The Supreme Court has done India proud. On September 6, 2018, it removed a 157-year old law criminalizing same sex relationships, thereby releasing the country’s substantial LBGT community from an age-old stigma, and also from fear of imprisonment. For the many thousands and tens of thousands men and women it was Liberation Day, and they took to the streets outside the Supreme Court building in celebration of the joyous moment of thanksgiving. The court did what craven politicians were fearful of doing lest they alienated their ignorant and prejudiced vote banks. Stealing and bribing could pass muster, but not social tolerance based on medical science. Alas, the gulf between words and deeds in India’s political space will remain with us, as they will in advanced countries, notably the United States, whose governments extol freedom for all humankind yet seeks to drive those of whom they disapprove into bondage, political and economic. The name of the game is hypocrisy writ large.
The Supreme Court much to India’s pride is now the guarantor of the civil rights and freedoms enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It has prevented censorship of films, upheld the rights of creative writers to publish their work without fear or favour [See Media Watch, page 12 for recent case involving a Tamil author].
Returning to the LGBT case, the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in an unanimous 5-0 judgment of 493 pages struck down the infamous Section 377 of more than a century ago, and a two-judge court verdict of 2013 defending the 377 law was overturned. The Supreme Court upheld the right of consensual same sex couples the rightto sexual activity in private.
Extracts from the judgment of Supreme Court judges are well worth quoting. Chief Justice Dipak Misra: ‘I am what I am. So take me as I am.’ (Quote from the great German writer and philosopher Goethe).
‘What is the order of nature? State cannot decide the boundaries between what is permissible or not. Section 377 is based on deep-rooted gender stereotypes.’ Justice D.Y. Chandrachaud.
‘History owes an apology to members of the community for the delay in ensuring their rights.’ Justice Indu Malhotra
‘When the state has no compelling reason to penalise same sex couples who cause no harm to others, it is a violation of fundamental rights.’ Justice R.F Narriman.
This is not the end of the story but its beginning, one that promises hope and fulfillment. Legislation eases free discussion and, over time, opens the doors of understanding and thence, growing acceptance across society. A video from Malaysia of two young lesbians being caned in public was a shaming sight, so was something similar in Indonesia.
Asia has a long and difficult road to travel, as India once did and still does. India’s candle hopefully may light the way to unfettered private and public debate beyond sexuality into the frequently forbidden zones of human rights, democracy, based on the rule of law.
India-US 2+2 dialogue fruitful
The keenly awaited India-US dialogue between External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and their American counterparts, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary General James Mattis was a fruitful and productive exercise going forward. The threatening noises emanating from certain more junior members of the Trump Administration targeting India on its relations with Russia were nowhere in evidence during the talks. Perhaps they were psychological ploys to soften up the two Indian women ministers. If so, the calculation failed to yield the desired results. Indian women are often made of sterner mettle than Indian men. Think of Indira Gandhi standing up to President Richard Nixon and his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger in 1971-72.
The far-reaching outcomes of the present dialogue were pleasing to both sides. Even The Times of India – the foremost media voice for a closer Indo-US strategic alignment - argued against excessive US pressure on India to abide by US sanctions against Russia and Iran. However, the paper accepted unquestioningly Washington’s stand on Ukraine and Crimea. It would have behoved the Times leader writer to acknowledge that India has not, does not, cleave to the US narrative on Ukraine, Syria or Crimea. Why so? Because it was the Obama Administration’s brazen intervention in Kiev and the overthrow of a democratically elected Ukrainian government, and its substitution with a pliant American-sponsored regime has back-fired spectacularly. The sight and sounds of then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland mouthing obscenities during the choreographed mob violence in Maidan, with EU leaders in tow, was captured on television and broadcast around the world. Crimea rejoined the Russian Federation following a referendum witnessed by a number of Austrian members of the European Parliament, the scale of the majority scarcely surprising since the vast majority of the Crimean population were overwhelmingly Russian. All that has tragically followed must be laid at the door of the Nobel Peace laureate Barack Obama. Such is the historical canvas of contemporary developments.
We return, thus, to the present the 2+2 India-US dialogue. It was a broad success because both sides willed it so in their national interest. India will acquire certain critical American technologies. The statement at the conclusion of the talks included India’s accession to the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) of 2002 and the four foundational agreements
With the US had been mooting these arrangements for years. India had already signed two of these – the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) in 2002 and the Logistics Exchange Agreement (LEMOA) in 2006) The first deal was struck under the BJP regime of Atal Birai Vajpayee, the second by its successor Congress regime presided over by Dr Manmohan Singh, thus reflecting a broad two-party national consensus.
Under the COMCASA, the US will transfer critical equipment for encryptioned communications for US platforms such as the C-17, C-130 and P-81aircraft. This comes into immediate effect, and will be valid for ten years.
Indian officials said the government had negotiated an India-specific agreement and ‘specific additional provisions had been incorporated in the text to safeguard security and the national interests of both parties.
‘While the text of the COMCASA is confidential, we have ensured that we have full access to the relevant equipment and therefore there will be no disruptions. Data acquired through such systems cannot be disclosed or transferred to any person or entity without India’s consent. Both countries will implement this agreement in a manner that is consistent with the national security interests of the other,’ said an official Indian source.
India and US will hold their first ever tri-services on the east coast of India in 2019. Also on the cards are projects of joint innovation and research in new defence systems and their co-production. The US has promised full cooperation in controlling and eliminating Pakistan-sponsored terrorism on Indian soil. The US called upon Pakistan to arrest those responsible for the terrorist assault on Mumbai on 26 November 2008.
China has accepted the India-US accord as a normal exchange between two states, while by Sitaram Yechury, head of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), denounced it as a sellout.
Cricket a team game
Team India came, they saw, and, unlike Julius Caesar’s Roman legions, were conquered by the local Britons.. India’s cricket board, its selectors and media pundits, were in a comfort zone endorsing alleged batting stars turned out to be extinct black holes. Indulgence was referred to as faith, hence Hardik Pandya, except for the solitary Fourth Test match at Nottingham, failed abjectly with both bat and ball, as he has done facing international cricket’s top sides. Shekhar Dhawan, a one day batsman at best, was hailed repeatedly by Indian commentators for his revised technique - head over ball, bat close to pad as a second line of defence – as his second coming. No sooner was this pearl of wisdom displyed than the hero was departing to the pavilion, falling to the moving ball in the slips. Pujara and, to a lesser extent, Rahane, shone intermittently; only the polar star, Virat Kohli, the world’s premier batsman, kept India’s hopes alive. It has been a dismal performance. The guff about invincible batsmen has been indecently exposed. The cricket establishment’s embrace of mediocrity must end forthwith. Young stars, waiting in the wings, must be given their opportunity centre-stage. The junk on view must be discarded.
India’s pace bowlers performed wondrously well, while slip catching was outstanding on the whole. Some honour can be redeemed with a sturdy performance in the final Test match at the Oval, but this seems highly unlikely after another pathetic Indian display on the second day. It’s all over bar the shouting - a familiar Indian tale, alas.
