[First published in YouthKiAwaaz]
‘The Urban Elite v. Union of India’ is a first of its kind book on queer rights…(which)…presents the legal history of the fight for the decriminalization of Section 377, and the arguments of the petitioners pushing for their right to marry and to have families of their own.”
The blurb of the book is enough to make you want to dive right into it. The author, Rohin Bhat is a queer, non-binary lawyer who practices in the Supreme Court, and who’s work has spanned activism not just in the courtroom but also outside it. As a part of the legal team of one of the petitioners in the marriage equity case, Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India, they were present in the courtroom while both sides presented their arguments, and also when the bench delivered the verdict.
For the most part they maintain their professional detachment while describing the arguments presented by the court and the fault lines that were exposed during some of the pronouncements. However, they are not afraid to expose their emotions when the arguments get bigoted. When they say that the Supriyo Chakraborty judgement was a “judicial punch in the gut of the queer movement”, you almost recoil from the power of the punch yourself.
The book is divided into three broad sections- the history of queer rights in India, the Supriyo Chakraborty v. Union of India case, and the way forward for the queer movement in the country. The author intersperses the book with their own experiences as a queer person in India, and their personal reactions to certain incidents. This not only adds a personal touch, it helps the reader to add an emotional angle to what would otherwise have been merely an intellectual comprehension of the issue.
Some of the arguments made by the Solicitor General were extremely triggering even to someone like me who is not a member of the queer community, and I had to put the book aside because I could not go on. I cannot even fathom what the author and other members of the queer community must have felt while sitting in court and having to hear the bigoted remarks.
Many who opposed marriage equity tried to paint the petitioners as the “urban elite” who wanted the right to marry so they could create their Instagrammable wedding moments, and this was used to discredit the entire case. Nothing can be further from the truth.
People with alternate gender and sexual orientation exists in both rural and urban India, and across all socio-economic classes. More importantly, there are many practical reasons why a queer couple would want to get married. Marriage affects opening joint bank accounts, inheriting property, adopting children and also giving the person the right to take decisions on behalf of the partner.
The author gives the example of the gay couple in Kerala where one partner passed away. Even though he had been estranged from his natal family because of his sexual orientation, the High Court ruled that his body be handed over to the family. Even after the family refused to claim his body, his partner was not able to establish a relationship with him, and the body could not be handed over to him. This is exactly the sort of situation that marriage equity would help prevent. The author argues, rightly, that there are practical advantages of getting married which should not be denied to couples merely because of their sexual orientation.
Examples like this also make you question why anybody should oppose marriage equity. When giving queer people the right to get married to a person of their choice does not in any way impinge on anybody else’s rights, why should the majority deny the sexual and gender minority the right to get married? Is it hatred, is it the desire to exercise power, or is it fear that drives them?
In the section on the way forward, the author talks of the need to cement a solidarity between queer movements across the country. They talk of how the movement needs to be more inclusive and strategic in the way it moves forward. They speak of the need for better systems for the protection of sexual and gender minorities who are vulnerable to violence, of the need for horizontal reservations, and most importantly the need to work towards changing societal mindsets.
The one thing that emerges from the book is the resilience of the queer community. Homosexuality had been criminalised till 2018. Even today, despite the pronouncements made in the Supreme Court, the community continues to be stigmatised and ostracised. Not only do queer persons face discrimination, they are also vulnerable to violence from their families and from society. Yet, the community hasn’t given up hope. The day after the judgement denying queer persons the right to marry, a gay person proposed to his partner outside the Supreme Court and said “We will return to fight another day.”
The author does quote extensively from the arguments made in court and from previous judgements, and some of the legal terminology could make it hard for a person without a legal background to follow. However, the author also explains the essence of the arguments in language that a lay person can understand. They are also unafraid to display their own emotions, which makes the book far more powerful than a clinical account by an outsider could have been.
Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India rightly describes the book as “A passionate and loving celebration of the journey for the right to equality of the LGBT community.” It is an essential read if you care about social justice and believe that everybody should enjoy equal rights.
[I received a review copy from Penguin India. The views are my own.]
No comments:
Post a Comment