Section 377 and a Perspective of Law

Living In Together

From time immemorial, a lot of theories have been planted how the human race came into existence. However, none of them is really convincing to us including stories told by wise scientists, even after centuries of research. Myths from both Abrahamic and Indian religions are rather funny, unscientific or inconclusive. To be precise the mystery of "Egg or Chicken First" is still unresolved. Well the fact is that mankind is a product of the same nature as rest of the creatures. And if we study, we could substantiate that there is a set of rule "the properties" that each of us should demonstrate. These properties are extended to even vegetation, water bodies, mountains etc with a little margin for error. In a way, the nature itself conducts how different entities should behave. For instance, animals never connive together to violate the food chain. These properties are in built into us as hard coded instincts. The aberrations in fact results in disastrous outcome a kind of catastrophe caused by the same nature to destroy the unlawful beings. Not sure if this is the cause of extinction for dinosaurs.

However criticised, "The Jungle Raj" too follows a set of rules or the law of nature. Apologies, for dropping the word "law" so unceremoniously but I couldn't find a good substitute. Little obsessed with animals now I won't hesitate calling ourselves a big joint family. This would be a utter foolishness to proclaim that only human beings possess attributes like conscience, emotions that otherwise establish human superiority. At the same time this would be completely unfair to underplay human race, subject to millions of years of evolution. Said to be the most civil society well credited to the alien artifacts (gadgets), they use to manage their lives. So at the outset, its worth mentioning that we too laid down our own set of rules subject to various amendments from time to time. In fact the mythologies dating from far back suggests very astutely inscribed law, finds its trace in our law books across the globe today. The very premise of those rules is in fact 'harmonious coexistence' with some optional moral plug-ins.

The common vices wealth and women, the cause of all unlawful activities fall under a single idiom territory. This is the perfect word that could be extended to even animal world to discuss this hypothesis. Territory offers both wealth and women (female), being politically correct, food and sex (to avoid strong remarks from feminists). In fact the whole planet professes patriarchy not alone human race. So a set of rule laid down by our wise forefathers to ensure peaceful life while still enjoying the lawful territory assigned. Well aberrations are still there but these are called law of land in our time. Law of different jurisdictions might change slightly but keeping the very proposition intact and not violating the law of nature, in any case.

While science supports law of nature, commonsense drives our own modern law, interpolated from the above said thesis. Incest, is banned even in animal kingdom as the off-springs produced out of any such relationship, are genetically homogeneous, vulnerable to diseases, psycho-physical deformity and eventual extinction. Incest, encompasses both paternal and maternal cousins that the subject has identical genetic order. Nevertheless, the controversial hybrid off-springs offer higher quality breeds. With half of the planet filled with female species this incest ban (rather a law of nature) alone won't serve any purpose. So we have a series of moral plug ins suggesting sex ban among related people who still do not share common gene. However, law won't involve, as long as these relationships are consensual except the society giving an immoral tag.

In contrast, for adults in any forceful sexual act, law provides all protection to the victim. So severe punishments suggested to deter any such act as this would cause chaos in society, completely undermining harmonious coexistence factor. Same logic is applicable to murder, theft, robbery or land grabbing. There are still deviations to the logic where the law takes sou motto cognizance of the crime. For instance an under-aged involved in a consensual sexual act or a person is dead, as these entities can't judge for themselves. The framework is very robust and the objective is concisely clear to deliver justice.

There are still plenty of examples of absurd law, a person surviving a suicidal attempt is punishable, he should rather be sent for counselling and rehabilitation. Now I am compelled to refer you back to article 377, and seek to understand that whether this law draws inspiration from law of nature or harmonious coexistence theory. Even though, the society can still judge upon the morality factor, for a consensual act among adults, its reluctance is conspicuous fearing a bad precedence by allowing small anomalies (read as LGBTs) into mainstream.

NB: Article 377 deals with all unnatural sexual activities not about LGBT rights.