AMU’s queer prejudices

The suspension of Dr SR Siras and  his illegal eviction from his home of long standing in Aligarh came as a shock to the queer community, particularly as this incident came after the epochal judgment of the Delhi High Court in Naz Foundation vs NCR Delhi decriminalising the intimate lives of  queer people. The outrage prompted the visit of a fact finding team to Aligarh Muslim University to probe the ‘truth’ of what happened. Having been part of this team, I will highlight our two findings regarding how and why this incident happened.

To the first question as to how it happened, it is clear that without the participation of the university authorities, such an incident could never have taken place. The fact that some of the top university authorities were on the spot even as the  so-called media persons were inside Siras’ home accusing him of being homosexual and threatening him with exposure indicts the role of the university. What makes the entire episode even more sinister is the presence of an investigation agency on campus called the Local Intelligence Unit (LIU).

AMU is possibly the first University which has so openly taken over the functions of the state through the constitution of a body to ensure law and order on campus and gather intelligence. If it does come out that the operation was indeed carried out by the LIU, then there is a lot that the university will have to answer for because this puts a serious question mark over the right to privacy and dignity of  both students and professors residing in the university campus.

To the second question as to why it happened, it is quite clear that moral policing at the AMU was not something completely new. The public space has become predominantly male, with women not being seen sitting on the lawns or in the library or in the main campus in the evening. This is because of previous incidents of moral policing on campus. In January 2010, a research scholar, Irfan Khan who was in a consensual relationship with Asma Firdous was suspended from the university on the grounds of “moral turpitude, intimidation and assault”. The  misconduct of Irfan Khan was to fall in love and get married without parental consent and this resulted in his suspension by the pater familias — Aligarh Muslim University. 

The influence of AMU in Aligarh also has to be understood as the police have refused to perform their basic constitutional duty of filing an FIR upon the receipt of a complaint by Siras about the violations he was subjected to. This dereliction of duty has serious implications not just for Siras but for the notion that the law applies equally to all. The AMU authorities, cannot be exempt from the law merely because they  occupy a position of power in Aligarh.

There is nothing surprising in the actions of the AMU authorities as they have converted the university campus into an unwholesome place which is not conducive to issues of personal freedom, intellectual thought and development of student personalities.

By taking action against Siras and  deliberating raking up and fanning the issue of homosexuality, the AMU authorities seek to   refurbish their moral credentials, even if it be at the cost of the basic human rights of its faculty. The debate on the Siras affair has been sought to be polarised into those who are in favour of homosexuality and those who are not. However the underlying issue is really one of various illegal actions perpetrated by the university authorities whereby they deprived their own faculty of the constitutionally guaranteed  right to be free of intrusion in the sphere of his home and nurture his beliefs, thoughts, emotions and sensations without interference.

  The Naz  judgment also emphasised that  “moral indignation”  cannot become an altar at which an individual is expected to sacrifice his right to privacy and dignity. The constitutional guarantees of privacy, autonomy and dignity form part of what the Delhi High Court described as “constitutional morality” and these guarantees are so basic to the very meaning of what it means to be human that they cannot be violated by the AMU authorities on the amorphous   grounds of public morality.

In fact, one is tempted to quote Dr Ambedkar who was invoked by C J Shah in Naz Foundation as saying that, “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top dressing on an Indian soil which is essentially undemocratic.”

Clearly we still have a long way to go before we internalise the values of constitutional morality and overcome the fundamentally prurient and lascivious morality which seems to govern our public life and the actions of our public authorities.

(The writer works with the Alternative Law Forum)

-- arvind@altlawforum