Indian Parliament Must Apologize for Stonewalling Debate on Gay & Lesbian Issues Since Independence

 By Dr. P. S. Sahni & Shobha Aggarwal

• The rights of people with different sexual orientations – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual needs to be respected; all the laws that criminalise or discriminate against the LGBTQIA community should be abolished. India should pass laws that allows marriage among same sex and LGBTQIA communities.

–          A People’s Manifesto for Ecological Democracy by Countercurrents Collective released on August 15, 2020

• The remedy against § 377 lies with the people through their Parliament, and not in the courts.
  • M.P. Singh, Constitutionality of Section 377, Indian Penal Code – A Case of Misplaced Hope in Courts, 6 NUJS L. Rev. 4 (2013)

Since 1988-89 ABVA (AIDS Bhedbhav Virodhi Andolan) has been sending petitions to the Indian Parliament pertaining to all the alleged high risk groups for AIDS including gay community. The very first petition was addressed to the Speaker, Lok Sabha urging that the AIDS Prevention Bill, 1989 be not passed by Parliament as it stigmatized and scapegoated inter alia the gay community. The petition reached the then Chairperson of the Petitions Committee, Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee who sent a reply letter asking ABVA to give evidence in support of its contention. We duly complied and campaigned with 100 odd groups all over the country to object to the gay community and alleged other high risk groups being targeted by the proposed Bill. Within two years the Bill was withdrawn.

When ABVA released the report “Less than Gay” in November 1991 a petition was sent to the Petitions Committee appealing that the charter of demands (later referred to as the Gay Manifesto) be debated in Parliament and that Section 377, Indian Penal Code (IPC) should be repealed in toto. A number of similar minded groups affixed our petition with a covering letter urging for the same demand. No reply was received by ABVA nor did any debate take place in Parliament during the five year period of the government in power i.e. till 1996.

We at ABVA were absolutely clear that ultimately it is the people’s representatives in Parliament who will have to address the issue threadbare – shedding coyishness aside – and give justice to the gay and lesbian community as also the transgender community who till then had not even got the identity of the third sex. This happened through the NALSA judgement delivered by the Supreme Court (SC) in 2014. True in 1994 ABVA had filed a petition in the Delhi High Court asking for inter alia striking down of Section 377 IPC in its totality. For seven years we campaigned with the petition all over the country to sensitize activists on the issue and enlist support. We urged all groups to file similar petitions in their respective state’s high courts. The idea was to ensure that a section of the media would disseminate ABVA’s message which might reach the Members of Parliament. Not even one Member of Parliament (MP) – not even the communists/socialists – raised the issue in that forum. On the contrary a few organization related to the communists were even actively opposing the issue of sexual minorities. However we continued with our attempts because we could not come to terms with the fact that Parliament would refuse to even debate the issue since the time the country achieved its independence. We were clear that courts could at best provide a narrow, legalistic relief only.

Overtime we were sending letters to major political parties ahead of general and state elections with the ardent hope that the issues of sexual minorities would find place in their political manifesto. This happened to some extent only in the last general elections. We had even addressed open letters to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Parliamentarians since 2014. There was masterly inactivity on behalf of all of them. In all fairness Mr. Shashi Tharoor, MP brought a private member’s Bill a few times in Lok Sabha during 2015 to 2018 to replace Section 377, IPC and to decriminalize consensual adult homosexual acts. Not surprisingly the Bill was not even allowed to be introduced in Lok Sabha principally by the vehement opposition of the BJP MPs. Overtime some noises in favour of gay community were made by Mr. Arun Jaitley, BJP MP, who opined that their human rights have to be respected. At least the issue of rights of transgender community have figured in Parliament in last decade or so and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 got passed; it is with the gay and lesbian issues that Parliamentarians cutting across all parties and ideologies have a problem. It is ironical that a country which boasts of Kama Sutra – which has a full chapter on gay sex – and which has been authored by an establishment person, Vatsyayana feels shy of discussing gay and lesbian issues affecting all aspects of their lives viz marriage, adoption, property rights; educational and job opportunities (full details in Gay Manifesto). Why, even Khajuraho temples – by all means Hindu and Jain ones – famous for their erotic sculptures show in full details the sexual act between two men and two women.

Under the Indian Constitution and Parliamentary Procedure and Practice there is no way a call attention debate can be disallowed on gay and lesbian issues. Only one MP needs to give a simple notice asking for such a debate to take place. In practice it is better if four or five MPs send separate notices. The Speaker / Chairperson can fix a day and time for the same. It is no one’s case that the entire Gay Manifesto be accepted. If after 73 years of independence the Indian Parliament refuses to let such a debate take place where should the eighty million people belonging to sexual minority go for redressal. It may be recalled that the then Chief Justice of India while delivering the judgement modifying Section 377 IPC to exclude consensual adult homosexual acts from its ambit had taken a clear stance that the apex court would not be taking up the issues of marriage, property rights and so on. The minor concession by the court should not lead to complacency within the gay and lesbian community. The struggle for equality in all spheres of life – publicly and not just in private – must continue.

Occupy Parliament Street

The only option left for the gay community is to mobilize all civil society organizations, come under a common coalitional umbrella organization and Occupy Parliament Street indefinitely. All participants should be prepared for coercive action of the administration and the police. There is no substitute for struggle and non-party political action; this needs to be stressed on the second anniversary of the SC judgement.

Bob Dylan’s inspiring lines come to mind:

“… Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don’t stand in the doorway

Don’t block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled

There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’

It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin’ …”

First published: https://countercurrents.org/2020/09/indian-parliament-must-apologize-for-stonewalling-debate-on-gay-lesbian-issues-since-independence/

Constitutionality of Section 377, Indian Penal Code – A Case of Misplaced Hope in Courts

 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 377,

INDIAN PENAL CODE – A CASE OF MISPLACED HOPE IN COURTS

M.P. Singh^[1]

Amidst strong reactions against the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, this paper argues that the Court has done all that it is expected to do under the Constitution and the law established under it. The respondents, especially the Union of India, have unsuccessfully asked it to do what the Constitution does not expect it to do. The remedy against § 377 lies with the people through their Parliament, and not in the courts.

“I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

—Judge Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty^[2]

I. INTRODUCTION

Before contextualising the foregoing statement, in view of sharp

reactions to my comment on the decision of the Delhi High Court,^[3] let me clarify that I am neither insensitive to the issues of LGBTs or LGBTQs, nor am I opposed to their claim for rights and liberty in their private and personal lives. As a student of constitutional law, my limited concern is to examine whether the courts have the power to invalidate § 377 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). In my understanding of the Constitution and its interpretation, the courts lack the power to invalidate the section.^[4] I am not surprised that on appeal in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (‘Koushal’)^[5], the Apex Court has also come to the same conclusion.

Sharp reactions against Koushal in the mass media and a few aca-

demic writings reminded me of the above mentioned words of Judge Learned Hand which he spoke to a gathering of United States citizens at the Central Park of New York towards the end of World War II. A few days after Koushal, I chanced to watch a meeting of a group of LGBTs at Delhi University campus during which, following expressions of disappointment and anger against the decision by several speakers, the convener of the group said something similar to what Judge Learned Hand had said. He asked his co-workers and the audience not to rely too much on the courts. The rights of LGBTs could not be realised through court decisions, he said; they required an attitudinal change in the society at large, which was possible only by informing and enlightening people about the legitimacy of their claims. In Koushal, the Supreme Court also seems to be expressing a similar view when in response to some allegations of discrimination by the first respondent – Naz Foundation – it says: “These details are wholly insufficient for recording a finding that homosexuals, gays, etc. are being subjected to discriminatory treatment either by the state or its agencies”.^[6]

II. ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF THE

GOVERNMENT AND THE COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE

While the outrage in the media and amongst legal scholars is un-

derstandable, the claims of the Attorney General induced by the Government of the day, first to only assist the Court in the hearing of the appeal and later for the review of the decision, are unprecedented and unprincipled. The government is expected to honour and defend the Constitution as much, if not more, as the Court and to insert and retain in the statute book only such laws which it considers constitutional, and to ask the Attorney General to defend them against any challenge before the courts. In Koushal, on the contrary, the government admits its law to be unconstitutional, and instead of removing it from the statute book, asks the Attorney General to get it struck down by the Court. How strange is it that a government which often blames the courts of overreach and excessive interference with laws and policies, unprecedentedly asks the Court to invalidate a legislation, which the Constitution allows to “continue in force…until altered or repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority”?^[7]

 A CASE OF MISPLACED HOPE IN COURTS 571

At one point of time, the Attorney General asked the Court to hold

that not only liberties but even life of any person could be taken by the petty police officers without any procedure established by law.^[8] It is incomprehensible that the Attorney General now expects the Court to invalidate a law which has remained unaltered in the statute book for over one hundred and fifty years, including sixty four years since the commencement of the Constitution. Except in a federal arrangement where the Centre and the States can challenge each other’s laws on the ground of encroachment in the jurisdiction of one by the other, only an individual or a group of individuals who perceives an unconstitutional encroachment on their rights or interests by such laws are entitled to get them invalidated by the courts.^[9] Even in this limited field, Justice Holmes advised that the nation could not come to an end if the courts lost the power to declare federal legislation unconstitutional but it could be imperilled if the courts could not make that declaration as to the laws of several states.^[10] The Attorney-General’s approach in the present matter implies the government’s lack of both confidence in itself and faith in democracy – the cornerstone of the Constitution and one of its basic features – and expects the courts to do what the Constitution assigns to the people’s elected representatives. It amounts to subversion of the Constitution and beginning of the end of our liberty.

As custodian of the Constitution, the Court in Koushal, on the

other hand, has performed its job of protecting and preserving the Constitution from this kind of unexpected and unacceptable design of the government in refusing to invalidate or even read down § 377 of the IPC. Admitting its plenary power of judicial review, it clarified that “keeping in mind the importance of separation of powers and out of sense of deference to the value of democracy that parliamentary Acts embody, self-restraint has been exercised by the judiciary when dealing with the constitutionality of laws”.^[11] Alluding to the presumption of constitutionality and the doctrine of severability, the Court admitted that “[d]eclaring the law unconstitutional is one of the last resorts taken by the courts”^[12] and they “would preferably put into service the principle of ‘reading down’ or ‘reading into’ the provision to make it effective, workable and ensure the attainment of the object of the Act”.^[13] Applying these principles to § 377 of the IPC, which has survived as such ever since the making of IPC even though it has been amended about thirty times and the Law Commission recommended its deletion, the Court concluded:

“It is, therefore, apposite to say that unless a clear constitutional violation is proved, this Court is not empowered to strike down a law merely by virtue of its falling into disuse or the perception of the society having changed as regards the legitimacy of its purpose and its needs”.^[14]

On examining the prosecutions and convictions under § 377 of

the IPC in the light of these principles, the Court found that all these cases related to “non-consensual and markedly coercive situations and keenness of the Court in bringing justice to the victims who were either women or children cannot be discounted while analysing the manner in which the section has been interpreted” and expressed its doubt “whether the court would rule similarly in a case of proved consensual intercourse between adults”.^[15] However, going by the plain meaning and legislative history of the section, it held “that § 377 of the IPC would apply irrespective of age and consent”.^[16] The Court further clarified that:

“Section 377 IPC does not criminalise a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts which if committed would constitute an offence. Such a prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation”.¹⁶

The Court also found that the petitioners before the Delhi High Court did not produce adequate proof of the fact that “homosexuals, gays, etc. are being subjected to discriminatory treatment either by the State or its agencies or the society”.^[17] In my view, even if discrimination by society is established, invalidity of § 377 will not help LGBTs because the section empowers the state or its agencies to take action and not the society.

On the question of discrimination, relying upon the established

law, the Court came to the conclusion:

“Those who indulge in carnal intercourse in the ordinary course and those who indulge in carnal intercourse against the order of nature constitute different classes and the people falling in the latter category cannot claim that § 377 suffers

 A CASE OF MISPLACED HOPE IN COURTS 573

from the vice of arbitrariness and irrational classification.… Therefore, the High Court was not right in declaring § 377

IPC ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution”.^[18]

The miniscule population of LGBTs and the fact that there were

less than 200 prosecutions, also weighed in the mind of the Court in rejecting the plea of invalidity under Articles 14, 15 and 21.^[19] I need not repeat what I had said in reaction to the Delhi High Court decision in arriving at the same conclusion.^[20] Contrary to my understanding of the judicial decisions and their application, the Court read substantive due process in the combined reading of Articles 14, 19 and 21. But without arriving on any conclusion on that issue, even on the allegations of torture, harassment and blackmail of LGBTs on account of § 377, it held that “this treatment is neither mandated by the section nor condoned by it and the mere fact that the section is misused by police authorities and others is not a reflection on the vires of the section”.^[21] Mere possibility of abuse of law, the Court observed, does not per se invalidate a law.

Professor Baxi has strongly argued against the understanding and

application of Article 14 by the Court to different kinds of sexual acts,^[22] but as I have said before, until a bench of nine judges changes the existing law on Article 14, the smaller benches are bound by the decision.^[23]

Finally, on the question of foreign precedents and laws, the Court

expressed “grave doubts about the expediency of transplanting Western experience in our country”.²⁴ Citing the example of the death penalty and the Law Commission’s views on it and some cases in which the Court has cautioned against being blinded by foreign precedents, the Court concluded that “§ 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality”.^[24] It further stated that “the competent legislature was, however, free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting § 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General”.²⁶ I add that, on the lines of Justice Holms’ advice cited above, the Court shows due deference to major pre-Constitution codes and Acts of Parliament. Even § 303 IPC was invalidated because it encroached upon the judicial power. All other challenges have uniformly been rejected. In the United States of America, same sex relationships in State laws have been the subject matter of litigation^[25] and in most other jurisdictions in the West, change has been brought by legislation.

III. CONCLUSION

To conclude, in Koushal, the Court has lived by its dharma of

upholding the Constitution and the laws consistent with it even in the face of government’s collusion with the respondents. The stand of the government has, however, gone against its dharma of defending its laws or to repeal them if it considers them to be unconstitutional. The media and scholars must enlighten the people, including the legislators, about the plight of LGBTs and the injustice, if any, to which law subjects them instead of pinning all the hopes in the courts.^[26]

---

[1] Chancellor, Central University of Haryana. Formerly, Professor of Law and Vice-Chancellor, W.B. National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, India and Professor of Law, University of Delhi.

[2] Judge Learned Hand, The ‘Spirit of Liberty’ Speech presented during the annual ‘I am an American Day’ event (May 21, 1944).

[3] Naz Foundation v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 160 DLT 277.

[4] See M.P. Singh, Decriminalisation of Homosexuality and the Constitution, 2 NUJS L. Rev. 361 (2009).

[5] (2014) 1  SCC  1.

[6] Id., ¶ 63. The expression ‘the society’, which I have omitted from the quote, in my view, means society as an organisation as opposed to families and small groups of people.

[7] Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 372. The continuation is, however, subject to the Constitution.

[8] See ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521. For some revealing details see

H.R. KHaNNa, NeitHeR RoSeS NoR tHoRNS 82 (2010).

[9] The statement may be read subject to the practice of public interest litigation, in which any person or body of persons having sufficient interest in the matter may also approach the courts for the invalidation of laws.

[10] See O.W. Holmes, Law and the Court in CoLLeCted LegaL PaPeRS 295 (1920).

[11] Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1, ¶ 32 (emphasis supplied).

[12] Id., ¶ 40.

[13] Id., referring to and relying upon the principles laid down in Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745. See also summarised version of the principles at Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1, ¶ 44.

[14] Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1, ¶ 46.

[15] Id., ¶ 60.

[16] Id. ¹⁶ Id.

[17] Id., ¶ 63.

[18] Id., ¶ 65.

[19] Id., ¶ 66.

[20] See Singh, supra note 3, 361.

[21] Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1, ¶ 76.

[22] Upendra Baxi, Naz 2: A Critique, 49(6) EPW (February 8, 2014).

[23] See Singh, supra note 3, 361, 371, 380 as well as the discussion on reasonableness in Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 352. ²⁴ Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1, ¶ 77.

[24] Id., ¶ 80. ²⁶ Id., ¶ 82.

[25] However, the United States Supreme Court, by a majority of 5 to 4, has invalidated a federal law which for claiming tax benefits, defined marriage only between a man and a woman. The reasons for such invalidation were multifarious, though the main reason appears to be the violation of liberty without due process of law that included equal protection of laws also. See United States v. Windsor, 186 L.Ed 2d 808: 570 US 12 (2013).

[26] At the time of writing this comment, elections were due for Parliament. The people could have asked the political parties to include the demand for repeal of §377 in their manifesto as the Communist Party of India (M) did or after the constitution of new Parliament they should ask their elected representatives to repeal that section.

Reproduced from NUJS Law Review for educational and non-commercial purposes. Cite as: M.P. Singh, Constitutionality of Section 377, Indian Penal Code – A Case of Misplaced Hope in Courts, 6 NUJS L. Rev. 4 (2013)

Link: http://nujslawreview.org/2016/12/04/constitutionality-of-section-377-indian-penal-code-a-case-of-misplaced-hope-in-courts/

COVID-19 Pandemic: A Joint Nobel Prize For Trump, Bolsonaro, Modi – Truly Deserved!

  by Dr P S Sahni 

An emergency meeting of the 50-member Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm – responsible for the selection of Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine – is having grave deliberations.

Chairperson: An unprecedented situation has arisen after we received an email from the aforesaid aspirants for the Nobel Prize; the rules do not allow nomination by the potential laureates. I beseech the wisdom of this assembly to tide over the crises bigger than the COVID-19 pandemic itself!

Member 1 (M1): Sir, the situation being delicate – what with the background of these three characters – it is best if we go about the proceedings in a dispassionate manner.

M2: Sir, the credentials of the aspirant from India states that he was instrumental in dispatching the drug Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to about 100 odd countries to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Secondly, he submits that he has allowed the production and stockpiling of Oxford vaccine (backed by British government) at Pune, India at the very centre where Phase II, III, IV clinical trials of this vaccine are still in progress! Additionally he has dispatched paracetamol medicine to many countries for control of fever in COVID-19 infection! Besides he is said to be the original proponent of social distancing; sir, he has socially distanced himself from his better half for decades. Speaks volumes for his sacrifice. He faces a crucial provincial (Bihar) election in October 2020; would love to conquer Bihar close on the heels of the announcement of the prize.

M1: Sorry for the interruption but it needs to be pointed out that even the World Health Organization has concluded that HCQ is useless and dangerous when given to patients with serious pneumonia. On this ground alone the prize cannot be awarded. Secondly sir, while it is courageous for this aspirant to allow production and stockpiling of the vaccine even before the trials are successfully completed, what if the results of these trials are anything but? Thirdly, around 80,000 doctors, nurses, voluntary workers in India alone have got infected with the virus even though health care service providers are given HCQ as a government policy. Clearly HCQ does not have even a preventive role.

M3: I am aware, sir, of the way things get done in India. You can be sure that results of the trial would be as required by the Oxford University and Astra-Zeneca. The British PM has himself put in a word to his Indian counterpart. Moreover the institute undertaking the trial has had a call from Bhai log (mafia) in Mumbai that the trials have to be shown to be successful. So there should be no doubt on this score. For the uninitiated Bhai log are more feared than the Italian godfathers and resourceful too! A negative point though, is that the aspirant from India was accused of genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 though the judiciary gave him a clean chit later! After being denied visa for visit to USA for over a decade Trump personally invited Modi and embraced him in pre-COVID times!

M4: Sir, the aspirant from USA asserts that he should be lauded for projecting the COVID-19 infection – right in the beginning of the pandemic – as a simple flu. This ensured that mass depression and suicides got avoided in USA – a no mean achievement during the nation’s hour of greatest crises. Like the aspirant from India he too, had been a strong votary of HCQ. Rumours have it that he himself had consumed this medicine for prevention of infection. In fact his concern for the people of his country can be gauzed from the fact that he had threatened to bomb India to Stone Age at a time when Modi had dared to put an embargo on the export of this drug for a few days. Sir, we have to appreciate the spirit of this character and the passion with which he steered the country through this pandemic. Remember, too, he could pressurize Modi – who never tires of reminding all and sundry that his chest circumference measures 56 inches – to lift the embargo on HCQ. The aspirant has tagged a few recommendatory letters from dozens of women who cheerfully testify to his virility in all honesty. Moreover, sir, he faces a re-election in the first week of November; his name being declared in October as per our protocol would steer him through the tumultuous electoral process! Keep in mind sir, that this time Russia may not be able to manipulate the elections in USA through social media. Our little bit of help would get him past the goal post. If we don’t, he may resort to the usual tactics – imposing sanctions, tariffs; what is more he may bomb the Nobel assembly at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm out of existence!

M5: Sir, let me brief this august gathering on the third aspirant: you have to admire the bravado of the Brazilian president; Bolsonaro has been moving around publicly throughout the length and breadth of the country often without as much as a mask and occasionally hugging the populace at public places. Never mind that all this has resulted in Brazil having the second highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world but the risk he took personally cannot be ignored. Besides he is the original propagator of HCQ which he prefers to call by the Hindu mythological connotation of being Hanuman ji’s sanjeevni buti. Such creative and innovative mind would be hard to locate in CDC, Atlanta, USA. I wish to bring to your notice that Father Damien worked amongst leprosy patients and contracted leprosy; likewise sir, Bolsonaro contacted COVID-19 infection in July 2020 purely because he dared to mingle with the Brazilian people when they were in need of emotional support. This selfless act of Bolsonaro qualifies him to be an aspirant.

M6: What if in spite of the best efforts of Bhai log in India the results of Phase II to IV point towards the vaccine being useless.

M7: Sir, once we have given the award to these three aspirants we need not worry if the Oxford vaccine discovery is found to be bogus. Remember sir, that in the year 1926 we had awarded a Nobel Prize in medicine to Johannes Fibiger which was later found to be a discovery of dubious nature. So we have a precedence to fall back upon. We shouldn’t worry about such niceties.

M8: Sir, in any case in Putin’s Russia the vaccine has not only not completed the full mandatory trials but has also been produced and stockpiled. In fact people have even been vaccinated with this new vaccine. One of Putin’s close relative has received a shot and Putin insists that all is fine. Luckily for us at the Nobel Prize committee Putin has not projected himself as an aspirant to the Nobel Prize. You know sir, how these wretched communists – present and erstwhile – look at the Nobel Prize, to wit, an instrument of decadent western capitalist world order. Same goes for China where the vaccine trials are in an advanced stage. Before I end my statement I wish to chip in – and we must collectively confess in this august gathering – that at the behest of USA and western Europe we have used the Nobel Prize to create dissenters within the iron curtain countries in the past. This was in line with the long term objective of the west to have a communist-mukt world order.

Chairperson: I have given a patient hearing to the worthy opinion of the members of this assembly; yet I must express myself clearly that I feel strongly that the soul of Alfred Nobel would never rest in peace if the likes of Trump were to be bestowed with the Nobel Prize in medicine. The very thought is discomforting to me.

Dissenting member: Since this is a closed door meeting and our corporate press will never get wind of the ongoing proceedings here – which as per protocol are kept secret for 50 years in any case – let the truth be out. I have no hesitation in reminding you that Alfred Nobel made his money out of the invention of dynamite and an explosive device called a blasting cap which inaugurated the modern use of high explosives. Sir, dynamite has created more death and destruction in this world than all the havoc caused by the USA in the two dozen odd countries which it had invaded since World War II for a variety of reasons viz oil; regime change; locating non-existent weapons of mass destruction; defeating communism and at times even to win presidential elections within USA not to speak of enlarging the business of the MNCs manufacturing war weaponry. So if Trump shares this prize, Alfred Nobel’s soul is more likely to rest in peace permanently. I think your fears are totally unfounded. We will be able to kill two birds with one stone if the name of the Indian aspirant stays included; do you recall that the name of the company started by Alfred Nobel for manufacture and sale of weapons including canons and other armaments. Yes, I am referring to Bofors – which put the grand old Indian National Congress (INC) in disrepute for decades. Poetic justice would be done to the Indian aspirant. Besides, letting him share the award would provide ammunition to the INC to regain its lost political hold. You may announce the award jointly to the three aspirants at the scheduled ceremony in October – the month earmarked as per the protocol of the Nobel Committee.

Namaste!

Dr. P. S. Sahni is a member of ABVA.

Email: aidsbhedbhavvirodhiandolan@gmail.com

First published: https://countercurrents.org/2020/09/covid-19-pandemic-a-joint-nobel-prize-for-trump-bolsonaro-modi-truly-deserved/