We live in a country that has frequent power crises, political crises, administrative crises. There is a coalition government with factions exercising their influences, threatening to pull out. The government is trying to tune up the transport, keep inflation low, strengthen the economy… amongst all of this, we approach them regarding a law that “decriminalises gay sex”. The members of the government are (possibly) not gay. They do not understand how a gay person feels, trapped in this society. No one approached them in appeal for more rights, except Hijras (who are notorious for begging, no, demanding money from civilians or else they would undress before them), and who have yet failed to make their presence in middle-class society. What they are aware of is what the rest of the society thinks of gay culture, a bit of which I quote from an article that appeared in a TOI article today :-
“Park benches and public urinals. Gay life conjures up lurid images of furtive sex in seedy corners. The sexually aberrant have been pushed to the fringes of a society too self-righteous to admit its homophobia. “
Agreed, that is not what gay culture is about. But they don’t know that. They don’t know how normal homosexual people are, because the normal ones have scarcely stepped forward in society, before. The past month’s queer prides were a first. So when we approach them to ask for gay rights that are being granted in western cultures, where homosexuals come out to their families, find acceptance in workplaces, establish themselves in mainstream society and enter long commitments, they obviously think we’re asking them for rights for a certain kind of people who don’t exist at all. Would they not consider it unimportant and dismiss it? When they have other matters to deal with such as feeding the poor, furthering agriculture, economy, politics, female infanticide, urban development and so on?
Technically, when we expect society to accept homosexuality, we ask of it to accept and respect our rights to “venture into public urinals and have furtive sex”. Agreed, promiscuous sex is not criminal. But it’s not a all that pleasant either. I do not approve of it myself!
Who is responsible? Us. No, not you and me, but the visible homosexuals; those who do indulge in promiscuous sex. Those who flood the forums of Guys4Men with plans for random hook-ups on trains, stations, buses…you name it. We accuse society of being blind. They are not blind, they can only see as much as they are allowed to, are they not?
No, it is not only gay men that are perverted. Straights are perverted too. They rape women, force sex out of their own wives, two-time on their partners, sleep with emotionally-vulnerable women. Would society condone that? It would not; not with nearly as much vengeance, but they would condemn it nonetheless.
So what about you and I, the ones who get the bitter part of the deal? We are a minority in a minority. We are only ten percent of the ten percent that are gay. We are 1 percent of the entire population of the country; that is quiet and closeted. Not only from society itself, but from our own families: our parents, siblings, relatives, friends. Is that wrong? It isn’t, because if we came out, our loved ones would think that we have sex with men because it is more easily available. Sex-o-maniacs.
If one was to look at successful, visible queers in Indian society, one would probably turn to the fashion industry. They live a glitzy life; one which essentially doesn’t belong to India. And they themselves, hardly belong to India. It is only a physical presence. They don’t vote and scarcely know who the President is.
As for the rest, in the corporate world, law, service; they are quite invisible. Quiet, reserved, hidden because they are economically sound, eventually find someone to share their lives with, and settle into whatever social circle that accepts them. An educated social circle knows no discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Bankers, lawyers, managers, engineers…the elite. They know and understand homosexuality; and they accept. But these elite social circles influence the Economical course of the country, and not the social. They do no speak for or seek social reform, because it would not affect them. They are closely linked with “India Inc.” and that’s all.
So do these educated, accomplished, elite homosexuals care about laws that will never affect them? Do they care to come forth and voice their opinions on equal rights for cross-dressers and hijras, and for those poor gay men engaging in sex in public urinals? They don’t. We don’t.
So all that is left eventually are hijras and cross-dressers, fighting the battle for equal rights, all alone; and then we feel that the media neglects us “normal” beings and focuses on them. Of course the media would focus on them! They are the majority in the minority; at least visibly. And they are the eye-catchers. They caught the attention of the people, during the Rainbow Pride. Without them, it would be a group of normal civilians marching for any mundane issue be it the Narmada Damn, Gender Equality, OBC Quotas. Would the latter have captured the people’s interest? And why would one newspaper not exaggerate a bit, if they sold more copies? Running a newspaper is not a social service; not entirely. They must sell to survive. We all do, be it the bankers sending ruffians to homes of customers who don’t pay their bills, or a brand that attempts to bankrupt or buy out its competition. And no, not all journalists were irresponsible. NDTV in Calcutta interviewed a very regular gay man and his younger brother, and did not seek for an embellished man in pink.
The government is not so ignorant. No, it is not exclusively the Department of Health(NACO) that is siding with us in the High Court. Our Prime Minister is not all that ignorant.
“The fact that many of the vulnerable social groups, be they sex workers or homosexuals or drug users, face great social prejudice has made the task of identifying AIDS victims and treating them very difficult,” said Dr Singh “If we have to win this fight against HIV/AIDS we have to create a more tolerant social environment.”
The prime minister noted that one did not have to condone a group’s practices in order to seek a tolerant solution to the problem of AIDS. Such epidemics affected society as a whole, and should be answered by society as a whole.
Mind that the “practices” he refers to here are most probably the ones I mentioned in the beginning of the article. This is a recent stand. The one being presented in the High Court is now several months old, and was quoted by a lawyer who didn’t even know who she was representing, NACO or the Home Ministry. The government never took active interest in the case to begin with, and has none now. If the law is struck down, they won’t bat an eyelid because they have their hands full with matters that concern the remaining 90% of the country’s population, that does want to be heard. If the court were to ask them to formulate anti-discrimination laws for us, they would probably put that into their queue of “Things to Do” (without low priority) because, again, not many would care enough to take notice. It would mean just adding another sentence to an already large constitution. Of course, if we were to ask for Gay Marriage rights, it would take the battle to an altogether new level. A matter that is an election issue in a country like the United States is too far into the future of our nation.
So if we were to expose society to the magnitude of “normal” homosexuals that exist in society, would it accept us with open arms? Definitely not. Prejudice exists in every human. When I said “normal” homosexuals, I implied that the rest were “abnormal”. I was prejudiced.
Those who complain that it’s unfair that the media, in the pride march, only focussed on Cross-Dressers, and that not all homosexuals are cross-dressers, they expressed their disapproval of the effiminate kinds. That is prejudice.
When a hindu family refuses to allow their child to marry someone in a muslim family, that’s prejudice. When a Gujrati family seeks a gujrati bride for their son, that’s prejudice. Prejudice is everywhere, we all have our own.
So where does that leave us? It is hard to say. In a country of over a billion, for any issue to be an important one, it has to affect the masses. If the masses hide in their closets and still complain that they are being neglected, they can keep complaining; especially if the only visible faction comprise those that violate several laws concerning obscenity in public places, or those who contribute nothing to the economy but beg on the streets, in buses and in trains. The demands of the latter will not be heeded without much of a struggle, as the government would rather focus on poor farmers and low-class workers who are actually contributing to the nation. The demands of the former, those that contribute significantly to the economy, will not be heard, unless they prove that they exist.
Nice analysis. But that just brings us back to status quo. Change in society is not easy to implement.
I completely agree with you, actually some days back we had done a full issue on alternate sexuality in Sattva, it is a monthly e-magazine.
I think you would also like to read my latest blog on the similar topic.
Discrimination is such a global disease. And apparent your country and mine (the Philippines) have quite a strong resemblance about homsexuality and other persistent issues attached into it.