Rights and representations: querying the male-to-male sexual subject in India

Abstract

Same-sex sexualities in India have been portrayed in research and activism as socially marginal and minoritarian. Whilst proceeding from a commitment to the political utility of such a view, this paper questions such a standpoint. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted in different sites, the paper considers male-to-male sexualities as enacted and implicated in the production of ostensibly heteronormative spaces. This, in turn, raises questions about the representation of the queer or same-sex sexual subject in law and HIV prevention, especially in the context of post-colonial perspectives on sexuality.

L'homosexualité en Inde a été décrite par la recherche et par les activistes comme étant marginale et minoritaire. Tout en prenant en compte les perspectives d'utilité politique d'un tel point de vue, cet article remet ce dernier en question. En exploitant des études ethnographiques conduites sur différents sites, l'article considère que les sexualités d'hommes avec d'autres hommes jouent un rôle important dans la génération d'espaces ostensiblement hétéronormatifs. Ce qui, en retour, amène à des questions sur la représentation du sujet sexuel queer ou du même sexe dans la loi et dans la prévention du VIH, en particulier dans le contexte des perspectives post coloniales en matière de sexualité.

Las relaciones sexuales entre personas del mismo sexo en la India han sido retratadas en estudios y reivindicaciones sociales como un acto socialmente marginal y minoritario. Aunque esta perspectiva se considere un compromiso de utilidad política, en este artículo cuestionamos este punto de vista. Basándonos en un estudio etnográfico llevado a cabo en diferentes lugares, en este artículo analizamos las relaciones sexuales entre hombres como un acto manifestado e implicado en la producción de espacios ostensiblemente heteronormativos. Esto a su vez plantea cuestiones sobre la representación del individuo homosexual o el objeto sexual del mismo sexo en las leyes y en los programas de prevención del VIH, especialmente en el contexto de las perspectivas poscoloniales sobre la sexualidad.

Keywords:

• sexuality
• India
• men who have sex with men
• liminality
• human rights

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Deep Purkayastha, Pawan Dhall, Anupma Hazra, Anindya Hajra Elizabeth Williams, Clare Hemmings, Henrietta Moore, Peter Aggleton, Ian Harper, Tobias Kelly, activists at Prism, Delhi, Saathi, Kolkata and Voices Against 377 and the unnamed research participants.

Notes

^1. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads: ‘Unnatural offences – Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation: penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.’

^2. On the debate show Left, Right and Centre, NDTV, 3 July 2009, see www.ndtv.com

^3. In particular see ‘Delhi High Court legalises gay sex’, The Hindu 3 July, 2009; ‘India decriminalises gay sex’, The Times of India 3 July 2009; ‘Religious leaders disapprove of HC judgement on homosexuality’, Indian Express, 3 July 2009. For a comprehensive collation of news reports and commentaries on the judgement see http://qmediawatch.wordpress.com/section-377-watch/

^4. Aveek Sen (2007) recounts of a mini-drama on the Kolkata metro enacted around a mother's insistence that her adult son should sit next to her in a woman's seating area, a claim contested by other women, causing both amusement and embarrassment.

^5. This ambiguous stance is based on need as many women in the city relate experiences of unwelcome ‘groping’ by men. Indeed, in order for women to be construed as vulnerable, and for men to act as protectors, there must equally be a discursive construction of men as sexual perpetrators. These different archetypes are reflected in ethnographic accounts of Indian masculinity, in which men are seen commonly as restrained and ascetic, but also as potentially aggressive (Chopra 2004; Osella, Osella, and Radhika 2004). Such models of manliness are not only enacted between men, but are written over women's subjectivity (Gabriel 2004).

^6. We should stress again that women-only seating is not strictly observed in Calcutta. This enables women to use these localities as sights for agency by forcing men to move when from women's seating.

^7. From the South Indian state of Kerala.

^8. The hijras are a social, economic and political community that is famously ‘neither man nor woman’ (Nanda 1990) and which is the most well known ‘third gender’ in the subcontinent. It is now being increasingly translated as ‘transgender’ – moving from one gender to another, though this framework is contested within the hijra community. For the first instances of hijra autobiography in the English language, see Revathi (2010).

^9. Conversely ethnographies of other areas also, especially Latin America, have often foreground male-to-male sex as culturally intrinsic to the production of hetero-masculinities (Lancaster 2002; Liguori, Gonzalez Block, and Aggleton 1996; Parker 1991).

^10. A literal translation is more akin to: ‘That policeman is stupid. Last week he fucked me.’ However, the translation given in the text better echoes the sentiment expressed.

^11. See Stuart Hall (1988) for relevant background to discussion of the limits to identity politics elsewhere (also in Procter 2007).

^12. This also alerts us to ways in which categorical sexualities may equally occlude attention to less identifiable possibilities in Western contexts (Boyce 2006).