Fridae

On July 7, police in Lucknow raided the offices of two NGOs working on issues of HIV/AIDS, and addressing themselves particularly to high-risk communities, including sex workers and men who have sex with men (MSM). Officers of the organisations were arrested and charged with "propagating and indulging in unnatural sex" under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and the offices of both NGOs were sealed.

Some of the country's most respected papers produced prose that was purple with rage, referring with prudish distaste to the seizure of "objectionable literature, sex toys, ointments, video cassettes and photographs" from the NGO offices. And to what did this unsavory laundry list refer? It quickly became clear that we were talking about the standard paraphernalia of a safer sex campaign: condoms, spermicidal lubricant, printed and audiovisual educational materials on safer sexual practices. What is in a name? Everything, it would seem. Language was the fine line between describing a campaign to stem the spread of an epidemic, (funded, sponsored and promoted by the UP government), and describing something sordid and criminal.

Lucknow's SSP B.B. Bakshi, congratulated his men for having "busted" the "gay racket", according to the same article: "the two organisations, Naaz and Bharosa, were running gay clubs in contrast to the Indian culture and ethics under the garb of educating the masses about AIDS and HIV". It might seem strange to claim that MSM organizing is incompatible with AIDS work, given that MSM populations are considered high-risk, and are targeted for special outreach programs by India's own National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO).

The arrests of HIV/ AIDS activists for "propagating and indulging in unnatural sex" under Section 377 are still harder to comprehend given that just a fortnight ago, the Government of India voted to allow the participation of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) at the United Nations AIDS summit in New York. What could explain such incoherence in locating "the Indian position" on sexual minorities?

Perhaps not coincidentally, Pakistan voted against the participation of IGLHRC. According to a Dawn article, Pakistan's Ambassador Shamshad Ahmad explained his position on the grounds that the summit had been convened "in order to evolve a global response to HIV/AIDS disease and not to accord legitimacy to controversial norms or groups". The article went on to note that representatives of Islamic countries feared an attempt to achieve legitimacy for gay and lesbian groups "in the name of rights".

---

In New York, India's support of IGLHRC suggested, at the very least, a support for the rights-based analysis proposed by IGLHRC's representative, Karyn Kaplan. In her statement to the UN body, Kaplan said: "It would be wrong indeed, it would be deadly and disastrous not to place human rights at the center of our responses to the IV/AIDS pandemic." Why is a rights-based approach so crucial? Because it forces a nation to think, not only about the lives of those citizens it considers "desirable" the so-called "innocent" victims of AIDS, like babies infected by mother-to-child transmission but also those it might find politically expedient to condemn. The framework of rights urges a country to think about the fact that its population of female sex workers, or gay men, is disproportionately affected by AIDS, and urges it to take responsibility for the kinds of societal harassment and brutality that might force people to have sex under cover of darkness, under less-than-safe conditions.

But once India had concluded its display of progressive politics for the benefit of the international audience, its citizens were restored to a discourse of fear of what might be done to Indian culture "in the name of rights". Skimming through the newspaper reports, over and over again appeared descriptions of gay clubs "run under the garb of counselling centres for HIV and AIDS patients". It would seem, then, that gay rights and HIV/AIDS are mutually exclusive.

This position denies both the history and the reality of the disease's spread in its earliest years, it was known as Gay-Related Immune Deficiency (GRID) because gay men were the ones falling sick and dying at a frightening rate. For that very reason, the Center for Disease Control in the United States refused to take up the issue gay men were expendable, after all.

On the other hand, NACO did not make that mistake the project of educating MSM communities about safer sex practices lies at the heart of India's HIV/ AIDS policy. Which makes the stance of the Lucknow police hard to understand. They have tried to crack down on "gay culture", using a section of the Indian Penal Code which the Law Reform Commission itself acknowledges to be obsolete.

Activists demanding its repeal are soothed by the assurance that there have been no prosecutions of consensual homosexual sex under Section 377 for decades. Received wisdom would have us believe that the statute remains on the books to "protect children", since the rape law as it stands offers no recourse to boys who are sexually assaulted.

Lucknow police, perhaps vaguely aware of this, have latched on to the argument that there is a child sex racket in place, and that the NGOs in question are promoting it. They would have the public believe that gay men are taking advantage of the HIV/ AIDS discourse to "exploit" young boys. What does this mean? When starving children turn to sex work, what should be the ethical position of a social justice organisation committed to HIV/ AIDS work? Should it "rescue" them from sex work and restore them to starvation? Should it turn them over to the police, who will place them in protective custody? Or, just maybe, they should work to render the reality of child sex worker lives as safe and as dignified as possible, recognizing that alternatives are few and far between.

The police in Lucknow are trying to revive tired old protectionist ideas: the purity of Indian culture must be saved from corruption! But the enemies here are poverty and disease, not sex workers or gay men, and such enemies cannot be tackled with the blunt weaponry of humiliation and blame.

EDITOR'S NOTE - Fridae would like to thank those who took the time to write to us and for sharing the infomation/report.