Till about fifty years back, all over the world, many believed that homosexuality is a disease and can be treated. It was even listed in the official classification of diseases in various countries. In 1973 however, the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual (DSM) which is the official classification of diseases in the United States removed homosexuality from the list. The WHO followed suit after some years and removed it from its list of diseases called the International Classifification of Diseases (ICD). The message to the doctors world over including the psychiatrists was loud and clear; stop trying to treat homosexuality since it is not even a disease and that it is a normal variation of sexuality which is a spectrum rather than a single codified sexual behaviour.
However, many psychiatrists in India not only continued to believe that it is a disease but also continued to treat it with what they called ‘Conversion Therapy’ on hapless young men and women brought to them by desperate parents who would do anything to make their wards straight and ‘normal’.

Conversion Therapy (CT) was (and is!) a set of procedures crudely based on principles of Behaviour Therapy which posits that any behaviour which is rewarded gets repeated and any behaviour which is punished gets extinguished overtime. In a particularly dainty version of treatment, during the session, imagining sex with a person of opposite sex is followed by pleasant images or music and imagining a same sex person with sexual intent is accompanied with an aversive stimulus like a mild electric current. As late as 1983, Indian Journal of Psychiatry, the official Journal of Indian Psychiatric Society published a paper entitled, “Homosexuality: A Study of Treatment and Outcome”. Six ‘exclusively homosexuals,’ five males and one female between the ages of 19 and 30 were treated and “in five of them the therapy was successful”. The rewarding stimulus used was personal favourite music and the aversive stimulus was 50 volts current! The study was done at the AIIMS, New Delhi and was presented at the annual conference of Indian Psychiatric Society at Bombay. The paper can be read in full here-
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012326/pdf/IJPsy-25-235.pdf.

The practice however decreased over the years as the world including the Indian psychiatrists accepted the fact of normalcy of a wide variety of sexual behaviours including homosexuality. However desperate parents continued to approach psychiatrists and many psychiatrists including some very senior ones continued to believe that homosexuality is a disease and needs treatment.

In January 2014, the then President of Indian Psychiatric Society Dr. Indira Sharma at the annual conference of the Society, during her speech from the podium of the society said that homosexuality was un-natural, homosexuals made rest of the people uncomfortable and should seek psychiatric help. The talk was widely reported in the press [TOI article here]  countrywide brouhaha [see editorial footnote].

I happened at that time to be the Chairperson of Task Force on Mental Health Legislation of the IPS and wrote to the then President and the VP requesting for some action even a symbolic one against the outgoing President. When nothing like that happened, I resigned from the membership of the society. I received several concerned calls asking why was I doing it, was I gay! I replied, no, I was doing it because I was a scientist and medical science said homosexuality is normal and should be left alone.

Things improved some years later, particularly because of the vociferous stand by the younger psychiatrists. For the first time in 2018, under the leadership of one of the best Presidents so far, Dr. Ajit Bhide, the IPS came out with a clear position statement on its website, saying that since homosexuality is not a disease no treatment is necessary. What helped further clear the air was the Supreme Court judgement of 2018 de-criminalising homosexuality.

At the same time the adage ‘More things change, more they remain the same’ continued to apply. According to Mariwala Health Initiative as reported in 2022 by the Scroll, 80% of the queer persons still go through either faith healing or the equally mumbo-jumbo Conversion Therapy from psychiatrists.

So much so that the Madras High Court in June 2021, on the plea of a queer rights NGO, ordered that all forms of Conversion Therapy were to be treated as professional misconduct and asked the National Medical Commission and the Indian Psychiatric Society to take disciplinary action in each case reported.

In 2022, a queer rights activist Dr. Prakash Dandekar (a radiation oncologist and co-founder of Mumbai Seenagers), reported to the Indian Psychiatric Society the case of a psychiatrist from Maharashtra, who has a million followers on Youtube and is a practising proponent of ‘homosexuality needs treatment’ school of thought. The IPS asked its LGBT task force to enquire into it but according to a frustrated member of the enquiry committee, was ‘persuaded’ later by the seniors in the IPS not to take any action based on the specious argument that the videos on the Youtube were posted before the Madras High Court Judgement, totally ignoring the fact that those continued to run long after the said judgement was delivered and many say still do. What such protectionism by the IPS does is to nullify even some of the progressive steps taken by the society itself like supporting gay people’s rights to adopt children.

And it is no surprise that, as reported by Wire  on 14th July 16, 2023. under the heading,
“Lesbian Couple’s Harrowing Journey Shines Light on Continuing Dangers of ‘Conversion Therapy’ (and that is what triggered this post), a lesbian girl was admitted and forcibly medicated at parents’ behest, at a psychiatric hospital in Kozhikode, Kerala to treat her sexual orientation! What medicine it could be is beyond me because there is no medicine to alter sexual orientation. Many times, when asked, the rationalization given is that, they were just trying to treat depression which many of queers have. Of course, many of them are depressed but that is just because of the societal and family pressures and listening to them sensitively and some medication occasionally, is all that is required. That does not need involuntary admission and forced injections. I tell them just do what you would do if a person with O-ve blood group comes to you with depression. You treat the Depression but you never try to change his blood group just to mainstream him, because a) It is normal even if uncommon and more importantly b) it cannot be done.

And Dr. Indira Sharma continues to hold responsible positions in Indian Psychiatry Society, year after year including, the Advisor to the Task force on Human Rights(of all the things) in 2022 !

It is high time for Indian Psychiatry to get its act together and ask its members to accept the scientific fact that all genders and sexualities are normal and that there is nothing here to treat!

Footnote from the editors:

• For more information, see query sent to IPS at https://new2.orinam.net/indira-sharma-homosexuality/ and response by Prof.T.V.Asokan, then President,  at https://new2.orinam.net/indian-psychiatric-society-homosexual-not-mental-illness
• Also see open letter to Dr Dinesh Bhugra, World Psychiatric Society, in connection with Dr. Indira Sharma’s statements.
• Orinam’s letter to Dr Raju, then General Secretary, on his statement “the IPS… is working on finding out the majority opinion among psychiatrists regarding the classification and management of homosexuality.” is here.

In 2018, the Supreme Court of India decriminalized consensual and private same-sex relationships in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India- – a landmark judgment that overturned the Supreme Court’s own ruling in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation which upheld the now notorious Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Even though the Navtej judgment was momentous, it was merely the first step in the long fight for LGBTQIA+ equality- a step that should never have taken the Indian courts so long in the first place.

But even after Navtej, the journey for LGBTQIA+ acceptance has not been easy in India, especially for those living in small towns and rural areas. A lack of LGBTQIA+ friendly-spaces and radio silence on the issue of sexuality and gender identity has made it difficult for not only society to accept the LGBTQIA+ community, but also for LGBTQIA+ people to come to terms with their own identities. But in spite of these challenges, LGBTQIA+ activists across the country have continued to work tirelessly to change laws and mindsets alike. Back in 2017 (even before Navtej), Opposition party politician Dr. Shashi Tharoor tabled an anti-discrimination and Equality Bill in the Indian Lok Sabha that is comparable to the Biden Administration’s recently introduced Equality Act. However, unlike Biden, Tharoor wasn’t able to pass his Bill, ostensibly because of its radically transformative nature.

More recently, the BJP-led Central Government slammed efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in India by responding rather acerbically to three separate petitions seeking to secure these very same rights. The Government stated same-sex couples in India did not have the fundamental right to marriage because the Navtej judgment merely decriminalized ‘a particular human behavior’. Rather, the Government said, marriage in India should remain restricted to ‘biological men and biological women’.

The Government’s counter-affidavit also claimed that “Western ideas cannot be imported to the Indian context”; yet failed to prove how the idea of same-sex marriage was inherently ‘Western’. In fact, the terminologies of “western”, and “eastern” themselves are contested and require significant academic deconstruction. To merely claim that something is “western” or “eastern” is indeed a sign of intellectual laziness. The Government’s argument falls apart further when one considers the curious cases of two Asian, non-Western countries– Taiwan and Thailand. Taiwan not only legalized same-sex marriage back in 2019 but is now on track to legally recognize international same-sex marriages . Thailand is also considering expanding the scope of marriage to also include same-sex relationships. Moreover, rich historical and sociological evidence of the existence of same-sex marriage in India has been well-documented by scholar Ruth Vanita in her 2005 book Love’s Rite: Same-Sex Marriage in India and the West. This affirms that there is nothing quintessentially ‘western’ about same-sex marriage in India.

Two more of the Central Government’s arguments are grossly egregious. The first has to do with the Government’s labelling of sexual orientation as a “particular human behaviour” and the second is the Government’s idea of marriage as constitutive of a union between only ‘biological’ men and women. If we consider the first argument, we see that the Government’s line of reasoning is false because sexual orientation is not a behaviour, it is an integral aspect of one’s identity. Here is an excerpt from the Navtej judgment that drives this point home: “Sexual orientation is immutable, since it is an innate feature of one’s identity, and cannot be changed at will. The choice of LGBT persons to enter into intimate sexual relations with persons of the same sex is an exercise of their personal choice, and an expression of their autonomy and self-determination.” So, if one’s orientation is indeed intrinsic to one’s being and concomitantly, can’t be changed, then why should homosexuals be denied the same legal rights that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy- which includes the legal recognition of marriage? Ironically, arguments of ‘behaviour and choice’ are never made against heterosexuals because they constitute the majority in society, so much so that their sexual orientation is not only seen as the de facto ‘normal but also codified in multiple personal laws in the country that recognize various forms of opposite-sex unions. Yet, not a single law in India exists that recognizes LGBTQIA+ unions.

I wonder whether it is even morally justified for a country that prides itself (no pun intended) in the diversity and the multiplicity of its people, to deny a large section of these very same people equal rights?

The Government also claims that marriage can only be between a “biological man” and a “biological woman”, yet fails to define what a ‘biological woman’ is. In 2019, the Madras High Court ruled that the meaning of the word ‘bride’ in Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act “cannot have a static or immutable meaning”. Rather, it had to be expanded to include not just biological women, but also Transwomen, Transgender people, and intersex people. The Court further opined that the Constitution was a living document that needed to evolve with changing times in order to be relevant; furthermore, in Shafin Jahan v. Asikan K.M., (2018) it was already decided that “the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution”. Why then, were these progressive arguments not made to grant equal rights to same-sex couples? Expanding the scope of marriage to same-sex couples does not take away anyone else’s rights. Rather, it makes for a more inclusive and diverse family unit. For a community that routinely experiences stigma, discrimination, and ostracization in Indian society, legalizing same-sex marriage would have been one way of rectifying historical wrongs. To argue that same-sex marriages could somehow cause “complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws in the country” (as the Government has also stated in its counter-affidavit) is gaslighting, plain and simple.

It isn’t surprising that valiant displays of compassion, courage, and love still threaten the small-minded and cold-hearted.

The report states that the two young men consumed poison on March 2, unable to bear the taunts and harassment of peers who ridiculed their close friendship and ragged them based on this.  They were rushed to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where one passed away four days ago, and one this morning.

While they are not alive to comment on the nature of their relationship, it seems clear that the ragging they faced was motivated by homophobia.

Three years ago, in 2016, the University Grants Commission published its 3rd Amendment of the Anti-Ragging Regulations. This amendment expressly prohibits ragging based on sexual orientation and gender identity (including transgender), among other factors. While most colleges and universities around the country display their anti-ragging regulations and even organise sessions on ragging during orientation for incoming batches, ignorance of this amendment –  and the vulnerability of gender-nonconforming, queer and trans students to ragging –  is pervasive (see Queerala’s study of colleges in Kerala).

Six months after the Navtej Singh Johar verdict, homophobia, lesbophobia and transphobia are alive and flourishing. They are reflected in statements by the police that same-gender relationships, though decriminalised, are against ‘our’ culture; in attempts by parents to separate their adult progeny who are in queer/trans relationships with their lovers and place them under house arrest (individuals in six such cases reached Orinam for support from Dec 2018 to February 2019); and in continuing violence faced by students in educational institutions, leading to hate crimes such as the Madurai suicides.

When will the prejudice and hate stop?

Notes:

• For crisis support and suicide hotline information, visit https://new2.orinam.net/resources-for/lgbt/crisis-support/
• For information on how educational institutions can be LGBTIQA+ inclusive, see https://new2.orinam.net/resources-for/educational-institutions/
• Thanks to Gokul for translation support.

The mass shooting in Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, US, during the early hours of June 12, resonates with those of us who have faced intolerance, hatred and violence simply for being who we are. The lesbian, gay, bi, trans*, intersex, queer, ally and other (LGBTIQA+) communities in India stand in solidarity with the families, biological and chosen, of the victims of this senseless crime.

LGBTIQA+ people have always been at the receiving end of bigots from all faiths, and we register our protest against initiatives by ideologues of all stripes to use this incident to advance political and personal agendas of xenophobia and Islamophobia. Bigotry is a form of violence against a community, and we stand firmly against all attempts to make this part of a global anti-Islam narrative, just as we resist the dastardly celebration of this incident by homophobic groups.

We condemn all forms of hatred and violence, whether based on sexuality, gender, religion, caste or ethnicity.

Protests and vigils are being planned in the following cities and towns (please contact us with updates, including more events or edits for existing ones):

This year Techfest has taken up the issue of Homophobia and Transphobia, and come up with an idea of spreading awareness on this on the occasion of International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia through an interactive video as we believe that this topic has been untouched in the last few years. People in the LGBTQ community are still facing the problems in their real life which are unknown to the Indian society.

International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia is celebrated on the 17th of May every year. Homo/transphobia refers to hateful treatment and social injustice towards the homosexual and transsexual members who are very much a member of our community as any of us of our community.

This video, created by Saathi, IIT Bombay’s LGBTQ resource group, in association with Techfest, challenges homophobia to build safe spaces for queer people – with just a hug!

The video is a unique social experiment, where strangers of different sexual orientations talk to each other, and hug each other. With a seemingly simple concept, the video captures a spectrum of moments: awkwardness to warmth. A beautiful peculiarity being the instance when a homosexual person comes out his friend on camera – and he still gets a hug.

This photo is from a year ago, at one of the January 2014 events in Tamil Nadu following the Koushal ruling.

Coverage of their Jan 5, 2014, rally on Marina beach is here.

Coverage of the response from progressive Christians and the formation of the Christians Against Homophobia collective is here, and the full text of their press release, also from Jan 5, 2014, here.

The purpose of this note is not to downplay the officer’s homophobia.

Sir,

I watched “I”.

I stand here in Tamil Nadu, where religious fundamentalist forces have ensured that a creative piece of work has been retracted and its author gone into exile, where – on grounds that it hurt religious sentiments – “The Da Vinci Code” was banned, and “Viswaroopam” was temporarily banned and went on to get a lot of publicity, becoming a high grosser.

I stand here today and look at your work. Everyone knows that a ‘Shankar film’ caters to the actor’s hunger for versatility in a role, the producer’s fetish for money, the mad worship of a rogue masquerading as a hero, or  the blatant misogyny underlying the blind craze among fans.

However, you would have known that most critics, barring a predictable few, have found the film disappointing. While they have ridiculed your script and your screenplay, it seems to be beyond them to criticise your ridiculing the ‘nine’* (trans) character in your movie. I am amazed at the wonders of freedom of expression exercised in the making of this particular work. You are, after all, the epic director! You are free to depict us, trans* people as sex freaks, sociopaths, second class citizens, or in any way you want to. I’m sure you would have liked it when one of them took a leaf out of your book and wrote, ‘there’s another villain, a “nine”thara.’

Beyond your magnificent ambition, ostentatious sets,  striking actors, and your grand budget, I would like to reach out to your large and imposing mind. If the appalling denigration of transwomen in “Shivaji” (when Vivek says ‘It has just come back from surgery,’ and our super star moves away, disgusted) was at one level, you have surpassed yourself by taking transphobia to a whole new level in “I”.

This insignificant little girl would like to speak a few words with you about this.

Just ten minutes into the film, Vikram, the epitome of on-screen machismo, stares at the villain and says ‘dei, potta’. I was not surprised. Other ‘pottai-s** like me and I are used to such slander on screen. When Vinoth, director of the socially-sensitive film “SathurangaVettai”, casually uses the word ‘pottai’ as an abuse, and critics ruling this part of the world support him, can we expect any less from you?

Shankar, how are we, the pottais of the world, any less dignified than your masculine ideal? Is that ideal bigger than our realization that our being is filled with femininity, and we yearn to live the truth of our gender? Is your ideal much bigger than the courage to be honest and leave the safety of our home, and the comfort of our families? Is your ideal nobler than us losing our basic rights as citizens, when we run away and become refugees, second-class citizens, in our own country? Is it more magnificent than the scorching pyre of starting life afresh as a woman, without economic or social support? Is it any grander than us bearing with fortitude, the violence of your masculine ideal on our bodies every day of our lives? Or, Shankar, do you simply think we do not feel at all? That we cannot realize our dignity is assaulted?

It’s fine that you wanted five villains. I understand your script required all of them to be from the film industry. But then, you wanted one villain among them to be plush and grand and at the same time comical. I am appalled that you chose to have a transwoman as that villain.

Your transwoman character is a stylist. Just so that you wanted it to be authentic you cast Ojas Rajani – Aishwarya Rai’s stylist in “Enthiran” (I wonder if she knew what she was doing; if you told her how transphobic her character is in the movie). Even while she is introduced as the top stylist by the ciswoman who plays the leading lady, why do the hero and the friend look down on this transwoman? You must know that there are numerous examples of transwomen who have risen to great heights, battling these very same struggles. Do you wish to make the statement that despite our rising to great heights, the fact that we are trans* is reason enough to look down on us? To denigrate us? When you see fans update their vocabulary to use the name of a popular film that strove to bring dignity to the transgender community (I am referring to the film “Kanchanaa” which, surprisingly, against its intention, has lent its title to be used by people to tease us these days), why would you start with that popular song sung by a travelling group of transwomen singer-dancers, “oororam puliyamaram”? Unfailing your ignoble intention, the audience erupted with laughter at this mean usage of the song. Would you have heard the wail of our mothers, who are, just like your “Muthalvan” Pugazh’s mother, in anguish?

Your leading man sees your leading lady only in posters and on the silver screen, falls in love with her – true and honest – and yet manages to not have any sexual desires at all. And your leading lady loves him in return, thanks to guilt and sympathy. When this is okay, how is it that the love of a transwoman is so worthless that it disgusts not just the leading man, but also the lady, and the friend, and the faraway ad filmmaker? This disgust is a tool you have employed to vilify the character in your script, isn’t it? When you wanted to show her as a rich transwoman, your camera lens showed her in a very beautiful light. Immediately after her love is brushed aside as being worthy of scorn, your camera shows her as a despicable person. Shankar, let me tell you, your camera does not just show a despicable Ojas, it shows a despicable you!

You know, right up to this scene I wanted to be civil and polite in expressing my angst. Just when you showed us that Ojas occupied Room No. 9, I lost it. You must know that I have been called ‘nine’ all my life in school. I was poked and pierced on all sides, torn apart, left alone and to nothing but tears, with this number. I still have this number now, thrown at me on the streets. I also have the arsenal of swear words I have picked up on the way, and I would not hesitate to throw back at you. But then, the critics of the world (special mention, Cable Shankar) will take it upon themselves to give me lessons in cultured conversation. I do not want that; so I will continue to be polite.

While the censor board made you place the disclaimer, ‘No animals were harmed during the making of this film’, it turned a blind eye to the blatant discrimination of sexual and gender minorities, and people with physical disabilities – granting you the freedom to hurt and offend these sections of the population. What is the use of questioning the faults in your work without condemning the kindness of the CBFC?

Let’s turn to your leading actor Vikram. He has risen to great heights after much effort and hard work, but he is no exception to this insensitivity – the film that gave him his big break, Bala’s “Sethu”, has him say ‘de, you are going to become an ajak one day, doing this’. His inspiration – the rationalist, modernist, liberal – Kamal Haasan has, after all, used ‘pottai’ with such recklessness, and has famously vilified transwomen and homosexuals in his film ‘Vettayaadu Vilayaadu’. This insensitivity is common to every actor here.

But still, if it will reach, I’d like to say one thing to you – and all actors, comedians and directors. The men of this world are not your only audience – those men who worship that abusive, insensitive, patriarchal, masculine ideal that denigrates people who are courageous enough to live the truth. Your work is also watched by those very same people you denigrate, alienate and laugh at. We have TVs in our homes. We watch your films. We laugh, we enjoy. We also feel. We can also rise in fury when our dignity is assaulted.

* Nine: “ombOdu”, a derogatory Tamil term for transgender and other gender-nonconforming people.

** poTTai: another derogatory Tamil word, loosely translated as “sissy” and used  against gender non-conforming and transgender people, but also used in some communities as a non-derogatory reference to girls and women.

See original letter in Tamil by Smiley here.

March 10, 2014

To:
President, Members of Parliament and the People of Nigeria

Through:
H.E. Ndubuisi Vitus Amaku
High Commissioner of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
EP.4 Chandragupta Marg,
Chanakyapuri New Delhi-110021
India
Tel: (+91) 24122142/143/144
Fax: (+91) 24122138

We register here our strong condemnation of the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act, 2013. The act, signed by President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan on January 7, 2014, violates the basic human rights of same-sex desiring individuals, their families, friends, loved ones and their supporters, by impeding their right to live and love without harm to others, in enjoyment of the rights of freedom and equality guaranteed by the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. In the face of this severe blow to the struggle for universal human rights, we reassert our solidarity with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, and queer people of Nigeria, and of all 36 of Africa’s 55 countries where same-sex relations are illegal.

The Act not only prohibits and criminalises the institutionalisation of same sex relationships, but also prevents the registration of organisations, clubs or societies that pertain to multiple queer genders and sexualities. Public display of amorous relations between persons of the same gender invites a jail term of up to 10 years, and anyone – irrespective of their sexuality – who witnesses and/or aids a same sex civil union, meeting, registration of organisation is also liable to be punished under this draconian law. It is clear that the law is meant to clamp down on any form of love and affection that is non-heteronormative. We are astonished by the Nigerian government’s blind and misguided belief that a law can serve as an effective deterrent to love.

We write as citizens and groups of India, also a former British colony grappling with the multiple legacies of colonialism, of which the inheritance of homophobic laws is only one. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861, recently reinstated by the Supreme Court represents the most aggressive institutionalisation of the criminalisation of homosexuality in the Indian subcontinent. In both cases, the State has acted against its people, failing not only to recognise their fundamental human rights, including the right to dignity, equality, non-discrimination and personal liberty, but also effectively condemning millions of its citizens to compromised health. This is particularly egregious in countries like India and Nigeria with some of the world’s largest populations of persons affected by HIV/AIDS. The threat of violence, harassment, and abuse against queer persons in both countries will continue unabated, having now received a particularly insidious form of State sanction.

We believe that it is homophobia, rather than homosexuality that is a colonial legacy. Today, we are engaged, along with our counterparts in other ex-British colonies, in an on-going struggle against this legacy of colonialism, a struggle in which we have relied primarily on the activist labours of our people and on the moral and legal commitments of laws and Constitutions that we have given unto ourselves. As a postcolonial state that is proud of its hard-won independence, we understand, share and support Nigeria’s commitment to realising and maintaining democratic decision making processes, in line with your Constitution and in the exercise of your sovereignty, unimpeded by the external world.

It is important to emphasise that the Act disregards and devalues the lives of Nigeria’s own people. We urge you to listen to those brave Nigerian voices in every walk of life, who have stood up for basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people in Nigeria without regard to considerations of tribe, region, religion, sex, nationality, disability, or sexuality.

We reach out in solidarity against attempts at imperialist control over our political, moral, ethical and cultural lives. The irony of history is that the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act, 2013, which is an instance of such attempts at control, is being hailed as evidence of the expression of sovereignty but is in fact criminalizing long, established and documented cultural practices of same sex desire and relationships in Nigeria. To recognise the rights of all Nigerians to lives of dignity, equality and freedom of expression and assembly, by immediately repealing the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act, 2013, would be the true assertion of sovereignty.

Signed:

[For full list of signatures, click here]

Dear Dr. Solomon Pappaiya,

I would like to thank you for addressing homosexuals as ‘people of the same sex’ in your whiny statement, ‘Did you all see the parade by people of the same sex?’ (Tamil: “டில்லி மாநகரத்திலே ஒரு பாலர் ஊர்வலங்களைப் பார்த்தீர்களா?”) for you helped create awareness on the LGBT community. When I first heard you say those words,

• a) I considered you a great revolutionary on the same lines as C.M. Annadurai who crystallized the famous slogan ‘We are one race and there is one Almighty’. I even imagined that you would go on to inspire the LGBT community to start a campaign, ‘We all belong to one sex. We all are one folk’.

• b) I thought that the coming generations will praise you for having empathised with the voices asking to deliberately drop the idea of gender binary and upped the ante by bargaining for the idea of unisex (the popular notion being that there are only two sexes; male and female).

When you were almost getting christened as a hero in my heart, the words that followed made me cringe as you were making the same error as your previous one in Shivaji movie (where two dark skinned women named after Tamil Sangam literature characters Angavai, Sangavai are humiliated for their skin tone.)

Your speech highlights that you haven’t understood the nuances of terms such as sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Even if you might represent the view of the majority, it is that of an archaic, anti-minority clique. It is surprising that inspite of being a a Tamil scholar, you chose to address homosexuals as what would translate in English as ‘people of the same-sex’. To my knowledge, the only parade where people of the same-sex participate is the funeral procession of the deceased. Even if many consider the parade on 11th December as funeral procession for the dead Indian human rights, I see it as the funeral procession for homophobia and ignorance of sexual orientation diversity. The faithful minions that the two were to you, it is only natural that you could not digest their loss. We swear that we would perform memorial services every year to remind the world of their good riddance. We hope it offers ‘solace’ to you. I would also like to add that the sexual minorities whom you frowned upon are not just present in Delhi but in the nook and corner of Tamil Nadu, the state you belong to.

You went on to deplore western influences in our languages, dress sense, culture, etc. They are your personal opinions and I respect them even though I believe that there is greater good if people share their experiences in a globalised world. I would also like to remind that Tamil has survived and flourished all along notwithstanding the influences from the innumerable languages, dialects that exist within different regions of our country. You added homosexuality to the list of western imports and that it is popularised because of urbanization. It is sad to learn that you claim to have researched on Indian literature but have no introduction to the homosexual literature/ history of this country. I don’t have time to advise/ pardon the homophobes

It is glaring that you seem to be out of sync with present day incidents. To cite an example, with complete information on the damages caused by family system in the recent violence against dalits at Dharmapuri and in Tamil Nadu politics, you speak hysterically against love marriages and free-thought. You go one step further by threatening that love shared by two people could be detrimental to systems like family, marriage etc. You might get applauded for such statements but it only reminds me of a patriarchal effigy. It is disheartening to see efforts of Periyar and Bharathiyar towards creating a society free of gender biases going down the drain. Nevertheless, am confident that the rationalist, free-thinking, self-respect activists of Tamil Nadu would strive hard to prevent your speeches from damaging the progress of our society. Your venomous statement that daughters of well-educated parents ‘loaf around’ and that women should not seek divorce but instead keep the differences to themselves and continue to remain unhappily married are totally unacceptable and I strongly condemn them!
Your statements have hurt the sentiments of sexual minorities and women of Tamil Nadu. It would only be fair to not utter patriarchal statements like these anymore. As the 6 others who shared the dais with you failed to register their dissent, we consider them accomplices and that they share your homophobic, sexist opinions. You all can answer to the questions raised by your conscience for making such divisive, anti-minority statements. I will not listen to the speeches of all 7 of you until I see a ray of change/ maturity in your stands. Even if it is just my opinion, I believe that many in Tamil Nadu would agree with me.

Sincerely yours,
Minority that is disheartened to see that Bharathiyar’s ‘buffoon-like people’ are still around.

They scavenge every day for bread,
Making small talks on the way,
Soaking themselves in bitterness,
Only to see others feel hurt.
They grow senile eventually,
As criminals of spurious sins.
The buffoon-like people they are,
Did you (Shakthi) think I would stoop like them?
-Bharathiyar

“தேடிச் சோறுநிதந் தின்று – பல
சின்னஞ் சிறுகதைகள் பேசி – மனம்
வாடித் துன்பமிக உழன்று – பிறர்
வாடப் பலசெயல்கள் செய்து – நரை
கூடிக் கிழப்பருவ மெய்தி – கொடுங்
கூற்றுக் கிரையானபின் மாயும் – பல
வேடிக்கை மனிதரைப் போலே – நான்
வீழ்வே னென்று நினைத் தாயோ?”
– பாரதி

Thanks: Madhan (Editing, Tamil to English translation)