In 1861, Thomas B. Macaulay, first Law Member of the Governor-General's Council in India introduced Article 377 to the Indian Penal Code, outlawing all "carnal intercourse", consensual or forced. The law had been introduced in nearly all territories governed by Queen Victoria. The reasons were obvious to British administrators. Homosexuality, they believed, allowed the spread of incurable diseases and hence must be curbed to protect the empire's soldiers and their health in far away shores. Its acceptance posed a threat to Victorian family values and the country's population growth rate. Preventing either scenario became necessary and British governments saw the need to make "carnal intercourse" a punishable crime. In 1950, when an independent India adopted a new constitution, its criminal code continued to include Article 377:

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 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. (IPC, Art. 377) 

Article 377 continued as the code for prosecuting "carnal intercourse" involving any human and remained unchallenged because of its applicability in cases of rape and paedophilia. In a majority of the nations once part of the erstwhile British empire, such a law has since been redirected from a universal edict to one applicable only in cases of non-consensual sex or sex with minors. However, in India, neither the judiciary nor the legislature were concerted in trying to remove the law's applicability to consenting adults. As a result, homosexuals and transvestites have not only faced social prejudices regarding their sexual preferences but, for over 60 years since India became an independent country, they have lived here as criminals. 

Many defenders of 377 point out that no court of law has prosecuted an individual on the basis of their private sexual practices with another consenting human. Yet the presence of 377 in India's criminal code is reason enough for members of the "queer" community to feel discriminated against and feel hard-pressed at the sharp end of the law. 

The fear of being rounded up and put behind bars has prevented many homosexual men and women from coming out of the closet and has proven to be a stumbling block for agencies working for their safety and rights, working to promote safe sex and prevent the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases including AIDS. The latter is a major cause for concern since India has one of fastest growing number of people infected by the HIV virus.

To provide basic civil rights to individuals who have not harmed anyone and to prevent a deadly disease from becoming more rampant, the Naz Foundation and similar NGOs filed a Public Interest Litigation at the Delhi High Court in 2001, asking it to read down Article 377 and remove its applicability to consenting adults of the same sex.   

On 2 July, a Delhi High Court bench of Justices A.P. Shah and S. Muralidhar announced its decision to read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, effectively begining the process of decriminalizing homosexuality in the country. The justices ruled that any law making consensual sex between adults of the same sex violates the fundamental rights of equality, non-discrimination and inclusiveness enshrined in India's constitution. They reasoned further that those who wish to retain the aforesaid clause in 377 on moral grounds must realize that no group of persons can be branded as criminal because of the state's moral disapproval. Constitutional approval would be necessary and the Constitution of India was based on the tenets of equality and inclusiveness. Nevertheless, the court very clearly specified that 377 would continue to apply to cases of non-consensual non-vaginal sex and sex with minors.

While the decision brought much joy to its beneficiaries who can no longer be rounded up as criminals because of their sexual preferences, there has been considerable debate regarding its social and cultural impact. Issues of sexuality and sex between heterosexuals are not openly discussed topics in India, hence the High Court's ruling seems preposterous to those who are afraid to allow it to enter public discourse. Religious leaders of  Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Christian denomination have shown remarkable unity in pointing out the moral vicissitudes of the court's judgment.

B.P. Singhal, a retired officer of the Indian Police Services and a Hindutva ideologue lashed out at the court's decision in this interview with Open magazine. He claims he is not against homosexuals but wants 377 to remain as is so it may serve as a deterrent. The argument Mr. Singhal makes is rather convoluted and worth a read, with the veteran making remarks such as, "Lesbians only end up in suicide. Male-to-male breeds diseases. Female-to-female are harming themselves only." Comments such as these relied on a thinly-veiled current of xenophobia, suggesting that homosexuality is a corrupting western introduction to traditional, authentic Indian culture.

Supporters of the High Court decision point out that Article 377, not homosexuality, was an import from the west. Ashok Malik in the Asian Age, Renuka Narayanan in the Hindustan Times both argue that homosexuals have always existed and been part of Indian culture as evidenced in ancient scriptures and sculptures. While homosexuality was not always an approved practice, they claim it was not considered a criminal act unless involving a minor. Antara Dev Sen points out further that India being a secular state, the judiciary need not pay attention to the cries of religious leaders.

Those in favour of the High Court's ruling caution that it will be some time before Indians with alternate sexual preferences can really live as free and equal citizens. Firstly, as many legal experts have analyzed, the Delhi High Court ruling is applicable only to the state of Delhi. The ruling should serve as a precedent for future court cases, yet a judgment from the apex Supreme Court will be necessary to allow it to apply countrywide.

Secondly, India's political class, which has been asked to consider revisiting 377 by parliamentary action, is now scared to voice its opinion on the matter. In 2008, the Home Ministry had rejected any such plea as it claimed that homosexuality "immoral" and against the ethos of Indian culture. However, the Health Minister supported decriminalization of homosexuality in order to provide transparent access to healthcare facilities for all individuals. In June, Law Minister Veerappa Moily promised to consider the scrapping of archaic clauses in 377. Ever since, the minister and his colleagues have chosen to remain silent on the matter. In a country where religion is often a basis for garnering votes during elections, politicians are afraid to anger religious leaders who have come out against the High Court ruling.

The Supreme Court of India notified the government regarding a Special Leave Petition filed by two citizens challenging the Delhi High Court's decision. The next hearing for the petition is on 20 July, before which the government will have to take a stance on 377. It has been reported that due to a lack of consensus and the sensitivity of the matter, the government is likely to ask the apex court for an extension to "study" the high court's judgment.

The process of recognizing homosexuality and making provision for openly homosexual couples in the country's institutions will be a complicated one. India's military institutions have traditionally been closed to the idea of including homosexuals. In general, people prefer to not talk about homosexuality. In fact, columnists in some "vernacular" dailies argue that there is no need for any debate on the subject at all and unnecessarily certain individuals have chosen to make it a cause for concern. The "queer" community is delighted by the judgment. Some even went on to marry their same sex partners in the state of Punjab, despite the fact that the court announced no changes to marriage laws.

However, after the initial euphoria, there is much ground to be covered in allowing ordinary men and women to freely embrace their sexuality. The government and the Supreme Court's mettle will be tested over the coming weeks as they must decide how to keep the promise of equality and inclusiveness alive without any serious backlash from those who see changes to Article 377 as an attack on religious and cultural values.

With one of the more stable coalition governments in recent years coming to power, the Indian media has turned its focus to analyzing which sectors of public policy require a fresh approach. The sectors that have generated most debate in the media, besides the overall economy, are education and national security. Not only do both require massive investment to expand and update infrastructure, but their governing bodies are in dire need of systemic overhaul. The new government's ability to deliver on both sectors will require perseverance and courageous decision-making.

Education: reforms to harness the demographic dividend

In an interview with the Business Standard newspaper, Kapil Sibal, Minister for Human Resource Development, the ministry in charge of drafting India's education policy, acknowledged the existing "statutory constraints along with government control to set up institutions." He said that in order to set up a countrywide educational system that is expansive, inclusive and excellent, "We need to re-energize the education system by attracting investment without diluting excellence and equity." Approximately eight million more students are estimated to seek enrollment in Indian universities by 2015. A Knowledge Commission set up by the Prime Minister's Office had estimated that 1,500 universities would have to be set up to meet such a requirement. If India really wants to harness the talent of it's youth, its policymakers will have to chart out a sustainable education policy that is implemented without being eaten away by corrupt and complacent bureaucrats. It will also have to allow private investments in the education sector, which has always been a matter of controversy.

Acknowledging the Indian government's goal to provide basic education to 200 million women in the country by 2013, Neeraj Kaushal outlines the poor performance of public education programs in a guest column in the Times of India. If the government sincerely wishes to keep its promise, then it must look at reforming current, poorly functioning programs such as the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan (Elementary Education For All) and formulate a plan to expand quality educational infrastructure through partnerships with the private sector. Along with building more and better schools, the government must address problems such as high rates of teacher absenteeism in public schools where salaries are higher than private schools, yet low risk of job loss makes teachers complacent. World Bank surveys indicate low reading, writing and math skills amongst students who do attend schools in India. A lack of accountability and poor implementation of public school programs are possible reasons for this failure and pose a grave threat to India's progress.

Raman Roy, a pioneer of the Indian BPO industry, wrote in the Wall Street Journal urging the government to not simply focus on increasing the number of colleges and universities in India. He outlines how very few Indian higher education institutions produce graduates who have the skills to be directly employed by industry. Most universities provide education and a skill set that either requires further polishing by large companies or are simply not sufficient enough to land a respectable job.  Such "paper degrees" are a serious waste of young talent and add to the grievances of the youth. Hence, the government must partner with private companies and foreign educational institutions in order to provide quality higher education to its citizens.

Setting up new institutions and formulating a new education bill will not be enough to tackle India's requirements. Pratap Bhanu Mehta outlines the institutional challenges the Human Resource Development Ministry itself faces. The ministry has to deal with the largest number of institutions in the country ranging from public elementary schools to universities and their governing bodies and it will have to engage each one of them in detail and with patience to bring a systemic change in India's education sector. Since it is in charge of appointing individuals who frame overall and individual institutional policy, the ministry must do so with subtlety and by provide an enabling environment free of red tape or cronyism.

The task cut out for the education minister and his department is Herculean and these are only few of the areas within the sector that have received comment thus far. Another major policy concern is providing equal access at educational institutions for Indians belonging to historically marginalized groups without antagonizing any others.

National security: getting it right, doing it alone

Shekhar Gupta of The Indian Express warns Indians that a lack of debate on domestic security issues may lead to complacency on the matter by the newly elected government. The previous Congress-led government neglected internal security that culminated in to the Mumbai attacks last November. India cannot afford such assaults once again as its affect would be a dilution of any achievements on the development front. To make India truly secure, the government must be watchful against any spillover effects of political turmoil in the country's neighborhood, it should increase spending on defense for the next five years in order to upgrade security systems and it must formulate and act upon an exhaustive plan to root out internal insurgent groups such as the Naxalites in central and east India.

Another worried commentator wrote in The Asian Age that the responses to terror threats and attacks have been "too slow and too soft" under previous governments, allowing militants to strike Indian cities, towns and institutions again and again. Hence, the newly elected government requires a more disciplined and active approach to national security to ensure the "nation's survival". The first task at hand would be to note the threats India is facing and then understand and acknowledge them. Secondly, the police and intelligence services need more recruits, reforms and upgrades. On the defense front, long-pending procurements must be freed from bureaucratic red tape, made transparent and prioritized. 

Both authors emphasize the need for a long-term strategic plan to ensure better domestic security and to achieve it three different ministries must work cohesively, namely home affairs, foreign affairs and defense. They also see India fighting alone for her security, in a neighborhood currently seen as hostile towards India's ambitions and in a larger world that has its immediate interests aligned more closely with countries on the other side of the Indian border. Hence, improving internal and external security infrastructure are seen as muscle-building measures that would help India negotiate better and keep its citizenry and investments better protected.

On Saturday, Sajjad Lone, a leader of the separatist movement in Kashmir and head of the People's Conference, announced his decision to contest the upcoming parliamentary elections in India as an independent. Newspapers reported him as being the first separatist leader from the region to join electoral politics. After the Kashmiri public rejected the separatist boycott of assembly polls in the region last December, coming out to cast their vote in large numbers, some former dissidents have been contemplating turning to democratic politics.

At a press conference however, Lone clarified that his decision represented "a new method of the same ideology." The end of greater autonomy or even independence from India, he said, would not be lost simply because the the means of its achievement had changed . He reiterated that the Kashmiris' decision to come out and vote in the assembly elections was not tantamount to approval of Indian rule and governance, but a mandate for better development.

Lone promised that he would not become "a poster boy of the Indian Parliament in Kashmir" and, instead, would truly represent Kashmiri aspirations in the Indian Parliament. His decision can also be seen as a criticism of the current leadership of the separatist movement in Kashmir. Lone has called leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (an alliance of 26 separatist and separatist-leaning organizations in Kashmir) "out of sync" with the needs of the Kashmiri people. He admitted that a change in tactic was necessary if the Kashmir dispute is to be resolved as per the aspirations of its people.

While Mr. Lone's decision is ground-breaking, Reuters India reports that not everyone is happy with it. Some Kashimiris look upon his decision as shameful and are labelling him a "traitor".  

Kerala's reverse migration woes 

India's southern-most state, Kerala, is dealing with the problems of reverse migration, as thousands of native workers employed in the middle east are being laid off due to the global economic downturn. Kerala's economy depends heavily on remittances from abroad (approximately 30 percent of annual remittances have been coming from outside the state).

NDTV reported that some 50,000 workers have already come back in recent months and 200,000 more are expected in coming weeks. Finding employment for these men and women returning to Kerala is going to be challenging for the state's public officials. Trade unions maintain a fairly strong hold on in the Communist-run state, preventing many of these returning expatriates from starting their own businesses. Workers also complain that until now, no political parties have presented a plan for dealing with the problems that a massive reverse migration may create.

Eight people were killed and over twenty injured when twin blasts occurred in the eastern Indian city of Guwahati and the town of Dhekiajuli in the eastern state of Assam. The blasts occurred at 2:00 PM local time on Monday, 6 April. News agencies report there was complete chaos after the explosion took place in Guwahati and many residents clashed with the police, as a mark of their displeasure with the frequency of such incidents in the area.

The Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh is scheduled to visit Assam on Tuesday to campaign for the upcoming general election. Guwahati is the largest commercial hub in Assam, from where Singh was elected in 1995 to the Rajya Sabha - the upper house in India's parliament.

Authorities claim that the banned militant outfit, United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), is behind the blasts, although no confirmed reports were available till about two hours after the incident. ULFA will celebrate the 30th anniversary of its formation on Tuesday. Similar blasts disrupted Guwahati last week when India's foreign minister, Pranab Mukherjee, was in the city, also campaigning for his party.

While ULFA historically stems from an indigenous, nationalist movement, Indian officials increasingly suspect that the militant group has established ties with Pakistan's notorious ISI intelligence agency, the body thought to be behind several terrorist attacks in India in recent years.

Carnage in Pakistan

Meanwhile, Pakistan continues its descent into chaos. Gunmen entered and opened fire in a police training academy in Lahore in Pakistan last Tuesday. Between Saturday and Sunday, three suicide attacks struck inside the troubled country, one at a mosque in the country's north-east and two aimed at security posts.

(Read more about the violence in Pakistan in today's security briefing)

Moral-policing the Indian politician

The Election Commission of India has been busy policing the campaigns of political leaders and aspirants in the run up to the national polls. Indian newspapers and the electronic media are abuzz with reports of politicians, many of them veterans and party leaders, consistently and brazenly defying the model code of conduct. Ironically, parties whose own leaders continue to defy the poll's moral code are the ones lodging complaints with the Election Commission against their rivals.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lodged a complaint against current Home Minister P.C. Chidambaram, senior leader of the Indian National Congress (INC), for bringing up issues that could be seen as "poll sops" at a security review meeting in the state of Rajasthan. The Commission has asked the Home Minister to respond to the allegation by Monday evening.

On the other hand, veteran BJP politician Jaswant Singh, a former cabinet minister, was caught on camera handing out money to electors in his son's constituency. The INC filed a complaint at the Election Commission regarding Singh's conduct, to which he responded, "The law is an ass", and recommended the law be reviewed.

Another senior politician, Mulayam Singh Yadav was sent a notice from the Election Commission after his remarks threatening the District Magistrate of his constituency for confiscating firearms in possession of his party workers. The leader of the Samajwadi Party, an important party in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, has come under the Commission's scrutiny previously for distributing cash as bribes to voters. His reply to the allegation was that the money was not a bribe, but part of a traditional gift his party distributed each year.

Politicians in India come up with creative excuses for handing out money to voters in their constituencies. Whether the excuse is an annual offering made in the name of charity or tokenism under the garb of tradition, direct money transfers remain commonplace, as the Election Commission struggles to stringently implement its code of conduct.

Last week, Indian politics saw the attempt to create an anti-Congress and anti-BJP Third Front for the upcoming elections. Ten regional and leftist parties huddled near the southern city of Bangalore to discuss alliances, policy directives and possibly the prime minister's post. The basics

India is a constitutional democracy with two houses of parliament, the directly-elected House of the People or Lok Sabha, and the Council of States or Rajya Sabha, elected by the legislators of each Indian state.

The President is the head of state and appoints the Prime Minister, who governs the country according to the make-up of the Lok Sabha.

The ten parties included, the Janata-Dal (Secular) led by former Prime Minister H. D. Deve Gowda, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India, the Revolutionary Socialist Party, the Forward Bloc, the Telegu Desam Party, the  AIADMK, the Telengana Rashtra Samiti, the Bahujan Samaj Party (its leader Mayawati was conspicuous by her absence) and the Haryana Janhit Congress. Currently these parties have approximately 90 seats in the Indian Parliament's Lower House. The number is far short of the 272 half-way mark, prompting skepticism from the media and the major national parties.

However, by Sunday 15 March, it became clear that no formal alliance would be entered in to by these ten parties before the elections. Mayawati, leader of the BSP, confirmed at a press conference that all the Third Front parties would contest the elections individually on an anti-UPA, anti-NDA secular platform and consider forming a government together only after the elections.

The Indian Express reported that such an alliance may prove difficult given the numerous, often conflicting agendas each of the regional parties. For instance, while Mayawati (who is hailed as a leader of India's lower castes) promised reservations (positive discrimination) for the upper castes were she to become prime minister, the CPI(M) promised to reverse the course of liberalizing the economy. Considering the fragmented nature of their appeal, The Telegraph called this ambitious effort anything but "the third front",  but rather an open-door platform at best. Competition centres around three major coalitions:

the governing United Progressive Alliance (UPA) dominated by the Congress Party;

the opposition National Democratic Alliance (NDA) dominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP);

and the Third Front, an informal group made up of parties opposed to both the Congress and the BJP.

The UPA has been in power since 2004.

Vir Sanghvi, editor of The Hindustan Times, felt confident that Indians were not having sleepless nights worrying about the consequences of one of these regional party leaders becoming their next prime minister. He argued that Mayawati, for example, "represents a certain political venality based on nothing more than an ability to leverage caste-based voting" and sheer greed for power and wealth.

Like Sanghvi, Outlook magazine was pessimistic regarding the prospects of the Third Front. While quoting the enthusiastic CPI (M) chief Prakash Karat as saying that "the future of this country does not lie either with the Congress or the BJP. We represent the diversity of India. We want a federal state. We are against the centralization of powers in Delhi," it wondered if anyone was really listening to his call for a strong anti-Congress, anti-BJP coalition.

Meanwhile, Pankaj Vohra at the Hindustan Times offered a more cynical approach to the latest development. As factionalism trumps ideology, he sees no political bloc being able to achieve the required majority. Hence, a "Fourth Front" will emerge post elections in which the BJP and the Congress will be forced to forge alliances with more regional parties. More controversially, he suggests that one of the major parties may have to give up the prime minister's post to an important ally. 

A thorny road ahead for the giants Over 700 million people will vote in the 2009 elections, in what is the world's largest exercise in democracy. Elections will be held in five phases between 16 April and 13 May. The final result is expected to be announced on 16 May.

If the inability of smaller parties to form a sustainable coalition against the national giants (BJP and Congress) seem convoluted, the giants themselves are on no clear ground with regard to the number of candidates they will be fielding or even coherent campaign strategies.

After scrapping with its ally the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh over seat sharing, the Congress is facing a similar crisis in the state of Bihar. Local leaders Lalu Prasad Yadav of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and Ram Vilas Paswan of the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) agreed on a seat-sharing arrangement for the state that would leave their ally the Congress with only three seats to contest in Bihar.

The Indian Express reported that the Congress called this arrangement "not acceptable" while RJD chief Lalu Yadav declared he and Paswan had "strengthened the Congress more than its own workers" and ruled out any secession from the Congress-led UPA. It remains to be seen how the Congress central command will react to being sidelined in the populous state by its allies.

The BJP on the other hand faced trouble from within its organisational ranks. Coming after the exit of NDA partner, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) last week, infighting at the top of the BJP's command is being seen as a stumbling block in the preparations for a nationwide campaign. Reports in The Times of India of a continued cold war between party president Rajnath Singh and chief campaign strategist Arun Jaitley have exposed the cracks in the party's order. Jaitley has refused to attend party meetings until the appointment of a Singh confidante as head of the campaign in northeast India is revoked. The spat is preventing the BJP from announcing its list of candidates for the Lok Sabha polls, hence delaying the launch of a full-scale nationwide campaign.

Developments in the last couple of weeks indicate what are the real determinants of any political outcome in the upcoming national elections. Firstly, smaller regional parties will continue to hold the national parties hostage to their own political ambitions. Secondly, within the larger parties, it seems factionalism and favoritism will take up too much negotiation time, leaving any deliberation of a coherent national agenda an idea whose time seems to never come.