Back and forth: The Indian dichotomy

There’s never a dull moment when you live in India. As much as we may wax eloquent about the ease of the developed world, the excitement and constant daily thrill of living in a nation like ours, is truly one-of-a-kind. Each day comes with its own set of trials and tribulations, problems as diverse as the length and breadth of this sub-continent, and hard-won victories that only a country still throbbing in the loins of growth can value. We rise and fall, love and hate, move ourselves to proud tears, before crumbling down devastated by some irrational action. The first world has its staidness, India has its drama. To live and work in this country is to be constantly exposed to dichotomy. I adore our plural society for its sheer craziness, colour, and chaos. We yell both in anger and love; tell me where else can you find a social fabric that’s both frustrating and endearing?

This week was one such, where a plethora of emotions came out to play. Contrary to popular belief that the Indian civil services abhor change (I recently released a podcast decoding Indian bureaucracy), just a few days ago, we made history. In a first, a woman Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer (M Anusuya) officially transitioned to being accepted as a male officer and would now be known by his chosen name of M Anukathir Surya. In a progressive move that has been heartening for the LGBTQI+ community, the Union Finance Ministry and all relevant departments, accepted the request for name and gender change. The decision is in line with the Supreme Court’s watershed judgement in April 2014 in the NALSA case. The verdict recognised the third gender and asserted that gender identity was an individual’s choice including if done through sex reassignment surgery. In 2015, another government officer in Odisha had transitioned from male to female, but Anukathir is the first civil servant to set a precedent.

We may be making glacial progress at legitimising same sex marriage but here, through this seemingly minor event, we have created huge impact. With one swift move, we have normalised gender changes and identities. With this decision, we have shown through action, that acceptance of gender reassignment is acceptable at the government workplace; and hence, must be admissible everywhere else. The message to society is also crystal clear — India is a sexually inclusive country, that’s gradually but decidedly, moving towards further advancements in liberalising archaic laws that stymie sexual freedom. This part of the column is the upper, now here comes the downer.

In a bizarre move, it was heard that the Delhi University is mulling introducing Manusmriti to undergraduate law syllabus. Widely considered as casteist and misogynistic, the Hindu scripture has long faced criticism. News reports claimed that inclusion of Manusmriti (Laws of Manu) was part of the suggestion under the National Education Policy (2020) to imbibe Indian perspectives in education and its inclusion had been ratified. The decision was opposed by teachers’ body, the Social Democratic Teachers Front, who called it “highly objectionable as this text is adverse to the progress and education of women and marginalised communities”. They further went on to say that in a country where 85 per cent of the population was marginalised and 50 per cent were women, “their progress depends on a progressive education system and teaching pedagogy, not regressive. In Manusmriti, in several sections, it opposed women’s education and equal rights.”

Inducting even portions of it would not only stand against the tenets of the Indian Constitution, it would denigrate decades of feminist and liberal movements that have been striving for a more equitable social order. To everyone’s relief, the DU Vice-Chancellor eventually clarified that the proposal to include readings on Manusmriti had been rejected.

So there, through these two opposing incidents in the same week, we get a sense of the ‘to and fro’ of policy in India. As in any vibrant country, there will be forces keen to institute backward thoughts and actions. As long as sanity and reason win, we don’t mind the tug-of-war.

The writer is an author and media entrepreneur. Views expressed are personal