- 開催日時：2019年6月22日（土）13:30 - 17:30
- 開催場所：国立民族学博物館 第2演習室（本館4階）
- 対 象：一般参加可能
- 13:30 -
- 13:30 - 15:00
- 15:00 - 15:15
- 15:15 - 16:45
- 16:45 - 17:30
Indian Penal Code section 377 and LGBT
YAMAZAKI Kohei (Kyoto University)
This presentation explains an exploration the sodomy act and the constitutional review in and out of courts for 25 years in India. On September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court pronounced a landmark and partly unconstitutional decision related section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which had criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” as a colonial relic. That is, IPC 377 had stigmatized people who had intimate home/same-sexual relationship for centuries. A Legal reform movement arose against IPC 377 in the 1990s. At the end of 2001, the NGO Naz Foundation India filed public interest litigation against the archaic law, which violated fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Apparently, endeavors were successful: the bench of Delhi high court ruled an unconstitutional decision against IPC 377 in 2009, because of the collectivization of men who have sex with men (MSM) and other LGBT groups in the times of HIV/AIDS. Moreover, the plaintiff deployed the court strategy of a “read down,” which was the reductive interpretation that excludes the application of consensual intercourse between two adults in private, not abolishment of the sodomy law. Because the law remained necessary to protect children from sexual crimes. Yet the Supreme Court issued a reverse judgment in 2013. A third court battle began at 2016. During those years, juridical and legislative current policy tends to be gender-neutral and punitive against sexual offences. For instance, the protection of children from sexual offences act 2012 came into force and law amendments 2013 IPC 375 and 376 interpreted rape with a broader definition. Although the Supreme Court’s verdict on national legal services authority act approved third gender as transgender including hijras in 2014, it also emphasized their ruling of unhindered fulfilment of one’s sexual orientation as an element of privacy and dignity in 2017. Eventually, the Supreme Court decriminalized home/same sexuality with its judgment on IPC 377 in 2018. It reconfigured the intimacy with new Indian juridical terms of ‘privacy’, ‘gender identity’, and ‘sexuality’ in a global context.
Reconstructing the relationships: Network of Support and Debt among Tibetan Refugees in Dharamsala, India
Seollan Pyeon (National Museum of Ethnology)
This paper presents an examination of how Tibetan refugees, especially gsar ’byor (new comer) in Dharamsala, reconstruct their social relationships. I argue that communality is constructed through everyday practices, although traditional social relationships based on Tibetan regions (such as U-tsang, Kham, Amdo) have been regarded as important features of communality in Tibetan society. Specifically, this study explores the electronic money exchange on Wechat called ‘khug dmar gtong ba’ as a tool to visualize the relationship among gsar’byors. Investigations of social relationships and the communality of gsar’byor are crucially important for two reasons. First, unlike gzis chags (settlers), gsar’byors are usually alone when they arrive in India. Because they are separated from their mainland family, reconstructing their social relationships in India is an important task for them. Secondly, In Dharamsala, people are moving so fast that it is sometimes called ‘the International Airport’. The members of gsar’byor change one after another because many acquaintances and friends are leaving Dharamsala. Under such circumstances, blood and regions cannot be the most important criteria for reconstruction of social relationships for gsar’byor. Social relationships are important resources for livelihood of gsar’byor; their maintenance is related to the problem of survival in India. For gsar’byor, of course, region is the first standard, and Tibetan regionalism has always been an important feature among Tibetan refugees. Relationships, however, do not mean that a boundary is clearly defined or identified. Everyday practices must be described by analyzing when they exchange the khug dmar, how they use khug dmar in India, and how it affects the Tibetan refugees’ community.