![INDIA: Second Annual Gay Pride Parade](https://www.jurist.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/jurist-white-text.png)
Silpa Swarnapuri, Pitt Law '12, attended the Second Annual Gay Pride Parade held in her home country of India…
On the eve of New Jersey putting the issue of same-sex marriage to popular vote, I recalled India's Second Annual Gay Pride Parade last June. It was held in the cities of Delhi, Kolkata (Calcutta), Chennai and Bhubaneswar. I hadn't been in Delhi for the first parade, and so I followed coverage of the event on TV and in newspapers. I remember being very proud that finally, the parade's organizers and supporters had finally forced India — the world's largest democracy and second most populous nation — to publicly acknowledge its gay and lesbian citizens. I was also very surprised. I could not believe that things had changed so much in the six years I had been away from home, so that such an event could even be organized and held.
In 2008, I had spoken to friends in India who were planning to attend the first parade, and I had the sense that they were enthusiastic and optimistic but also apprehensive about the event. They mentioned rumors that the parade would be sabotaged or not held at all. However, the event took place without incident, and attracted over 1200 people – nearly four times the expected turnout. I wanted to do my part as well, despite living in the city of New York at the time, so I took the train to Christopher Street in Greenwich Village. Spontaneous demonstrations had broken out there at the Stonewall Inn 39 years before, in response to discrimination against sexual minorities. Every year since, gay pride parades have been held across the world to commemorate this day. At the bar of this historic inn, I raised a toast to the first Indian Gay Pride Parade.
One year later, I was thrilled to be home in Delhi for the second parade. This year, the marchers' agenda included a specific issue — the repeal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The British colonial government had introduced this statute in 1860 and it had remained in effect, virtually unaltered, for nearly 150 years. It read,
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature, with any man, woman or animal shall be punishable 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.
In effect, the Section criminalized all non-reproductive penetrative sexual activity.
While convictions under Section 377 of the IPC have been extremely rare, it has been used extensively to target sexual minorities, sex workers and HIV/AIDS prevention efforts. A young gay couple I met this summer told me that fear of harassment under Section 377 led them to maintain a strict heterosexual facade in their affluent suburban New Delhi home. "Coming out" would jeopardize their employment and social standing. As a gay couple, no one would rent them a house, but as two straight friends trying to rent a two-bedroom apartment, they faced no difficulties. The couple participated in the 2008 parade, but had attempted to maintain anonymity by using aliases and feather masks. Nonetheless, they scanned newspapers the next day, worried that someone would recognize them in a crowd photograph.
In recent years, the campaign to repeal Section 377 has gained marked support from the educated urban section of the society, despite fears of reprisal. This year's parade was held days before the Delhi High Court's ruling on the legality of Section 377, and the opposing parties in the matter were clearly delineated. On one side was Voices Against 377, a coalition of non-governmental organizations, with Naz Foundation, a non-profit working with populations affected with HIV/AIDS, at its forefront. On the other side were religious and conservative political organizations. There was disagreement within the government, as well. The Home Ministry was concerned that that the section's repeal would "open the floodgates of delinquent behavior" whereas the Health Ministry supported the decision on the basis that it would help in the struggle against HIV/AIDS.
The march began in the heart of New Delhi — ironically — amidst buildings erected by the British colonial government that had also written Section 377, and continued along the route I had taken for over fifteen years to school. Early into the march, it was evident that there were far more participants than the year before. The atmosphere was colorful and festive. Demonstrators held up banners reading "377 Quit India," reminiscent of the Indian freedom struggle a century ago, when Indians held banners urging the British to "Quit India." Marchers wore flamboyant costumes in all colors of the rainbow and elaborately feathered masks. Foreign media had a strong presence at the march and journalists stopped marchers for quotes and interviews. While the overall mood was upbeat, the masks served as a reminder that the Delhi High Court had yet to make a decision. The need for caution was evident, since, after all, Section 377 was still in force. In a strict legal sense, many of the participants in the march were criminals. The organization of the parade was a first material step in the campaign for equality. The repeal of Section 377 would hopefully be the next step.
I believe that the problem of discrimination against same-sex couples has its origins in modern Indian perceptions of sexuality. India is largely unused to expressions of alternate sexuality in mainstream media and everyday life. Even if homosexuality were to be decriminalized, it would be difficult to shed the stigma attached to the lifestyle. This was a sobering thought, and was reflected in the nature of the parade. The event's focus was not as much on revelry, as on the communication of a political point. Despite the flamboyant costumes, rainbow clothing and elaborate make-up, many of the participants sought to protect their anonymity, visibly flinching as camera flashes went off. Quotes offered to the media were mostly anonymous because of family and social pressures to stay "in the closet."
The Delhi High Court repealed Section 377 three days after the parade. As expected, the decision received a mixed response. While supporters were relieved that Section 377 was no longer in force, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered sections of society still face significant discrimination. Opponents of the decision called the move an "abomination" and intend to move the Supreme Court to overturn the repeal of Section 377. For now, the Section can no longer provide legal basis for discrimi
nation against the gay and lesbian section of society. However, the gap between the law and practice needs to be bridged. While it might be naive to expect a miraculous turnaround in attitudes towards gay and lesbian issues, the repeal is undoubtedly a positive move. Perhaps next year, there will be fewer masks and aliases at the Third Annual Gay Pride Parade.
Photo credits: Mayank Austen Soofi