When Republicans describe tax cuts for the rich as ‘tax relief’, says renowned cognitive scientist George Lakoff, the listener imagines a hapless victim suffering pain and understands the need to relieve him. A loaded phrase makes the listener sympathetic to tax cuts even before an argument has been made. Lakoff’s larger point is that people don’t buy individual facts, they buy stories, or ‘frames’ through which they view the world. Convincing people requires using words and images that frames your agenda correctly, that tells the story the right way.

In convincing India’s sceptical public of the need to decriminalise homosexuality, the story that’s being told to them is one of ‘freedom’, the freedom to choose. As 18th century liberal philosopher Jeremy Bentham argued in an influential essay, Offences against one’s self: “it is evident that [homosexuality] produces no pain in anyone.” Then why ban what adults choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Many gay rights activists and opinion makers have stressed this argument. And visuals of gay pride parades showing camp celebrations by masked marchers in feathered skirts, conjure up this very frame.

The problem with this ‘freedom’ frame is that while it appeals to upper-class Indian liberals, it also accommodates some of the basest prejudices against homosexuality. Some of the stereotypes against gays: that it is a western fad or as former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Yadav put it: “are obscene things which our country and culture do not permit,” work within this narrative. For, opponents of gay rights argue, if gay sex is simply a matter of choice, then surely it is curable. After all, we don’t have the freedom to smoke cocaine or commit incest (even though, strictly speaking, these choices don’t harm anyone else). The class composition of gay rights activism in India also fuels suspicions that these are westernised rich-boy perversions (never mind that only the well-heeled can speak out against such prevelant social stigma). Bentham’s own essay in defence of homosexuality, written in 1785, could be published only in 1931, for fear of inciting social wrath. Even legally, India’s Constitution does not unequivocally protect our right to make harm-free choices. The list of freedoms we enjoy (enumerated within Article 19(1)) are subject to ‘decency or morality’, even when they injure no one.

... contd.