New Delhi/United Nations: In a move that shocked many people, particularly at a time when there is a raging debate in India calling for decriminalising of gay sex, the government supported a Russian-drafted resolution that opposed benefits for same-sex partners of UN staffers, but it failed to pass in the General Assembly committee.
The resolution would have had UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon withdraw his policy laying out current UN rules for the personal status of staff members to determine their benefits and entitlements.
The policy by Mr Ban Ki-moon last summer had recognised same-sex marriages of all UN staffers, allowing them to get UN benefits. But in India, same-sex partners have no legal sanctity. India has justified voting against benefits for same-sex partners working at the UN, saying countries were not consulted on the plan and that India did not want the UN Secretary General to decide on benefits or perks given to its nationals working at the UN without any consultation whatsoever.
The Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, that deals with administrative and budgetary issues, voted against the Russian proposal at the UN on Tuesday that aimed at stopping the UN from offering marital benefits to staffers with same-sex spouses. Eighty nations voted against denying these benefits, with the United States leading the opposition to Moscow’s proposal.
India was among 43 countries along with China, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia that voted in favour of the draft resolution, which had 37 abstentions.
When asked why India could not have abstained during the voting, MEA spokesman Syed Akbarudddin said: “The UN had until recently a system whereby they would decide on sort of emoluments or privileges for partners of spouses depending on the law of the country from which that individual hails. In the sense it was that what governs you as an individual in your country will be the basis on which the UN would give you those benefits or perks or those entitlements. This’s the established practice and had been approved by the UN General Assembly. What happened more recently was the UN Secretary General of his own accord changed that. “
