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.

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.

Hearty congratulations to Reverend Winnie Varghese on her book
‘A Journey of Faith: Church and Homosexuality’ published by the Board of Theological Education of the Senate of Serampore College, Hooghly, West Bengal.

An excerpt from the blurb on the back cover:

“Like the stiff corsets and crinolines associated with the Victorian era, the British Empire’s rules of morality too were restrictive and prescribed the dos and don’ts of acceptable behaviour. One of these manifested itself in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.  In July 2009, the High Court of Delhi declared unconstitutional the section that criminalised sex against “the order of nature”, thus opening up a debate in the country. Later, the Supreme Court overturned that judgement, further bringing into focus the question of the rights of the rights of an individual in a progressive, democratic society. This book narrates the faith journey of the author as a lesbian, Christian and ordained minister…”

“This book is a bold attempt by the Senate of Serampore College (University) to engage theologically on a theme that Indian churches have chosen to keep muted until now”.

The book was released earlier this week in Kottayam, Kerala, with the Principal of the Orthodox Seminary in Kottayam (Mar Thoma Syrian Church Of Malabar), and the Secretary of the Senate of Serampore University receiving the first copy of the book.

Indian-American Rev. Varghese [see Outlook interview], who is rector at St Marks In-the-Bowery, an Episcopalian Church in New York, is no stranger to Chennai, having participated in roundtable discussions with church leaders on LGBT issues in 2009 and 2014.

We at Orinam have had the pleasure of hosting Rev. Varghese at one of our meetings last year, and having her read excerpts from Rev. George Zachariah’s  Aug 2009 Gurukul sermon for the QUiLT Queer(ing) Literature group.

Watch this NDTV panel discussion from 2009 featuring Winnie Varghese and members of the LGBT and ally community in Chennai:

February 26, 2014

To,
President Yoweri Museveni, Members of Parliament of Uganda,
and the People of the Republic of Uganda

Through Ms Elizabeth Napeyok, High Commissioner,
Ugandan High Commission in New Delhi, India
B-3/26,Vasant Vihar
New Delhi 110057
India
Fax: 91-11-26144405
Email: newdelhi@mofa.go.ug

We register here our strong condemnation of President Museveni’s signing of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, 2009 into law. The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 violates the basic human rights of the kuchus of Uganda, impeding their right to live and love without harm to others, in enjoyment of the rights of freedom and equality guaranteed by the Ugandan Constitution. In the face of this severe blow to the struggle for universal human rights, we reassert our solidarity with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, disabled and HIV-affected people of Uganda, and of all 36 of Africa’s 55 countries where same-sex relations are illegal.

We write as citizens of India, also a former British colony grappling with the multiple legacies of colonialism, of which the inheritance of homophobic laws is only one. We too have been told that homosexuality is a ‘Western import’ that is alien to our culture. This claim flies in the face of a wealth of evidence of same-sex love and desire in our histories and cultures. It is a matter of fact that same-sex love in our cultures, and in parts of Africa including Uganda, was accepted, and in some contexts, celebrated until the advent of the colonial experience. It is a claim that, moreover, is contradicted by the fact that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, represents the most aggressive institutionalisation of the criminalisation of homosexuality in the history of the Indian subcontinent. It is this legislative initiative of an unrepresentative colonial state that was then replicated in only slightly modified forms in other colonies of the British state, including Uganda. 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 ongoing 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 post-colonial state that is proud of its hard-won independence, we understand, share and support Uganda’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.

In this context, we are concerned by numerous analyses and critical commentaries that have shown the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 is itself an externally sponsored initiative, drafted with considerable encouragement and advice from US-based evangelicals whose moral, theological and political agendas do not prioritise, or rather undermine the welfare of the entirety of Uganda’s people. In this context it is important to emphasise that the Act disregards and devalues the lives of Uganda’s own people. We urge you to listen to those brave Ugandan voices in every walk of life who have stood up for basic human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people in Uganda 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 Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014, which is an instance of such attempts at control, is being hailed as evidence of the expression of sovereignty. To recognise the rights of all Ugandans to lives of dignity, equality and freedom of expression and assembly, by immediately repealing the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 would be the true assertion of sovereignty.

Signed:

*All cities are in India, unless specified

Here is the full text of the petition signed by 1157 students, alumni, faculty and staff the Indian Institutes of Technology against the Supreme Court’s decision to re-criminalise same-sex behaviour among consenting adults in private.

While, unfortunately, the Supreme Court chose to ignore these and other submissions, this petition stands testimony to the increasingly progressive attitudes among members of these premier institutions of technology education and research. Check out the website of Saathi, IIT-Bombay’s campus queer group and Samvita Kalyan’s piece ‘A Rainbow-Coloured Movement‘ published in The Fifth Estate, IIT-Madras campus newsletter, for more evidence of the growing visibility of queer and trans people on campus, and of heartening support from allies.

To
The Honourable Chief Justice of India,
The Honourable Prime Minister of India,
The Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, India,
The Honourable Minister of Law and Justice, India,
The Honourable Minister of Human Resource Development, India,
and The Directors of the Indian Institutes of Technology.

Dear Sirs,
We are a group of students, alumni, faculty and staff of the Indian Institutes of Technology, collectively expressing our shock and disappointment at the Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 377 is a British-era statute that outlaws “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” and includes within its ambit intercourse among consenting adults of the same sex. We hold that this law violates the fundamental rights of privacy and autonomy accorded to all Indian citizens by its Constitution, and the rights to dignity, equality and due process of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) citizens. While we demand that the law be immediately modified to exclude all forms of sexual intercourse among consenting adults, we wish to reiterate that this is merely one step towards the goal of equal membership in Indian society for everyone, regardless of sexuality and gender identity.

In 2009, a landmark judgment issued, by the Delhi High Court, declared Section 377 unconstitutional insofar as it applies to consenting adults. Embarking on a well-researched and empirically informed analysis of the impact of the law on sexual minorities, the Court found the law to be arbitrary in its scope and intent, as well as in violation of the right to equality under the law, and the right to dignity and personal autonomy. The Delhi High Court elevated sexuality and gender identity to the status of a protected class under the Indian Constitution, thereby laying the foundation for future efforts to end discrimination in workplaces, educational institutions and domestic environments.

Where the Delhi High Court’s ruling was a bold effort to give life to the promise of Indian Constitutionalism, the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse it is a deceptive attempt to use judicial restraint as a cover for its refusal to critically interrogate the social effects of legal provisions. Ignoring the lived experiences of LGBTQ people in India altogether, it argues that Section 377 merely penalizes certain acts and does not stigmatize a class of Indian society based on sexuality and gender identity. By failing to recognize the fact that the law exposes LGBTQ people to illegal extortion, harassment and persecution, and by suggesting that the rights of LGBTQ individuals are less worthy of protection because of their “miniscule proportion”, the Supreme Court has failed to perform its constitutional responsibility and betrayed the trust of the Indian people. Suffering from contradictory arguments, dubious factual claims, and an absolute lack of empathy, the judgment is an affront to the values of fostering a scientific temperament as part of the commitment to the betterment of humanity, upon which our nation was founded, and which motivated the foundation of the Indian Institutes of Technology.

LGBTQ individuals, activists and supporters from all parts of India have risen up in shock, anger and outrage, determined to repeal 377 and to make their claims of citizenship heard in the public sphere. They have received the support of the legal community, a large section of the country’s political leadership, human rights monitors in the United Nations as well as supporters throughout the global diaspora, of which IITians constitute a substantial share. It is to this chorus of dismay and disapproval that we seek to join our voice. We write to express our commitment towards the rights of LGBTQ people, including members of the Hijra, Aravani, Kothi and like communities, to live their lives with dignity, freed from the burdens of fear, loathing, and pervasive discrimination.

We reiterate that our concern goes beyond the rights of adults to participate in private acts of consensual sex. It is focused on the public domain, where alternate sexuality and gender identity is often treated as a form of deviance in schools, colleges, workplaces, religious institutions, and governmental institutions. Patriarchy and hetero-normativity are pervasive facts of social life in all parts of the country, including the campuses of elite institutions like the IITs. Women and LGBT individuals among the undersigned have often experienced prejudice in their routine interactions with their classmates, colleagues, professors as well as members of the institute administration, and these experiences of prejudice at close quarters can sometimes be more debilitating than an archaic and distant law.

The institutionalization of prejudice, both in the legal and the social spheres, is often premised on claims about certain sexual practices being “unnatural”, imports from “western” cultures and symptoms of “mental illness”. These claims have been emphatically shown to be incorrect. Same-sex intercourse is found in about 1,500 species of animals, including the species closest to Homo sapiens in evolutionary terms. There are many instances of alternative sexualities being expressed in Indian mythology, as seen in the work of scholars like Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidwai. Moreover, there is increasing evidence of a hidden sub-culture of queer people in medieval and early-modern India. The Hijra, Aravani and Kothi communities have oral traditions which prove that queer identities are as native to Indian civilization as any other. The medical community, including the American Psychiatric Association, Indian Psychiatric Society and the World Health Organization, have repeatedly argued that alternative sexualities and gender identities are not symptoms of mental illness. Given the preponderance of scientific, historical and anthropological evidence, it comes as somewhat of a surprise to us that patently incorrect claims are still circulating in society, and we call upon the scientific establishment and various educational institutions – including the IITs – to assist the LGBT community at large in dispelling these misconceptions.

While efforts to read down Section 377 and to dispel societal misconceptions must continue, we also re-commit ourselves to protecting the gains made in recent years within IITs to create a more welcoming atmosphere for women and LGBT individuals. While Section 377 has, in the past, relied heavily on social stigma to penalize sexual minorities, we assert that we will not allow ourselves to be used in this manner to discriminate against our own peers. Several support groups for queer students have been established and received official recognition in various IITs in the past two or three years. Their rights of free association are by no means affected by a law that merely criminalizes certain sexual acts. We therefore hope that they will continue to get the full support of their peers, their professors and the institute administrations. In short, while the latest Supreme Court judgment represents an unfortunate reversal in the development of India’s human rights law, we hope that this will not halt the realization of human rights for women and sexual minorities through concerted social change, with IITs leading the way.

Yours sincerely,

Download the full list of 1157 signatories here.

The Indian Psychiatric Society has just posted the following statement by Dr.T.V.Asokan, President, and Dr. N.N.Raju, General Secretary, on their website http://www.ips-online.org,

“Based on existing scientific evidence and good practice guidelines from the field of psychiatry, Indian Psychiatric Society would like to state that there is no evidence to substantiate the belief that homosexuality is a mental illness or a disease. IPS will issue a more detailed statement in due course of time”.

Thanks to IPS for this official clarification, which was much needed in light of contradictory statements made in January/February 2014 by some of its office bearers (see here and here).

Orinam and other community groups look forward to working with IPS to sensitise mental health professionals on LGBT issues, advocate for inclusion of these issues in the undergraduate and relevant postgraduate medical curricula and in-service training, and to end unethical/unscientific practices of “conversion” therapy that continue to exist in all parts of India.

Dr N N Raju
Professor and Medical Superintendent
Government Hospital for Mental Care (GHMC)
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh

Dear Dr. Raju,

First, our hearty congratulations on your becoming the first psychiatrist from Andhra Pradesh to be  elected General Secretary of the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS).

We read the recent interview “Looking into minds wired differently” in the Times of India [Sulogna Mehta, TNN Feb 3, 2014], in which you have stated:

“Homosexuality is a grey area, entailing confusion and complexity, and black and white comments can’t be made on it. Globally doctors are divided on whether to label it normal or a deviation from the norm as genetics, environment and peer pressure contribute to it. However, homosexuals are not criminals, even though legally or morally they are considered wrongdoers. As of now, the IPS, consisting of around 5,000 registered psychiatrists, is working on finding out the majority opinion among psychiatrists regarding the classification and management of homosexuality.”

Respected Sir, we draw your attention to the fact that the Indian Psychiatric Society, of which you are now the General Secretary, has published not one but two editorials [2012, 2014] in its official journal IJP, confirming that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality, and citing primary research that demonstrates that “people with homosexual orientation [do] not have any objective psychological dysfunction or impairments in judgment, stability and vocational capabilities”. In writing this, IPS has echoed the position of the World Health Organisation, World Psychiatric Association and psychiatric associations in a number of countries.

Homosexuality is not a disease to be “classified and managed”, as you appear to have suggested. The ignorance of psychiatrists on this issue, on the other hand, may well be.

We hope that you, in your capacity as General Secretary of IPS, will push for a public position statement by the Society that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, such as the one recently issued by LPS. Such a statement would not be contingent on “majority opinion” of the members as though they were voting on a logo design, but on the Society’s acknowledgment and endorsement of scientific consensus, dating back to 1973.

We further ask that the IPS issue a general directive to its members to cease attempts to “manage” homosexuality through practices as ECT and aversion therapy.

We remain optimistic of your and IPS’ timely attention and response in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Orinam team, Chennai
orinamwebber@gmail.com

p.s.  Please refer to the open letter signed by healthcare professionals in India, calling for greater sensitivity and non-judgmental approaches on the part of the medical establishment towards lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The article is not an objective evaluation of the arguments. The author’s agenda is transparent: to subtly depict LGBT people as a threat to humanity. It is a clarion call to actively repress, through criminalization, the emotional and physical reality of a sexual minority. Why else would she liken being gay to “terrorism and suicidal tendencies”? Perhaps she realized her advocacy so closely mirrors the Nazis who liquidated homosexuals in death camps to “eliminate undesirable traits [from] the most evolved species on earth” (her words), that she felt the need to distance herself from eugenics in her extended preamble.

Any morally honest reader would have numerous objections to this article. These are mine:

1. Sexuality is not “environmental”: some evidence suggests genetic factors are associated with male same-sex attraction, which the author admits. Other studies point to the role of epigenetic and developmental factors in determining sexuality. To single out one (absolutely baseless) aspect of the law in a country as a strong determinant of sexuality, is beyond absurd. Even if it is mildly environmental, that doesn’t make it more malleable than other hardwired traits! By analogy, “height” is only partly hereditary; “environment” also plays a role, like childhood nutrition, emotional security, exercise etc. But it would be bizarre to suggest that height can be changed during adulthood, or that criminalizing shortness (and the consequent societal attitudes) can mould society to change people’s heights. This author claims no better.

2. Sexual orientation CANNOT presently be altered: Every single study claiming to “cure gayness” has been debunked. “Corrective therapy” is banned in several countries because of the clearly established trauma of trying to forcibly suppress or alter sexuality. Exodus International, one of the largest proponents of ex-gay therapy was forced to close and apologize “for being part of the system of ignorance that perpetuated that hurt.” Same with former leading psychiatrists. Decriminalizing gay sex cannot convert straight people into gay. And if 377 is upheld, gay people will remain gay! It is simply impossible to “encourage people” to be gay/straight. Show me a credible scientific study (not pilot studies, not self-reported anecdotal evidence) demonstrating otherwise, and I’ll eat my shoe.

3. Homosexuality is not “unnatural”: What on earth does “natural” even mean? Found in nature? Homosexual bonds are a natural part of life in virtually every other species, and found in every culture and society in human history. Does “unnatural” mean it doesn’t serve reproduction? Neither do male nipples, should we hack them off? Nature is simply too diverse and heterogenous, and it is the author’s antediluvian notions of strict male/female binarity that is unnatural to this planet. A single blade of grass can have up to 12 different genders. And even if the author wants to restrict morality to only what serves reproduction, then rape, adultery, infanticide, child abuse and cannibalism are quite “natural”. Does she endorse them?

4. Even if it is “unnatural”, so what?! Should the author give up vaccines, her clothes and her spectacles because they are “unnatural”? Perhaps she concurs with the exact same dialectic of “natural order” used to persecute women in the workplace, female reproductive rights, racial desegregation, stem-cell research, contraception, the abolition of slavery, and organ transplants? Genetic mutation is perfectly normal, and many people are born different, e.g. tall, left-handed, extreme flexibility, with photographic memory, or “with six fingers”. If the author is uncomfortable with deviations from the societal norm, she needs counseling. Or a history book.

5. Homosexuality causes no harm: To label something undesirable, one needs to demonstrate objective, secular harm. Terrorism, suicidal tendencies etc. cause concrete harms, and are hence problematic. What exactly are the secular harms of being gay? Throwing vague moralistic labels like “unethical”, “unnatural” and “improper” does not make it so. Masturbation (heck, even being left-handed) was once considered “improper conduct”. Today’s homophobes are simply the modern equivalent of the sex-obsessed puritans of old.

6. Traditional marriage is not endangered: We have case studies of over 20 countries that recognize marriage equality. On Friday, a Federal judge in Utah struck down a ban on marriage equality because Utah “failed to show how gay marriage would affect opposite-sex unions”. Does the author have any actual evidence for her fears, beyond doomsday insinuations?

7. “People exhibiting homosexual behaviour” are NOT “prone to AIDS”: That statement is so misleading, the author’s medical license needs to be revoked! HIV/AIDS spreads due to unprotected sex. Societies like South Africa conclusively demonstrate that if you don’t take precautions like wearing a condom, you are at high risk of contracting HIV regardless of whether you’re having gay or straight sex. Yes, the odds of contraction are lower in the case of vaginal sex, but the vast majority of HIV positive people in the world are in poor countries, and are heterosexual. In India alone, of all HIV/AIDS contractions 80% are through heterosexual contact. In developed countries, there are sociological reasons why it is more prevalent in certain groups, viz. the complete lack of sex education and awareness about condoms and disease, the risk of jail sentence or deportation for those who seek medical counsel etc. In the US, African and Hispanic Americans have much higher rates of HIV/AIDS. Does that make being black inherently wrong?

It is a sign of progress the bogus claims of “homosexuality is against Indian culture” or “humanity will eventually go extinct” weren’t made. Ultimately, all of this boils down to one fundamental question: Do we live in a society where the fundamental inalienable rights of all citizens are respected? Just as the author has a democratic right to propagate misinformed homophobic views, I have a right to share my life and love with someone, whatever my gender.

The story of my nation has been the long march to redeem that tryst we once proudly declared with destiny. At every stage, when Sati was abolished; when so-called untouchables entered temples, we faced the forces of fear, blind tradition and ignorance, breaking the world into fragments with their narrow domestic walls. And we overcame them.

And so we shall, again.

From my heart to yours,
Arvind Raghavan
An Indian citizen

Orinam’s notes: An earlier version of this piece was published on Nirmukta, in response to Dr. Mohana Krishnaswamy’s homophobic article in The Hindu, published in Dec 2013.  Dr. Krishnaswamy’s article was eventually taken down from thehindu.com with an accompanying note by the Reader’s Editor. Other responses include:

The Violence of Irrationality: response to Mohana Krishnaswamy, by Pronoy Rai and Barath Ezhilan, published on Orinam, Dec 29, 2013.

It is ‘nonsense against science’: Analyzing Mohana Krishnaswamy’s defense of the 377 in India, by BerryNice, published on personal blog, Dec 22, 2013

 The basic premise of the article, that there has to be majority approval for social change to take place, is itself severely flawed.  History points to numerous instances where popular opinion at the time did not, in fact, support the monumental social changes we take for granted today. This argument has always been presented at the time of every social change – from the emancipation of slavery to voting rights for women. What one really needs to consider is whether the social change is just, fair and progressive, not whether popular opinion favors it. After all, the spirit of judiciary is not popular appeasement (in some sense, this is not the spirit of the legislature either – but that is an argument for another day).

What follows in the next few paragraphs goes against the grain of the demand to read down Section 377 and suggests the author has completely misunderstood the import of Delhi High Court’s historic Naz Foundation ruling of 2009.

Consider this: “Apart from strong cultural aspects, we need to remember that in a hot poor country, boys sleep in dormitories, semi-clad; men at work in field projects often sleep in the same space—six or eight to a room; without spelling out the details, there could be significant impact on social behaviour all over the country”.  Here, the author seems to ignore three words that qualified the Delhi High Court judgment of 2009: adult, consensual and private. In his vivid example, the author paints a picture of underage boys,  a fairly public situation, and/or potentially non-consensual sex.  Nobody expects any of these to be allowed under law.

Or this:  “Will our ‘decency’ laws permit scantily clad women in public spaces? Can we replicate the summer dress-code, indeed near-nudity say of Mediterranean resorts in our beaches, as also in our cities and towns or villages, in the name of ‘modernity’? The social practices in Western countries are quite different from those of the family values in India.”  Again, the author displays poor understanding of the term ‘private’ that qualifies the Naz judgement.

Or this, where he expresses dissatisfaction with the gay rights discourse in English media: “Whatever the TV anchors may like to project, the Indian social and cultural standards are quite different from those of Western countries—one need not necessarily rue this; indeed this may be India’s strength.” While this argument is offensive and factually inaccurate, I would only ask the reader to consider the following: Is the suppression of minority rights a source of strength for India? Would you actually say that ‘denying equal rights to LGBT people’ better represents Indian society and cultural values than say, ‘acceptance and celebration of diversity’?

Or this: “Note that 377 has many aspects beyond relationship between ‘consenting adults’. The court has merely referred this matter to the representatives of the people.” – How about this? Even a basic understanding of the Delhi HC judgment of 2009 will reveal that Justices Shah and Muralidhar did not strike down section 377 in its entirety. It left Section 377 to hold in instances of bestiality or pedophilia. It merely ruled that including ‘adult consensual, private acts’ in the purview of Section 377 was unconstitutional. Imagine the difference someone like Mr. TSR Subramanian could make, given his position of influence.

As  Chancellor of Shiv Nadar University, he could  follow the lead of top-notch universities worldwide, and spearhead  zero tolerance policies for discrimination on the basis on sexual orientation and gender identity on campus.  He could direct the University to establish support groups and counseling services for LGBT students (LGBT youth are at a much higher risk of being bullied, harassed and consequently of suicide). These ideas are certainly not ahead of their time for an educational institution of high repute. A public intellectual and thought leader like Mr. Subramanian is capable of driving progressive change on campus, which can serve as a role model for other institutions, and society as a whole.

The right time for change that safeguards human rights is now.

It is unfair to ask the millions of LGBT people today to continue to live marginalized and invisible lives just because it may affect the sensitivities of the majority, who are often misinformed and misguided. One expects leaders like Mr. Subramanian to step back and think about what is right, instead of what is acceptable. Because, if one agrees with what is right, we can work together to make it more acceptable. Not the other way around. It is highly likely that impediments to social change exist not because of social and cultural traditions of India, but because of opinion leaders like Mr. Subramanian who hold misinformed and misguided notions. One expects a respected member of society like Mr Subramanian to form views based on reason, and convince the masses.

At this time, we need change agents. Not moral police.