Law versus practice

The survey covered 50 villages in five districts of five states with feedback on sexual practices from close to 3,000 respondents and in-depth interviews on intimate habits from 250 people. The data is indicative of a reality the government seems unable or unwilling to see.

Ancient texts such as the Manu Smriti, Arthashastra, Kamasutra, Upanishads and Puranas refer, almost casually, to homosexuality among men and women. During British rule, policy makers found the practice common enough to make legal prescriptions necessary. UNFPA findings should not come as a surprise.

An average 42.6 per cent unmarried men and 22 per cent married men reported having extra-marital sex. The survey found also that the most common extra-marital experience for a married man is with a ‘casual’ female partner, followed by a ‘regular non-commercial’ partner, and for an unmarried man a ‘regular non-commercial’ partner, followed by a ‘male’ partner. Just under six per cent of the married men reported extra-marital relations with a regular female partner who is not a commercial sex worker, eight per cent with a casual female partner. Only 2.3 per cent reported sexual relations with a female sex worker and over three per cent with another man. Among unmarried men, close to 10 per cent reported sexual relations with another man, only 4.7 per cent with a female sex worker.

Not a single person reported using a condom while having sex with a man. Condom use is more common among sex workers, a result of the targeted education regarding sexually transmitted diseases, a reflection of the policy-makers’ own perceptions of which segments of the population indulge in risky behaviour. This risk perception is at variance with the reality, a perception that needs to be urgently corrected, given that most common sexual partners for men having extra-marital sex are men and women who are not commercial sex workers.

Homosexual practice carries on regardless of Section 377 of the IPC. But the government stance at the Supreme Court hearing on the public interest litigation filed by Naz Foundation has brought the law into active opposition to the practice. Apart from issues of civil liberties, this has critical implications for the formulation of health policies.