Those who are frothing at the mouth seem to think that he is weird, strange.This is being parroted in the international media, always looking out for niche markets.
I mean, there is so much hypocrisy in the discussions over Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad’s recent comments that most people forget to notice the fine line – his emphasis was on men having sex with men (MSM) as a “disease” and not so much on the gay community socially.
I would so like to join in the parade of righteous indignation, but what if the minister had said impotency among heterosexuals is a disease or straight women with sagging libido are frigid? There have been several recent cases where prominent men have been termed “sex addicts”. They all happen to be involved with women. When did you hear of such a slur against gay men or women, where monogamy is less evident for whatever reasons?
Azad called homosexuality “unnatural”. It is not, and it is a choice. But not always. Sometimes it is conditioning or childhood experiences that affect an individual. It is amazing, though, that gays who talk about being born so push the 'choice' agenda. It is indeed likely that Azad as health minister needs to be more understanding and not publicly rebuke a group, even if it is to underscore the importance of dealing with HIV/AIDs. But, is it not a fact that the gays are themselves concerned about the spread of the disease?
As the minister said:
Despite decriminalisation, we still hear of cases where gay couples in small towns are ostracised and abused. Incidentally, this happens to couples from different religions and castes as well. Has the community gone beyond its urban base? Has the legal openness helped large sections of unrecognised gays?
It is easy to call a person like Azad homophobic. A well-known gay activist had gone on record to say that during the initial 'finding his orientation’ period, he felt being intimate with a woman was like making love to a cow.
I have said it often that since the gay community’s identity is sexual it rarely involves itself in other issues and even the ills among its members – like paedophilia, incest, rape, and promiscuity.
Of course, Azad’s reference to homosexuality as a foreign import was stupid:
But take a look at how the media here is covering the ‘controversy’ – you have the usual suspects out, the foreign-obsessed elite, and designer Rohit Bal has given the example of New York’s recent gay marriage laws and how as a global nation we cannot afford to lag behind. The United States got voting rights late in its life; it had its first Black president in 2008 and no woman in the top post yet. It discriminates on several counts against many groups. So, why does India need to mimic any other nation?
Ah, someone will bring out ancient texts, include the Baburnama and images of sculptures on temples. Others will quote Freud and Ellis (looks like Masters and Johnson are passé). Good. How does it affect perceptions? Freud spoke about the Oedipus Complex, so should we not run down mamma’s boys and if there are dowry harassment cases analyse it psychologically as the umbilical cord just asking for a Honda City or whatever?
You can get Ghulam Nabi Azad to apologise or even resign, but things won’t change (including the out-of-work straight Celina Jaitley as gay icon) at the ground level unless the ground level does something. Azad need not have attempted a lame ‘misquoted’ clarification. He should have held a meeting with gay groups and asked how many of them have had to struggle to be accepted and how many of their families still consider it unnatural and why is it that in the metro mainstream media there are sex advice columns that have questions from young people wanting to know whether it is unnatural to be attracted to another man. It is pertinent to point out here, as I have done always, that gay women are rarely counted not only by ‘outsiders’ but also within the homosexual community. (Interestingly, the sexologists warn against anal sex due to infection when straight persons pose such queries.)
One activist has started a campaign:
Families are not going to listen to Ghulam Nabi Azad. Kashmiris did not listen to him, so why would a group as spread out as this do so? And what the campaigners say is essentially what he said about identifying the MSMs. They will not go into hiding because of his statements since the law is on their side now.
The moot point is that while there are some organisations that do address the real issues and have helplines, quite a bit of gay sex is illicitly conducted. It would be better if the activists were to invite Mr. Azad on a tour of the last train that leaves Churchgate station and of the public urinals. And has any activist group done something about the stones./bricks that are used by some people who need to clean every drop of pee and then place it back and they are used by others?
These are way more important than quack-quacking over some remarks made by a politician.
If I will be dismissed as homophobic for what I have said – something the gay community is quick to do with regard to any questioning of the bells and whistles any choice comes with – then I wonder whether that qualifies them as heterophobic, an unrecognised word.
PS: I forgot to add that little liberal ditty: Some of my best friends are gay.
(c) Farzana Versey
I mean, there is so much hypocrisy in the discussions over Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad’s recent comments that most people forget to notice the fine line – his emphasis was on men having sex with men (MSM) as a “disease” and not so much on the gay community socially.
I would so like to join in the parade of righteous indignation, but what if the minister had said impotency among heterosexuals is a disease or straight women with sagging libido are frigid? There have been several recent cases where prominent men have been termed “sex addicts”. They all happen to be involved with women. When did you hear of such a slur against gay men or women, where monogamy is less evident for whatever reasons?
Azad called homosexuality “unnatural”. It is not, and it is a choice. But not always. Sometimes it is conditioning or childhood experiences that affect an individual. It is amazing, though, that gays who talk about being born so push the 'choice' agenda. It is indeed likely that Azad as health minister needs to be more understanding and not publicly rebuke a group, even if it is to underscore the importance of dealing with HIV/AIDs. But, is it not a fact that the gays are themselves concerned about the spread of the disease?
As the minister said:
“We have managed to bring down the prevalence of HIV among truckers, drug users and sex workers, but the prevalence remains high among MSM. That’s because we don’t know where to find them and how to prevent them from getting infected.”
Despite decriminalisation, we still hear of cases where gay couples in small towns are ostracised and abused. Incidentally, this happens to couples from different religions and castes as well. Has the community gone beyond its urban base? Has the legal openness helped large sections of unrecognised gays?
It is easy to call a person like Azad homophobic. A well-known gay activist had gone on record to say that during the initial 'finding his orientation’ period, he felt being intimate with a woman was like making love to a cow.
I have said it often that since the gay community’s identity is sexual it rarely involves itself in other issues and even the ills among its members – like paedophilia, incest, rape, and promiscuity.
Of course, Azad’s reference to homosexuality as a foreign import was stupid:
"Unfortunately this disease has come to our country too ... where a man has sex with another man, which is completely unnatural and should not happen, but does."
But take a look at how the media here is covering the ‘controversy’ – you have the usual suspects out, the foreign-obsessed elite, and designer Rohit Bal has given the example of New York’s recent gay marriage laws and how as a global nation we cannot afford to lag behind. The United States got voting rights late in its life; it had its first Black president in 2008 and no woman in the top post yet. It discriminates on several counts against many groups. So, why does India need to mimic any other nation?
Ah, someone will bring out ancient texts, include the Baburnama and images of sculptures on temples. Others will quote Freud and Ellis (looks like Masters and Johnson are passé). Good. How does it affect perceptions? Freud spoke about the Oedipus Complex, so should we not run down mamma’s boys and if there are dowry harassment cases analyse it psychologically as the umbilical cord just asking for a Honda City or whatever?
You can get Ghulam Nabi Azad to apologise or even resign, but things won’t change (including the out-of-work straight Celina Jaitley as gay icon) at the ground level unless the ground level does something. Azad need not have attempted a lame ‘misquoted’ clarification. He should have held a meeting with gay groups and asked how many of them have had to struggle to be accepted and how many of their families still consider it unnatural and why is it that in the metro mainstream media there are sex advice columns that have questions from young people wanting to know whether it is unnatural to be attracted to another man. It is pertinent to point out here, as I have done always, that gay women are rarely counted not only by ‘outsiders’ but also within the homosexual community. (Interestingly, the sexologists warn against anal sex due to infection when straight persons pose such queries.)
One activist has started a campaign:
“Did the minister consider the consequences his statements would have on persons who are struggling with their sexual orientation and having to deal with family pressure and society’s ridicule. It will be difficult to reach out to men who have sex with men (MSM) and encourage them to seek help if the health minister himself is making such statements.”
Families are not going to listen to Ghulam Nabi Azad. Kashmiris did not listen to him, so why would a group as spread out as this do so? And what the campaigners say is essentially what he said about identifying the MSMs. They will not go into hiding because of his statements since the law is on their side now.
The moot point is that while there are some organisations that do address the real issues and have helplines, quite a bit of gay sex is illicitly conducted. It would be better if the activists were to invite Mr. Azad on a tour of the last train that leaves Churchgate station and of the public urinals. And has any activist group done something about the stones./bricks that are used by some people who need to clean every drop of pee and then place it back and they are used by others?
These are way more important than quack-quacking over some remarks made by a politician.
If I will be dismissed as homophobic for what I have said – something the gay community is quick to do with regard to any questioning of the bells and whistles any choice comes with – then I wonder whether that qualifies them as heterophobic, an unrecognised word.
PS: I forgot to add that little liberal ditty: Some of my best friends are gay.
(c) Farzana Versey
2 comments:
I bet you would have unwrapped a different set of arguments had this been uttered by a Hindoo. For the reference, being gay is not a choice. Parroting silly arguments is. Azad gets a passover because he is a Muslim.
I can bet your knowledge of homosexuality is limited to Brokeback Mountain (or is it Dostana?) Your comment is a pathetic attempt to bring in the Muslim here - and my supposed stand. I do not need to clarify anything to you, but for those who are interested in the subject, my views have remained the same about certain aspects of the elitist gay community. I have been criticised for it, and from the POV of those within I accept it, although don't understand it.
The ignorant do not even know that there are gay Muslims everywhere, including India where Mr. Azad was holding fort.
A reading of the piece will also reveal quite clearly what I said regarding choice:
Azad called homosexuality “unnatural”. It is not, and it is a choice. But not always. Sometimes it is conditioning or childhood experiences that affect an individual. It is amazing, though, that gays who talk about being born so push the 'choice' agenda. It is indeed likely that Azad as health minister needs to be more understanding and not publicly rebuke a group, even if it is to underscore the importance of dealing with HIV/AIDs. But, is it not a fact that the gays are themselves concerned about the spread of the disease?
If anyone wishes to counteract what I am saying, at least read it first. Or, is the response on auto-pilot mode always?
Post a Comment