Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

377 arguments, 4 voices

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Advocate
    SHRIMOYEE NANDINI GHOSH, 29 As a feminist, I understand the sheer wrongness of Section 377

    Even these four have disparate stories. One is a hard-nosed Supreme Court lawyer, driven to the case by the constitutional obviousness of the cause. The others are more activist: a gay lawyer who wants to help his community, a feminist driven by middle-class guilt and pleasure, and a small-town girl hoping to empower herself and the world around her. But what links these stories is that all four could be anywhere else, earning far more. The global options available only highlight the choice they have made. The socially conscious lawyers of the 1970s fought on passion and belief. Version 2.0’s passion is matched by rigorous legal skills. This is their story.

    VASUMAN KHANDELWAL, 27

    ‘The argument for decriminalising homosexuality is a mainstream one’

    When Vasuman Khandelwal was growing up, he had no idea what homosexuality meant. “The first time I was exposed to the idea was when I saw the Hollywood film Philadelphia (in which Tom Hanks plays a gay HIV victim).” But even then, he didn’t really understand. Then Vasuman went to law school in Bangalore, where Australian judge Michael Kirby came visiting. Justice Kirby is openly gay, and a gay advocate. “It set me thinking,” says Khandelwal, “since Justice Kirby was so brilliant, and so respectable, homosexuality couldn’t really be a perversion, could it?”

    Ads by Google

    Khandelwal chose to study law at a time when the word “lawyer” conjured up images of sleazy black-suits shouting “Rs 300 for divorce” outside police stations. But when Khandelwal graduated from National Law School Bangalore, in 2004, and SOAS (London) in 2005, he had the pick of jobs to choose from. But this Delhi boy was always interested in the Indian Constitution, and the drama of the court room. “I always wanted to engage with Indian public institutions,” he says. It is this fascination for constitutional rights that drove Khandelwal to become a Supreme Court lawyer. It is this fascination that made him work on the 377 case, as junior to the eminent lawyer Shyam Divan. “The Constitution also protects homosexuals against discrimination,” he points out, “they deserve to live lives and build relationships—so essential to fulfilling life’s goals.”

    ... contd.

    PreviousNext1234
    fight till the endBy: n r | 20-Apr-2009 Reply | Forward such strong willed lawyers not only can change the hollow law system but also inspire the people around them...it takes courage to stand for something which is looked down upon by millions of orthodox and closed minds
    ColumsBy: vasuman | 08-Jan-2009 Reply | Forward "Why, then, should India’s brightest young lawyers—the world at their feet—be working at minimum wage, even free, arguing for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in India?" - Or why indeed should they be writing columns for Indian Express at i am sure a fraction of the 12 lakh per year salary which the author himself refers to. Food for thought perhaps.
    >By: SK | 26-Dec-2008 Reply | Forward I have great respect for these lawyers who have the courage and dedication to fight for what they believe in, and to use their skills to improve lives. I personally believe that it is narrow-minded and wrong to hold a prejudice against homosexuality.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.