When the British landed on the shores of India, they brought with them the eventual colonisation of India, along with the “gift” of Victorianism. In Britain, this followed the period of the Industrial Revolution, which, in the starkest terms, saw the replacement of women in the industrial sector by machines. This was also a time that brought with it more concrete gender distinctions. Do note, “gender” is not the same as “sex”. Gender is a sociological term, one that is constructed by society. Ideas that “women are weaker” or “women can’t take up public office” constitute the basic examples of the same. It is basically a system limiting their role and abilities that could have help them stand out in society. “Sex”, on the other hand, refers to certain biological differences, and there aren’t very many of these. For instance, it is typically women, not men, who can give birth. Very often, you would hear people advancing the argument that women are “biologically weaker:. There may be biological differences between the two sexes, but none so extensive that you can so specifically declare that this is the case.
In the Victorian period, gender roles became more constricting, and even those women who occupied public space, as in Britain, were stripped of their status. Yet, appreciation where it is due. The era did quite improve the state of women in India. Practices like sati were abolished, while the taboo around widow remarriage was dealt with.
This was accompanied by the British idea of an ‘ideal family structure’, according to which a family should only comprise of a man, his woman, and their children. Anything other than this would be ‘abnormal’ and could not be condoned. Consequently, in the 19th century, such ideas, countering the concept of liberalism, were popularised and supported. This structure was thus normalised, and families based on the love between two men or two women seemed unacceptable. Such desires—to be with people of the same sex or to be attracted to both the sexes, for instance—were seen as whimsical phases in people’s lives. People failed to acknowledge the fact that sexual orientation wasn’t a choice, but a reality.
Almost two centuries later, the colonised still live under the ideological vision of their colonisers. For decades, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code cemented this belief by stating “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.” The taboo surrounding sexual activities except those considered to be “natural” were hence punishable by law. So if a man was found to be in a relationship with another man, and had then been threatened by his neighbours about the same, then even reaching out to the police would be utterly pointless, considering that they were indulging in something “unnatural” and hence illegal.
The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India on September 6, 2018, sought to challenge just this notion that refused the right to equal treatment to many of India’s citizens. This marked a significant victory for the entire LGBTQ community that had been seeking equal representation and rights for decades. It gave this community the protection by law that they needed to live life as equal citizens in the Union of India.
Yet by no means is this the time to rejoice and put this issue aside. The representation and the legal protection that this helped the community achieve is only a part of the solution. A greater barricade still stands to impede their rights—society.
The Constituent Assembly of India wanted to give members of all religious groups equal rights and status in India. Almost 70 years have passed and still violence against minorities—religious or otherwise—happens, and it is on the rise. This violence is not only limited to these minorities but also other citizens who choose not to align themselves with the ideology of the party in power, those who are critical of this very party, or even the nation on the whole. Yet, even so, parties come and go; the impunity granted to extremists given and revoked.
What then remains is society, and, to my eyes, this society constitutes the greater threat. Conservative views remain regardless of the party at the Centre. Education, as a whole, is an answer, but only one. What may be taught to the students may be something opposing the liberal ideology that emphasises on the wants and needs of the individual. In the current CBSE curriculum, no subject speaks extensively, if at all, about the rights of the LGBTQ community. Obviously, the solution that then arises is that there be proper education on these matters that directly affect individuals. But even such a plan is far from simple and can take years to implement.
What does not, however, take as much time, is to ensure that if there is a hate crime or any savage act of violence then the perpetrator be duly charged for it; that such an act doesn’t go unpunished and that even if I stand against a certain belief, I don’t harm the other person to prove my point.
What will take even less time is for you, the readers, to show tolerance—I am not asking you to go out in the streets and campaign for rights (although that would be appreciable), but just to be able to tolerate people as they want to be. If you feel violated by a person’s choices and who they wish to be or are, then in a civil manner talk to them and others about it. Tell them why you do not agree to what they’re doing, but do not employ violence to “show them their place”.
This, I hope, is a change you will fight for; a tolerance that the ‘Father of the Nation’ would be proud of on his upcoming 150th birthday.