Gay Bombay: Globalization, Love and (Be)longing in Contemporary India (32 page)

urban, middle and upper, socio-economic upwardly-mobile section’. And within this segment, as these surveys (and the many others along the same lines) so clearly point out—(
a
) Homosexual sex is alive and kicking and (
b
) Views on it are in a constant flux. Indeed, the concept of masculinity itself is changing—a 2000 survey conducted by the
Week
magazine reports that 71 per cent of the men polled (sample size 1,300) wanted to be seen as macho—but the meaning of macho as constructed
188
Gay

Bombay

by the article accompanying the poll is quite surprising. ‘Macho is about all the things that macho was never supposed to be about…. Modern macho is about being a better woman than a woman’!111

The
vox populi
sections of newspapers and magazines reflect this changing spirit. In 1997, a
Mid-day
question—‘Should the law take any action against gays’112—received an almost equally split response; a larger survey, conducted by the research firm C Fore among 415 individuals aged between 15–25 in Bombay and Delhi and published in the
Hindustan
Times
newspaper, reported that 50 per cent of the people polled were in favour of scrapping Article 377.113 Respondents to a
Delhi Times
survey in 2004114 about whether young Indians felt less conservative and more open about sexuality were mostly in the affirmative and a
Bombay Times
survey115 the same year, about how the respondents would react if they discovered that a friend was homosexual received completely gay-positive reactions from those questioned.

YUDHISTHIR: I THINK ACCEPTANCE BY YOURSELF DOESN’T COME

FIRST. YOU ALWAYS LOOK TO SOCIETY WITHIN THE

LARGER PICTURE AND REACT TO YOURSELF BASED

ON OTHER PEOPLE’S POINT OF VIEW. HOW WILL YOUR

FAMILY THINK? WHAT WILL YOUR FRIENDS THINK? THIS

CAUSES YOU TO PRESSURIZE YOURSELF TO NOT EXPRESS

YOUR SEXUALITY AND THEREFORE COMING OUT IS A

PROBLEM.

We can also find traces of the changing perception about homosexuality in the advice given out by newspaper and magazine columnists to their readers. Shobha Dé has mostly campaigned for the right of gay men in India to exist with freedom, in her capacity as society columnist (For example—lauding the launch of
Bombay Dost
116 and the Wendell Rodricks commitment ceremony)117 and agony aunt.118 Malavika Sanghvi,119 Pritish Nandy120 and Amit Varma121 have all championed the gay cause in their columns, as have Kiron Kher (‘So what if he [one’s child] is gay? He is still very normal!’)122, Dilip Raote (‘Gay and lesbian activism will transform the 21st century on much the same scale that Einstein and particle physics changed the 20th’)123 and Mayank Shekhar (‘They are different people. But what the hell? They exist. That the government lives Media Matters
189

in denial is no reason why all should’).124 Advice columnists like writer Khushwant Singh,125 sexologists Prakash Kothari,126 Mahendra Watsal127

and psychologist Radhika Chandiramani128 always answer anxious

readers’ queries by assuring them that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. Here is a particularly delightful piece of advice, published in the June 2006 issue of
Man’s World
magazine—

My boss is a gay man. Everyone in the office knows this and seems to be fine
with it. I am too. But how do I respond when he gives me compliments and says
things like, ‘You are looking great today?’

Do you know what the word
homophobic
means? It means heterosexual men who are shit scared of any sexuality other than their own. And you are a homophobe, you are. No, you did not say, ‘Some of my best friends are gay’, but you came close. What do you do when he gives you compliments?

You do not have to get down on your knees. You just say, ‘Hey thanks’ and get on with it. Sexual harassment it is not. But then again, gay radicals, say homophobes, are actually closet gay men who cannot come to terms with their own identities. Dr Know does not think so. He thinks some heterosexual men are close-minded morons. Like you are.129

On the flipside, Farzana Versey has permanently carried a torch for the homophobes. Her 1990 columns in
Mid-day
are full of virulent gay bashing. Sample these quotes—‘Those who go about in queer clothes with uncalled for behavior have no right to talk of acceptance? How many of these guys would not laugh at a circus clown?’;130 ‘Homosexuality more often than not, works on the concept of multiple partners’;131 ‘Instead of dumping the onus of sexual politics on heteros, it would help if gays took a look at their own sexual paranoia’;132 ‘…If there has been any infection at all, it has been one by a little virus that says “we will fight back”’.133 In another column in 1991, she directs her ire at crippled gay writer Firdaus Kanga, urging him to ‘get over…his wheelchair, his homosexuality—for the purpose of his literary endeavours’.134 The vitriol continues in her 2000 piece
The gay glut
(with epithets like ‘cocky community’ and the by now familiar diatribe about homosexuals being

‘the only people whose identity depends on their sexuality’ and initiating ‘young boys, who probably do not know which way they swing’

into the ‘gay cult’),135 as well as her 2006 column for the
Deccan Chronicle

‘Does it pay to be gay’ (‘the gay movement is a hugely successful public
190
Gay

Bombay

relations exercise’).136 Other columnists like Swapan Dasgupta (
Rediff
and
DNA
)137 and Kanchan Gupta for
Pioneer
share Versey’s distaste for homosexuals and express it in equally reprehensive language. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is cheered (‘Serves the buggers right, too!’)138 and gay relationships are mocked.

Imagine having a gay couple as your neighbour in the claustrophobic confines of a high-rise housing complex. Their sweet little adopted child, back from a friend’s birthday party and eager to show off a gift, shrieks—

‘Pappa
ji
, where is Mummy
ji
?’ Daddy gay, who has just had a romp in the bed, sings out—‘He is in the loo, darling!’139

Globalization

MIKE:

I USED TO THINK OF MYSELF IN ARCHIE COMICS…WHEN YOU

SEE ARCHIE AND VERONICA SIPPING FROM THE SAME SUNDAE,

I WOULD PICTURE MYSELF WITH WHATEVER BOY I WAS IN

LOVE WITH INSTEAD OF ARCHIE AND VERONICA, WITH A HEART

SILHOUETTE BEHIND US.

ORMUS: IF ANYTHING IN INDIA HAS BECOME ‘EXTREMELY’ GLOBALIZED,

IT IS GAY CULTURE. GOING TO A GAY PARTY INVOLVES DEFYING

THE GREATEST TABOOS THAT INDIAN SOCIETY HAS LAID

DOWN AND ONCE THAT MOMENTOUS STEP HAS BEEN TAKEN,

IT IS QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE THAT MOST PEOPLE REACT

AS IF THEY HAVE BEEN CATAPULTED INTO THE WIDE BLUE

YONDER.

In 1980, Vijay Tendulkar’s lesbian themed play
Mitrachi Goshta
(‘A Friend’s Story’) stopped its Bombay run after just 25 shows, ‘because people were simply not interested’.140 Eighteen years later, the situation was a lot different when Mahesh Dattani’s
On A Muggy Night in Mumbai
had its premiere performance in Bombay on 15 November 1998. The
Fire
controversy was blazing across the country (see the section on queer films below) and the
Sunday Times of India
contextualized this play and
Fire
by framing their openly gay and lesbian themes within a debate on globalization.

In a double spread special titled
Liberalism: can we handle it?
the newspaper stated that it wanted to present ‘both sides of an issue that must be addressed—the pleas of gays for acceptance as normal human beings with merely another kind of sexual orientation and the arguments of Media Matters
191

those who see this an aberration which cannot be allowed to warp a society already struggling with confusing influences’.141

The recent media interest in matters regarding Section 377 also has globalization overtures. One point of view wonders if it is right for a country that aspires to be ‘a’ part of ‘the’ global scene to victimize its minorities. As Karan Thapar writes in the
Hindustan Times
, ‘by continuing to do so we make a mockery of our commitment to human rights; leave aside all the Geneva conventions we have signed up to. So, for the sake of our democracy, this must be repealed’.142 The counter-view wants to protect a certain notion of Indianness from the threat posed by globalization and this includes the threat posed by liberal ideas that deem homosexuality to be normal and legal.

The definitive ‘pink’ paper—the respected financial daily
Economic
Times
—chooses to frame globalization by looking at whether the Indian work place can meet international requirements with regard to issues of sexual orientation.143 But this is rare—a more typical representation of globalization and gayness in the Indian press would be through the prism of the burgeoning gay party scene. Though veering towards the stereotypical views of gay people as effeminate bitchy drag queens, the early reportage often comes across as hilarious and harmless and even positive at times. (‘I ask myself, so what is the big deal anyway? I live my life my way, why should not Sanjay, okay, Mallika if you will—do likewise?’).144 Over the years, the jibes stop and the coverage turns more pragmatic. The Gay Bombay parties are well received (‘For those with closed minds—no, this is not sleazy. It is a party, that is all’.);145 after 2000, the monetary clout of the country’s upwardly mobile gay population becomes the subject of a series of
Pink Rupee
articles. (‘The business pie has a creamy pink slice and everyone wants a piece of it…pink nights, pink clubs, pink lounge bars and of course pink lifestyle products are the rage
…
’).146

TELEVISION COVERAGE

SENTHIL: THE ADVENT OF CABLE TELEVISION—
SANTA BARBARA
AND

BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL
…. FIRST TIME SEEING BARE-

CHESTED MEN…. AND THEN
BAYWATCH
REVOLUTION….

THERE WAS BBC NEWS WHERE I SAW MEN KISSING ON THE

192
Gay

Bombay

STREETS. THERE WAS
OPRAH
WHERE I SAW YOUNG GAY

TEENAGERS OF COLOUR COMING OUT. THERE WAS ANOTHER

PROGRAMME WITH MUSCULAR MEN, WHO LATER ON CAME

OUT [IN] DRAG ON THE SHOW. IT WAS VERY AFFIRMING AND

VERY NICE.

While the satellite television revolution enabled the broadcast of Western television channels into Indian homes from 1992, Indian gay-related issues remained largely invisible until 1995, when a huge controversy erupted around the Star TV talk show
Nikki Tonight
. Ashok Row Kavi, invited on the show as a guest, called Indian independence hero Mahatma Gandhi a

‘bastard’ on the episode of the show aired on 4 May 1995, a remark that Kavi states was edited completely out of context.147 The Indian parliament reacted strongly to the programme and Gandhi’s great grandson Tushar Gandhi filed a suit for damages. The channel responded by yank-ing the show off the air and issuing an apology to its viewers. In a related incident, Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan stormed into Kavi’s home and punched him repeatedly over his remarks made about Khan’s mother, the former Bollywood actress Sharmila Tagore.148

RUSTOM: THAT IS WHEN [ASHOK ROW KAVI] CAUGHT MY ATTENTION

AND IRRITATED ME A LOT—I THOUGHT, HOW IRRESPONSIBLE

AND SINCE THEN, THIS IMPRESSION OF ACTIVISTS HAS

NOT GONE AWAY…HE IS LITERALLY INDIA’S DE FACTO GAY

SPOKESMAN—HE SHOULD BE MORE RESPONSIBLE.

Ashok Row Kavi has remained a permanent fixture on the few talk shows and special reports telecast dealing with gay and lesbian related themes over the years. (A symptom of both, the media’s failure to tap into other activists in the community, as well as the disinclination of other activists to be spokespersons for their constituencies, at least on national television, though this is now beginning to change). Thus, he appears on a Star News special report (telecast date 9 September 2003) along with lesbian activist Geeta Kumana, giving his reaction to the government’s non-favourable response to removal of Section 377 and the next day on a SAB TV talk show hosted by actress and right-wing politician Smriti Irani—
Kuch Dil Se
(‘From the Heart’)—discussing the issue of married gay men. He is present once again as part of a panel discussion on the film Media Matters
193

Girlfriend
on Doordarshan Marathi (telecast date 25 June 2004) where he draws the ire of the
Shiv Sainiks
149 in the live audience for calling the Sena’s cultural policing of films like
Girlfriend
‘a Taliban-like act’150 and again, on NDTV (with Geeta Kumana) on NDTV 24x7’s
The Big Fight
aired on 21 August 2004.

NIHAR: WHEN CABLE TELEVISION STARTED, I SAW MY ONE BIG ICON

ON MTV AND TURNED INTO A MADONNA WANNABE. SHE

INSPIRED ME SO MUCH THE WAY SHE LIVED HER LIFE, SAID

WHAT SHE WANED TO, I DISCOVERED HER IN MY TEEN YEARS

AND STARTED READING ABOUT HER—SHE HAD ALREADY

ESTABLISHED HERSELF AS A FEMINIST ICON BY THEN, BUT SHE

INSPIRED ME TO BE BOLD AND SAY MY MIND. STAR MOVIES

HAD JUST STARTED THEN…. I SAW BETTE DAVIS AND THEN

I SAW MARILYN MONROE. LAILA ALI, TINA TURNER, SYLVIA

PLATH, JACKIE COLLINS…DO YOU SAY THAT I HAVE BEEN TOO

ANGLO SAXONISED? I DO NOT THINK SO…MY FIRST ICON WAS

SRIDEVI!

There has been an increase in gay-related news stories on all the major television networks, especially around controversies like
Fire
and
Girlfriend
protests and the 2004 gay double murders in Delhi. The special reports on homosexuality and gay rights in India produced by the television networks have ranged from uninformed (Zee News—‘Homosexuality in India’; telecast date 5 December 2003) and bizarre (India TV—‘Homosexuality and Astrology’; telecast date 7 October 2006) to energetic and encouraging (CNBC India—‘Tonight at Ten’; telecast date 25 August 2004; Zoom TV—‘Just Pooja’ episodes’; telecast dates16 April 2005 and 31 December 2005). I want to note the content and tone of one particular show here—a special programme on Zee News titled
‘Pyar Ka
Vyapar’
(‘The business of love’) telecast on 3 July 2006 at 9.30 p.m. The show, in Hindi, made outrageous claims equating gayness to prostitution and the spread of AIDS because of their ‘addiction to gay sex’ and also alleged that gay networks were slowly ‘spreading their web’ all over north India. It interviewed a few men who the reporter claimed had slept with ‘25–30’ persons daily, without a condom; and concluded by informing viewers that some of these gay men had since given up their ‘vice’ and resorted to jewellery making as a means of earning an
194
Gay