Gay Rights and Article 377

The issue of homosexuality has finally come out of the closet subsequent to the ruling of the Delhi High Court decriminalising the act. In a society as sexually repressed as India’s, where the very mention of the word ‘sex’ conjures up a sense of immorality, the attention given by the print and visual media to the subject is welcome for two reasons. Firstly, it has focused attention not just on the subject of homosexual behaviour but on sexual norms in general, a theme generally held taboo and not discussed by most Indians. Secondly, it has exposed the deep rooted hypocrisy in Indian society which outwardly exhibits a façade of strict Victorian morality when faced with issues pertaining to human sexuality but inwardly has an exceptionally high prurient streak, which perhaps is a reflection of sexual repression.

The hypocrisy of the religious class is all too apparent in the various statements coming out from self styled religious leaders. A common argument given by such people is that homosexuality is forbidden by God. How these people claim exclusive right to knowing what is and what is not ordained by God is a mystery I fear we shall never quite solve. Religious texts have all been corrupted by human hands down the centuries and are often open to varying and different interpretations. But more importantly, tying down the will of God to a simple matter of sexual behaviour is getting the Almighty down to the level of humans, disregarding God’s Divinity. Perhaps this has something to do with the problems being faced by these very same people in controlling their own sexual urges and desires, which only the greatest of sages have so far been able to accomplish. Sexually frustrated people will generally be the most virulent in upholding a rigid and strict Victorian code of morality. As Henry Fielding brings out in his book, “Tom Jones’ (1749 AD), albeit in a different context, but reflecting the same moral hypocrisy, ‘those women talk most of their honour who are the least likely to lose it’.

Hindu society has traditionally been more open and tolerant of sexual behaviour, a reflection of their inclusive nature, till Victorian morality seeped into our shores. Muslim societies too, were never sexually repressive and were more tolerant of homosexuality than the West. In the pre-modern era, Western travelers were amazed to find Islam "a sex-positive religion" with men openly expressing their love for young boys in words and gestures, while Eastern visitors to Europe were perplexed by the taboos surrounding human sexuality. Arab poets from the celebrated Abu Nuwas (8^th Century AD) onwards wrote in praise of "beardless" or "downy-cheeked" boys. Closer home, British soldiers in the early 19^th Century spoke of almost hundred percent homosexuality in Afghanistan. The words of an Afghan love song ‘Wounded Heart’ (Zakhmi Dil) are very suggestive in this context: "There's a boy across the river with a rectum like a peach, but alas, I cannot swim." In the tenth century, the Ghaznavid Empire was founded by Subuktagin, who got started as a king's boyfriend. His son, Mahmud Ghazni (971AD – 1030AD) loved a slave-boy named Ayaz. Huseyn Mirza, who ruled from Herat (1468-1506), and his vizier (prime minister) Hasan, both had harems of boys. Babur became infatuated as a seventeen year old with a boy known as Baburi. Need we go on!

The issue of homosexual behaviour cannot be viewed from the narrow confines of religious texts open to varying interpretations depending on the proponent of a certain viewpoint. It also needs to be disassociated from fickle moral preaching which is transient in nature. The correct and enduring standpoint must be based on the rights of an individual and his freedom to exercise those rights. The judgment of the Delhi High Court is thus a path breaking one which will be welcomed by all those who value freedom. Repression can only Talibanise the mind and set India on the path to losing other essential freedoms to religious and social bigots. The Government must hence support the decision of the Delhi High Court and not go down the path it traversed many years earlier in the Shah Bano case.