On January 8, 2023, almost 13,000 people marched for equal rights in the nation’s capital during the largest pride parade ever organised by the Delhi Queer Pride Committee (DQPC). While there was no overarching theme for this year’s parade (pride marches in prior years heavily emphasised decriminalising Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code), this year’s slogans and banners addressed a number of issues, including legalising same-sex marriage, promoting HIV acceptance, and calling for greater inclusion of those who are underrepresented in the sexuality spectrum, including bisexuals, pansexuals, and asexuals, among others.
Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal and Meenakshi, a 41-year-old mother who attended her first pride parade to support her queer son, were among the numerous attendees. The Delhi Queer Pride “Parcha,” a sombre but critical affirmation of the DQPC’s stated goals, objectives, and demands of the pride march, was read out in public at Jantar Mantar, where the pride walk came to an end. It should be noted that while the march may have seemed happy and joyful (and it undoubtedly was because it is sometimes the only forum for LGBT people to express how they actually feel and identify), it is also a political event of sorts, for it emphasises equal rights and calls upon people in power to make changes to the law and other institutions that oppress LGBT people.
Monetisation of pride parades
In her book Queering Tourism — Paradoxical Performances of LGBT Pride Parades, geographer Lynda Johnston explains how pride parades in New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, and Italy have developed over time into thriving centres of “queer tourism.” Lynda bases her arguments on a significant collection of interviews, images, written media articles, photographs, commercials, and her own involvement in parades. “In many western cities, the homosexual rights movement has pushed for justice and equality for residents who are not straight. The public has protested equal rights demands through pride parades. Nonetheless, Lynda notes that there is an increasing trend towards the commercialisation of pride parades and that politics is simply one component of the marches. For better or worse, the Indian story is considerably different. The DQPC made it plain that it does not collaborate with or take funds from businesses, for-profit organisations, non-governmental organisations, or non-profits. Also, no banners, logos, posters, or booklets supporting outside organisations were permitted during the march. Due to this, the event was able to fulfil its goal of raising awareness of issues for LGBT people from different backgrounds without having to answer to large corporations or well-respected NGOs that might want to restrict DQPC’s speech or the behaviour of parade attendees.
The huge turnout for the event was also likely influenced by the Delhi Pride Parade being organised three years after the previous one, which was held in 2019 before the first wave of Covid-19 lockdowns. As a result, the supporters were very fired up. In the past three years, same-sex marriage concerns have also gained traction in the legal system and in the public’s mind, giving many LGBT people a new cause to vociferously champion.
But there was pushback to all of this enthusiasm. DQPC originally made an effort to get permission for the parade to happen in 2022. Yet, the 2022 Delhi Municipal Corporation elections were mentioned as the justification for the denial of police clearances. The holiday season did not begin until after the elections, so the procession could not be held before the first Sunday in January 2023. Despite the fact that the parade received support from the majority of English-language media outlets, including some international ones like PinkNews and the Washington Blade, there was some resistance. In anticipation of a hearing, members of the right-wing Hindu extremist group United Hindu Front were found demonstrating against same-sex marriage outside the Supreme Court’s gates a few days before the pride march. After the terrible death of Shraddha Walkar, the same group protested in front of the Supreme Court, criticising its purported “liberal” stance on live-in relationships. This group asserted that the acceptance of live-in relationships “damaged” Indian society and was the cause of Shraddha’s passing.
A refusal to support same-sex marriage
In front of the Delhi High Court in 2020, renowned government attorney and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta declared: “Our law, our legal system, our society, and our beliefs do not recognise same-sex marriages.” This was in response to a PIL that sought to have same-sex partnerships recognised under the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act. Currently, neither uncodified personal law nor statutory law in India recognises marriages between people of the same sex.
Top BJP official and Rajya Sabha member Sushil Modi stated in December of last year that while he was okay with same-sex relationships being decriminalised, he was opposed to same-sex marriage becoming legal.
One of the primary arguments was that it would “completely wreak havoc” on the “sensitive balance of personal laws in the nation.” This is ironic in light of the BJP’s unwavering support for the Universal Civil Code (UCC), which would create a common law for all Indians regardless of their religious beliefs surrounding matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption. If a UCC contained gender and sexuality-neutral language that automatically encompassed LGBTQ+ individuals, including transgender marriages, how could same-sex marriage violate personal laws? The RSS Sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat, was interviewed on this topic and his views were published in the edition of the Hindu nationalist journal The Organiser on January 15, 2023.
He expressed his views about the LGBTQ+ community, stating that “they are also human beings and have the intrinsic right to live.”
Bhagwat suggested that Hans and Dimbhaka, two generals from the Mahabharata, were in a same-sex relationship because Hans killed himself after learning that Dimbhaka had passed away. Bhagwat unmistakably supported the LGBTQ+ community, but he stopped short of stating that this acceptance must extend from the private realm to the public sphere.
It is acknowledged that the Supreme Court decriminalised same-sex relationships in the private domain in Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India, but additional rights that extend into public life, including the ability to marry and be seen and heard, seem to “run opposed to the laws which are already in existence in our society,” stated Mehta. He continued, “Our values do not recognise a marriage between two persons of the same sex, which is sacred.” Bhagwat’s tokenistic support of the LGBTQ+ group in the private sphere merely upholds the status quo and does little to advance civil rights for the community where they are now most needed — in the public sphere and in social institutions, including the institution of marriage.
In an ironic turn of events, Sandeep Deo, the founding editor of India Speaks Daily, another Hindu nationalist publication, filed a criminal complaint under section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Mohan Bhagwat, Praful Ketkar, editor of The Organiser, Hitesh Shankar, the editor of Panchajanya, accusing them of “disrespecting misrepresentation from scripture just to gain few followers and supporters.”
Section 295A of the IPC deals with the deliberate attempt to outrage the religious feelings of any class of people by insulting their religion or religious beliefs. This complaint was submitted in response to Bhagwat’s comments regarding Hans and Dimbhaka. This shows that there is no clear consensus regarding the position of LGBT people in our society.
The fight for LGBT equality is perhaps more crucial than ever. Pride personifies the publicness of being queer through drag performances, open displays of same-sex affection, and a bold call for equal rights through posters and slogans. It is essential to spread the message of pride in order to increase acceptance of the community, not only in legal settings and places of religion but also among Indians everywhere.
(The author is a Communications Manager at Nyaaya, the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and can be reached at sahgalkanav@gmail.com)