How the media helped out on LGBT issues

BY SIDDHARTH NARRAIN| IN Media Practice | 23/08/2009

                       Reprinted from Infochange media

The explosion of stories and images that followed the Delhi High Court judgment striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalised sex between same sex adults, was nothing short of the ‘outing’ of the issue in the Indian media.

Almost every national and regional newspaper in the country carried the story prominently, most of them on their front pages. It was the first time that LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) issues have been debated, discussed and freely talked about in the Indian media from all angles: decriminalisation of gay sex, same sex marriage, adoption, religious and ethical responses.

For a society that brushes uncomfortable issues under the carpet, the bombardment of images, interviews, talk shows and news clips was a welcome change. While the English-language media has been carrying stories on LGBT issues prominently even before the judgment, it was heartening to see regional channels and publications now doing the same.

Kannada, Telugu and Tamil papers and TV channels gave the 377 story a lot of play. The case brought by the Naz Foundation, and the court’s judgment on it, is a historic moment in recent Indian legal history. Seldom has there been such a public outpouring of emotion, energy and celebration after a court’s decision. When was the last time that a legal judgment has been so widely read, discussed and debated, the judges’ words quoted and the impact of the decision discussed across millions of homes?

The Delhi High Court’s decision only fanned the embers of a debate whose fire had already been lit. The judges delivered the decision in the Naz case a few days after colourful Pride marches in Bangalore, Bhubhaneswar, Chennai and Delhi. The home minister had raised a hue and cry from conservative voices when he announced that the government was planning to review Section 377. Forced on the back foot by religious leaders he had backtracked on his statement. The media had already picked up this sequence of events and the court was packed with journalists on July 2, 2009, the day of the judgment.

The first images relayed through television were of LGBT activists and supporters sobbing and hugging each other.  After this, it was just an explosion of images and words. Phone calls to activists, photographs, live discussions, phone-ins, reactions from religious leaders, reactions from prominent people from all walks of life. The media had signalled a shift in the terms of the debate, and played no small role in bringing about this shift. The reasons for this could vary -- from TRP ratings, to sensationalism -- but what this downpour of coverage had done was wash away the doors of the closet that had been creaking open very slowly until now.

Some commentators have questioned the amount of time and publicity spent on this issue. "Why is the media giving this issue so much space when there are so many other important problems our country faces?" they ask.

My response is twofold. For a community that has been living in the closet for years, invisible and afraid, caricatured and written about only when a gay man is murdered or when hijras are accused of extortion, or when lesbians commit suicide or cops bust a gay party, the overwhelmingly positive debates and celebratory images were long awaited. Forced to confront television cameras, politicians from parties across the spectrum gave their views on the subject. Actors and religious leaders, authors and parents, teachers and directors, they were all there, giving their varied opinions on the subject. The amazing thing was, of course, that most of these voices were in support of decriminalising homosexuality.

Secondly, the judges’ amazing interpretation of constitutional provisions relating to privacy, equality and their invocation of the right to dignity have meant that this judgment is a victory for all minorities. Post-Naz, it will be much more difficult to discriminate against vulnerable minorities like dalits and disabled persons. As Tarunabh Khaitan, a legal commentator, writes in The Telegraph: ‘It may seem that this judgment does not obviously benefit Hemanshu, who is Hindu, English-educated, male, able-bodied, north Indian, straight, Hindi-speaking and upper-caste. But should Hemanshu lose his legs in an accident, or get posted in a non-Hindi speaking or non-Hindu-majority area, he too will be protected. The court has recognised that pluralist societies rarely have permanent majorities or minorities. The Constitution stands for the principle of minority protection, whoever they might happen to be. This should be noted by the ulema and the archbishops who seem to have failed to envision a fellowship of the disenfranchised in their response to the court’s judgment.’

Lawrence Liang, a legal researcher, termed the Naz decision as a Roe v Wade moment, referring to the immense potential and symbolic power of the judgment and the manner in which it has caught the imagination of a nation. ‘The real success of Wade, Brown (Brown v Board of Education) and Naz Foundation can then be measured not only by their contribution to democratic ethos or the jurisprudence that they inaugurate but by the tears that they provoke,’ he writes, comparing the Naz case to two of the most significant moments in US constitutional history.   

A charge made by opponents of the judgment is that it will only benefit an elite class of LGBT persons. However, for anyone who was watching, it was obvious that this was a moment to savour for LGBT persons across the spectrum. Whether it was parents, friends or colleagues, they could talk about homosexuality openly without the invisible barrier that has existed for all these years. The judges’ observation in the Naz case about how the British imported homophobia into India is in stark contrast to the perception of homosexuality being a Western concept, alien to India culture and only present in elite circles.

The reach of the media into middle class drawing rooms across the country has meant that it is no longer possible to dismiss the issue as unimportant or alien to us. Images of Indians across the country celebrating the judgment, of parents speaking openly about their experiences with their LGBT children, of religious heads saying, at the very least, that they do not have a problem with decriminalisation, has done for LGBT rights what years of activism and campaigns have struggled to do.

Of course, none of this would have been possible without the sustained effort of LGBT and other progressive human rights activists over many years. But even the most hardened activists admitted that the judgment had a tremendously positive impact. It’s not surprising, then, that millions of LGBT persons across the country celebrated this moment, a moment that many of them will hope they can narrate to their adopted grandchildren.

(Siddharth Narrain is a lawyer and LGBT rights activist)