India’s Supreme Court decriminalises gay sex in historic ruling

[Yossarian]

Oh forgive me then. I took it for granted we are talking about healthy,mentally sound individuals . I didn't know I had to qualify every statement that I make.

In which case, if you're saying it should apply to voluntary euthanasia, then why not also apply the same to every/all other acts between 'two consenting adults in private', including between two gay individuals?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

About the mentally ill part, homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the APA till the mid 70's and was removed due to protests by gay right activists, not due to solid scientific evidence to the contrary

Actually it was removed when they couldn't find significant evidence to prove that homosexuality was a mental illness.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So it's correct to kill any gay couple who have sex? In other words, gay people do not have the right to enjoy sex like we heterosexual people do? The only difference being that we straight people prefer a partner of the opposite sex, while gay people prefer a partner of the same sex.

BTW, homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity too. Do we see Christian gay people put to death in other countries if they have sex? And therein lies the difference between civilized and uncivilized societies.

That last sentence would sound more authentic coming from a western citizen rather than one who lives in a country where homosexuality was still illegal up until this week. India itself is far from civilised in it's treatment of gays, women or indeed other minorities, but perhaps this judgement will at least move it one tiny step towards the ranks of the civilised nations.

 

[Thomaskutty]

In which case, if you're saying it should apply to voluntary euthanasia, then why not also apply the same to every/all other acts between 'two consenting adults in private', including between two gay individuals?

There's less of a slippery slope with consensual same-sex relation in privacy than with euthanasia, which opens a whole can of worms.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Forget religion, even your own govt was dictating what two consenting adults did in their own bedroom prior to this week. Quite disgraceful really when you think there were not even any religious impediments for Indians to justify homophobic laws which have stood for so long in India.

I think i made my opinion clear on these inherited antiquated laws very clear.


But you are mistaken that there was no religious opposition. Hindus Muslims Christians together opposed gay sex.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So as far as you're concerned, incest between adult siblings and/or parents and adult offspring are acceptable to you as long as no children result from their activities, say by using appropriate precautions?

Well technically speaking yes. But consent has a very wide meaning.

Sibling marriages were very common in ancient civilizations.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think i made my opinion clear on these inherited antiquated laws very clear.


But you are mistaken that there was no religious opposition. Hindus Muslims Christians together opposed gay sex.

I don't know that much about gay rights in India to be fair, either the proponents or those in opposition.

I will keep an eye on developments from here on in though, I don't know if sex education forms part of the syllabus in India, but if experience in western countries is anything to go by, they will need to be adjusted as well in order to ensure homosexuals are equally represented in the family sphere.

 

[Yossarian]

There's less of a slippery slope with consensual same-sex relation in privacy than with euthanasia, which opens a whole can of worms.

Exactly my point. It's very convenient for some to make bland statements like "what two individuals consensually do in their own private bedrooms". But when you challenge these simplistic statements by providing (albeit extreme) examples where the same logic and argument could be applied, suddenly they start adding caveats.

 

[Swashbuckler]

About time. You may or may not agree with gay sex but certainly not a criminal act in my eyes. Robbery, rape, murder, terrorism, those are criminal activities. Who cares what 2 adults do with their sex lives?

 

[James]

Ah the good old homosexuality debate on PP.... the umpteenth of its time and essentially it grinds towards the same divisive stalemate every time as well.

 

[Madplayer]

I accept the religious grounds and why people oppose homosexuality based on faith, but bestiality does not involve mutual consent and that is why it is not legal.

I personally do not have issues with homosexuality, but I am skeptical about the idea of homosexual couples adopting babies.

Having two fathers or two mothers is an unnatural environment for a child to grow up in, and he/she may not necessarily appreciate the fact that his gay parents have imposed their sexual orientation on her/him.

No matter how common homosexuality becomes or how accepting the society is, the vast majority of people will always be straight, because most people are driven by the natural human instinct of preventing its species from going extinct, and that is why the majority of people will always be straight.

You dont know how these people defend this sort of crap. Does the master love his dog? Yes. Does the dog love his master? Yes. So now they can have sex with each other because both love each other. This is how they defend such things.
If you go back 50 years back in time and mention homosexuality to someone, they will react the same way you are reacting about beastiality. That it is unnatural etc. Ti.e changes and slowly and steadily people lose their minds and accept such crap.

 

[Madplayer]

Sorry im not the one beating around the bush. You have not given me one rational explanation why decriminalising was wrong.

So, No answer once again. I thought so.

 

[Madplayer]

What about having one father and four mothers, is that acceptable for a child?

All children have their own mothers. 1 mother and 1 father. Rest are step mothers.

 

[Madplayer]

Loving the hyperbole to safeguard your ingrained insecurities.

There is no insecurity here. I am perfectly secure. Only closet homosexuals might get insecure with what i am saying.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

So, No answer once again. I thought so.

Wait. Why do I need to answer something like that? When what you are talking about had nothing to do with this. Like I said I understand where you come from and accept that.

 

[Madplayer]

Well technically speaking yes. But consent has a very wide meaning.

Sibling marriages were very common in ancient civilizations.

Very common?

 

[DeadBall]

Given the topic still waiting for [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION] to give his opinion on this.

On OP congrats India on this historic ruling indeed. Those who are opposing this (and many here even supporting the death penalty for this) just shows much religious indoctrination can warp even the most educated minds. I have had many gay friends, in fact my current neighbors are gay and are like any other "normal" person/couple apart from the fact that they prefer the same sex. The work (actually in very positions), pay their taxes, help the community, give charity etc like all other citizens, so what do in the privacy of their home as consensual adults should be nobody's business.

A lot of this "adversity" comes through lack of interaction too, how many here advocating their death personally know and have been acquainted with any on a regular level? It's just the hateful head of the religious scriptures they've been force fed since birth rearing itself.

 

[tonmoy]

Why should it matter what two consenting adults do in their own private space?? How does it impact your life? If it does not impact you in a negative way than it is not for the government to issue a punishment!!

 

[Josh]

Given the topic still waiting for [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION] to give his opinion on this.

On OP congrats India on this historic ruling indeed. Those who are opposing this (and many here even supporting the death penalty for this) just shows much religious indoctrination can warp even the most educated minds. I have had many gay friends, in fact my current neighbors are gay and are like any other "normal" person/couple apart from the fact that they prefer the same sex. The work (actually in very positions), pay their taxes, help the community, give charity etc like all other citizens, so what do in the privacy of their home as consensual adults should be nobody's business.

A lot of this "adversity" comes through lack of interaction too, how many here advocating their death personally know and have been acquainted with any on a regular level? It's just the hateful head of the religious scriptures they've been force fed since birth rearing itself.

Good post ! And congratulations to India but dis-criminalising it.

 

[Mamoon]

You dont know how these people defend this sort of crap. Does the master love his dog? Yes. Does the dog love his master? Yes. So now they can have sex with each other because both love each other. This is how they defend such things.
If you go back 50 years back in time and mention homosexuality to someone, they will react the same way you are reacting about beastiality. That it is unnatural etc. Ti.e changes and slowly and steadily people lose their minds and accept such crap.

I do understand that there is a grey area, and there is only a limit to how far you can go with personal freedom and choice. The liberalism of the West and the personal freedom can often border on insanity.

Last year, I read an article that some guy in the UK has spent over $50,000 to make himself a genderless alien. A lot of people were supportive because it was his choice and he wasn't harming anyone, but IMO, that is not freedom of choice - that is pure insanity, and insane people like him belong in Psychiatric hospitals and not the real world where they can spend $50,000 on themselves to become aliens.

The West often goes overboard with personal freedom - it is very important to keep it in check because if you won't, nature will. People who are not of a sound mind are given to much liberty and power in the so-called progressive world.

However, having said that, I do think homosexuality has a place in a civilized world, as long as they do not impose their homosexuality by adopting babies. So in my opinion, homosexuality should be legal and gays can marry if they want to, but they should not be allowed to adopt babies.

 

[enkidu_]

Good on them, not our concern what Hindus do, but should never happen in an Islamic republic, all Abrahamic religions condemn homosexuality, and in fact St Paul writes at the beginning of his epistle to the Romans that not only homosexuals, but even those who allow such relations to happen should be put to death, and what's even more interesting is that he links it with idolatry/polytheism (in his case, Greeks), their moral decay basically mirroring their spiritual decrepitude :

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[MenInG]

Ok I understand that this topic is a little far out but we need to keep within some limits here.

 

[Major]

While i try to look at homosexuality from a liberal view, that its everyones own business what they do behind doors; but i have this fear that what if my future kids are homosexual? Than what? I wouldn't be able to defend it.

 

[ManFan]

If the Indians support it, than good for them.

On the subject, I actually have no ill-feelings for homosexuals and have made acquaintances here in NY that are gay and or bi.

If two individuals want to get together with mutual consent and engage in behavior, it is their matter.

As the comedian Bill Burr stated, now that gay couples can get married, let them also get divorced just to see how the other half lives.

Yet, we see that the gay rights movement in the U.S. gained rapid support after the Stonewall riots, political opportunity for the left to appear “liberal”-er (Clinton), and the advocacy that homosexuality is a right given by the same extension as Roe v. Wade (famous Supreme Court abortion case).

Most Americans were not in favor of gay rights up until a decade (maybe decade-and-a-half) ago. It has been a brilliant PR, marketing, and entertainment campaign by slowly introducing gay actors, comedians, football players, and others coming out in the public to showcase that the behavior is normal.

As someone prior mentioned, prior to 1973, the APA considered it a mental illness and prior to 1992, so did the WHO. The latter still affirms that the person is not confused about his or her sexual orientation but whishes it were different due to mental, psychological, and or behavioral disorders.

This is why I believe that subjective morality hurts a society because you do not have longstanding values. If yesterday homosexuality was considered wrong and today right, tomorrow it will be gender changes (not genetic; already happening) and other forms of obscene disorders. With professors like Peter Singer (Ivy-League) stating that beastiality is fine as long as there is mutual consent (?), the future looks for signs of consistency.

Of course, the argument from the other side must be given attention that society has evolved such as the issue with slavery. Yet slavery was an issue that was more concerning economics and hierarchy than sexual freedom. Not to mention that slavery was committed without the (mutual) consent of the slave while homosexuality today is.

 

[MenInG]

While i try to look at homosexuality from a liberal view, that its everyones own business what they do behind doors; but i have this fear that what if my future kids are homosexual? Than what? I wouldn't be able to defend it.

Maybe ask for divine help?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Given the topic still waiting for [MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION] to give his opinion on this.

On OP congrats India on this historic ruling indeed. Those who are opposing this (and many here even supporting the death penalty for this) just shows much religious indoctrination can warp even the most educated minds. I have had many gay friends, in fact my current neighbors are gay and are like any other "normal" person/couple apart from the fact that they prefer the same sex. The work (actually in very positions), pay their taxes, help the community, give charity etc like all other citizens, so what do in the privacy of their home as consensual adults should be nobody's business.

A lot of this "adversity" comes through lack of interaction too, how many here advocating their death personally know and have been acquainted with any on a regular level? It's just the hateful head of the religious scriptures they've been force fed since birth rearing itself.

Well exactly, but this is India's business at the end of the day, and they should be proud of it, what Pakistanis do in their country is neither here nor there. That is why I was one of the first to congratulate India on their decision, I just feel they don't need to worry about neighbours who are equally entitled to follow their own path.

 

[DeadBall]

If the Indians support it, than good for them.

On the subject, I actually have no ill-feelings for homosexuals and have made acquaintances here in NY that are gay and or bi.

If two individuals want to get together with mutual consent and engage in behavior, it is their matter.

As the comedian Bill Burr stated, now that gay couples can get married, let them also get divorced just to see how the other half lives.

Yet, we see that the gay rights movement in the U.S. gained rapid support after the Stonewall riots, political opportunity for the left to appear “liberal”-er (Clinton), and the advocacy that homosexuality is a right given by the same extension as Roe v. Wade (famous Supreme Court abortion case).

Most Americans were not in favor of gay rights up until a decade (maybe decade-and-a-half) ago. It has been a brilliant PR, marketing, and entertainment campaign by slowly introducing gay actors, comedians, football players, and others coming out in the public to showcase that the behavior is normal.

As someone prior mentioned, prior to 1973, the APA considered it a mental illness and prior to 1992, so did the WHO. The latter still affirms that the person is not confused about his or her sexual orientation but whishes it were different due to mental, psychological, and or behavioral disorders.

This is why I believe that subjective morality hurts a society because you do not have longstanding values. If yesterday homosexuality was considered wrong and today right, tomorrow it will be gender changes (not genetic; already happening) and other forms of obscene disorders. With professors like Peter Singer (Ivy-League) stating that beastiality is fine as long as there is mutual consent (?), the future looks for signs of consistency.

Of course, the argument from the other side must be given attention that society has evolved such as the issue with slavery. Yet slavery was an issue that was more concerning economics and hierarchy than sexual freedom. Not to mention that slavery was committed without the (mutual) consent of the slave while homosexuality today is.

Am saddened by this post, yesterday's long standing values were OK as long it was slavery and just about economics and hierarchy.

Since you did mention a comedian in your post I would also point you to the words of another comedian, Doug Stanhope and I'm paraphrasing here, that with religion you accept everything you are taught and believe to be true apart from the parts which go against your natural instincts and inclinations. One may be vehemently against homosexuality and oppose it in every form but would make a concession to something that is also prohibited by convincing themselves that "it is open to interpretation". It is called hypocrisy and confirmation bias.

As seen many on here are equating homosexuality, to pedophilia, bestiality etc just to confirm their bias just because they are uncomfortable with the idea. What if homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality was something different and deviant? We as a species have always ridiculed, persecuted, warred etc against anyone who was different to us, be it sexual orientation, race, religion, creed etc. We basically don't like something different and that is our nature.

Also to the Doc against Gays adopting children, do you think they would be better off in an orphanage in the worst scenarios rather than be with two human being who actually love them? If mental scarring is the issue than A LOT more occurs in "normal" families, be it multiple parents, divorce, abuse, etc. At least the gay parents have actually made a conscious choice to give (or try to)a better life to someone. I personally know of a couple of such parents and even though they children the adopted have some questions and were sometimes bullied, it is no different to all the other bullying kids and as is the case here mature people do. At least the kids have a loving home and family to come home to.

 

[DeadBall]

Well exactly, but this is India's business at the end of the day, and they should be proud of it, what Pakistanis do in their country is neither here nor there. That is why I was one of the first to congratulate India on their decision, I just feel they don't need to worry about neighbours who are equally entitled to follow their own path.

Unlike you, everything does not end in India vs Pakistan for me, especially while being a native Brit and trolling (or counter trolling) just for the sake of it. But, do enjoy.

 

[ManFan]

Am saddened by this post, yesterday's long standing values were OK as long it was slavery and just about economics and hierarchy.

Since you did mention a comedian in your post I would also point you to the words of another comedian, Doug Stanhope and I'm paraphrasing here, that with religion you accept everything you are taught and believe to be true apart from the parts which go against your natural instincts and inclinations. One may be vehemently against homosexuality and oppose it in every form but would make a concession to something that is also prohibited by convincing themselves that "it is open to interpretation". It is called hypocrisy and confirmation bias.

As seen many on here are equating homosexuality, to pedophilia, bestiality etc just to confirm their bias just because they are uncomfortable with the idea. What if homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality was something different and deviant? We as a species have always ridiculed, persecuted, warred etc against anyone who was different to us, be it sexual orientation, race, religion, creed etc. We basically don't like something different and that is our nature.

Also to the Doc against Gays adopting children, do you think they would be better off in an orphanage in the worst scenarios rather than be with two human being who actually love them? If mental scarring is the issue than A LOT more occurs in "normal" families, be it multiple parents, divorce, abuse, etc. At least the gay parents have actually made a conscious choice to give (or try to)a better life to someone. I personally know of a couple of such parents and even though they children the adopted have some questions and were sometimes bullied, it is no different to all the other bullying kids and as is the case here mature people do. At least the kids have a loving home and family to come home to.

1) I never stated that slavery was “OK” but that the comparison between the gay rights movement was not appropriate. Slaves (particularly African Americans) were not able to endulge or integrate with whites in everyday activities. Homosexuals, granted white and wealthy, were able to engage in behavior behind closed doors. The laws made to undermine African-Americans (post Civil War; grandfather clause, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc) were much more harsh than for homosexuals, who nobody could identify unless they themselves had admitted to being so. Slavery was wrong but it was a matter of economics first and foremost. That’s practically the entire reason why the Confederate States under Jefferson Davis went to war because they were a slave-labor dependent economy (on cotton and other materials). The arguement against homosexuality was strictly a moral one that just happened to lose support after the late 1970’s.

2) I do not “war” or “ridicule” homosexuals because growing up in NYC, I have had plenty of exposure to them and have made acquaintances with them also. If tomorrow, my best friend admits he’s gay, I’m not going to make him a pariah.

3) Essentially, your morality is derived from humanism while mines’ is derived from Islam. Which makes me curious as to why you stated you were waiting for my reply fully knowing my position on the issue beforehand?

Anyways, do you have any book recommendations on history/politics?

 

[DeadBall]

3) Essentially, your morality is derived from humanism while mines’ is derived from Islam. Which makes me curious as to why you stated you were waiting for my reply fully knowing my position on the issue beforehand?

It was just a wordplay on your username Manfan, seems like nobody got it.

 

[ManFan]

It was just a wordplay on your username Manfan, seems like nobody got it.

Well, now they do.

 

[shaz619]

Congratulations [MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION]

 

[BlackShadow]

Just saw a Facebook post of one of my Mallu friends coming out a lesbian. I love how liberating this decision has been for these people, beautiful.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Just saw a Facebook post of one of my Mallu friends coming out a lesbian. I love how liberating this decision has been for these people, beautiful.

Good for you BlackShadow. It would have been nice to see older and more established Indian posters endorsing such views so we could move forward and beyond in such matters if only to inspire future generations.

 

[zeusathon]

So as far as you're concerned, incest between adult siblings and/or parents and adult offspring are acceptable to you as long as no children result from their activities, say by using appropriate precautions?

Incest and Gays are allowed while sleeping with few years younger girl is a sin. Strange world we live in.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Incest and Gays are allowed while sleeping with few years younger girl is a sin. Strange world we live in.

Yes. Because as long as they are adults they have the choice to say "yes" or "no". You can have consensual sex with anyone above the age of consent (typically 18) or are you saying that it should be lower?

 

[troodon]

Incest and Gays are allowed while sleeping with few years younger girl is a sin. Strange world we live in.

Adults are matured enough to make their own decisions. So adults gays can have consensual sex if they choose to.

However a grown up man having fantasies about under age girls is a sicko and a pedo. The girl is not old enough to make wise choices and the grown man is old enough to know not to think about pre teen and under age girls.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Adults are matured enough to make their own decisions. So adults gays can have consensual sex if they choose to.

However a grown up man having fantasies about under age girls is a sicko and a pedo. The girl is not old enough to make wise choices and the grown man is old enough to know not to think about pre teen and under age girls.

A 9 year old committed suicide recently due to being bullied by other kids for coming out gay. If a 9 year old can decide his sexual orientation, why can't a 17 year old decide sexual consent?

 

[noonebetterthanPappu]

A 9 year old committed suicide recently due to being bullied by other kids for coming out gay. If a 9 year old can decide his sexual orientation, why can't a 17 year old decide sexual consent?

But how many underaged people can really have independent thinking?There is a reason for have age limits in many cases like Drinking/Driving/Voting etc as they can be easily influenced.

 

[Adijazz1706]

But how many underaged people can really have independent thinking?There is a reason for have age limits in many cases like Drinking/Driving/Voting etc as they can be easily influenced.

Same should be applied across the board in that case

 

[Vegitto1]

So it's correct to kill any gay couple who have sex? In other words, gay people do not have the right to enjoy sex like we heterosexual people do? The only difference being that we straight people prefer a partner of the opposite sex, while gay people prefer a partner of the same sex.

BTW, homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity too. Do we see Christian gay people put to death in other countries if they have sex? And therein lies the difference between civilized and uncivilized societies.

If allowing an abnormal act to appease the world would make us "civilised" than we rather stay "uncivilised." We are Muslims and for us the word and law of God is everything no matter which century or era we live in. Furthermore, our land our laws, if someone has a problem they are free to leave.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

If allowing an abnormal act to appease the world would make us "civilised" than we rather stay "uncivilised." We are Muslims and for us the word and law of God is everything no matter which century or era we live in. Furthermore, our land our laws, if someone has a problem they are free to leave.

Fair enough. Atleast you are man enough to admit that it is your religion that influences your POV. Can't say the sane for some others lol.

 

[James]

Indian Defence Ministry rejected film on gay soldier, says Onir

<b>Major J Suresh quit Indian Army after it became untenable for him to remain in service given his sexual orientation</b>

<b><i>Indian filmmaker Onir has confirmed his script about a gay Indian soldier has been rejected by the Defence Ministry, reported NDTV. The director's snubbed film was meant to revolve around the story of Major J Suresh, who quit the Indian Army after it became untenable for him to remain in the service given his sexual orientation.</b></I>

"According to the new law, if you have any character or anything to do with the forces, the Indian army, you have to get a NOC from the Indian army to be able to make that film.

Otherwise, you won't be able to get that certified," Onir told NDTV. On December 16, I formally applied (for the NOC) with my script, which I think treats everything with a lot of dignity and respect. I am not out here to demean anybody. I have a lot of love and respect for the Indian army."

He went on to share, "Then, the day before yesterday is when I got the email and I was told that the 'content has been examined, analysed and rejected’. I, of course, have asked for clarification, asking why exactly (was it rejected).

I was told over the phone, it has not yet come in writing, that because there is no problem with the script. But, the fact that I have shown a gay character as an army man is illegal."

The Bas Ek Pal director concluded, “I have utmost respect and love for my army and wish they would not discriminate against anyone who wants to serve the country because of their sexuality."

Onir tweeted on the matter as well. “It’s a long long road to being treated as equal citizens, who have the right like every other citizen to serve our nation and its army. Why should one’s sexuality decide if one is capable? Miles to go before we sleep,” he posted.

 

[MenInG]

Critically-acclaimed Indian filmmaker Onir wanted to direct a movie inspired by a gay army major who resigned and came out in a blaze of publicity - but despite the country's democratic status, the military stopped it from being made.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu-nationalist government has been repeatedly accused of ramping up censorship in a systematic attack on dissent - including clampdowns on human rights activists, journalists and NGOs - since coming to power eight years ago.

In 2020 it issued an order advising filmmakers to seek prior clearance for any military-themed script, a decision described by free speech campaigners as both Orwellian and unconstitutional in the world's largest democracy. Onir, who uses only one name, is gay himself and was among the first major Bollywood figures to openly acknowledge his sexuality.

He is known for his movies about the lives of socially marginalised groups, and his creative eye was caught by the case of Major J Suresh, who hit national headlines in 2020 after he quit the army and announced: "Out!! Proud!! Liberated!!"

"I'm gay - and I'm very proud that I'm gay," the ex-army officer - who had served in some of India's most turbulent regions including Kashmir - wrote on his blog. He later gave a ground-breaking interview on national television that went viral in the socially conservative country.

Onir's script, We Are, narrates four stories, those of a trans woman, a lesbian, a bisexual man and a fictitious account of the love between a gay officer and a Kashmiri boy. But when he approached the defence ministry for a "no objection certificate" - which most studios, streaming platforms and producers now insist on to ensure there are no legal or administrative hurdles - he was rejected. "They told me... the fact that I have portrayed the army man as gay is illegal," he told AFP.

'Barometer of patriotism'

India only decriminalised gay sex in a 2018 Supreme Court ruling, but both homosexuality and adultery remain punishable offences under the Army Act, with jail terms of up to 10 years. At the same time, India also has a long history of post-production film censorship, and concerns over freedom of expression were raised by new social media regulations last year.

The country's junior defence minister Ajay Bhatt confirmed to parliament last week that Onir's film had been refused permission because of "the portrayal of a romantic relationship between an army soldier serving in Kashmir and a local boy which casts (the) Indian army in poor light and raises security concerns".

He insisted the pre-screening process was neither unconstitutional nor a denial of free speech, and said the government considered factors including national security, popular sentiment and the image of the armed forces to ensure the military "isn't depicted in a manner which brings disrepute". But Mumbai-based Onir, 52, pointed out that movies, where officers fall in love with women, were never rejected.

"Why is one's sexuality being made the barometer for one's patriotism or ability to defend the nation?" he asked. "Everyone seems to get offended over the slightest things but what about the artists' creativity or sentiments? We don't matter."

Several of his films have addressed gay themes, including My Brother... Nikhil, the story of Indian swimming champion Dominic D'Souza who was arrested in the 1980s after testing HIV positive. I Am combined four stories examining same-sex relationships and other taboo subjects such as sperm donation and child abuse.

It was named the best Hindi film in the 2012 National Film Awards, the country's equivalent of the Oscars, but even then satellite channels declined to broadcast it. In his own life, he said, "I have always been out. I have never had one moment of coming out or crisis about who I am."

'Patriotic chest-thumping'

Some of the most popular military-themed movies and web series in India in recent years have been nationalistic, all-guns-blazing stories of heroics by soldiers, including Uri: The Surgical Strike, inspired by a Modi-ordered 2016 operation into Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

The Indian prime minister's populist vision of a muscular India dominated by the Hindu majority has brought him multiple election wins and he enjoys strong support in the armed forces, whose budgets and benefits he has significantly improved. But critics say giving the military control over how it is portrayed is fundamentally inappropriate in a democratic country.

"It's problematic," said Hartosh Singh Bal, political editor of Caravan magazine. "How can the army decide how it is depicted, seen or criticised by the people?"

Modi's government has "repeatedly invoked the army with its patriotic chest-thumping for domestic politics", Bal said, and now senior generals have "started making political comments".

 

[gazza619]

<b>Major J Suresh quit Indian Army after it became untenable for him to remain in service given his sexual orientation</b>

<b><i>Indian filmmaker Onir has confirmed his script about a gay Indian soldier has been rejected by the Defence Ministry, reported NDTV. The director's snubbed film was meant to revolve around the story of Major J Suresh, who quit the Indian Army after it became untenable for him to remain in the service given his sexual orientation.</b></I>

"According to the new law, if you have any character or anything to do with the forces, the Indian army, you have to get a NOC from the Indian army to be able to make that film.

Otherwise, you won't be able to get that certified," Onir told NDTV. On December 16, I formally applied (for the NOC) with my script, which I think treats everything with a lot of dignity and respect. I am not out here to demean anybody. I have a lot of love and respect for the Indian army."

He went on to share, "Then, the day before yesterday is when I got the email and I was told that the 'content has been examined, analysed and rejected’. I, of course, have asked for clarification, asking why exactly (was it rejected).

I was told over the phone, it has not yet come in writing, that because there is no problem with the script. But, the fact that I have shown a gay character as an army man is illegal."

The Bas Ek Pal director concluded, “I have utmost respect and love for my army and wish they would not discriminate against anyone who wants to serve the country because of their sexuality."

Onir tweeted on the matter as well. “It’s a long long road to being treated as equal citizens, who have the right like every other citizen to serve our nation and its army. Why should one’s sexuality decide if one is capable? Miles to go before we sleep,” he posted.

What does the defence ministry got to do anything with approving or rejecting a movie? Don't they have more important things to do?

 

[Stewie]

What does the defence ministry got to do anything with approving or rejecting a movie? Don't they have more important things to do?

lol.. this is the free, democratic, secular india. where gay sex is decriminalized but you cannot make a movie of a gay army major. Also lets not forget gay sex is okay but wearing hijab by choice in schools is apparently not.

 

[Vegitto1]

<b>Major J Suresh quit Indian Army after it became untenable for him to remain in service given his sexual orientation</b>

<b><i>Indian filmmaker Onir has confirmed his script about a gay Indian soldier has been rejected by the Defence Ministry, reported NDTV. The director's snubbed film was meant to revolve around the story of Major J Suresh, who quit the Indian Army after it became untenable for him to remain in the service given his sexual orientation.</b></I>

"According to the new law, if you have any character or anything to do with the forces, the Indian army, you have to get a NOC from the Indian army to be able to make that film.

Otherwise, you won't be able to get that certified," Onir told NDTV. On December 16, I formally applied (for the NOC) with my script, which I think treats everything with a lot of dignity and respect. I am not out here to demean anybody. I have a lot of love and respect for the Indian army."

He went on to share, "Then, the day before yesterday is when I got the email and I was told that the 'content has been examined, analysed and rejected’. I, of course, have asked for clarification, asking why exactly (was it rejected).

I was told over the phone, it has not yet come in writing, that because there is no problem with the script. But, the fact that I have shown a gay character as an army man is illegal."

The Bas Ek Pal director concluded, “I have utmost respect and love for my army and wish they would not discriminate against anyone who wants to serve the country because of their sexuality."

Onir tweeted on the matter as well. “It’s a long long road to being treated as equal citizens, who have the right like every other citizen to serve our nation and its army. Why should one’s sexuality decide if one is capable? Miles to go before we sleep,” he posted.

Might is right everywhere. Others just hide it better.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

lol.. this is the free, democratic, secular india. where gay sex is decriminalized but you cannot make a movie of a gay army major. Also lets not forget gay sex is okay but wearing hijab by choice in schools is apparently not.

Well from this action, it's quite clear that gay sex is not ok in India, seems like they like to pretend it is but reality is different where the rubber meets the road. More confusion for the masses.

 

[cricketjoshila]

What does the defence ministry got to do anything with approving or rejecting a movie? Don't they have more important things to do?

Under Indian law, if any movie is being made on Indian armed forces, it has to be approved by the armed forces via its ministry.

Bollywood is notorious for showing half truths and several real life armed forces personnel have complained that Bollywood misrepresented them.

 

[cricketjoshila]

lol.. this is the free, democratic, secular india. where gay sex is decriminalized but you cannot make a movie of a gay army major. Also lets not forget gay sex is okay but wearing hijab by choice in schools is apparently not.

article 33 of the Constitution, Parliament is empowered to enact laws determining to what extent any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution shall, in their application to the members of the Armed Forces or the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order, be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.

Armed forces are guided by article 33. If you join the armed forces, there are restrictions on your fundamental rights.

 

[KingKhanWC]

article 33 of the Constitution, Parliament is empowered to enact laws determining to what extent any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution shall, in their application to the members of the Armed Forces or the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order, be restricted or abrogated so as to ensure the proper discharge of their duties and the maintenance of discipline among them.

Armed forces are guided by article 33. If you join the armed forces, there are restrictions on your fundamental rights.

Major J Suresh cannot be the only gay man or woman in the Indian forces.

What is the logic behind restricting gay people? Are they considered to be weak fighters?