Lesbians vs. Gays vs. Hinduism vs. Modernity?

Dear Mr. Sudarshan,

Though I am not a Sanghi, I am a faithful Hindu. I therefore appeal to you to stop targeting the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) communities as a foreign lifestyle issue.

If you read the Vedas,

the Puranas and the Itihaasas, you’ll find that LGBT communities existed even then. There are over 10 genders of males mentioned in our sacred literature; there are more sophisticated definitions than in any other civilisation, whereas the West only had binary definitions like homosexual and heterosexual. It was only in India that we recognised and cherished different kinds of sexualities as valid. LGBT identities were never brushed under the carpet.

Homosexuals were never stoned to death or even persecuted in Hindu India or even in the worst days of Aurangzeb, the Mughal bigot. It is only with the advent of the British, during their brutal Raj, that homosexuality was criminalised under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This law was ironically enacted by Lord Macaulay and comes from Leviticus in the St James’ Bible. So you see, hatred for homosexuals (homophobia) is not
a Hindu tradition.

Finally, HIV is spread by unprotected sex and has nothing to do with homosexuality. In India, the highest risk factor for women to get HIV-infected is being married to men. It is our lesbian sisters who are possibly the safest because they rarely spread HIV.

LGBT communities are already under great pressure from society, even as we modernise. With families breaking up and single people still not recognised as family units, we have no place to go or support systems. We are just emerging from the darkness to find a place as equals in society. We are not interested in anything but to survive with dignity within
Indian society. Neither do we claim special privileges or affirmative action. But we’ll never accept second-class citizenship and be pushed into the darkness again. If need be, we’ll fight you. I plead with you to stop this campaign.

(An open letter by gay activist Ashok Row Kavi to RSS chief K Sudarshan protesting against his comments about the gay community following the hoopla over the film ‘Girlfriend’.)

* * *

Why do two young women, hot for each other, make a bunch of men get all excited? Excited enough to tear their posters, to go on a rampage at cinema halls and, when they have finally got off, to sit and talk about Indian culture? We have had major discussions about how Islam is against modernity, a hazy term at best. There is rarely any talk about Christianity vs. modernity or Hinduism vs. modernity. But if we wish to take this recent example, we will realise that Hindu culture is completely insensitive to anything close to modernity. At every point in time, modernity ought to include sensitisation towards marginalised groups.

The controversy surrounding the film Girlfriend on a lesbian relationship shows up the hypocrisy that wishes to uphold culture but forgets that its own traditions have sanctified such ‘perversions’. The allegations by a young man against an internationally-renowned godman for having sexually abused him will die down, but a fringe film will be buttressed for its so-called regressiveness.

“I’m not guilty of murder, I’m guilty of obeying the laws of the creator,” said Benjamin Matthew Williams in his defence. He had killed a gay couple in a town outside California and his only regret was that no one sought to emulate him. He felt it was part of the faith and as the Bible thinks homosexuality is punishable by death, the victims are responsible for their own murder. “So many people claim to be Christians and complain about these things their religion says are a sin, but they’re not willing to do anything about it. They don’t have the guts.”

Surprisingly, religions condemn many other things, say adultery, robbery, even greed and dishonesty, but there is rarely this sort of phobia. Williams’ attorney in fact had been thinking about a strategy to defend his client on grounds of “gay panic”. But, alas, the man was a hero in jail and his aspiration was to become a Christian martyr.

Brian Levin, director of the ‘Center on hate and Extremism’ believed that Williams was a cog in the wheel of hate-mongers who probably did not even know him. “But they knew that in the ether of society floating around were these violent young people with violent tendencies and this is what you get. You want these violent, twisted, unaffiliated people to carry out the goals of your philosophy. You don’t mind having blood on your hands, you just don’t want your fingerprints on it.”

“Was Jesus Gay?” was the cover headline a few years ago in a New York-based publication called ‘Genre’. If the Christians were incensed, the Hindus were frothing at the mouth too, for the magazine had used a Krishna photograph on the cover. Those objecting claimed there were no gays in India! (Over 55 million of our citizens, as quoted by the Humsafar Trust.)

But must one bring religion-centred culture into it at all? If the intention of the gay community is to turn its back on organised religion, which makes it a victim, then why can it not seek a path outside of the ambit of such religions? How does it help to quote that the theory of reincarnation in asserting a change of gender in the following birth makes homosexuality a transitional phase? We must remember that these are the only people whose identity depends on their sexuality; they have no other reason to carve out a separate niche for themselves and they therefore do not need to hide behind lofty pronouncements the way heterosexuals do.

* * *
The only reason I am glad about the ‘outing’ is because it concerns women. Lesbians have always been the secondary sex among gays. It is really more about a brotherhood; the connotation of sisterhood in this context is invariably seen as the result of some spiritual bonding or a protest against male battering. Patriarchy, even of the limp-wristed kind, still rules.

Homosexuality has probably existed all along, but in the past few years the marketing of it has got into overdrive. Like any glitzy event it uses celebrity endorsements and rhetoric to further its cause. The gay movement would have lost its steam a long while ago had it not ferreted out skeletons from sundry cupboards. Famous people, usually dead or dying, are brought out of the woodwork almost as a justification. Why is it necessary, and why did these people who indulged in sometimes-maverick activity shy away from admitting to what is being touted as the most normal thing in the world?

Surely, where rock stars and Hollywood greats are concerned it could not have been fear of people’s opinions. And if it was, their souls must be turning in their graves for having missed out on the wonderful opportunity to be among the creative minority. Richard Burton became a posthumous recruit. According to one biography of Elizabeth Taylor, her romance with the actor was doomed because, “His alcoholism and homosexuality fed into each other and drove him to seek out women and then abuse them.”

* * *
This is the worrying aspect about the gay cult. It seeks to co-opt bisexuals who, if they were indeed inclined towards sodomy, could have perhaps been able to practise it in a heterosexual relationship, as many such couples do. Most ‘pure’ gays have always had a problem with bisexuality; they believe that it is a compromise. In that case, why hold forth about their being trapped while they happily return home to another kind of sex and hot sabzi? Society is full of double standards but one would expect a group that is anyway considered separate to not fall prey to it.

In fact, the major contribution of alternate sexuality is that it has changed the way we look at families. They are not burdened with the bugbear of family values, they set up homes in an independent fashion and they do not have to argue about the virtues of nuclear versus joint setups. There is a lot one could learn if there was clarity in the way they looked at themselves. There is virtually no class or status consciousness, no major ego problems that beset gender equations, there is equality in principle and much in practice, and there is for some reason a better ethical mindset where very many social issues are concerned.

However, in sexual terms, casual sex is still the prevalent credo. There are very few long-term relationships, forget monogamy. The sad fallout of this is that young boys, who probably do not know which way they swing, are initiated, as also eunuchs who, of course, do not have a choice.

Is it such insecurity the reason why so much time is wasted in explaining homosexuality in terms of an hormonal imbalance or a natural state of being? Why can’t gays just be happy?