Let me begin by making a simple assertion. All of us are gay. If we have ever masturbated in our life, then it amounts to same-sex pleasuring, unless we are unicorns or mermaids. Obviously, this is not what the perception and reality of homosexuality is. I was merely trying to point out the simple structure of principle versus practice.
That out of the way, just when we thought that homosexuality was decriminalised after the Delhi High Court verdict on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the additional solicitor general P P Malhotra made a passionate appeal against it. I am amazed at the details he has goes into:
The judge asked who would decide on what is proper. He replied:
The problem is that whether we like to admit it or not, the tolerance levels of society with regard to morality are not uniform in any society. I maintain and have said elsewhere that all those divas who become gay icons will get into a hissy fit if their chauffeur or maid was gay. Why, were there no titters when a certain Bollywood star of the 80s was outed recently? Are there no sniggers when a socialite’s sexual preferences are whispered about? If these people are so cool about it, then why do they not accept it and ask to be left alone?
And the media that wants to sound liberal will go to town about such titbits. Since it is so normal, why give it a separate enclave and why the lack of sensitivity to their privacy?
The recent report states:
The government does not care about several issues, and it includes other concerns of non-mainstream sexuality – whether it is prostitutes, eunuchs, single people irrespective of what or who they go to bed with, if they have a bed. Indeed, let us not ignore the huge numbers that cannot afford the necessities, forget the luxury of iconoclasm.
My earlier piece has more: Paranoia of the new gay family saga
Should Sonia Gandhi reveal her assets? A Chennai-based RTI activist V Gopalakrishnan had sought details of her I-T returns from the year 2000-2001 to 2010-2011.
I tend to agree. The RTI can be used wilfully by individuals, and while empowering citizens is laudable it does not give them the carte blanche to have all information that they might think is vital. Ms. Gandhi does have to follow rules and pay her taxes. Unless the petitioner has information about wrong-doing – that would raise the question about how he was privy to such information at all – then he needs to provide such information to the IT authorities, which will take action.
This is a third party and it can pose a security risk. She is also right in stating that there is no public interest involved. I seriously believe that citizen vigilantism is giving power to certain people who might want to just gain their 15 minutes of fame or are set up by those with an agenda.
This does not mean that Ms Gandhi or anyone else in important positions should get away by not declaring their assets. We have ridiculous declarations of paltry amounts by people who lead a rather posh life.
The Times of India’s “initiatives” never fail to amuse me. Now, they have started the Teach India campaign. As usual the boo-boos. Why would someone ask “Englis aata hai kya?” and make a kid feel awkward? Does that person not know how to pronounce ‘English’? Fools.
Then, I don’t understand how a boy at the edge of opportunity will look for open spaces in walls. If he is at the edge, it would be a mountain or a ledge. Where do walls come in?
And all this is to get a working knowledge of English to open up “many little career opportunities” and help in the “surge forward”.
That’s really kind. No big opportunities for the little people, and are we not surprised that this would be a surge forward and not backward?
It is Steve Jobs' birthday, so a cartoon from a friend of this blog...
That out of the way, just when we thought that homosexuality was decriminalised after the Delhi High Court verdict on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the additional solicitor general P P Malhotra made a passionate appeal against it. I am amazed at the details he has goes into:
“It is against the order of nature. The order of nature is that a man’s genital is meant to be inserted in the female’s biological genital. But if it is to be inserted in another man’s organ meant for excretion of waste, will it be proper?”
The judge asked who would decide on what is proper. He replied:
“Homosexuality is highly immoral. How can society tolerate it?”
The problem is that whether we like to admit it or not, the tolerance levels of society with regard to morality are not uniform in any society. I maintain and have said elsewhere that all those divas who become gay icons will get into a hissy fit if their chauffeur or maid was gay. Why, were there no titters when a certain Bollywood star of the 80s was outed recently? Are there no sniggers when a socialite’s sexual preferences are whispered about? If these people are so cool about it, then why do they not accept it and ask to be left alone?
And the media that wants to sound liberal will go to town about such titbits. Since it is so normal, why give it a separate enclave and why the lack of sensitivity to their privacy?
The recent report states:
The Centre’s neutrality stems from its reluctance to take a stand on a divisive issue. While the Delhi HC judgment has been welcomed as a ‘new deal’ for the LGBT community, its advocates as well as liberals, gay sex remains taboo for vast swathes of society whom the government may not wish to offend. Opinion is split in the Union Cabinet as well.
The government does not care about several issues, and it includes other concerns of non-mainstream sexuality – whether it is prostitutes, eunuchs, single people irrespective of what or who they go to bed with, if they have a bed. Indeed, let us not ignore the huge numbers that cannot afford the necessities, forget the luxury of iconoclasm.
My earlier piece has more: Paranoia of the new gay family saga
- - -
Should Sonia Gandhi reveal her assets? A Chennai-based RTI activist V Gopalakrishnan had sought details of her I-T returns from the year 2000-2001 to 2010-2011.
She has declined to disclose details of her income tax returns under the RTI Act, citing personal freedom and security risk. In her reply to the I-T department, she also said there was no public interest involved in disclosing such information.
I tend to agree. The RTI can be used wilfully by individuals, and while empowering citizens is laudable it does not give them the carte blanche to have all information that they might think is vital. Ms. Gandhi does have to follow rules and pay her taxes. Unless the petitioner has information about wrong-doing – that would raise the question about how he was privy to such information at all – then he needs to provide such information to the IT authorities, which will take action.
This is a third party and it can pose a security risk. She is also right in stating that there is no public interest involved. I seriously believe that citizen vigilantism is giving power to certain people who might want to just gain their 15 minutes of fame or are set up by those with an agenda.
This does not mean that Ms Gandhi or anyone else in important positions should get away by not declaring their assets. We have ridiculous declarations of paltry amounts by people who lead a rather posh life.
- - -
The Times of India’s “initiatives” never fail to amuse me. Now, they have started the Teach India campaign. As usual the boo-boos. Why would someone ask “Englis aata hai kya?” and make a kid feel awkward? Does that person not know how to pronounce ‘English’? Fools.
Then, I don’t understand how a boy at the edge of opportunity will look for open spaces in walls. If he is at the edge, it would be a mountain or a ledge. Where do walls come in?
And all this is to get a working knowledge of English to open up “many little career opportunities” and help in the “surge forward”.
That’s really kind. No big opportunities for the little people, and are we not surprised that this would be a surge forward and not backward?
- - -
It is Steve Jobs' birthday, so a cartoon from a friend of this blog...
0 comments:
Post a Comment