The Preamble of the Indian Constitution addresses all Indian citizens as “We the people of India,” reflecting inclusivity and celebrating diverse forms of love, including a neutral historical view on homosexuality as emphasised by the Indian culture. But even behind this popular historical as well as constitutional conception, there are certain latent, drooped and curtained realities which are witnessed evidently not just behind the concrete walls of private spaces but even in the cavernous public spaces.
The bulk of work, both in terms of academia as well as physically still needs to be done in India as well as globally, keeping in view the underlying realities that LGBTQIA+ individuals have to face on an everyday basis where they often face multiple forms of oppression, encompassing racism, sexism, poverty, and particularly homophobia or transphobia, all of which significantly impact their mental health and where lack of familial support in the society governed by rigid social and cultural norms concerning education, career, and marriage detrimentally affect their overall self-esteem and independence. This often eventually leads to risky behaviours like unsafe sexual practices and substance abuse due to financial insecurity in the light of gender restrictions imposed by some jobs through more or less, discriminatory criteria.
The landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2018, which legalized adult same-sex marriages under Section 377, marked a significant milestone for LGBTQIA+ rights, reflecting a thorough interpretation of constitutional freedoms. However, this progress does not signify complete societal acceptance or equality for LGBTQIA+ individuals. The recent Supreme Court decision to reject the legalization of same-sex civil unions highlights the enduring social disparities and prejudices faced by the LGBTQ+ community. It underscores that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights is intertwined with broader societal challenges, including entrenched prejudices and norms that marginalize individuals based on their sexual orientation.
A parallel narrative unfolded in 1934 when Dr. B.R. Ambedkar defended the publication “Samaj Swasthya” in a notable legal case. Earlier, Raghunath Dhondo Karve courageously published this magazine in Maharashtra during the early 20th century, addressing sensitive topics like sex education and morality. Karve’s rational approach faced strong opposition from conservative groups rooted in religious beliefs. Despite legal challenges, including a 1931 conviction over an article on adultery, Karve persisted. In February 1934, Karve was arrested again due to backlash against his candid responses on taboo subjects like masturbation and homosexuality. Ambedkar stepped in to support Karve in the High Court, advocating for freedom of expression and the right to openly discuss societal issues. This legal battle marked a significant chapter in India’s social reform history, highlighting the struggle for progressive discourse amid conservative opposition.
According to Professor Ajit Dalvi, Ambedkar’s vision encompassed building an inclusive modern society. The particular case was argued before Justice Mehta from February 28 to April 24, 1934. Karve was accused of disseminating obscenity through discussions of sexual subjects. Ambedkar argued that discussing sexual matters did not automatically equate to obscenity, emphasizing the importance of providing knowledge to dispel societal misconceptions. He cited contemporary literature and research, such as Havelock Ellis’s studies on homosexuality, to support the idea that there is no inherent wrongdoing in individuals having such desires and asserted that everyone has the right to pursue happiness according to their own preferences.
These ideas of Ambedkar can be traced back to his undelivered lecture “Annihilation of Caste” in 1936 where he quotes:
An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy.
Modern interpretations emphasize “social endosmosis,” a concept coined by John Dewey, Ambedkar’s mentor at Columbia University. Dewey defines it as the bringing together of individuals who wouldn’t typically interact, especially in public school settings. “Endosmosis,” borrowed from nineteenth-century biophysics, refers to the intimate connection and contact with others that promotes awareness of interdependence within society. Dewey stresses that without this sharing and mutual understanding, individuals in positions of privilege or disadvantage are destined to fail and become isolated. Lack of interaction not only harms the most vulnerable but also isolates those in power. A society lacking “social endosmosis” is destined for failure and extinction.
So even through this case, Ambedkar defended two fundamental rights: the right to sex education and the freedom of expression, opposing religious orthodoxy obstructing sex education and advocating for open debates to challenge societal stigmas. These arguments remain pertinent in today’s context, reflecting Ambedkar’s enduring commitment to social progress and inclusive discourse.
Authorship Credits
Sara Thind is a third-year Political Science student at Lady Shri Ram College for Women and a Research Intern at Mandonna
Graphics Credits
Prapti is a first-year Sociology student at Maitreyi College and a Research Intern at Mandonna
