Hey homophobes, it's time you read Kamasutra and visit Khajuraho

"India gets its first transgender college principal," screamed the headlines of a national daily. The news about the transgender, Manabi Bandhopadhyay, being selected to take over charge as principal of Krishnanagar Women's College in West Bengal came as a breath of fresh air to me.

Since the news broke, Manabi, an associate professor till now, has been receiving congratulatory calls, messages and also many friend requests on social networking sites. In Delhi, Sneha Sharma, a transgender, who started her life as Pawan Kumar Asrawat in Ajmer, is applying in DU colleges as an "other" candidate and is hoping that after her corrective surgery, she will now be accepted in the mainstream more readily and will not just remain the butt of jokes and snide remarks.

Acceptance

Is India changing? Is it now ready to look at a person beyond his or her sexuality? Some months back, Madhu Bai Kinnar, another Dalit transgender, from Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, had broken the shackles of her sexuality and gone on to win the elections for the post of district mayor, defeating her nearest rival by a margin of 4,500 votes. Thanking her electorate, she credited her victory to the love and faith of the people who had voted for her.

I was happy. India was showing acceptance and was willing to include into the mainstream, those who, hitherto, had been shunned and left with only one option of earning their livelihood, which was by singing and dancing at weddings or in trains. I was also thankful to the April 2014 path breaking ruling of the SC that recognised transgender people as gender-neutral.

But a lot has yet to change. The cases of Manabi and Madhu, though encouraging, are still only exceptions. For a change to come about, thinking, perceptions and attitudes towards the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community have to change.

The sniggering and ridicule has to stop and families, friends and colleagues must stop feeling embarrassed of being associated with a person of a different sexual orientation. LGBT people, like everyone else, should have the freedom to build personal and intimate relationships, without the feeling that their families and friends will be humiliated or socially boycotted because of them.

I feel the biggest blow dealt to the emancipation of the LGBT community was by the December 2013 ruling of the SC. The ruling overturned the 2009 ruling of the high court that had declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code dating back to 1860, criminalising sexual activities as "against the order of nature", including homosexual acts, as "unconstitutional" with respect to sex between two consenting adults.

Failure

The apex court felt amending or repealing Section 377 should be a matter left to the Parliament, not the judiciary while in the US where one million same sex couples live together, the Supreme Court has recently legalised same sex marriages in a landmark ruling, paving the way towards "equality for all" and handing a historic triumph to the gay rights movement.

Who is to decide the "order of nature"? What is natural and what is unnatural? These are pertinent questions that beg answers, but unfortunately, none are forthcoming.

I feel this law, brought about by the British in India raises questions on fundamental liberty. To term a private act between two adults within the confines of their own private space, as criminal, is downright ridiculous and borders on insanity. The ridiculousness of this law can be judged by the convictions it has had in the last 20 years. Nil.

Why are we creating social taboos? Why are we forcing a section of our society to live in denial, agony and fear? If our Constitution guarantees all citizens their Fundamental Rights, then why are the LGBTs being denied this privilege? In a country where a rape occurs every 20 minutes and people get robbed and murdered routinely, are we trying to say homosexuals are a bigger threat to society than those who rape, rob and murder? Are we equating them with criminals?

I am a liberal and I am inherently against words like prohibition and banning. These only kill free spirit and imply that one is not capable enough to decide what is right and what is wrong for oneself.

I feel if a person of 18 years of age has the right to vote and choose a government, then how is it that it is deemed "unnatural" if he/she chooses a same sex partner? Whatever happened to the right to choose here? It might be a good idea for Parliament to take steps to repeal Section 377 as early as possible.

At this point, I hope it is not considered "unnatural" for me to mention the sex change of the former Olympic champion and stepfather of the famous for being famous, Kim Kardashian, Bruce Jenner, who has come out looking like a new man... err... woman in the avatar of Caitlyn Jenner after being "trapped" in the body of a man for over 60 years.

People may joke and say "Daddy has become Mummy", but I feel it required a lot of courage for him to come out of the proverbial closet and accept that he wanted to live the rest of his life as a woman. Of course, being able to afford correctional medical and beautification procedures always helps in acceptability and in "becoming" what you always wanted to be.

Trapped

So, spare a thought for men "trapped" in bodies of women and women who are "trapped" in men's bodies for the want of resources and encouragement by near and dear ones. A scary thought, isn't it?

Let us remember that India is the land of the Kamasutra and for those who argue on the basis of religion that homosexuality, etc is unnatural or deviant behaviour, it may be worthwhile for them to visit the temples of Khajuraho and see statues of men and women indulging in this so called unnatural behaviour.

Deviant, maybe.

Criminal? Not by any stretch of the imagination.