NEW DELHI: I woke up to the news of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale saying that homosexuality should not be criminalised.

"I don't think homosexuality should be considered a criminal offence as long as it does not affect the lives of others in society,” the RSS leader had said. "Sexual preferences are private and personal. Why should RSS express its views in a public forum? RSS has no view on that. It is for people to have their way. Personal preference of sex is not discussed in RSS and we don't even want to discuss that.”

Wow, I thought. A progressive pro-LGBT rights from the RSS? I must be dreaming. This statement is all the more important given the BJP’s opposition to decriminalising homosexuality by scrapping Article 377 (which, incidentally, doesn’t just criminalize “gay sex” -- but any form of non penile-vaginal sex, so even anal or oral intercourse between consenting adults of the opposite gender is illegal).

And since the RSS “remote controls” the BJP (not my words), the RSS’ leader’s statement could only be good news.

Predictably, Hosabale issued a clarification of sorts just a few hours later. "Homosexuality is not a crime, but socially immoral act in our society. No need to punish, but to be treated as a psychological case," he tweeted.

He then went on to add, “Gay marriage is Institutionalization of homosexuality. It should be prohibited.”




I wonder what all the LGBT activists who had welcomed the RSS leader’s earlier words think of his clarification? Being gay -- not a crime, but a MENTAL ILLNESS.

That statement just took up back a few decades. Maybe the RSS leader should look up the history of the relationship between homosexuality and psychological disorders. In the 1970s, homosexuality was de-listed as a mental illness, as there wasn’t enough empirical evidence to suggest that it was a disorder.

Most psychologists, psychiatrists and behavioural and mental health experts believe that classifying homosexuality as a disorder was an error in the first place… that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions that were based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from "unofficial" samples which consisted of patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system.

Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexual orientation.

So given that we have no proof -- scientifically and medically speaking -- that homosexuality is a mental disorder, Hosabale decision to classify it as one is a moral one.

Now it is here that I find things even more interesting. Given that RSS ideology is rooted in ancient Indian texts -- I want to ask Hosabale, where in the ancient Indian texts do you find outright opposition to homosexuality?

Incidentally -- homosexuality, which is now condemned in India on the moral grounds of being a “western” influence -- was criminalised and frowned upon first in India only during the colonial era. It was British, in 1860, who introduced in India laws persecuting homosexuals. With this, they changed the long standing practice of Indian history and culture -- where homosexuality was part of ever day life.

In fact, in ancient India, homosexuals were recognised as the “third gender” (tritya prakriti). According to the Arthashastra, some form of heterosexual intercourse were frowned upon and fined more heavily than homosexual intercourse. In fact, as the Arthashastra detailed the attitude of the judiciary towards sexual matters: heterosexual vaginal sex is proposed as the norm by this text and legal issues arising from deviation are punishable by fines and in extreme cases by capital punishment. Homosexual acts are cited as a small offence punishable by a fine.

A quick look at some of the sculptures and carvings that adorn Indian temples would prove the point above. The cover photo of this article, is in fact, from a scene depicting three women and one man on the walls of a temple in Khajuraho. Some of the other “homosexual” sculptures at the temple complex include: A similar group, also on the southern wall, shows a woman facing the viewer, standing on her head, apparently engaged in intercourse, although her partner is facing away from the viewer and their gender cannot be determined. She is held by two female attendants on either side and reaches out to touch one of them in her pubic area; a relief of two women embracing one another; At the Lakshmana temple in Khajuraho (954 CE), a man receives fellatio from a seated male as part of an orgiastic scene.

At the Shiva temple at Ambernath, constructed in 1060 CE, a badly weathered relief suggests an erotic interest between two women. A 12th-century Shiva temple in Bagali, Karnataka depicts a scene of apparent oral sex between two males on a sculpture below the shikhara. At Padhavli near Gwalior, a ruined temple from the 10th century shows a man within an orgiastic group receiving fellatio from another male. An 11th-century lifesize sandstone sculpture from Odisha, now in the Seattle Art Museum, shows Kama, god of love, shooting a flower tipped arrow at two women who are embracing one another.

And a look at ancient Indian texts demonstrate that gender fluidity was not viewed with the same moral yardstick that it is today. After all, our God Vishnu could turn into Mohini -- so beautiful that Shiva, "bereft of shame and robbed by her of good sense” even abandons his own wife, Parvati. In the Agni Purana, as the enchanted Shiva follows Mohini, drops of his semen falls on the ground and become lingas, Shiva's symbols. His semen also generates the monkey-god Hanuman.

Ancients texts are replete with such stories. Take the Mahabharat, as Drupada raises his daughter Shikhandini as a man and even gets him a wife. In the Skanda Purana, two Brahmins desperate for money disguise themselves as a newly married couple and try to dupe a pious queen in the hope of securing rich gifts. But such is the queen’s piety that the gods decide to prevent her from being made a fool; they turn the Brahmin dressed as a bride into a real woman. The two Brahmins thus end up marrying each other and all ends well (quoted from devdutt.com).

The Kama Sutra, where referring to the third gender, says, “"Citizens with this kind of homosexual inclination, who renounce women and can do without them willingly because they love one another, get married together, bound by a deep and trusting friendship." The Kama Sutra also refers to svairini, who are "independent women who frequent their own kind or others" (2.8.26) — or, in another passage: "the liberated woman, or svairini, is one who refuses a husband and has relations in her own home or in other houses" (6.6.50). In a famous commentary on the Kama Sutra from the 12th century, Jayamangala, explains: "A woman known for her independence, with no sexual bars, and acting as she wishes, is called svairini. She makes love with her own kind. She strokes her partner at the point of union, which she kisses." (Jayamangala on Kama Sutra 2.8.13).

There are other ancient texts that refer to homosexuality. The Sushruta Samhita, for example, a highly respected Hindu medical text dating back to at least 600 B.C., mentions two different types of homosexual men (kumbhika – men who take the passive role in anal sex; and asekya – men who devour the semen of other men) as well as transgender people (sandha – men with the qualities, behavior and speech of women).

This is not to say that homosexuality was the norm or that the above examples even constitute homosexuality -- but rather to suggest that it wasn’t the construct that is today. The understanding of gender was more fluid, and had its own connotation, and wasn’t limited to “male” and “female” in the sense that it is today.

Historians Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidwai, in their book, Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History, for the first time compiled extracts from Indian texts, from ancient to modern times, including many Hindu texts, translated from 15 Indian languages. In their accompanying analytical essays, they also demonstrated that Hindu texts have discussed and debated same-sex desire from the earliest times, in tones ranging from critical to non-judgmental to playful and celebratory.

In his book, Tritiya-Prakriti: People of the Third Sex, Vaishnava monk Amara Das Wilhelm demonstrates how ancient expressions of Hinduism accommodated homosexual and transgender persons much more positively than we see in India today: "Early Vedic teachings stressed responsible family life and asceticism but also tolerated different types of sexualities within general society."

A large part of that history and connotation has carried on. A survey of rural India by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) found that "male to male sex is not uncommon", with a higher percentage of men reporting male to male sex than sex with sex workers. Further, several men who admitted to having sex with other men, denied that they were “homosexuals” -- indicating the complicated connotations of the word as understood, and introduced, in India by the west.

In conclusion, I find the RSS’ position on homosexuality quite interesting. First a crime, then not a crime but a “mental illness” -- and given that we have no proof that homosexuality is a mental illness, the opposition can only be understood as a moral one. But whose morality are we even talking about?

(Cover photo: Khajoraho scene of three women and one man).

Latest News

YASH SHARMA