In the present post, Anant Maringatti expresses loud jubilation over an equally important judgment by the AP HC enhancing the daily wage for the agricultural worker by Rs 30/= ,which in turn had come after a pretty long course of litigation. But, you (Anant) were certainly not showing a cold shoulder to the Sec 377 Judgement of the Delhi HC.
These two different verdicts on different issues could certainly be put in perspective, even while we juxtapose them.

Today I came across another blog by Cynthia Stephen who apparently makes some effort to put these responses from two prominent thinkers-cum activists in a plane that would further raise as well as settle questions about prioritization of Moralities- Which kind of Morality the Constitution should prioritize, in a case of clash ? Which Morality is more important? The Public Morality or the Constitutional Morality?

The proposition by Ambedkar for Constitutional Morality to prevail over a concept of Public Morality shows the extraordinary diligence and sharpness with which our Constitution has been drafted by him.

Hence , it virtually serves a warning bell signifying the limits of fanciful interpretations of the constitution. Probably Ambedkar knew that the future judges of independent India were more likely to equate Public Morality with a Manu-ite sense of Morality given the predominantly Brahmanical background of the native jurisprudence. Through his writings which were the result of painstaking research on Hinduism coupled with formidable challenges in real life situations, of many of the the inhuman assumptions of caste Hindus, Ambedkar kept on flashing the basic element of his insight- in a land dominated by oft repeated discourses on the twin concepts of dharma and adharma, breach of caste was considered the greatest of all sins, the biggest adharma even graver than murder.

Therefore, it is certainly refreshing that the Honourable Judges in delivering their verdict related to Sec 377, IPC quoted Ambedkar on his point that Constitutional Morality should take precedence over Public Morality.

As Kalpana Kannabiran has pointed out in a similar discussion, the definition of the term Sex in Article 15 now gets a new dimension to include sexual orientation as well, apart from gender or biological Sex of individuals. Thus, constitutional guarantee against discrimination on the basis of sex ( along with discriminations on the basis of religion, language or place of birth) means protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well, and this is what makes the judgment a landmark.

Even though the case was filed by (an NGO? ) NAS and the jubilations were mainly done by a section of the middle class and NGOs, that might not belittle its importance, as Anant also has acknowledged. Besides, the learned judges have rightly invoked the proposition of Ambedkar in resolving the clash between Constitutional Morality and the Public Morality.

The AP HC judgement in favour of enhancement of wages for agricultural workers certainly deserves loud applause and publicity though, I doubt whether it could be called a landmark in the sense mentioned above.
The long pending imperative of changing a highly consequential and negative societal attitude gets a big push thanks to the HC judgment on Sec 377; again, Ambedkarian agenda of social reform and true modernity is seen honoured here by the Hon HC Judges in in letter and spirit, and this is most important than anything else.

http://www.thesubcontinental.org/public/journal/vPrashad2.1.pdf

I will respond over time… the points you raise are all very important and need careful thought.

In the meantime, let me just say that the first thought that crossed my mind on reading your portrayal of the different small town contexts was this: This could very well be beginning of the centennial update on the novel – The Mainstreet…if you havent read it…here is the link to some info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Street_(novel)

The book is online http://publicliterature.org/books/main_street/xaa.php

but it should be available in most libraries.

As a child I lived in a coastal town in Karnataka for a short period. The town went through two cycles for fishermen; season of plenty and progressive starvation for the rest. When the Bangde was harvested, life bloomed -people, crows, cats, and happy colors, jatras everything reflected that hunger was forgotten. Boys boasted of the number of bangde they could eat at one go. As seasons moved on, servings of fresh fish progressively reduced, got replaced with dry fish, and finally to a point where only one dry fish was in the curry as mothers started to ration the amounts, followed by a time of just rice gruel, children refusing to eat without fish and mothers being reluctant to admit that there was no fish are etched on my mind.

The towns surrounding the one I now live in (US), are rural, still bravely fighting off big corporation take over of farms. There are no homeless people but veterans, the aged and hikers are a plenty. Every little town has charities that run community kitchens, no identification is asked, you walk in on the days they are open, a meal is a given. The Churches, veteran’s societies, Salvation Army and local clubs all have their own kitchens serving people. All activity is voluntary. Round the year people have food collection camps, a small note will appear in public spaces, saying, please donate a can of food and a box is left for collection. Volunteers to drive and distribute could be college students, professors, businessmen or families. All of this is done so unobtrusively with utmost regard for the dignity of that emotion -hunger. I believe it is from Christian beliefs –to give and share.

Thinking back, and if I compare these two experiences of small towns the coastal town had high proportion of Christians and Hindus, religious and social institutions were there, I cannot understand why such a system failed to develop. The culture of providing at least some relief for people, even though starvation was an annual phenomenon, simply did not happen, leaving hunger as a personal and not a public emotion.

Maybe we can say we don’t share because there never was excess for most people, maybe we can say that hunger is far more personal in India. Or thinkers-givers are not able to find ways to separate the notion of begging from sharing. I refuse to believe that we are inherently callous.

Since the current recession started to set in and jobs were being lost, food and clothes collection campaigns began with renewed force, there are messages on TV and radio constantly reminding people about the number of American children going hungry to bed and how others can help.

So, there was an anticipation of hunger and mechanisms that run routinely simply got more fine-tuned for the changed circumstance. This is not to say that suicides may be completely prevented but it will be reduced.

Our government and its institutions are ready to deny deaths due to starvation. Will they acknowledge hunger?

Voluntarism, dignified treatment, a network of organizations, a society with a history of a powerful civil rights movement -all of which seems like it is too difficult a model to reproduce, even in parts. I don’t know, except that it does not have to be this way, others have found ways out to handle this basic emotion with sensitivity and care.

In these two litigations, as far as the poor in LGBT community are concerned; dignity, aspiration AND material deprivation, the two remain completely connected in my head. How many eunuchs will be able to get a NREGA job? I wonder.

Anu- there is a dimension to this which i find very difficult to talk about. Hunger, like other bodily experiences is a private business – in a deeply emotional sort of way. We can talk about nutrition in an impersonal sort of way – just as Sinhal can talk about the mechanics of sex. But how does one talk about and respond to other people’s hunger with the dignity demanded by all the cultural codings through which it is expressed …? When somuch of it is implicit, felt at the same level as any other affective experience? People go to great lengths – some times even hang themselves rather than admit that they have been deprived of food! Likewise people can stop eating because they empathize with other’s deprivation.

I think the difficulty in talking about this which largely goes unacknowledged is what also makes it difficult to see the connections between the Naz Foundation case and the APVVU case. One is about dignity and aspiration and the other is about material deprivation- and the two in our imaginations remain separate.

Atreyee- thats an interesting thought – the constitution as a janus faced creature – one face coeval and coevolving in conversation; and the other that enacts the logics of the mai-baap sarkar. But I find the bare life part a bit limiting. How about drawing the connecting line through the myriad ways in which we ourselves feel compelled to engage with the two faces ?

Also, I can see what you mean by “why would I care”. But one can also imagine a point when you stop and wonder – why has it been so bloody difficult to get this 30 rupees! At that point, the discourse which orders the indignities and uncertainties does begin to matter. The tricky part is that something about the way our lives are ordered that keeps preventing us from reaching that point and persisting with that question in a useful way.

I can only think of this order in the rhythm of hundreds of other ‘displacement and rehabilitation’ orders- some directing the the PWD, some the Land Revenue official, some the Labour Department to ensure people stay alive. Give them so much rice, tarpaulin, so much water, and save the state’s name. And not to overlook that in this battle of words, someone ensures that their body and soul are stitched together. To hell with the highbrowness of the state. Who cares?

Judgments like Naz Foundation, or Visakha are meant in conversation with ‘citizens’. They occupy, I believe, a place where citizens enact themselves and coevally enact a constitution, state etc. Then there are judgments which are meant in parental enactment of the state’s arm (muscular or caressing) towards infantilised lives. I know it’s hackneyed, but i can’t help but think of Giorgio Agamben’s notion of the modern state being invested in continuous production of ‘bare life’ at this point. The court as one of the state machineries is constantly invested in picturing, mapping, measuring, succouring, punishing what is a key focus of their governance- ‘bare life’. But then, what the heck, why would i care for the discourse in which i am being given 30 bucks, if the 30 bucks keep me going.

If only more eyes would see it the way you see it………. Thank you for eloquently drawing the difference between a robust physiology doing a day’s work and ones that have been wasting in so many ways. That there would be diseased, sickly, or temporarily unhealthy people incapable of a day’s job, does not figure, does it? How does one count those? Starvation deaths or too lazy to work? Even to have a stone breaking, ditch digging job that pays this princely sum, one has to be in the possession of a life supported by healthy food intake for most of it and in an environment with no pathogens or with healthcare accessible.

7 hours day, uninsured, no health care, no benefits, no cushions whatsoever and a raise of 30 rupees, maybe for 8 weeks…. I share your indescribable feelings.