Where is Youth for Equality? « National Highway

Where is Youth for Equality? | Sep 23rd 2006

After his open letter against Section 377, Vikram Seth opens up in a rare interview with Sheela Reddy, saying how he hates being considered a criminal in his country.

One of the great problems for homosexuals here is the hunt for a monogamous partner. What has been your own experience?

In a funny way, if this law was done away with, it would be much easier to find a monogamous partner because you could be open about things. Even in tolerant echelons of society there is quite a lot of nudging and sniggering behind people’s backs. I myself was for a long time in a monogamous relationship which is sadly over now but anyway it only happened abroad.

How long did it last?

Well, basically, for ten years.

Your mother mentioned your partner in her book…

I don’t particularly want to get too personal about it. But my mother met my partner, Philippe, and both families also got along very well. [A shorter version appears in the print edition]

As the Wikipedia entry will tell you, Seth’s relationship has been known since 1999, when An Equal Music came out:

Paolo Isotta, one of Italy’s most significant music critics, wrote in the influential newspaper Il Corriere della Sera of the Italian translation that no European writer had ever shown such a knowledge of European classical music, nor had any European novel before managed to convey the psychology, the technical abilities, even the human potentialities of those who practise music for a living (Silvia Albertazzi, 2005). Seth credits his partner, the French violinist Philippe Honoré, as inspiring him with the idea for An Equal Music in an acrostic sonnet on Honoré’s name which is the epigraph to An Equal Music:

Perhaps this could have stayed unstated.
Had our words turned to other things
In the grey park, the rain abated,
Life would have quickened other strings.
I list your gifts in this creation:
Pen, paper, ink and inspiration,
Peace to the heart with touch or word,
Ease to the soul with note and chord.

How did that walk, those winter hours,
Occasion this? No lightning came;
Nor did I sense, when touched by flame,
Our story lit with borrowed powers -
Rather, by what our spirits burned,
Embered in words, to us returned

[Link]

The book was accompanied by a music CD performed by Honoré.

In the same issue of Outlook, Shefalee Vasudev writes, “Indians only stand up for a cause if it suits their current state of conscience. It’s a ‘conditional open-mindedness’.” Oh yes, where are the Youth for Equality guys on the issue of Section 377?

(Credit: The ususual Seth photo above is by Dick Scott-Stewart.)

Posted in middle class hypocrisy

18 Comments »

idiot, dont u understand economics 101? why shoul the youth for qequality stand up? they would fight for something that affects THEIR LIVES DIRECTLY.
homosexuality doesnt. the homosexual population should FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS THEMSELVES rather than expecting someone to do their dirty work.

this is what economics 101 says, and how the system works.

so whats ur point? everyone in india shud fight for gay rights? why the hell when it doesnt affect half the populations lives?

Comment by vatsan — September 23, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
Interesting read…homosexuality is much more common than it is believed in our country. The middle-ages had the tradition of pederasty that continued until late 60s and had a lot of social sanction also though no body talks about it now and it is just stories of ‘conquests’ of Firaq and Josh that are often discussed. But homosexuals are in a much larger number. I don’t know if de-criminalisation will solve the problem of ‘cruising’ and courting young boys who are often ‘turned into’ homosexuals rather than choice.

Comment by Indscribe — September 23, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
Curious - isn’t the repeal of Section 377 everyone’s concern? If Youth for Equality is not there, neither is Udit Raj, Kancha Iliah, M. Karunanidhi, Farooq Abdullah, Sonia Gandhi, Mayawati and Jayalalitha. (The last named incidentally, was commonly believed in TN to have had a lesbian relationship with Shashikala Natarajan.)

Regarding Shefalee Vasudev’s comments, how about a cross-country comparison of the movement for gay rights? Exactly, how many non-gays have been involved in such movements in countries which have legal gay rights? It is unfortunately true that most people in most countries can’t see beyond their immediate concerns. How many “world citizens” were actively involved in anti-apartheid? Many Kashmiris are openly bitter about the failure of the broader Indian society - including its “patriotic” journalists - to take human rights violations in Kashmir more seriously.

Non-involvement is thus not something peculiarly Indian. Shefalee Vasudev’s comments are a reflection of a tendency to run down fellow Indians without reason - one presumes, of course, that the writer herself is a shining exception to the rule. We could do with less pompous journalism.

Comment by suresh — September 25, 2006 @ 3:10 am
[...] For a link on this site to an earlier exchange between Seth and Reddy, go here. Also Shivam Vij on the above interview. [...]

Pingback by Amitava Kumar :: How To Interview A Gay Writer :: September :: 2006 — September 25, 2006 @ 8:48 am
The dude vatsan has a point. People fight for what they care about. What they care about is often influenced by what directly affects them. And there are some things people care about more than others.

Comment by Vulturo — September 25, 2006 @ 10:22 am
Vatsan, Vulturo: My point is in the context of what Shefalee Vasudev says. My point is that Youth for Equality claims to stand for equality, but, as indeed both of you point out, it stands for the privilige of a certain class.

And just imagine the support that the campaign against the inequal Section 377 would recieve were a group like YfE to support it.

Comment by Shivam Vij — September 25, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
“And just imagine the support that the campaign against the inequal Section 377 would recieve were a group like YfE to support it.”

Even more curious - you have made no secret of your contempt towards YfE, so why are you interested in whether it supports the repeal campaign or not? And let us not kid ourselves - whether YfE supports the campaign or not makes little difference. That is just my opinion; if there is reason to think the contrary, then I’d appreciate knowing it. And no, I am not part of YfE.

What may make a difference is if one of our major politicians - whether from the Congress, BJP, Left - were to openly advocate gay rights. Note the complete silence from our politicians; even the left which is vocal on just about anything is silent. I would think that at least some of the more sophisticated and liberal politicians - people like Mani Shankar Aiyer, Sachin Pilot, Manavendra Singh or Sitaram Yechury - actually support gay rights but they choose to be silent. Rather than target YfE, we should target our (liberal) politicians and force them to take a vocal stand. That might not have an immediate payoff but by bringing the issue into the open and making it a political issue, we will force a broader debate in society which will be beneficial in the longer run.

Just my opinion.

Comment by suresh — September 25, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
I wasn’t aware of Section 377 and the fact that there was a law against gay/lesbian relationships in India.

I don’t know much about YFE or Shefalee Vasudev but this law is wrong and that it should be removed is for sure.

Comment by Swapna — September 26, 2006 @ 7:39 am
Every group has its own raison de etre, and a primary/flagship cause. There are LGBT rights groups, which are exclusively focused on LGBT rights. They can be expected to fight for LGBT rights but cannot be expected to fight against reservations or work towards dalit emancipation.

Of course, it is possible that some members of an LGBT rights group may also be a member of a group committed towards fighting reservations in an individual capacity. Just as it is absurd to say “Reservations are screwing the country where the hell are those LGBT groups, why aren’t they doing anything?”. it is equally absurd to ask “Where is Youth For Equality?” when gay rights simply isn’t their business.

Aaj tum keh rahe ho… homosexuals are being mistreated… “Where is youth for equality?”. Kal tum kahoge “Where is PETA, where is National Comission For Women, Where is Dalit Jagran Manch, Where is the Coffee Growers’ Association…” Get the drift?

It would be nice if some YFE members also joined LGBT groups in their capacity as individuals. It would be nice if ANYONE joined an LGBT support group in their capacity as an individuals, Sure. But to expect YFE as a whole to champion the gay cause is idiotic.

Comment by Vulturo — September 26, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
Sorry for this post, but I just can’t help posting Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code:

“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 152[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.”

It is couched in Victorian imagery - “against the order of nature.” Has our supreme court ruled exactly what constitutes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”? The Vikram Seth interview mentioned that even oral sex between husband and wife could be covered here.

Note though that lesbianism may not be covered by the law, given the references to “penetration.” Certainly, in England, for some time there was the curious phenomenon whereby homosexuality was illegal but lesbianism was legal.

Comment by suresh — September 26, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
@vulturo: I think the difference is in the name. “Youth For Equality”. “LGBT orgnaisation”.

I am sure there are individuals in the Y4E who have spoken against the discrimination against gays but as a whole they may not agree on other issues.

Just like there are some dalits (read, Chandrabhan) have spoken against reservations for OBCs and others have strongly spoken for it.

Maybe they are better off changing their group’s name to “Youth against reservations” or something like that. Equality is too huge a word to be used in such a narrow manner.

Comment by Apurva — September 26, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
I suppose a better example of the difference in the names is “National Commission for Women” or “People for ethical treatment of animals”.

Comment by Apurva — September 26, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
Anyone here heard of any such thing as a rhetorical question?

And you guys are all missing the point of Shefalee Vasudev’s article.

Comment by Shivam Vij — September 27, 2006 @ 12:19 am
OBC Students Outperforms General Caste
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2070274.cms

The moily ass*** is saying OBCs are outperforming general caste can some body ask this bast**** if that is the case why the bast** is proposing reservation for OBC people

Comment by moily is a bastard — October 3, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
I wasn’t aware of Section 377 and the fact that there was a law against gay/lesbian relationships in India.

I don’t think lesbianism is illegal, as long as no unnatural penetration (i.e. sodomy) takes place (which it possibly can’t)

Comment by Vulturo — October 5, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
@Vulturo: Umm… Are you sure? There are utilities for that, arnt there?

Comment by Apurva — October 5, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
Dear Shivam,

The language used by anti-reservationist Shudra Varna Hindu people is insulting. All non-priest people belong to SHUDRA Varna because “Kshatriya” task is taken care by “Indian Military”, few businessman are taking care of ‘Vaishya’ varna and very few are priests in temples who can be called as “Brahmins” so rest all so called Hindu people are SHUDRA as per Veda, Geeta and DharmaShastra. These people don’t have any intellectual level to debate. Most of these SHUDRAs are hooligans. Legal punishment is necessary for using bad words. But most of these people are cowards and are not coming forward. Youth For Equality must come forward for the rights of GAY HINDUS also.

Comment by Pravin B. — October 11, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
I think mr.vikram seth is forgetting something…the youth for equality serves the interests of a particular class of the society..so so called upper class who are afraid of loosing their hold over other people …and their campaign is supported by a particular party….no gift for guessing …though that party doesnt have guts to come in open …and fully supported by the electronic media …in a biased way…and as someone mentioned ….alternate sexuality ppl should fight for their own rights…coz youth for equality is not for EQUALITY…they are for their own hold….so dont expect them to work for equality coz they never bothered about equality if that was the case …..the ppl who started youth for equality wouldnt have used reservation(of different kind ..called institutional quota) despite having ..the best of the faculty at AIIMS in undergraduation…and best of the facilities …its so ironical…everyone overlooks this fact ….and STUDENTS UNION of AIIMS wouldnt have used more than 100 percent reservation for themselves from 1984 to around 2000 in PG COURSES at AIIMS ……..

Comment by arun — October 12, 2006 @ 4:33 pm

Say something? Comments RSS TrackBack URI

idiot, dont u understand economics 101? why shoul the youth for qequality stand up? they would fight for something that affects THEIR LIVES DIRECTLY.
homosexuality doesnt. the homosexual population should FIGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS THEMSELVES rather than expecting someone to do their dirty work.

this is what economics 101 says, and how the system works.

so whats ur point? everyone in india shud fight for gay rights? why the hell when it doesnt affect half the populations lives?

Comment by vatsan — September 23, 2006 @ 4:03 pm

Interesting read…homosexuality is much more common than it is believed in our country. The middle-ages had the tradition of pederasty that continued until late 60s and had a lot of social sanction also though no body talks about it now and it is just stories of ‘conquests’ of Firaq and Josh that are often discussed. But homosexuals are in a much larger number. I don’t know if de-criminalisation will solve the problem of ‘cruising’ and courting young boys who are often ‘turned into’ homosexuals rather than choice.

Comment by Indscribe — September 23, 2006 @ 11:04 pm

Curious - isn’t the repeal of Section 377 everyone’s concern? If Youth for Equality is not there, neither is Udit Raj, Kancha Iliah, M. Karunanidhi, Farooq Abdullah, Sonia Gandhi, Mayawati and Jayalalitha. (The last named incidentally, was commonly believed in TN to have had a lesbian relationship with Shashikala Natarajan.)

Regarding Shefalee Vasudev’s comments, how about a cross-country comparison of the movement for gay rights? Exactly, how many non-gays have been involved in such movements in countries which have legal gay rights? It is unfortunately true that most people in most countries can’t see beyond their immediate concerns. How many “world citizens” were actively involved in anti-apartheid? Many Kashmiris are openly bitter about the failure of the broader Indian society - including its “patriotic” journalists - to take human rights violations in Kashmir more seriously.

Non-involvement is thus not something peculiarly Indian. Shefalee Vasudev’s comments are a reflection of a tendency to run down fellow Indians without reason - one presumes, of course, that the writer herself is a shining exception to the rule. We could do with less pompous journalism.

Comment by suresh — September 25, 2006 @ 3:10 am

[...] For a link on this site to an earlier exchange between Seth and Reddy, go here. Also Shivam Vij on the above interview. [...]

Pingback by Amitava Kumar :: How To Interview A Gay Writer :: September :: 2006 — September 25, 2006 @ 8:48 am

The dude vatsan has a point. People fight for what they care about. What they care about is often influenced by what directly affects them. And there are some things people care about more than others.

Comment by Vulturo — September 25, 2006 @ 10:22 am

Vatsan, Vulturo: My point is in the context of what Shefalee Vasudev says. My point is that Youth for Equality claims to stand for equality, but, as indeed both of you point out, it stands for the privilige of a certain class.

And just imagine the support that the campaign against the inequal Section 377 would recieve were a group like YfE to support it.

Comment by Shivam Vij — September 25, 2006 @ 12:22 pm

“And just imagine the support that the campaign against the inequal Section 377 would recieve were a group like YfE to support it.”

Even more curious - you have made no secret of your contempt towards YfE, so why are you interested in whether it supports the repeal campaign or not? And let us not kid ourselves - whether YfE supports the campaign or not makes little difference. That is just my opinion; if there is reason to think the contrary, then I’d appreciate knowing it. And no, I am not part of YfE.

What may make a difference is if one of our major politicians - whether from the Congress, BJP, Left - were to openly advocate gay rights. Note the complete silence from our politicians; even the left which is vocal on just about anything is silent. I would think that at least some of the more sophisticated and liberal politicians - people like Mani Shankar Aiyer, Sachin Pilot, Manavendra Singh or Sitaram Yechury - actually support gay rights but they choose to be silent. Rather than target YfE, we should target our (liberal) politicians and force them to take a vocal stand. That might not have an immediate payoff but by bringing the issue into the open and making it a political issue, we will force a broader debate in society which will be beneficial in the longer run.

Just my opinion.

Comment by suresh — September 25, 2006 @ 2:59 pm

I wasn’t aware of Section 377 and the fact that there was a law against gay/lesbian relationships in India.

I don’t know much about YFE or Shefalee Vasudev but this law is wrong and that it should be removed is for sure.

Comment by Swapna — September 26, 2006 @ 7:39 am

Every group has its own raison de etre, and a primary/flagship cause. There are LGBT rights groups, which are exclusively focused on LGBT rights. They can be expected to fight for LGBT rights but cannot be expected to fight against reservations or work towards dalit emancipation.

Of course, it is possible that some members of an LGBT rights group may also be a member of a group committed towards fighting reservations in an individual capacity. Just as it is absurd to say “Reservations are screwing the country where the hell are those LGBT groups, why aren’t they doing anything?”. it is equally absurd to ask “Where is Youth For Equality?” when gay rights simply isn’t their business.

Aaj tum keh rahe ho… homosexuals are being mistreated… “Where is youth for equality?”. Kal tum kahoge “Where is PETA, where is National Comission For Women, Where is Dalit Jagran Manch, Where is the Coffee Growers’ Association…” Get the drift?

It would be nice if some YFE members also joined LGBT groups in their capacity as individuals. It would be nice if ANYONE joined an LGBT support group in their capacity as an individuals, Sure. But to expect YFE as a whole to champion the gay cause is idiotic.

Comment by Vulturo — September 26, 2006 @ 6:15 pm

Sorry for this post, but I just can’t help posting Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code:

“Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 152[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.”

It is couched in Victorian imagery - “against the order of nature.” Has our supreme court ruled exactly what constitutes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”? The Vikram Seth interview mentioned that even oral sex between husband and wife could be covered here.

Note though that lesbianism may not be covered by the law, given the references to “penetration.” Certainly, in England, for some time there was the curious phenomenon whereby homosexuality was illegal but lesbianism was legal.

Comment by suresh — September 26, 2006 @ 6:17 pm

@vulturo: I think the difference is in the name. “Youth For Equality”. “LGBT orgnaisation”.

I am sure there are individuals in the Y4E who have spoken against the discrimination against gays but as a whole they may not agree on other issues.

Just like there are some dalits (read, Chandrabhan) have spoken against reservations for OBCs and others have strongly spoken for it.

Maybe they are better off changing their group’s name to “Youth against reservations” or something like that. Equality is too huge a word to be used in such a narrow manner.

Comment by Apurva — September 26, 2006 @ 10:46 pm

I suppose a better example of the difference in the names is “National Commission for Women” or “People for ethical treatment of animals”.

Comment by Apurva — September 26, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

Anyone here heard of any such thing as a rhetorical question?

And you guys are all missing the point of Shefalee Vasudev’s article.

Comment by Shivam Vij — September 27, 2006 @ 12:19 am

OBC Students Outperforms General Caste
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2070274.cms

The moily ass*** is saying OBCs are outperforming general caste can some body ask this bast**** if that is the case why the bast** is proposing reservation for OBC people

Comment by moily is a bastard — October 3, 2006 @ 2:41 pm

I don’t think lesbianism is illegal, as long as no unnatural penetration (i.e. sodomy) takes place (which it possibly can’t)

Comment by Vulturo — October 5, 2006 @ 12:54 pm

@Vulturo: Umm… Are you sure? There are utilities for that, arnt there?

Comment by Apurva — October 5, 2006 @ 6:20 pm

Dear Shivam,

The language used by anti-reservationist Shudra Varna Hindu people is insulting. All non-priest people belong to SHUDRA Varna because “Kshatriya” task is taken care by “Indian Military”, few businessman are taking care of ‘Vaishya’ varna and very few are priests in temples who can be called as “Brahmins” so rest all so called Hindu people are SHUDRA as per Veda, Geeta and DharmaShastra. These people don’t have any intellectual level to debate. Most of these SHUDRAs are hooligans. Legal punishment is necessary for using bad words. But most of these people are cowards and are not coming forward. Youth For Equality must come forward for the rights of GAY HINDUS also.

Comment by Pravin B. — October 11, 2006 @ 9:05 pm

I think mr.vikram seth is forgetting something…the youth for equality serves the interests of a particular class of the society..so so called upper class who are afraid of loosing their hold over other people …and their campaign is supported by a particular party….no gift for guessing …though that party doesnt have guts to come in open …and fully supported by the electronic media …in a biased way…and as someone mentioned ….alternate sexuality ppl should fight for their own rights…coz youth for equality is not for EQUALITY…they are for their own hold….so dont expect them to work for equality coz they never bothered about equality if that was the case …..the ppl who started youth for equality wouldnt have used reservation(of different kind ..called institutional quota) despite having ..the best of the faculty at AIIMS in undergraduation…and best of the facilities …its so ironical…everyone overlooks this fact ….and STUDENTS UNION of AIIMS wouldnt have used more than 100 percent reservation for themselves from 1984 to around 2000 in PG COURSES at AIIMS ……..

Comment by arun — October 12, 2006 @ 4:33 pm