In a Sunday referendum (September 25), Cubans approved gay marriage and adoption overwhelmingly backed by the government that also boosted rights for women, the national election commission said on Monday.More than 3.9 million voters voted to ratify the code (66.9%), while 1.95 million opposed ratification (33%), Alina Balseiro Gutierrez, president of the commission, said on state-run television on Monday. 

“Justice has been done,” Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel wrote in a tweet. “It is paying off a debt with several generations of Cuban men and women, whose family projects have been waiting for this law for years,” he said. 

Media reports including one on Reuters explained that the 100-page “family code” legalizes same-sex marriage and civil unions, allows same-sex couples to adopt children, and promotes equal sharing of domestic rights and responsibilities between men and women. An analysis of the preliminary findings of the results from the electoral commission showed 74% of 8.4 million Cubans eligible to vote participated in the Sunday referendum.

Official Twitter accounts showed the room erupting in applause and the president leaning back and smiling at the news. It was the Cuban president himself who led the campaign for the adoption of the code. Sunday’s turnout in the referendum by Cuban standards was relatively modest, and a 33% ‘no’ vote relatively large in the communist-run country, where previous referendums have seen the government position receiving near unanimous approval.

The dissent is an indication of both how Cuba is changing and the current dire economic circumstances, which have seen long power outages and lines for food, medicine and fuel.

Sunday’s vote was also the first of its kind since most residents have had access to the internet, which has let dissenting views spread more widely. 

India and same sex marriage 

As of 2022, same sex marriages are not legally recognised in India by the law though several couples do co-habit together. In the pathbreaking 2018 judgement, Navtej Singh Johar v/s Union of India, the Supreme Court that upheld an earlier landmark judgement of the Delhi High Court de-criminalises homosexuality, also ruled that same sex couples would be granted the basic right of companionship so long as it is consensual, without coercion and force. The issue of legal marriage lies pending in the courts. In 2020, Delhi HC issues notice to Union in a plea to recognise same sex marriage

The court is slated to hear the matter on marriage equality of same sex couples under Hindu Marriage, Special Marriage and Foreign Marriage Act The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Union of India in a plea seeking registration of marriage of same sex couples under the Hindu Marriage Act.  The petition was filed by members of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender+ (LGBT+) community and activists Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Gopi Shankar M, Giti Thadani and G. Oorvasi, as reported by The Hindu. 

The plea submits that under The Hindu Marriage Act, Section 5 clearly lays down that marriage can be performed between ‘any two Hindus’ under the Act. Since the language in the legislation is gender neutral, it should apply to same sex marriages. While there is no statutory bar under the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act against gay marriages, they were not being registered throughout the country. “As a result of the same, there are many benefits that would otherwise be available to heterosexual married couples that are not available to them,” the plea added.

Further, the prohibition of same sex marriage on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity was violative of the principle of equality guaranteed under the Constitution of India, stated the plea citing examples of Australia, Germany, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Brazil and England, where same-sex marriages are legal. Apart from this petition, the High Court noted that two other similar petitions are pending before the court. One petition was filed by two women seeking a direction to be issued to the Marriage Officer, South East Delhi to solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The second petition has been moved by two men, who got married in the United States but their marriage registration was denied under the Foreign Marriage Act (FMA) as it excluded same-sex marriages.

Since, the petitions deal with the same issue under the Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act, the court has clubbed the pleas.

Taiwan, became 1st Asian Country to Legalize Gay Marriage (2017) 

In a landmark judgement delivered on May 23, 2017 judges from Taiwan’s Highest Court ruled in favour of Chi Chia-wei, legalizing gay marriage, making the small, island nation the first in Asia and setting a precedent for other Asian countries.

The court has given the country’s parliament two years to amend existing laws or create new ones to ensure equal treatment of individuals with respect to marriage laws.

Back home in India, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Naz Foundation V. Government of NCT Of Delhi And Others, had ruled in favour of the LGBT community in 2009. The Court had asked the Indian parliament to amend laws according to the recommendations of the 172^nd Law Commission of India Report. The report may be read here. Despite this and the 2018 SC judgement, progress has been slow. The LGBT community still suffers from exploitation, discrimination and denunciation.

Just like India, in Taiwan the fight for rights of the LGBT community, is not recent. The issue of same-sex marriage has been a source of contention for decades in Taiwan. The key plaintiff, Chi Chia-wei, a gay-rights activist, has been fighting for gay rights since the 1980s and first sought a gay marriage license 16 years ago according to Focus Taiwan Reports. Chi Chia-wei’s suit claims that the prohibition against same-sex marriage violates the rights guaranteed in the Constitution by Article 7 which declares that all citizens, irrespective of sex, religion, ethnic origin, class or party affiliation, to be equal before the law, and Article 22, which states that all other freedoms and rights of the public that are not detrimental to social order or public welfare are guaranteed under the Constitution.

The obiter dicta of the Grand Justices reflect their liberal, reformist outlook.The Justices called sexual orientation an “immutable characteristic that is resistant to change.” This, in our opinion is the most logical definition of the sexuality of an individual, knowing that it is internal and natural and not an externally developed sentiment. The court further said that, “Allowing single people to have the autonomy to decide whether to marry and whom to marry, is vital to the sound development of personality and safeguarding of human dignity, and therefore is a fundamental right.”

The alliance of Taiwan Religious Groups for the Protection of the Family and representatives from Buddhist, Taoist, Christian and Lamaist groups, rallied against this decision of the Court. However, it was the key campaign issue for President Tsai Ing-wen, who took office one year ago, and the legislature has been weighing a change to Taiwan’s Civil Code.

Taiwan, in 2017, joined 20 other countries from across the world which have legalised same-sex marriage. Netherlands was the first to legalise same-sex marriage(2000), followed by Belgium (2003), Spain and Canada (2005), Finland, Ireland and United States (2015) and now Taiwan (2017). India, certainly has a lot learn from this international reform. The first step in the right direction was taken by the Delhi High Court in 2009 as discussed above, but the Supreme Court took a U-turn in 2013, when it overruled the order of the Delhi High Court. This was then set aside in 2018.

The Supreme Court Judgement may be read here.

Contradiction in Indian law 

While Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalised homosexuality primarily on the basis of the form of sexual intercourse till 2009 and then 2018, the Constitution of India – the supreme law of the land, protects and promotes diversity, ensures an egalitarian society where freedom should no longer be a privilege. Although Part III of the Constitution provides certain rights to the citizens, it only covers those citizens who form part of the ‘popular morality’.  The LGBT community does not form part of this ‘popular morality’ and hence is neglected. It is the right of each member of the LGBT community to be treated equally like other citizens, to live with dignity as enshrined in A 15 (1), (2), Part III, Constitution of India. As given, “the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”
 

Related Articles: 

Punjab and Haryana HC comes to the rescue of lesbian couple
Protect same sex couple facing resistance: Allahabad HC
India-Pak same-sex couple attend Durga Puja, pics go viral
ADVANCE QUESTIONS TO INDIA (FIRST BATCH) UPR Process 2017
Mumbai Pride March: LGBT supporters share their hopes for the future
What the Women’s March on Washington can learn from Black Lives Matter
Concentration camps’ opened for Gay Men in Chechnya

The post Large majority ratifies ‘family code’ legalising gay marriage; Cuba appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Che Guevara in the Bolivian mountains by the Bolivian military, led by the CIA. Although imprisoned, keeping Che Guevara alive in those days of October, 1967, was a temerity for imperialism even more so in a context where they were just starting to implement their new plans for counterinsurgency and national security that resulted in military coups and military dictatorships in virtually all Latin American countries in the 1960s and 1970s.

The figure of Che Guevara has always been very controversial. Hated by the right-wing and by reactionary forces across the continent. And controversial, even among the progressive and left-wing sectors.

In those years, the left was very dogmatized, and with each thesis, a new group was formed. Each group labeled Che according to their manuals, and some classified him only as an adventurer, an idealist. After all, it was more convenient to follow the bureaucratic and peaceful tradition of some parties that defined themselves as communists. There were those who were frightened by his practice. After all, it was too much to ask of a common militant to follow such boldness. And others even misrepresented his ideas, turning his example into a mere stimulus to a false heroism unrelated to the masses, which was summed up in the thesis of Régis Debray, who argued that “it was enough that a small group of well-armed and willing men, to climb the mountains and create the focus for the exploited masses to follow them. ” It was “foquismo.”

These were definitely not Che’s ideas, not even about the military strategy of taking power. And even in his “Guerilla Warfare” manual, written from his concrete experience in the Cuban revolution, the principles of guerrilla warfare are only present as part of the mass struggle as a means, not an end in itself. In it, he also discusses the need of the various subjective, objective conditions and the correlation of forces, for its triggering.

But, being that Che was so controversial and so misunderstood regarding strategy and tactics, and having been victorious in Cuba but defeated in Congo and Bolivia, what would Che’s legacy be?

One cannot idealize Che’s image as if he were a super human. Nor dogmatize him as a single and absolute example. Nor exorcise it, reducing him to a myth. Che represents the synthesis of a revolutionary historical period of our continent. His ideas, his ideals, and his practice formed the symbolism of the feelings and the practice of a whole revolutionary movement, of various popular organizations in Cuba and throughout Latin America.

Therefore, when referring to it, it must be borne in mind that he has become a political reference because he represents a synthesis of the historical experience of various Latin American peoples.

And perhaps his figure was as strong as a synthesis, because, as historians and contemporaries say, Che was one of the few revolutionaries who managed to live intensely, coherently and daily, everything he thought.

“My father, – said Aleidita in a statement -, “sought to live every day coherently with what he thought.”

And it is in this consistent, everyday practice that one finds Che’s greatest legacy for the present generation of idealists and revolutionaries.

Briefly, one can identify ten great values that would represent Che’s legacy in the history of Latin America.

1. Humanism
Man should be the main objective.

Your well-being, your self-improvement as a being that seeks to perfect itself, that seeks happiness, that seeks to live in a just society. The struggle, the party, the guerrilla, are always interpreted by Che as means. The aim is to achieve a society of free and fraternal men. That is why, even after taking power, in Cuba’s case, there was an endless struggle for the construction of a different society. In this Guevarian humanism, Marx’s ideals are deepened, and the more generous view of the main objective of a social revolution is restored. Contrary to the practice of some leftist parties, which have transformed the conquest of power, the control of the state and the strengthening of its organization in an end in itself.

This humanism is also present when he defends the idea that what makes a person a “true revolutionary” is when that person moves permanently by a deep feeling of love for his peers.

2. Rebelling Against any Social Injustice
This phrase has become a principle of practice for any revolutionary. Che argued that the practice of any person claiming to be revolutionary should be enough indignation to rebel against any social injustice felt against any human being anywhere in the world or under any circumstances.

In this principle, the fundamental idea of ​​social relations conceived by Che is present. The sense of equality and justice. And, at the same time, the rebellion and the courage to encourage all individuals to seek equality, rebelling against any situation of injustice. This view breaks the individualistic conception of caring only about oneself or one’s friends. And it breaks with the illusion that to be revolutionary, it is necessary to have theory, to be in a revolutionary organization. Take pride in dogmas and symbols and forget about everyday practice, where, at any moment and in small things, one can be a great revolutionary as we fight against these injustices. Against these situations of oppression that classist societies and capitalism produce.

3. Latin-Americanism
The idea of ​​the Latin American identity of the peoples who inhabit this continent, despite the cultural and ethnic differences, have been present since the struggles for independence. Quite often Simon Bolivar is mentioned, and especially Jose Marti. These ideals are present in many literary works, in political speeches and party programs, in all the countries of the continent. But surely, Che’s figure was the bluntest expression of this character, by his life example.

History reserved for him the opportunity to be born in Argentina, to have traveled the continent by land and to have gotten to know its illnesses more closely. To fall in love with the cause of all the Latin American peoples. Thus, he was able to devote himself with the same passion in Guatemala, in the preparation of the Granma, in Mexico, in the mountains of Cuba. In the revolutionary government, on the UN platform, and on the Bolivian highlands.

His life put into practice the ideas of Martí. And it consolidated this Latin American spirit. Because it has contributed to the understanding that the causes of the people’s social problems in different countries are the same. That the imperialist role of the United States oppresses all. And that the solution, in the long run, will unite all in a similar, Latin American path. An isolated country won’t be able to build a just and fraternal society in Latin America by itself. Even in the case of the victory of the Cuban revolution, one should note the sacrifices imposed on the Cuban people by the North American siege and the recent infeasibility of other revolutions in Central America, the Caribbean, and South America.

4. The Missionary Spirit
The missionary spirit present in Che’s ideas and practice is based on the feeling of solidarity, not adventure. Che used to say that “the most beautiful quality of a person is the feeling of solidarity.” And it was with this feeling that he preached the missionary spirit. Get rid of everyday tasks, of the easiness of organized life. And be willing to give up this easiness and go to other places, other villages, and even other countries. Contribute in some way, with humility, so that other people can live better. This missionary spirit took him to many places. But always with the same feeling of solidarity. Never to teach, to give orders, to impose. Or take some personal advantage.

This feeling of solidarity is what has stimulated thousands of Cuban revolutionaries to contribute with their knowledge, with their goodwill, in the field of healthcare, of techniques, with other peoples, in almost every continent.

5. The Spirit of Sacrifice
The spirit of sacrifice was not a moralistic, false, or religious discourse, to seek paradise in eternal life. Not a masochistic deviation. But it was part of life. The worst task, in any job or mission, was assumed by Che. And he preached that every militant, that every revolutionary should assume this obligation for himself. With these values, one would have enough morality to serve as an example to the all of the people and the construction of a different society.

6. The Example of Work
Work has always been seen by Che as the transforming force of men, as the basis for building all wealth in society. But above theoretical and philosophical concepts, his legacy is to have practiced the basic idea that “no one can ask another to do something without doing it first.”

That’s why, on many occasions, he was the first to do the tasks, the first to start doing the job. First, he tried to do it himself, and just then he would ask if others could also do it and move on.

This spirit is present in Che’s enormous contribution to the organization of mass work, in the form of task-forces, where the entire adult population was called to engage.

This same spirit was present in the political planning and in the debates with Cuban workers and Cuban society in the process of building socialism. It shows that a more just society, with better well-being, is not built with discourses, or only ideals, but that it depended, fundamentally, on the increase in the production of goods, of commodities, of wealth. And that would only be possible with much work. That is, a more advanced and more just society would only be achieved with more work from the present generation, to build a more dignified future for future generations.

7. The Dispossession of Material Goods
Che held the most important positions in the Cuban state. He was Minister, President of the Central Bank, took part in countless international delegations representing the Government and the Cuban people. He could have settled in the positions and the quiet life that his trajectory assured him.

When he said goodbye to his children, he was careful to point out that he left them no material goods, and hoped that the revolutionary state would guarantee them the same welfare and education that it should guarantee to all the children of the people.
His habits were simple and modest. Almost Franciscan.

And this spirit of the person that does not cling to material goods as if they were the only source of happiness, was present in his preaching.

It counteracted the need of man to have access to knowledge, cultural goods, education and a life of solidarity and equality as the basis of happiness. Goods related to the basic needs of man are fundamental. But the practice of individualism, of selfishness, of the accumulation of goods as ostentation of social differentiation would undermine morality needed for the construction of a more just society.

This principle is also based on the practice stimulated by Che, of voluntary work. He saw in voluntary work, carried out in the time off, on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, a way of practicing this detachment for material things, and the way of practicing concrete acts of social solidarity. He also believed that the great concrete problems of Cuban society would only be possible to resolve more quickly if there were a donation, a greater surrender of all in the carrying out of voluntary unpaid work.

8. Belief in the Power of the Masses
The popular force and transformative capacity of the organized masses are present in every political thought of Che. Even in the theorizing of military strategies, contrary to the diffusion “foquismo,” Che preached that the revolutionary victory would only be possible if he could organize a true popular army, of the whole people.

The deviations of putchtism or the heroism of a small group that could free the people were never present in his ideas.

This same conception is present by allying the force of the masses with the spirit of sacrifice and voluntary work. And so, many efforts were made to solve concrete problems of the population. From public cleaning, the construction of popular housing, to the cutting of sugarcane and the defense of the motherland, when Cuba, for example, was invaded by military forces organized by the United States in the famous episode of the Bay of Pigs, and in 72 hours, with the mobilization of all the people in arms, managed to defeat and arrest all the invaders.

9. The Relationship of Leaders x Masses
The daily practice of Che’s example also brings an important legacy as to how he related to the masses. He defended and practiced the necessary bonding of the leaders with the masses. He was always among them. And he tried to listen to their yearnings, problems, difficulties, and criticisms of the revolutionary process.

He had an essentially anti-bureaucratic, anti-cabinet, anti-avant-garde, anti-director practice. Avoiding and fighting that an organized core of the party could know everything about the people and choose the best way for it. Being always in the midst of the people was the best way to make fewer mistakes.

10. The Education of Cadres
The experience of building socialism, the experience of the people’s administration of a revolutionary state under conditions of underdevelopment, led Che to devote much thought to the need for the education of cadres. There are many reflections recorded in speeches, articles, essays, on this issue. He saw the need to educate cadres as vital for the revolutionary process. And again, it manifests its connection with the popular force, in defending the idea that a policy of cadres was a policy necessarily directed at the masses. So that the masses, especially the youth, could form as many people as possible as revolutionary militants, within the technical and political needs. But, above all, that with a political, moral and cultural development, they represented the practice of values of the new man that would serve as an example to the whole mass.

He argued that the cadres should be highly disciplined. Technically prepared, with a passion for the study and scientific knowledge. Willing to tackle any task. With capacity to analyze the problems and their causes, and with enough creativity to seek a solution. But, above all, he should earn respect for the workers and the people, for his example and his affection and dedication to his peers.

In this way, people would become examples, and by way of example, they could be called revolutionary cadres.

Conclusion
The figure of Che Guevara is still so present in our midst, fundamentally because of the legacy that he left us. The living situation of the peoples of Latin America has not changed. The productive forces developed. But the social and concrete problems of our people continue.

It is up to the popular organizations that claim to be revolutionary to reflect on this legacy. Look for the universality that exists in it, regardless of the social category, the environment or the country in which it operates.

Believing in Che’s legacy does not mean to copy strategies or tactics of power grab used in Cuba or Bolivia. Each country, each people, each situation will have its own strategy and tactics, determined by objective, subjective conditions and by the correlation of forces. To believe in Che is, above all, to feed the possibility of revolution permanently. To make the revolution every day. By our practice, by the permanent encouragement of the trust in our ideals, and by the certainty that it is possible to defeat the oppressors (internal and external) and that one day we will build a more just and fraternal society. And certainly, as Martí and Che Guevara dreamed, Latin American.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in

The post Che Guevara’s Legacy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Fidel, Fidel, the people are grateful
for words in action and deeds that sing,
that is why I bring from far
a cup of my country’s wine:
it is the blood of a subterranean people
that from the shadows reaches your throat,
they are miners who have lived for centuries
extracting fire from the frozen land.
They go beneath the sea for coal
but on returning they are like ghosts:
they grew accustomed to eternal night,
the working-day light was robbed from them,
nevertheless here is the cup
of so much suffering and distances:
the happiness of imprisoned men
possessed by darkness and illusions
who from the inside of mines perceive
the arrival of spring and its fragrances
because they know that Man is struggling
to reach the amplest clarity.
And Cuba is seen by the Southern miners,
the lonely sons of la pampa,
the shepherds of cold in Patagonia,
the fathers of tin and silver,
the ones who marry cordilleras
extract the copper from Chuquicamata,
men hidden in buses
in populations of pure nostalgia,
women of the fields and workshops,
children who cried away their childhoods:
this is the cup, take it, Fidel.
It is full of so much hope
that upon drinking you will know your victory
is like the aged wine of my country
made not by one man but by many men
and not by one grape but by many plants:
it is not one drop but many rivers:
not one captain but many battles.
And they support you because you represent
the collective honor of our long struggle,
and if Cuba were to fall we would all fall,
and we would come to lift her,
and if she blooms with flowers
she will flourish with our won nectar.
And if they dare touch Cuba’s
forehead, by your hands liberated,
they will find people’s fists,
we will take out our buried weapons:
blood and pride will come to rescue,
to defend our beloved Cuba.

The post Viva Cuba! Viva Comrade Castro!! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

January 1, 1959
Fifty seven years ago, Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista fled from the national capital as the rebel forces of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara closed in. This historic occasion marked the end of a brutal, pseudo-imperialist regime, which was replaced by the revolutionary, guerrilla fighters headed by Castro.  For fifty seven years, the Cuban republic has remained a socialist state, defying all the attempts by its looming neighbour to interfere.
 
Amidst great public support, Fidel Castro, the first President of Cuba, addressed the United Nations General Assembly in 1960. We reproduce extracts from the speech which was centred on denouncing Colonialism and Imperialism in all kinds and forms, and empowering colonial states to fight for their freedom. 
 
Excerpts:
Now, to the problem of Cuba.  Perhaps some of you are well aware of the facts, perhaps others are not.  It all depends on the sources of information, but, undoubtedly, the problem of Cuba, born within the last two years, is a new problem for the world.  The world had not had many reasons to know that Cuba existed.  For many, Cuba was something of an appendix of the United States. Even for many citizens of this country, Cuba was a colony of the United States.  As far as the map was concerned, this was not the case:  our country had a different colour from that of the United States.   But in reality Cuba was a colony of the United States.
 
How did our country became a colony of the United States?  It was not because of its origins; the same men did not colonise the United States and Cuba.  Cuba has a very different ethnical and cultural origin, and the difference was widened over the centuries.  Cuba was the last country in America to free itself from Spanish colonial rule, to cast off, with due respect to the representative of Spain, the Spanish colonial yoke; and because it was the last, it also had to fight more fiercely.

How can an unpopular regime, inimical to the interests of the people, stay in power unless it is by force?  Will we have to explain to the representatives of our sister republics of Latin America what military tyrannies are? 
 
Spain had only one small possession left in America and it defended it with tooth and nail.  Our people, small in numbers, scarcely a million inhabitants at that time, had to face alone, for almost thirty years, an army considered one of the strongest in Europe.  Against our small national population the Spanish Government mobilized an army as big as the total forces that had fought against South American independence.  Half a million Spanish soldiers fought against the historic and unbreakable will of our people to be free.
 
For thirty years the Cubans fought alone for their independence; thirty years of struggle that strengthened our love for freedom and independence. But Cuba was a fruit — according to the opinion of a President of the United States at the beginning of the past century, John Adams — it was an apple hanging from the Spanish tree, destined to fall, as soon as it was ripe enough, into the hands of the United States.  Spanish power had worn itself out in our country.  Spain had neither the men nor the economic resources to continue the war in Cuba; Spain had been defeated. Apparently the apple was ripe, and the United States Government held out its open hands.
 
How can an unpopular regime, inimical to the interests of the people, stay in power unless it is by force?  Will we have to explain to the representatives of our sister republics of Latin America what military tyrannies are?  Will we have to outline to them how these tyrannies have kept themselves in power?  Will we have to explain the history of several of those tyrannies which are already classical?  Will we have to say what forces, what national and international interests support them?
 
The military group which tyrannized our country was supported by the most reactionary elements of the nation, and, above all, by the foreign interests that dominated the economy of our country.  Everybody knows, and we understand that even the Government of the United States admits it, that that was the type of government favoured by the monopolies. Why?  Because by the use of force it was possible to check the demands of the people; by the use of force it was possible to suppress strikes for improvement of living standards; by the use of force it was possible to crush all movements on the part of the peasants to own the land they worked; by the use of force it was possible to curb the greatest and most deeply felt aspirations of the nation.
 
That is why governments of force were favoured by the ruling circles of the United States. That is why governments of force stayed in power for so long, and why there are governments of force still in power in America. Naturally, it all depends on whether it is possible to secure the support of the United States.
 
Source: Excerpted from the speech delivered at the United Nations General Assembly on September 26, 1960. For the entire text of the speech visit:  http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1960/19600926.html
 
 

The post Socialist and Free: Cuba 57 years later appeared first on SabrangIndia.