On Thursday, September 6, 2018, the second-most populous country in the world, India, decriminalized gay sex.
The Indian supreme court ruled to repeal a colonial-era law that deemed gay sex “unnatural” and decided to take a stance against one of the oldest anti-gay pieces of legislation in the world. In the past, people identifying with the LGBTQ+ community not only faced legal persecution and jail time because of their identity, they were also subject to abuse, blackmailing, and were often ostracized by their families and communities.
Caution is in order despite the ruling, however, because these phenomena, deeply engrained in a patriarchal society, are not likely to vanish with a change in the law. Although the repeal of the Victorian-era gay sex ban is undoubtedly a big success for the Indian as well as the global LGBTQ+ community, the work of advocates and activists for equal rights does not stop there.
The Indian supreme court took one step further and also ruled that gay people should have all the rights and protections of the Indian constitution.
One might be quick to say that same sex marriage might be a next step, but although the supreme court ruling is supposed to combat discrimination, the mindset of a patriarchal society has rarely changed as quickly as the law. As we see in the U.S., even after achieving marriage equality, the LGBTQ+ community still faces discrimination, and it is not far-fetched to say that the community in India still has a long fight ahead of them.
And there is a difference between being grateful for the improvement of a situation and being grateful to the institutions that might have ultimately ruled over that decision. Although this is a big success, many praised the supreme court for the decision. And undoubtedly the ruling is going to improve the situation of the LGBTQ+ community.
But, thanking the same institutions that have upheld an antiquated law that caused unimaginable pain and suffering for the community for so long seems oddly ironic.
We see this reaction again and again, sometimes even in a way where the dominant group demands thankfulness from the group they have been oppressing.
And there is a difference between being grateful for the improvement of a situation and being grateful to the institutions that might have ultimately ruled over that decision.
I am not saying we should not be grateful. We should be: to the countless activists that have risked their lives and sanity fighting a fight that seemed unwinnable, to the thousands and potentially millions of LGBTQ+ people in India that refused to believe there was something wrong with them, that their way of being and loving was fundamentally “unnatural.”
We should be grateful for the promise of a better, more equal tomorrow.
But we must not demand gratefulness to the same institution that oppressed the LGBTQ+ community for so long. This decision was made to correct injustices, and the people that had to suffer them for too long do not owe anyone anything.