• “Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.’ The law, known as Section 377 of India’s penal code, has long been viewed as an archaic holdover from colonialism by its detractors…
• “Thursday’s decision applies only in the territory of India’s capital city, but it is likely to force India’s government either to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or change the law nationwide, lawyers and advocates said…
• “India’s society is generally unwelcoming of homosexuality except in the most cosmopolitan circles. It is not uncommon for gay men and women to marry heterosexuals and have families, while carrying on secret relationships with members of the same sex…” I know of a few real examples of this myself!

I was curious to hear more opinions on the matter, not just on the specific decision but on the prospect of gay rights in India and how various religious communities are responding.

From the comments on www.sepiamutiny.com:

• “We have not yet heard the last word on this one.  The Mullahs and Bishops of India have not yet spoken.  The views of Hindu religious leaders don’t count any way in the Indian media, but I think they are neutral on this issue… The BJP and VHP can’t speak for Hindus in India.  Their voice doesn’t carry the same weight in the media or in the larger Hindu community, compared to the voices of Mullahs among Muslims.  The voices that carry a little bit of weight among ordinary Hindus in India are those of Hindu religious leaders who are seen as ‘apolitical’.  The Kanchi Acharya, Puttaparthi Sai Baba, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Baba Ramdev, Sundara Chaitanyananda, Mata Amritanandamayi et al.  My point was that these acharyas are largely neutral to the issue.” (As an interesting aside, in late 2004, the VHP contended that gay sex causes bodily injury; this was refuted quickly by the Delhi High Court.)

• “While the penalty imposed by Section 377 goes up to life sentence, there is nothing close to it in Manusmriti, the most popular Hindu law book of medieval and ancient India. ‘If a man has shed his semen in non-human females, in a man, in a menstruating woman, in something other than a vagina, or in water, he should carry out the ‘painful heating’ vow.’ Thus, this peculiar vow, involving application of cow’s urine and dung, was meant not only for homosexuals but also errant heterosexuals.  The penalty is even milder if the homosexual belongs to an upper caste. As Manusmriti puts it, ‘If a twice-born man unites sexually with a man or a woman in a cart pulled by a cow, or in water, or by day, he should bathe with his clothes on.’  Since Manusmriti was written at a time when bath generally meant taking a dip in a river or a lake with other members of the same gender, the penalty of making a homosexual bathe without taking off his clothes was probably designed to avoid the embarrassment of his being sexually aroused in public.  In another indicator of the liberal Hindu heritage, Kama Sutra, a classic written in the first millennium by Sage Vatsyayana, devotes a whole chapter to homosexual sex saying ‘it is to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts.’ Besides providing a detailed description of oral sex between men, Kama Sutra categorizes men who desire other men as ‘third nature’ and refers to long-term unions between men.  I find it interesting that folks who cry foul about Manusmriti’s views on women, then use the same ‘liberal Hindu heritage’ text to support the argument for gay sex. So now maybe Manu may not be all that bad!”

… And from a new site to me, www.galva108.org:

• “Welcome to GALVA-108! This website is provided by the Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association, an international organization dedicated to the teachings of Lord Caitanya, the importance of all-inclusiveness within His mission, and the Vedic concept of a natural third gender. Its purpose is to educate Vaishnavas, Hindus and the public in general about the “third sex” as described in Vedic literatures. This knowledge will help to correct many of the common misconceptions that people hold today concerning third-gender people (gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, the intersexed, etc.). In addition to this, GALVA wishes to provide a friendly and positive-oriented place where third-gender devotees and guests can associate together and utilize their time to learn more about Krsna consciousness and advance in spiritual life.”

It is curious that the LGBT persuasion is considered a “third gender” here.  I wonder if that might be demeaning or frustrating to some, since it separates one from a gender that is equally valid.  (I might note here that there is a difference between ’sex’ and ‘gender’: ’sex’ refers to one’s bodily organs; ‘gender’ describes one’s own preferences.)  Still, this “third gender” remains an interesting interpretation of Vedic texts.

* * * * *

From even a brief look into what Hinduism says about homosexuality, it has become clear to me that there is no clear answer.  I guess that is an overused answer in Hinduism – the flexibility and differing opinions can be both reassuring and perplexing.  Moreover, there always seems to be some sort of divide between the philosophical musings of texts (which often explore less than accepted themes) and the rules and values put forth by religious chiefs and family heads.  That is to say, it is one thing if Vatsyayana discusses same-sex intercourse but quite another if your son is exhibiting homosexual tendencies.  In the latter case, I wonder how much of these rules, implicit or otherwise, derive from practicality: people do not want to attract more attention and judgment and therefore discourage ‘abnormal’ practices.  A good example of this is in the recent Bollywood movie Fashion, in which one of the characters is a successful gay designer who chooses to marry a woman to please his mother (the film is quite good in general and is worth the three hours).

One of my favorite examples of homosexuality and Hinduism is from a book (for a teenage audience) I read in the beginning of high school, Born Confused by Tanuja Desai Hidier.  Dimple, an ABCD and rising senior in a New Jersey high school, is (perhaps understandably) surprised to find out that her fob-Indian cousin studying at NYU is a lesbian.  However, she discovers that her parents already know and have passed no judgment whatsoever.  They have, nevertheless, been scouting out Indian boys for her.  It is only after questioning their intentions that she realizes the meaning of ‘jeevan-sathi’: ‘life companion.’  The Hindu (or Indian? correct me if I am wrong) concept of jeevan-sathi implies no specific gender or type of relationship.  It is interesting to note the commonness of this term as opposed to others.  In the English language, we certainly distinguish ‘husband’ and ‘wife,’ and words like ‘partner’ or ’spouse’ are meant to be politically correct.

I am eager to hear readers’ perspectives on homosexuality and Hinduism and/or homosexuality in the subcontinent.  How [does it/should it/will it/can it] fit in?  I feel like a particularly biased and uninformed writer on this point because I’ve grown up in a liberal home and community and have little experience with or knowledge of integrating these two themes.  What do you know, and what do you think?

Related posts:

1. The task that faces us Hinduism has always been a geographic faith, tied to South...
2. Gender and Misperceptions I was procrastinating and I happened to see this article...
3. Christianity borrowed from Hinduism? There is an interesting article on About.com on the similarities...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.