DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH

PROJECT TITLE
The LGBTQ Community in India

NAME OF FACULTY
Prof. Varalakshmi

SUBJECT
Legal Language

NAME OF CANDIDATE: TN Anusha Rao

ROLL NUMBER: 2017099
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported/partially supported by DSNLU. I thank our esteemed faculty; Prof
Varalakshmi, who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research, during the
preparation of this paper.

I thank him for his assistance that greatly improved the manuscript.
ABSTRACT

The basis of advocacy of most of the human rights organization is the Universal Declaration on
Human Rights. The whole series of human rights declarations, conventions and treaties
pertaining to the rights of various marginalized groups and communities such as children,
women, indigenous people, disabled people, prisoners, religious and ethnic minorities, refugees,
etc. have emerged from this document only. However, one significant absence in international
human rights law has been an express articulation of the specific interests of sexuality minorities.

It is only in the final decade of the 20th century that the gay/ lesbian/ bisexual/ transgender
movement brought to the fore the rights of those discriminated against because of their sexuality.
While the scope of human rights has been extended to include hitherto marginalized
communities at the global level, a similar movement is yet to take place in India. In fact, most
human rights organizations in India (such as the People’s Union of Civil Liberties – PUCL) have
not begun to address the question of rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender, hijras and
others who are oppressed due to their sexuality. Sexuality is sometimes viewed even in liberal
and radical circles as a frivolous, bourgeois issue. In such a context, homosexuality is seen
implicitly as something deviant and unnatural that is at best defended as an individual freedom
but not a matter of priority for the human rights movement. Generally, issues of poverty and
gender, class and caste oppression are seen as more important than that of sexuality. But this
ignores the fact that sexuality is integrally linked to ideologies and structures of social oppression
such as patriarchy, capitalism, the caste system and religious fundamentalism. Hence, the
struggle for sexuality rights cannot be separated from the broader human rights struggle for
economic, political and social liberation.

It has to be noted that homosexuality finds a mention in the various precolonial laws.
Homosexuality is seen as an offence in Manusmrithi, which however can be expiated.
Lesbianism by contrast merits more serious punishment. Islamic Shariat law treats homosexual
conduct as a serious offence, though it is being argued by some recently formed gay Muslim
organizations that Islamic law can be interpreted in a nonhomophobic fashion. It was with the
enactment of uniform criminal laws in India, in 1860 that there was a uniform proscription of
homosexual behavior.
CONTENTS

Topic Page no.

● Objectives of the study 4

● Significance and benefit of the study 4
● Scope of the study 4
● Review of literature 4
● Research methodology 4
● Hypothesis 4
● Body of the project 5
● Outcomes of the project 19
● Suggestions and conclusions 19
● Bibliography 20
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This paper seeks to determine the extent and manner in which the proscription of “carnal
intercourse against the order of nature” under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 makes
criminals out of homosexuals.

SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFITS OF THE STUDY

This research paper examines the successful fight against the provision in Section 377 of the
Penal Code of India that criminalised private consensual sex between adults of the same sex.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study revolves around the discriminations to the LGBT community and the hardships they
suffer.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

During the preparation of this research work, the researcher has reviewed many articles from the
newspapers, magazines, journals and books, along with the use of online sources.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research work is basically doctrinal in nature, where the research was confined to the library
only.

HYPOTHESIS

The societal attitude towards the people belonging to the LGBT community is not proper and
they are also denied of their rights, at times.
BODY OF THE PROJECT

Is the criminal proscription under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 confined to certain
sexual acts or homosexuality in general? This question is inspired by the dismissal of a recent
petition challenging the constitutionality of this the anti-sodomy provision of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereafter S 377). The challenge to the law was brought by Naz India, an NGO
working on health-related issues of men who have sex with men (MSM).
The History of Section 377

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was authored by Lord Macaulay, the President of the
Indian Law Commission, in 1860, as part of Britain's efforts to impose Victorian values on its
biggest colony (similar laws were imposed on most of its colonies, including the United States).
It reads as follows:
“Section 377: Unnatural offences – Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order
of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall be liable
to fine.
Explanation – Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the
offence described in this section.”1
Although not explicitly defined, “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” has been taken
by the Indian courts in the intervening years to include anal sex, oral sex, and in some cases other
non-procreative sexual acts, such as mutual masturbation.2 Although heterosexual couples also
partake in these acts, the weight of the law over the centuries has fallen on homosexual sex.3
Even when such sex is consensual, the “voluntary” provision in the law makes it illegal.
Laws such as Section 377 have long been abandoned in most Western democracies, although
they persist in many post-colonial countries in
Asia and Africa (except South Africa and Nepal). In the 1980s, the European Court of Human
Rights ruled that criminalising same-sex sexualbehaviour was a violation of protections of
private life.4 Britain, the author of the Indian Penal Code and Section 377 during the colonial
period, decriminalised homosexuality in 1967. In India, the difficulty of proving that “carnal
intercourse against the order of nature” has taken
place in private has meant that the law has only infrequently been applied in court judgements.
Achieving a prosecution requires catching two people carrying out the sexual act, which usually
1
Indian Penal Code. Section 377. Unnatural Offences. 1860. At: <www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/ indianpenalcode/S377.htm>.

2
Gupta A. Section 377 and the dignity of Indian homosexuals. Economic and Political Weekly. 18 November 2006.

3
4. Bhardwaj K. Reforming Macaulay. The Asian Age.5 July 2009. At:

4
Miller A. Sexuality and human rights: discussion paper. Geneva: International Council on Human Rights Policy; 2009.
takes place in private. Since 1930, there has been only one prosecution of adults having same-sex
consensual sex.5 Of the 50 reported judgements under Section 377 reviewed by Gupta, 30% were
cases of sexual assault or abuse of minors, with the remainder involving non-consensual sex
between adults. Gupta notes, however, that this review covered reported judgements of the Court
of Appeal only – there may have been other cases that went to trial that, since they were not
appealed, were not reviewed.
However, although few cases against consenting adults have gone to trial, the existence of
Section 377, and the threat of possible arrest, have allowed the authorities to discriminate against
homosexuals and organisations working with them. Thus, Section 377 has had an enormous
negative impact on many people's lives.
Legal discrimination against sexuality minorities operates through the criminal and civil law
systems. The regime of discrimination can be analyzed under the following heads:

Meaning of Section 377

The Indian Penal Code was an important experiment in the larger colonial project along with
exercises in codification like the Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code to apply the
collective principles of common law in British India. Thomas Babbington Macaulay, the
president of the Indian Law Commission in 1835, was charged with the testing task of drafting
the Indian Penal Code also as a unifying effort to consolidate and rationalise the “splintered
systems prevailing in the Indian Subcontinent”.6
S 377’s predecessor in Macaulay’s first draft of the Penal Code was clause 361, which defined a
severe punishment for touching another for the purpose of unnatural lust.7 Macaulay abhorred
the idea of any debate or discussion on this “heinous crime”, and in the Introductory Report to
the proposed draft Bill (dated 1837) stated that:
Clause 361 and 362 relate to an odious class of offences respecting which it is desirable that as
little as possible should be said […we] are unwilling to insert, either in the text or in the notes,
anything which could give rise to public discussion on this revolting subject; as we are decidedly

5
Khanna S. Gay rights. In: Humjinsi: A Resource Book on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Rights in India. Fernandez B, editor. Mumbai:
Indian Centre for Human Rights and Law; 2002. p.55–65.

6
The different prevailing systems were in the Bombay, Madras and Bengal Presidencies
7
Cl 361: “Whoever intending to gratify unnatural lust, touches for that purpose any person or any animal or is by his own consent touched by
any person for the purpose of gratifying unnatural lust, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
14 years, and must not be less than two years”.
of opinion that the injury which would be done to the morals of the community by such
discussion would far more than compensate for any benefits which might be derived from
legislative measures framed with the greatest precision.8
The lack of any debate or discussion, suggesting the creation of this definition purely out of the
discretion of Macaulay, also explains the sheer vagueness and ineffectiveness of the language of
the proposed anti-sodomy section. Narrain notes that the concept of an unnatural touch was too
vague to be an effective penal stature, and the final draft was a substantial improvement on the
initial draft. 6 S 377 in its final draft is still shrouded with euphemisms. The final outcome to
prevent this “revolting” and injurious activity evolved in the form of the following text:
Section 377: Unnatural offences – Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order
of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to 10 years, and shall be liable to fine.
Explanation – Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the
offence described in this section.
S 377 is both very similar to sodomy statutes around the world in that it re-instates and codifies
the common law offence of sodomy, and at the same time, it is very different from a lot of the
sodomy statues:
(a) The statute, unlike many other similar laws, does not define a specific offence of sodomy. As
a piece of legislation, S 377 applies a vague offence – without defining what “carnal intercourse”
or “order of nature” are – to the general public at large, the only criteria being “penetration”. It is
a separate issue that the Indian courts over the decades have interpreted and constantly re-defined
“carnal intercourse” read conjunctively with the “order of nature” – to include other non-
procreative sexual acts.
(b) It applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Over the years, the general offence of
sodomy became a specific offence of homosexual sodomy,9 a significant distinction although
never reflected in the Indian law has subsequently been read through

8
Report of the Indian Law Commission on the Penal Code, October 14, 1837, pp 3990-91.
9
S 13 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956 of England for example read as follows “It is an offence for a man to commit an act of gross indecency
with another man”.
in certain later cases by the Indian courts. There has been a tendency in Indian courts to create an
association between the sexual acts and certain kinds of persons, who are more likely to commit
the act – thereby giving a character and face to sodomy in the form of a homosexual.

Meaning of Sodomy
The result of the “reticence”10 of the law-makers to define loathsome11 offences like anti-sodomy
has resulted in the use
of euphemisms from “touching another with unnatural lust” to “carnal intercourse”. This
ambiguity in 377 has left it purely to the imagination12 of the judges to apply it to specific cases
and also, in that process, determine what kinds of sexual acts qualify as unnatural offences.
There are two simultaneous trends:
(a) At one level the definition of sodomy is being broadened to include sexual activities apart
from anal sex to oral sex, thigh sex, mutual masturbation, etc. Simultaneously the use of
euphemisms continues from the “Sin of Sodom” to the “Sin of Gomorrah”, and from “carnal
intercourse” we move beyond sodomy to more modern definitions of “gross indecency” and
“sexual perversity”.
(b) Simultaneously, the target of 377, and the criminal law, is not this “grossly indecent” act
anymore, but the person himself, the sodomite, the sexually depraved and perverse – the
consenting homosexual.

10
“Moreover, legislation against sexual vice are usually so vague that what counts as criminal wrong-doing is left to the judgment of the police
officer. This may be due in part to the reticence of lawmakers to specify these crimes more precisely, since they are traditionally regarded as
crimes not fit to be named.” A R Louch, ‘Sins and Crimes’ in Richard A Wasserstrom, Morality and the Law, p 75.
11
“The early legislators, in keeping with the delicacy of the early writers on the English Common Law were reluctant to set out in detail the
elements of sodomy because of its loathsome nature”. In Grace Jeyramani vs E P Peter AIR 1982 Karnataka 46, para 10, p 48.
12
O Phillips (1999) ‘Sexual Offences in Zimbabwe: Fetishisms of Procreation, Perversion and Individual Autonomy’, unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Cambridge, July, p 185.
Other forms of legal discrimination
∙• Section 46 of the Army Act notes that “Any person subject to this act who
(a) is guilty of disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind… can be removed from
service”. There are similar provisions in the Navy Act that subjects all employees of the Indian
Navy to the disciplinary requirements under a similar enactment.
∙• The legal provisions relating to obscenity (Section 292 and 294 IPC), the concept of moral
turpitude as a ground for dismissal from service, and provisions in the various state Police Acts
can also be used to target same sex behaviors and identities. Thus, the only way homosexuality
figures in Indian law is as a conduct to be prohibited.
∙• There is no recognition of the rights of sexuality minorities in law. For instance, same sex
unions do not even have legal recognition, let alone any of the economic and legal rights/benefits
available to heterosexual marriage contracts. Same-sex couples are deprived of, among other
things, the right to common property and inheritance, “next of kin” privileges in the event of
illness or death of their partner, and custody maintenance and adoption rights.
Given the fact that all cases of same-sex union in India that have appeared in the media are those
of women from smaller towns, their economic and social vulnerability makes the legal and social
acceptance of their relationship vital. (Bina Fernandez, Humjinsi, 1999).

∙• The constitution, while it contains certain prohibited grounds of discrimination such as race,
caste, creed, sex, etc, does not specifically include sexual orientation. Thus the position of the
law includes aspects which both empower the police to harass and reduce sexuality minorities to
non-entities in the eyes of the law. In other words, sexuality minorities are subjects who have
become fit to be harassed, but are invisible when it comes to themselves being right holders.

Emergence of sexuality minority activism

One welcome development is the formation in April 2000 of a coalition of sexuality minorities
(including a lawyer’s collective and a woman’s group) to resist these increasing police violations
against gay/bisexual men in parks and other recreational areas. The coalition has been able to
bring about some public awareness and support for the issue, leading in turn to the admittedly
minimal empowerment of a hitherto powerless minority to be able to at least report instances of
police harassment to a sensitive group. The coalition comprises several Bangalore-based
organizations, such as ALF, Good As You (GAY), Manasa, Sabrang, Sangama, Snehashraya,
and Swabhava, which are involved with the rights of sexuality minorities.
According the members of the coalition, police atrocities on the homo/bisexual and transgender
people have increased alarmingly in the months spanning February to April 2000. “They are
actively harassing, blackmailing, physically and verbally abusing the gay and homosexual group
of people,” alleged members of the Coalition (Bangalore Weekly, 8 June 2000). “There have
been several such instances of abuse. A week ago, we saw a person being beaten up in a public
area under the Fraser Town Police Station by cops belonging to the Hoysala team No. 36.
Similarly two weeks ago11 persons were beaten up in two separate incidents in Cubbon Park.”

Societal Discrimination
Underpinning intimidation by organs of the state is an insidious and pervasive culture of silence
and intolerance practiced by different sections and institutions of society.
Many people deny the existence of sexuality minorities in India, dismissing same-sex behavior
as a Western, upper-class phenomenon. Many others label it as a disease to be cured, an
abnormality to be set right or a crime to be punished. While there are no organized hate groups in
India as in the West, the persecution of sexuality minorities in India is more insidious. Often,
sexuality minorities themselves don’t want to admit the fact of persecution because it intensifies
their fear, guilt and shame. Social stigma casts a pall of invisibility over the life of sexuality
minorities, which makes them frequent targets of harassment, violence, extortion, and often,
sexual abuse from relations, acquaintances, hustlers, goondas, and the police.
All this denial and rejection by society under various pretexts backed by an enforced invisibility,
exposes sexuality minorities to constant abuse and discrimination. Social discrimination against
sexuality minorities manifests itself in the production of the ideology of heterosexism which
establishes the male-female sexual relationship as the only valid/ possible lifestyle and renders
invalid the lives and culture of those who do not fit in. The ideology of heterosexism pervades all
dominant societal institutions such as the family, the medical establishment, popular culture,
public spaces, workspaces and household spaces. We will examine each of these sites through
which sexuality minorities are silenced and oppressed individually.
The Family
Most Indian families socialize children into the inevitability of heterosexual marriage and the
pressure to marry begins to be applied slowly but inexorably. Both men and women experience
the pressure, but undoubtedly the pressure is greater on women, who in the Indian context have
far less independence. There is no space within the family to express a non-heterosexual
alternative. In this conservative context some sexuality minorities have chosen to ‘come out’ to
their families as having an alternative sexual orientation. The reaction to this particular
disclosure has ranged from acceptance to violent rejection.
The family may completely disown their son or daughter and refuse to accept that he or she is
homosexual and forces the child to undergo psychiatric treatment in a vain attempt to convert
them into heterosexuality or to push them into an unhappy marriage where the wife suffers
equally, bearing the burden of an unworkable marriage, and her sexual freedom curbed. In one
reported case of a boy studying in a prestigious college in Bangalore, when he came out to his
parents, they chose to disown him. They stopped paying his college fees forcing him to
discontinue his studies for one year.
However after a year had passed they were mollified enough to finally accept him. In another
reported case of a young man whose mother found out he was gay, she threatened to take legal
action against him. The most tragic case pertains to a newly married gay man who could not bear
the vicious verbal abuse of his domineering brother and he and his wife are rumored to have
committed suicide. Often, as in this case, the suicide is deflected by friends and family and
attributed to a family quarrel or some other cause. In fact, such a suicide, brought about by social
persecution, is nothing short of social murder.
However there are some families who have taken time to adjust to a new reality, going through
phases of denial, hatred, bitterness and finally acceptance. In one recent case, a retired police
officer and his wife came to the group Sabrang to find out more about homosexuality as his son
had come out to him as being gay. The parents after going through initial shock were learning to
cope with the new reality.

What also needs to be understood is that nothing prepares parents for such a disclosure
considering the absolute lack of non-judgmental information. Since there are few mechanisms,
which can help parents to understand and cope with such disclosures, violence and hostility are
understandable responses to coming out in a cultural context of homophobia.

On the whole the portrayal of sexuality minorities outside the metropolitan context is not only
very minimal but also generally negative. Sexuality minorities from non-English backgrounds
have no role models to look up to. Which is one of the reasons why gay men from non-English
speaking backgrounds are less able to resist the pressure to get married, to see the possibilities of
same-sex love/relationships and to take on a gay identity.

In such a context where our main cultural institutions construct an environment wherein
homosexuality is a perversion, or refuse to talk about homosexuality and there is little space for
positive and affirming constructions of homosexuality, it is inevitable that we create mindsets in
which sexuality minorities feel lonely, desperate, and even suicidal. The kind of oppression that
a dominant culture of heterosexuality can foster in those who see themselves differently needs to
be studied more seriously.

Public Spaces
Public spaces are not only gendered but also heterosexist. Men have more access to public spaces
than women. The kind of oppression men face in the public parks has already been documented.
Apart from the police, society too oppresses sexuality minorities. Especially for lesbians there is
no safe access to public spaces, no space where they (unlike gay/ bisexual men) can meet other
lesbians. Even gay, bisexual and transgender people spoke to us about the ‘un-safeness’ of
cruising areas.

Workspaces
Most sexuality minorities dare not be open about their sexuality at their work space for fear of
ostracism at best and termination of employment at worst. Thus what is normal heterosexual
social interaction (talking about husbands and wives, women and men one finds attractive, etc.)
becomes impossible as sexuality minorities try and disguise the ‘he’ for the ‘she’ and vice versa.
In addition to this hidden psychological violence, which most sexuality minorities suffer, some
have suffered direct discrimination too.
Activists spoke about one young boy from Thiruvananthapuram who was dismissed from his
dance troupe on his employer finding out that he was gay.

Household Spaces
Most of the time when people of the same sex live together, there might not be an ‘unnatural’
connotation put to it. However when the couple is found out to be lesbian or gay, discrimination
does ensue. When a Bombay-based activist came out, she quickly found out that she had to find
a new place to live in as her landlord asked her and her partner to move out. Activists also spoke
about the huge barriers hijra populations faced in getting accommodation due to what can be
called hijra-phobia, which is deeply ingrained in the dominant culture.
Impact of Discrimination on the Self
The combined operation of the various societal institutions and mechanisms which bear down
upon the affected person constructs a mindset wherein the person begins to think of himself as
dirty, worthless, unclean and vulgar. The invisibility and silence which surrounds the existence
of sexuality minority lives and worlds produces its own order of oppression, creating in many the
impression that they are the only ones ‘cursed’ with such desires in the world. In one particularly
poignant incident that emerged in the testimony the team came to know of a person from
Dharwad who came to know that there were other people in the world with desires similar to his
own only when he was sixty years old.
There is an enormous erosion of self-esteem, which is perpetuated by the way dominant society
operates, what it believes in and what it says. It is a process of self abuse wherein the person
believes that what society says about sexuality minorities is true for herself. As Elavarti Manohar
reflected in his personal account of coming out:
“I began to dislike myself for being a homosexual and felt ashamed that I had to hide my
sexuality all the time. Many questions haunted me. ‘Why did I become a homosexual? Am I not
man enough? What if someone discovers that I am gay? Would I be able to live the rest of my life
with shame.?’ I could own my sexuality under the cover of darkness, in a world peopled by
anonymous individuals; everywhere else I had to suppress it. Leading a double life was tearing
me apart. Suppressing my sexuality did not help either.” 13
This process of self-abuse in some people leads to cycles of depression and self-rejection,
leading to attempts at suicide and sometimes-actual suicide. This is especially true for an
adolescent gay/lesbian/bisexual for whom there is confusion about one’s sexuality and sexual
identity. Many who testified at the hearing spoke about having contemplated suicide at one time
or another in their life. Recently, in Kerala about 5 or 6 couples of lesbian women were reported
to have attempted suicide because of their lesbianism. Subsequently, some of the survivors are
being persecuted for being lesbian (Humjinsi).

13
(“Many People, Many Sexualities: a Personal Journey”, Voices, April 1999).
Issues of further marginalization
Lesbians
Even more than gay/bisexual men, lesbians are a largely silent and invisible people and often
said to be (sometimes even by women’s organizations) non-existent in India. For this reason,
they rarely face police harassment through Section 377. But this hidden, invisible space forces
them to live an anonymous and secretive life, in shame and guilt. There are a number of reasons
for this closet existence. The most important reason has to do with Indian society, which is
constructed on the norms of heterosexuality, monogamous marriage, and the control/denial of
women’s sexuality. These norms stigmatize lesbian and bisexual women just as they perpetrate
violence against heterosexual women and keep them in a subordinate position in the family.14
Thus gender discrimination and discrimination against lesbians and bisexual women go together.
Another reason is that public space in Indian society is predominantly male; unlike gay/bisexual
men who are able to find public places (parks, toilets etc.), albeit risky and restricted, lesbians
and bisexual women have no such spaces. Often they are confined to the home, which though
defined as the woman’s space, is hardly the place where woman’s sexuality, least of all lesbian
and bisexual women’s sexuality, can find expression. Patriarchy forces all women, heterosexual
or lesbian, into marriage, and pushes them into obligatory roles of mother and wife. This is one
of the reasons why even the various organizations which have been formed by sexuality
minorities have had limited lesbian participation.
“In the meeting the team had with a small group of lesbians (Hindu middle class) on 16
December, 2000, the team realized that though there are commonalities that lesbians share with
other sexuality minorities, the way oppression operates among them is significantly different.
Thus, for instance, about the incidence of police harassment, Lakshmi pointed out that the issue
might be more relevant for gay men than for lesbians. Similarly, the struggle for lifting Section
377, she felt, would help mostly gay/bisexual men (although it is occasionally used against
women as well). According to her, the more important issue was the right of all homosexual
people to marry those of their own gender.”15

14
Human Rights Violations against Sexual Minorities in India PUCL-K, 2001
15
ibid
The most critical problem facing lesbians in India was the way society simply refused to
recognize them and was trying to silence their existence. This was ensured through the family,
which, they all agreed, was the most oppressive and the least supportive for lesbian relationships.
In fact, single women who rejected marriage are safer and more tolerated by society than lesbian
couples who want to be in a relationship. Even close friendships between women are frowned
upon by the family due to some unexpressed suspicion. If their parents found out about their
daughter being in a lesbian relationship, some might even complain to the police that she had
been kidnapped and bring her back into the family and get her married off. Conversely, if their
family supported them, Sheela felt that they could do anything in society.
Everybody in Indian society thinks that the only security for women is obtained from a marital
relationship with a man. This becomes inevitable, as close relatives will ask the parents if your
daughter has not yet got married and this pressurizes parents too.
Everybody thinks that only if a girl gets married to a man will she be secure. Lakshmi was of the
opinion that in our society there is no space for individuality for women who have to live entirely
according to social norms and parental demands.16 “In all circumstances, we have to do what our
parents say regardless of our desires. If they say sit we have to sit, if they say stand we have to
stand.” Even where parents are broad minded, they are afraid of society and tend to conform to
social norms. Speaking about their personal experiences, the two couples said that they had met
each other at college and decided to enter into stable relationships. It was difficult to get to know
other lesbians, as there were no spaces where one could meet other lesbians.17

Once one got into a lesbian relationship, one could not confide in anyone else and kept it a secret
as far as possible. When Sheela called up Devaki, the latter would ensure that her mother did not
know about it. But Devaki was lucky to have a sister who knew about their relationship and
would help her by clearing the ground; however if her brother came to know about it he would
not be as supportive. Sensing similar support, Devaki had approached her aunt who, quite to her
surprise, revealed to her that she too had been a lesbian but she had been forced to get married.
“At least that gave me some consolation. Only a lesbian will understand the problems of

16
ibid
17
ibid
another.” Her aunt told her that she should not make the mistake she did and yield to pressure
and get married. Nevertheless, many lesbians are able to continue their relationship even after
their marriage.
What also emerged during the course of the discussion was that becoming a lesbian was a
process of self discovery: As Nandini noted, at first she felt that she was doing something wrong
and she prayed to God to forgive her. But now she had accepted her identity. Lakshmi and
Nandini pointed out that their families regarded their relationships as frivolous and temporary,
which they would get over the moment they got married. Whereas for them the relationship was
long lasting and the recurrent nightmare they had was that the relationship would be broken up
and that they would be separated. About the media, they felt that while it is overwhelmingly
heterosexual in focus, there was increasing coverage of homosexuality and lesbianism in
publications like Femina and in a film like Fire, which had increased the awareness of their
identity and their situation in society.18
In conclusion, they felt that for sexuality rights activists, the first priority is to push for same sex
marriage. As Devaki said: “if it becomes legal, our parents will fall silent, they will have to give
us support.” Only when homosexuality is treated on par with heterosexuality in all respects can
lesbianism flourish in our society.19

Bisexuals
Bisexuals are people who are attracted to persons of both genders. Bisexuality decentres our
binary notions about homosexual/heterosexual. For many bisexuals, the gender of their partner is
not very important.
Many of the oppressions documented in the report are common to all sexuality minorities
including bisexuals such as police oppression, oppression by the medical establishment, family
and society.
However, there are concerns centering on bisexual identity/ orientation, which are specific to
bisexuals. In India, as in other parts of the world, sexuality minority activism is led by gay men.
So the problems and issues of bisexual men and women tend to get sidelined. According to a

18
ibid
19
ibid
dominant strand of opinion in both mainstream society and gay/lesbian groups, bisexuals are
unstable and confused people who wear the mask of bisexuality in order to get wider acceptance
in society. Further, bisexuality as an issue is rarely discussed in gay /lesbian groups though there
are exceptions. There are also no groups /organizations which take up bisexual issues
exclusively. From the responses to a questionnaire we circulated among a few bisexuals, it
was evident that many bisexuals experience a denial of their sexuality as they face reactions from
gay and straight people that range from perplexity to outright hostility.20
One of our respondents cited a remark of a gay activist during a meeting that “there were no true
bisexual males, only behaviorally bisexual males”. To the question as to whether bisexuals
experience any denial of their identity, the response was: “Yes, many times. Both from
heterosexuals and homosexuals. Male homosexuals were particularly very bi-phobic.”21 A lot of
the bisexual concerns that emerged in the responses centered around lack of social spaces, lack
of support organizations and lack of a cohesive community in India. Lack of any bisexuality
activism in India was also felt to be a serious problem. However , it must be understood that
gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and hijras are not mutually exclusive identities or for that matter
exhaustive.22 As our survey of different sexuality minorities suggests, sexuality is not a
monochrome issue, and sometimes needs to be understood in terms of ambiguities, fluidities and
continuities which move beyond the dichotomies of male versus female, gay versus heterosexual,
and so on.

Hijras

Hijras as a community express a feminine gender identity, coming closest experientially to what
would be called in the West a transsexual, that is “a female trapped in a male body.” 23 It is a
socio-religious construct marked by extreme gender nonconformity in the sense that there is no
correlation between their anatomical sex and gender identity. For most heterosexuals and many
homosexuals, if their anatomical sex is male, their gender identity is male. For hijras, though
their anatomical sex is male, their gender identity is female. The hijra role attracts persons with a

20
ibid
21
ibid
22
ibid
23
ibid
wide range of cross gender characteristics and accommodates different personalities, sexual
preferences, needs and behaviors. Many of them undergo sex reassignment surgery, while some
of the hijris are born hermaphrodites. While hijras are despised, punished and pushed
beyond the pale in most societies, they are supposed to have a sanctioned place in Hindu society
(especially in weddings, births and festivals) as a viable and recognized ‘third gender’,
accommodating gender variation, ambiguity and contradictions. It could also be argued that
hijras are generally visible, ‘out’ and part of an organized community unlike other sexuality
minorities who still remain closeted. But this presumed cultural status can barely conceal the
stark reality of the hijra existence in Indian cities where their transgressive sexuality - which is
violative of heterosexist norms of society - is circumscribed by experiences of shame, dishonor
and violence. In Bangalore, as in South India generally, the hijras do not have the cultural role
that they do in North India (where they predominate), and take up sex work as the only way to
earn a living. They usually run ‘hamams’ (bath houses) frequented by working class men (many
of whom are married). It is a demeaning and dangerous profession, as they are often subjected to
the depredations of brutal customers, many of them ‘rowdies’ and the unscrupulous police. The
following account of the abuses suffered by hijras under various aspects is based on our
discussions with them on 8 October 2000.24

24
ibid
OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT
The hypothesis of this research work is duly proved and hence was correct.

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

What became apparent in the course of our study is that discrimination against sexuality
minorities is embedded in both state and civil society. Any proposal for social change would
have to take into account this complex reality. A greater respect for sexuality minorities as
people would depend upon a variety of factors, including a change in gender relations and class
relations. Change would also crucially hinge upon overturning the existing regime of sexuality
that enforces its own hierarchies, (e.g. heterosexuality over homosexuality), exclusions (e.g.
hijras as the excluded category) and oppressions. Despite the importance of social change, one
still has to redress the ongoing human rights violations against sexuality minorities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Human Rights Violations against Sexual Minorities in India PUCL-K, 2001
2. “Many People, Many Sexualities: a Personal Journey”, Voices, April 1999
3. O Phillips (1999) ‘Sexual Offences in Zimbabwe: Fetishisms of Procreation, Perversion
and Individual Autonomy’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge
4. Report of the Indian Law Commission on the Penal Code, October 14,1837, pp 3990-91
5. Khanna S. Gay rights. In: Humjinsi: A Resource Book on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual
Rights in India. Fernandez B, editor. Mumbai: Indian Centre for Human Rights and Law;
2002.