By Esther Rodrigues
The notions of race and sexuality have interacted in a variety of historical contexts. Scientists argue that race is a social construct rather than a biological truth, based on physical similarities among groups. Biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, and spiritual experiences and actions define human sexuality.
Individuals' opinions toward interracial sexual relationships and sexual preferences for certain races are impacted by how these two notions are interpreted. Racial prejudice can have a sexual component, which presents itself most typically as racial fetishism.
After gay intercourse was decriminalized in 2009, the position of sexual minorities in modern India is in flux. While the legal decision might be presented as a step toward a more inclusive and secular society in which religious convictions against homosexuality cannot trump human rights, sexuality remains a contentious subject that stirs political and cultural agendas. I'd like to start a discussion about democracy, globalization, secularism, and modernity by providing a brief overview of the legal battle to decriminalize homosexuality in India, the opposition from various political and religious entities, and the ongoing discrimination and violence faced by gay citizens. The complexities of India's sociopolitical environment are an excellent example of how such notions are far from clear-cut.
The Delhi High Court issued a 'reading down' of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code on July 2, 2009, thus decriminalizing consenting gay intercourse between adults. After an eight-year judicial struggle led by NAZ Foundation India, an organization that works with HIV-positive persons, gay intercourse was no longer a penal offense. Lord Macaulay enacted Section 377 (together with other elements of the Indian Penal Code) in 1860, during the British colonial dominance of India.
As a democratic country, India has made some headway in defending LGBT rights. Another question is how its vastly diverse and traditional culture has absorbed and allowed this moral edict. Acceptance is unquestionably as vital as legal recognition. But how is politics faring on an interpersonal level? Not the internet or television, but literature, is one of the finest ways to gauge a country's political pulse. Two contemporary Indian authors demonstrate how, on a personal level, some sexual politicking has already succeeded in some social arenas by nearly disappearing from the narrative.
The underlying controversy is not new: Should you rest on your laurels before a total revolution, or struggle for your identity via literature and art? Should individuals continue to struggle and politicize?
Literary reactions to significant political changes might be explosive and rich, or they can be crumbling and tired after a long fight. Consider the arts blossoming in revolutionary Russia. Similarly, in the late Soviet era in Eastern Europe, there was a volcanic explosion of fascinating new writing and poetry, including Milan Kundera and George Konrad. However, with the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the enthusiastic voices seemed to slow down and take a slumber.
There was the literary upheaval in South America from the 1960s through the 1980s and beyond, with scores of stirring, inventive works and authors. Political vibrations shook the continent in the expectation that the multiple autocracies starving the nations would fall. Despite political progress, much needs to be done. However, the literary eruption has used up most of its lava (not to deny that fine work continues to appear).
The highly experimental literature and film of post-World War II Western Europe may be traced back to the excitement of overcoming the disaster and reformulating a new subcontinental order.
The contemporary surge of Indian queer writing is caught up in another political earthquake: religious riots in cities and places such as Kashmir. Both of the great political crises are linked. They both have origins in the troubled, racially divided society that genuine democracy struggles to penetrate.
Solid works and authors, like R. Raj Rao and Farzana Doctor, as well as Devdutt Pattanaik and Anita Nair, have surfaced. Much Indian queer literature, like that from other areas of the globe, is focused with how key characters, typically homosexual, distinguish themselves from others. But, in order to qualify as a part of the genre, a work must be entrenched in an intentionally distinct identity. I'm not sure if this distinguishing viewpoint is required. If not, queer lit does not need to distinguish itself from other forms of literature. Otherwise, it risks undermining its own standing as distinct. As a result, it may jeopardize the openness that the political movement seeks of society as a whole.