As they say, Sarkar ke ghar der hai andher nahin hai. So what Macualay did in 1835 and which 25 years later became the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has now had one more of its sections brought under question. It is a revolutionary move to even question bits of Section 377, let alone repeal it. Trust the judiciary, the only radical institution left in the country, to do it. The fear and cowardice, not to say the rank prejudice in the reactions among the main political parties that I saw on TV, are as if sex is more of a threat to India than Islamist terrorism. Why this should be so, I cannot fathom. Hinduism is not prudish about sex as the Abrahamic faiths—Islam, Christianity and Judaism—are and does not disapprove of homosexuality. Indeed, it is the most sexually liberal religion. (Even Indian Islam used to be liberal with its Sufi traditions until the orthodox revival took all the fun away.) What we have parading as orthodox Hinduism is Victorian morality, which the Indian middle classes adopted to ape their British masters. Gandhiji was another Victorian moralist who gave a religious clothing to his sexual dislikes. Panditji was much more open minded, Edwardian rather than Victorian.

The paradox is that the descendants of Victoria have given up that morality. It took a long time, but, within the 45 years that I have lived in the UK, there has been a complete revolution in attitudes towards homosexuality. When I was Chairman of the Labour Party in Islington South, my MP, Chris Smith was the first to come out openly as gay. He has been in the cabinet and indeed he opened the door to many other men and women to openly be known as gay. Gayness is accepted as normal in the UK now and even same sex marriages are legal—except that they are called civil partnerships.

... contd.