India’s apex professional body of psychiatrists, the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), has once again registered its support for decriminalisation of homosexuality. The press statement, dated July 2, 2018, is timed in support of the Supreme Court hearings challenging the constitutionality of Section 377, scheduled to begin on July 10, 2018.

In January 2014, shortly after the Supreme Court’ in Koushal (11/12/13) reversed Delhi High Court’s Naz Foundation verdict of 2009, the IPS made its first statement (Rao and Jacob, 2014) supporting decriminalisation in an editorial of its official journal, the Indian Journal of Psychiatry. In a stinging critique of the Koushal verdict, editors Dr. T. S. Sathyanarayana Rao (JSS Medical College, Mysore) and Dr. K.S. Jacob (Christian Medical College, Vellore) wrote:

“The judgment goes against the grain of the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence on advancement of fundamental rights and freedoms of all people, especially those who face marginalization in society… There is a need to seek an interim stay on the operation of the judgment, as the judgment has caused immense prejudice to all adult persons who engage in consensual sex. This is particularly true for those from the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community who had become open about their sexual identity since the High Court judgment and are now at risk of prosecution under criminal law.”

They concluded:

“It is also time for social groups and professional associations to clearly state their positions and demand a review of the flawed verdict. The Indian government and its Parliament now have an opportunity to leave a lasting legacy of progress and should act immediately to seek a repeal of Section 377. The 19th century law has no place in a 21st century democracy.” – Rao and Jacob 2014.

In 2016, Rao et al. (2016)  called out the mental health establishment for their weak response to the Koushal verdict:

“…India’s Supreme Court issued a ruling against human rights by reinstating the law that bans gay sex in 2013. The response from mental health and legal establishment to this manifest bigotry was weak. The hesitancy of the establishment to clearly support LGBT rights exposes their subscription to prevailing societal prejudices.” 

They went on to repeat their call for decriminalization:

“Medical and legal fraternities should support the need to decriminalize same–sex orientation and behavior and to recognize LGBT rights to include human, civil, and political rights. The recognition of people’s humanity also advocates the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, anti-bullying legislation, anti-discrimination laws in employment and housing, immigration equality, law for an equal age of consent and laws against hate crimes, thus providing enhanced criminal penalties for prejudice-motivated behavior and violence against LGBT people”. – Rao et al. 2016.

The July 2, 2018 statement by IPS, issued in anticipation of the Supreme Court hearings scheduled to commence July 10, 2018, are a welcome and timely iteration of its official stance.

Besides the matter of decriminalization, the matter of conversion therapy (attempts to change sexual orientation and gender identity) by psychiatrists and other medical/mental-health professionals in India requires urgent attention. The IPS itself has published articles on “treatment” of homosexuality in its journal (e.g. Sakthivel et al. 1979, Pradhan et al. 1982), through electro-shock therapy and other means. It was not until 2012 that the practice of conversion therapy was questioned (Jacob and Rao 2012, Kalra 2012 ):

“There is no evidence for the effectiveness of sexual conversion therapies.[2,3] Such treatments also raise ethical questions. In fact, there is evidence that such attempts may cause more harm than good, including inducing depression and sexual dysfunction. However, faith-based groups and counsellors pursue such attempts at conversion using yardsticks, which do not meet scientific standards. Clinicians should keep the dictum “first do no harm” in mind. Physicians should provide medical service with compassion and respect for human dignity for all people irrespective of their sexual orientation.” – Rao and Jacob 2012.

Despite such strong statements against conversion therapy, homophobic and ambivalent attitudes continue to be expressed by psychiatrists who are members of the Indian Psychiatric Society: see Dr. Indira Sharma’s statement [responses here] and the interview of Dr. Raju referenced here.

The constitution of IPS’ LGBT Mental Health Task Force in 2017,  the meetings in Bhubaneswar (2017), Mumbai (2018) and Delhi (2018), and the media statement by current President Dr. Ajit Bhide, are moves in the right direction.

We hope that IPS will continue on its mission to advance inclusion by taking action against mental health professionals who practise conversion therapy for changing sexual orientation or gender identity, and condemn this unethical and unscientific practice with the same certainty with which they have supported decriminalization, regardless of the outcome of the current constitutional challenge to 377.

References

Kalra G. A psychiatrist’s role in “coming out” process: Context and controversies post-377. Indian J Psychiatry 2012;54:69-72. Available online at http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/temp/IndianJPsychiatry54169-8323335_230713.pdf

Mehta, S. Looking into minds wired differently. Times News Network; Feb 3, 2014. Online at https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/visakhapatnam/Looking-into-minds-wired-differently/articleshow/29788494.cms?referral=PM

Orinam. Open letter to Dr. Raju, General Secretary, Indian Psychiatric Society. Feb 5, 2014. Online at https://new2.orinam.net/drraju-ips/

Orinam. Letter to World Psychiatric Association: Feb 3, 2014. Online at https://new2.orinam.net/letter-world-psychiatric-association-feb-3-2014/.

Pradhan PV, Ayyar KS, Bagadla VN. Homosexuality: Treatment by Behaviour Modification.  Indian J. Psychiatry 1982; 24(1), 80-83 . Available online at http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/temp/IndianJPsychiatry24180-783487_214548.pdf

Sakthivel LM, Rangaswami K, Jayaraman TN. Treatment of homosexuality by anticipatory avoidance conditioning technique. Indian J Psychiatry 1979;21:146-8. Available online at http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/temp/IndianJPsychiatry212146-8345459_231054.pdf

Sathyanarayana Rao TS, Jacob KS. Homosexuality and India. Indian J Psychiatry 2012;54:1-3. Available online at http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/temp/IndianJPsychiatry5411-8150695_223826.pdf

Sathyanarayana Rao TS, Jacob KS. The reversal on Gay Rights in India. Indian J Psychiatry 2014;56:1-2. Available online at http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/temp/IndianJPsychiatry5611-7294761_201547.pdf

Sathyanarayana Rao TS, Rao GP, Raju M, Saha G, Jagiwala M, Jacob KS. Gay rights, psychiatric fraternity, and India. Indian J Psychiatry 2016;58:241-3. Available online at http://www.indianjpsychiatry.org/temp/IndianJPsychiatry5611-7294761_201547.pdf

To respond to claims by some African governments that science supports criminalisation of homosexuality, the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAF), in collaboration with the Uganda National Academy of Sciences (UNAS), assembled a thirteen-member panel of scholars across multiple disciplines such as paediatrics, epidemiology, HIV medicine, behavioural science, psychology, anthropology, ethics and gender studies to review the current literature in their respective fields of expertise.

The resulting report “Diversity in Sexuality: Implications for Policy in Africa”, published in May 2015, answers most of the arguments used to stall decriminalisation of homosexuality and to pathologise LGBT people as mentally ill or deviant.

It needs to be read by all law-makers and parliamentarians responsible for keeping Section 377 on the books in India. The report is also essential reading for policy makers associated with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Indian Council of Medical Research and Medical Council of India. It consolidates all the evidence needed for these bodies to work together and stop ‘conversion therapy’ by medical professionals, still a rampant practice in the country.

We reproduce below the Executive Summary of the report. The full report may be downloaded from the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAF)  website.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Although two-thirds of countries in the world no longer outlaw lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) relationships, same-sex relationships are still illegal in 76 countries. In the recent past, new laws have been passed in Russia, India, Nigeria, Bu-rundi, Cameroon and Uganda and are being contemplated in other countries to further prohibit same-sex relationships or the so-called ‘promotion of homosexuality’. There is evidence that such new laws precipitate negative consequences not just for LGBTI persons and communities, but also for societies as a whole, including the rapid reversal of key public health gains, particularly in terms of HIV and AIDS and other sexual health programmes, increases in levels of social violence, some evidence of reduced economic growth, and the diversion of attention from sexual and other violence against women and children.

Partly because those arguing in favour of criminalising sexual and gender diversity have made explicit appeals to science, this report examines the extent to which science sup- ports any of the arguments that proponents of these new laws make. Drawing on recent scientific evidence and, where possible, on systematic reviews, the report seeks to pro- vide an up-to-date overview of the state of the current biological, socio-psychological, and public health evidence and assess how this supports, or contests, the key arguments made in favour of new laws. This report considers the following questions:

1. What is the evidence that biological factors contribute to sexual and gender diversity? To what degree is the wide diversity of human sexualities explained by biological factors?
2. Do environmental factors such as upbringing and socialisation explain the diversity of human sexuality?
3. Is there any evidence for same-sex orientation being ‘acquired’ through contact with others, i.e. through ‘social contagion’?
4. What evidence is there that any form of therapy or ‘treatment’ can change sexual orientation?
5. What evidence is there that same-sex orientations pose a threat of harm to individuals, communities, or vulnerable populations such as children?
6. What are the public health consequences of criminalising same-sex sexual orientations and attempting to regulate the behaviour/relationships related to some sexualities?
7. What are the most critical unanswered scientific research questions regarding the diversity of human sexualities and sexual orientations in Africa?

Global bodies, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) declassified homosexuality as an illness or disorder in 1990 and there is now a wide global consensus among scientists that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation of human sexuality without any inherently detrimental health consequences. In this context governments have a duty to consider scientific perspectives and draw on the most current scientific knowledge when creating policy and enacting laws. In terms of sexual orientation, significant and even path-breaking research in a variety of fields has taken place in the recent past. Much of this research is not widely known to policymakers yet, nor is it in the public domain. This report aims to bring the most recent replicated and respected global research to the attention of policymakers.

Examining the biological factors, including genetic, neurohormonal and other factors, the report concludes that contemporary science does not support thinking about sexu- ality in a simple binary opposition of hetero/homosexual and normal/abnormal. Rather, it favours thinking in terms of a range of human variation, very little of which can justifi- ably be termed abnormal. As variation in sexual identities and orientations has always been part of a normal society, there can be no justification for attempts to ‘eliminate’ LGBTI from society. Efforts should rather be focused on countering the belief systems that create hostile and even violent environments for those who are made to feel alienated within societies that privilege male power across political, social and family domains.

The panel concludes that there is substantial biological evidence for the diversity of hu- man sexualities and for sexual orientations in particular. Studies have found significant linkage between male sexual orientation and regions of the X chromosome, though the exact manner in which gene expression impacts on sexual orientation remain to be determined. Familial patterns with regard to same-sex orientation, particularly in men suggest a strong likelihood of biological elements. In addition, although limited in number, some pedigree studies, tracing thousands of female relatives of heterosexual and homo- sexual men, found convincing evidence that female relatives of homosexual men have increased fecundity, i.e., on average, they bear more children compared to female rela- tives of heterosexual men. This may provide a key to the major evolutionary paradox of presumed reduced fecundity because of the relatively high prevalence of same-sex- attracted men in every society.

Although less well studied, there is also considerable evidence for a biological component for same-sex orientation in women and for bisexuality.

Socio-behavioural research demonstrates unequivocally that both heterosexual and ho- mosexual men feel that they have/had no choice in terms of their sexual attraction. The majority of women who experience same-sex attraction also express a lack of a sense of choice in their sexual orientation, although there is evidence for much greater fluidity in sexual orientation among women of all sexual orientations.

The study explores – and finds lacking – evidence to support the contention that the way parents bring up their children, or the relationships formed between children and parents, impact on sexual orientation. While family environment may shape other elements of sexuality and the way sexuality is expressed, and while construction of gender and sexual identities have strong social and cultural components, there is little evidence that orientation is directly correlated to family upbringing.

This report explores but could find no evidence that sexual orientation can be acquired through contact with LGBTI persons. Instead, the panel found substantial evidence that tolerance of same-sex orientation not only benefited LGBTI persons but impacted positively on public health, civil society and long-term economic growth in societies across the spectrum of economic development. ‘Peer pressure’, although a powerful influencer of young people’s behaviour, has not been shown to influence same-sex activity or the development of same-sex sexual or bisexual orientations.

The panel explores a wide variety of sources and studies and could find no evidence link- ing LGB sexual orientation or transgender people with the ‘recruitment’ of young people through childhood sexual abuse. Given the high prevalence of childhood sexual abuse in Africa, the protection of all children should be paramount. As there is no evidence that adult sexual orientation is correlated with abuse in childhood, this false connection should no longer be used to justify the marginalisation of LGBTI persons.

This study finds abundant and robust evidence that more repressive environments in- crease minority stress and impact negatively on LGBTI health. There is overwhelming evidence that this has a direct impact on the general population’s health, particularly in terms of HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and other sexually transmitted infections (STI) reduction efforts. There are no known positive impacts on public health because criminalisation cannot stop people from feeling same-sex attractions and expressing same-sex orientations. Such legislation also cannot stop same-sex or bisexually-orientated people from having relationships, sexual and otherwise, with the wider population in any society.

The study explores and could find no evidence that same-sex orientation can be changed through ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy. It highlights that 50 years of research have not found same-sex attraction to be inherently pathological or a malady of any kind. Studies have also not been able to show any particular social harm of consensual relationships between adults, nor any negative impact on broader communities. Given the documented dangers of such therapy and its direct conflict with medical ethics, these interventions are contra-indicated. Further, recognising the ineffectiveness of conversion therapy, we recommend the wide dissemination of this information especially to health professionals across Africa and beyond.

The study suggests that African health professionals and their associations should adopt affirmative stances towards LGBTI individuals. Psychosocial interventions and support particularly for adolescents are recommended to facilitate the adjustment of same-sex- orientated persons to the stress, stigma, shame and discrimination they may face and to affirm their choices and orientations.

This report concludes that almost all of the recent scientific research regarding human sexualities needs to be much more widely disseminated and discussed in public, and should indeed be drawn upon by policymakers when contemplating new legislation.

Goolamhussein Essaji Vahanvati, the 13th Attorney General of India, passed away on September 2, 2014, from a heart attack, at the age of 65. He served in office from June 2009 to May 2014, and was much in the news in the last years of the previous government, particularly for having to defend some dubious legal decisions. We remember him as a supporter of decriminalisation of homosexuality, both from before he became A-G and while he was serving.

In 2008, when he was solicitor-general, Vahanvati spoke before the UN Human Rights Council, trying to argue that India’s homophobia was a colonial relic [see ref, courtesy Aditya]. He stated, “Around the early 19th Century, you probably know that in England they frowned on homosexuality, and therefore there are historical reports that various people came to India to take advantage of its more liberal atmosphere with regard to different kinds of sexual conduct… [a]s a result, in 1860 when we got the Indian Penal Code, which was drafted by Lord Macaulay, they inserted Section 377 which brought in the concept of ‘sexual offences against the order of nature’.

In another piece he wrote in the Asian Age (hat tip to Nitin for posting it on the GB list long back) before he became A-G and while we were fighting the matter in the Delhi High Court, he stated “People have the right to lead their lives, privately, so long as they do not affect others… [I]n our country the right of persons to live their lives privately and on their own terms may take quite some time to achieve recognition. There are several sections in the Indian Penal Code which are anachronistic in a changed world. Section 377 is a prime example.”

The Union of India was against us at that time and it is significant that Vahanvati, who was a well known senior lawyer, was willing to take a public stand at that time.

When he became A-G I remember hearing speculation that he would not stick to his earlier stand when the matter came up in the Supreme Court. He was the first Muslim A-G and there were rumours he was under pressure from fundamentalist quarters not to support LGBT rights. And it did seem that was in the first chaotic days of the Supreme Court of India arguments when the government lawyer who had opposed us in the High Court got up to reiterate the arguments.

Almost immediately another government lawyer got up to say that he was wrong, but the damage was done and the judges were annoyed and demanded the A-G come to clarify matters. I remember we speculated he would not and just avoid the case, but to Vahanvati’s credit he came towards the end and fully supported us and said the law needed to change. Sadly, the judges didn’t listen to him.

Two days after the infamous 11-12-13 decision of SCI, Vahanvati wrote a strong piece in The Times of India titled “Law can’t remain static: Government told SC that Section 377 didn’t reflect Indian values”.  Some excerpts:

” I belong to the school of thought which believes that an Attorney General must be heard in court and not outside it. However, there comes a time when an exception has to be made. I believe this is one such time. Given the importance of the matter and widespread anguish and heartache across the country, i feel that i must depart from this self-limitation to set the record straight and to explain the stand taken by the government in the Section 377 case.

“In my written submissions, therefore, I clearly and categorically stated: “Accordingly, it is submitted that the government of India does not find any legal error in the judgment of the high court and accepts the correctness of the same. This is also clear from the fact that it has not filed any appeal against the judgment of the high court.”

“The concept of intercourse against the order of nature is troublesome. It raised further questions: “What then is the order of nature?” and “What is against the order of nature?” Is it not conceivable that what was perceived to be against the order of nature in 1860 may not subsequently be perceived to be against the order of nature particularly in view of a change in society’s understanding or tolerance of that thing?

“The world has moved on. It is fast changing. Perceptions have changed. Attitudes have changed. Law does not and cannot remain static. Whenever necessary, the Supreme Court has reflected changed perceptions of the law and has struck outmoded laws down. They did so when striking down rent control laws as socially irrelevant. They also did it by breathing fresh life into Article 21, protecting life and personal liberty. They did it by consigning the archaic judgment in A K Gopalan vs State of Madras, rendered in 1950, into the dustbin of history. Unfortunately, they declined to give a similar treatment to Section 377. Therein lies the tragedy. ”

RIP Mr. Vahanvati, we will need more allies like you.

A tribute from lawyers Mayur Suresh and Arvind Narrain is here.

“It’s a great day for prejudice and inhumanity, and a bad day for law and love”, said celebrated writer Vikram Seth of the Supreme Court 377 judgement, pronounced on Dec 11, 2013.  The SC judgement set aside the Delhi High Court’s 2009 Naz Foundation ruling, and effectively recriminalized LGBT people and those heterosexuals whose physical expression of love was deemed to be ‘against the order of nature’. It was a travesty of justice and a blow to the constitutional rights that the highest court in the land is supposed to uphold. The SC verdict has provoked sharp criticism and worldwide protests.

What did you, as a lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning person, or heterosexual ally, parent, sibling, or friend, feel when you got news of this verdict? Send us a few or many lines, prose or poetry, on what that day and the succeeding ones were like for you and/or someone you know and love.

You may post as responses on this thread. You will still retain copyright and the freedom to publish on other blogs or print/online media, though we’d appreciate a reference to Orinam or a trackback to this link.

To get an idea of the kinds of responses we look forward to, check out the thread titled “Once Upon a Time: Fairy Tales for the Queer Desi“