The debate about gay sex in India exists at multiple levels — legal, personal and social. One big question is whether being a homosexual (and the sexual act implicit) is against the order of nature. Frankly, I am not qualified to speak on the subject. I know how it’s to be a father, son, lover, uncle, husband, spouse and sibling. I have, however, never been attracted to another man.

I can say this for sure. No parent in India or anywhere in the world would want his kid, male or female, to grow up to be gay or lesbian. It is about acceptance and sensitive handling should there be such an eventuality. It can never be a happy situation. Those who accept their kids as gays would be elated should their children revert to being “normal’’ if that is possible, like giving up on drugs or alcoholism or any other addiction.

No doubt, the gay story has been overdone a bit in India.  I am fatigued by self-obsessed emotionally wrought cry babies on TV speaking about their sexuality, the men discovering the woman inside them or the women finding the man inside them, or some such permutation.  Usually aggressive and sharp anchors such as Barkha Dutt or Karan Thapar are unusually sober when handling a feature on gays. It is almost politically incorrect to be straight.

Real love is about commitment, for example the sacrifice, patience and selflessness in raising a child. Real fortitude is about a woman who gives birth to a baby after bearing it for nine months inside her tummy, distorting her body in the process.

It is true, however, that the Supreme Court has erred in re-criminalizing homosexuality as there is strong evidence these sections of our population are victimized and discriminated, with the police, as is usual, playing a dubious role in the matter. Families, friends and neighbors are also perpetrators of violence, including physical. The BJP, by siding with the Supreme Court judgment has not helped its cause as an inclusive party that allows peaceful co-existence of a section of people clearly in a minority. Agendas of development, growth and clean governance need to be accompanied by an evolved liberal social approach to politics that values personal freedoms and choices.

The middle classes and urban centers that are emerging as big supporters of the BJP regard these principles as much as jobs and higher incomes. BJP has failed to realize this. Rajnath Singh, the president of the party, is at the forefront of underlining BJP as conservative, possibly anachronistic party. Earlier, Singh criticized the English language as also alien to Indian culture.

Thankfully, New Delhi, at the instance of Congress party scion Rahul Gandhi, has appealed against the Supreme Court judgment. Showing conviction in the matter, the government has correctly initiated quick action on the matter. Section 377 could actually be irrelevant in India should there be higher social acceptability of gays in India and elsewhere.

It should ideally be seen an issue of misplaced emotions, not vaginal versus anal sex which are just means to consummate an already intimate relationship. In India there are laws against everything – honking, littering and even urinating in public.

They are not implemented, rather glossed over. Section 377 also makes unnatural, including oral sex, between heterosexual adults illegal. The cops don’t go around snooping for such eventualities unless there is a specific complaint, mostly women being the victims.

At the same time, there are blatant violations of individual liberty, including LGBT’s. Cops prey on young couples in parks accusing them of indecency due to a harsh interpretation of another law that was instituted by our former colonial masters.

Couples in live-in relationships need to pretend to be married in order to rent an apartment in Mumbai or Delhi. Police have arrested young people, including girls, for uploading material online that are essentially innocuous.  Homosexuality is an evolving theme world over.

It is not considered normal by huge sections of Indian society, unlike in the West. There is a social stigma attached. It will take some time for a predominantly Indian conservative set up, marked by deep caste affinities, to accept such associations as normal or merely aberrant. It should not be illegal for sure. As a personal choice it is best not to be gay, if that is possible.

— Siddharth Srivastava

As an Indian American, I’ve always looked upon India as a progressive democracy and a rising economic power, but today I am very disappointed to know that India is making international headlines for the wrong reasons – denying human rights to its sexual minorities.  But lest I be misconstrued, I am no gay rights activist. In fact, I believe other causes such as environmental protection, child labor, dignified living for the destitute and so on are much more imperative than LGBT rights. However, I also firmly believe that adults must be free to make their own lifestyle choices without interference by the government, even lifestyle choices the majority of the society does not approve, as long as they do not transgress on the liberties of other people.

On December 11, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Singhvi, dubbed the sexual minorities of India, a community of over 2.5 million, as a minuscule of the population, and criminalized them with a single stroke of the pen. The LGBT community that had been ostracized by the Indian society for decades, gradually began integrating into the mainstream society, after the Delhi High Court struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. Today once again, by restoring the law against homosexuality, the LGBTs have been relegated as second grade citizens. It is true that the Supreme Court did not restore the law on moral grounds but because it did not find the law contrary to the principles of the constitution.

However, Justice Singhvi interpreted the constitution in a very conservative way, and strictly by the letter. Although the Indian constitution does not explicitly prohibit discrimination by sexual orientation unlike other grounds such as religion, sex, caste and so on, discrimination by sexual orientation is clearly against the spirit of the constitution as it is directed against an immutable and core characteristic of human personality. Even international law finds discrimination by sexual orientation analogous to discrimination by sex. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court chose to stick by the book definition of sex.

If the Supreme Court had indeed felt obligated to restore the law due to a legal technicality, the court should have taken steps to mitigate the psychological and social trauma that the sexual minorities would face by the overnight change in their social status. Justice Singhvi could have restrained the police from enforcing the law as it applies to consensual relations between adults or suspended the law from taking effect for a certain period of time so as to allow the legislature to decide the fate of section 377.

His verdict, which just stopped short of criticizing homosexuality on moral grounds, was a total disappointment for India’s LGBT population. Delivered on Justice Singhvi’s last day as a Supreme Court judge, it earned him mostly brickbats from across the country, but also some accolades from very conservative religious groups.

Justice Singhvi, well known for his integrity, has received widespread praise for his tough stand against corruption. He also takes pride in the things of the past and admittedly is not comfortable with modern ways of the present-day world. Were his personal beliefs, which may have had some influence on the judgement, out of touch with the values of today’s society? There have been several other instances in India where the judiciary’s view  (especially on matters penetrating to rape, live-in-relationships and domestic violence) was based on archaic beliefs that are not true in today’s world, especially among the youth. Should India reconsider a jury-based system like most other democracies?

As a practical matter, India’s sexual minorities are unlikely to be actively targeted for homosexual relations. Even before section 377 had been struck down, the law was rarely used to persecute (but was often used to harass) homosexuals. I remember only one case prosecuted under section 377, it was for the rape of a street dog by a Mumbai taxi driver. (To the taxi driver’s disappointment, the prosecution turned out to be very generous and charged him with several other related charges as well, including animal cruelty!) Nevertheless, the low prosecution rate should not be an excuse to justify the criminalization of homosexuality.

Globalization, especially the Information Technology industry, has modernized India into an economic hub and a liberal democracy. It is up to the Indian lawmakers now to decide whether to decriminalize homosexuality and uphold personal liberty or pour cold water on decades of social and economic progress and retrograde to join the echelons of ultra conservative states.

— Ash Moorthy