Uffes question: “What are the living conditions for homosexuals in India. Socially, culturally and politically?”

Politically:

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 ten years, and shall also be liable to fine

This law, section 377 of the Indian penal code, is what makes homosexuality illegal in India. The law is very vague, and has been used against other things than homosexuality, for example oral sex and bestiality. Punishments range from ten years in prison to lifetime imprisonment. No one has actually been convicted under this law for the past twenty years, but it’s used as a threat to blackmail homosexuals, and as an excuse to forcefully break up same-sex couples.

Petitions and open letters have been sent to the Indian government urging the repeal of section 377 from differents parties, NGOs and high-profile indians, but as of right now, the law remains in effect. (For one example of a reaction against section 377, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/18/gayrights.books)

The justification of section 377 applied to consenting adults has been down-played recently, but the official word in India is that homosexuality is illegal.

Culturally

In large cities, such as Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi, there is an active gay community and a night life scene which caters to a LGBT audience. My impression is that Delhi is the gay center of India, with many clubs and a section of the magazine Time Out (Delhi) devoted to “gay events”

In the countryside, far away from the gay movement, same-sex couples are often met with harassment or even violence. Stories of double suicides of young same-sex lovers are not uncommon, I’ve seen some examples in the newspaper myself. However, other things happen in the countryside as well, some lesbian couples get married through traditional Hindu weddings, and these marriages are technically as valid as other marriages.

Within the modern art community of India, which is where I meet people for my kaospilot project, there is a large acceptance towards homosexuals. People I talk to tell me that being gay can in fact increase one’s status within the art community. One’s sexual preference and identity is a statement in itself.

Socially

What I learn from talking to people about homosexuals in India has some similarities to the answers I got to the Alan Webber question. In short: if you have the money, you can do whatever you want, even be homosexual, if you’re poor you’ll face harassment and possibly violence. Besides money as such, I believe this difference is closely related to level of education and whether you live in a “traditional” community or not.

A very common sight is two men holding hands walking down the street, or hugging and being otherwise intimate in ways which in scandinavia would be immediatly interpreted as homosexual. Although I see many examples of this every day, my Indian friends tell me that it was much more prevalent in earlier years, before homosexuality became something people talk about.

I have met a young filmmaker who is also active in the queer community, and her opinion is that the gay world of India is becoming oppressive in itself. She feels a homo-norm has taken over, which just lite the hetero-norm of general society creates structures where not everyone can or wants to fit in. This is exactly what people I know in the queer community at home feel is the problem with  the LGBT movement.

Not everyone wants to walk in the gay pride parade, not even in India.

Reflection concerning marriage and money.

That answers the question, but I would like to round off with a short reflection. I sometimes have a cynical outlook on the world, and any explanation for social phenomema which asks the question: “where’s the money in this?” is an explanation I find appealing. India has a system of arranged marriages, and family ties are very important. The artist Sunil Gupta, who is gay, says the following in an interview at artconcerns.net (http://www.artconcerns.net/2007september/html/interview_sunilGupta.htm)

“When I told my parents I was gay, they asked how it was related to my marital life. /—/ behind this marriage thing is the concern about property…feudal…to have an heir who can inherit the property. That’s what obsesses them [mr. Gupta's parents]– who is marrying whom, intricate ways in which people are attached and detached through property.

Many social structures have the purpose of making sure money is handled properly (ie. stays in the family)

I believe this is part of the explanation as to why women are treated in very controlling ways throughout the world, and have to wear certain kinds of clothing, and behave in certain ways. As a husband, I want to be sure that the children I pass on my property to are really -my- children, thus I have to lock up my wife so the only one she’s having sexual intercourse with is myself. For some reason I can’t just trust her about this, and so I have to control every aspect of her life. Twisted logic I think, but it does appreciate the money issue, and is twisted in a perfectly human way.

Inheritance can’t explain all the il-will towards the LGBT community and women, but I feel there’s some root to the problem, in money.