I have read the responses to my article ('Homosexuality and Sikhism', July 23) with much amusement. I never intended the article to be based on gurbani. The single religious quote I included concerned equality, not homosexuality. This article was written from my heart, to draw attention to the numerous Sikhs who are affected by this issue in one way or another.

Certain important issues are not covered by gurbani, for the plain reason that they were never deemed important at the time of the Gurus, but they have grown in importance in the present day. These include whether Sikhs are allowed to have an abortion (as many Sikhs nevertheless choose to do), if Sikhs should partake in langer whilst sitting crosslegged on the floor, the extent to which gurbani itself loses resonance following translation to other languages (considering that the Guru Granth Sahib itself comprises of many languages from the whole subcontinent), and whether Sikhs are allowed to marry following divorce (and the form that such a marriage would take, bearing in mind that the soul of the divorcee has previously been joined to another to form a sinlge entity). These are just some of a number of issues which need to be addressed by the Sikh community at large.

Sikhism is regarded as a religion extolling the virtues of equality in mankind, and yet it has failed to live upto its expectations in many respects recently. For example, the Chumaars have been forced by the continuation of caste distinctions and social exclusion from village gurdwaras to create a distinct Ravidasi community, the appointment of Bibi Jagir Kaur was initially questioned on the simple basis that she was a woman, and the current emphasis on Sikhism has been that of a Punjabi
religion, not a global one.

Sikhism is a world religion, and therefore it should not attempt to see itself within the limits of an eastern religion. As a world religion, it must accept both eastern and western facts and theories. I based my claim that there were approxiamately 2 million homosexual Sikhs worldwide on the findings of Albert Kinsey. In his publication, The Sexual Behaviour of the Human Male (1948), Kinsey discovered that 10 % of all men were gay. He made similar findings in his folow-up, The Sexual Behaviour of the Human Female (1953).

I understand that some may believe me to be stretching the idea of tolerance to an extreme, but I am sure that the same was said about the equal treatment of women and the various castes, including the untouchables. Homosexuality has been shown as being genetically inherited in recent studies carried out by such geneticists as Jeff Hall and Simon LeVay. Therefore, if homosexuality is genetic, it is determined by God. Who are we as Sikhs to argue with the machinations of God? And how do you address the issue of intersexuality (hermaphrodites), that is individuals who are born with both male and female chromosomes, a condition which affects 1 in every
2000 children? Sexuality is not as clear-cut as many people believe it to be. Someone who may look female could actually be male by genetic make-up, and vice-versa, and their sexual identity even more confusing than that.

With regards to Maharaja Ranjit Singh's life, I have written a dissertation on the causes of the total collapse of the Sikh Empire in 1849, and this involved looking at Maharaja Ranjit Singh own history. I have read a number of important history books on the subject, by renowned historians such as the eminent Dr. Gopal Singh. In his History of the Sikh People ), he has given details of the 22 wives of the Maharaja and remarks briefly on the countless concubines in his employment.

In the case of the hijras, there was definitely a hierarchical system amongst the hijras, but this was introduced in the Mughal period, and the people who actually guarded the harem were Kashmiri women educated in martial arts, rather than the hijras, who acted as personal assistants to the royal families and other important persons. For further information on the hijra culture, I suggest reading The Invisibles: A Tale of the Eunuchs of India (Zia Jaffrey, 1998).

History is important when looking at the culture from which a religion arises, and there is no point in ignoring one factor in favour of another, as the responses so far have done. Religion itself is an organic product. For example, the ardas continues to change over time, with the most recent inclusion of a verse in memory of the historical gurdwaras outside of India as a result of independence in 1947, and the introduction of the lavan marriage ceremony as superceeding the Brahmanical form of marriage in the Anand Karaj Act of 1917.

Sexuality itself has no boundries, has no distinction between east and west. In answer to the question of whether my statement of 2 million gay Sikhs included the majority of those in India, my answer is 'yes'. If there is any doubt of the existence of homosexuality in India, I suggest typing 'gay' and 'India' (or perhaps even 'Sikh') into a search engine and seeing the list of results. However, before initial conclusions are made, I must also stress the fact we are the fortunate few Sikh who have ready access to the internet, whilst the Punjab, where the vast majority of Sikh reside, is still very much an agricultural and peasant-led region. This helps explain
why gay Sikhs do not raise their voices in India, including those I have met and spoken to, as well as those in the diaspora.

The time to deal with homosexuality within Sikhism is now, not later. By postponing discussions, it is almost as bad as ignoring the issue in the first place. As I stated in my article, I wished to raise the profile of homosexual Sikhs and, juding by the response, I believe I have managed to do so. I just hope that the petty criticism of my style of writing will be overcome and replaced by a balanced discussion within the Sikh community on this issue.

Jasbir Singh