India Votes with Russia Against UNWorkers and Gay Marriage :} UN Still Will Recognize Gay Marriages
India votes with anti-gay powers but UN can recognise same-sex marriages now | ||
India voted with Russia, China, Syria, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia at the General Assembly but could not block a proposal to recognize gay marriages and relationships for UN officials.
The senior officials said it was not immediately clear if the UN resolution would require India to legally recognize gay partners of foreign UN diplomats based here. |
If it does, at least three gay UN diplomats here are likely to bring their partners to New Delhi to become the first-ever same-sex couples legally acknowledged by the Indian government, officials at the foreign office and the UN said.
"It's a great day not just for same-sex couples, but for all those who believe in equality cutting across sexual orientations," a UN diplomat said. "Hopefully, it will also nudge India and other countries to relax its own domestic laws."
India and China were among 44 countries that voted against a UN proposal to extend to gay couples diplomatic privileges available to spouses and partners of heterosexual diplomats. Russia had moved the vote to block the resolution.
The resolution was, however, cleared since 80 nations voted in favour, with 37 abstentions and 33 countries absenting themselves. It will not help non-UN foreign diplomats posted in India.
India does not recognise gay marriages and has for years refused to extend diplomatic privileges to gay partners of foreign diplomats posted here, citing Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that bars homosexual acts. Diplomatic privileges, detailed under two UN conventions from the 1960s, include access to diplomatic passports, tax-free earnings, cars with diplomatic licences, and a slew of smaller concessions.
The UN, till now, has followed a policy of allowing each country to extend those diplomatic privileges to the spouses and partners of UN officials - both foreigners and those of that country's nationality - that are in line with its domestic laws.
That policy also included different privileges for different employees based on their nationality. A gay Indian national working at the UN could not, for instance, receive the same privileges and benefits for his or her partner even if posted in a nation where same-sex marriages are legal.
But last June, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon had announced that the body would move towards extending equal benefits to all diplomatic partners.
India today argued Ban’s decision was taken without consultation with other nations to explain a rare vote at the UN General Assembly where India and Pakistan were on the same side.
"It was that unilateral decision that was the main reason for our vote," external affairs ministry spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin said. "This is not a simple matter."
For India, the UN resolution has thrown up a clutch of challenges, with no easy solutions.
While the resolution does not mean an Indian national working at the UN can register a gay marriage in India, his diplomatic passport will now reflect his same-sex marriage if registered in a country where it is recognised. His partner’s passport will also carry details of the marriage recognised by the UN.
"What do we do when they come to India - recognise them or treat them as freaks?" an Indian official wondered. "Will they, in India, be allowed to treat each other as legal heirs or dependents, just as an example? We don't know. We'll have to figure this out."
If the UN resolution also means that India will need to legally recognise gay partners of UN diplomats based here, the challenge gets compounded, officials said.
First, India will then need to figure out a way to extend full diplomatic privileges to spouses and partners of gay UN diplomats without violating its own law. Section 377, struck down by Delhi High Court in 2009, was re-instated by the Supreme Court in 2013. A larger top court bench is hearing petitions on the law.
Second, India will have to devise a larger justification if it intends to continue its past posture with diplomats of other foreign missions. Till now, New Delhi has been arguing that it simply cannot bend the law.
"The question we will be asked is that if we can bend rules for UN diplomats, why can't we do the same for others," an Indian official said.
But quietly, some Indian diplomats are hoping the UN decision propels a review in New Delhi of how to treat other gay foreign diplomats.
"It's a constant headache for us to fight the perception of a socially backward state when we meet such diplomats, and it doesn't help with our foreign policy," a second diplomat said. "Frankly, it's a baggage we're carrying."
A gay World Health Organisation diplomat who had lived with his partner in four other nations previously, was, for instance, forced to come to India alone, because of the earlier UN rule.
"What India needs to realise is that its policy is driving away diplomats who otherwise love this country," he had told this correspondent once, over a cup of coffee in his office. “For every one like me, who makes this sacrifice, there are many who simply will not."
CHARU SUDAN KASTURI
Comments