EDITORIAL: The scarlet letter

Earlier this week, Indonesia’s parliament approved a new criminal code that prohibits sex outside marriage with a punishment of up to one year in jail. The code will apply both to Indonesians as well as foreigners and it prohibits cohabitation between unmarried couples. The nation has also brought in provisions that outlaw insulting the president or state institutions, spreading perspectives contrary to the state ideology and embarking on protests without notification. All political parties in the country gave their assent to these laws, but the code will come into effect only after three years.

Activists in Indonesia remarked that the bill represents a setback not just to personal autonomy in the Muslim-majority nation, but is also a downer for free speech. The new code is counterproductive, especially at an hour when the country’s economy and its tourism sector has ground to a halt in the aftermath of COVID-induced lockdowns and travel bans. This is pertinent considering the foreign tourist arrivals in Bali that are set to hit pre-pandemic levels of 6 million annual footfalls by 2025.

The development has invited comparisons to other countries that enforce such strict mandates on human behaviour. In Islamic nations like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Bangladesh, adultery is treated as a punishable offence, and can invite jail time, once the ‘perpetrators’ are exposed. Adultery is treated as an offence even in the Philippines, and many American states have also deemed it illegal, although the act is not prosecuted as a criminal offence. Instead, demotions or terminations from jobs or the imposition of penalties is how the law deals with such incidences.

In India, a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2018 pointed out that adultery was not a crime, but was certainly grounds for divorce. Striking down the draconian law put India in the company of nations like Taiwan and South Korea which have recently decriminalised adultery. India’s progressiveness also came to the fore after it struck down the British era rule that criminalised homosexuality. Thanks to this, members of the LGBTQIA+ community are guaranteed rights and protections against abuse and harassment, although the follow up and enforcement of such rules in India are still suspect.

The Indonesian example must be considered in the context of a constantly diversifying global population. Many developed economies have enshrined the rights of the individual in clear terms. In France, unmarried couples spend lifetimes together without ever having to solemnise their relationship under the umbrella of wedlock. They have gone on to raise children, and grandchildren, outside the confines of traditional matrimony, and still function normally. The reason why the State has no say in the couple’s affairs is purely because it’s a personal matter, and it’s nobody’s business, but their.

Today, in India, when same-sex couples come forward to adopt children, we level them with reams of bureaucratic paperwork, excuses and illogical legislation that is completely at odds with humane requirements, that of the need to connect and nurture. The idea of who someone loves, or who someone chooses to spend a lifetime with, and in what manner he or she chooses to do so, does not merit political intervention. There are other issues that demand the attention of those in power. And it’s a lesson that can be imbibed not just by Indonesia, but by India as well.