India Keeps Gaya Airport's GAY Code as Dispute Draws LGBTQ+ Criticism

Three Letters Put Gaya at the Centre of a Wider Debate

Gaya International Airport in Bihar will keep its three-letter code, GAY, despite objections from a member of India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), earlier requests involving aviation organisations and a parliamentary committee's intervention in 2022. India's civil aviation ministry says international rules make airport codes permanent except in exceptional circumstances, usually involving air safety.

As of August 9, 2025, the dispute has brought together two very different questions: who can change an airport's commercial identifier, and why a word used to describe gay people should be considered offensive. For passengers, the code remains part of booking flights and identifying baggage. For LGBTQ+ advocates, the language used to challenge it has become the central concern.

Bhim Singh, a BJP member of the Rajya Sabha, India's upper house of parliament, described the code as socially and culturally offensive. He argued that it was uncomfortable for a city revered by Hindus and Buddhists and asked whether the government would consider a more culturally appropriate alternative.

Gaya is one of India's oldest and most sacred cities. Hindu pilgrims visit to perform ancestral rites, while nearby Bodh Gaya is where Gautama Buddha is believed to have attained enlightenment. Its Mahabodhi Temple is a UNESCO World Heritage site that attracts visitors from around the world.

The airport serves that religious travel as well as other domestic and international journeys. Its identifier comes from the name Gaya, but its resemblance to the English word has turned an ordinary part of airline administration into a dispute about language, dignity and inclusion.

What Singh Asked the Government

Singh asked whether the government had received complaints about GAY and whether it would consider replacing it. His objection linked the code to the religious standing of the city and the feelings of people travelling there.

Singh, speaking as a member of the Rajya Sabha, described the code in these terms:

socially and culturally offensive and uncomfortable

He also asked about an alternative that would be:

respectful and culturally appropriate.

Requests for a change had already been raised by Air India and a parliamentary committee in 2022. The government has also received requests involving the Airports Authority of India. The latest parliamentary exchange brought the issue wider attention in India and internationally.

The civil aviation ministry's response was that Gaya's code would remain unchanged under the rules of the International Air Transport Association (IATA). Earlier efforts to seek a replacement had not persuaded IATA that the circumstances met its criteria.

Why Airlines Use GAY

IATA, a global airline trade organisation based in Montreal, Canada, assigns the three-letter codes used to identify airports in airline operations, ticketing, baggage handling and logistics. DEL identifies Delhi, BOM identifies Mumbai and BLR identifies Bengaluru.

Many codes are drawn from the first three letters of a city or region's name. GAY follows that pattern for Gaya. Once assigned, an identifier appears across systems that need to agree on where a passenger, suitcase or shipment is going.

Gaya's code has been in official use since September 30, 2011, when the first regular Air India flight began operating the Gaya-Varanasi-Delhi route. Since then, GAY has appeared on tickets, luggage tags and flight schedules for domestic and international services.

The airport's international connections have included flights from Bangkok, Yangon and Thimphu, as well as charter flights from Japan and South Korea. Its role is especially important for Buddhist pilgrimage travel connecting India with countries including Sri Lanka, Thailand, Japan and South Korea.

For a traveller, the code is a short destination label. Behind that label are airline reservation systems, cargo tracking databases and baggage handling operations. Changing it means coordinating those systems, which makes a replacement costly and logistically complex.

Why the Ministry Says It Will Stay

IATA Resolution 763 governs the assignment and alteration of location codes. Under the policy described by the ministry, codes are treated as permanent, with changes reserved for exceptional circumstances, usually involving air safety concerns.

Murlidhar Mohol, India's minister of state for civil aviation, explained the position in parliament:

IATA location codes are considered permanent and are altered only under exceptional circumstances, usually involving air safety concerns.

Mohol added that the codes are primarily intended for commercial airline operations and are issued at the request of airline operators, rather than governments. India therefore cannot simply substitute a preferred set of letters through a domestic announcement.

Operational or safety concerns can support a change. These may include confusion between similar identifiers that could cause mistakes in air traffic control or baggage routing. Social or cultural discomfort does not usually qualify under those guidelines.

IATA has consistently responded that the request concerning Gaya does not meet the criteria for alteration. The government's position is that it has no authority to change the code itself and that the international rules do not allow the replacement sought on social or cultural grounds.

How the Dispute Developed

Gaya's present controversy follows years of use of the code and earlier attempts to replace it. The main dates show how a routine identifier became a recurring parliamentary issue:

• September 30, 2011: GAY was in official use when Air India's first regular flight began on the Gaya-Varanasi-Delhi route.
• 2018: India's Supreme Court decriminalised homosexuality, a ruling later cited by advocates responding to the objections to GAY.
• 2022: A parliamentary committee was among those that raised a request to change the airport code.
• By August 9, 2025: Singh's questions in the Rajya Sabha had renewed attention to the dispute, while the civil aviation ministry maintained that the code would remain.

The earlier requests matter because the current position follows attempts to secure a different identifier. Air India and the Airports Authority of India have been involved in requests, but IATA's response has remained tied to its rules on permanent codes.

No date has been given for any further review or decision. Unless a compelling air safety issue arises, the government's stated position leaves GAY in place.

Why LGBTQ+ Advocates Objected

LGBTQ+ activists and allies criticised the effort to remove GAY, saying that treating the word as offensive reflects prejudice against the people it describes. Their concern centres on the reasons given for the change and the message those reasons send.

Arvind Narrain, a prominent LGBTQ rights advocate, argued that the word is offensive only if someone regards LGBTQ people as offensive. He pointed to the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling, which decriminalised homosexuality and affirmed the dignity and constitutional rights of queer citizens.

Narrain challenged the lawmaker's language and called for an apology:

The member's description of us as immoral strips the community of dignity. 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.

His reference to constitutional morality concerns the standards of rights and dignity upheld by the Constitution, rather than an individual's personal judgment about someone else's identity. In his response, the legal recognition of queer citizens' dignity was directly relevant to the language used in parliament.

Rajesh Srinivas, another LGBTQ activist, said there was nothing wrong with the code and that attention should be directed towards inclusion rather than avoidance. Other advocates similarly argued that discomfort with the word reflects prejudice rather than a genuine cultural problem.

Shanmathi Senthil Kumar, a counseling psychologist, said that describing the code as unsafe or inappropriate reinforces harmful stereotypes and suggests that queer identities should be erased. Psychotherapist Vidya Dinakaran said such moments should lead to meaningful discussion, with progress coming from confronting stigma rather than avoiding it.

Mixed Reactions in Gaya and Among Travellers

Sanjay Sahay, a fiction writer based in Gaya, has acknowledged feeling embarrassed when booking air tickets to his hometown. His reaction reflects the discomfort expressed by some residents and travellers about the letters appearing on a booking.

Other people see the controversy as excessive and regard GAY as a practical identifier without a deeper meaning. For most passengers, the code has no operational impact: the airport continues to function as a domestic and international hub.

Gaya's importance to pilgrims gives the debate a local setting beyond airline paperwork. Hindu visitors travel there for ancestral rites, while international Buddhist visitors use the airport to reach the area associated with the Buddha's enlightenment.

Some commentators have argued that airport infrastructure and connections deserve more attention than a symbolic change of letters. A travel columnist, referring to another airport that adopted its unusual code in its marketing, put that approach this way:

Better to just lean into it: Fly SUX.

The contrast is between seeking a different identifier and accepting an existing one while concentrating on the airport's practical role. Gaya's international pilgrimage connections remain more consequential to many travellers than the wording of its code.

Other Airports Have Unusual Codes Too

Gaya is far from the only airport whose identifier attracts attention in English or another language. Some codes come from older naming systems; others reflect the available combination of three letters when they were registered.

Examples span several continents and include codes that resemble slang, ordinary words or familiar online abbreviations:

• SUX: Sioux Gateway Airport, Sioux City, Iowa, United States.
• FUK: Fukuoka Airport, Japan.
• PEE: Perm International Airport, Russia.
• POO: Pocos de Caldas Airport, Brazil.
• LOL: Derby Field, Nevada, United States.
• OMG: Omega Airport, Namibia.
• DIE: Arrachart Airport, Madagascar.
• BUM: Butler Memorial Airport, Missouri, United States.
• EEK: Eek Airport, Alaska, United States.
• YUM: Yuma International Airport, Arizona, United States.

Sioux City tried to have SUX changed in the late 1990s and early 2000s, without success. It later adopted the code in humorous marketing campaigns urging travellers to use its airport.

IATA bans some codes deemed explicitly offensive, including SEX and GUN, while many other combinations remain in use. Obtaining a change is a lengthy process requiring strong justification, and approval is rare.

When Airport Codes Have Changed

Baltimore, New York and Kazakhstan's capital show that an airport identifier can change, even though such decisions are unusual. Each involved circumstances beyond the discomfort raised about Gaya's code.

Baltimore's airport code changed from BAL to BWI when the airport was renamed. New York's Idlewild Airport became JFK after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Kazakhstan's capital changed its airport code from TSE to NQZ after a city renaming. That process took years and required substantial justification.

Gaya's request has received a different response from IATA. The ministry's explanation rests on the stability of an identifier already used throughout commercial airline systems and on the absence of the exceptional grounds required for a replacement.

A Dispute About Acceptance as Well as Aviation

India's refusal to change GAY rests on international aviation rules, while the public argument has exposed continuing discomfort with LGBTQ+ identities in parts of society. Those two strands explain why a technical question has attracted attention well beyond the airport.

The Supreme Court's 2018 decision marked a major change in the legal treatment of homosexuality. India has also taken steps towards inclusion through measures such as expanding shelter programmes for unhoused transgender people.

Activists argue that further reforms, including legal recognition of marriage between people of the same sex, remain elusive. They see the response to Gaya's code as an example of the gap between legal progress and everyday social acceptance.

An LGBTQ+ advocate described the broader concern this way:

The controversy highlights a larger conversation India still needs to have—not about airport codes, but about acceptance.

GAY remains on Gaya's tickets, baggage tags and flight schedules. The immediate administrative outcome is unchanged, but the objections and the response from advocates have made the treatment of queer identities a central part of the debate.

Key Points

• Gaya International Airport will retain GAY after India's civil aviation ministry cited IATA rules on permanent airport identifiers.
• BJP lawmaker Bhim Singh challenged the code on social and cultural grounds; earlier requests included a parliamentary committee's intervention in 2022.
• IATA allows changes only in exceptional circumstances, usually involving air safety concerns, and has rejected the grounds presented for Gaya.
• LGBTQ+ advocates criticised the objections as prejudiced and pointed to the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling on dignity and constitutional rights.
• Gaya continues to serve domestic travellers and international pilgrims visiting Hindu and Buddhist religious sites.
• Other airports also use unusual codes, while successful changes have been rare and required substantial justification.