In the 1990s a film was made in India called Fire. It wasn’t a particularly good film and would have gone into oblivion, as many such films do, had it not been for one fact, that the film depicted a lesbian relationship between its two lead characters. Activists of various right-wing political parties attacked movie theatres showing the film with impunity, claiming that the film was against ‘Hindu culture’. The film was removed from the theatres in short order, and no arrests were made of the people who had destroyed public property worth millions of rupees – society and the police deeming them to be in the right on this issue. Since then, Indian society claims to have ‘moved’, become more ‘liberal’, with more allusions to homosexual relationships in popular entertainment, but these are usually of the kind meant to titillate or invite a few laughs from the front-row seats, rather than stand for the freedom of the individual to choose.

If popular entertainment reflects social mores then homosexuality across the world continues to be viewed as deviant behaviour, an aberration against the ‘norm’, a norm that has been defined primarily through religious fiats. In the US, sitcoms lampoon alternate sexuality, and classify sexual minorities as being ‘different’, thus putting them in a class defined by their sexuality. No public figure can make his or her sexuality public if he or she is not heterosexual, especially if they are in politics.

Religion has played a major role in criminalising homosexuality by terming it a sin. As our columnist points out, under the Islamic Shari’a law in Pakistan, homosexuality is punishable by 100 lashes or even stoning to death. Though the latter punishment has not been inflicted on anyone so far, its possibility is a deterrent to the right of an individual to declare their sexual preference. The Christian Church sternly declares homosexuality a sin, and against the ‘natural order’ of man, notwithstanding the fact that a significant percentage of the Roman Catholic clergy is gay. In recent decades, Vatican officials have stated several times that gays should not become priests because their sexual orientation is "intrinsically disordered" and makes them unsuitable for ministry. The unequivocal declaration of homosexuality as a crime leads to the very natural impulse to hide this ‘weakness’, with many times disastrous consequences. The main thing about religion, as another columnist in this issue in the article titled ‘Why I Am an Atheist’ points out, is that it is static and unchanging even in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary. Thus the Catholic Church continues to deny the notion of gay identity in spite of the fact that homosexuals now form a significant percentage of the population.

For Islamic countries, the matter is simple. A homosexual is a criminal, not just a sinner. His crime is akin to the crime of murder and must be punished accordingly. Consensual and forced relationships are viewed as being the same in the eyes of the law with horrific consequences for the victims. With such sweeping condemnation of the ‘crime’ of homosexuality, is it any wonder that queerness as an identity remains under wraps, thus leading to the smug conviction that it doesn’t exist?

In most Western countries, homosexuality is no longer treated as a crime. But that the battle remains a long way from being won can be seen from the fact that society at large is still not comfortable with the concept of queerness, treating it as a deviation rather than merely as a personality trait, and losing no opportunity to trivialise it.

Organisations that choose to fight for the rights of sexual minorities have a lonely and difficult path ahead. In India, gay unions are far from being an acceptable phenomenon, strongly associated as they are with sin and shame. There are no laws protecting such unions, thus depriving members of any legal status on issues of property and inheritance. In the deeply orthodox and superstitious rural areas, declaration of queerness can lead to only one conclusion, ostracism from the clan, the most important unit aside from family for an individual. Rather than confront such a situation, individuals prefer to either not come out or if outed, many times end up taking their own lives in preference to social boycott. Still there are people out there who have had the courage to reveal their gay identity and brave the scorn of society. If one considers that coming out of the closet can, at the very least, lead to sanctions by the community at large and at the worst turn into a case for criminal prosecution, this is a brave act indeed.

If religion has succeeded in alienating homosexuals, surely Humanism offers a vibrant and workable alternative. However, the vastly different cultural milieus in which homosexuality exists ensures that there is no uniform response to the plight of sexual minorities. Whereas in the West homosexuality no longer results in social ostracism, the situation is vastly different in the rest of the world. Homophobia is widely prevalent in Africa. In Islamic countries criminalisation of the issue has pushed it strongly under wraps. In India, this human right falls far below in priority to other more visible issues of disaffection like caste and membership of a religious minority. Even Humanist organisations do not actively champion the rights of this minority. Advocacy groups are gradually coming up but they are a long way away from gaining respect for their members from society. Given the fact that sex education at the school level is still a taboo in most parts of India, there is very little leeway left for these groups to send out their message.

I shall end this piece with a personal anecdote that admirably demonstrates the attitude of the majority towards homosexuality. At my son’s boarding school the boys had put up Alan Bennett’s well-known play, The History Boys. The play discusses, at a superficial level, the homosexual proclivities of one of the teachers. At a deeper level it raises a debate about education. The play was travelling to three different cities. However, some of the parents protested that the school was conveying a wrong image of itself by putting up a play that showcased homosexuality so openly! Thankfully, the boys had no such apprehensions. They took the play for what it was – a bit of entertainment.

Sangeeta Mall is Editor of International Humanist News