Happenings, Feb '14 (update 1)
Drake Fort reports on an interactive event organized by the West Bengal chapter of the Indian Psychiatric Society to clarify their stand on homosexuality
Kolkata, February 9, 2014: As I write this article I hear the trumpets of a wedding ceremony from the TV in the next room. My parents are watching their favourite Bengali TV serial Ishti Kutum on Star Jalsha channel, and yes, it is the story of how two lovers eventually find their way through enormous struggles against family and society. But while their love had the ‘approval’ of society, I know my fight is far from over. Fortunately, despite enormous setbacks, some good things do happen, which bring relief and act like a soothing balm after horrible pain and mental torture endured for long. The pain doesn’t go away permanently, but the energy and vigour needed for survival receives a leg-up!
Drake Fort reports on an interactive event organized by the West Bengal chapter of the Indian Psychiatric Society to clarify their stand on homosexuality
Kolkata, February 9, 2014: As I write this article I hear the trumpets of a wedding ceremony from the TV in the next room. My parents are watching their favourite Bengali TV serial Ishti Kutum on Star Jalsha channel, and yes, it is the story of how two lovers eventually find their way through enormous struggles against family and society. But while their love had the ‘approval’ of society, I know my fight is far from over. Fortunately, despite enormous setbacks, some good things do happen, which bring relief and act like a soothing balm after horrible pain and mental torture endured for long. The pain doesn’t go away permanently, but the energy and vigour needed for survival receives a leg-up!
On January 18, 2014, Dr. Indira Sharma, former
President of the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS) made a shocking statement
that homosexuality was unnatural, that Indian society did not talk about sex
the way homosexuals talked about it openly (she was likely hinting at the
rainbow pride walks held across the country), and that homosexuals uncomfortable
with their sexuality should seek psychiatric help. She made the statement at
the annual meet of the IPS in Pune, and was quoted again along similar lines in
newspapers.
This development attracted wide media
attention and forced the IPS to issue a statement that Dr. Indira Sharma’s
statements were made in her personal capacity and the IPS did not consider homosexuality
unnatural or a disease. This was followed by another statement of the IPS on
February 6, 2014 explaining their official stand on homosexuality on their
website (see inset). Was this an attempt at being politically correct? Was it a
face-saver before the international community, which had done away with diagnosing
homosexuality as a disease a long time ago? I hope not, and the good thing was that
the IPS’ statement brought about clarity on a subject shrouded in
misconceptions.
The Indian lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender (queer) community also gained a visible ally in its struggle,
especially after the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court ruling of
July 2009, which after a long legal campaign read down Section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code and decriminalized adult consensual sex, including same-sex
sexual relations. The IPS’ statement came none too soon because the Supreme
Court reinstated Section 377 in December 2013 – ostensibly recriminalizing only
specific sexual acts irrespective of gender identity or sexual orientation, but
in larger effect recriminalizing queer people.
On February 8, 2014, the West Bengal
chapter of the IPS, in response to several requests, took matters further and
organized an interactive event ‘Alternative Sexualities’ involving mental
health professionals, queer activists, NGOs and individuals. Held at the Golden
Park Hotel, Kolkata, the event demonstrated that the IPS was willing to look deeper
into the matter regarding gender and sexuality diversity.
The event started with a welcome note by
Dr. Ujjaini Srimani, psychiatrist associated with the West Bengal chapter of
the IPS. The first part of the event was a panel discussion moderated by Dr.
Ranjita Biswas, psychiatrist and faculty with the School of Women’s Studies,
Jadavpur University. The panellists, in order of speaking, were Dr. Debashis Chatterjee,
psychiatrist associated with the Indian Psychiatric Society; Kaushik Gupta, advocate
with the Calcutta High Court, sexual rights activist and member of Varta; Pawan
Dhall, queer and HIV activist and founder member of Varta; Anuttama Banerjee,
psychologist; and Minakshi Sanyal, founder of Sappho for Equality, the only
exclusive support forum for lesbians, bisexual women and female-to-male
transgender persons in eastern India.
Dr. Ranjita Biswas set the note for the
discussion with an opening comment that when the Delhi High Court read down
Section 377, the Indian queer community began a journey of visibility and
dialogue with larger society. However, the Supreme Court’s judgement again cast
the issue of diverse genders and sexualities in a negative light. In this
context, not just queer people but their families too were looking for answers
from mental health professionals, and it was crucial for them to address the
issue clearly to the public. She added that mental health services were not
just meant for healing but were also supposed to impart information and
knowledge to people on gender and sexuality. It was also important to note that
while the Delhi High Court ruling did provide legal help, it did not clarify
the meaning of the term ‘unnatural sex’ that figured in the text of Section
377. This is where mental health professionals needed to step in and provide
clear answers.
Dr. Debashis Chatterjee first read out the
statement issued by the IPS (see inset). To this he added: “Current theory
states that homosexuality is not pathological but a normal variant of human
sexuality. It is certainly not a disease but the main problem lies in the
social attitudes towards homosexuality. There is no longer any current
international debate regarding the status of homosexuality as pathology and
hence there is no question of treatment. Those who come to psychiatrists
seeking help regarding homosexuality should be treated only for anxiety or
depression caused by the societal pressure they face because of their
sexuality.”
He said that in spite of the stand taken by
agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and American Psychiatric Association (APA) on homosexuality, comments like those of Dr. Indira Sharma
were damaging and had to be countered through a proactive stance.
In the course of his speech, Dr. Debashis
Chatterjee also explained that there was a belief that the 1973 decision taken
by the APA to delist homosexuality as a mental health disorder was based merely
on a voting process that was not objective in its approach. But this belief was
misplaced. The vote was taken to decide whether the scientific evidence
available to delist homosexuality was adequate or not, and not on the question
of homosexuality being a disease or not. The evidence that was eventually
considered was itself based on long-term scientifically sound research. Mental
health professionals needed to be aware about this aspect and provide accurate
information on the subject of homosexuality to their clients.
The next speaker, Kaushik Gupta, spoke about
how in the eyes of the law, the Supreme Court’s verdict on Section 377 was fundamentally
flawed. Quoting Justice B. N. Kripal’s book by the name of Supreme But Not
Infallible (Oxford University Press India, 2004), which analysed the Supreme
Court’s functioning in its 50th anniversary year, he said that the right to
life was suspended in times of the Emergency in the 1970s and the Supreme Court
supported this regressive development. Its judgement in the Section 377 matter
was equally regressive. Also very recently it was the Supreme Court that went
ahead with the decision to regulate who can put up red beacons on their cars
and who cannot. If the Supreme Court could take a decision in a matter that
other arms of the State could well have decided on, why could it not rule in a
matter that concerned the very lives of the country’s citizens? Why pass it to
on to the Parliament for deciding?
Kaushik Gupta also criticised the Supreme
Court verdict for having dismissed queer people as a minuscule minority. India’s
Constitution provided for protection of all its communities, irrespective of
their numerical strength. The right to life enshrined in the Constitution was not
the validation of mere existence but the right to life with dignity. He was
also critical of the media for projecting Section 377 as a ‘gay sex law’,
unmindful of the fact that it affected anybody practising almost any kind of
non-penile vaginal sex, irrespective of sexual orientation or gender identity.
It essentially gave the State the right to invade the privacy of consenting adults,
and everybody should be outraged with this aspect.
Pawan Dhall thanked many of Kolkata’s
mental health professionals for their support for the queer movement over the
years and the IPS for its initiative, but posed a few questions to ponder on. He
was concerned that though the IPS had clarified its stand on homosexuality, would
this be enough to ensure that all mental health professionals in India stopped
treating homosexuality as something to be cured. Would the IPS statement be
officially binding on them, especially since instances of aversion therapy to
cure homosexuality were still heard of? He also warned that in spite of
homosexuality being delisted from the WHO’s International Classification of
Diseases and APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, many
students of MBBS possibly still studied outdated or older edition of reference
books, which carried dated information on homosexuality and even issues like
Section 377. He suggested that the IPS should collaborate with other sections
of the medical fraternity to ensure that updated information was imparted to
students of medical science.
Adding to Pawan Dhall’s comments, Anuttama
Banerjee said that guidelines were already in place that required mental health
professionals to not project their personal values and biases on their clients.
But unfortunately some professionals still had the tendency to assume that only
heterosexuality was ‘normal’ because it seemed to be the majority phenomenon.
They tended to pathologise homosexuality and make claims of curing queer people.
She said that these undertones had to be addressed effectively through
intensive training beyond the syllabus and sensitization of mental health
professionals.
From left to right: Dr. Debashis Chatterjee, Kaushik Gupta, Pawan Dhall, Dr. Ranjita Biswas, Anuttama Banerjee and Minakshi Sanyal. Photo credit: Pranaadhika Sinha Devburman |
Minakshi Sanyal’s presentation was the most
impassioned of all. She was asked by the moderator that as a long-time queer activist
what would she take back from the IPS’ statement. Tongue-in-cheek, she ‘thanked’
Hindu right wing parties for all the vandalism caused after the release of the
film Fire in 1998, and the consequent attention drawn to the issues of lesbians
and bisexual women. She also ‘thanked’ Dr. Indira Sharma for her comments on
homosexuality, which had catalyzed many positive developments at considerable
speed. But she rued the fact that even after a lot of activism, gender binaries
were still to be broken. People failed to look at the human beings behind
labels like gay, straight, lesbian or transgender, or even man and woman.
She talked about coming across several
shocking cases of parents disowning their children because of their sexuality.
Some of these parents were mental health professionals themselves. Sometimes
even well-known psychiatrists told their clients that homosexuality was a
disease. She narrated the example of a woman from Kolkata who was forcibly
married to a man by her parents. The couple went off to USA, where the woman finally
managed to gather courage and obtain a divorce. In fact, because of her social
conditioning, it took the woman 6-7 years to realize that she was lesbian.
Minakshi Sanyal concluded with the hope that the IPS’ statement would genuinely
help address social biases and rigidities around gender and sexuality.
In a lively audience interaction that
followed, Dr. Aurobinda Chowdhury, a mental health professional, said the
Supreme Court’s verdict had sown many seeds of doubt about homosexuality and
legalized discrimination against queer people. In such a situation it was the
responsibility of the IPS to come forward and remove myths and misconceptions
around homosexuality.
Some members of the audience doubted
whether aversion therapy was still practiced in Kolkata, but both Pawan Dhall
and Minakshi Sanyal provided information about instances within the last few
years. It was also pointed out by the panellists and other members in the
audience that the situation was indeed worrisome outside big cities like
Kolkata. First, mental health services were hardly available in small towns and
rural areas. Second, queer support groups still received calls on their
helplines from individuals who were subjected to ‘treatment’ for their gender
identity or sexual orientation by family members and medical practitioners with
suspect qualifications.
To a question whether the Supreme Court had
really been wrong in passing on the matter of Section 377 to the legislature, Kaushik
Gupta again stressed that the judiciary was empowered by the Constitution to rule
on a matter that had not been properly addressed by the Parliament, especially
if it involved the Fundamental Rights. It was, in fact, the Supreme Court’s job
to uphold the rights to life with dignity and freedom of expression.
A discussion ensued on the difference between
criminalization and pathologisation. Something that was criminal need not be a
disease. Even if it was a disease, should it be criminalized? If yes, what
about diabetes and diabetics – wouldn’t they have to be criminalized as well?
In conclusion, the moderator asked the
panellists to make final statements. Key among the recommendations made by the
panellists was the need for continued training and orientation of mental health
professionals on the latest developments around gender and sexuality. The
panellists also suggested greater interface between mental health professionals
and their counterparts working on legal, gender, sexuality and other public
health issues for exchange of information and ideas.
On July 2, 2018, the Indian Psychiatric Society issued a fresh position statement on homosexuality, which can be read here. This time around, the statement was issued just before the Supreme Court decided to take up the matter of Section 377, Indian Penal Code afresh – after a chain of events that unfolded since December 2013 when the Supreme Court had overruled the Delhi High Court's reading down of Section 377 in July 2009 - Editor.
On July 2, 2018, the Indian Psychiatric Society issued a fresh position statement on homosexuality, which can be read here. This time around, the statement was issued just before the Supreme Court decided to take up the matter of Section 377, Indian Penal Code afresh – after a chain of events that unfolded since December 2013 when the Supreme Court had overruled the Delhi High Court's reading down of Section 377 in July 2009 - Editor.
Drake Fort is an engineering student trying to
pack in Pokemon training, gadgets, activism, love for nature, parkour and more
in 24 hours!
No comments:
Post a Comment