Vinod Mathew By

Here is a scenario that invariably gets played out in many Indian families, with predictable variations, at some point of time or the other: “Ankit is spending more time than what is ‘healthy’ with Aarti. Why don’t you speak to him?” And the classic answer: “What do I tell him? He may not like it. Give it some time he would soon get over her. Let’s not precipitate matters.”

Ankit spending too much time with Gaurav has never been an issue, just as Aarti seeing too much of Divya has never been a source of undue worry for parents. Because such relationships, when brought to the notice of even the most liberal parents, more often than not, are brushed under the carpet in a mighty hurry.

As per the Government of India’s submission to the Supreme Court in 2012, there were 2.5 million people of same-sex orientation in the country. Considering the conservative society that we live in, chances are the number of closet gays would be much more. While no LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) census has been conducted in India, conservative guesstimates would put the number at six-eight million.

In comparison, there are about eight million men and women of same-sex orientation in the US. On Friday, the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, ruled that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, “No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision.

But it is highly unlikely that the Friday decision of the US Supreme Court will bring the swelling number of the LGBT community tumbling out of the closet in a mighty hurry. Because, we still swear allegiance to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1861, whereby the British Raj banned homosexual relations, along the lines of what they enacted in the rest of the erstwhile British Empire, on the basis of Christian religious beliefs.

The LGBT community in India got a reprieve in July 2009 when the Delhi High Court declared Sec 377 of IPC unconstitutional as far as sex between consenting adults was concerned. But it was shortlived as in December 2013, the ruling was overturned by the apex court which observed that amending or repealing Section 377 should be a matter left to Parliament, not the judiciary.

An unlikely scenario as Parliament would fight shy of revisiting this area, given the hefty political price to pay. No political party would be interested in taking a decision pertaining to a miniscule minority, which would cost majority votes. And our society continues to be gripped by the ostrich syndrome whenever the topic of same-sex relationships crop up.

Therefore, when a matrimonial ad got placed just a month ago, “Seeking 25-40, well-placed, animal-loving, vegetarian groom for my son 36, 5 11’ who works with an NGO, caste no bar (though Iyer preferred)”, it was an exception rather than the rule. Because the ad was placed by Padma Iyer, mother of Mumbai-based gay rights activist Harish Iyer. And the irony of modern India still steeped in tradition where even a gay activist would abide by his mother’s wish as far as the selection of life partner is concerned cannot be ignored.

There are no simplistic solutions here. There is no reason to suspect that the US Supreme Court decision will suddenly make Indian parents worried about their daughters not showing any interest in boys—in fact, they will be a relieved lot. Just as they would be thankful that the boys are happy hanging around with boys and not going ‘astray’ in the company of girls, with compromising FB posts and all. Because, in India, we are like this only.

vinodmathew@newindianexpress.com