[Reader-list] suck my nation - spatialisation in queer identity (with apologies to ascencio, form whom i steal the title)

[A Khanna]

Hi all,

this is my third posting on my project 'zara hut ke', on queer space 
and queering spaces. Apologies again for the long silence. I am writing 
immediately after three significant moments, perhaps three highlights, 
of my year of fieldwork. One of these was a large meeting of queer 
activists from around the country. Another was the beginning of a 
dialogue between the queer movement and health activists. The third was 
an interesting tunr in the dialogue on sexuality in Lucknow. And 
although there has not been much development in terms of the queer 
space i want to set up in Delhi, much that has happened in these three 
events relates to my concern with the relationship between space, 
sexuality, the constitution of 'community', and the negotiation of 
identity.

Thus far, for the large part, my postings have explored ways in which 
spaces are sexualised. In this posting i shall look at things a little 
differently. Here i am concerned with the how the queer movement 
imagines itself spatially. the posting may come across as a ramble at 
times, but that's the confused way in which things stand in my mind...

For the purpose of clarity i shall peg this posting around three ideas 
- the 'local', the 'national' and the 'global'. My intention is to 
explore the ways in which these ideas come to be used politically, and 
thus to open up ways in which to examine how their parameters, or 
boundaries come to be re-defined in the process. As such, the question 
is as much what these ideas 'do' as it is about what they are.

The 'local' and the 'national'
in earlier postings i have referred to the recent case in Lucknow where 
four men were arrested in a false case under section 377. even while 
'local' groups got into action, the news reached the queer activist 
communities across the country through the internet. Within days a team 
consisting of queer activists from bangalore, bombay and baroda got 
together to carry out a fact-finding, the report of which was then 
circulated widely and used as a document for protests and press 
conferences in at least delhi,  bombay, calcutta, bangalore, mysore. At 
the same time, protest was registered by 'international' queer and 
human rights groups, and by 'local' groups in Nepal, within days. As 
such, almost immediately, the case emerged as a significant rallying 
point for sexuality rights activism 'locally', at 'national' and 
'international' levels. In each of these contexts, the case evoked 
different concerns and brought about distinct modes of political action.

Around this time i found myself in Lucknow, following up the case. One 
of the objectives of the visit was to check out the scope for bringing 
this case to have implications for queer activism at the 'national' 
level. This was seen important as the case provided an opportunity to 
clearly negate the government of india's claim in the public interest 
litigation in the delhi high court, that Section 377 is not used 
against consenting adults. In other words, here was a case that would 
be invaluable to the 'larger' fight against Section 377. it was 
important, thus, for the 'national', and even the 'international' to 
make claims to the case. What i found was, of course, that things were 
much more complicated.
First, was the question of whether the men who had been arrested would 
be willing to lend their experience to activism, the the 'larger 
cause'... Having faced a concerted attack by the media, and having been 
'outed', lost jobs and having faced resistance from their communities 
and families, they were understandably hesitant to bring the gaze of 
the media back on themselves. Second, one of the Lucknow based NGOs, 
that has faced persecution at the hands of the Lucknow police in the 
past had good reason to believe that the police were attempting to use 
this case to entrap them yet again. And significantly, the only way in 
which the men who had been arrested were contactable, was through this 
NGO – it being the only recognisable queer group that was 
offering them services and support in this moment of crisis. Other 
'local' groups looked at the case as a reflection of a failure to carry 
out activism around sexuality 'locally'. A longer process of dialogue 
on sexuality, marginalisation and rights was seen as the next point of 
action. As such it was clear that in order for the case to become a 
point of 'national' level activism, there needed to be a series of 
difficult and complex negotiations with the local political materiality.

The response of the queer movement to a homophobic murder is Shillong 
further articulated the complexity of the disjuncture between the 
'local' political materiality and the 'national' struggle against 
marginalisation on the basis of sexuality/gender non-conformity. Soon 
after the news of the murder was posted on an e-group (interestingly, 
by an australian HIV/AIDS activist who has done some work in the 
north-east of india) the question was whether another fact-finding team 
should be brought together. The immediate response of a large number of 
people, especially those who have worked in meghalaya in the past, was 
that this was that we do not know enough about the reality of being 
queer in the area. Discussions with civil society activists from 
Shillong further brought about a sense of hesitation. The area where 
the murder took place, it was suggested, is a hotbed of a particular 
'chauvanism' where the requirement of the gender performance is the 
basis for much harassment of those who do not fit the (locally 
constituted) idea of 'masculinity'. At the same time it became clear 
that there is a substantial queer community in the area that is engaged 
in some amount of activism and community building. It was also 
suggested that there is a class disjuncture between this community of 
activists and the queer folk in the particular neighbourhood where the 
murder took place. In short, there was a recognition of a series of 
complex negotiations of queerness in the area that the 'national' 
movement was yet to understand. The political viability of a 
fact-finding was thus brought into question.

There was something very interesting about the discussions around 
possible actions in the Shillong case. Activists from Shillong had 
suggested that the most significant problem in attempting a 
fact-finding would be that a 'national' team would visibly by a group 
of 'outsiders' – this fact again needed to be seen in the context 
of 'local' politics of self-determination and identity. First, 'we' 
outsiders would have difficulty in getting information, in collecting 
'facts'. Second, a group of 'outsiders' coming 'in' could raise 
problems for local queer folk. This issue came to be articulated as a 
question of the politics of location – an 'insider-outsider' 
dichotomy. This raised a significant question. even if we are 
'outsiders' in terms of 'ethnicity', we are 'insiders' in terms of 
being queer. And those facing threats, while being 'insiders' in terms 
of ethnicity, are marginalised on the basis of their sexuality/gender 
non-conformity. The politics of location was thus partially 
'dislocated' from its grounding in geography and ethnicity, bringing an 
articulation of the multiplicity of processes of identification and of 
marginalisation.

What is most interesting to me in these two situations is that the 
relationship between the spatial categories of the 'local' and the 
'national', and of the questions of identity, came to be framed in 
ethical terms – is it ethically sound for 'us' to attempt to 
articulate these cases as examples of the complex 'social life' of 
Section 377, and of violence against queer folk, when so clearly, the 
local political dynamic did not allow for such action? And from a 
different perspective, was it right for us to hesitate in intervening 
in situations of violence against people like us, on the basis that we 
stood outside the 'local' dynamic?

the sense of frustration in these cases was tangible and significant. 
Consider the fact that the high court of delhi rejected the petition on 
the grounds that no one was 'affected' by the provision, that it was an 
'academic question' – basically that the ways in which the impact 
of the provision was articulated in the petition did not fit the 
boundaries of the the idea of 'victimhood', or perhaps, the idea of the 
'worthy victim'. We are thus constantly pressed to prove that we are 
'victims' of the law – this in terms of arrests and 'human rights 
violations' as they are articulated in Supreme Court judgments. The 
case in Lucknow articulates the problem of  Section 377 in a manner 
that the courts cannot ignore, where we do not need to put the effort 
into proving that the socio-cultural affects of the provision do in 
fact amount to human rights violations, and we can't do activism around 
the case or bring it to bear on the legal contestations because the 
'local' is not ready. Similarly, the case in Shillong is one that 
places beyond doubt that 'homophobia' is a reality that queer folk have 
to constantly negotiate. And perhaps more significantly, the sense of 
frustration in not being able to provide an effective response, or at 
least tangible support to queer folk facing violence.

A significant outcome of these cases has been that they have given rise 
to a series of discussions on the creation of 'national networks' that 
could more effectively respond to cases of violence, displacement and 
marginalisation on the basis of sexuality and gender non-conformity. 
The question, perhaps, is as much about creating mechanisms of 
representation – whereby, a 'national network' could speak of, 
for and to 'local' realities, as it is about creating mechanisms of 
effective response. In other words, these cases have given rise to 
reflexive practices where identity and sense of self and community are 
mediated, in part, by spatial imaginaries.

The 'global' and the 'national'
a similar, yet significantly distinct situation comes to be in the 
context of the idea of the 'global'. Let me explain.
the most commonly voiced objection to social movements concerned with 
sexuality, and with same-sex desire in particular is that they talk of 
something 'western', something apparently alien to 'Indian culture'. 
This has in the past been the basis for violent attacks carried out by 
the hindu right-wing, (for example, when the Shiv Sena attacked 
theatres screening the film Fire). It has also been the basis on which, 
earlier the NDA government, and more recently, the UPA government have 
refused to accept that Section 377 violates basic fundamental rights 
granted to all citizens by the Constitution. The argument is that 
'Indian society does not approve of homosexuality', and therefore, that 
'these people' cannot be given basic rights of equality, life and 
freedom of expression. That is to say, our claims to rights, to 
'citizenship' have had to engage and contest a nationalist imaginary of 
the 'indian self'. And this contestation is not limited to the 
upper-caste hindu-nationalist network. For the longest time, this has 
been a significant aspect of the discursive context within which we 
have engaged left-leaning groups and the women's movement.
This is perhaps the reason why we tread carefully in moments of 
self-representation – be it with the media, or at events we 
organise. An interesting discussion took place, for instance, when we 
were exploring possible events around the visit of a European law 
professor. The question was whether he could be called upon to be a 
part of a panel at a jan sunwai. The question was this – given 
that this would be public event where we were calling upon a group of 
'experts' to comment on the validity of Section 377, would it prudent 
for us to have a non-Indian, western face on the panel. One of the 
arguments that i found most compelling at this juncture was exactly 
that even if this person was not 'Indian', he was gay – why were 
we prioritising one identity over another and were we not playing into 
exactly that obsession with the 'nation'? And should we not be instead 
pointing out the hypocrisy of surrendering control over the economy to 
the US government and the WTO while arguing against 'homosexuality as a 
western evil'?

This opens up a series of questions - To what extent does an 
identification with histories of the gay rights movement in Europe and 
America – critical events such as the Stonewall riots, for 
example, i.e., a claim to a global form, enable certain imaginaries of 
individual and collective ‘selves’ in urban India? In other 
words, how do aspects of ‘globalness’ enable/regulate 
articulation of forms, and conversely, how is ‘globalness’ 
itself articulated in the emergence of forms? And how does 'globalness' 
engage and contest other aspects of the 'form' – the regional, 
the ethnic, the linguistic, gender, caste, religion...?

this speaks to a range of concerns in the study of post-coloniality. 
And this is one direction that my future research shall focus on.

Hope this has been interesting and will raise questions.

until next time, then

akshay