Homosexuality has been condemned as a social aberration for centuries. Even Lord Macaulay’s Indian Penal Code renders it an unnatural act, liable to punishment. Despite finding references to it in religious scriptures, if not in social sanction, homosexuality has only now begun to find acceptance within the country. The gay pride parades and prime time debates in the media mark the beginning of what is going to be a long drawn battle for acceptance. It will take generations for mindsets to change, for the social stigma to subside. In Delhi HC’s stay on prosecution of homosexuality has led to an appeal still pending in the Supreme Court. The issue lies in a limbo of uncertainty.
Deepa Mehta’s Fire was a powerful statement and a path-breaking challenge to the prevalent social norms on the subject. The message was simple – man had the right to life and desire. The suppression of yearning only multiplied it tenfold. Radha (Shabana Azmi) and Sita (Nandita Das) – the main protagonists – find comfort and solace in their unusual companionship after being neglected by their respective husbands.
The film attracted its fair share of controversy for its bold theme and bolder enactment. Shabana Azmi had even admitted to being hesitant while signing for the film, so forbidden was the subject. Through this project, we shall study the cultural implications of homosexuality projected through the film in a systematic manner.
GENERAL PERCEPTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY
A recent survey in a newspaper had revealed a growing acceptance for homosexuality in society. However, there is no way to validate the answers of those interviewed, for it has now become politically correct to support homosexuality. Openly, at least. There still lingers a less idyllic reality behind closed doors and closets of sexuality. Anonymous case studies have exposed a cultural hypocrisy and a blatant refusal on the part of the parents to accept their child’s sexuality.
The acknowledgement of sexual love between a man and a woman in our culture has always been a disconcerting topic of discussion, one that was hurriedly swept under the carpet. Therefore, the instances of homosexual behaviour were considered a “Western import”, a phenomenon that was not a part of “Indian culture.” Needless to say, it has only begun to be noticed as an alternate sexuality.
Gay and lesbian couples have been blackmailed into silence as they fear persecution and for their reputation under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Yoga guru Baba Ramdev was outspoken in his opinion of homosexuality, brazenly labelling it as a ‘disease’, one that could be cured by yoga. Manvendra Singh Gohil, the gay prince of Rajpipla had openly taken up Ramdev on this claim.[1]
The short-term public memory ensured that the controversy died a natural death. Recently, Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad had stated that homosexuality was not only a disease, “but it is also unnatural.”[2] This comment raised a hornet’s net on this issue.
In this environment of disparagement, few have mustered the courage to live their reality openly.
A majority of them submit to the social pressure and biological necessity of heterosexual marriages. Inevitably, neither partner is able to satisfy the other. However, the stark truth remains hidden. Such couples then exist in a state of unfortunate compromise.
GAY INDIAN CELEBRITIES
There are only a handful of Indian celebrities who are open about their sexuality. Even filmmaker Karan Johar, known for his forthrightness declined to comment over his much speculated sexuality. Others like Manvendra Singh Gohil, designer Rohit Verma, actor Bobby Darling and journalist Ashok Row Kavi had to face immense family disapproval and social embarrassment for coming out of the closet.
Designer Rohit Bal has always been candid about his sexuality and his relationship with upcoming model, Lalit Tehlan. When asked about his stance in an interview he said, “Why shouldn’t I be open?... I have no control over my likes and dislikes. God made me like this. What I do in my bedroom has nothing to do with my abilities as a designer… you can’t be born a cat and act like a dog. It’s better to live… with dignity.”
It is very disheartening for the LGBT community to live in a society which evaluates them on the “good Indian values” they are to uphold than on all that they have to offer. It should be no surprise to any of us to still have fewer celebrities willingly holding a beacon of hope for the common man, unlike the West.
Noted mythologist, Dr. Devdutt Patnaik has stated in one of his columns that the concept of homosexuality was not alien to Indian culture.[3] A sense of conservatism descended during the era of the British rule in India. Macaulay’s draconian law in section 377 of the Indian Penal Code enforced a sense of shame. In abiding within the shackles of colonial supremacy, the cultural prominence of homosexuality was forgotten.
In the grand pagodas of eastern and southern India such as Puri and Tanjore, we find depictions of erotic same-sex liaison. Similar images adorned the prayer halls and cave temples of monastic orders such as Jainism and Buddhism.
Homosexuality finds an instance in Valmiki’s Ramayana where Rakshasa women would kiss and embrace. As also in the Padma Purana which had two queens attempting to conceive by making love to each other after the untimely death of their husband.
There is also the story of Shikandi in Mahabharata, who despite being born a girl had been raised like a boy. Later in the story, Shikandi acquires male organs to make love to his wife in order to prove his manhood.
Therefore, to dismiss homosexuality as an affliction from the Western culture reeks of ignorance about our own culture. It has, after all, been a reality for centuries and shall continue to do so.
FIRE – AN OVERVIEW
· The Plot: A newly wedded bride, Sita (Nandita Das) is greatly disillusioned by her husband’s aloofness. She senses the same emptiness in her sister-in-law, Radha (Shabana Azmi), whose husband has taken an oath of celibacy. Their humdrum existence, marked only by their domestic errands and festivals, brings them closer.
It takes a stolen kiss one night for the women to realise their mutual attraction for each other. From that point onward begins a clandestine romance between opposites, tempered with a latent fear of society. It eventually builds and reaches a point where all regard for “societal values” is lost.
Weary of the patriarchal oppression, the women leave the house together to face an uncertain future, but a shared destiny.
· Relevance: Although the theme of Fire is homosexuality, there is a strong undercurrent of chauvinism. Director Deepa Mehta has tried to reveal the hypocrisy of the male dominated society. The trespasses committed by the male members of the family are ignored, their gravity negated. But a trait as natural as homosexuality as a means to satisfying a natural urge is met with disdain and eventual ostracism.
The consequences greatly suppressed the individual’s right to choose for centuries. Through this film, Ms. Mehta has ignited and passed on the Fire of defiance at a time when it was most needed.
The consequences greatly suppressed the individual’s right to choose for centuries. Through this film, Ms. Mehta has ignited and passed on the Fire of defiance at a time when it was most needed.
· Portrayal of homosexuality and other characters in the film: The director Deepa Mehta had, without enforcing stereotypes, etched memorable and realistic characters on celluloid. From the outside, Sita and Radha’s joint family (including their spouses, an ailing mother-in-law and a servant) seems a typical middle-class set-up with the men earning and the women having precious little to occupy themselves with.
The two protagonists are regular home-makers, fulfilling everyone’s needs but their own. Beneath the façade of a conservative household lay a reality of discontentment, religious superstition and a sub-text of patriarchy. Sita’s husband, Jatin (Javed Jaffrey) is still in a relationship with his Japanese girlfriend. Radha’s husband, Ashok (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) neglects her for the higher cause of “spirituality.”
The two women work dutifully at the dhaba owned by their husbands; tend to their mother-in-law and the household chores. The men are never expected to help around the house and Jatin’s extra-marital affair is never spoken strongly against. However, when the two women discover and act upon their true sexual impulse, it is met by collective revulsion.
The family, being a victim of its own conditioning, shuns the women. The husbands are never questioned about their lack of contribution since the women are expected to pick up after them.
The family’s horror pertaining to their sexuality seems to stem as much from an archaic idea of sexuality as from the thought of women seeking their own happiness beyond the oppressive social parameters.
Ashok’s reaction to his wife, Radha’s sexuality is peculiar. He seems less offended by the revelation than by the fact that he could not satisfy her. He considers her homosexuality a slight to his own manhood.
Sita’s husband Jatin too, does not take very kindly to her declination of his sexual overtures.
The two protagonists are regular home-makers, fulfilling everyone’s needs but their own. Beneath the façade of a conservative household lay a reality of discontentment, religious superstition and a sub-text of patriarchy. Sita’s husband, Jatin (Javed Jaffrey) is still in a relationship with his Japanese girlfriend. Radha’s husband, Ashok (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) neglects her for the higher cause of “spirituality.”
The two women work dutifully at the dhaba owned by their husbands; tend to their mother-in-law and the household chores. The men are never expected to help around the house and Jatin’s extra-marital affair is never spoken strongly against. However, when the two women discover and act upon their true sexual impulse, it is met by collective revulsion.
The family, being a victim of its own conditioning, shuns the women. The husbands are never questioned about their lack of contribution since the women are expected to pick up after them.
The family’s horror pertaining to their sexuality seems to stem as much from an archaic idea of sexuality as from the thought of women seeking their own happiness beyond the oppressive social parameters.
Ashok’s reaction to his wife, Radha’s sexuality is peculiar. He seems less offended by the revelation than by the fact that he could not satisfy her. He considers her homosexuality a slight to his own manhood.
Sita’s husband Jatin too, does not take very kindly to her declination of his sexual overtures.
· Reception: The film raised eyebrows and a lot of uncomfortable questions about the real prevalence of the “disease.” Offended MPs repeatedly asserted that even if there existed clandestine liaisons between women, the film would only encourage such “perverse behaviour.”
The Shiv Sena protested against the film, by calling it an insult to Hinduism and Indian culture. Cinema halls were vandalised, with the pandemonium ending only on the condition that the female protagonists were given Muslim names. Bal Thackeray claimed that homosexuality did not exist in Hindu families. He also said that ‘Radha’ and ‘Sita’ were names of Hindu goddesses, hence a direct affront to the religion.
The extreme political backlash compelled Ms. Mehta to appeal to the Supreme Court for the smooth running of the film. There was immense media attention given to the parliamentary debates. The morality and the message in the film were questioned and counter-questioned. Ashok Row Kavi in defense of the film said that the protests were the latest form of “gay bashing in homophobic India.”
However, the public reaction was entirely different. The film ran to packed houses for three weeks and received much critical acclaim. Fire is said to be India’s first film on lesbianism. Films made on the same topic followed much later. Fire was the forerunner and precursor to this genre.
The encouraging feedback to the film was to later motivate more filmmakers to make something along the same lines. Fire, as Deepa Mehta had put it, was not a film about homosexuality so much as it was about the choices a person made.
For the protagonists, it was indeed a difficult choice to make between breaking free and preserving the family structure.
The Shiv Sena protested against the film, by calling it an insult to Hinduism and Indian culture. Cinema halls were vandalised, with the pandemonium ending only on the condition that the female protagonists were given Muslim names. Bal Thackeray claimed that homosexuality did not exist in Hindu families. He also said that ‘Radha’ and ‘Sita’ were names of Hindu goddesses, hence a direct affront to the religion.
The extreme political backlash compelled Ms. Mehta to appeal to the Supreme Court for the smooth running of the film. There was immense media attention given to the parliamentary debates. The morality and the message in the film were questioned and counter-questioned. Ashok Row Kavi in defense of the film said that the protests were the latest form of “gay bashing in homophobic India.”
However, the public reaction was entirely different. The film ran to packed houses for three weeks and received much critical acclaim. Fire is said to be India’s first film on lesbianism. Films made on the same topic followed much later. Fire was the forerunner and precursor to this genre.
The encouraging feedback to the film was to later motivate more filmmakers to make something along the same lines. Fire, as Deepa Mehta had put it, was not a film about homosexuality so much as it was about the choices a person made.
For the protagonists, it was indeed a difficult choice to make between breaking free and preserving the family structure.
CONCLUSION
The research and opinions penned for this project are an attempt to evenly balance the issue of homosexuality. It is an attempt to validate a pro-homosexual stand with a reaffirmation in the changing times. It is only when an individual applies thought to a notion, pre-conceived or otherwise, does a clearer image appear from an academic point of view.
This project begs to examine the following question – what is the future of homosexuality in India? Will there be an eventual acceptance? Will the politicization of the issue come to an end? When will section 377 be repealed from the Indian Penal Code? It has already been upheld by the Delhi High Court and awaits a judgement of finality from the Apex Court.
Though there is greater acceptance of homosexuality than in 1996, (the year Fire was released), it remains to be seen if collective will can be mustered to bring about a change in legislation. In that event, the issue will be tackled on an open platform and addressed with a spirit of acceptance.
Freedom of self-expression does not have to be clamped down because of a dictatorial tyranny in a democracy. More and more NGOs have come out in open support of the LGBT community. They are now more assertive about their rights and vocal about the portrayal of gay stereotypes in movies.
It is time that a suppressed and criminalized gay community rose to demand equality, recognition and respect. It is too late to shun the tide of progress. It is time to have the issue gain importance for a public podium. The time is now.
This project begs to examine the following question – what is the future of homosexuality in India? Will there be an eventual acceptance? Will the politicization of the issue come to an end? When will section 377 be repealed from the Indian Penal Code? It has already been upheld by the Delhi High Court and awaits a judgement of finality from the Apex Court.
Though there is greater acceptance of homosexuality than in 1996, (the year Fire was released), it remains to be seen if collective will can be mustered to bring about a change in legislation. In that event, the issue will be tackled on an open platform and addressed with a spirit of acceptance.
Freedom of self-expression does not have to be clamped down because of a dictatorial tyranny in a democracy. More and more NGOs have come out in open support of the LGBT community. They are now more assertive about their rights and vocal about the portrayal of gay stereotypes in movies.
It is time that a suppressed and criminalized gay community rose to demand equality, recognition and respect. It is too late to shun the tide of progress. It is time to have the issue gain importance for a public podium. The time is now.
[1] For greater coverage, refer to the following article: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_ramdev-accepts-challenge-says-he-will-cure-gay-prince_1342274
[2] This had led to an angry response from the readers and members of the LGBT community alike: http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/jul/050711-Pink-community-Gay-Ghulam-Nabi-Azad-LGBT-homosexuality.htm
[3] Dr. Patnaik’s insightful article on homosexuality and the Indian culture is available here: http://devdutt.com/did-homosexuality-exist-in-ancient-india/
No comments:
Post a Comment