come to India for talks after 26/11 has now expressed his keen desire to visit India for talks. Obviously he wants to share with India what he thinks is the evidence of Indian involvement in Balochistan and thus would like to attract international attention and to ensure level playing field on terrorism. Pakistan claims that it has already given a dossier to India containing proof of India’s involvement in “subversive activities” in Balochistan. Whether it is true or not, Pak’s purpose has been served. In future, if India talks about Pak-supported terrorism in Kashmir, Pak will point its finger at Balochistan. This is the net result of our Prime Minister’s diplomacy in Egypt.

WHAT IS SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE IS NOT SAUCE FOR THE GANDER

186 people were killed, more than 1000 injured, in ethnic violence, aka communal clash in Indian parlance, Muslims were asked not to go to the mosques for Friday prayers; instead asked to pray at home, they were not allowed to mourn their dead; no public meetings were authorised to be held; and the government vows death for the killers and alleges Al Qaeda link to the protestors, besides naming “three forces” for the deadly violence (separatists, terrorists, extremists). Turkish Prime Minister described the violence as “genocide”; Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) found fault with the government of using “disproportionate force”. Iranian clerics were also quite vociferous in condemning the violence saying that the unprotected Muslims are being mercilessly suppressed. In Indonesia, Jakarta has become the focus of protests by militant Islamist groups.

You may be wondering when such is the extent of violence against Muslims attracting world wide attention and condemnation, why are the great champions of minority rights in India, i.e. the Left is maintaining discreet silence. Yes, there is a reason for it. The ghastly violence and suppression of Muslims took place not in India, but in China – mentor nation of the CPI-M. Probably, they think it is the internal matter of China, on the lines of invasion and consequent repression in Tibet which had the backing of Indian Left. Moreover, what is great about this when under Mao’s cultural revolution millions were butchered and still Mao is a great hero and humanist for our extra-territorial loyalists like Karats and Yechuris.

The ethnic unrest and consequent ghastly violence, as a result of prolonged suppression of people’s rights and discrimination, took place in the North West China – known as Xinjiang Uighur autonomous region which is a vast region bordering Russia, Central Asian Republics, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. It has abundant oil reserves. The region once belonged to East Turkey comprising of majority Muslims, an ethnic group called Uighurs. Expansionist China which had an eye on the region’s natural gas reserves invaded the country in 1949, just a year before it invaded Tibet and drove out the Tibetans who were given political asylum by India. Before invasion, Xinjiang was known as East Turkestan. The local language was Turkic.
As there has been uprising in Tibet now and then, on account of ruthless deprivation of civil rights for the local Tibetans, Xinjiang also has been a hotbed of ethnic tension between the Muslims (Uighurs) and the Han Chinese. After annexation of Xinjiang, China did not think of any provision like our Art 370 to protect the identity of Kashmiris; on the other hand, it completely changed the demography of the region by allowing migration of Han Chinese who are now in a majority in the capital of Xinjiang – Urumqi. Urumqi’s population is 2.3 million and a majority of them are Han Chinese who are ethnically, culturally and spiritually different from the Chinese. Chinese government did not allow any religious or cultural freedom to the Uighurs. Economically also, there is a wide gap between Uighurs and Han Chinese and the Uighurs are always discriminated in terms of employment.

In fact, the clashes started when Han Chinese workers protested against sexual assault on one of their workers in a toy factory killing 2 Uighur workers. That was the spark and when Uighurs staged a demonstration, Chinese armed police cracked down on them just like they did in Tiananmen Square. Perhaps, China was rattled by the uprising of Uighurs, bitten as they were by student protest in Tiananmen, and this forced the Chinese President Hu Jinto to skip G-8 and return to his country.

Like the Dalai Lama who has been in exile for nearly six decades and struggling to get freedom for Tibetans, exiled Uighurs also formed a number of groups for liberating their country from Chinese occupation. One such leading group is US-based World Uighur Congress (WUC) and led by Rebiya Khadeer. It is alleged that atleast one Uighur separatist organisation – East Turkestan Islamic Movement – has links with Al Queda. Naturally, the Chinese government branded all those demanding liberation to terrorist groups.

Linking the Uighur separatist groups to Jihadi organisations by China has given a new twist to the issue. China has always been maintaining friendly relations with Islamic nations whether it is Shiaite Iran or Sunni Saudi and notably with Pakistan just to spite India. China’s help to Pakistan to build its nuclear arsenal is an open secret. It is not that the Communist China has any love for Islam, but to take on the West, it has been nurturing Muslim countries. It has turned the other way when Jihadi terrorism has been plaguing the entire world.

Now that Al Queda has started threatening for the first time to target Chinese interests in retaliation to the killings of Muslims in Xinjiang, China wants the cooperation of foreign governments to track down the links between East Turkestan separatists and Jihadis. Interestingly, it also strongly urged the countries to stop “indulging and supporting terrorist groups”. Does this refer to Pakistan with which it has been maintaining economic and military cooperation as a strategic ploy to isolate India? China strongly believes that the Uighur separatist groups based in Pakistan had a role in the unrest in Xinjiang.

China also believes that what was witnessed in Xinjiang is not an ethnic problem nor a religious one, but the result of three evil forces and outside enemies. China,which has been insulated all these days from Jihadi violence, except for minor attacks last year, is now tasting Islamic terrorism on a massive scale if we buy the argument of China that Urumqi violence has the backing of Jihadists. Pakistan being the hub of Al Queda, it will be interesting to watch how any continued violence in the North West of China would impact China’s relations with Pakistan.
Even the West would like to watch the fun when China engages itself with Jihadis and Islamic nations and that is the reason West reaction to Xinjiang is very subdued.

ARE WE A NATION OF RAPISTS

There seems to be a well-marked dichotomy in our social and political thoughts and behaviour. We show extreme intolerance at the social level at any sign of wrong doing. Take a road accident. If the driver of a vehicle runs over a pedestrian or rams into another vehicle resulting in fatalities, instant justice is delivered by the onlookers by thrashing the driver or torching the vehicle. If a couple of words in a film song sequence is not palatable to a certain community, there are riotous scenes before the theatres. If a patient dies in a hospital, may be due to the negligence of the medicos, the hospital concerned has to pay a heavy price and has to face the wrath of both the medical fraternity and the people at large. If the priest of a temple has a photo op with a celebrity there is protest. Instances of acid throwing on the hapless victims, which are disturbingly on the rise in Andhra Pradesh, are again signs of social intolerance.

Let’s compare this with the inexhaustible tolerance we show to certain categories of privileged people. Take the case of Kovvur MLA T V Rama Rao. Charges against him are quite serious. If it involved a lesser mortal, he would have been behind the bars long ago. But in his case, first the local police acted so casually and the MLA had the temerity to undertake a fast to prove his innocence. Probably this is one of the legacies left by Gandhiji for posterity of political blackmailers. As if this is not enough, the governor gives a patient hearing to the accused. Will he extend the same courtesy to all the rape accused?

When five girls from a neighbouring state narrated their woes to the government which included attempt to rape and threat to kill by the MLA, the TDP, the party to which Rao belongs, unabashedly comes to his rescue and defends him saying that there is a conspiracy. On one hand the political class swears by its commitment to the welfare of women and when it comes to specific issue, there is extreme insensitivity when the women allege sexual harassment. Had the MLA belonged to a rival party, the reaction of the TDP would be just the opposite.

How could a political party tolerate the alleged criminal conduct of its legislator even if it is not proved in a court of law? Instead of parroting the cliché that one is innocent till proved guilty, the party should have distanced itself from him until he is cleared of the charges. In fact, this “innocent –till- proved- guilty” theory has been thoroughly abused by many culprits to the disadvantage of the victims. Let the law take its course, we may often say. But so far as the party is concerned, there should be zero tolerance and the politicians should be above suspicion like Caesar’s wife. Rao should have been first suspended from the party and taken back only when he is proved innocent. That would have conveyed the right message to everyone.

Defence of Rama Rao is only an insult to women. Normally, women who are victims of sexual offences do not come out and report for fear of social stigma. According to available data only one out of 69 sexual offence cases is reported and of the cases reported, only 20% of the culprits get conviction. When such is the social reality and when the victims depose before the authorities, should a political party treat them with contempt and imply they are partners in conspiracy?
The TDP alone is not guilty of such misplaced tolerance. We should see the manner in which the Congress MP from Nagarkurnool M Jagannatham was making a ridiculous attempt to defend himself before the television cameras when the video footage was showing him slapping the Bank official. He also invoked his caste to make out a case that there was conspiracy against him because of his social background. How tolerant we were with him. We let him off when he offered a grudging apology. That too, only when the party high command intervened. Otherwise he would have charged the Bank official under the Prevention of atrocities against SC/ST Act. Again, we can’t help drawing a comparison. If an ordinary client were to manhandle a bank official, he would have been booked for assaulting a public servant and incarcerated.

By the way, the Bharatiya Janata Party was also guilty of not dissociating the party from Varun Gandhi, and it paid a price for its tolerance of Varun’s intemperate speech.

Rape charge or attempted rape charge against TV Rama Rao is, of course, not an exception. The media has been reporting with alarming regularity cases of rape involving different sections of society. It could be a film actor like Shiney Ahuja, or deviant security officials as in the case of Shopian in Srinagar or foreign tourists who fall easy prey to the rapists. Why, even a Swiss diplomat was abducted from the IFFI parking lot and raped in her own car. Custodial rapes by policemen are a routine occurrence. Sexual offences in the villages are always hushed up as it involves family honour. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) profiles the average rapist like this. 75% of the rapists are known to the victims, as in the case of Kovvur nursing school students, though the charge against Rao is only an attempted rape.

While discussing sexual offences, it has to be admitted, though shamefully, that India stands third in instances of rape. Of course, the US with its extremely permissive society, leads with 93,934 cases of rape, followed by South Africa with 54,920 and India with 18,359 cases in the first three quarters of 2008. This amounts of 678% increase or 8-fold increase in India since 1971, the year from which data is available. Mind you, these are only reported cases of rape. We have to multiply this number by 69 times to get the actual number. Comparison with the US must be misleading because the US society may be less inhibitive in reporting cases of sexual offence whereas in India the victims do not come out in the open to report such cases. Even in the case of Kovvur girls, they came out only when they felt that they might get justice in view of the media exposure against the MLA.

There are reports, as I write this, that the Kovvur MLA may be arrested. Whether it happens or not, it may be relevant to quote Amnesty International’s observation. It says “If a state fails to ensure law enforcement, if the behaviour of the police and judiciary leads to widespread impunity in cases of sexual violence, this has to be judged as the tolerance and acceptance of violence against women by the state”.

The State or nation’s polity should not be seen to be indulgent or tolerant of sexual offences or for that matter any crime punishable under the law committed by law makers. Any sign of defence of such people might be a wrong signal to the people at large. There must be an initial deterrent by way of dissociation with the accused rather than defence whether in the case of Jagannatham or TV Rao or Varun Gandhi

SEXUAL MINORITIES

There were two incidents some forty years ago in my native town in Tamil Nadu. One involved a deeply spiritual person who came down from a highly respected and renowned Ashram in the South. He used to conduct devotional bhajans. Everyone in the town spoke highly of his spiritual fervour. But to the surprise of everyone, he disappeared one fine morning. No one reported theft or abduction or some such criminal act. The mystery was solved a few days later when it came to light that he tried to indulge in what we now call “sexual diversity” or “alternate sex” with a teenage boy and the boy threatened to spill the beans. Unable to face the society with such an ignominy, the Ashramite ran away.

The second incident related to a temple “Paricharaka” (cook who prepares Prasadam for the deity and the devotees who was caught on the holy precinct itself while performing “oral sex” (what we now call “deep throat”) on a poor and a somewhat mentally challenged person. The cook was not only removed from temple duties, but excommunicated from the society for a shortwhile.

There is a reason for me to recall these incidents now. I am just trying to compare these incidents with what happened a couple of days ago in all the important towns in our country. We were told it was a celebration of sexual diversity. It was also called “Queer Pride Parade”. There were flags with rainbow colours, participants were wearing beautiful masks holding placards with slogans like “Proud to be Queers” “Give us the right to live, love and exist”. The group developed an acronym as well – LGBT – Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender – and they wanted to be known as “Sexual minorities”. Since “minorities” in this country are more equal than others, they perhaps wanted to have this tag. After religious minorities, linguistic minorities we now have an addition of another minority group based on the sexual preferences. We will examine after a couple of paras where this can lead to. But the point here is what was considered a social stigma some half-a-century ago has become a cause for celebration coming out of the closet as they are and parading their sexual preferences or if we may put it, perversions. This is nothing but an attempt to legitimise a social stigma making permissiveness as a sign of progressiveness.

Within a few days of the parade came, as if on cue, the Delhi High Court judgement which struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This makes sex with the same gender, I mean consensual sex, no longer an offence. What is baffling is that no one is reported to have been punished under this Act of 19th century (atleast there is no data available) and then, why this loud protest against an Act which was never invoked, but remained a dead law in the statute book. Everyone knows that such sexual perverts do exist in society from time immemorial and Sikandi of Mahabharata fame was a transgender. The State did not interfere with their sexual preferences so long as it was a private affair. Obviously, legal harassment is not one of the reasons. Because some Western countries have made gay marriages legal and gave respectability to the sexual perversion, “progressive” elements in our own society must have thought if we have to be on par with the West, we must also respect “alternate sex”.
Not surprisingly, the LGBT has received enthusiastic support from the media and the intellectual class. Like “secularism”, it has become fashionable to champion the cause of “sexual perverts”. Let me quote some of the headlines of editorials in English dailies. “Don’t dither on Sec 377”, “Reform that is long overdue”, “State should keep out of people’s religious and private lives”. After all, even Barack Obama promised the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. For a change, the Indian Left is on the bandwagon of the US President in legitimising unnatural sex.

A question is asked by the supporters of gay sex, as to who decides what is natural and what is not. By the way, what is a sexual act? According to age old definition, it is “joining of the sexual organs of a male and a female in which the erect penis of the male is inserted into the vagina of the female, usually with the ejaculation of semen into the vagina”. May be, religious fundamentalists would say any sexual intercourse should be for the purpose of procreation. But the fact is, it is only the humans who have perfected this biological necessity as a means for pleasure while animals do not indulge in it for pleasure except for chimpanzees and dolphins. Otherwise, Vatsyayana would not have ventured to do a treatise on Kama Sutra.

When we say “alternate sex” we imply that it is something different from the normally accepted definition of sexual act. Anal sex or rubbing together the genitals of the same gender cannot be considered a normal sexual act. Yes, we do have people whose DNA dictates such a perversion and it is a fact of life. That does not mean it should be paraded. Perversion is prevalent in all walks of life. Take for example, compulsive womanisers or who commit adultery or those who fornicate, or those who sodomise or the paedophiles. Some abnormality in their genes makes them commit such perverse acts. Adultery is an offence though it also comes under consensual sex. Fornication is also consensual, but religion, especially Church is opposed to it. Should adulterers, sodomites and paedophiles form into another sexual minority group seeking equal fundamental rights? One may argue that sodomy is not consensual though there is not much of a difference in the sexual act itself. In a society nearly 30% of which is living below poverty line, it is not difficult to buy “consensus” for sodomy. Are we going to legitimise it?

Talking of fundamental rights, is there any discrimination against the LGBT in terms of education, employment, or freedom of speech, freedom of movement or freedom of religion etc? Every freedom has a reasonable restriction. Freedom of movement does not enable us to move around naked on the streets because it offends the sensibilities of co-citizens, whereas you can be in your birthday suit within the four walls of your house. Art 14 (equality before law) is not applicable in such cases where your act militates against protection of public health and socially accepted morals. It has been proved that anal sex, pleasure point of LGBT, is a sure recipe for HIV/AIDS. How can such a group invoke Art 14? Since gay sex is only an aberration, let there not be any harassment against them. They are also entitled to proper treatment in case they contract dreaded diseases. But, let us not allow them to celebrate their perversion.