Tag Archives: IPC Section 377

We The People, Reclaim the Republic: Various Citizens Groups

Call given by VARIOUS CITIZENS GROUPS

As we commemorate another Republic Day, We The People proclaim that the parade of the powerful at Rajpath does not represent us. We The People, Reclaim our Republic.

As members of the LGBT community, women, workers, sex workers, students, teachers, activists, persons with disabilities, health rights activists, Dalits, indigenous people, farmers, those affected by unconstitutional military rule, we are united not as “minorities” or “others,” but as the people. We invoke the promises of the Constitution of India in our name. Our struggle will continue until all arms of the state are unwavering in their constitutional promises towards the marginalized in our society, rather than only representing the powerful.

Continue reading We The People, Reclaim the Republic: Various Citizens Groups

Section 377 and the Love with Odd Edges: Pallavi Paul

A Guest Post by PALLAVI PAUL

It is like watching an 80’s slasher film on an old VHS. The gruesomeness of mangled bodies, extra slimy trails of thick blood, intestines plastered against the screen. Parts of the image are eaten up by the glitch-ghosts that hang above them.  The erased bits , however, intensify the onset of the apocalypse instead of putting it away. It is impossible to tell whether something is happening, happened or will happen. Time is put through a particle accelerator, and what follows is a journey through a dilapidated scene of crime, with pure tone for background score.

Continue reading Section 377 and the Love with Odd Edges: Pallavi Paul

A Statement Supporting the Delhi HC Judgment on Section 377: Shivaji Panikkar

Guest post by SHIVAJI K PANIKKAR,  art historian and Dean, School of Culture & Creative Expressions, Ambedkar University, Delhi. This statement was written in the context of the teachers’ intervention in the Supreme Court in the appeal by religious groups against the Delhi High Court judgement on Section 377 . This statement does not form part of court documents.

You can read Ruth Vanita’s statement here.

I was born in a traditional, upper caste Hindu family and lived in Kerala till I was 22 years old, and since then shifted to study, work and live inBaroda,Gujarat. In 1975c I completed a B.A in Kerala with Economics and History as my subjects. InBarodathrough 1980s, at MS University I did another B.A. in Dance (Bharatanatyam), an M.A. and Ph. D in Art History as specialization. I was appointed as Professor in 1998. Till recently I was Head of Department of Art History & Aesthetics, Faculty of Fine Arts, M.S. University of Baroda. I have an experience of teaching at the University of about 25 years.

Since childhood    I knew I had homosexual inclinations, and lived it secretively till the age of about 43/45 years. Since then I lived an openly gay life; a fact that I couldn’t any more hide in my personal life as well as in my professional life. It was a matter of emotional and intellectual honesty and integrity that I accepted in public my sexual orientation, and no more live a life of fear and oppression.

Continue reading A Statement Supporting the Delhi HC Judgment on Section 377: Shivaji Panikkar

Teachers’ Intervention in the Supreme Court on Section 377

The Delhi High Court judgement reading down Section 377 to decriminalize consensual sex between adults was appealed against in the Supreme Court by several religious groups. However during the appeal, the Government of India withdrew its objections to the High Court judgement. In addition, there were some parties that intervened to support the judgement – parents, medical practitioners and teachers, among others. The Supreme Court judgement is awaited, but meanwhile, I am posting below the  position of the 16 teachers who intervened in this matter. This statement does not form part of court documents.

As teachers we essentially wanted to make the argument that Section 377 vitiates for everybody (and not just for gay people) the general atmosphere of free expression, learning, enquiry, and dignity that an academic environment should ensure.  That we oppose Sec 377 because its existence on the statute books legitimizes an atmosphere that runs counter to the spirit of openness and acceptance of difference that should mark modern academic spaces.  Its existence is not only an affront to those who are non-heterosexual, but it is an affront to each and every person in the academy who believes that every teacher and student has dignity that should be respected, and that learning is a continuous and life-long process, in which fixed ways of thinking are continuously challenged and reshaped by winds of change.

  Continue reading Teachers’ Intervention in the Supreme Court on Section 377