The policy of being neutral

-Krishiv Vora

I tend to have a lot of discussions with people. Many of these discussions I have with people that I don't know too well. I'm a moderate person, I don't hold extreme views on most topics. I guess it just comes with being a debater, I have to be able to switch my stance on the go. But the thing is, a lot of people I speak to, do have extreme opinions.

The truth is, though, that having extreme views never makes you right, no matter what end of the spectrum you're on. Highly racist/homophobic? Want all the gays to be lynched? Please, tone it down. But being highly 'anti-racist'/'accepting' doesn't make you correct either. It's really simple, but surprisingly many people don't fully grasp the concept that extreme right-wing sociopolitics isn't so different from its extreme left-wing counterpart.

Recently, I had a discussion online with a person on how, sometimes, expressing views that are not perfectly accepting of all races or genders is okay. You may have been raised or brought up that way. That doesn’t mean you should be associated with extremists that genuinely cause harm to those minorities. I said that having a non-accepting view is okay as long as you keep it to yourself and don't cause harm to anyone else. I stand by this viewpoint. Is that not, after all, the freedom of thought? Prejudice isn’t a great thing, but it’s human tendency to be prejudiced in some way. The notion that even a mere thought of prejudice in any form makes you a bad person should be done away with. Your actions define you, not your thoughts. Acting on racist thoughts, though, does make you a bad person. However, the person I was talking to told was clearly offended. They told me never to talk to them again if I'm suggesting that "having a racist/homophobic viewpoint is okay".

Immediately, I thought "well does that make you any better than people who are racist? Aren't you doing the same thing as them, if you're being so extreme as to alienate those who disagree with your ideas about race and gender?"

I read a post on Reddit recently about how being moderate no longer counts as a political stance, or something to that effect. I didn't think much of it then, but now that I think about it, it's true. We're in an age where unless I'm shouting on the streets about feminism, writing slogans, calling men pigs and sharing clearly biased and angry Buzzfeed articles, I'm not a feminist. Maybe even misogynistic? But why? Why are people so addicted to having polarised views? And why, why on earth, are people around me so passionate about issues like race and sexuality, when we're in a country that doesn't face these issues in a prominent way? They won't even talk to someone because that person is okay with a neutral view on race?

People around us are only aware about these issues because of the Internet. Their only source of information on these issues is social media, and of course, journalism. Journalism that everyone should know is very biased towards liberalism and social media that everyone should know is full of young liberal people. Of course we're going to be affected by this bias.

It's hypocritical to claim you want equality, peace, and want everyone to coexist; and then immediately alienate people that disagree with your idea of equality, peace, and coexistence. In my mind, a true equalist, would do their best to understand genuine prejudice, and work around or despite it to promote quality through love. Not aggression. Through acceptance and understanding, not herd mentality and segregation.

In India, there's been a public outcry for many years to remove Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises "carnal acts of sexual intercourse", including homosexual sex. A large portion of the LGBTQ+ community, as well as other activists, see the law as 'bad', and they're right... to a certain extent.

There's been extensive debate in the Indian Supreme Court, on whether or not this clause is unconstitutional. However, the debate is really a little more complicated than that. Of course, the cries of hyper-conservative Indian ministers who claim homosexuality is 'wrong' or 'against Indian culture' can be ignored. However, some rational arguments do exist against removing Section 377. One of them is the question: Is India ready?

It sounds absurd, but putting any thought into the matter reveals the painfully true answer... "probably not".

It's easy to get swept away in the fervent enthusiasm of activists nation-wide, who seemingly only want their 'equality'. Legally, it makes sense to do away with the clause. In a utopia, it would already be done. But we have to consider the practical aspect of things too. India is no utopia.

Travel no more than a few kilometres from any metropolitan Indian cities, and you will find a thriving rural populace with little-to-no formal education. They don't know about equal rights and the LGBTQ+. All they know about is the season of rain and the best way to harvest their crop; the best place to take their cattle to graze and the best tree to climb for a good view of the forest.

These people, like it or not, are the majority of India. Their ways and cultures are beautiful, and they clash with the urban, Westernised ways of thinking. These people, when broached about the idea of love marriage, scoff even today. Some even resort to violence and murder. In a country where female foeticide is still painfully prevalent, do we really think that a legalisation (and thus, a natural large boost in awareness) of homosexual sex will be received positively by *all* people?

Here's my opinion: Article 377 is practically never enforced. In the privacy of their homes, the LGBTQ+ can do whatever they please and nobody will really ever stop them. I understand that legalisation would be a massive morale boost, a symbolic victory against antagonistic tradition; but before symbolism comes practicality. It's a very real likelihood, that in the inevitable riots following the removal of Article 377, people will die. Nobody deserves that. Perhaps then, the best option is just to wait. It may not be very nice, or ideal... but it's a safe option, and perhaps the best one given the circumstances.

Consider also, for a moment, the opposite end of the legal spectrum. There are already many laws in place to make sure that the world is an equal place. In fact, the legislature, in some places, supports women more than men. Indian law does not provide for a man being raped. It's legally *impossible*. If you ask me, that's definitely sexism, especially in the modern day.

Of course, who can forget our country's treasured Reservation policy? It, without a doubt, supports racial minorities more than racial majorities. It relies on the un-achievable concept of equality, rather than equity. Yet, the 'equalists' demand more change in the favour of the so called 'oppressed'. Perhaps what we need now is a change of heart and mind, and not a change of law. And perhaps, that change has to come by talking to people, *really* talking to them, and not screaming at them.