When an issue becomes a brand: Vikram Seth and the Section 377 cover

by Akshay Pathak

“It was a mistake, and that momentary error filled the universe. The outrage was on the scale of God.” – Marguerite Duras: The Lover

It is being celebrated as a proud moment for many of us fighting 377. Vikram Seth, the brilliant writer who has used his supple prose to mesmerize millions of passionate readers has most recently championed buggery in a photo shoot for the cover of India Today. People are already planning to frame it, possibly build a shrine for it in their homes too! The photo is almost iconic: his face smeared with something black, a designer stubble, and an intense look on his furrowed forehead. The lighting and special effects struggle to get it just right to show the criminality or the hopelessness of homosexuals.

Though not a perfectly congruent analogy, since Seth is not acting as someone he is not, it could have been Priyanka Chopra’s photo-op for adivasi girls’ education in Orissa, sponsored by Vedanta (or the fact that she needs prosthetics to look like Mary Kom). The issue of someone with a bit of glamour and fame taking a stand churns emotions faster than second or third class citizens. Seth later said in an interview , quite casually, how the photographer “came with two assistants, lighting equipment. [But it> was pretty relaxed actually, we had a glass of rum. And then he said he would come in the evening and do another set of pictures – the clean-shaven ones!” How very tiring that must have been for someone aspiring to be a “role model” for gay people “who live lives of quiet desperation in India’s towns and villages”.

Perhaps I am being unfair. At least he stood up and spoke – and not for the first time. And I am glad that he did. We live in times when we are made to feel grateful that people take what should be really the only moral stand. Unlike other men, mostly pro-gay men confident of their solid heterosexuality, he spoke openly. But since role models are what we seem to be in dearth of, I suggest one among many: Maria, a.k.a Anil Sadanandan, a queer activist who activist Ameena Suleiman described in a recent article quite poignantly as a juggler of identities. Maria, who was brutally murdered on May 10 in Kollam in Kerala, is a symbol of the worst oppression anyone with an alternative sexuality might ever experience, but India Today prefers to have a celebrity writer indulging in a ramp walk almost like a charity fundraiser. Elitism has a hold of us even in matters of justice. Issues often metamorphose into brands made palatable to the masses, to be celebrated and sold.

This essay was meant to have a different beginning. Many things were different two weeks ago, particularly for me and many like me. The shameful Supreme Court judgement on Article 377 was not out till then. Some of us were busy with living our lives, loving our loves, getting laid etc. But then came December 11. My partner-in-love-and-crime (legal term pending) could not sleep all night while I snored. And then at 10.30 am, hopefully after performing all necessary morning ablutions, the judges’ gavel banged. Order. Aur darr!

Enough adjectives have been deployed to describe the SC judgement which managed to achieve something unprecedented, though not unexpected: it brought together all shades of religious bigots and conservative patriarchal men and women. A rare show of unity among hyenas and wolves—apologies for insulting beautiful animals.

Then came the show of support from India’s illustrious lot: Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Amitabh Bachchan, Vikram Seth, our star crusader Aamir Khan. Had the other PM aspirants of dubious bachelorhood come out against 377, a lot of us would have been caught tongue-tied. Some corporates- merchants sharp enough to cash in on the business of grief- worked overnight to come up with gay-friendly advertisements – with no bigger aim than selling their products to a target market. Some presumably well-meaning people started looking for scriptural sanction and even posted pictures of Hindu temple sculptures, often depicting bestiality—ostensibly to make homosexuals feel at ease!

Meanwhile, Facebook and Twitter became the Jantar Mantar of social media, even as many silently wept. Out of fear, and anger. Hopelessness and disappointment. The number of amazing people who came out or became stronger and more assertive as a result of the outrage against the inhuman SC judgement was, arguably, far less than the those who must have become weaker, more scared, pushed further into the closet. A distraught friend called me from a small town in Assam, crying and in utter despair. Not just at the judgement but at the complete isolation he found himself in. Because most of his Muslim friends – he is a Muslim by birth – chose to take a moral stand on his sexuality; because his Kashmiri friends with whom he shouted slogans of azadi abandoned him in his fight for freedom ; because Dalit and other anti-caste friends dismissed his issue as being that of an upper-caste urban lad; because his communist comrades dismissed the matter as neo-liberal class oppression. He felt betrayed. And somewhere deep down so did I. I was robbed of sleep for days. Disturbed that many might think mine was an irrelevant battle – or perhaps a smaller war when there were so many bigger battles to win. I was – and am – convinced that fear is never irrelevant. Fear of locking yourself in the mind and body. Fear of shame. Fear of acceptance. Fear of loss. Fear even of love. Loving with fear. Living with fear. Fear of life. That edge so many have walked, still walk. Fear is not about who feels it or when or where.

But armed with these emotions fuelling our rage, we have to accept that the hierarchy of issues is a brutal reality we all have to negotiate in a complex country like India. No doubt the degree of attention one sort of oppression gets in relation to another varies and fluctuates; such asymmetry may well be emerging out of real concerns and on-the-ground situations. But apathy is never the right response to it. And I refuse to beg for sympathy on account of the oppression and fear I or anyone might face. My original essay was going to be all about the anger that I and some others felt at this moment of supposed betrayal.

I spoke again to my friend from Assam after seeing the gimmicky India Today cover with Seth. Though my friend was not in complete agreement with my reaction, I was outraged at this commoditization of homosexuality. Celebrities might next be promoting luxury cars or special vodka for homosexuals. And we might feel that freedom, payable as cash-on-delivery, has arrived at our doorstep.

The past two weeks have been emotionally hard for me. Having dashed off to Delhi to be part of a somewhat disappointing protest, I am now compelled to reflect. The battle to scrap 377 is urgent and crucial. But we cannot allow it to block out other intersecting issues. Though privileged enough to live openly with my sexuality, I was reluctant to be an active part of the LGBTQI movement in India for a long time. I have my reasons—personal and ideological. But this was a moment when solidarity was needed. And I stand in solidarity.

But as much as my friend and I felt isolated from fellow fighters against other injustices, I refuse to be party to this distasteful handling of a serious issue. When something that affects a lot of us is reduced to a fashionable statement, as in the India Today cover, we run the risk of shifting focus to the very nature of oppression aligning it with existing power structures. In this case we, perhaps out of a strategic silence, let our outrage cloud over the hierarchies of issues. The government acted swiftly and rightly so. But would we pause to think why? There have been other Supreme Court judgements, curtailing basic life and liberties (the May 6 Judgement on Koodankulam for example) but the outrage here was unprecedented. Does this mean that we have increased our ‘circle of concern’ now? Or our rationing of empathy? The lesson for some of us, however, should be that in our moment of panic, we must not abandon our vision of how this or any movement against oppression might unwittingly infringe upon – or even become party to – structural injustices. All this often happens cumulatively: class, caste, gender, religion are all ignored in our struggle for selective freedoms. Call it a sanctimonious stand, but the asymmetry of issues on the ground does not give me or anyone else the right to draw up a priority list.

It is a fact, for instance, that for the last two years, the Facebook group called “We support decriminalizing homosexuality” only sent regular invites to parties at fancy clubs in Delhi. And just a few days ago it cheerfully declared “The SC verdict doesn’t mean we will stop having parties. Join in!” That it has suddenly woken up to a fight is immensely welcome, but perhaps the time has come for some introspection on their part too. If the party must go on, then so must the fight against the systemic injustice, the kinds that a lot of us are a part of unwittingly or otherwise. This is not to dilute the importance of the fight against 377 but to strengthen it with a more broad-based understanding towards a multitude of oppressions.

I am well aware that if and when all of us will go quiet, the fear will take over. Not for me or others privileged like me maybe, but for many others who will be silenced into submission. I am also aware that there are more than 377 ways to fight. So we march on, we fight, but never lose sight of the fight for justice cutting across society. In the words of Dr B.R. Ambedkar: “Political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny, and a reformer who defies society is a much more courageous man than a politician who defies government.”

Akshay Pathak is a writer based in Pondicherry.