“Freaking unbelievable. Absolutely speechless!”
Gay rights activists in India have been posting congratulatory messages on blogs and Twitter ever since the Delhi High Court on Thursday ruled gay sex was not a crime.
human rights.

Some see the ruling as crucial for the country’s battle against HIV/AIDS.

India has the world’s second highest HIV/AIDS caseload and gay advocacy groups say fear of persecution by law enforcement agencies often leaves homosexuals without easy access to health information and preventive care, rendering them more vulnerable to infection.

The gay sex debate and repealing of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that makes “unnatural sex” a punishable offence will have wide- ranging implications in the months to come.

But it’s difficult to predict whether conservative Indians would change their perception of the gay community.

India has traditionally been a study in curious contradictions that are deeply interwoven in its social fabric through centuries. If it is embracing and tolerant of alien customs, it is also proud and conservative of its own.

Visitors to the ancient temples of Khajuraho, built in the 10th century, would find homosexual couples immortalised in its stone carvings.

Yet, in the 21st century, gay men and women in India find it hard to come out of the closet in a society that frowns on public display of affection even among heterosexual couples.

While there rarely has been a conviction under section 377 in the last two decades, gay rights activists say it remains a powerful tool in the hands of the police to harass homosexuals.

It also remains to be seen if the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court will be extended to encompass homosexuals in all Indian states.

The government’s reaction following the court ruling has been cautious.

Analysts say it would need to take the debate forward without antagonising religious sentiments especially those of Christians and Muslims, who are traditionally opposed to homosexuality.

For now, the court ruling will hold unless challenged in the Supreme Court or replaced by an act of Parliament.

The main debate that remains still is to find a common law that allows constitutional rights to gays having consensual sex without letting off paedophiles and same-sex rapists.

But are Indians ready to accept a same-sex couple moving in next door, gay parents at PTA meetings or at social events?

The Delhi High Court issued a strong judgement on Thursday in support of one of India’s leading painters MF Husain, who has been forced into exile after a painting of Mother India as a naked woman was accused of hurting religious sentiments.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul made no bones about how he felt about the issue.

“It is most unfortunate that India’s new ‘puritanism’ is being carried out in the name of cultural purity and ignorant people vandalise art,” the Times of India quoted him as saying.

The high court found nothing wrong in Husain’s work and said art, both ancient and modern, had always used nudity.

“We have been called the land of Karma Sutra then why is it that in this land we shy away from its very name,” he said.

“Ancient art has never been devoid of eroticism where sex worship and representation of the union between man and woman has been a recurring feature.”

It remains to be seen if the 90-year-old Husain will ever return home, but Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen decided enough was enough earlier this year and decided to leave India.

Last year the Economic Times said the Indian government had not done enough to defend Nasreen because it was “afraid of offending the Islamist street”.

When we reported this issue last year, a leading sociologist told us lopsided economic growth had created a disposed population which could not relate to Western cultural values and norms.

And the Bharatiya Janata Party said the West was fighting psychological warfare to influence youth, and said it was saving the country from cultural anarchy.

So did Justice Kaul get it right? Is freedom of speech and expression under threat in India from the religious right, whether Hindu or Muslim?

Or is a rich, liberal elite out of touch with the valid religious sentiments of hundreds of millions of Indians?