Six hundred and forty-two miles from the bloodstained streets of a capital that has been the scene of a people’s movement set the stage for professional athletes to showcase their talents on snow and ice. Their achievements and celebrations were witnessed by crowds unaffected by the upheaval across the border that will hopefully bear fruit to see the populace be the only victors.
It was supposed to have been very different. The masses were supposed to have been outraged by Putin’s draconian anti-equality laws, not jubilant cheerleaders either ignorant of or indifferent towards injustices.
The most vocal opponent of the Sochi games, owing to Russia’s oppression of sexual minorities, was the USA. As with all things American, however, the shock, horror, and denunciation of what Putin did reeks of hypocrisy. Hidden behind the verbosity of saying the right thing is a staunch, uncompromising refusal to do the right thing.
Secretly, American politicians support Putin’s stance of deftly turning a social and human issue into a political one. The US, the duplicitous country of Defence of Marriage Act and SB 1062 fame, is notorious for the ambivalence of its policymakers towards rights of sexual minorities, and culpability in creating a bigger problem by refusing to execute the most sacred doctrines of human rights, the very same ones they purport to champion the world over.
The UK’s polite castigation has been less sincere. David Cameron passed the bipartisan Gay Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 despite his party’s efforts to sabotage it – 136 opposed the Bill, 35 did not vote and 5 abstained – because, while he courted voters, MPs on the other side of the aisle and from their coalition partners were decidedly humane.
Nevertheless, the Conservative Party abandoned its leader during one of his rare attempts at humanity. The prime minister tried to force the Tories to be more palatable, have a larger appeal by being more equal. Instead, his leaders ran to the right in a manner reminiscent of the Republicans, whose soul has been lost to the Tea Party.
The civil society, human rights organisations, and NGOs have their part to play in enforcing human rights. In a world where the great tragedy is that rights need to be enforced rather than unconditionally protected and preserved, these institutions are, sadly, limited.
Their agendas are dictated by their funds and the sources of the money. This makes them beholden to special interest groups and lobbies that may be directly opposed to the work they are trying to do, but still find the best policy to be to fund these projects in order to dictate terms. This being the pathetic reality, the only way in which anything concrete can happen is if governments serve their people. The US and Russia have repeatedly failed. The UK has dithered and floundered.
India has been no better. In 2009, the High Court repealed section 377 of the Penal Code, which, of course, was enforced by the epitome of equality, the antiquated British Raj. Homosexuality was decriminalised, sending ripples of hope throughout the region. The quiet murmurs of campaigning for such equality were silenced by the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse this decision last year, thereby preserving the status quo of inequality in India.
One concrete step taken by a government recently to ensure rights for gender and sexual minorities has come in the shape of hijras being given legal standing as a separate gender in Bangladesh. Supposedly a conservative country, this could not have been a popular decision, especially outside of the bourgeois circles.
A nationwide poll, conducted in line with the recent trend of asserting everything for the people, will prove that a plebiscite on the subject would not have been favourable. It was passed nonetheless, and it was a significant step in the right direction. The counter argument is that equality, mandated by the Constitution, is absolute, and should not need specific laws to reaffirm or enforce.
Unfortunately, inequality is rife in Bangladesh, and even the passage of laws intended to counter it is rarely enough. Otherwise, the government would certainly have risked the wrath of the upper and middle classes by enacting laws to wrestle wealth and power away from them and afford protection to the masses who barely qualify as belonging to the lower class.
The only surprise is that more of the equal rights warriors locally and internationally have not rallied behind the hijra laws, and pushed for the same benevolent luxuries to be extended to other minorities. Perhaps they have been polling.