Aligarh – Reaction Paper

The movie Aligarh is based on the real-life story of Shrinivas Ramchandra Siras, a professor

of Marathi and the head of Classical Indian Modern Languages Faculty at the Aligarh

Muslim University. One night, a film crew of two from a local TV station forcefully break

into Professor Siras’s house on a sting mission, and record Professor Siras having sex with a

rickshaw-puller. The Professor and his friend were beaten up with sticks and were not

allowed to wear their clothes. They were humiliated and embarrassed. The video tape was

leaked online. The very next day, AMU suspended Professor Siras and gave him seven days

to vacate the house allotted to him by the University. Professor Siras challenged the verdict of

the University in the Allahabad High Court and won the case. Within a few days of winning

the case, Professor Siras was found dead in his apartment under ‘mysterious circumstances’.

Traces of poison were found in his blood, but the police did not bring murder charges against

anyone.

I felt outraged after watching this movie. The time since the video was leaked online,

Professor Siras was miserably treated by everyone. His colleagues treated him very badly.

Majority of them boycotted him, refusing to talk about it, passing sly comments, making fun

of him and the rest were afraid to support him openly. They were afraid to ‘rock the boat too

much’. He was socially ostracized by almost everyone. Even medical professionals refused

him treatment and kept giving ludicrous excuses for doing so. His electricity was restricted to

just four hours a day, when the evacuation notice from the University provided flat

mentioned no such measures. He was subsequently forced to vacate from other places he

rented to live, at times in the middle of night. He was constantly humiliated and belittled just

because his sexual orientation and preferences were not in line with the ‘majority’.

Homosexuality had been criminalized in India by Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 377 criminalized ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’. This definition

included homosexuality. This changed with the Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of

Delhi case of 2009. A two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that Section 377

violated Article 14 as well as the privacy and liberty of an individual under Article 21 of the

Indian Constitution and hence decriminalized it. This judgement was overruled by the

Supreme Court in the Suresh Kaushal v. Naz Foundation case of 2013. This judgement was

again overruled by the SC itself in the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case of 2018.

Section 377 has been struck down by the SC as unconstitutional.

It has been more than a year since homosexuality was decriminalized in India. But the

problem is that not only uneducated and rural people hold homophobic views, or are ignorant

or irrational of them, or consider them as taboo. Highly educated people and modern people

still hold such beliefs and find it hard to accept such views. It has been my personal

experience. In my high school studied the highly rich, educated, cultured and modern people.

There was one person in our class who identified as a gay. He was endlessly mocked and

shamed by everyone for two entire years by these ‘educated’ people, at times indirectly and

behind his back. The same thing happened with Professor Siras. His highly educated

colleagues either couldn’t accept his sexuality or were too afraid to come out in the open to

support him. In short, they also gave into public pressure. It will take a long time to change

the mentality of the people. I’m not advocating for lecherous public display or activities of

any sort. But such people do have the right to live with dignity, the same dignity and respect

that is given to heterogenous people, not less and not more. Hopefully, the Section 377 ruling

of the Supreme Court brings about the change that has been long overdue.