COVER FEATURE

Alliances and dalliances

By Chayanika Shah

A disability-rights activist recently said that she considered the Indian women’s movement a natural ally of the disabilities movement, as it was the only progressive movement in the country to have politically explored the notion of the body, from biological variation to socially constructed ideas of ‘difference’ and inequality. Actually, the same holds true for what can be referred to as the ‘queer’ movement. Queer is a recent description for an evolving politics that questions patriarchal ‘heteronormative’ structures – those institutions, such as marriage, family and community, that regard only heterosexuality as ‘normal’. (For convenience I use ‘queer’ movement as a term to describe the plethora of sexuality-rights movements, and also because each of these identities has a potential for challenging the norm. However, many activist groups, across genders, do not necessarily identify with ‘queer’ politics.)

In India, feminist activists were the first to articulate concerns around sexuality, and to question the heteronormative aspects of society. To that extent, the queer movement and the women’s movement are natural allies. Furthermore, queer politics begins with the analytical framework of feminism, which challenges the patriarchal order. Thus, it should be difficult to see the two movements as separate. Yet there has nonetheless long existed a chasm between these two movements.

The contemporary women’s movement, which in India began during the late 1970s, started with the simple category ‘woman’, and focused on the obvious violations she suffers. At that time, control over women’s bodies, sexuality and labour were the cornerstones of feminist theory and politics. At that time, the category ‘woman’ was fairly uniform and monolithically defined, and soon began to represent the upper-caste, upper-class, urban, heterosexual and married woman. Even as this ‘good woman’ was being rescued from violence, the movement was simultaneously working to make those institutions that had long sanctioned violence against women – marriage, family, the courts – more humane. As time went by, however, the category ‘woman’, and the mainstreaming of what was considered ‘normal’ (even within the women’s movement), began to be questioned from within and without, as various groups of marginalised women increasingly clamoured for space in the movement.

As this membership question became increasingly complex, the movement inevitably became more pluralistic. Mass-based groups linked with political parties, as well as many community-based groups under the patronage of the state and donor agencies, subsequently emerged. Although most of these groups can still be thought of as working for women’s rights, they have shifted their focus from challenging patriarchy to looking at gender discrimination, and began prioritising equality and parity instead of structural change. Even as this shift has been viewed by some feminists as something of a dilution of the radical agenda, some positive changes have also taken place. While compulsions of political ideology and funding have not always allowed for revisions of agenda and politics, there have now emerged new radical formations of Muslim women, Adivasi and Dalit women, as well as sex workers, single women and lesbian/bisexual/transgendered women – each of which has redefined feminist politics in unique ways.

In the meantime, the issues raised by queer women’s groups regarding sexuality and family, marriage and community, have served to sharpen the overarching critiques of a mainstream society that continues to prioritise heteronormativity above all. Likewise, the questioning of the traditional understanding of gender as including only ‘male’ and ‘female’ has led to the exploration of biological categories beyond this binary, which has inevitably led to the emergence of a more nuanced understanding of gender. During the course of this process, some women’s groups have become crucial allies of the queer movement, and have engaged in countrywide (even international) umbrella campaigns – for instance, for lesbian rights or against the Indian Penal Code’s draconian Section 377. In the same vein, queer concerns are often now emphasised in conferences organised under the broad rubric of the women’s movement or women’s studies.

In this context, it is pertinent also to question what the ‘queer’ movement really is, and to attempt to understand its engagement with the women’s movement in India. During the last decade and a half, significant effort has gone into the organising of various sections of what has come to be referred to as the ‘queer’ community, into multiple smaller parts – the ‘LGBTHKI’ syndrome. Although the rights of various of these sections has been a common thread that joins these groups together, as of today they do not share a common politics. Part of this lack of a visible movement can be traced to the fact that most of these groups were formed and are primarily propelled by international funding agencies (see accompanying article, “The revolution will not be funded”), each with their separate agendas and priorities.

Although some groups espousing queer politics have largely aligned themselves with the women’s movement, others in the queer movement have generally shown significantly less engagement with both queer and feminist politics. Though the work of queer groups has led to a continuous process of challenging norms of both gender and sexuality, an absence of political understanding of the institutional structures underlying these norms has, unfortunately, led to a certain strengthening of these structures. A few such examples include the continuous disengagement of most gay groups (here referring to male homosexuals) with an internalised misogyny; the acceptance of the privileges of heterosexual marriage under the guise of tradition and pressure from family; the exaggerated enactment of stereotyped gender roles (including by lesbian couples in ‘butch’ and ‘femme’ roles); and the lack of conversation on the construction of male sexuality.

In the end, the wish list for both the women’s movements and the queer movements is simple and short: that both engage with an evolving queer-feminist politics in both theory and on-the-ground campaigns. Doing so will allow for a significantly stronger coalition of these likeminded movements.