Liked reading this. Reminded of another article where the author's position is "What I suggest in this essay is that the route of the PIL to achieving ‘gay liberation’ in India and the responses to the decision of the High Court reveal the priorities of a upper-class, and upper- caste English speaking group within the country. The path of this group, not surprisingly seems to twine with that of the rightist Nationalist forces that have in recent years increasingly laid siege to the project of the Indian Republic endangering in particular the security of minority groups within it."
I donot agree with this position fully, but when I read Grover I could see that there is point in Jason's warning of an exclusionary upper middle class ethos. He says "A good amount of the rhetoric around the gay movement in India has been about a solidarity in the liberation of the subaltern. To more sensitive audiences, the strongest argument has always been the fact that 377 is used by policemen to intimidate and harass subaltern men, or sex-workers soliciting MSM clients. To be sure, this was one of the significant arguments with which the Naz Foundation approached the Delhi High Court. The question we need to ask in the context of the decision is whether the reading down of the Section will result in an end to this harassment and liberation for this group. This conclusion seems shaky. The impact of the decision will be to allow queer people to have sex freely in private spaces." <http:// dervishnotes.blogspot.com/2009/08/dilemma-after-decision-strays- thoughts.html> Now when I read Grover's writing. > > But one has to admit that the question about the reasons for the > success cannot be answered easily, as, after the event, hindsight > always colours one's response. But answer we must. And we have to > attempt to answer that as honestly as possible so that lessons drawn > can be applied elsewhere. This has become especially important now > when there are people writing about this case, who are distorting > history. Who are these people distorting history? Is there only one history? More over who has the privilage to 'write' 'history'. But after reading the whole article, I think this is also an attempt at another distorted history which puts Lawyers collective at the focal point than the community. What were the community thinking? what is their role? which community? Only gay men? Or only lgbt people? what about child right groups, health groups, women's groups etc which were part of the litigation process. He wanted to include > whoever wanted to help in the fight unlike the present day activists > who have, sadly, become exclusive in their approach. Stop blaming please !! > Secondly, some groups from the community objected to filing the > petition without consulting them. That was painful. We tried to > explain that it was only the initial filing and the community would be > involved in the key decision-making. Fortunately over a period of time > we were able to fulfill that promise and at every turn we had > community consultations to decide how to move ahead. This is fuuny yo see that the groups objection was painful to Lawyers Collective. Why so? If something is done in the name or for the community, then isn't it important to consult them as well? > The third was facing the challenge from the opposition. JACK (Joint > Action Council Kannur), the group who intervened in the Petition to > oppose it, filed a Bar Council complaint against me arguing that we > were misusing the judicial process as not only had we written about > the issue in our magazine, but also organized a workshop where judges > attended and the issue had been discussed. They pointed to the NHRC > workshop, which was attended by its Chair, Justice JS Verma, the > retired Chief Justice of India. The matter took a toll on me and it > was dismissed after about two years and I came out stronger. > > The lows in the journey > > Like all journeys it has had its trials and tribulations and its highs and > lows. > > The first major low was the Delhi High Court dismissing the petition > on technical grounds, that Naz did not have the locus standi to file a > petition, as it was not directly affected. Worse than that was the > fact that the Review got dismissed in less than 5 minutes. We felt > very bad that day. > > The other low was the divisions, which started emerging within the > diverse groups who supported the petition. Some of the groups never > took kindly to Naz Foundation India taking up the case in the first > place, as it was not a gay group but an HIV support group. This became > pronounced later on in the case. > > On the intellectual front, we faced criticism on two issues. One, that > the petition should not have raised the privacy issue at all, as that > was anti-thetical to the practice of gay men for whom, according to > argument, privacy had no meaning. I relied on my good sense and the > precedent of the South African Constitutional Court, which rejected > precisely this argument. This is contradictory. How can one rely on 'one's' good sense to understand what community need, without asking them? > The other was the criticism by some that the petition was too heavily > based on HIV. Again I realized that HIV was a key issue and a weak > point in the Government armoury and we should exploit it. That became > apparent when the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) filed its > affidavit, supporting our stand on HIV and decriminalization, and > contradicting the stand of the Home Ministry. Any lawyer worth his > salt will tell you never to give up an argument, more so on > ideological grounds. Grounds in law are like tools. You should use > them they way you want to. I decided to stick to that argument. > > Another low has been the deepening divisions in the movement. We > welcomed the Voices Against 377 group joining the fight primarily > because all who want to fight should join it. However it became clear > that the camaraderie and communication that existed has given way to > scoring points about who did things better. This does not augur well > for the movement. Isn't it true that Lawyers collective is part of 'voices against 377' coalition? Or is Voices a group as Anand Grover says? > ... and the highs > > First, we in the team were prepared for the long haul. Issues like > these are not for fly by night operators, of whom there are a plenty. > Secondly we were able to train the team in the Collective to go for a > win. Of course you don't win every case and therefore lawyers must be > trained for both, to bear a loss as also as for adulation in case of a > win. But you must fight only to win. The team also worked very well on > the arguments and we were able to produce high quality work. > > The other great thing was that throughout the journey we were able > consult the community on the course to take at each turn, e.g. when we > lost in the High Court, when the Supreme decided in our favor, and > just before the Court took up the case finally. On all occasions we > consulted a wide section of the community. > > Again when the Supreme Court directed the Delhi High Court to decide > the matter on merits was a great turning point. Yet another was when > NACO filed an affidavit in our favor. > > Then again when, the signature campaign to support the case of > decriminalization, though risky, came through. Well-known authors like > Amartya Sen and Vikram Seth signed on. It was at that time I realized > that tide in the public mind was turning in our favor. Who did this signature campaign? I think it was a Voices against 377 initiative. > The greatest high is undoubtedly the final judgment. More so because > it accepted all of our arguments, which dealt with, especially on > ground of "sex" interpreting it to include sexual orientation. > > The impact of the judgment > > The Court has the broken the shackles of criminalization gripping LGBT > groups, who have attained a new freedom. A new era has dawned in > India. As the judgment underscores, it is the dignity and inclusion > that we have captured. It has lessons for other sectors beyond the > LGBT community. India will be richer by this judgment. It will also > make sure that we are able to deliver HIV services without fear. It > will also have repercussions in all parts of the world, particularly > the Commonwealth countries, which have replicated 377 in their > criminal statutes. > > The battle has been won. However, the war still remains to be won. > Some parties have approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme refused to > stay the order and judgment of the Supreme Court. That battle has > still to be won. The ultimate war is for minorities to be treated > without discrimination on all counts. That is a very long war. Only > those who passionately believe in the just cause that we are fighting > will stay on for the long haul. > > What does the present portend for the future... > > When we first started nobody was prepared to take up the case. Now all > that has changed, though not completely. The case gave impetus to the > movement for rights of sexual minorities. That is a very good thing. Is it true that section 377 case gave impetus to the movement for the rights of sexual minorities? What about Hijra groups which opposed the verdict? What about lesbian women's groups which have no mentioning in this article? > However, there is a tendency in some quarters to say that gay issues > are not a matter where non-gays have a right to enter. The latest > manifestation of this is the gay pride march in Mumbai where > "non-LGBT" groups have been excluded from any role in the organizing > of the march. That is unfortunate. Firstly, if that is what one has to > go by it is debatable whether this case would have been taken at all > up even in this decade. Very Very wrong. Why non community people should be part of organising a pride? Organising an event in the name of queer community should be done by queer community. Participation could be open to everybody. The writer should also understand that all communities are territorial on certain matter. Thats what makes the community. Clearly there are insiders and outsiders in a community. I donot see it as a big deal if non queers are not to be part of organising a community event. Moreover though there are a lot of gay > activists now, and that is partly because of the mobilization in the > case, there is still reluctance to be out fully and go to court in > one's own name. Is this true, that because of 377 work there are more activists? I donot think this is the case. > > The divisions in the movement are becoming sharper. Some persons for > egotistical reasons want to belittle the work by one group and only > highlighting the work done by the other. This again does not augur > well for the movement. The key issue is not to start the debate about > who did the work. That may be good for making funding applications. > But it does not help the struggle. As the battle to win the rights > sharpens it is important to be united in the battlefront and draw in > everybody in an inclusive manner. This paragraph is very thought provoking. But the writer doesnt seem to believe in that. When talking about section 377 and struggles around it, he could only mention gay groups. Where are transgenders, lesbian women and other progressive groups which participated in the campaign? His logic goes on to say , after telling all about Lawyers collective, that who did is not important. I think inclusion comes when we acknowledge others. I think this contradiction, on the one hand using terms like 'I', to talk about the case work and at the same time talking of inclusive politics comes from the typical NGO position. Otherwise why Voices Against 377, the community work etc not mentioned here? > Surprisingly after winning in the High Court there is a lot of > pessimism being shown by persons. Not surprisingly they are the same > persons who never thought we would win. They don't seem to have faith > in the cause. It needs to be stressed that when we go to battle > consciously we must believe that our cause is just and that we will be > victorious in the end. That our cause is just is the biggest weapon we > have. Pessimism after a great battle won only shows lack of faith. > That is the biggest lesson of this long drawn out case. > > Anand Grover > > Director, Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lgbtdiscuss" group. To post to this group, send email to lgbtdiscuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lgbtdiscuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lgbtdiscuss?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
