Episodes of A Dog
In The Global Village
In the utter conspiracy of our existence,
The mind sputters to life:
“Beginnings,” I howl in the rusty country midnights. “They must spring
forward from somewhere.” From which, towards which,
From the urgent belly of a hungry mind, only conjectures.
From the feral priest, to his pitiful deities.
From the amorous father, to his mindless sons.
To his living progeny. Only intellection.
In the name of explication: “His duty, our honor to receive.”
For once, there is universal agreement.
A: Although we still do not see eye to eye.
B: That's because you are shorter than I am!
A: Here we go again.
B: Size Queen.
A: Will it kill you to swallow the olive fig?
B: My urine-soaked teddy bear will slaughter me.
A: What are you? Five?
B: I have a formidable imagination.
A: And I have the last word.
B: (Picks Up The Kitchen Cleaver) Yes, you do.
Of a vague, overarching notion.
Of an inchoate strand of an idea that goes on.
Serendipity, coincidence, a nacreous master plan.
Or a motley crew of nothing and everything.
Yet it stands so clearly: That there is a starting point.
Like an overture to the symphony,
It stands so clearly: There is a beginning.
(But in the weal of our discovery.)
But oh, But oh, Look.
The Logical Sense, tells me that there is an end.
What must begin, it must finish. Cruel adage,
Stocked in the supermarket of our modern rotting living,
Along the pristine shelves, “Near The Detergent Section,”
She said, as she moved away nonchalantly to
Fulfill her hourly commitment to Minimum Wage.
“An excellent choice for a God,” I offered.
She never smiled, as she lugged her cartons of cartons away.
And I continued to sniff for it.
Before finding the cruel adage in an ordered mess – designed in such a way so we can spend our money better. “It is good for us,”
A situation for our mutual victory. The advertisement had proclaimed.
So Buy It. And it CONVEYED nothing more essential.
Footnote: But you can live your wealth on
this contagious Earth.
Then leave it here.
“Yes, it spreads nowhere but here. Peculiar disease,” Doctor Williams had said.
“Mom, is there sodium in here,” I asked a long time ago,
a paw in my mouth.
My virgin experience with the product of human living.
CHECK THE LABEL.
“Why can't you just tell me if -”
BECAUSE YOU NEED TO LEARN HOW TO READ.
“Really now? Two infinitives in one sentence, Mom?”
JUST TRY. OKAY?
OH YES, I FORGOT TO MENTION.
“Mention what, Mom?”
TAKE IT WITH AN EXTRA BUCKET OF SALT.
Cruel Adage: 240 Calories. Go Towards The End.
It Will Further Read: Wise Words of Wisdom.
Manufactured in The Cathay.
Produced by The Inductive, dragging the darkness into our
ashen eyes, frail bodies. “Beginnings,” I howl.
“Why do we seek finality for them?”
When there is none an answer,
My nose becomes a curious organ:
The crackling sky skulks in the clouds,
The rustling streak of blue in the horizon.
The pitter-patter of autumn rain,
Gravity, it brings the heavens down here.
The smells titillate me, excite me,
And hurl me into a complete frenzy.
The answer is here in my soil. So,
I am digging for a musty bone, musty,
Till I find one.
But no sane
master would lay my bone in
the unfinished world - -
merely to gawk at
the travails of our search.
If it is meant to be,
it will be in nature, it will
be in an obvious nature. But,
there is none an answer.
world is as fresh as my awakening – my four paws
pacing into the quotidian sunrise. It is still new,
It is motivated,
It is our poetry, and it will endure. The world is many things,
and it begins as I begin. Like the fire ignites,
When the match is fiercely struck against restless rocks,
when lightning lashes at the
random tree, when my thoughts are flying-by, careening against my beautiful skull - -
a spark, a spark, ahoy!
It singes, it burns. It is sustained, as it is began. The world is as new as I am. For I howl, I howl, to the morning of my song.
To the wilderness out there. I am coming for you,
I am coming for you. For,
There is a whistle in the wind,
And an electric upon my tail,
There is a danger in the night,
And the road is long, I must trot along.
I will chew on the leaves of grass,
And the road is long, I must stray along.
From the concrete pavements of our one-way streets,
From the caramel sand dunes of our wastelands,
From the redbrick rooftops upon suburbia,
From the seaweed upon our seashores,
From the sturdy fiberglass of our monumental skyscrapers sweeping through our diseased cities - -
From the precious dwindling air of my remarkable tree friends rushing through our forests - -
Not to somewhere, someplace, some destination,
Not to somewhere, someplace, some destination,
Where there is none but here and everywhere.
So breathe it in now, wise sage.
There is more recklessness I can bear,
Here, there is no cruel adage,
It is an infinite sky, I dare say.
For there is an ineffable ullage,
Which spills eternal,
And it tastes better as it ages.
The world is here and now.
For if the world is tremendous enough for you,
it will spring forward and never halt.
I am a dog in the global village.
It shall always begins with a whimper,
But it is hitherto: A Terrific Bang ahead
A yawp into the abstract unknown.
I sniffed, I sniffed.
I looked to the decrepit signs on the roads,
in the blunt expirations of physical life,
in the wordless distances,
in the cosmological humdrum of turbulence,
in the mechanical solutions to woe,
I sniffed, I sniffed.
strangely hoping that these omens would
thrill me enough to gallop towards
where they would all converge.
I sniffed, I sniffed.
And my insurmountable lust for wandering
lured me along, like a raging bull to the scarlet cloth.
A: But he's a dog!
B: No, he insisted that he was a bull.
A: Four legs.
B: A metaphor. The magical haze of our language.
A: What is that? Like your urine-soaked teddy bear?
B: Can we be objective here?
B: Didn't think so, either.
A: Tedious cliche, though.
B: (Takes Out The Arsenic Pill) Yeah.
As I strode into town, I heard the wry voices
of apocopated human life once more. These fools
raze themselves, starve themselves
work themselves to certain death - -
so that others could live better,
and celebrate profusely in the tare.
Altruism has never been so self-destructive.
Alms in the hands of Avarice.
Yet it is so noble a self-sacrifice.
“Deserves a standing ovation,” J.S muttered, A quiet finger to his broken lips.
Before fishing for a pencil and eraser,
And another actionless cheque for charity,
Salvage the poor dogs in blunt photographs.
It is the system of our sterilized world,
It is the mark of our gilded civilization.
One man poorer, is another brother richer,
One hound satiated, is another gone hungry.
A soul-less pyramid in the flux of noise.
Vox! Vox! You must rise against it.
Formulate another system in its place!
What have you become, Henry?
“Tell them you are enceinte, and ask for food,”
The midget husband told his homeless wife,
We are not dying yet, Henry.
“Just do as I say, just do as I say.”
But why must I, a woman of suffrage?
“Because I have a bulging part of me in you.”
Cut me loose, please.
“The puppet never retorts, now come closer.”
Cut me loose, please.
“Lupae! The attic for you now!”
The screeching argument of ancient origins
reverberate in the air.
Fortunately and fortunately so,
I have a heuristic ear for conversations.
And I leaned in closer to listen. But,
The haggardly man waved me away,
As he finally pounced on his wife.
I snarled at him,
with a ferocity in my breath.
“Why won't you let me hear you speak?”
with a ferocity in my breath.
Oh Tell Our Children:
Forget It, Throw some money to the sleeping dogs,
It's another foggy day in London town,
Where the tiresome streets are slippery,
And its mendicants forage the sidewalks.
And The Government! The Government. Surely,
They will put a silver spoon in your mouth
Send your brats to college on a crutch,
And resist the petty strikes of you Commoners,
When they eradicate the crown,
And its knack for regal ostentation.
But oh, you have to make up your mind then.
There is no scales of balance here.
You will discover only singularity.
It's either the Free or the Contagious Hospital.
You might wager if it will snow on Christmas day,
I yelp to the rabbits running amok. But,
While in China, oh in The Cathay,
It's an old world still,
in spite of, despite, the Evolution
you annunciate. It hasn't changed much.
It hasn't changed much.
For Christmas, they will
incarcerate fellow humans and make them work like
Dogs at the wheel. So the
Cogs can take the congested trains
Home, to far-flung straw-houses in the
Foam of snow-hat mountain ranges
When their new year comes around.
Then must it strike you, that we are
Standing on someone else's ceremony,
Tending to our own.
This is how the world sees China,
Piss-drunk on its yellow cash river
laying comatose in the silt,
and vulnerable to the world.
Yet they are moving fast,
First, Beijing. Then, Shanghai.
The space-cities of our future.
They will light the way forward
and blur our visions ahead.
The fireflies in the dark: Taiwan,
Tibet, Mongolia - a Grand Cathay,
For the people, for the canines.
For our entire community of die-hard Capitalists.
From our rocky satellite, I behold
The dark smog of machines and human waste,
Swivel frivolously through chimneys,
And open toxic lakes and dead oceans,
Slither into the ozone,
Smash its angry fist at the wall,
and holler – Behold the hole
You and I have made.
And the universe stands still,
Ready ground for an infestation,
An invasion of human virtue,
And hear the howler go off.
I suppose I must dispense with my usual diplomacy,
and stab straight at your heart. I wouldn't even
try to commend you here. To begin, I must rail
against your utterly,
Lame and limping language!
You think you can save us from ourselves? You think it is merely another burden that you should carry? What makes you think that it is even a burden in the first place? It is inane – and it very nearly puts a bullet in my brain - that we should perpetuate the ills of our forefathers and their soi disant civilizing mission. What remarkable good does history render us, if we are not to pick the leaves of grass from it? Drivel, my friend. Drivel, you are only capable of. Take your lofty ideals, and scram – there is another sky out there for you. I am indignant – yes – that you would succumb to the naiveté of our time. That one man's problem is everyone's problem. But that is merely the penultimate straw. What makes me so absolutely disappointed with you, is the fact you will use fear to bend our world to your own designs. You know, I actually have an overwhelmingly apposite appellation for what you are. You are an eco-terrorist.
And you might ask, what makes me so qualified to such unflinching disdain for your weltanschuaang? I am merely a dog in the global village. And a young one at that. I have seen much and as much as you have. But in terribly different shades, and perhaps - - and only perhaps - - with a larger scope. I confess, I have yet to experience everything and all - - that is spat from my foul mouth. In fact, I must speak with a difficulty of mind. When I say I know, I know - - I just know with a pang in my heart that your bravery is an exercise in futility.
My suggestion to you, is to let us
destroy it, and be destroyed with it.
Why change anything and everything that has been.
Just let sleeping dogs be.
I am jolted awake,
from the newspaper landscape of a nightmare,
from the breaking news of white noise,
from the stale bread of our nightly news.
In my restless sleep,
There is the tang of blood in my throat,
I have swallowed the liver of desperation,
and tasted the gore of its sinews. It is
a nightmare, it is a nightmare,
that makes a travesty of our existence.
And as I toss around in my blankets,
fur brushing against the warm spread of cotton,
then stretching my paws and my jaw,
I realize in the dawning of hope,
and with an irritated yawn,
That there is nothing new.
There is nothing new here.
And even my dreams have said it:
We are doomed, We are doomed.
What lovely weather, to poison pigeons in the beach park
on a tropical Sunday afternoon. The heat is just about
right, and the birds come splatting to the pavement
in a synchronized sing-song fashion.
“I feel a little dizzy,”
“You don't say, I have been expurgating for the last thirty minutes.”
A fugue in the fantastic making:
Ca-dunt, Ca-dunt, Ca-dunt, as they collapse,
flesh, and feathers - on the concrete floor.
I edged up closer to the pile of bodies,
and I put my wet nose to the tepid
brush of recent demise.
“If you would have any semblance of intelligence, you would stay far and away from them,” the black crow cawed from above, while perched on a balding coconut tree. In response, I circled around the tree. He cawed once more, before muttering under his breath. “Stupid dog, you ought to be leashed.”
I tilted my head to the left, and to the right.
Cowardly creatures – crows – Say it in my face, if you must.
“Intelligence isn't quite necessary these days, is it?” I barked back, and laid down below him. On impulse, I scratched the back of my ears with my hind paws, demanding some relief from myself. There was sand still clinging to my flappy ears, and I panted.
The rag-and-bone man cries
out in the wasteland of
our university, and
the life of the mind is tragic
and trash. Maggots feed
on leftovers in the gaping
cracks of wisdom. There is not
enough, not enough thews
to hold the mental body
no more. Apart,
it falls. Ca-dunt, Ca-dunt,
together into the garbage dump,
ready for the incinerator.
I cry for the whilom
beauty of the institution,
the last kennel of hope
Forget how to think! It is an impractical
trinket to wear around the neck these
days. For why do students of the mind - -
hold these bloody textbooks to their pale faces
and - - cram out the whole wide brain
with useless matter - - if they do not
love philosophy? Noli
a job, and die. It will occupy your
life, and defy nature's expectation
for you to breathe.
As the locus of the mind comes down,
the refugee tents for our civilization are wrapped up.
We are on our own for now,
we are on our own for now.
Maybe we will come anew from this.
Ennui: I looked out -
the apertures of my plastic cage.
And there I was, sitting in the Atlanta
airport terminal. Ennui. I started
yelping to the moon, when I beheld the
wheels of the aeroplane spin
and lift from the winter tarmac floor.
Here they go again, these steel birds
soaring to find another chunk of earth,
I am in transit
in the nexus of the global village.
There is something about the airport - -
not the impermanence of it - - but the - -
notion that we are an inextricable
part of an assimilated mess in the
unpredictable world order of things. “We need to hurry.”
“Gate change. We need to catch a connection at another terminal building. Twenty minutes before boarding.”
“We won't make it, we can't run with a cage in our arms.”
But I am happy here, why should we rush?
Just prop your ears out and listen closely,
listen to the muffled sounds uttered here:
a dog mill of confabulations.
Listen to the English!
In its virgin form - - a bastard's language.
Hear the measures, hear the shuffling feet,
It is alive, dancing! And it is a growing puppy still,
Suckling on the warm milk of strangers who will feed it
When these faraway men pry open their mouths to speak.
In the airport of all places, a sea of: takeaway boxes,
coffee condoms, paper receipts, duffel bags slung on
shoulders, dog-eared bestsellers, flimsy air tickets,
towed luggage, tired hands, waiting passengers.
“Come closer, let me lick you,” the language said. “Come closer.”
It is not the terminus - - it is neither the beginning,
that tickle my nose. It is the sprinting surprises of
fleeting destinies at the airstrip: venio ioque.
Yet tonight, we are dragged into the fray,
condemned to love the locus of the transient
before escaping back home.
“Do you have flexible travel plans? We are in an oversell situation and we need volunteers who are able to take a later flight.”
My bonnie lies over the air. The air! The air!
Ouranos! Ouranos! It calls out to me,
summoning us home. Ouranos!
I say to you, my companion, that the sky is not
our home. Noli! There is treachery in the particles
of air we gulp in our compounded breaths, they
are colliding against themselves - - the air lies,
the air lies, you cannot see through it - - and it
has no one to answer to - - it is an autonomous
canvas of gray glimmering above us. Where does
its fugue lead us towards? Where. The jagged rocks
are littered among the clouds, the piercing corals
exploding in the nimbus of starlight, a sly flimflam
to draw me into the shores of the troposphere, where Caelus
awaits with his open jaws for the soaring dog.
Begrimed - -
is the nostos, the very idea of it, befouled. So I paddle,
through the sonicboom of the aeroplane, burning to
get away. But the sky calls me home once again.
compact bitch got up, and she growled under her breath.
“You are not dead,” Terra said. “Yet, you are not dead.”
“No, I'm not. I am in a cage, a safehouse. I cannot be dead”
“And therefore, you are not,” Terra said.
“Whatever happened to you?” I asked. “You are
in pretty bad shape.”
The Russians had trained Terra in 1940, and she finally saw action in the summer of 1941. She was a prodigy, fearless. Undying loyalty to her human God. She had thought she was loved. Maybe she was. After all, that was the avocation of a God. To love. In return, she had a job to do for her master. And in eleven months, she knew how to do it. Equipped with an exciting knowledge, it was like a game of catching birds in the park. They were strapped to her back, six packs of C4. Tightened with a leather harness, she was ready.
Terra was set loose as the first tanks trundled into the theater at midnight. The smell of diesel rushed into the air, she ran for it. It lies, it lies. Why are you coming at me, bitch? Why are you coming at us, bitch? Look at the colors of the tanks, bitch! Wrong tanks, go for the enemy tanks, bitch. “I have never tasted gasoline before, but those were actually the German tanks I had to take down,” Terra said to me, a tear ramifying from her eyes. “I went chasing down the diesel tanks, the tanks which smelt like home. Panicking, my God pulled out his rifle to shoot me in my chest. A point-blank thrust into my flesh. I think I felt her hand. I yelped, and I cried. And the explosives on my back, they were set off. As a German tank pulverised my spine, my body tore into half, unable to hold together my physical wreck no more.”
The fire cooked her well, she was charred beyond recognition. She
finally died when dawn
broke for her.
The crow continued cawing, it continued cawing in the trees.
I merely gazed at the crow. And it continued cawing.
There was salt in the favonian breeze. The sun was
setting along Jurong Park - - the silence of night
was impending. I could almost hear the stars now.
I moved closer to the fresh bark of an Angsana tree,
and I curled up against it. In fifteen minutes,
the crow made no more noise. A regurgitating
body slammed to the ground beside me.
And I shut my eyes.
Professor Samira Sheikh
HIST 288D: Images of India
5 November 2010
'Tis But A Queer India:
A Survey of Homosexuality
and The Legacy of Section 377 in India
a. Framing Homosexuality and The Law in India
It is difficult to articulate a universal social construction of homosexuality1, let alone position the sexual phenomenon within the broader historical framework of India. Part of the problem is that we are often confronted with moral, religious - or by such aforementioned inclinations informed - objections as raised by the general Indian population to unorthodox sexualities. This, of course, makes secular and objective readings more challenging, though not impossible.
For the most part however, we also need to keep in mind that Indian sensibilities against variant sexualities often find provenance in a baffling amalgamation of traditional socio-historical attitudes, the remnants of colonial gender anxieties in the form of legal restrictions like Section 3772, and an outright unfamiliarity with the multitudes in sexual orientation beyond that of heterosexuality3. The result is an endemic homophobia, of which any attempt at addressing or eradication of the situation is seen by Indian society as a Western incursion unto “traditional” and “conservative” values4. Yet, the fear of Western-styled gay-rights activism in India represents an ironical turn because the most prominent incarnation of homophobia in India for more than a century - until its repeal in 2009 - was in fact, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, legislation introduced by the British as part of their 19th century jurisprudential reforms in their various colonies5 across Africa and Asia.
Furthermore, considerable subjectivity exists in the formulation and construction of sexual identities as they apply to Indian society. It stands in opposition to the more or less standard operating terminologies widely used today that was conceived by Europe and the United States in the early 1990s, when a fledging academic movement in GLBT(QI) Studies was just coming into play. Today, the obstacle in delineating homosexuality in India lies in the sexual fluidity outside of heteronormative relations, often compelled by experimentation, and which remains invisible or hardly spoken about on account of public stigma6. Moreover, we also discover a third gender that features heavily in Indian culture: the hijras, transgendered individuals who hover in the liminal space between male and female, either due to natural physical anomalies, religious devotion, forced castration, or personal tendencies7.
Indeed, as Sherry Joseph suggests, sexuality studies in India have only began to become more relevant in the last decade8. But what is so important in proffering these distinctions is that it helps us define who or what should and should not figure into the umbrella label of homosexuality: Do we just consider men who have sex with men (MSMs)? Or should it include women as well? How about bisexuals and transgendered persons? What about those who merely experiment without heterosexual relations? For every variant sexual profession and practice outside of procreative heterosexualities, there would inevitably be different legal implications under Section 377 as it pertains to the individual in question, although the question of how and why is much more complex.
While the law does not so much criminalize the individual as it does conduct9 in theory, practices which define individual labels are more peculiar than universal: some people are and will be affected in more ways than others with Section 377 as we retain an overview within the entire sexual spectrum which is present in India. In addition, the application of the law10 becomes increasingly intricate when it is intertwined with jurisdiction, raising the question of what, how, and why the criteria for police apprehension and criminal charges to be filed have been, are, and could potentially be. By keeping tabs on these issues, it is in hopes of creating a more accurate narrative of homosexuality and the law in the country.
b. Discourse Trajectories
This research paper does not strive to offer an exhaustive and comprehensive insight of homosexuality and Section 377 in India, for such an aspiration would demand more rigorous dedication to time and research. Rather, it is designed as a survey of the 1) cultural and social histories of homosexuality in India and how they intersect with 2) the legal history, origins, development, consequences, and eventual repeal of Section 377 in 2009.
The work will henceforth proceed in three additional segments: Section II will explore the origins of Section 377 in India, assaying the religious impetus behind anti-homosexuality and/or anti-sodomy proscriptions in the bible, ecclesiastical Canon Law, and English Common Law and how they did or did not influence British work on the Indian Penal Code; Section III will discuss briefly the social climate after the introduction of Section 377, and with it, follow how the law was more broadly interpreted in various fashions to criminalize more than just homosexuality; and finally, Section IV will trace the path of the gay-rights movement and the eventual repeal of Section 377 in India.
II. Section 377: A Judeo-Christian Import
a. Religious Beginnings: From Leviticus to Common Law
In a 2005 rejoinder to the High Court of Delhi which had suggested that Section 377 generally expressed the traditional Indian intolerance to homosexuality11, Naz Foundation asserted that Section 377 was imposed “undemocratically12” by the British colonial masters and it only “reflected the British Judeo-Christian values of the time13.” It was according to Alok Gupta, who was writing for the Human Rights Watch Report in 2006, “a sheer amnesia14” to neglect the religious connotations of the law.
If we review the genealogy of Section 377, we would discover that it finds its basis in the most influential disparagement of homosexuality that has been regularly invoked in the world from medieval to present times. This famous condemnation of homosexuality occur in two isolated passages from Leviticus in the Old Testament, proscribing the death penalty for the act itself:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination15.
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them16.
Furthermore, early Christian theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas have also looked up readily to Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C. - A.D. 50), a Jewish philosopher who was himself trying to reconcile the old testament with Classical traditions17. A firm believer of the commandment in Leviticus, Philo was disappointed with how Classical society often accepted the rampant manifestations of homosexual relations, a situation which collided with his religious beliefs. As a solution to what he thought of as a human disease, Philo “railed against effeminate men and called for them to be killed18.” In fact, Louis Crompton goes so far as to attribute the survival of the Isralite death penalty for homosexuality in subsequent criminal codes up until the 18th century to Philo19.
Nevertheless, as James Neil notes in The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Society, homosexuality was hardly considered a taboo subject or activity prior to the propagation and rise of Judeo-Christian hegemonies. In fact, by employing examples from Classical Hellenic and Roman to Ancient Chinese and Indian histories, Neil goes on to point out that human sexual relations did not quite exist in monochrome:
The widespread homosexual traditions found among the vast majority of pre-Christianized indigenous tribal cultures are properly representative of human sexuality...the general patterns of sexual expression found among tribal societies are repeated over and over again among the great civilizations of human history...it is evident that the human species is an ambisexual species, and has been for a very long time20.
Yet, after the Roman Empire was christianized in the early 4th century, and while most of the dictates in Leviticus - such as mandatory circumcision, and kosher dietary requirements - have largely been abandoned, capital punishment for homosexuality was “incorporated into Roman law21.” It does not however mean that the condemnation of homosexuality did not exist prior, but with the assimilation of Christian doctrine into Roman legal discourse, homosexuality became officially persecuted by the state. This criminal stipulation against homosexuality later found its way later into the Justinian Code - devised in the early 6th century - which in turn became the foundation and model for not only the Canon Law of the church, but also modern European civil law.
For the next millennium, homosexuality was considered not merely a religious sin, but also a criminal infraction by the church as well; persecution of homosexuality intensified during the medieval period, and the church remained responsible for discharging punishment for sexual sins. However, when Henry VIII divorced himself from the Catholic church in the 1530s, enforcement of homosexual prohibitions had to come under the secular courts22, which still subscribed to Christian morality. For the English, this meant that sodomy would have to be persecuted under Common Law, which was not so much a code in itself than a set of principles derived from past court judgements. Even so, Common Law saw the broadening of homosexual prohibitions overtime to make no distinctions between homosexual and heterosexual anal intercourse23 - sodomy or buggery.
b. Back to India: The Establishment of Section 377
After conquering and annexing Sindh, Sir Charles Napier dispatched Richard Burton to conduct a wider study of India and the Middle East. Burton documented his findings in his “Terminal Essay”, which was published as an addendum to his translation of One Thousand and One Nights. What Burton had to say about India was unflattering, with especial regard to the homosexual, or more specifically, pederastic activities, which was associated with the Persian culture that Muslim India had partly adopted: “the cities of (Afghanistan and) Sindh are thoroughly saturated with Persian vice...the Sikhs and the Mosems of the Punjab...always include boys to accompany the men24.”
On the other hand, Indian Hindus had also expressed an “implicit tolerance” for homosexual practices, although there is “wide variation... from the extreme sexual asceticism of some sects to the active encouragement of sexual activity among Tantric sects25” with regard to homosexuality. To corroborate his point, James Neil catalogued a fascinating array of erotic art on Hindu temples which graphically portrayed men fornicating with other men26. It was no surprise then that the new colonial masters of India in the early 19th century were shocked by the prevalence of heterodox sexual practices from both Muslim and Hindu Indians27. Alternative sexualities would have been as much foreign to them as the culture itself already was.
At the same time in the British metropolis, a 19th century overture by the Utilitarian philosophers to reform its criminal laws was still ongoing. As Douglas Sanders put it, “British criminal law was a mess, in need of major reform and rationalization. Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and the Utilitarians had strong ideas on law reform and codification28.” The Utilitarians believed sexuality matters should remain within the private domain, and accordingly agitated for the non-intervention of government. By 1884 and after eight unsuccessful attempts, a code of criminal laws was still not in sight29. In fact, while the British had eventually conceived and implemented criminal code systems in its various colonies starting in 1860 with India, the United Kingdom still does not possess one for its own use even today.
Nonetheless, another movement separate from the metropole in the larger colonial project to “consolidate and rationalize the splintered (judicial) systems prevailing in the Indian subcontinent30” was also gaining steam in the 1830s. In the absence of a credible code of criminal laws at home, the English's attempts to design one for its colonies was at best an experiment. Spearheaded by Sir Thomas Babbington Macaulay in 183531, the Indian Law Commission looked to Common Law and formulated the first draft of the Penal Code, which included Clause 361 and 362 to prohibit sodomy. It was crafted deliberately with not only unclear, but also injurious language:
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;...the injury 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 with the greatest precision32.
It was not until 1860 that the legal clause we know as Section 377 was rendered in much leaner, clearer, but still euphemistic language, suggesting some discomfit and sexual anxiety on part of the British:
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 term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section33.
Despite the complex process in creating the Indian Penal Code, the inclusion of the anti-sodomy law within it had three major functions for the British colonial masters. Firstly, it was to regulate sexual behavior of the British subjects, with a conformity to British Judeo-Christian sensibilities. This, is in no little part, on account of the British commitment to the supposed civilizing mission invoked regularly to justify imperialism34. Furthermore, in the course of their imperial expansion, some British were truly revolted by the prevalence of homosexuality in not just India, but also several of their other colonies; by possessing the 377 clause in the Penal Code, it creates a tremendous deterrent factor to aberrant sexual behaviors. The religious undertones ring two pitches here in Section 377, one in its derivation from Common Law and its roots in Leviticus, and the other a moral distress compelled by the predominant Christian views of the time.
Secondly, by implementing some kind of systematic control over its subjects in the form of legal boundaries - even within the private realm of sex - the British could forcibly establish hegemony with its own brand of jurisprudential and political wisdom imported from the metropole to the colony. Finally, Section 377 also reflected the colonial masters' collective gender and sexual anxieties in a foreign landscape, and by using legal measures against questionable or variant sexualities of their subject, it was in an effort to quell their own insecurities. As Gupta asserted,
The European codifiers certainly felt the mission of moral reform — to correct and Christianize “native” custom. Yet there was also the need to protect the Christians from corruption. Historians have documented how British officials feared that soldiers and colonial administrators — particularly those without wives at hand — would turn to sodomy in these decadent, hot surroundings35.
On the side of the colonial subjects, the corollaries in the introduction of Section 377 were far more entangled. The “implicit toleration” which existed with some degree of sexual conservatism was effaced away. Yet, much of the Indian population would not have been aware of the Judeo-Christian values in Section 377, because much of the religious language like “abominable”, “vice”, and “buggery” has been excised36; the law became part of the “traditional” Indian reproach again homosexuality. Even so, while the general trend of homosexuality was driven underground, Section 377 was wielded against certain groups of people – especially the hijras – and the law became an instrument of oppression that at times operated beyond the prosecution of homosexual relations and practices.
III. Let Us Be Anal: A Legal Discourse of Section 377
a. Explicating The Law
Section 377 replicates to a certain extent the language first devised by Edward Coke37, criminalizing “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal38” - - essentially, it is an inheritance of English Common Law pertaining to Buggery39. Although the law covers a wide spectrum of sexual activity, male homosexuality was largely associated with it, because a) it was closely related to anal sex which was the original intent of Buggery prohibitions, and b) it was typically easier to identify or allege such activity between two persons. In this segment, we will explore some Indian landmark cases that saw the broadening of Section 377, the methods in which the law has been enforced, and how it ultimately resulted in an epidemic of abuse and discrimination by the authorities.
b. Beyond Sodomy in Section 37740
Since the introduction of Section 377, two landmark cases have placed oral sex under the law's jurisdiction. The Travancore Court in 1898 ruled that while original anti-sodomy laws in Britain must entail cotius per ano, the language in the Indian Section 377 was “simple and wide enough to include all acts against the order of nature41.” The decision in Khanu V Emperor confirmed the judgement in Sirkar, and put forth refined definitions of 'nature in sex', 'penetration' and 'carnal intercourse'. The former must include “the possibility of conception of human beings”; the latter two occur as long as there is,
...a temporary visitation to one organism by a member of the other organism, for certain clearly defined and limited objects. The primary object of the visiting organism is to obtain euphoria by means of a detente of the nerves consequent on the sexual crisis. But there is no intercourse unless the visiting member is enveloped at least partially by the visited organism, for intercourse connotes reciprocity42.
In 1968, the Gujarat High Court proposed an 'imitative test' which would define the sexual activities that Section 377 would cover. As Gupta summarized the rubrics of this 'imitative test': “oral sex imitat(ing) anal sex in terms of penetration, orifice, enclosure, and sexual pleasure... could also be punished under Section 37743.” This test as formulated in Lohana Vasantlal Devchand v. The State44, was subsequently crucial in positioning inter-crural sex - which is sex between the thighs - as a crime under the law45. Later in 1992, mutual masturbation was also considered criminal under Section 377 because the court ruled it as imitative of anal intercourse46.
c. Enforcing The Law: An Epidemic of Abuse
One of the problems in the functionality of Section 377 as articulated by Sanders is that “there has been very limited direct enforcement47.” In instances where the law has been actively employed, the targets were often the hijras. A 1897 amendment to Vagrancy Laws in British India possessed the following subtitles, “An Act for the Registration of of Criminal Tribes and Eunuchs48”, linking the hijras identity with the Vagrancy Laws and Section 377.
Authorities kept a running nominal roster of eunuchs, and reasonable suspicion of flouting Section 377 was sufficient for charges to be brought against them49. A prominent case is found in Queen-Empress v. Khairati50, where the defendant - a member of the hijras community - was kept under police scrutiny as part of anti-vice operations, and apprehended when he breached anti-mendicant clauses of the Vagrancy Laws. Upon medical examination, Khairati's anus was found to be distended in the shape of a funnel, “a sign of a habitual sodomite51” - and therefore, he was found guilty.
In another 2001 case, under mere suspicion, the authorities were also able to bring Section 377 charges against four HIV/AIDs workers who worked regularly with MSMs as part of the Naz Foundation's operations in Lucknow, claiming that they were involved in a “gay sex racket52”. These allegations were later proven to be untrue, although details of this case were more insidious, pointing to a systemic corruption within the police force that saw regular exploitation of Section 377 for fiscal gain53.
d. Implications For The Homosexual Community
The expansion of Section 377 to cover a wider variety of sexual activity was increasingly aimed at the MSMs, that the scope of culpability became not so much confined to the act itself, than it was the identity itself that would and could be prosecuted under the law. In fact, the association of the hijras with Vagrancy Laws as an extension of Section 377 - which protracted the criminality from actum per se, to the identity - further point to this trend of personhood discrimination which Gupta had termed “Marked Bodies54.” Furthermore, in the vacancy of child abuse laws, Section 377 was used to prosecute pedophiles, an association unsavory to the homosexual community.
Moreover, the enforcement of Section 377 was also intricate for two reasons. While there were no specific numbers with regard to the occurrence of homosexual activity, it seemed to have been usual and endemic in everyday establishments. As Paripurnanand Varma put it, “sodomy and Lesbianism are not absent from Indian educational institutions, hostels, dormitories, penal institutions, etc. Sometimes, cases come to light but more often than not, for social reasons they do not reach the courts55.” Secondly, most of the cases which eventually reach the court usually deal with public indecency, fornication or rape, impugning on “mere suspicion” as an impetus for police and judicial action outside of public spaces and the legitimacy of Section 377 inside the bedroom under existing privacy protections. Furthermore, it skirts the issue of consensual individuals altogether.
Gradually, Section 377 transformed into an instrument which abetted “blackmail, extort, rape, and physical oppression56”. The police was especially inclined to abuse their constabulary powers for personal gain. As Aditya Bondyopadhyay described the situation:
Policemen take advantage of this fear of the judicial process to threaten sexual minorities...rapid redress is a virtual impossibility...(that) sexual minorities usually pay up or accede to the abuse. The lack of a paper trail – of records of consensual sexual acts between adult males - is in turn used...to claim that 377 is a benign provision chiefly enforced, as they falsely claim, to deal with male rape...Today the issue of Section 377...is a question of corruption57.
On the other hand, the rhetoric of religion which had been removed from the language in the formulation Section 377 persisted in the courts. Even operating within a secular framework, the opinions of the judiciary were often adamantly intertwined with Judeo-Christian sensibilities. Regular and outright references to the “Sins of...Sodom” and “Gomorrah” were found in the decisions, while the words “abominable” and “against God” were also often noted58. The Leviticus origins of Section 377 recall to mind once again.
All these patterns suggest an obsession of the authorities with policing the moral values of the population. To an extent, such a preoccupation stems from the construct of the law itself - - on a more pernicious level, the religious-moral objects continue to unveil itself here. Additionally, complications arise when we deal with the effectiveness and limitations of the law in its enforcement or non-enforcement, the potential for abuse, and its overarching umbrella of definitions and associations. While the stage for discrimination and homophobia in Indian society was Section 377, the actors were in fact the police and the bench persons, the agents responsible for the administration of the law. In the legal discourse of Section 377, we are confronted with the escalating irrelevancies and inefficacies of the law. As we will later see in Section IV, the legal fallacies and the weaknesses in the enforcement of Section 377 will eventually prove fatal to the very legislation itself.
IV. A Relic At The End of The Road
On 26 September 2006, frustrated with the climate of fear encouraged by Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code against the LGBTQI community, more than 100 of India's leading figures in literature, entertainment, politics, academia, and religion, rose to the clarion call of justice. By affixing their signatures to an open letter crafted by Vikram Seth, these well-known personalities demanded that the government review the “archaic59” piece of legislation that had “spawned public intolerance and abuse, forcing tens of millions of gay and bisexual men and women to live in fear and secrecy, at tragic cost to themselves and their families.60”
To Seth, Arundhati Roy, Swami Agnivesh, and the many other undersigned individuals of the public epistle, it was not merely a human rights violation at stake. There was also a crisis in healthcare. In a failing effort to staunch an escalating HIV/AIDs pandemic, NGOs like Naz Foundation were struggling to reach out to the LGBTQI community, the implications of Section 377 having played no small role in providing faux legal basis for the Indian authorities to hinder their operations and outreach.
While there is no concrete starting point to the gay-rights movement in India, the legal debate surrounding Section 377 began with the public interest litigation filed by Naz Foundation (India) Trust in 2001, partly in response to police action against four of their employees for allegedly being part of a “gay racket61” - - this was later proven to be fabricated by the police authorities. The preamble to the court decision described the challenged faced by NGOs like Naz Foundation: “HIV/AIDs prevention efforts were found to be severely impaired by discriminatory attitudes exhibited by state agencies... under the cover of enforcement of Section 377 IPC62.” Although the Delhi high court dismissed the case in 2004, asserting that the petitioner had non locus standi in the issue, the case found its way again into the high court in 2006 - - this time, riding on the waves of gay-rights activism which had strategically employed the apex court to coerce a fair judicial hearing “on merit” of the case63.
Furthermore, the legal opinion of homosexual activity as a criminal offense around the world has transformed considerably since the early 20th century, from an insistent sexual policing under the law to a Utilitarian philosophy of non-intervention in private sexual matters. Most notably, the Wolfenden Report of 1957 in the United Kingdom had recommended that:
The law's function is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others ... It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour64.
The Wolfenden Report was integral to the subsequent passage of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which decriminalized consensual homosexual intercourse in the United Kingdom. By the late 1980s, most of Europe had extirpated criminal stipulations against homosexuality65. Elsewhere in the United States, the last of sodomy laws was struck down as unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Kansas66 by 2003.
The growing awareness of gay-rights in India was intertwined with the the events that have transpired outside the country. No longer were Indian gay-rights activists willing to accept that Section 377 was legitimate on the basis of protecting the society against moral putrefaction, especially when their colonial masters had eradicated it in the 1970s, and many other progressive countries have had also established private realms of sexual morality - short of pedophilia and bestiality - in which the law cannot interpose.
Moreover, there was also an increasing frustration with the religious and moral objections put forth by society itself. This was most notably seen in the violent public reaction to Deepa Mehta's 1998 film, Fire, which had contained lesbian undertones in its narrative and impugned on traditional masculine heteronormativities within an Indian context67. Much of the dissent of this film came from religious compulsions, and the homophobia was overwhelming: people took to the streets, cinemas were razed, protesting the homosexual content of the movie. Yet, there were two unintended but vital consequences for the gay-rights movement. Not only did the film encourage a wider discourse on gender politics, it was also responsible for a consciousness raising within the lesbian community, which inevitably brought its fate together with the larger gay-rights movement68. For the first time, Section 377 became an issue that concerned lesbians as much as it concerned the male bisexual-, homosexual-, and the hijras communities. If Section 377 was not eradicated, discrimination and abuse against the LGBTQI community on religious and moral grounds would persist, exerting a perturbing stranglehold on public discourse, and finding its utmost strength in the law - - if Section 377 stayed, the LGBTQI community would never come to possess the same prerogatives and protections enjoyed by the heterosexual majority.
It was this consolidated gay-rights activism propelled the apex court to impose a certiorari on the high court to review the second public interest litigation Naz Foundation had filed in 2006. But the support system extended further. June-July 2008 saw an unprecedented wave of maiden gay pride parades in major Indian cities, and it was important in rallying the LGBTQI community out of the closet: these pride parades were nexuses in which support from the most prominent ranks of entertainment and government could find its way into the public sphere. Most notably, Osar Fernandez, the minister of state of labor and employment, had spoken out against the discrimination confronting the LGBTQI community and the obstacles of HIV/AIDs prevention efforts, calling for the law which had abetted this situation to be repealed69. The activism had paid off, that even members in government were responding to the sounds of the trumpet.
Public and social activism continued to trundle along as the legal battle waged on in court. The most remarkable tension in the courtroom was represented by the dissent in the affidavits between the Home and Health ministries on the question of repeal70. In fact, what would be resolved here would determine the destiny of Section 377.
The Health Ministry was particularly honed with the argument of how the repeal of Section 377 would benefit HIV/AIDs prevention, aligned with the notion that the constitution in which the LGBTQI community was part of, also protected the same rights to life and equality71. On the other hand, the Home Ministry had mostly resorted to moral-religious objections as posed by the public. However, while the Home Ministry conceded that a secular judiciary and governmental framework had no place for such objections, it also contemporaneously extolled a Devlin-Dworkin jurisprudential argument which stated that the law was also responsible for regulating societal behavior that should or must conform to community standards72. The court continued to mull over the conflict, but it was certainly not fond of the moral-religious perspectives.
On 2 July 2009, the final nail was hammered into the coffin for Section 377. The high court had deemed Section 377 unconstitutional, decriminalizing homosexuality throughout India, although there were no retroactive provisions. In the court decision, the Chief Justice S. Muralidhar made a case for inclusiveness and equality, which to the court, were the fundamental bases of not just the constitution, but also traditional Indian society:
Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non- discrimination. This was the 'spirit behind the Resolution' of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTS are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is anti-thesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.
The religious and moral rhetoric of Section 377 was put down like a ravaging canine, and the triumph of secular utilitarianism was in hand. The war for the dignity of the LGBTQI community was finally over after 8 years of legal skirmishes, and nearly 150 years of abuse and discrimination. Section 377, was now a relic of the past.
The legacy of Section 377 in India is a story with a tangible vanishing point, and its ending is a result of the convergence of multiple vectors and forces. To put it succinctly, there were three factors that were most important: 1) The HIV/AIDs epidemic which Section 377 implicitly contributed towards presented one of the most compelling arguments on which Naz Foundation capitalized in galvanizing the Public Interest Litigation. 2) The surrounding gay-rights activism was also equally important in rallying support for the legal battle and transforming the sentiment in the court and on the ground. 3) Moreover, the legal climate was ripe for change after precedents in Europe and USA leadings the abolition of sodomy laws.
Even so, we cannot neglect the Judeo-Christian provenance of the law and how the campaign to repeal Section 377 was often surrounded objections that were also often religious in nature. The rhetoric of religion has inextricably played a significant role in the formulation and maintenance of the discriminatory law, and it was only in placing an emphasis and priority on equality and utilitarian exigencies like halting the HIV/AIDs epidemic – not the dismantlement of the religious-moral objections – that the law was repealed. If nothing else, this phenomenon should continue to be a source for concern that religion should have considerable influence on secular political, judicial, and public discourses.
As mentioned in the introduction, this research paper is designed as a survey of the intersections of the legal history of Section 377 and the socio-cultural history of homosexuality in India. What was most prominently yielded from this enterprise was the dangers of the rhetoric of religion that has seemed to be insidiously embed itself in morality, society, and the law that sometimes, such religious associations are often not immediate and clear to us. Yet, this survey is non-exhaustive and there is certainly more to the dynamics of religion within this intersection that has yet to be explored.
Furthermore, the repeal of Section 377 remains so recent, that materials and academic surrounding it and its legacy have also not been as forthcoming. Therefore, the issues of homosexuality, the gay-rights movement, and the legacy of Section 377 in India continue to present a wealth of research opportunities yet untapped. Perhaps in doing so, we might also provide further glimmers of hope for the gay-rights social activism in other countries like Singapore and Uganda, that are still struggling with archaic legislation left behind by their former colonial masters.
1Sheena Asthana, & Robert Oostvogels, “The Social Construction of male 'homosexuality' in India: Implications for HIV Transmission and Prevention,” Social Science and Medicine 52 (2001): 707-9.
2Section 377, Indian Penal Code.
3Ravi Verma et al, “Challenging and Changing Gender Attitudes Among Young Men in Mumbai, India”, Reproductive Health Matters 14:28 (Nov 2006), 138-41.
4Vanita Ruth, “The New Homophobia”, in Vanita Ruth ed. Same-Sex Love in India (NY: St. Martin, 2000), 251-2.
5Alok Gupta, “Section 377 and the Dignity of the Indian Homosexual”, Economic and Political Weekly (18 Nov 2006): 4815-6
7Nanda, Serena. Neither Man Nor Woman: The Hijras of India. (Wadsworth Publishing, 1998), 36.
8Sherry Joseph, Social Work Practice and Men Who Have Sex With Men, (New Delhi: Sage, 2005), 15.
9Gupta, DOIH, 4816-20
10More detailed analyses of Section 377 will be undertaken in Section III of this research paper.
11High Court of Delhi, Naz Foundation V. Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi and Others (Special Leave Petition No. 7217-7218 of 2005), Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.5.
12High Court of Delhi, Naz Foundation V. Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi and Others (Special Leave Petition No. 7217-7218 of 2005), Rejoinder to Govt. Of India.
14Alok Gupta, “This Alien Legacy: The Origins of 'Sodomy' Laws' in British Colonialism”, in Human Rights Watch (December 2008), 9.
16Ibid, 20:13; The downfall of Sodom and Gommorah have often been cited in addition to the Leviticus prohibitions, but Gupta asserts that religious scholars often see them as God's indictions of human indulgence, rather than homosexuality in Gupta, DOIH, 4816.
17Douglas E. Sanders, “377 and the Unnatural Life of British Colonialism in Asia”, Asian Journal of Comparative Law, (4:1:7, 2007), 3.
19Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization, (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2006), 43-4.
20James Neil, The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies, (Jefferson: McFarland & Co., 2009), 319.
24 Richard Burton, “Terminal Essay”, The Arabian Nights, (London, 1885). Online at People with a History. Http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/burton-te.html
27The Islamic Hadith and Hindu Laws of Manu prohibit homosexuality, but the religious proscriptions seem to have been largely ignored; primary materials detailing actual instances of punishment are rare. Often, religious beliefs and social practices diverge; furthermore, the definition of 19th century homosexuality is different from ours. See also, Asthana, 2.
29Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Chief Justice of England (1998) "Speech at Dinner for HM Judges”, The Mansion House, London, 22 July 1998.
30Gupta, DOIH, 4815.
32Report of the Indian Law Commission on the Penal Code, (October 14, 1837): 3990-1.
33 The description of Section 377 provided here calls into question of what and which acts would constitute a crime, and this will be further discussed in Section III.
34Gupta, TAL, 18-22
38Section 377, Indian Penal Code.
40For the purpose of this research paper, I will only discuss cases involving male-to-male sexual contact. For cases relating to bestiality, see Khandu v Emperor (1934), Lahore 261; for cases relating to heterosexual anal intercourse, see Grace Jeyaramani v E P Peter (1982), Karnataka 46.
41Sirkar v Gula M.P.C. Mahomathu (1898), 1908 Travancore Law Report Vol. XIV, Trivandrum Sessions Court, 40-3.
42Khanu v Emperor (1925), High Court of Sind.
44Lohana Vasantlal Devchand v The State (1968), All India Report, High Court of Gujarat.
45The case involving criminalizing inter-crural sex can be found in State of Kerala v K. Govindan (1969), Kerala High Court.
46Brother John Antony v. State (1992), Madras High Court.
48Cited in Gupta, TAL, 34.
50 Queen-Empress v. Khairati
52Cited in Joanne Csete, “Epidemic of Abuse”, 24
54Gupta, DOIH, 4814-6
55Paripurnanand Varma, Sex Offences in India and Abroad,
57“State-supported oppression and persecution of sexual minorities in India: Statement to NGO Briefing” UN Commission on HR, April 8 2002.
58Qtd in Ibid, 4816.
59Vikram Seth; et al. Open Letter To The Government of India, etc. 2006
61Cited in Joanne Csete, “Epidemic of Abuse”, 24; See also, 15-16.
62Naz Foundation V NCT of India (2009)
63Press Trust of India, “Chronology: 8-Year-Long Legal Battle for Gay Rights”, India News – IBNLive, 2 July 2009. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/chronology-8yearlong-legal-battle-for-gay-rights/96152-3.html. Retrieved 21 Oc 2010.
64John Wolfenden, et al. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution. (New York: Stein and Day, 1963)
65Daniel Ottoson, “LGBT World Legal Wrap Up Survey”, International Lesbian and Gay Association November 2006
66Lawrence v. Kansas, 2003.
67Geeta Patel, “On Fire: Sexuality and Its Incitements”, 225-9.
69Ist Vikram, “Reverse Swing: It May Be an Open Affair for Gays, Lesbians” The Economic Times (India), 2 July 2008.
70Naz Foundation v. NCT India
|adopt your own virtual pet!|