New Delhi: A BJP MP’s complaint that Gaya International Airport’s three-letter code “GAY” is “socially and culturally offensive” has sparked backlash from LGBTQ activists who say his remarks reinforce prejudice against the community.
Rajya Sabha member Bhim Singh from Bihar submitted a written query to Parliament questioning why the International Air Transport Association (IATA) code for the Bihar airport remains in use when people find it “uncomfortable”.
He asked whether the government would consider changing it to “a more respectful and culturally appropriate code” and sought a timeline for any such process.
Also read | The everyday violence queer Indians endure
‘Codes are considered permanent’
The ministry of civil aviation acknowledged receiving similar requests in the past.
Minister of state for civil aviation Murlidhar Mohol explained that the three-letter codes are assigned by IATA — a trade association representing 300 airlines — to uniquely identify airports worldwide, typically using the first three letters of the location’s name.
“Air India had earlier approached IATA seeking change of the existing airport code,” Mohol said. “However, IATA has conveyed that under the provisions of Resolution 763, assigned three-letter codes are considered permanent and are altered only under exceptional circumstances, usually involving air safety concerns.”
{{/usCountry}}“Air India had earlier approached IATA seeking change of the existing airport code,” Mohol said. “However, IATA has conveyed that under the provisions of Resolution 763, assigned three-letter codes are considered permanent and are altered only under exceptional circumstances, usually involving air safety concerns.”
{{/usCountry}}The response did not elaborate on when Air India made the request or who were the other entities.
Also read | How the LGBTQ+ movement grew over the years
‘Nothing culturally inappropriate’
LGBTQ activists condemned Singh’s characterisation of the code as offensive, arguing it reflects deep-rooted prejudice rather than legitimate cultural concerns.
Arvind Narrain, an LGBTQ activist, pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling that decriminalised same-sex relationships and recognised LGBTQI persons’ right to dignity.
“The member’s description of us as immoral strips the community of dignity,” he said. “They need to educate themselves that as per the Supreme Court, what governs is not personal morality but constitutional morality. He should apologise to the community.”
Rajesh Srinivas, another LGBTQ activist, dismissed the need for any change. “The airport code does not require a change as there is nothing culturally inappropriate about it. The discomfort with the term stems from deeply ingrained prejudice.”
Shanmathi Senthil Kumar, a counselling psychologist and diversity advocate who has worked in mental health and social sectors, called Singh’s framing “deeply concerning”.
“That the term ‘GAY’ is being labelled as offensive, culturally inappropriate, or even unsafe reflects how deeply rooted the stigma against LGBTQIA+ people still is,” Kumar said. “Such framing reinforces harmful stereotypes and makes society even more difficult and exclusionary for queer individuals. This highlights the urgent need to centre and prioritise LGBTQIA+ voices in public discourse, so that narratives rooted in prejudice are not allowed to define what is deemed acceptable.”
“If we look at how the queer community is perceived in India, we still have a long way to go. There is a lack of awareness, and that fact should not be ignored. If a word is considered offensive, simply avoiding it doesn’t help. One way forward is to confront and address it, rather than shy away from it. The question raised is also aiming in that direction—if someone like an MP can endorse inclusion rather than avoid the issue, it becomes all the more meaningful,” psychotherapist Vidya Dinakaran said.