https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIGO%2F2018%2F07%2F21&entity=Ar00408&sk=56FE6D80&mode=text
With routinely impeccable timing, Sachin Chatte of the Entertainment Society of Goa made another brilliant selection last week for the Thursday screening for the Goa Cinephiles club at the Maquinez Palace in Panjim. This was 2016’s ‘Aligarh’, based on the true story of Ramachandra Siras, who was sacked from the faculty of Aligarh Muslim University “on moral grounds” after his sexuality was exposed. Though the university actions were later revoked, the unfortunate academic was manipulated and tormented, then found dead. As the movie noted, the backdrop to these events was the intense legal struggle over Section 377 of the Indian Penal code, written by the British colonial administration in 1861 to criminalize sexual activity “against the order of nature.” Chatte chose superbly well because another formidable case against Section 377 is right now in front of a five-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India. And, rather remarkably, the prevailing cultural headwinds that obstructed progress for so many decades seem to have dissipated. From religious leaders to politicians to students en masse, Indians have decisively shifted towards acceptance of homosexuality. Apurva Asrani, the writer of Aligarh and part-time Goa resident, attended the screening last week, and immediately afterwards exulted on Facebook, “I was thrilled to see a packed house for #Aligarhin Panjim. We had a charged discussion about #Sec377 & the Supreme Court hearings, and it felt like every single person in that hall was on the side of justice.” It’s a curious place to have reached in India’s smallest state, as Asrani himself pointed out via email a couple of days later, “One doesn’t see homosexuality being discussed in the Goan mainstream as much as it happens in Bombay, Delhi or Bangalore. Also, most of the gay men I have met here have been closeted, and I’ve wondered if this is because the church is opposed to homosexuality the world over. So yes, I was a bit nervous to screen the film for a Goan audience, but I soon realised that the fears stemmed from my own ignorance. The people in that hall were cultured and sensitive and asked many relevant questions. I felt like I was wrapped in a protective embrace by their energy.” It is true the current Supreme Court case is fought by three fringe Christian groups who cite both the Bible and Manusmriti in their arguments. But they are not backed by the Catholic Church, which has decisively shifted on this issue after Pope Francis said in 2013, “If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him? You should not discriminate against or marginalise these people.” This is underlined by Cardinal Oswald Gracias, president of the Episcopal Confenence of India, who says “the Church teaches that homosexuals have the same dignity as every human being and condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse.” Around the country, many Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu leaders echo similar stances, as public opinion polls reflect cultural consensus against discrimination based on sexuality. How does such a dramatic change in opinion take place across hundreds of millions of people, extending rapidly across countries and continents? One answer could be that we are finally seeing the impact of the millennial generation on the national political culture. In India, this vast cohort of youth coming of age in the early 21stcentury is the largest single generation ever produced by any country in the history of the world, and already a whopping 50% of the working population. They are wired, connected and empowered, as well as restless, ambitious, and globally open-minded in thinking and outlook. In the wake of their impact, you can now probably expect a whole series of archaic colonial-era laws to crumble and disappear, including Section 497 on adultery (which absurdly only applies to men) and Section 295A against blasphemy (which is routinely misapplied to curb freedom of expression).