Happy 'E' -Embrace With Open Heart ' I '- Inspire With Impressive Attitude 'D' - Distribute Pleasure To All People

Which Urge Is Stronger— Sex Or Love?

It's a question that some therapists say will be around causing debates more than a hundred years from now. Which urge is stronger--sex or love?

Dr. Audrey Chapman, a couples therapist who also hosts a radio show at Howard University in Washington, D.C., said it's an issue that's basically generational with younger people looking for sex and older ones focusing on love.

"It depends on what your experiences have been and how long you've been out there dealing with relationships," she said. "Sex is really the fuel that lights up, puts the sizzle in a loving relationship. People can enjoy sex in and of itself for lust's sake. You don't have to have love to enjoy sex. Probably the strongest human desire for most people is to be loved. You can have sex with a stranger. It doesn't mean you feel loved or in a loving way when you've completed the act."

Youngsters in their 20's place more emphasis on sex, she said. "At 20, sex is really more of an overwhelming urge. They have raging hormones, don't want to be involved with anyone, just want someone to take care of their thing. They figure they've got the rest of their lives for love. A woman at that age figures she's ready to settle down around 35 or so."

Dr. Grace Cornish, the after-care psychologist on "The Queen Latifah Show," agreed with some of Dr. Chapman's assessments. "It does depend on where you are in your relationship," she said. "I think in the very beginning, the physical is what you see first. There's an old adage that women give sex just to feel love and men will say `I love you' just to have the sex. But, that's changed a lot in the last seven years. Men and women are both getting more spiritually grounded, not so much religious, but a mind/body connection."

Diane, a 40ish public health nurse, said sex is stronger and that it's a gender issue. "Sex is a stronger urge in men," she said. "Men just typically won't pass up a chance for sex. It's just the way men are socialized. In general, I think the urge for sex is stronger than that for love. You can love person `A', but still want sex with person `B.' It's an urge and people will answer urges. Love is hard to define and changes from person to person. Sex is primal. An urge can be answered and go away. It's easier to be a slave to sex than love. It's a stronger entity, taking a larger space in one's life when it needs to be answered."

Still, regardless of the age group, she said love is most powerful. "The overwhelming urge is to love," she said. "Even when people are just having sex, that moment when they're looking for that orgasm, they want someone to hug and nurture them. Love makes you feel good. Sex is just an act. Even when a relationship is short-term and the person goes from partner to partner when something goes bitter in the relationship, it's sex they're after, but love they're craving."

Rebecca, a twentysomething woman who does freelance marketing, agreed the stronger urge is sex. To prove her point she recalled a battle in ancient Greece that she read about where the men fought for such a long time that the women became weary and decided to withhold sex from them. The fighting ended almost immediately, she said.

Paul, 45, a medical billing clerk, disagreed. "Love is your head and heart," he said. "Sex is just sex. A menage a trois is just sex, but not love. Love is stronger. People will kill for love. Crimes of passion. You can have sex by yourself. You can buy sex, but you can't buy love. Love is a totally different power."

William July II, an author who wrote the book Understanding the Tin Man: Why So Many Men Avoid Intimacy, echoed those sentiments about love. "I think the love urge is much stronger," he said. "I think people are seeking to feel love through sex a lot. That's why it looks like the sexual urge is greater. But, really it's the love urge that drives us and motivates us to want to connect and be part of each other's lives. The sexual urge is easier to gratify, but it ultimately doesn't satisfy."

Ultimately, AIDS has changed so much of the debate, Dr. Chapman said. Now, she said, people are more inclined to look for "solid relationships, friendship and loving bonds. Plus, you don't begin to feel worthless from not having sex. You do begin to feel worthless and question if you're acceptable if you don't feel loved."

Why we can never recover from first love???

First relationships can be intense, passionate and inspire a great deal of bad poetry. But, according to new research, if you want to find happiness in later life, it is best to avoid puppy love altogether.

The claim comes in a book called Changing Relationships, a collection of new research papers by Britain's leading sociologists, edited by Dr Malcolm Brynin, principal research officer at the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex.

Brynin found that the euphoria of first love can damage future relationships. "Remarkably, it seems that the secret to long-term happiness in a relationship is to skip a first relationship," said Brynin. "In an ideal world, you would wake up already in your second relationship."

While researching the components of successful long-term partnerships, Brynin found intense first loves could set unrealistic benchmarks, against which we judge future relationships. "If you had a very passionate first relationship and allow that feeling to become your benchmark for a relationship dynamic, then it becomes inevitable that future, more adult partnerships will seem boring and a disappointment," he said.

Adults in successful long-term partnerships are those who have taken a calm, pragmatic view of what they need from a relationship, Brynin found. "The problems start if you try not only to get everything you need for an adult relationship, but also strive for the heights of excitement and intensity you had in your first experience of love. The solution is clear: if you can protect yourself from intense passion in your first relationship, you will be happier in your later relationships."

Dr Gayle Brewer, a lecturer in social psychology at the University of Central Lancashire, agreed: "If you judge adult relationships against your first relationship, you are using a single benchmark: that of an intense and unrealistic passion," she said. "Adult relationships need all sorts of other virtues to survive, many of which are not compatible with that level of intensity. For example, you might have felt passionate about your first love because their spontaneity was breathtakingly exciting.

"Adult relationships, however, require people to be committed and reliable. Someone who excels in spontaneity is unlikely to also have those characteristics. So you're caught in a bind: the characteristics that excite you are the ones that lead to the failure of an adult relationship. If you emotionally fixate on having the excitement, while knowing you need the reliability, you're making demands that no relationship can satisfy," she added.

But Professor Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, believes that striving for that initial intensity of emotion can help relationships to survive. Using MRI scans, Fisher observed similar brain activity among those who had been happily married for more than two decades with those who had been in relationships for less than six months.

"I found incontrovertible, physiological evidence that romantic love can last," she said. "It appears that romantic love exists not only to initiate pair-bonding but to maintain and enhance long-term relationships."

Flying stunt ends in tragedy - Todd Green falls to his death after losing his grip performing a stunt during an air show at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Harrison Township, Mich., Sunday, Aug. 21, 2011.

The Line between Love and Friendship

Have you experienced being in a dilemma where you have to choose who among your lover and your friend will you had to spend your time with? It is really very hard to decide is it not? Both play important roles in your life and somehow become daily routines which you cannot live without. The difference between love and friendship has been an issue over a long period of time. How thin could the line between these two be? Well let us try to find out.

Friendship is the relationship between two or more people – connected to each other through the principles of trust and respect – having the same interests. It may involve not only two but as many people as one desires. Friends usually have this special bond which can be strengthen through the length of time they have spent with each other and also through the challenges and obstacle they have gone through. A friend is someone whom we can call and rely to in times of crisis, someone who always seem to offer a helping hand when we are in trouble or difficulty. Friends are also those we tend to be with often. Usually friends go together in either times of happiness or times of problems. Friendship, for it to be called true, sometimes takes a lot of time and efforts.

Love, on the other hand, is a relationship exclusively shared by two people – people which may not have the same interests but are bonded through deep personal and physical attachment and shares a more passionate association towards each other. One who is in love sometimes tends to sacrifice almost everything that he or she possesses just for the one he or she loves. Being in this relationship does not only require companionship but also requires full commitment; it may also demand physical contact between the two lovers.

Love and friendship are connected to each other, we love our friends but not to the extent that we offer almost everything to them but when we talk about loving our lover, it’s a different story because we do not only offer them almost everything that we have, we even sometimes lead to self offering. In friendship no commitment and physical satisfaction is required, only camaraderie and company.

Both friends and lovers are important to each of us. It would be hard for us to survive without the two because both will help us grow into a better person and also help us in building our personality.

In brief:

• Friendship is the relationship of people having the same interests.
• Love is the relationship of people having deep personal and physical attachment towards each other.
• Unlike friendship, love is an exclusive relationship with two people.
• Unlike love, friendship does not require commitment and physical attachment towards each other.

“Paschimbanga’ new name for West Bengal

The name of Bengal, or Bangla, is derived from the ancient kingdom of Vanga, or Banga. References to it occur in early Sanskrit literature, but its early history is obscure until the 3rd century bce, when it formed part of the extensive Mauryan empire inherited by the emperor Ashoka. With the decline of Mauryan power, anarchy once more supervened. In the 4th century ce the region was absorbed into the Gupta empire of Samudra Gupta. Later it came under control of the Pala dynasty. From the beginning of the 13th century to the mid-18th century, when the British gained control.A consensus to rename West Bengal as Paschimbanga was on Friday reached at an all-party meeting in Kolkata to change the nomenclature of the state.

Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee suggested the new name and unanimity was reached on it, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Partha Chatterjee told reporters after the meeting in the state assembly.

“It has been unanimously decided that state’s new name will be Paschimbanga from now in all languages,” he said. “We wanted a change in the name of the state to get the administrative advantage,” he said.

The Chief Minister presided over the meeting attended by Trinamool Congress, besides ally Congress and SUCI(C), Left Front constituents CPI(M), CPI, RSP, Forward Bloc as also GJM, among other parties.

Ms. Banerjee had earlier empowered Chatterjee and Leader of the Opposition Surjyakanta Mishra to study the new name for the state. Chatterjee said the letter ‘W’ in West Bengal came low down alphabetically which resulted in disadvantage for the state.

“Paschimbanga as a new name also mirrors history,” he said, adding a resolution would be moved in the Assembly for adoption which would be then referred to the Centre.

Forward Bloc sources said the choice was made from among the suggestions of ‘Paschimbanga’, ‘Bangla’ and ‘Bangabhumi’. CPI(M)’s Mishra, who flanked Chatterjee at the press meet, said, “Whatever be the opinions in the past, unanimity was reached on the issue at the all-party meeting.”

Once the bill in this regard is passed by two-thirds majority in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and ratified by the President, the state would get the new name.

Chatterjee said that the meeting also discussed bifurcation of Jalpaiguri, Burdwan, West Midnapore and North 24 Parganas districts.

'Celebrating Tagore'- A Tribute Paid To Rabindranath Tagore By The Times Of India Group

“CELEBRATING TAGORE”- a concert organized by The Times Of India at Netaji Indoor Stadium yesterday evening as a tribute to TAGORE,once again  proved that how timeless and modern Tagore is and his creations are.

The program was divided into 3 segments. The first segment ‘K TUMI’ shows the relationship between Tagore and his sister-in-law Kadambari Devi,which was interprted by the evergreen Soumitra Chatterjee (as Rabindranath Tagore) and the beautiful charming Sharmila Tagore (as Kadambari Debi).They were accompanied in songs of Tagore by the power voice of Lopamudra Mitra and the new charming Parama Bannerjee. Songs like ‘eki labonye purno pran’,’ektuku choya lage’,’tumi kamon kore gan koro he guni’ mingled with the poetry’s of Soumitra Chatterjee and the beautiful narration by Sharmila Tagore touched the heart of thousands of audience in the stadium.

      The second segment had the performance of the melodious Shreya Ghoshal,who played her tribute to Tagore by songs like ‘fule fule dhole dhole’ (the track which was used in Parineeta),’j raat e mor duar guli vanglo jhore’,’pagla hawa’,’eki labonye purno pran’. Later she also sang her popular numbers,like ‘jao pakhi bolo’,’megher palok chader nolok’,'yea ishq haen','Rab ne bana di jodi' some of which was requested by the audience.As always her voice spreads its charm in the auditorium. But Sometimes her broken Bengali accent was very surprising.

    The third and the final segment had a very good concept,where our full national anthem (which is of five stanza) was shown audio visually in the screen and the whole auditorium stood up and shown their utter respect to both,Tagore and Mother India.It was really a moment of pride.This also ended the concert in a high note.

    Such beautiful performances  by some high profile performers,the presence of few high profile personalities,like sports minister Madan Mitra,Maor Sobhon Chatterjee,MLA Boby Hakim,Harsh Naotio, the concept of only 'Bengal' was really a perfect dish to serve to the audience and satisfy them.A huge credit goes to the Times Of India team for organizing such a beautiful program on Tagore.Yet a questions arises  that why the first segment ‘K tumi” which interpretted the love and bonding between Tagore and Kadambari Debi was selected as the theme of ‘Celebration Of Tagore’? Is this the topic to give tribute to Tagore? Is it the thing for celebration?

           মা আসছেন….

               

          আর মাত্র ৪৬ দিনের অপেক্ষা…

Gift of Gab...

Ever wondered what the most common phrase exiting an adolescent’s lip is?

No, I meant besides that one. Seriously, let’s think apart from the expletives shall we?

Having been forced to deal with a slightly younger (and extremely moody) cousin in the recent past, I found myself pondering this.

There seemed to be many possible answers to a question like this… only around half of which would lead to my blog having to be rated with a ‘PG 15’ tag. But you know what… sitting at home day after day with nothing to do but attempt to keep the little menace entertained, makes one’s mind wonder…. So, I had all the time in the world (gosh it seemed like so much more…) to spare this some thought.

I had to base my observation on the subject at hand… and his dealings with his own kind… (Nope… using these words is not an act of oversight), so I had to do what seemed at the time to be the hardest thing in the world….

I had to pay attention to him!

A solution presented itself of course to make my task easier. There’s only so much that even the most persevering of life forms can do to disturb a man with a notebook and pencil intent on his treaty that (might) change the world…. This way he would at least (hopefully) not mistake my proximity to him as an attempt to shower him with my undeserved attention.

If only he knew what I was noting….

I had to be within earshot of him for the greater part of the day. This wasn’t a problem… unfortunately.

I had assumed the toughest part of my study would be gathering information on how the specimen interacted with fellow members of his own herd. This assumption was based on the wildly wrong notion that people do not yell themselves hoarse when on the phone.

The greeting (which was an expletive)… the body of the conversation (utterly weird, childish, immature, moronic and plain old fashioned lame)… and even the signing off (a physically impossible act), it was all screamed for the benefit of every person in a two block radius.

I could hear every word enunciated as clearly as if I did not have my head under the pillow to try and drown out the worst of it.

I began my project on the third day I was stuck with the uncouth young rascal, and concluded it on the fifth. Three days worth of data… which I tallied and finally obtained the desired results….

Here are the top five among them in terms of frequency… obviously having disqualified the ones that involved vivid anatomical descriptions or social stereotyping.

5. “Wow man! That’s so cool!”

It sounds totally harmless and normal doesn’t it? Well try having to put up with that being the only response to every piece of attempted conversation for five days, and you’ll get to where I am at. (In case you are curious… where I am at is wondering if the kid could even say anything else if he tried to…)

4. “Dude…”

A cool word to be sure… that is turned totally annoying what with the fake accent and sheer volume of ‘wannabe-ness’ that some of these kids add to it. Almost becomes as irritating as ‘Kewl’. Thank god he didn’t say that too… at least not much.

3. “Lol”

This abbreviation, initially devised for internet chat rooms, was meant to tell the dude who couldn’t see you that you had ‘laughed out loud’ at whatever he'd just said. You know… if you had gone all ‘Ha ha’ on him. When will the kid learn that it is not at all ‘rad’ to actually say ‘lol’ when having a conversation face to face or over the phone!

2. “Whazzup?”

It sounds utterly sickening, dumb… and feels like a highly provocative invitation to do physical violence. If you ever come up to me five times a day and say it in the most doped way imaginable… you’ve got something coming to you…. If I hear you going ‘Whazzup’ over the phone to your cronies… well, you’re still getting on my nerves.

1. “Not feeling like it”

Believe it or not… this is what I heard the most during the time I spent listening to him. Friends asking him to hang out with them… ‘Not feeling like it’ (Damn! Why can’t you give me some peace for just one afternoon huh?), parents asking him if he wants to go out for dinner… ‘Not feeling like it’. Me asking him if he wants to watch some TV (so that he stops with the ceaseless bugging of yours truly)… and guess what? He is ‘Not feeling like it’.

I tell you… weeks like these make all those expletives I am so trying to avoid posting just bubble up to the surface….

Anyway kid, payback is sweet. Wish you could see what you helped create (instigate more like)… then again perhaps its best that you don’t know.

I do hope he is not on blogger himself… or at least is unaware of link to this page.

"Haapy Independence Day"...Jai Hind..!!!

Is Being Happy and 'Gay' Difficult in 'Free' India???

        It is humbly submitted that the Part III of the constitution
primarily carries the common theme of human right. The international
conventions and the principles of natural justice also focuses on the
aspect of right to life with the full of dignity and liberty. The
fundamental rights are basic rights of the people. They are considered
as basic rights to live a perfect life. Moreover Article 13 (2) says
that “The State shall not make any law, which takes away or abridges
the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of
this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.”[1]
So, according to the constitutional provisions, Section 377 violates
number of fundamental rights of the homosexual people.
a) Sec. 377 violates Article 14 of the Constitute of India
        Article 14 of the Indian Constitution provides that, “The
State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”[2]
        Article 14 also focuses on the doctrine of intelligible
differentia, according to which there should be clear nexus between
the enacted provisions or act and its objective as for what purpose
they have been enacted. The same makes it clear that a law enacted by
legislature must be clear and must be rational. The supreme has held
that a statute is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not
clearly defined. The rationale for this is that the provisions enacted
should be clear so that persons affected know the true intention.
[[3]]
       Further, the Supreme Court has held that where a law does not
offer a clear construction and the persons applying it are in a
boundless sea of uncertainties and the law prima facie takes away a
guaranteed freedom, the law must be held to offend the Constitution.
[[4]].
      Moreover, Section 377, it punishes “carnal intercourse against
the order of nature.” However, the expression is not defined. Nor does
section 377 provide any indication as to what acts are comes under the
ambit of it. Courts have interpreted section 377 to cover not only
non-penile-vaginal sex but also to include imitative sex and acts that
amount to sexual perversity. The inconsistency and irregularities has
been followed over a years as to what Sec. 377 contains and it is not
par with the present globalised world and in that for developing
country like India as every citizen want to maintain its liberty and
wants to be an Individual first.  Therefore, Section 377 is vague and does not clearly define its
prohibitions. Such vagueness leads to arbitrary application of section
377 against sexuality minorities. Hence, section 377 should be held
void for its vagueness and attendant arbitrariness.
     Further, Section 377 creates an arbitrary and unreasonable
classification between penile-vaginal and penile-non-vaginal sexual
acts in the name of procreative sex and non-procreative sex and hence
violative of Article 14's guarantee of equal protection before and
under the law.
     By its very nature, sexual acts engaged in by gay men, being
penile-non-vaginal, are non-procreative. Therefore, section 377
targets predominantly sexual acts engaged in by homosexuals. In so
doing, it targets a group of persons, mainly homosexual men, based on
their sexual preferences which are necessarily of a non-procreative
nature. At this point of time in the fastest world in era of
technology it is very important to note that even the gay couple can
have procreation with the IVF technology which is rampant in India
also.
    The purpose of Article 14’s equal protection clause is to offer
redress to vulnerable groups assailed by discriminatory practices.
Section 377’s prohibition of non-procreative sexual acts criminalizes
predominantly homosexual sexual relations and is propelled by a
prejudicial and irrational notion of sex. It thus violates Article 14
because it disproportionately affects gay men.
    Indeed, vulnerable minorities require protection from prejudice
that can only be done by judicial decision, in the absence of any
special legislative work.[5] (b) Sec. 377 of IPC, 1860 is in violation of Art. 15 of the
Constitution of India.
     Article 15 (1) of the Indian Constitution provides that, “The
State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of
religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”[6]
    The expression “sex” is fluid and is not a static concept. It
cannot be restricted to only the biological male and female sex. It is
not an essential condition that the law expressly makes the prohibited
ground for the basis of classification. As held by the Supreme Court,
“The Court’s are always had to interpret any law by the way of
'schematic and teleological' method of interpretation. All it means is
that the judges do not go by the literal meaning of the words or by
the grammatical structure of the sentence. They go by the design of
purpose which lies behind it.”[7]
       Hence, in present scenario the term “Sex” has a wider meaning
and it includes sexual orientation as well, which includes homosexual
people. The prohibition of discrimination on the ground of sex is
intended to prohibit the attachment of standard behavioural pattern to
gender. The purpose underlying the fundamental right against sex
discrimination is to prevent behaviour that treats people differently
for reason of not being in conformity with generalizations concerning
“normal” gender roles.
      In the present case, section 377 criminalizes the acts of
homosexual people. Though facially neutral, the primary object and the
direct and inevitable effect is the prohibition of sexual acts between
homosexual based on their sexual orientation. It is an established
position of law that if the effect of a State action is to infringe a
fundamental right and that effect is brought about by a distinction
based on a prohibited ground (e.g. sex, race, etc), it would
constitute discrimination on the prohibited ground, however laudable
the object of the State action may be. [[8]].
       In the case of the Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh[9], the SC
held that, “It is enough for a law to be struck down as being
discriminatory on a prohibited ground that the law operates so that
its effect in some cases is that some persons are discriminated only
on the basis of a prohibited ground.”
 In the present case, section 377 criminalizes the acts of
homosexual people. Though facially neutral, the primary object and the
direct and inevitable effect is the prohibition of sexual acts between
homosexual based on their sexual orientation. It is an established
position of law that if the effect of a State action is to infringe a
fundamental right and that effect is brought about by a distinction
based on a prohibited ground (e.g. sex, race, etc), it would
constitute discrimination on the prohibited ground, however laudable
the object of the State action may be. [[8]].
       In the case of the Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh[9], the SC
held that, “It is enough for a law to be struck down as being
discriminatory on a prohibited ground that the law operates so that
its effect in some cases is that some persons are discriminated only
on the basis of a prohibited ground.”

        In the present case, the effect of section 377 is that it
disproportionately impacts homosexuals on the basis of their sexual
orientation. This was clearly foreseen and intended by the Legislature
to so impact. Therefore, section 377 constitutes discrimination on the
ground of sexual orientation and therefore on the ground of sex under
Article 15, despite being couched in facially neutral language. Hence,
the said section needs to be held ultra vires as it violates article
15 of the Constitution of India.
(c) Sec. 377 of IPC, 1860 violates Art.21 of the Constitution of India
       Article 21, Indian Constitution, conforms on every person the
fundamental right to life and person liberty which has became an
inexhaustible source for many other lives.[10] These rights are as
much available to citizen as to foreigner.[11] And this article has
been given paramount position by the hon’ble Supreme Court. Homosexual
people are also included under article 21 as they are also human
being. The Supreme Court in the case of Kharak singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh[12] held that right to life is most fundamental of all.
The word life in the article 21 does not confine itself mere animal
existence, but the word life includes wider meaning than mere an
animal existence in the society. The inhabitation against its
deprivation extended to all those limbs and faculties by life is
enjoyed. The provision also equally prohibits the mutilation of the
body by amputating off any part of the body, or any other organ
through which the soul communicates with outer world. And sexual
orientation not being outer part of the body but if a person deprived
of being having sexual orientation this also amount to mutilation of
the body.
        In Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union of India[13] the honorable court held:
“There are minimum human requirements which exist in order to enable a
person to live with human dignity, and no state has right to take away
action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of this basic
essential”[14]
The basic essentials of a person’s life can be named as follows:
• Privacy
• Human Dignity
• Health
Right to Privacy
         The privacy is that “area of a man’s life which in any given
circumstances a reasonable man with an understanding of the legitimate
needs of the community would think it wrong to invade”
       Although Indian constitution like America does not guarantee
right to privacy explicitly, yet we may say that right to privacy is
implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. A question arose for the
first time in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.[15] whether right to
privacy is included in the right to personal liberty. Justice Subba
Rao, speaking for minority, held that right to privacy though not
expressly declared in our constitution, is an essential ingredient of
the personal liberty.
      In the case of R. Rajagopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu[16] , the
Supreme Court held that it is right to be let alone and a citizen has
the right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage,
protection, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other
matter. No one can punish anything concerning the above matter without
his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or
critical.
      As far as this matter is concerned, the impugned section
clearly violates the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution
as it peeps into the houses of people without their consent and still
punishes them for their private matters.
 Generally, criminal provisions are justified on the basis that
they prevent harm. In the realm of sex, whether or not harm is caused
is dependent on consent. Where consent is given, a person is not
harmed and the conduct falls back within the realm of personal
autonomy that does not require policing by the State. Only where there
is no consent is criminal sanction justified.
     It is also recognized that at the core of the right to privacy
are those matters related to one’s private life and intimate
relationships. This sphere of private intimacy and autonomy must allow
persons to develop human relationships without interference from the
outside community or from the State. The right to privacy is thus
premised on the proposition that there exists a zone of privacy
created by various fundamental rights into which the State cannot
intrude.
      It is submitted that sexual intimacies between individuals,
whether homosexual or heterosexual, fall within the protected zone of
privacy. Section 377, by criminalizing certain consensual sexual acts,
violates the right to privacy.

      Hence, the impugned section clearly violates right to privacy
of the people concerned and hence violates right to life and personal
liberty guaranteed under Constitution of India.
Human Dignity
       The case law also recognizes that the right to privacy is
derived from, and intimately related to, the right of each person to
dignity. In Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh[17] the honorable
Supreme Court has held: “Privacy-dignity claims deserve to be examined
with care and to be denied only when an important countervailing
interest is shown to be superior”.
         Dignity, then, is concerned with the rights of an
individual, and is linked to personal self-realization and autonomy.
If the right to privacy derives from a respect for human dignity, it
must also be an individualistic right, accruing to a person wherever
he may be.
         In this matter, section 377 of IPC affects dignity of a man
as it exposes a person of his sexual orientation and also punishes him
and sends him to prison which violates his right to live a dignified
life.

        The Supreme Court has held that “every act that offends
against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation pro
tanto of this right to live and it would have to be in accordance with
reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands
the test of other fundamental rights.”[18]
         In the present case, section 377, by criminalizing private,
consensual sex between adults, offends against and impairs the
expression of the human self of sexuality, more particularly men who
have sex with men, and thus violates their right to live with dignity.
        Further, it does not stand the test of other fundamental
rights. As has been shown above, section 377 is not reasonable, fair
or just law according to conditions of article 14, 15 (1)
Right to Health
       These gay populations are mostly reluctant to reveal same sex
behaviour due to the fear of law enforcement agencies, keeping a large
section invisible and unreachable and pushing the infection
underground, making it difficult for Health Ministry to access them.
Officials of UNAIDS say there is no data on the gay population in
India as even collecting such information is illegal under Section
377.[19] It gives clear idea of problem created by the impugned
section that because of this section, even UN officials are not able
to prevent AIDS in India.
      As said in affidavit filed by NACO in NAZ Foundation v. Union
of India which is a sub-judice matter, that “…….the enforcement of
section 377 of IPC can adversely contribute to pushing the infection
underground, make risky sexual practices go unnoticed and unaddressed.
The fear of harassment by law enforcement agencies leads to sex being
hurried, leaving partners without the option to consider or negotiate
safer sex practices. As MSM groups lack ''safe place'' and utilize
public places such as railway stations etc, they become vulnerable to
harassment and abuse by the police. The hidden nature of MSM groups
further leads to poor access to condom, healthcare services and safe
sex information. This constantly inhibits/impedes interventions under
the National AIDS Control Programme aimed at preventing spread of
HIV/AIDS by promoting safe sexual practices……..”[20] Thus, because of the existence of Section 377 of IPC, HIV is
spreading too much and it can be out of control if necessary steps are
not taken within few months. Spreading of HIV makes life of every
people miserable and threatened. Hence, the impugned section should be
repealed for the betterment of health of the people.

       Thus, Sec. 377 violates the Basic Features of the Constitution of India.
Section 377 of IPC denies the objectives enshrined in the preamble
namely: Justice, Liberty and Equality to homosexual people. These
objectives constitute the Basic Feature of the Constitution.[21]
Further, it denies equality and equal protection and makes inequality
and hence it is clear violation of Basic Feature of the Constitution
and hence liable to be interfered with by the court.[22]

Initiation to Opposing Section 377
    In 2001 Naz Foundation (an NGO related to HIV/Aids issues) filed
a petition in the Delhi High Court asking for Section 377 to be read
down by decriminalising consensual sex among adults. In September
2003, the Government insisted on retaining Section 377 on the grounds
that Indian initiation society’s disapproval of homosexuality was
strong enough to justify it being treated as a criminal offence even
where adults indulge in it in private.

In February 2006, the Supreme Court ordered the High Court to
reconsider the constitutional validity of Section 377. The Naz
Foundation petition was supported by Voices Against 377, comprising 12
organisations across the country while it was being opposed by the
government of Delhi and others. The position of the government
(represented by the Ministries of Health and Law) has been conflicted
while many of its affiliates demanded decriminalisation.

Naco (National Aids Control Organisation) demanded the scrapping of
Section 377 as it was obstructing effective health interventions. The
172nd report of the Law Commission of India and the recommendations of
the National Planning Commission for the 11th Five Year Plan also
demanded decriminalisation of homosexuality. In the last two decades,
LGBT activism played a major role in creating awareness on the issue.

In 2006 writer Vikram Seth released a public letter demanding that the
cruel law be struck down. The letter was supported by a  large number
of signatories including Captain Lakshmi Sehgal, Aruna Roy, Soli
Sorabjee, Shyam Benegal, Shubha Mudgal, Arundhati Roy, Aparna Sen,
Mrinalini Sarabhai and demanded the scrapping of the brutal law that
punitively criminalises romantic love and private, consensual sexual
acts between adults of the same sex while being used to systematically
persecute, blackmail, arrest and terrorise sexual minorities. Amartya
Sen also asked for an abolition of the colonial era monstrosity that
ran contrary to the enhancement of human freedom and India’s
commitment to democracy and human rights. Like all laws, Section 377
was used both inside and outside the courtroom
--RIJIT SARKAR (DEPARTMENT OF LAW CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] P. M. Bakshi, Constitution of India; Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd. (2003), pp. 13.
[2] P. M. Bakshi, Constitution of India; Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd. (2003), pp. 16.
[3] Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569.
[4] K. A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481.
[5] Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
[6] P. M. Bakshi, Constitution of India; Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd. (2003), pp. 26.
[7] Fuzlunbi v. K. Khader Vali, AIR 1980 SC 1730.
[8] State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society, [1955] SCR 568.
[9] AIR 1946 PC 66.
[10] Bhagvati, J. in Maneka Ganghi v. Unioun of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, pp. 620.
[11] National Human Right Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh,
(1996) 1 SCC 742.
[12] AIR 1963 SC 1295.
[13] AIR 1984 SC 802.
[14] ibid, at pp. 811.
[15] AIR 1963 SC 1295
[16] (1994) 6 SCC 632.
[17] (1975) 2 SCC 148, at page 156, para 22
[18] Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of
Delhi, (1981) 1 SCC 608, at page 619, para 8
[19] Times of India, 17 September 2006
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1998671.cms
[20] Affidavit by M.L.SONI, Under Secretary to the Government of
India, National AIDS Control Organization, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare
[21] Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, Wadhwa And Co.
(2006); pp. 1651
[22] Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, Wadhwa And Co.
(2006); pp. 1650

Something about freedom to express

This is a blog to express your thinking(it may be anything).Every human being have their individual thought about a particular thing in this world.This blog gives you an opportunity to share your expressions freely and with full freedom.So friends,what are you waiting for??Become a author of this blog and write here anything you want...


Firstly this idea came in the mind of Prantik Chakraborty.But the main man behind the creation of this page is Niladri Mitra.He has done all the technical works.So a special thanks to both of them.The other man behind this blog is Tapadip Saha, who also played a very important role in creating this blog.

We think Independence Day of Our Country India(15 August) is the perfect day for publishing this blog as it also deals with freedom.The journey has just begun,still a long way to go.Hoping for the helping hands of all of you....