Latest / Love Matters With Leeza Mangaldas / Love and the Law: Marriage Equality, LGBTQ Rights & More ft. Saurabh Kirpal

Transcript

Love and the Law: Marriage Equality, LGBTQ Rights & More ft. Saurabh Kirpal · Love Matters With Leeza Mangaldas

0:00
I'm Lisa Mandelas and this is Love Matters, a podcast about relationship topics that
0:05
matter to you and me, And today we're talking about how the law can
0:09
influence how we love. While laws are intended to protect our rights, sometimes
0:16
they may infringe upon our rights. And that is particularly true when you look
0:20
at the history of the autonomy and agency and dignity of women and queer people.
0:25
And who better to discuss this way than sorb Kirpau, Senior Advocate all
0:30
of the book Sex and the Supreme Court, and someone whose work has been
0:34
instrumental to granting more rights to queer people. Particularly his work was instrumental in
0:40
the reading Dwance section three seven seven. He's also at the forefront of the
0:44
conversation around marriage equality. We're going to be talking about all of that and
0:48
more so. Thanks so much for being here. Thanks for having me,
0:51
Lisa. I'm really looking forward to having a conversation about the subject which is
0:56
rather more glamorous than my day to day affairs or what I argue It've got.
1:00
I'm excited about it. Thanks. I want to start by asking you
1:03
about your Instagram bio, which where you call yourself an accidental LGBT activist.
1:10
Why do you say accidentally, Well, I considered myself to be a mainstream,
1:15
corporate lawyer. I never set out to do activism. I happened to
1:19
be queer, so queer issues were obviously important to me, and I ended
1:25
up doing matters which related to queer issues. But as I did more and
1:29
more of those matters, it wasn't as much as I got sucked into a
1:34
queer activism, as I pushed myself into it. I saw the injustices that
1:38
were prevalent not talked about, not just matters that happened in cored but even
1:44
in other areas one coursegos So outside the court as well. The endemic injustice
1:51
that the queer community faced in India made me more sensitive to it. It
1:56
also because I had the capacity to do something about it. Because I'm a
2:00
lawyer, I had the tools to do something. I felt compelled morally to
2:05
intervene and start doing things so and I found it was kind of a self
2:08
reinforcing cycle. So the more work I did for the queer community, the
2:13
more help was asked for. And it was a cause I believe, and
2:15
so I did more. So I think it was a very positive self enforcing
2:20
cycle. And that's how one day I woke up and say, hey,
2:23
I'm an accidental activist. You're very humful, but you know it's almost exactly
2:29
five years now since the reading down of three seven, seven and twenty eighteen
2:31
September, right sixth September, and I'm sure you remember that day very clearly.
2:36
I wanted to ask you, looking bad, both as somebody you know,
2:40
working in this field of law and whealp of my marriage quality too,
2:44
but also as an out and proud gay man, how do you think things
2:47
have changed and what has yet to change? You asked about what's changed and
2:53
what hasn't. And I always like to see and be hopeful and talk about
2:57
that which has changed. Let's focus in the positive. Because the discrimination had
3:00
happened in the past or is still happening, we know about it. I
3:04
don't have to speak much about it. But what's changed really is I think
3:08
the hope that young queer people have in this country. I travel across the
3:14
country speaking at schools and colleges to young people, and they believe that tomorrow
3:19
will be a better day. That today itself isn't too bad, it could
3:23
be. I mean of course it's not perfect, but that they just filled
3:27
me with optimism and that really wasn't the case X number of years ago.
3:31
So it has changed. I think once the Supreme Court has come and told
3:36
a queer person that you are an equal citizen of India, that the Constitution
3:39
of India had your back, with the Supreme Court of India will ensure that
3:45
we will come to your aid, there is a belief in a queer person
3:49
that they are equal citizens, that they are full citizens of this country,
3:52
and they're not afraid then to fight and ask for their rights as they should
3:57
because they know that the courts will come to their aid. Plus the moral
4:00
authority of the Supreme Court in India, we are religious. Maybe think we
4:04
are not, but we are. We go to court and threaten to sue
4:06
for anything and everything. At least that's what I feel as a lawyer.
4:10
But the idea still is that you believe in the courts. It may take
4:15
a long time for a judgment to come, they may be multiple appeals,
4:17
but there is a belief that our legal system works, and there's a belief
4:23
that the moral authority of the Supreme Court is as universally accepted. So when
4:27
that institution, endowed as it is with the moral authority, speaks on your
4:30
behalf and speaks to the country on your behalf, saying that hold it,
4:36
you are not allowed to discriminate against this previously oppressed minority. It's bound to
4:42
fill young people with hope. Maybe they will come a time when they become
4:45
jaded and cynical, but as of now that's not happened, and I'm relishing
4:47
that moment. I think that young people represent a very powerful foruse, and
4:53
often, you know, mindsets are so hard to change. Change is really
4:57
radical. It tends to be incremental with young people because their own their ideas
5:00
are still forming. They can adopt very quickly a new way of thinking.
5:04
But I think the unfortunate thing is a lot of the people in positions of
5:09
power, you know, often quite old people with quite regressive views, that
5:14
tend to want to continue to exclude and therefore, something like marriage equality,
5:17
you know, it's kind of worth c notodding along. Now we're equal,
5:20
so why don't we have this right? We wouldn't have filed the case if
5:25
we didn't think that the Constitution required the recognition of such a right. There
5:29
is also arc of history there's also a movement of juris struts across the world
5:33
in a particular way. So we were reasonably confident. You know, we
5:36
as lawyers are professional competent or our professional etiquette requires us to argue the case
5:44
and then trust the process. And if a judgment comes which is in our
5:48
favor, of course we will rejoice. If a judgment comes against us,
5:53
we will strive to change society and fight another day. You have an option
5:59
but white except to judgment as is. But that doesn't mean you just sit
6:01
back and give up all work. We have been there in the past if
6:05
you recollect. In twenty thirteen, the Indian Supreme Court had recriminalized homosexuality after
6:13
the Deli High Court had decriminalized it, So we didn't rest. In twenty
6:15
thirteen a movement began, carried on by a host of people, not just
6:23
lawyers who got the publicity like me, but a vast number of grassroots organizations
6:28
and people tirelessly worked to bring about change in virtually every sphere that they worked
6:34
in, and we saw the result of it in twenty eighteen, so precisely
6:39
five years later the laws overturned. But whatever it is able will fight to
6:44
improve society. There's so much, there's so much to be done totally,
6:47
and I think that for people who might not have, you know, really
6:51
thought that this is an issue that pertains to them, I think often the
6:55
community that fight might not have thought about identity quite as much. The majority
7:00
tends to be that way kind of just especially you know, you're just a
7:02
set man. There's a sort of idea that, oh, this is not
7:05
really about me, like as you know, slight distancing almost because it seems
7:11
like a minority issue, something that man, but in fact it does.
7:14
It does impact all our lives. And I love how you said that not
7:17
only is the reading down of three seven seven Chater freedom for the LGBTQ community,
7:23
but a beacon of fook for us all and as women particularly. I
7:25
want to talk about marriage equality because I think queering marriage actually stands to perhaps
7:30
make it an institution that really needs to be reinvigorated with equality also for women.
7:36
I mean, it is not an institution historical that has actually really thought
7:42
much of women's rights either. Yet the marriage is positive as this you know,
7:46
be all and end all for the woman, Like who are you if
7:47
you're not in it? So I really think about how all of us have
7:51
a stake in this actually and should see it that way. And even with
7:56
three seven seven, actually the law colonially, our law was praised any carnal
8:00
intercourse against the order esia between men women animals, with the phrasing was such
8:05
that all if you could participated in fellatio or kind, you're also a criminals,
8:09
right, So I think we must remember that it pertains to us all.
8:13
Absolutely. Section three seventy seven was not only about homosexuality, of course,
8:18
and its application it was, but the strict letter of the law did
8:22
not restrict itself to homosexuality, and it was a missionary is talking about the
8:26
missionary position pretty much right, That's all that was allowed. It was framed
8:30
by mcaulay in a Christian conservative doctrine about certain ways of being. So yes,
8:35
in terms of the law, it did affect everybody. But we talked
8:37
about something interesting earlier about how queering marriage or marriage eve quality for the queer
8:43
community will have an impact on women. But of course, because today marriage
8:48
is a patriarchal institution, the rules and regulations about marriage, both in terms
8:52
of the strict letters of the law as well as its application, are a
8:56
product of patriarchy, rules made by men, administs by men for the benefit
9:01
of sis head men. And the moment you start challenging the underlying assumption of
9:07
that doctrine and saying, well, why do you get the veto for?
9:09
In terms of the queer community, the same question will then be asked by
9:15
women or indeed all the other excluded classes of people, because you're questioning not
9:18
only the institution of marriage, marriages and is but a reflection of the inherent
9:24
patriarchy in our society. So you are actually questioning the underlying root causes of
9:30
the discrimination. And I think our equality code in our Constitution Article fourteen fifteen
9:35
sixteen seventeen reach in and promise people that we will smash patriarchy. And that
9:41
is why I think marriage equality petition is tremendously important, even for women.
9:46
I think it has implications even for the uniforms civil Code, which is being
9:50
talked about. Sometimes it's talked about, then it gets out of fashion,
9:52
then suddenly it's spurred up. I don't know how. It is probably seasonal.
9:56
So all these issues are so closely intelling because at the end of the
10:01
day, what is it that the fight of patriarchy represents fight against a patriarchy.
10:05
It represents a fight to recognize the humanity of each individual and a fight
10:11
to recognize the equality between any two people in India, and that's a fundamentally
10:16
basic thing. And as long as you're fighting for those causes, there's bound
10:20
to be a sense of fraternity which brings everyone together along for this fight.
10:24
So which is why I say we queer people don't need to just fight by
10:28
ourselves. We need allies. And honestly, I honestly believe that every person
10:33
who even today is a homo obe can through the process of education, reform
10:39
and discussion, we need to change their views. We don't live in a
10:41
country which believes in revolutions, armed rebellions or the like. We believe in
10:46
discussion and dialogue and exchange of views. The way I hope this discussion will
10:50
will make happen. And I think while it's all right to go to court
10:54
and ask for change and try to as said, smash patriarchy that way,
10:58
I think another way that is happening is making people realize, as you said,
11:01
exact me in this together absolutely and it has to change the better for
11:05
all of us. An extra right that I get, promises and guarantees that
11:09
a person who will need the same right five, ten, fifteen years down,
11:13
their children, their uncles, their nephews, their brothers, their friends,
11:16
all of them will get that right. We need to foster a belief
11:20
that we live in a society that recognizes the values of rights. We need
11:24
to be a rights oriented society. That doesn't mean you forget your responsibilities and
11:30
duties, but I don't see how they're antithetical to each other. Duties will
11:33
come. But as long as we live in a society where it's okay to
11:37
fight for your rights and it's not okay for the state to discriminate against you,
11:41
that will come to the aid of everybody. Just a small example,
11:43
as you said that even a sis gendered heterosexual man can be discriminated against in
11:48
some way or the other, maybe at work, or maybe find his rights
11:52
are violated by the police, if you are wrongfully arrested, or you're stopped
11:58
at a traffic signal and asked questions which you're not supposed to. Everyone has
12:03
a bundle of rights, but you all jealously guard and protect. So the
12:05
moment you have a society where rights are respected for it's least empowered individuals,
12:11
the rights of even the empowered individuals will be looked out. Absolutely, also
12:15
want us to just think a little bit about how we got here, and
12:18
want people wanting to think about that too. You know, there's still over
12:20
sixty countries where being gay is illegal, and many of them are former British
12:24
colonies. And how does our colonial history remain, you know, such a
12:30
sort of blot on some of our rights. I suppose it's been so long
12:33
that we just see it as a natural way of things. We think it's
12:35
Indian culture. You know, I've heard this argument mean that queerness is a
12:39
Western import when actually it's the shame and the stigma that was the Western import.
12:43
Yeah, absolutely right about that. You know, if you read the
12:45
ancient religious texts, it's not as though there was this greater borance towards homosexuality.
12:52
It might not have been celebrated and rejoiced maybe the way the Greeks did.
12:56
But if you read the Kamasutra, if you lose active homosexuality is illegal.
13:00
Lawyer, in this back, what you're supposed to do is take a
13:03
bath and cleanse yourself, so you know, the punishment is miniscule, so
13:05
it's not seen as a very serious offense. That's even when it's seen as
13:09
as something wrong. And there are equally texts which do rejoice homosexuality. We
13:13
have gods and goddesses, the idea of Mohini, the man who becomes transformed
13:18
into a woman, the idea of the half man half woman. Lord Ayappa
13:22
himself in Sabriimala is the child of Shiva and Mohini, so to make gods.
13:28
So the gender fluidity in our culture historically has existed all this and we
13:35
talk about it in without shame. But what the British date was not only
13:41
to undermine this gender fluidity or alternative sexuality, but they, in fact,
13:46
i think, and did all sexuality and the very idea of talking about sex
13:52
became like a taboo subject and it was not something that was encouraged at all.
13:56
And that was a problem that what the British gave us. So this
14:01
colonial legislation which you said, is right not just in India, but still
14:05
recently in Singapore, still there in Kenya, in a vast amount of African
14:09
and Middle Eastern countries, all of which are founder colonies. So the same
14:13
principle of mccaulay's Section three seventy seven exists on their books. And yes,
14:16
it is a colonial dictat given to us by our white masters. But I
14:22
don't think we should let ourselves off so easily and say that it was an
14:26
imposition by the colonial masters. And we got free seventy five years ago.
14:31
We got our constitution in nineteen fifty. It's not as though we haven't amended
14:35
our laws since then. Why is it that this section persisted all the way
14:39
until twenty eighteen. Other Supreme Court had to come and strike it down at
14:43
a time when you would have fought it's a no brainer. Even at that
14:46
point, the government couldn't bring itself to amend the law by itself and say
14:50
all right, this is no longer a crime. They said in court at
14:54
that point of time. I remember that we leave it to the court to
14:56
decide. Why Why should a matter of detection of rights be only the job
15:01
and function of the courts. Is it okay for the government not to recognize
15:07
and foster our rights? No, absolutely not. It's meant to be a
15:09
joint effort. I can go to court when the government violates my rights,
15:13
but that doesn't get the government card blanche to start violating my rights. In
15:16
fact, it is the responsibility to ensure that my rights are recognized. So
15:22
I actually say that it is not just the colonial imposition, but I think
15:26
it was our adoption and internalization of the colonial mindset that has happened, which
15:31
is persistent for the seventy five years. Indian culture is all well in code,
15:35
but our Indian mindset is not the mindset of a Kamaso threat today.
15:39
That's not how the average man or a woman on the sweet things. They
15:43
are not followers, but sayan they are. In fact, they have adopted
15:46
an internalized by collead. And that is a problem with our country today,
15:50
that we've shed a glorious, beautiful past and adopted a peculiar version of what
15:54
we consider our ancient morality to be, which is nothing to do with what
16:00
it actually is. But it's become now the norm to say, you know,
16:03
and I blame television serials on this, this projection of godliness being asexual,
16:10
being a woman in a particular form so removed from our ancient history and
16:15
so removed from our religious cultural texts. But that is seen as a person
16:19
who maybe does not know any better, as maybe the religious dogma. They
16:23
think that that is the truth because that is what has been fed to us.
16:27
And also, I suppose one of the reasons for that is we do
16:30
not have a canonical text the way there are the people of the book,
16:33
Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, where you can turn to
16:38
a text and say, well, this text says this, and therefore this
16:41
is not immoral or this is immoral. Hindu philosophy, and I'm talking of
16:45
Hindu philosophy as eighty percent of the country is not forgetting that. Of course,
16:49
there are minorities in our country as well, but speaking of Hindu philosophy,
16:53
our texts are always more accommodating, partly because very often like the judgments
16:59
of the contradictory, because they deal with humanity, and they even at gods
17:06
have human sides to them, human feelings. They're softer creatures than the all
17:12
powerful God telling you what to do what not to do. So I think
17:18
it's time to go back and maybe read our scriptures and reflect on what we
17:22
were and ponder about why we become what we become. And yet, I
17:26
mean all great texts religious texts also have the issues and we should be able
17:30
to point that out in the idea that religious texts are the un censure,
17:33
which is another idea that seems to be increasingly rapid globally. It's another really
17:40
problematic thing, you know, for example, America repealing they're right to abortion
17:42
on these touch grounds. And even in our texts, there's misogyny, there's
17:47
the cost system. There's a lot of things that we should also discard.
17:52
So I think being critical right being critical. It's so unfortunate that being critical
17:56
becomes being anti national. I think it is such an active national as to
18:00
introspect on your own culture and history because you love this country. Why else
18:03
would you do it if you didn't care, why would you criticize or hope
18:07
for something better? Anyway, I want to move on also to the topic
18:11
of metal grade. Since we were talking about marriage and how it hasn't always
18:15
been the greatest for women. I think to put it in my region,
18:18
I think that agency, the idea of agency sexual agency is a very for
18:25
me as a non law person. When I look at certain laws, whether
18:27
it's age of consent laws, whether it's matal grape, it's very peculiar to
18:32
me because it feels like, I never really have agency. You know,
18:34
as a teenager, I can't have consensual sex with someone who might be in
18:37
love with and as a wife, I can't have a contribute sex. So
18:41
like, what is going on here? Why does my agency have so little
18:45
legal standing? The answer is patriarchy. The idea is we had the laws
18:51
of adultery. Again recently, till twenty eighteen, there was a law which
18:56
criminalized adultery where the husband of a woman who had committed adultery could sue the
19:03
man who she had had sex with, because the underlying idea was but the
19:07
woman couldn't sue the husband for adultly done by him. The idea is that
19:11
the woman is a property of the man. Another man has come and taken
19:12
over my property, I my wife. This chattelization of women is the ultimate
19:18
objectification of women. And one consequence of the objectification of women is to see
19:22
them as property and therefore deny them their rights. It's a way to control
19:27
female genital nucleation is one way to control sexuality. Denying consent, denying them
19:33
permission to refuse to have sex is another way to deny agency. So it's
19:37
all part of the same problem that we talked of earlier. It's patriarchal institution,
19:41
I mean position to criminalizing that, you know. I mean it's so
19:48
bizarre to mean that men will protest the idea that martal rape will no longer
19:52
be permissible, that there'll be like boycott marriage trending on Twitter, and like
19:56
if you want to boycott marriage because you'll be allowed to your wife be who
20:00
wants to marry you, you know you might want to break this tattooed on
20:04
your forehead. Absolutely right, But I think you expect too much, maybe
20:10
from a community that had rights for two law. I think they're so used
20:15
to being Mama's boys and getting exactly what they want that for them to say
20:19
that, no, no, you can't have this right anymore, it's not
20:22
going to be easy. That doesn't mean that every cissect man thinks like that.
20:26
I'm sure the vast majority doesn't agree with the marital rating. If you
20:30
just explain it to them in how it won't be a view. One big
20:33
thing is, oh, this is a provision that will be abused automatically ninety
20:37
eight a dow it's abused by every provision of the law can be abused.
20:41
That you that does not mean you allow an illegal act to happen without any
20:47
recourse. A woman who has genuinely been mutilated and rapped by her husband can't
20:52
be denied her rights on the ground that, oh, some other woman may
20:55
some point misuse this law right. That to me is perverse way of thinking,
21:00
but it is a way of thinking. So we have to deal with
21:02
that and tell people that show them with statistics that their fear is unfounded,
21:07
that this is actually just a narrative built around the media that these laws are
21:11
violated, when in fact they're not really violated, and most research shows they're
21:15
not violated. And even if it is, you cannot permit a woman who
21:19
has a right over her bodily autonomy which has been infringed in the most brutal
21:23
form possible by a person who is closest to her. Imagine just what is
21:27
happening in this woman's mind. She's married to a man an Indian society,
21:33
in Hindu society, her husband is everything to her. I don't agree with
21:36
this, but that is how Indian marriages are. And that man in whom
21:40
you have the maximum trust proceeds to treat you like an animal and rape you
21:44
and then you can't say anything about it at all, because I mean,
21:48
it's unacceptable. And I think what's really unfortunate is that when the group with
21:52
power, when a member of the group with power does something wrong, it
21:56
seems the exception one bad man, okay, when the group without power,
22:00
one person does misuses whatever, false allegation, whatever it becomes. Oh,
22:03
all women are liars, yes, you know, and this has even with
22:07
me too, a sexual assault. The fact is it is unde reported.
22:12
Okay, so three and a half people make a false allegation. The reality
22:17
is many, many, many sexual assaults the majority experience for women, and
22:19
most people do not report it because it is too traumatic a process and I'm
22:23
not even sure they'll get any justice. It's just reliving that, you know.
22:27
So yeah, all of these So it's so unfortunate that on the grounds
22:30
of oh, you know, these people who anyway have very few rights,
22:34
are going to misuse this right. Even if that happens, it's highly unlikely
22:38
that that would be the majority of how it doesn't happen exactly, And the
22:42
reality is that, like as a woman, and I can't believe I've have
22:47
to say this so many times recently. It just blows my mind. The
22:49
statistic, were you to die by murder, the most likely person to kill
22:53
you is your current or formal partner, right husband, So I mean the
23:00
satistics are domestic abuse around around that type of thing is us unacceptable. The
23:04
fact that we're still are debating why the matter I feel it should be allowed
23:07
or not is a commune bit disenchanting with regard to the citizen ry. You
23:11
know, like come on, come on, wake up, wake up.
23:15
There's many little gens like this actually that existed in a statute book, but
23:19
all of them underlie same problems. A group with power, drunken power,
23:25
used to their own power, refusing to accept the fact that they have the
23:27
power. You know, there's the whole Men's Right movement, and there the
23:32
groups you can see and they discuss the cases about look the judgment happened.
23:36
There's a complete belief that they are the victim. And you just have to
23:40
walk and see around yourselves and ask yourself which worlds are these people living in?
23:45
And they give you an example of dowry earlier in terms of the fear
23:48
of four ninety eight A and the abuse of the anti dowry laws. If
23:53
the system is so abused, how is it that dowry is still endemic?
23:57
It just comes. I mean, are we saying we live in a country
24:00
without dowry? And any man honestly put the hand of their heart and say
24:04
that. So, if there's a law that was getting abused, you would
24:07
thought to the perpetrators potentially would stop doing this right Obeously, it's not getting
24:12
misused. Obviously, it's not even getting used. As you said about POSH,
24:15
the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, the idea is that this woman is
24:18
this herodon who will come and ruin all the lives of these honest men.
24:23
Whereas there is constant, unsupervised harassment of women at every level, not only
24:30
in the organized sector, but particularly within homes in the non organized sector,
24:37
and women have no recourse because where will a woman who is earning daily wages
24:44
go to have her grievances redressed. And you're saying, let's take this right
24:48
away from her. In terms of POSH or ABC, the measly rights that
24:52
the woman has, which aim only tried to somewhat mitigate the disadvantage that she
24:57
has, let's take those away because they maybe misused. Well, what about
25:02
the abuse of authority that men do every day without any law stopping. Then
25:07
I want to also talk to you about what is perhaps a more you know,
25:11
a law globally that has a less unanimous answer, even among the left,
25:17
and that's the age of consent laws. What's so interesting is that some
25:19
of the most developed countries in the world actually have quite a young age of
25:22
consent, like Canavian countries, Western European countries have you know, fourteen fifteen,
25:27
it's often fourteen fifteen, not even sixteen. I think it's sixteen.
25:30
In the US it was sixteen year we made it eighteen. So in the
25:33
developing world, there's a perspective that increasing the age of consent. At one
25:37
point it was twelve. Child marriage was a thing, right, is you
25:41
know, something that allows for women and children to benefit, Right, Increasing
25:45
the age of consent is progressive. On the other hand, some of these
25:49
super developed countries with the greatest human rights records or whatever, have actually quite
25:55
a young age of consent, right, And it's something that lawmakers globally seem
25:59
not to have a single answer too. And I'm not sure. I feel
26:03
like maybe there have to be a bunch of different laws where consensual sex between
26:07
teenagers similar in age should be acknowledged that is going to happen. They deserve
26:11
to be able to buy condoms, they deserve to be able to get an
26:12
abortion if they need to, So why criminalize that. You're only making it
26:17
more difficult for them to navigate their health. And perhaps in order to protect
26:22
miners from abuse, there should be maybe different laws for you know, adults
26:26
and relationships with miners, even if consensual. I understand that any sex under
26:30
eighteen and you just considered rape, but isn't it a bit I mean with
26:33
regard to consensual sex between teenagers similar in age, that's something we're just too
26:38
squeamish about, right, And there's very gendered also, the ideas that the
26:42
man is always the perpetrator of the woman is victim. I mean I could
26:45
be a queer teenager, I could be you know, just the gendering off
26:48
it, the age. I feel like it needs some examination. I'd love
26:52
to hear your thoughts. I think part of the problem is the idea that
26:56
you can have sex only within marriage. So the ages of consent for marriage
27:00
have been confused with the age of consent for sex. So a lot of
27:03
the movement that is happening about increasing the age of consent has to do with
27:08
when a woman can have children in the institution of marriage, and therefore make
27:12
it eighteen or make it twenty one. But we must remember that's about marriage,
27:17
and you can have sex without marriage, you know. Surprise, surprise.
27:19
Yeah, it's twenty twenty three. As you said, maybe someone's watching
27:22
this in twenty twenty four, and this will be a timeless interview, so
27:26
you know, maybe in thirty years. So this was recorded in twenty twenty
27:30
three. But sex is not necessarily only within the bound of marriage, and
27:34
therefore having an age of consent which is so high, which is artificially high,
27:40
creates a whole pool of criminals. Right, We are all, as
27:42
victims say said in three seventy seven, unconvicted felons. It's ridiculous to imagine
27:48
that people ages of sixteen and seventeen aren't having sex with other people who are
27:52
also maybe aged sixteen and seventeen. You're basically telling them that your rapists.
27:56
The law has condemned you and made you into a rapist. What does that
28:00
say about law society and its efficacy when you are brutally condemning so many citizens
28:06
into a sense of criminality of their own. So I think these artificially high
28:11
ages for consent for six not marriage is absolutely erroneous. They must be much
28:18
lower to match what life actually is. It's not a novel proposition. And
28:22
this happens in jurisdictions across the world. What are called Romeo and Juliet clauses
28:27
is that it is the law should be. That really is something the legislatures
28:32
should look in. We have something called the pup soldiers. A prevention of
28:33
transexual offense is that supposing you have a nineteen year old man and an eighteen
28:37
year old or seventeen year old girl, how about even eighteen year old and
28:41
one day old man and seventeen and three sixty four days one, if they
28:47
have sex, it's a crime now, And as you said, the dissumption
28:48
is that's the man who's a perpetator. What we need is a Romeo and
28:52
Juliet clause that as long as they are within X number of years of each
28:56
other, then that is not and it's consensual, then it's not rape.
28:59
And that's I see. You know, as lawyers, we see these problems
29:02
coming to court all the time, and that's one of the marital rape exemptions
29:06
helps it has its uses. So what often happens in couples where the woman
29:11
is under eighteen and the man is over eighteen and there's an allegation of rape
29:15
by the family of the woman who's trying to stop this marriage because it's a
29:18
love marriage, they will come and say this is a statutory rape and get
29:22
the man arrested. So the family of the woman at that point, very
29:25
typically, if they're still in love, the man and woman marry, and
29:27
once you're married, they say, well, they can't be rape because because
29:30
you are married, there is a marital rape exception. So it's so complicated,
29:34
the city of the law, the abuse of the law. But humanity
29:38
is humanity. You know, people will find ways to love. You can't
29:41
stop that, and to the extent that the law impinges on it, you'll
29:45
find ways around it. You're not going to stop something as be sic as
29:48
the act of love and the act of loving. Let's talk about obscenity laws
29:52
as well. I think that the idea of obscenity is so subjective, right,
29:57
what might be obseen to you be perfectly fine to me, and vice
30:00
versa. Another colonially real law, and another one that's often used in the
30:04
name of protecting women and children, you know Runba's things bum for example,
30:07
I was very happy to see. I don't know why they think we need
30:11
to be protected, women need to be protected from that imagery omen. But
30:15
I mean it was some kind of women's rights thing of like, oh this
30:18
is offensive to women, right, the legal rocket that was raised around that.
30:22
But this idea of like sexuality is obscene, you know, this idea
30:26
that basically women could never want sex. Women don't want sex, right,
30:30
so women must be protected from sex to live with their husband, and then
30:33
they can't refuse sex because they don't actually want it. But now, I
30:37
mean, you know late, yeah, it's an absurd right. So even
30:40
I mean Ufi Jave or Punam Pandy or any sexually confident woman who is publicly
30:45
demonstrating and comfort in our sexuality is typically on the receiving end of at the
30:48
very least moral panic and at the most some obscenity case. I don't know.
30:52
It's another thing which I wonder how we can re look at because firstly,
30:56
what is obscene is so subjective. The phrasing is also extremely strange,
31:00
right, something that appeals to the sivious and prurient interests do deprave and corrupt.
31:04
I mean, I often worry, like you know, I'm gonna call
31:07
you if anyone if correct the tendency to deprave and corrupt? Now, what
31:14
is that? Right? What I mean, it's such a subjective, very
31:17
famous line of judgment that I know it when I see it. So there
31:19
is of course a great amount of subjectivity and our obscenity laws, and I
31:22
think there are the archaic and it is another attempted patriarchy and protecting the body
31:27
of the woman. For instance, why is it ok to be a topist
31:30
man but not a topless woman? And most of us well just well obviously
31:33
you can't. That's obscene, right if you show a woman's naked torsal,
31:37
but a man can have a naked torsion, no problem. So I think
31:41
that is an instance of patriarchy, that we automatically categorized one particular natural way
31:47
of being of a woman to be obscene, and thereby putting forcing a woman
31:51
to down extrac clothes and there if I controlling her body, and how much
31:53
of a chicken expose coding it in shame, it's coding it in shame,
31:57
so it is just a form of patriarchy again our obsentity laws. Instead,
32:01
what is required is for our obscenity laws to actually protect women against exploitation.
32:08
You need laws where if there is any evidence or absence of consent or it
32:14
demeans the idea of what it is to be a woman in the eyes of
32:17
a man in terms of stereotyping or a particular form of demeaning portrayal of women
32:22
that should be obscene and not obscene only on the ground of the fact that
32:25
you're showing body part of a woman, but how you conveigh the image of
32:30
the woman if you wanted to protect a woman. I think some of the
32:32
serials that we show on Indian cinema are obscene frankly, where a woman is
32:37
shown as this hapless, you know, woman who has just no sense or
32:42
no choice and no intelligence. That is demeaning to a woman more than a
32:45
strong, confident woman wearing something very low cut and structing about confident in a
32:51
sexuality. But it comes back to patriarchy because it's okay for a man to
32:55
cover up that woman. And I saw that even contru is body though,
33:00
so it's a funny one, except basically, all bodies are obscene. If
33:05
naked, you know that sex is obscene. Bodies are obscene, the idea
33:09
that there's something dirty and degrading. Inherently, it doesn't even matter. We're
33:14
not putting a specific lens to whether this is how someone wanted to be portrayed
33:17
or not. We don't differentiate sufficiently between let's say, revenge on and like
33:22
an image I want to publish of myself to whoever is consenting to look at
33:27
it on my platform, right, and therefore I wonder, and because it's
33:30
so subjective and I'm not sure what the recourses even these platforms, for example,
33:34
will have rather gender, female nipples are band and it's all in the
33:37
guys wanting to protect women. But I think as a society we'll be able
33:42
to remove that shame. Why wouldn't it be great it one day pictures of
33:45
a woman's dosso could not be used to shame her, just like and therefore
33:51
who cares if my pictures of my that's my an active normalization exactly, an
33:55
active acceptance and an fact of the realization of the fact that sex exists the
34:01
body. Yes, but that's just we just caught up again colonial era mindset.
34:07
Absolutely, it's not the time when the starary was one without a blow.
34:09
Completely the idea of the unsticked government though you know we have had that
34:14
in Indiana culture always. But these obscenity laws, you're right, are trying
34:17
to shame us and trying to thereby control us. But to your point about
34:23
sex and obscenity, there is a tarn ink. If you write a book
34:27
about describing the sexual act, it will be to be obscene because of course
34:30
we don't have sex. We're a country or one point three billion people.
34:34
I don't know how that happened, but we don't have sex exactly. So
34:37
anyway, I think we should introspect a little on all those counts. Okay,
34:39
my last question is we wrap up. I know that you like to
34:44
be optimistic, and so do I, but slightly philosophical question. Do you
34:47
think that progress is linear, like every things will get better, you know,
34:52
or do you think I mean, I'm starting to begin to believe that
34:54
maybe it's just a regression to the meaning you know, we were progressive and
35:00
colonial laws now or like abortion and abortion is revealed. I mean, I
35:02
don't know. Sometimes I wonder whether we actually do get better and more equal
35:07
and have more access to equality, dignity, fraternity always want to our values
35:10
globally, or whether in fact it's like a seesaw. You know, we
35:15
take five steps forward and then ten steps back. Well, it is a
35:17
seesaw, but I wouldn't say we take five steps forward and ten back.
35:21
I'd say we take ten forward and five back. So and I often talk
35:24
about Martin Luther King and other people said that the arc of history always bends
35:29
towards justice. Yes, we will have advances in our rights to be followed,
35:34
maybe very rapidly by those rights being taken away from us, which makes
35:37
it all the more bitter. A right that you had is taken away,
35:39
abortion in the US being one example, right against homosexuality in twenty thirteen in
35:44
India being an example, we thought you had a right was taken away.
35:46
But I believe we're getting a more progressive society. Things are not linear.
35:52
That's why use the term arc. It gets better till it doesn't. Then
35:55
it becomes a bit bad, but then it becomes better again. For the
35:59
general move movement is I think increasingly towards greater freedoms, and that is the
36:06
principles on which our constitution was framed, and I think that is the life
36:09
people want to lead, and history has shown us from nineteen fifty to twenty
36:15
twenty three, if it were a linear, straight, or even degrading.
36:19
While it is not a perfect place to be a woman India today in twenty
36:22
twenty three, I assure you it's better than nineteen fifty. While I may
36:27
not, as of the twenty ninth of August twenty twenty three, have the
36:31
right to get married as a queer person, today, my life today is
36:35
still better than it was in nineteen fifty. Things have improved dramatically. We
36:40
forget the pain of the past. We must, We should maybe remember it
36:44
only to remind ourselves how far we've come and how well we've done for ourselves.
36:47
Maybe forgetting the pain of the past is a natural human reaction. I
36:52
suppose that's why people have more than one children. I've child, but it
36:54
is so painful. I'm surprised that someone has a second. I'm third.
36:58
I don't know what my mother was on. But tend to forget unpleasantness of
37:00
the past, because who wants to deal with that? But I think it's
37:04
sometimes important for us to remember where we have come from, to see how
37:07
far we've reached. For my optimism is not just in the air. I've
37:12
seen such radical examples of it. Indian society today, while may still be
37:16
homophobic to some extent, accepts trans people far more than it is accepted in
37:22
the West. There is an increasingly greater acceptance of people across the board,
37:27
certainly amongst young people, but even amongst older people. People my parent generation.
37:31
I'd rather call myself ol also, and I have better do it my
37:35
generation. Things are changing things for the better. But remember another US Supreme
37:39
Court judgment in the context of abortion, and maybe can wrap it up is
37:44
in plant parent Wood versus Casey. Just the esteem that they're writing for the
37:46
majority, so that the price for liberty is constant vigilance. So if you
37:52
want to make sure that you are free, you always have to be aware
37:55
and willing to fight fair rights because it can always slip back. So be
38:00
aware. Citizens, know that you have come, but you can go back
38:04
and be ready to fight. Don't expect other people to fight for you,
38:07
fight for yourself. Thank you, Thanks so much, Sarah. It's so
38:09
much fun chatting with you, and you've got me righted up about so many
38:14
issues. It's so great to hear the perspectives from a lawyer as accomplished as
38:16
you. Thank you so much for being with us, and thank you to
38:20
everyone who has tuned in to Love Matters today. If you'd like to write
38:23
into us, you can do so at Love Matters at BW dot com.
38:27
Love Matters is produced by Indian Express and DW, Germany's international broadcaster. We'd
38:32
love it if you like and share and follow this podcast wherever you're listening to
38:37
it. And the next time, this is Nee Lisa ango Us signing up.
38:39
I believe Love Matters