Homosexuality in the Indian subcontinent has a rich history that has been documented in texts like the Rig Veda (which dates back to 1500 BC), the Kamasutra, through temple sculptures, Tantric rituals, through records of lifestyles in harems and during medieval Islamic rule. But with the onset of the rise of Vedic Brahmanism and Colonial rule these traditions started being suppressed. In the Manusmriti there are references to horrific punishments for gay and lesbian behavior.

The Indian Penal Code is based on the British Common Law, and most of these have never been amended. The British law we still follow is deeply entrenched in Victorian morality and homophobic attitudes. The Indian psyche accepted the Western 'moral and psychological' idea of sexuality being pathological rather than an expression of natural desire for intimacy, which once used to be a part of Indian culture.

The last century has witnessed dramatic changes in the understanding of homosexuality. Since 1974 homosexuality ceased to be considered 'abnormal' behavior and was stricken from the classification systems of mental disorders. Many countries have also de-criminalized homosexuality. Since then various countries have enacted equal opportunity laws to prevent discrimination and protect the interests of anyone who is 'different'. Including Britain, yet Indian Laws have remained the same since 1947.

The current Indian law sees all sexual behavior, criminal or otherwise, in terms of sexual acts (namely penile-vaginal intercourse only) because it is based on mainstream social understandings which do not include women and children's real lived experiences. Therefore, we don't have a law against child sexual abuse because all sexual abuse of women is seen as rape, which is understood to be non-consensual penile-vaginal intercourse. But the reality is that children are not always abused through "rape"; they are abused in a number of ways and rape is one of the least common forms of child sexual abuse. Similarly, we all think that homosexuality between men is only about anal-intercourse, that sodomy and homosexuality is the same thing. So the law states in Section 377 (Unnatural Offences Act) of the Indian Penal Code that: "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute carnal intercourse necessary of the offence". Heterosexual relationships that involve anal intercourse are also taken under this statute. Relationships between women are clearly absent in the law's view, which shows that the lawmakers never believed that such a thing existed! Today we know that lesbian relationships are alive and well.

What this reflects, apart from bias, is a complete lack of understanding of the nature of homosexual relationships. A homosexual man is viewed as a 'type of person' and none of the emotional attachments, fantasies, erotic and affectionate desires that constitute any kind of relationship are recognized. This is also therefore how all people are viewed. That sex is only about penetration. The law does not make a distinction between coercive and consensual sex. So what about male children who are abused by anal sex? If the law has not been able to address child sexual abuse holistically, will young boys who are raped be considered criminals?

The law against homosexuality has been repealed and revised in England, the country of its origin. And the law is a product of mainstream opinions and prejudices. Shouldn't the law help counter prejudice and discrimination and uphold the rights of marginalized groups?