PRIDE- our heritage and culture

My dear Lord Macaulay. I hope you have been witnessing the pride parades that have been happening in India. As the architect of the Indian Penal Code, I am sure you have noted that it is five years now that Article 377 has been repealed in India. It is sad that it took us Indians more than one and a half centuries to get rid of something that is so against the Indian heritage and culture of acceptance and tolerance.

We do not blame you Lord M; we blame ourselves. For copying and pasting such articles of the Indian Penal Code exactly as is. We did not stop to think if something from the colonial past would be applicable to modern India. Why talk about only modern India? A law that criminalizes voluntary sexual acts against “the order of nature” was not even applicable to ancient India.

 I wonder what the order of nature ordains! Is having white skin natural and being black or brown against the order of nature? Is being tall natural and being a dwarf against the order of nature? Are two same-sex necking giraffes or a pair of inseparable male penguins against the order of nature? Are hermaphrodite plants like petunia and rose or worms like snails and slugs against the order of nature? I am so glad no “order of nature,” as spelled out by the penal code, is actually applicable to nature.

Do you know something Lord M? Your writing of this article and our 157 years of keeping it has perverted India’s thinking so much that we have started citing our religion as a reason to stand against the LGBTQ+ community. It is alarming that such a major part of India is homophobic. It is alarming that a Hindu leader calls for taking down an advertisement because it depicts two women in a relationship. It is alarming that a celebrated public figure says LGBTQ+ is a western concept and needs to be cured!

In reality, we are just adhering to your outdated Victorian puritanism, Lord M. Just take a look at our religious texts and our scriptures. They are flush with LGBTQ+ stories and examples; neither condoning nor condemning; accepting it as something that just exists.

Actually, Lord M, it may be a foreign notion to you, but gender in our history and culture has been a fluid concept. Our Gods have demonstrated it. The Almighty Shiva merges with his consort Shakti and becomes Ardhanareshwara. The God who is half man and half woman. Do you know the story of Gopeswara? The same Shiva takes the form of a beautiful damsel to partake in the Raas, to dance with Krishna. Not just Shiva, but another God of our Holy Trinity, Vishnu, also changes gender. Not once but multiple times. Let me share just one such incident. During the churning of the oceans, Lord Vishnu takes the form of a beautiful woman named Mohini to lure the demons away and get the nectar of immortality to the gods. Shiva sees Mohini and falls in love with her, and they beget a son, Ayyappa.

It’s just not Lord Ayyappa, who is born of two same sex individuals, suggesting a homosexual or bisexual relationship. King Bhagirath, who is credited with bringing the river Ganga to the earth, is also said to have been born of two same sex individuals. He had two mothers, the widows of King Dilip. While we may ignore the factual aspect of the Bhagiratha story, as it is more folklore than actual text in the scriptures, we need to acknowledge that if something like this has crept into folklore, it was an accepted situation. This Article 377 was just not a done thing, Lord M!

Let me come back to the scriptures. We have Shikhandi- the eunuch in the Mahabharata. Whether Shikhandi was born a woman and later underwent a sex change operation to convert to a man, or was born with male and female organs and features is beside the point. The fact of the matter is that a eunuch was not denounced or abandoned. His/Her/Their parents were not embarrassed. Shikhandi was well brought up and well educated, just like his/her/their cis male or female siblings and could take any royal job without being discriminated against. Arjuna, the great warrior in the Mahabharata, spent a year as a eunuch. So, it is painful to read that your Article 377 is still used in ex-colonial countries like Myanmar to stigmatise the LGBTQ+ community.

Our famous temples of Khajuraho have carvings that depict physical intimacy between members of the same sex. The ancient text Kamasutra has detailed references to homosexuality with defined names for the gay and the lesbian. Later too, in spite of the criminalization of LGBTQ+, we find stories alluding to this in our literature and cinema (Badnam Basti made in 1971); presented without any judgement of right or wrong.

So, my dear Lord Macaulay. We have chucked Article 377- it took us a century and a half. But we did it. We now go back to our heritage and culture—that of acceptance and tolerance.