Proclaiming Jul 2 as "India's Gay Day" following the ruling, the Times of India declared in its editorial titled "Victory For Choice" on Friday that by legalising same-sex relations, the court had "restored the personal freedom and rights of homosexuals."
The ruling on Thursday overturns a 148-year-old colonial law which describes a same-sex relationship as an "unnatural offence" punishable by a 10-year prison sentence.
"This is a welcome step forward. The criminalisation of homosexuality is a relic of the past, introduced by the British in 1861."
The editorial said the ruling should "act as a catalyst, encouraging our legislators to shed their blinkers and take a more progressive view on the issue," the Times said.
"In 21st century India, it is perverse to penalise adults for their sexual choices."
- Victory for choice (Times of India)
The Hindustan Times launched a special online section titled "Gay victory" compiling news and video reports, podcasts and photo galleries. The headline story "It's okay to be gay" described the ruling as a "giant step towards globalisation."
"It took 150 years for us India - and 42 years after Britain itself had made homosexuality legal- to figure out that we didn't have a problem with same-sex relationships."
The newspaper said "homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't divisive, emotive issues in Middle India - sexuality is, especially when it concerns women and their perceived behaviour in a still male-dominated, anti-woman society at large."
- Gay victory (Hindustan Times)
- It’s okay to be gay (Hindustan Times)
In an editorial titled "Forward march", DNA India on Friday said: "By finding Section 377 discriminatory by its targeting a section of people for their sexual preferences, the court has managed to move India forward. Society is changing and with it the laws must change too. There is a need to recognise that a section of our society cannot be stigmatised to the extent of being labelled criminals for their sexual preferences, especially if they are consenting adults."
Having noted protests by religious leaders to the ruling, it countered: "But while their right to a point of view is acceptable, to bring religion into this debate is wholly unnecessary - this has to be a social and legal debate."
- Forward march (DNA India)
"July 2, 2009 is a historic day. Not just for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, hijras and kothis in India, but also for all those who strive to uphold the values of equality, freedom, non-discrimination and inclusiveness in India," wrote Ponni Arasu, a queer feminist and activist, and researcher at the Alternative Law Forum, Bengaluru, in the Deccan Chronicle.
"The symbolic significance of this judgment is beyond measure.
"The constitutional framework within which it has been placed gives it enormous legitimacy, strength and significance. In legal terms, it only applies to Delhi but is a strong precedent that can be used in any other parallel court in this country. While other courts are free to disagree, they will have to counter the Delhi high court judgment substantially, a task that is close to impossible."
- State shifts out of bedroom, allows some basic rights (Deccan Chronicle)
Anil Bhanot, General Secretary Hindu Council UK, said he Hindu scripts describe the homosexual condition to be a "biological one, and although the scripture gives guidance to parents on how to avoid procreating a homosexual child, it does not condemn the child as unnatural.
"Hinduism prescribes 16 ceremonies to mark each major stage in one's life span. We would usually observe the birth, name, adolescence, marriage, retirement and death ceremonies but there is a little known ceremony called the "insemination" ceremony or the Garbhadan Sanskaar, which I am sure nobody observes now-days."
- Hinduism does not condemn gay people: UK Hindu Council (Indian Express)
Anand Grover, the lawyer who argued the case before New Delhi High Court, described the decision as an "historic event because India was the country where the anti-sodomy laws were first statutorised... and the same law was then replicated all over the British Commonwealth."
He added that countries that still outlaw homosexual sex can now "use this as a precedent."
"Countries in Africa can use this as a precedent. Same for Asia."
- India gay sex ruling could set precedent: UN (Times of India)
Printable Version
RSS Feed: 
Reader's Comments
And the host retorts: "Are you in the 21st century or? You're sounding a bit archaic..."
Hehehe
(please be advised that their entire constitution is the longest written constitution in the world if you wish to read it)
However, in the second video, the VC of the State Minorities is saying that he'll support it, but he won't agree with it personally. Well, that'll do for me.
Of course people should be responsible about AIDS, it has little to do with "squalid lifestyles of homosexuals", in the West or anywhere else; lifestyles are as varied amongst gays as anyone else. It has to do with unprotected sex.
One of the main reasons for pursuing this case was to enable the fight against AIDS to be more effective, to enable reach-out and education on the subject. They already have a crisis because they (MSM) are driven underground and educators and NGOs trying to reach them have been arrested and harassed.
It's such a shame that you ruin a potentially good point about responsible (i.e. safe) sexual behaviour by lacing it with the poison of homophobia and racism. In fact your aim wasn't to advise Indian gays at all, but simply to make a gratuitous homophobic and racist remark, as you often do.
Try to see the positive side occasionally. This is a really good thing for gays, for the fight against AIDS, and, as expressed by the Judges, for India as a whole.
You are just behaving like a Mexican crab.
While the victory most squarely belongs to Indian LGBTs, it is also a testimony to the continued strength of India's public institutions, already the strongest in Asia. It exposes Singapore's politicians for the comedians that they are who are bent on making a mockery of our public institutions.
Unlike in Singapore, there were no major spats in India over the rule of law, constitutionalism, secularism, democracy, the role of the courts and their independence from the Executive, and a host of other issues that should already have been settled.
It is a proud moment for me too that this has taken place in the country that is my cultural homeland.
I guess Jai Hind (Victorious India) should now be recast as Gay Hind!
"Victory for choice";
"In 21st century India, it is perverse to penalise adults for their sexual choices."
Dear TOI, thanks for your support. But, what part of "being gay is not a choice" don't you get?
Don't you realise that when you are in an extremely hostile environment where "anything you say or do or even don't say or do can and will be used against you", you need to be more careful with how you say what you say?
You are providing fresh ammunition to all the Indian heterosexual male gay-bashers to brandish your newspaper and fume about this "filthy western imported choice" being dumped on "the superior Indian race with its 5000 years of pristine pure culture".
And, as you are aware, there are hundreds of millions of that kind in India, totally hostile to the gay community. Much more than the entire populations of your countries. Because, as you can see here, the primary objective in Indian culture is to make babies. We are born to make babies. Anyone who does not make babies, preferably male babies, is considered worthless in India, to be pitied, scorned and relentlessly advised on how to make babies.
Indians feel nothing but pity for "you westerners with all your money":
"So much money, but what is the use? Not even one child? What is the use of your life? How can you enjoy? Who will look after you when you are old? Who will bury or cremate you when you die?" And so on. To their friends they sadly describe you as: "He is an engineer; has nice house and car; but he has no children". The discussion then continues, "Why? Poor fellow. What happened?" etc.
God forbid if you are "not even married". "What! Not married?! How old is he? Maybe some problem? He can see a doctor. I know this good doctor, he can fix anything,... I know this girl. Very suitable for him. Can you get his details?..."
Indians have to get married by their mid twenties, then the friends and relatives wait with bated breath for the "I'm pregnant" event, and get extremely concerned if that announcement hasn't come within three months of the wedding. At every meeting, the question is put to the couple, "So, any news? Not yet? It is now three months after the wedding, isn't it? Any problems? I know this good doctor. He can fix anything..."
It does not matter whether the young couple even has a job or income. "First things first. Have the child. Job and everything can come later. God is there, no? We want to hold our grandson in our arms before we die". (Yes, grandson preferably, and not granddaughter.)
When this much-awaited "I'm pregnant" announcement finally comes, the breaking news spreads quickly with the comment, "Finally!" The VERY proud grandparents organise an important religious gathering on this occasion, where relatives are proudly invited to rejoice over the fresh addition to the already overburdened Indian population.
This "gay choice" is the biggest slap in the face to this "important Indian culture of making babies".
Of course, all heterosexual Indian males also fully realise the whole truth about being gay: that it is "pedophilia", "animal sex", "rich man's hobby", "only found in big cities and never in rural areas", "unnatural", "against God's wish", and the rest. They learnt these things ALL by themselves, without needing to speak to or even know a single gay person. It is not for nothing that Indians are proud of their superior intelligence.
They also have strong patriotic reasons for opposing gayness: "If we 'allow gay', then we must also allow animal sex, pedophilia, incest. It will destroy 5000 year old Indian culture. If everyone becomes gay, then the human race will become extinct. We must protect the human race." And so on.
It is not easy being gay in India.
If it is of any comfort, much of what you describe exists everywhere else as well, particularly when the society in question has not had the opportunity to discuss the issues in any great detail. I surfed several online editions of the major Indian newspapers and from many of the comments posted, I could gauge this to be true.
In the free-speech desert that is Singapore, the internet has been a huge boon for awareness raising on LGBT issues and today we have an army of allies who will not hesitate to voice their support for us - they just needed to learn the issues from us first in order to be able to do that. For entirely different reasons than free speech, I believe that the internet can be used to good effect India as well.
Your thoughts?
Kirk
http://sexytenga.wordpress.com
You start with the word "choice" which also makes me cringe every time I hear it. And we hear it a LOT, even from gays ! Come on... in a war environment no one chooses to be the enemy...
All the gay people I have met (and that's a lot of people by now) have known that they were gay at an early stage in their life. Some decided to cover it up as long as they could, got married and had kids, some were lucky to be in more tolerant families and still had to put up with extremely intolerant school environment, but not one EVER made the "choice" of being gay. To talk of a "choice" is absurd, false and perversely manipulative. We have to say it over and over again until we're heard (if not understood) : BEING gay is NOT a choice. Only accepting or not accepting it is.
Another thing I would like to add about this Indian event.
I remember reading somewhere that Section 377 was introduced by the British in India not so much because the British were concerned about spreading Victorian "morals" in Indian society (they didn't give a rat's ass about Indians) but because it was a well know fact that MANY British officers who sought to be sent to India were gay. So much so that the Indian section of the British army was often depicted as a bunch of flamboyant queens and every one in the educated circles of London joked about it. Apparently it got out of hand and reached a point where the authorities felt they had to somehow put and end to that, in order to avoid the British army in India becoming a laughing stock.
If that is true, what an amazing irony of history....
2009-03-06 12:14
In Singapore, every time one engages in gay sex, he commits a crime not just from an orthodox Christian's perspective or judged by any one's individual moral standard, but by law of this nation.
The government of this nation has openly assured the gay community and the society at large that it will not SEEK to punish any one for committing such crime. So, a Singaporean gay that I met online feels this acceptable and defends the government fiercely by saying that Singapore has its own unique system and it is a decent compromise for the two extreme spectrum of the society -- so it is perfectly okay for him to have a sex life that is a criminal offense by default but pardoned somehow by the government and the anti-gay spectrum of the society (a spectrum that chose not to further press the government to enforce the law).
Out of being respectful to freedom of choice, I respect this Singaporean gay's choice. Yes, a Singaporean gay may as well enjoy his daily sex life behind door without fear of being broken by cops, nothing particularly different in this aspect from gays in another nation that has long decriminalized gay sex.
But, I cannot help wonder how many more Singaporean gays would find peace in their hearts with being regarded by the nation as pardoned criminals. I cannot help wonder how a Singaporean gay can reconcile himself to others that he has not done anything morally wrong by having gay sex while accepting gay sex being criminal.
Maybe to some Singaporean gays, for so long as they can have uninterrupted sex life in their bedrooms or saunas, then there would be no other issue that would concern or trouble them. So, not only they choose to ignore the existence of the law that criminalize their sex lives, they accept the existence of the law and the situation of themselves being a bunch of pardoned criminals as a good status quo that needs no change (appalling!).
What has gone wrong with this nation's education system?
Maybe Singapore needs to have its Stonewall riots one day, and maybe it will happen. Then again... maybe not. Personnally I don't believe in "slowly convincing the authorities that we gays are good citizens after all" and here's something I wrote recently about Paris in the late 1970s :
I clearly remember how in the late 70s when there were just a handful of super discreet gay venues in Paris (where I lived at the time), the guys in charge of "Arcadie", the only gay official organisation, invariably advocated discretion, low profile, being "good boys" in order to project a good image etc. They were EXTREMELY opposed to any form of visibility and to the first Gay Prides even if those were light-years away from the flamboyance seen nowadays. They truly believed that society could be made to change its attitude towards us through patient lobbying... The PAST of course had proved the exact opposite, so one might wonder why they clung so desperately to such a loser policy...
This ruling makes that possible. It was not so earlier. People had to stay anonymous because of fear of the law. Also, people who tried in the past to set up websites related to gay issues have been arrested and jailed in India, for "promoting illegal gay activities". At least this thing can no longer happen, and would encourage more gay websites to come up where people do not have to hide themselves completely.
Also, only over the last couple of years has India been getting some kind of infrastructure for broadband internet. People are now quickly beginning to adopt to the internet. This combination of freedom to be gay and availability of internet connectivity is going to make a big difference.
Yveservan, thanks for your comments. I too have read that story about introducing the law in India. It seems the law in England at that time was rather severe, and such people sought to escape to India in order to be able to indulge more freely in their decadent lifestyles. This law was then introduced in India to keep these people under check.
The funny thing is that the English themselves got rid of this law from their own lands, but Indians are still trying to cling on to it proudly, like a donkey clinging proudly to the packsaddle on its back. They label gayness as a western import, but the only real western import here is the anti-gay law that they got from the English, and they don't seem to realise it.
The reason this ruling to strike down Article 377 came about in India now is not that the general public has become more accepting of gays. Not at all. There is in fact a lot of opposition from members of the government, from society and from religious groups to striking down this article.
One important factor was that the then Health Minister, Mr Anbumani Ramadoss (who is not gay), spoke strongly and persistently in favour of this action, arguing that it was impossible to provide health services effectively to this community as long as they were treated like criminals. Concern about spreading of HIV has been a major factor in this decision. And then, the courts acknowledged that this law was in violation of fundamental rights as laid down in the Constitution. The Indian Constitution had the final say in this matter. The Courts made this ruling in spite of vehement and furious opposition by the Additional Solicitor General and other representatives of the government, who wasted a lot of time in Court by presenting lies and confused personal beliefs as "facts". I am not quite sure what lessons Singaporeans can learn from this.
I didn't know about the special challenges vis a vis the Internet that existed in India. However, some of those challenges - not restricted to queer politics but any politics that the government does not like - exist/existed in Singapore as well; it's why just about everyone is anonymous online in Singapore. Also, many 'Singapore' websites are hosted in other countries to escape the government's dragnets. But all are closely monitored including I'm sure this one. However, Singaporeans are getting bolder and at the same time the government is getting used to the vitriol that is hurled against it on a daily basis.
But, as you say, those don't matter now but it is good to know that the internet can be used to good effect in India.
Even though I'm no a star-gazer, it is actually very good to see Bollywood personalities come out as strongly in support as they have been doing. The North American experience - I live in Canada now - tells me that we really shouldn't underestimate the sway that celebrities who use their status to help in the cause have over millions. (Hehe, maybe you guys should get cricket players on board next.)
As for what lessons Singapore can learn from this, sad to say none because India is far more of liberal democracy that practises rule of law than Singapore can be for a long time to come. Still, some of us activists have been waiting for this Indian challenge because our Penal Code was transplanted from India in colonial times and later modified. As far as Constitutions go, all of us have the legal equality clause.
But there is little confidence in Singapore about judicial independence, and costs have been deliberately made prohibitive to make justice inaccessible.
But I'm sure we will be citing the Indian precedence more frequently now.
Being such a traditional country, i never thought that india would legalise same sex intimacy. Singapore where are u?
That's something other Asian gays can do well to learn about....instead of being gutless annoynomous cowards spilling vitrol all over the internet on other PLUS.
I hope you also realize that what you are doing in this comment of yours is none other than... spilling vitriol over the internet on other PLUS.... lol
Does that mean I only see myself & the society I grow up in wth non-critical rose-tinted glasses? NON!!!
I've lived in this part of the world for most of my life, so I do know what I'm talking about....from what I've witnessed amongst my friends, and I used to act like that too- many gay Asians DO have self-esteem issues & this is not helping us one bit at all.
We foolishly perpetuate 'gay' stereotypes & let our govts use it against us. Namely, that we're 1) glamour-loving, superfical, bitchy, westernised airheads eager to get rid of our roots, or 2) unhappy, bitter & psychologically unstable individuals with an axe to grind.
The sad thing? From what I've witnessed, most of it is true.
That's why I suggest we in Asia, or more specifically Southeast Asia, should learn fr our Indian glbt brothers & sisters...as MyManFriday wrote, there's still lots of hostility in India. And the situation there is not friendly at all. Why, then, did they succeed in removing the law- without bloodshed & chaos, may I add, while countries like Singapore or Malaysia failed? I also remember that sometime back in China, activists bravely paired up in same-sex wedding demonstrations to show support for gay unions. Keep in mind that China is even more draconian with rgd to public demonstrations.
Question is, do WE possess half their guts? Or class?
Instead of bitterly/sadistically picking on, sneering or jeering our own kind? It's time we take a long, hard, honest, look in the mirror.
http://asiantribune.com/07/09/the-gay-sex-controversy-lands-in-india%E2%80%99s-supreme-court/
Please log in to use this feature.