The writer Vikram Seth, along with a group of activists, recently signed an open letter directed to the Government of India and the Delhi High Court, asking it to repeal Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This is the section that prohibits sexual relations between men as well as other “unnatural” acts. Amartya Sen has put out a follow-up open letter with dozens of prominent Indian intellectuals and celebrities signing on.
Human Rights Watch put out a report in 2002 criticizing the law because it weakens efforts to mobilize against AIDS. In the NYT Somini Sengupta mentions that the government’s own National AIDS Control Agency has stated that the law hampers AIDS prevention and treatment programs.
The key actor in all this a group called the Naz Foundation India Trust, which sued the government in 2004 to request the repeal of the law. The case was initially refused by the Delhi Court, but the Indian Supreme Court required the Delhi Court to examine the case on its merits. The next hearing is scheduled for October 4. The recent agitations seem to be oriented to influencing the outcome of these particular hearings.
For reference, here is the text of the 1861 law:
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 a 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 offence described in this section. (link)
This is a very bad, outmoded law. It is, for one thing, euphemistic to the point of absurdity. Who exactly defines what is “against the order of nature”? I believe the earlier versions of the Penal Code didn’t include the “explanation,” so one obvious question is whether it includes, to be quite direct, everything but the heterosexual missionary position. (The term “sodomy” once included oral sex as well as masturbation; it is still only euphemistically defined as “any sex act that does not lead to procreation”.)
More generally, the law has many deleterious effects that its critics have explored. Let’s have a look at some of these arguments, as well as the government’s response to them so far.Here are some quotes from a speech by Aditya Bondyopadhyay (of Naz Foundation) that makes many good points:
Very few cases on this law have actually reached the upper courts level in all this time, but the law continues to be a potent tool of oppression. It provides the impunity to a venal police to extort money, blackmail, indulge in violence, and extract other favors, including sexual favors, by dangling this law on homosexual males and hijras, a traditional social group of transvestites and transsexual persons. It impedes sexual health promotion activities like HIV/AIDS Interventions amongst same sex attracted males. It discourages reporting of male rape, and therefore encourages such rape, often by police. In sum, it disrupts the social existence of all same sex attracted persons, erodes their dignity and self respect, and reduces them to a sub-human level of existence.
Aditya Bondyopadhyay also quotes from the government’s initial response to the case:
After a few initial paragraphs of legal arguments, the government goes on to reveal its real face by saying in paragraph 9: “deletion of the said section can well open flood gates of delinquent behaviour and be misconstrued as providing unbridled licence for the same.”
In Paragraph 31 of the reply the Government goes on to state: “law does not run separately from society. It only reflects the perception of the society. Public tolerance of different activities, changes and legal categories get influenced by those changes. The public notably in the United Kingdom and the United States of America have shown tolerance of a new sexual behavior or sexual preference but it is not the universally accepted behavior.“
In paragraph 32 of the reply the government states: “In fact, the purpose of this section 377 IPC is to provide a healthy environment in the society by criminalizing unnatural sexual activities against the order of nature.” And then goes on to add in Paragraph 33: “If this provision is taken out of the statute book, a public display of such affection would, at the most, attract charges of indecent exposure which carry a lesser jail sentence than the existing imprisonment for life or imprisonment of 10 years and fine. While the Government cannot police morality, in a civil society criminal law has to express and reflect public morality and concerns about harm to the society at large. If this is not observed, whatever little respect of law is left would disappear, as law would have lost its legitimacy”.(link)
This reasoning is flawed in any number of ways, one of which being the reference to “new sexual behavior or sexual preference.” The behavior is not “new,” or it wouldn’t have been outlawed in 1861; it is the recognition of it as a fundamental human right that is new. One could also argue that since the law isn’t often enforced, it already doesn’t have much legitimacy. And third, sexual acts between consenting adults in private pose no harm for anyone, whereas the existing law has been shown to cause harm to large numbers of people — including many people who are not gay (i.e., the large number of heterosexuals with HIV/AIDS in India).
The old argument that the majority of Indians would probably support this law doesn’t hold water either. The majority of Indians probably still support the practice of dowry, but no one would argue that that is a good reason to reinstitute it. Justices of the court, as non-elected officials, are in a unique position to do what is right rather than what is going to be popular.
Also, supporters of this law (along with supporters of the old anti-Sodomy laws in the U.S.) often claim that removing it would legalize pedophilia. That simply isn’t true; existing laws would continue to protect children from sexual predators.
Importantly, it’s not just lefties who are on board with this campaign; among the original signatories to Seth’s letter is Soli Sorabjee, the former attorney general and a BJP official, according to the New York Times.
One final thought: before Americans liberals get on their (our) high horse about the barbaric nature of these laws, we should keep in mind that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the remaining anti-Sodomy laws in 12 American states, only came down in 2003. Then again, Section 377 applies to all Indian states equally. In my view, it is time to erase this relic of Victorian morality.
Update: Incidentally, Ennis had a link-filled post on this topic last year, when the suit over Section 377 was still in limbo.
I think this is a true statement, but I think the government is leaving out a very important point. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas. In over turning a prior opinion, Bowers v. Hardwick, Justice Kennedy relied heavily, with much criticism afterwards, on international law.
So, while the opinion expressed in Lawrence may not be universal, I think it is misleading for the Indian government to hint that there is no trend in that direction.
Though even with this law in place, I’ve heard countless stories of homosexual flings in India. With such a high population of people and so much corruption, I doubt the law gets enforced very often, much less adequately. It seems, for the most part, that laws in India are just words on paper and nothing more.
2, yes that is true for a lot of cases, but still there is a lot of avoidable victimization due to the existence of this law
Does anyone know if there’s been interest from either the authorities or the public in enforcing this law? In downtown Kolkata my ex-bf got hit on twice by guys – prostitutes, maybe – when I wasn’t with him. One of the guys was really brazen about it, so he can’t have been living in terror of the police.
I meant unnecessary victimization which is avoidable (to say the least), in #3.
As a result of this definition, there interestingly is no law against lesbianism in India.
Legalizing homosexuality will cause nary a whimper in India, except from some standard Bajrang Dal types, who protest everything anyway. Even the police have in the past decade been accepting and generally leave gays alone to do their own thing.
The big issue, as in America, shall probably be gay marriage. Imagine an arranged gay marriage!
Like everything else enforcement is a matter of economics. But a change of law will have a big effect, not least because the matter will be out in the open.
Given that, there are some high profile gay people in India – Wendell Rodricks who try to be part of the mainstream without much drama. He writes a regular column for a magazine called Goa Today where he mentions hsi french partner as a matter of fact Very Sedaris like 🙂
It has come some way since I went to college with Dominic Desouza (the guy on whom the movie My Friend Nikhil was loosely based). Dominic was put under house arrest when he tested positive after trying to donate blood. Only after a morcha was taken out by his college professors did people acknowledge that he was not a pariah. Incidentally Dominic was a great actor. He once played a girl in a school play…and he got stuck with the nickname Dimple. It was sad to hear that he passed away several years ago.
Every time i return for a holiday, it still rankles to hear the “snickering” that goes on. The way the gays are lumped together especially in the press. You know a line like . “Last night the police arrested several rapists, molester and homosexuals…..” But the more i read and listen to the young folk, change will come.
Even here we need to learn…the L.A. weekly ran a positive review of Almodovar flicks a few weeks back but was saddled with the following line – “..the pathetic parade of drug addicts, con-men, and transsexuals.” Huh?
A more original name, I share this frustration, but I tend to think that the high courts in the Indian system are relatively credible and non-corrupt — just very slow to process cases!
“Legalizing homosexuality will cause nary a whimper in India, except from some standard Bajrang Dal types, who protest everything anyway.”
the catholic church in india has in the past spoken out against homosexuality as “unnatural”. the church – whether it be catholic or some other denomination – in places like india and the developing world tends to be far more conservative than in the west. just look at how the nigerian christians threatened to secede from the Anglican Church because they found it too liberal. i don’t doubt many muslim religious leaders feel the same way. the protests, if there are any, will not be limited to the “bajrang dal” types alone, but perhaps to conservative religious types in general from many faiths (but even amongst these types there will those who dissent and have no problem with repealing the law against homosexuality.) it’s not so black and white in india.
Neale,
What’s a morcha?
Change is bound to come. I’m proud when I read the long list of signatories to Seth’s letter.
DQ, “Morcha” is a protest march
I don’t think the law will reduce the so called raping of Gays by Police. I think the foundation should rather focus on raising publich awareness about the Gay and Lesbian in indian society by holding seminars and parades etc.
While I think that article 377 of victorian puritanism BS, needs to go, I also feel that more important is to tackle article 370, that gives Kashmir special status and is at the root of all problems, as it effectively bars other Indians to own property in Kashmir. I think that would be a tad more important than Victorian puritanist laws.
But the celebreties are not going to get behind the “sexy” activism!!!
Whose God is it anyways:
I agree, the church is bound to complain. But its influence in India is limited, except in the northeast. Muslim religious leaders might be a far bigger stumbling block (rem the recent killing of homosexuals in Iraq). Conservative hindus might complain in private, but fortunately they do not have a well-defined scriptural leg to stand on.
“Conservative hindus might complain in private, but fortunately they do not have a well-defined scriptural leg to stand on. “
that’s an important point. i wish these bajrang dal types and other conservative hindus who do have strong objections could be made to see that hinduism has actually been fairly tolerant on this issue, whilst neither condemning it or wholeheartedly condoning it, since it also sees the male-female union as the ideal. it’s interesting that a festival like aravani is accepted and celebrated without incident on the one hand and yet you also have another type of prevailing attitude.
In fact, the Supreme Court of India is one of the most accessible high courts in the world. It hears many times more cases than the U.S. supreme court. Unfortunately, there do to corruption and other problems at other levels of government, Court decisions are difficult to enforce.
that’s an important point. i wish these bajrang dal types and other conservative hindus who do have strong objections could be made to see that hinduism has actually been fairly tolerant on this issue, whilst neither condemning it or wholeheartedly condoning it, since it also sees the male-female union as the ideal.
Swami Agnivesh, a left-leaning Hindu swamy and activist, is the second or third signatory, above the general list in fact, which means he was probably an organizer.
Have the authors and signatories heard of polygamy, its legality and its crimes in India?
Hammer-sickel, you’re resorting to the old rhetorical strategy of “wait, why are you saying this when you should really be addressing this totally other problem?”
It won’t work. Discuss the issue on its merits.
A degree of prejudice exists against gays everywhere. There is something in the heterosexual mind that just cannot wrap its head around homosexuality. Reminds me of that episode from Seinfeld, where he and George are mistaken as partners: “We’re NOT gay! (uncomfortable pause) Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”.
I’ve been thinking about the letters the Seth and Sen have penned. Would the letter have carried more punch if someone from a more popular entertainment feild had come out (pun intended) and written it. There must be someone in B’wood. Seth and Sen seem marginalized from the get go – being lit and imtellectual and all. More importantly, is Seth coming out?
I thought Seth came out a long time ago. Everyone knows he’s gay. He certainly must have come out in the West?
Interesting question you asked about the weight carried by literary figures – in fact I think figures like Seth and Sen, especially in the Indian cultural context, carry immense weight with the educated middle class. But if you look at the list of signatories, some Bollywood actors have signed it (Pooja Bedi and some others, I believe). Interesting that someone like Aishwarya Rai hasn’t signed it, though.
NDTV’s show with Barkha Dutt (“We the People”) was all about this issue today. On the subject of Vikram Seth, they had him via satellite from Italy for the whole show and when asked why he was getting involved in this issue, he said that “for someone like me who is gay, or at least partly gay” it would be wrong to remain silent.
One point that Soli Sorabjee made (he was another panel member) was that this does not mean the legalization of homosexuality, rather only it’s decriminalization.
The audience itself was made up of a lot of gay men and women, notably a young lesbian couple who live together and sell vegetables, and that prince who was disowned by his family, and some parents. One mother, the parent of a now-deceased gay son who was a filmmaker, was asked if, although she had accepted her son coming out, if the aunties and uncles still objected, and she said as soon as she declared her support, there wasn’t a peep from anyone else.
And people did speculate about what might happen down the line legally (marriage, kids, etc.), but most people there kept saying “Look, let’s get this out of the way first and we can see, one thing at a time, where we go from there.”
this is exciting that the story was picked up here. i work with naz foundation india trust here in delhi, you can find us at http://www.nazindia.org
“I don’t think the law will reduce the so called raping of Gays by Police. I think the foundation should rather focus on raising publich awareness about the Gay and Lesbian in indian society by holding seminars and parades etc.”
actually, at naz india, we have signficant outreach, education, and advocacy projects in delhi and across india related to raising awareness and increasing protection for sexual minorities. we also run a full-time OPD that is a safe space sexual minorities to seek out medical services like check-ups, HIV-testing, and treatments for STIs, and general medical care. This clinic is open to the public and is also regularly accessed by our HIV-positive home-based care clients, as well as our care home for HIV-positive orphaned children. we regularly hold public events dedicated to increasing awareness of homosexuals, their rights, and our work on sec. 377. our advocacy to repeal sec. 377 is an extension of our outreach when we discovered that yes, while homosexuals are not rounded up on the streets and arrested there are more insidious ways that sex. 377 works, namely the failure to report crimes against homosexuals, sexual violence against homosexuals by authority figures (police etc.)…
again, very glad to see this up here.
Nice to hear about Naz. What is the situation with couselling to teenagers?
a similar clinic to Naz in Mumbai is Humsafar…. they are doing amazing outreach work as well.
i came to know about a few of community-based organizations/ NGOs in india at the international AIDS conference this year. they are all doing great work, each has a unique strength. some have been able to expand more because they have been running for longer and may have greater/more sustained financial support. imo, one thing holding progress back in india regarding these issues is a lack of communication and networking… and of course funding! people in the field in different parts of the country need to know of each other more and work together. coalitions and networking between such orgs can allow for more efficient information exchange and will give strength to their causes collectively. together they can form a greater, louder voice that may even be heard by the politicians to instigate some policy changes.
my bad… they are NOT clinics only… foundation should have been the word!
counseling to teenagers? who are curious about sexuality? we have a peer education program running in all delhi colleges that trains students to work in their schools, hold events, and promote awareness about sexuality, sexual health and HIV/AIDS. we also have counselors on staff who field phone, in-person, and email questions from anyone who has questions about sexuality, sexual health and hiv/aids.
re: the networking between ngos this is a double-edged sword. yes, we need better networking, but there also has to be an understanding that though india is one country, the methods used in one area will not necessarily have much reach in another area… within delhi we have excellent communication between various organizations and benefit from this tremendously.
there are numerous india-wide coalitions that meet regularly and i think that the flow of communication is quite strong. we rely on referrals for our children’s care home… but one thing i wish we could do is build capacity country-wide. we often have issues referred to us from other states because those ngos and cbos lack the capacity to handle the issue or situation… this can and will be changed as the years go by.
as far as policy change, we at naz do trainings with government officials and the police on issues of sexuality, sexual health and hiv/aids (see a trend here?) we were also the petitioners for the repeal of sec. 377 and as you see have created quite a stir…
Also check out this wonderful, vibrant human rights organization called Sangama that is doing some major work around repealing 377.
While this presents one side of the picture, it is important to examine data regarding section 377. I attended a seminar earlier this year at Yale on law in south East Asia, where this section was discussed with many many examples of case law. which gave me an insight into this issue which I did not have earlier. While I am all for consenting gay couples having sex, the fact that this section is the only tool to prevent child sexual abuse in India as of now, seems to me a complex factor.
The false choice becomes, do we need to think of gay freedom to have sex? Or to protect vulnerable children on the streets and in underpriveleged sections of society, who rely on this section to get any justice, (which is borne out by the examples of “enforced law”)
I am not sure I know the answer. However, to quickly take a high ground before even understanding why there is opposition to this repealing, is important to consider some hard facts.
The fact that billions of Gates and Buffett dollars are being channeled into AIDS prevention may have something to do with this mobilisation of intellectuals? I dont know. But I am a little sceptical of this mobilisation, which does not consider this aspect and has not YET made any cogent suggestions on how to deal with this situation. While its easy to fight for social justice, it is hard to be in the field when people work with sexual abuse situations and dont know what law can protect them.
However, since there is no money is preventing trafficking or child sexual abuse, these questions probably do not find motivation for this kind of wide mobilization. Till I see these very same intellectuals publicly campaigning against those crimes or child abuse, and trafficking, which in my view are more heineous than most others, this outcry seems to me a little skewed. Even as I support a campaign for gay rights entirely.
This article ( which i googled, I dont even know who the author is.)presents some of these issues wqith an attempt at objectivity. It presents the views I heard expressed at the Yale conference by Flavia Agenes( to some extent).
http://www.lines-magazine.org/textfeb04/arvind.htm
I’d like readers to draw their own conculsions, rather than be fake liberals fighting for gay rights. I fight for gay rights too, but takes lot of work to discern higher priority between two evils. Lets not make the mistake of being lazy intelelctually before we rush to support or condemn.
Hope this information helps.
Morcha = Mor cha = More Tea
In fact, the Supreme Court of India is one of the most accessible high courts in the world. It hears many times more cases than the U.S. supreme court. Unfortunately, there do to corruption and other problems at other levels of government, Court decisions are difficult to enforce.
It might be due to the fact that the Supreme Court in India does not need the an actual case or controversy by a harmed plaintiff for it to address the issue or take up the case. For example, as I understand, the Supreme Court of India can take up a Public Interest Litigation where the plaintiff has not been harmed himself. Also the Supreme Court in India supposedly has the ability to actually legislate from the bench and come up with remedies instead of leaving it to the legislature to come up with the remedies.
Regarding child abuse, I read an article in an Indian magazine illustrating the struggle of those who serve to spread awareness about this crime. Apparently although any form of sexual contact considered ‘unnatural'(i.e. not traditional missionary position) is banned by law, at the same time the laws regarding child abuse do not recognise any form of sexual abuse other than penile-vaginal penetration. Which of course presents a huge problem for those who wish to bring justice on behalf of the abused.
Might help to note that this is one of the laws introduced by the British in trying to set their morality on the Indian society, there is no (well known) text of hatred for homosexuals before that. As suggested in one of the articles the violence against homosexuals is driven by the law rather than any religious belief or tradition.
More old laws.
While the law is certainly stupid and outdated, I think the reasoning made in favor of repealing it is a little specious.
Bondyopadhyay (no typo?) states: “It provides the impunity to a venal police to extort money, blackmail, indulge in violence, and extract other favors, including sexual favors, by dangling this law on homosexual males and hijras, a traditional social group of transvestites and transsexual persons. It impedes sexual health promotion activities like HIV/AIDS Interventions amongst same sex attracted males. It discourages reporting of male rape, and therefore encourages such rape, often by police. In sum, it disrupts the social existence of all same sex attracted persons, erodes their dignity and self respect, and reduces them to a sub-human level of existence.”
This seems fallacious. If there have been hardly any cases of prosecution, the victims need not get coerced by the police and can challenge them to prosecute. Police brutality will occur nonetheless. By targeting gays and hijras, the police know that they can get away scott free because Indian society, for whatever perverted reason, frowns upon gays and hijras and they rarely stand up for their rights because of the shame factor.
The absence of this law does not mean society will immediately embrace them or respect them or even care about them. The police atrocities will continue because of the shame factor, not the legal justification. And the ‘shame’ factor has scant little to do with the existence of the law.
Are the petitioners contending that striking off the law will allow gay organizations to spring up by the dozen with the legal threat removed? As far as I am aware, there are Indian gay support organizations who operate quite openly and with no fear of law. No one has dared prosectute them.
How does it discourage report of male rape? The victim if at all has a two pronged claim to justice if raped. The against consent act, and the ‘unnatural’ part, so the egregiousness is all the more serious.
I think the problem of acceptance of gays and transsexuals is significantly more serious than the existence of this antiquated law. If activists claim that removing the law would be a small first step, I agree. But by portraying it as a horrible thing hanging like a noose over the heads of gays and hijras it does not seem authentic.
Where do you think the ‘shame’ factor came from?
Here is a relevant quote from Wikipedia article.
Although we are discussing the law, here’s a look at the opinions of some Hindu organisations on the issue.
The Hindu Council UK
In December 2004 Rajiv Malik of Hinduism Today interviewed Hindu preceptors who had gathered for an Ardh Kumbh. You can read about their views here (It’s one of the six things they have talked about).
I’m tired of leftie self-bashing…it’s almost as if having a right-winger on board for a cause makes this more rational. But I guess it’s good to have supporters from all areas of the political spectrum.
Seth’s gay? I didn’t know that…I hope he’s got a nice bf he looks kinda lonely and threadbare with his thinning head of hair and impoverished-despite-hefty-paycheck writer’s look
It’s sad that just as people are beginning to speak out more against unfair laws like 377 there’s a counter movement by people in my own generation who see themselves as being true to their own culture/religion by supporting homophobia.
Recently in a Criminal law lecture (and I live in NZ) where we were discussing the unfairness of rape for women being termed rape but only being legally defined as sexual violation if men get raped…someone put their hand up and enquired about the ‘crime’ of sodomy.
The sad thing was that this someone was head boy of his (multicultural, diverse) school and is a genuine, nice, popular, sincere guy. But homophobia has got to go.
Slightly off-topic, but on my last trip to Kochi, I picked up a fascinating book by Ruth Vanita: Love’s Rites: Same Sex Marriage and its Antecedents in the U.S. and India. Apparently, there have been some same sex Hindu unions performed in India. One pandit (remaining anonymous) justified it “theologically” as the union of two souls who in their past life must have been a hetero couple. An interesting issue, though, legally, is that apparently most Indians don’t register their marriages, which renders the state’s laws in the area of marriage moot. Anyway, read the book, it is fascinating: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Loves-Rites-Marriage-Antecendents-India/dp/1403970386
interesting that you mentioned it… i have heard this view in the context of hinduism before to explain homosexual union as well. thanks for the book reference.
Taken from Shiva’s provided link in comment # 37…
Swami Pragyanand, for example, said, “Gay marriages do not fit with our culture and heritage. All those people who are raising demand for approving such marriages in India are doing so under the influence of the West. Sanatana Dharma has no place for such marriages, and we do not even discuss it.”
WE DO NOT EVEN DISCUSS IT.
So…….. end of conversation?
This seems to be the general attitude towards sexuality and all other kinds of issues like, as mentioned above, child abuse and AIDS, and a host of other “taboo” topics in India.
Navaratan Kurma has discussed this “culture of denial” on his blog.
My point is, when even HETEROSEXUALITY is largely a taboo subject, then OF COURSE, homosexuality will “not even be discussed”.
That being said, I have noticed that there is alot of borderline male-male touching going on in India which seems to be accepted.
I’m not talking about just the hand-holding in the streets. Rather, I’m talking about the holding of something else that happens so quickly between two male friends greeting each other on the streets of Uttar Pradesh that if one wasn’t looking for it, they would miss it. But it is very much there.
Several male UPites have relayed to me the same-sex sexual experiences of their youth and have all clarified that they were not gay but were doing it to release sexual tension in a culture which forbade them to openly have girlfriends and in an area of India where girls were hard to get. They said it was very common.
Something anecdotal;
When ISKCON of Mayapur, West Bengal was having an epidemic of older boy on younger boy sexual abuse in their gurukula (boarding school), a teacher told me that when they were informing local parents about it, several of the parents’ attitude was, “he will do this until he gets married. After that, no more problem.”
Perhaps the parents were not aware of the psychological damage sexual abuse of older boys on younger boys can do to the victims, or perhaps they thought the abuse was simply “touching” or other non-penetrative acts. I don’t know.
What I do know is that some things that are considered “abuse” in America are not considered abuse in North India, such as playing with a little boy’s penis and teasing him, “yeh kya hai?”
A friend of mine’s son had several such experiences and I know she had a tough time deciding what to do about it. She was always telling him that his lingam was a private part and no one should touch it, but then, every once in a while a “well meaning” shop keeper would tease him in the way which I described above, right out in the open, in front of everyone, which is very common in that area. So you can understand her predicament.
Pardesi Gori:
There seems to be some selective quoting going on here. The other two gurus quoted on the site endorsed the idea of gay marriage and said hinduism has no objections against homosexuality:
Nepali Baba: “So if they choose to live in a particular way out of the consent of two grown up people, how can we stop them?”
Pandit Shailendra: “Whatever is done openly does invite criticism for some time but ultimately gains acceptance. Why not give them the liberty to live in their own way, if they are going to do it anyway?”
That seems like 2/3 in favor, which is remarkable, considering these are religious leaders, who are expected to be conservative.
Saksi, I’ve been diagnosed with DSM, that’s distributed selective memory. So, you are right, the qouting was selective. But I selected the qoute that best summed up the general approach to the subject that I’ve encountered in my more than a decade stay in India. And that was the”we-don’t-even-discuss-it” approach.
I wasn’t suprised however to read the other statements by the other swamis. That is more in keeping with the broad-vision-liberal-spirit-detached-sage viewpoint.
Oh! for God’s sake!..