Gay Bombay: Globalization, Love and (Be)longing in Contemporary India (50 page)

I can see that he is going through a bad phase, but he never volunteers
information about his difficulties and I never ask. He is always guarded
when we talk about his life; never completely honest with me—perhaps, in
his mind, I have put him on a pedestal that he fears honesty would bring
crashing down. So we continue with the charade—he is mentor, I am advisee
and the roles can never change. I know that he believes in love but is scared
of it; that his nonchalance and acerbic wit are a defense mechanism; that
his nightly cruising and experiments with drugs are but a refuge to escape
from the pain, loneliness and pangs of self-doubt that he is consumed by.

But how do I say anything without upsetting the fragile status quo that we
have built over the years?

I so badly want to show him a different life in Bombay—walks by the old
Afghan Church, fresh plump
paneer
[cottage cheese] at Napean Sea Road,
languid afternoons at the Jehangir art gallery, quiet evenings spent lounging
on planter’s chairs at the David Sassoon library, bus rides through crowded
Dadar and Mahim on route number 1…but it is a wish that remains un-fulfilled. Before I leave for the US, I gift him a heavy fountain pen, as I have
once heard him complain in jest that there are no decent pens in his home
to write with. I tell him that he should write his next film script with it.

When he passes away, his mother tells me that just the night before, he had
removed the pen from its case and was thinking of finally using it.

MODUS VIVENDI

And so we arrive…back to the future. Gay Bombay turned eight in September 2006, just as I returned to India and began finishing up this book. As part of my birthday wishes, I would like to offer some thoughts, ideas and suggestions that might be considered by the group as it plans its future. Perhaps these words might be able to generate
292
Gay

Bombay

a discussion that might then be extended beyond the scope of this book, into the online or offline spaces of Gay Bombay that I continue to inhabit.

For the Indian LBGT movement, it is clear that the battles need to be fought on multiple fronts and this is something we already see happening.

Legally there are excellent groups like the Lawyer’s Collective fighting against Article 377. Health wise, there is a lot is being done already (and the Humsafar Trust is doing stellar work in Bombay in this regard), but a lot more needs to be done, with regard to HIV especially. On the social front, identity based groups like Gay Bombay are providing spaces and opportunities for interaction in a manner that was unimaginable even five years ago.

I am in complete agreement with Gay Bombay’s managing committee that their programs constitute activism too, only of a different kind. But I also think that it is inevitable that the group takes the next step and joins the political struggle purposefully. It must not sit out, indeed it cannot sit out, as the stakes are simply getting too large now; I sincerely feel that their active involvement would be a big boost to the movement.

As Cholan mentioned, the queer Indian movement is entering its crucial phase. The past few years have been spent in having discussions and debates among each other and in infrastructure building, but this has already been done and now it is time to speak to the bigots and take the case outside the ghetto. It is the time for lobbying—smartly and sensibly. Of course, this means that there will be repercussions. It would be foolish to think that increased visibility will not create the necessity for increased surveillance and increased disciplining action by the state. Conflict will arise and if, as Appadurai writes, this conflict will be resolved, ‘not by academic fiat, but by negotiations…both civil and violent’,43 how can the Indian queer movement prepare for these negotiations? The remainder of this chapter aims at providing an answer to this question.

Throughout this book we have observed the differences between

Gay Bombay and Humsafar that have crept up on different occasions.

But these are not the only two groups within the larger movement that are jostling with each other—the movement is full of infighting and rivalries. As my respondent Vidwan observed—

Conclusion
293

VIDVAN: RIGHT NOW, THE QUEER WORLD IS BEING INCREASINGLY SPLIT

IN INDIA ON GENDER LINES AS WELL AS ON ECONOMIC LINES.

THERE SEEM TO BE DIFFERENT SPACES OPERATING FOR GAYS,

LESBIANS,
HIJRAS
AND
KOTHIS,
INSTEAD OF A SINGLE SPACE

FOR ALL QUEER PEOPLES. NOT THAT I DO NOT CONCEDE THE

IMPORTANCE OF AN ALL-LESBIAN SPACE OR AN ALL-
KOTHI

SPACE, BUT, IT DOES SEEM, THAT THESE VARIED SPACES ARE

INTERACTING VERY LITTLE AMONG EACH OTHER AND THIS IN-

CREASES WITH THE ECONOMIC BARRIER BETWEEN MANY

GAY AND
KOTHI
SPACES, AS WELL AS THE DIVIDE BETWEEN

GAY SPACES ON AN ECONOMIC BASIS AS WELL. INSTEAD

OF BRIDGING THE GAP AND UNITING THE STRUGGLES, THE

MOVEMENT SEEMS TO BE PROMOTING THE DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN THESE VARIOUS GROUPS.

One way of reconciling these differences, as Bhudev told me, was to practice a ‘politics of exclusion’ and by that, he implied that the different sub–groups—all focus on their own constituencies, exclude each other from their plans and do not work towards a unified or common larger agenda. However, we both agreed that this could not really be a long-term solution. Another solution that Senthil discussed—was to continue to have separate social spaces for the different groups, but a unified political space—a common ground. I find this to be a problematic, but more appealing option.

It is my belief (and we have seen it play out in this book—for example, in the unity between Humsafar and Gay Bombay, despite their differences) that the divisions within the larger movement are not so insurmountable, nor are the issues so different that such a common ground cannot be reached. Perhaps we might be able to construct (to borrow a phrase from India’s coalition politics of the past decade) a

‘common minimum program’ that could be agreed upon by all parties concerned? Coalitions like INFOSEM and ‘Voices Against 377’ exist as umbrella organizations for some activist groups—but their membership excludes unregistered amorphous entities like Gay Bombay. Perhaps, this common minimum programme might provide an opportunity for

these entities to be actively involved in the political movement—given the constraints that they operate under. This would recognize that these social groups fulfill vital needs in the community at large and their activities are complementary to those of other activist organizations.

294
Gay

Bombay

What might such a programme include? Here are some suggestions

that I would like to put forward as considerations for its manifesto, should such a program ever materialize; I offer these with humility and with the sincere hope of making a constructive contribution towards the movement as it enters a crucial and exciting phase. I have gathered my thoughts under the rubric of
modus vivendi
, which stands for both a way of life and a negotiated settlement. I borrow the phrase and the spirit in which it is being used from an interview conducted with John Gray in the
New Perspectives Quarterly
Spring 2001 issue, whereby Gray advocates a
modus vivendi
approach to globalization that signifies a desire for ‘commodious living’.44 This approach incorporates the realization that neither extremism nor confrontation will work, accommodation is imperative and the key at every stage should be ‘to openly work out conflicts’45 and move ahead. Thus,
—modus vivendi
—or ‘a negotiation between conflicting interests instead of an insistence on absolute rights’.46

Collaboration is the key of my
modus vivendi
approach and coalition is its defining organizational mechanism. Coalition politics does not mean that the member parties will agree on everything. It just means that there is consensus required to pursue a broad common minimum agenda.

(
a
)
‘Strategic essentialism’ + ‘tactical pragmatism’ = Unity within

disparate queer activist groups

I am drawn to Gayatri Spivak’s (1987) notion of ‘strategic essentialism’—

‘a strategic use of positivist essentialism in a scrupulously visible political interest’.47 Spivak feels that essentialism (that is a certain essential meaning or property or quality that can be ascribed to something, say a word or a person or a race) is a trap, at the same time conceding that is impossible to be completely non-essential. She resolves the dilemma by pursuing ‘strategic essentialism’—or self consciously essentializing in order to accomplish one’s goals. Strategic essentialism advocates solidarity in the interest of action, to bring about real change.

Within the queer movement, it is easy to get caught up in infighting and identity politics and lose sight of the larger common objective that all sexual minorities are fighting against—for example, the repeal of Section 377. A strategic interventionist approach would recognize that Conclusion
295

gay,
kothi, hijra
and other identities are important on the ground and in people’s lives, however reductionist they may appear to be theoretically.

It would also recognize these identities as constructs—ways of seeing and being. It would further self-consciously define certain essential qualities of these identities if needed and reshape others, to achieve larger goals. Adopting strategic essentialism within a
modus vivendi
framework would mean maintaining separate LBGT subidentities, but tweaking them when needed and compromising on them, if the situation demands so.

The focus within the different groups should be on maintaining unity through what David Woolvine (2000) has called ‘tactical pragmatism’—

or the ‘ability to distance [oneself] from [certain] organizations and from some of the goals or tactics of the organizations while at the same time supporting the organizations’.48 We have seen in the previous chapter how Humsafar and Gay Bombay have worked together to schedule non-conflicting meetings on every alternative Sunday so as to allow cross attendance, how leaders of the groups post messages to each other’s constituents complimenting them on good work done by them and so on. This model could be replicated by other LBGT organizations across the board, that are in similar relationships with each other. Events like the World Social Forum march in Mumbai in 2004 which had a large queer coalition—gays, lesbians,
hijras
and
kothis
, all marching together, or the annual Calcutta Pride march, or the organic strategic media visibility campaigns that accompany flashpoint events like the
Fire
film protests, or the letter writing campaign against Section 377, are all opportunities for and examples of strategic resistance and tactical pragmatism in action.

(
b
)
Equitable change needs to be pursued

In order to be sustainable, change has to be equitable. Right now, the situation is far from so, but then, the LBGT community is only a reflection of the society and world in which it exists. In her essay ‘Power Politics’ Arundhati Roy writes of how the vast majority of poor Indians, whose lives have been devastated by India’s government-led attempts at modernity, like damns and nuclear bombs, do not really count in the national imagination. There is a tiny convoy of people, she writes,
296
Gay

Bombay

moving towards a ‘glittering destination somewhere near the top of the world’, while a much larger one just melts away, ‘into darkness’.49

Amartya Sen is equally anguished at pointing out—‘India has the dubious distinction of having both the largest number of poor in the world and also the largest middle class on earth…can we really live at peace with such massive contrasts?’50 For Sen, the challenges of globalization and internal disparity in India are closely linked. He writes that unless the problems of poverty, inequality and social and economic exclusion are not addressed, the country will lose out of several benefits of participation in the process of globalization. This is as true for the Indian economy as it is for India’s sexual minorities. It is imperative that members of social groups like Gay Bombay realize that upper middle class gay men in Bombay are not the only sexual minorities in the country and their needs are not the only needs around. Unless there is a genuine attempt being made at the pursuit of equitable change for all queer minorities, the problems of inequality and social exclusion within the queer movement will still remain at large, even if legal encumbrances like Section 377

are done away with. Seriously, what kind of a hollow empty victory will it be—if a few
gay
men are able to do their own thing—while their dis-enfranchised
hijra, kothi
and lesbian brothers and sisters languish, unheard and uncared for?

(
c
)
Small changes should be striven for, along with the big ones

The larger political and health agendas should be pursued in tandem with smaller, ordinary day-to-day ones. So of course, Article 377 needs to go, but until then, it is equally valuable if say, an ad agency that has put up queer-insensitive billboard hoardings all over the city is sensitized enough to remove them and apologize for their insensitivity51 or if the
Aravaani
transgender community of the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu is provided with ration cards.52 On a smaller but equally significant level, it is imperative to acknowledge the courage of queer people who begin the process of coming out to their families and friends. All these small changes add up to a larger social transformation in mindsets and attitudes, without which any major legal or political victories will be shallow.

There are also many things that India’s queer populations are in desperate and immediate need of beyond Section 377. To list just a few—