It gives me immense pleasure and satisfaction to announce that our government, founded generously on the principle of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikaas, Sabka Vishvaas” has, ever so befittingly, taken a crystal-clear stand on the existence of LGBTQIA+ as, ‘Ahan, Karen, not applicable.’
Mind me you, dear reader, this is the same country that is referred to as ‘the global power’ in the present day. This is the same country that is determined to pick up the pace and shine as ‘USD 5 trillion economy’ in the coming years. This is the same country that has two beleaguered airlines- what? Came out of nowhere? Still, better than coming out of the closet, maybe?
The Central Government filed its response to the case that sought legalisation of same-sex marriages and has made its stand clear that ‘same-sex marriages are impermissible because they don’t fit into the pre-defined structure of the society.’ Well, so didn’t BJP back in the consecutive INC regimes until 1977, but it eventually materialised into a strong government, right?
Let me clarify this before we venture any deeper, any further. The writer is not disposed towards any political party. Rather, this is an account being written by a human rights activist-cum-lawyer against the deliberate blind eye that has been turned by ‘the lotus’ to ‘the muck’ that it emerged from. The 'muck'? Yes, the metaphor for ‘us,’ ‘the common people.’ The same ‘common people’ who don’t vote on the basis of gender or identification, but are treated differently because of the very same criterion. The same ‘common people’ who realised later that the fundamental right of ‘equality’ is not as available as it sounds. ‘Common people,’ who now are in wake and understanding of the fact that, no, they are not so ‘common.’
The response of the ‘government’ was unsurprisingly anti-LGBTQIA+, but we shall deal with it later. First, let us deal with the pillars that this country’s future is relying upon- the children.
Merely children born to a legally wedded man and a woman are ‘children’? And what about orphans, children having single-parent, children born from assisted-reproductive techniques? Bereft of their existence, all in one stroke?
Questions. Questions are all I have.
How is a small innocent life supposed to 'squarely fit' into this RSPV criterion of orthodoxy? How correct is it to expect a child to look up for validity of their existence according to the gender of their parents? How lop-sided is this void and blatantly ignorant analysis of a child? Accordingly, only descendants born to both medical practitioners must be given the right to practise medicine? Descendants born to musicians only must be handed over the guitar. Descendants born to the Prime Minister must be given the- oops, touché.
On a side note, what if I asked you your two most important people in the history of the world? For me, until yesterday: one, I’d have said would be the first woman ever, who agreed to bear kids to a man, and two, Mr. Warren Teitelman, the man who invented ‘undo,’ and ‘redo’ back in 1971.
But today, I’d rather say that the most important people ever were Madbury and Madison. The plaintiff and defendant of the case where Justice Marshall strongly invoked the irregular concept of judicial review and vested it inalienably with the courts.
Dear reader, Dr. Ambedkar wasn’t exaggerating when he quoted Art. 32 to be the “life and soul of the Indian Constitution.” Maybe I feel it, and you don’t. It is absolutely fine. We both have our opinions and we agree to disagree. But it gets problematic when your non-understanding is what you want me to agree with. It doesn’t get problematic when you can’t understand it. But it does get problematic when you don’t want to understand it.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court is the Kurukshetra of this Mahabharata, where once again, those related to each other are fighting. One side is fighting to protect its rights, and the other is fighting rightfully to plead the right to suppress, oppress, strand, bound, gag, silent, and throw a community down the roadway.
We all know where this fight is headed to. The Centre opposed striking down of Sec. 377 back in 2018 and lost. To be honest, that day I couldn’t control my pulse in college. My stomach was twisting in nervousness and my mouth went parching dry every few minutes. I wasn’t listening to the lectures, I wasn’t paying heed to my friends’ useless discussions (usually, I am the one who assumes the lead therein). All I had in my head was,
“how legitimate is it for a group of people sitting in the Parliament- who don’t even know me, who I haven’t even voted for, who I barely even know the number, names, and portfolios of!- to decide if I get to live as a ‘normal’ human or a ‘criminal’?”
And that is the same question that I ask today. Who? How? With what capacity?
You might be sovereign of your land, sire, the only person who has sovereignty on my body, my identity is me. You could choose to validate my identity in your territory with a malfunctioning National Identity Registry- COOL BY ME, but you don’t--- let me have the honor of enunciating it--- DO NOT have the discretion of 'validating' my being, my existence, and my feelings when all those they concern are me.
BECAUSE, sir/madam/mx.
My marriage is MY marriage, NONE of YOUR marriage.
Read that again.
This article has been written by Mr. Nishant Tiwari, a fourth-year law student from the Army Institute of Law, Mohali.