Owing to the Constitutional Amendment where Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was decriminalised Bollywood is trying to be inclusive of the LGBTQIA+ community. However, have they really been able to?
The LGBTQIA+ community has been ridiculed in Bollywood for decades. Bollywood has been minting money by its dehumanizing depiction of the community. In a broader sense, the entire queer community in Bollywood is misinterpreted because of an actor or director’s notion of the community.
Bollywood movies based on LGBTQIA+ theme were released as early as the 1970s. The film, Badnam Basti, portrays a love triangle between a woman and two men. However, the film disappeared into oblivion shortly after it was released in the theatres. In 1996, Fire was condemned because of the movie’s ‘alien’ depiction of lesbianism that led to protests in many parts of the country.
The LGBTQIA+ representation in Bollywood has peculiar similarities in all its characters. All gay characters have been added to movies for comic relief. For instance, Suresh Menon’s gay character in Partner cracked double meaning jokes, was feminised to match every other gay character in Bollywood films. The Indian society has stigmatized the queer community, and by portraying LGBTQIA+ characters without substance, the chances of the community being ridiculed increase exponentially along with heightened homophobia in the society.
All gay characters are either dance instructors or fashion designers. Many professions have been gendered and this internalized gendering is clearly depicted in Bollywood films. Boman Irani’s character in Dostana is a fashion editor. These stereotypes are affirmed by society which leads to people forming wrong notions about several professions and the community as well.
Apart from a handful of movies, a gay couple in films consists of one partner being extremely feminine and the other partner plays a tough, macho character. The ‘feminine’ partner is seen dressed in ‘colours for women’ such as pink, purple or floral shirts.
Tejasvi, a student of Lady Shri Ram College opined, “Many people in the society refuse to accept the fact that same-sex relationships can be real and due to internalised homophobia, the movies that portray LGBTQIA+ characters having healthy relationships are often condemned. Bollywood has come a long way in terms of representation of the queer community, but it completely depends on the viewers and whether they are ready to accept the relevance of same-sex relationships.”
The coming-of-age web series and movies have taken into account the faulty depiction and stereotypical nature LGBTQ characters and have made an effort to correct these practices. These peculiarities have significantly reduced since the decriminalization of Section 377. Television shows such as Made in Heaven and Four More Shots Please have carefully addressed how the queer community in a country like India faces multiple issues. These shows did not portray its characters in the usual ways that the LGBTQIA+ community is portrayed. They made efforts to apprise the viewers about how bisexuality and homosexuality are absolutely normal and not unnatural unlike how they were portrayed in films earlier.
Ayushmann Khurana’s Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan is being considered a milestone as it is Bollywood’s first gay romantic-comedy film. For many years, homosexuality has been denounced as a disease by many people in the country. The director Hitesh Kewalya made use of comedy to send out an extremely powerful message of societal acceptance of the community. The LGBTQIA+ community has been discriminated against for many years and with the Supreme Court’s ruling on decriminalization of Section 377, the director ensured that the viewers understand that same-sex relationships are as relevant as heterosexual relationships.
On the first anniversary of the scrapping of parts of Section 377, let’s take a look at the life of the members of the LGBTQ+ community post the revolutionary judgement. Have things really changed?
Today marks one year of the 377 judgement, where the supreme court unanimously ruled that consensual same-sex relations were no longer considered ‘against the order of nature’ as the law dictated earlier. The five-judge Constitution bench brought a landmark decision in the history of LGBTQIA+ rights in India. This decision was celebrated by many. Rainbow merchandise and profile pictures flooded the internet. Solidarity came in the form of hushed whispers in the University campus and low squeals of ‘Congratulations’ in-between friends. Solidarity came in the form of comfort that we’re not criminals anymore. The famous slogan used at pride parades and protests, “kaunsa kanoon sabse battar? AFSPA, sedition, teen-sau sathatarr (Which law is the worst? AFSPA, sedition, 377)” was now lost in the pages of history.
A reality check followed immediately after the judgement, it was a small step in a big direction, one that could change the face of queer rights in India, but did it make a difference to the everyday lives of queer-identifying folks?
The lives of people from the community are still subject to scrutiny, harassment, and threats. It is not uncommon to hear about young people from the community being disowned from their families because of their identity. It is not uncommon to hear about employees being fired because of their identity. Queerness comes with an eternal bond to humiliation and loneliness, even national champion Dutee Chand was degraded and shamed after she came out.
The 377 judgement creates the disbelief that people can finally come out of the closet, but in truth, coming out is like stepping out in a minefield.
Queerness comes with tied misogyny and sexism. Queer communities are far from getting away with hierarchies and casual sexism. The 377 judgement tackled consensual same-sex relations but it fails to address the homophobia in the everyday life of the society. From Bollywood tropes and songs to ‘woke liberal spaces’, homophobia still thrives proudly and shows very little signs of fading away. The abolition of section 377 also gave rise to rainbow capitalism. Corporate marketed rainbow-themed merchandise, from t-shirts to underwear, rainbow capitalism gave more leverage to the so-called liberal class for spurring out casual homophobia and queerphobia while masquerading around in rainbow merchandise.
“There is no difference; we now see rainbow merchandise being openly available by big corporate brands. That’s all.” says a student from Ramjas College.
Queer identities are yet to be accepted fully in the public space. In the case of the University of Delhi (DU), National Students’ Union of India’s (NSUI) election manifesto promises reservation in hostels for the LGBTQIA+ community and sessions to sensitise the students and faculty about them. However, the increase of harassment during the DUSU elections makes the University campus another minefield for visibly queer folks.
“My professors are more likely to act like discrimination based on my queerness no longer occurs because the judgement happened. Like section 377 was the only problem we faced and after the judgement, we were alright again.” says a student from National Law University, Delhi. “No, I don’t feel safe in public spaces. I think there’s more backlash because of the 377 judgement.” adds a student from DU. All of this makes one wonder, has the country really progressed since 377 was taken down?
“Not in the slightest, one cannot be persecuted by law but will be persecuted by the public.” says a graduate from Bangalore University. “The only difference I see is that people now know what Section 377 was.” says a student from the Ambedkar University.
India has a long way to go in terms of queer rights and making public spaces queer-friendly. The change does not begin from courtrooms but from small acts of acceptance and inclusivity.
Feature Image Credits: Namrata Randhawa for DU Beat
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on 5th August 2019. However, has the negative and ambiguous aspects of the bill really been addressed by the public?
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill mandates a two step method for legal recognition of gender for someone from the transgender community. They will first have to apply for a “transgender certificate”, after which they will also have to apply for a “change in gender” certificate, which will get their gender status changed legally. This step seems to require surgery and documentation by a medical authority confirming it. Medical confirmation and surgery was not and should not be a necessary prerequisite for a change in legal gender, as per a 2015 report by the World Health Organisation and the Asia-Pacific Transgender Network, the Governments should “take all necessary legislative, administrative, and other measures to fully recognize each person’s self defined gender identity, with no medical requirements or discrimination on any grounds.”
Furthermore, one of the main clauses of the bill basically says that in cases of acts of sexual, verbal, physical, economic, and emotional abuse against transgender peoples, the penalty will be between 6 months and 2 years and with fine. However, those who perpetrate the same crimes against cis-gendered people have much harsher punishments put in place against them. Essentially, this clause is making a very negative impact on an already marginalized community.
Harish Iyer, a gender-rights activist told IndiaSpend, that the “transgender bill is regressive and half-hearted.” He added that pivotal hardship is that one has to go to a committee or a doctor to get recognized as a trans-person and undergo questioning related to their genitalia which any cis-person would never have to go through.
Prachi Johri, a second-year student from Indraprastha College for Women, when asked for her opinion on the Bill, said that “Going back to the 2016 transgender rights bill where the bill defined transgender individual as “neither wholly female or male” to the 2019 version of the bill, it still efficiently renders transgender people as second class citizens by providing penal provisions for crimes committed against the transgender community less stringent compared to the crimes committed against women and by failing to keep in place a progressive certification process for transgender.” She also believes that the bill was also suppressed by the removal of article 370. According to her, it was covered and hidden from the masses and media, so, only a few people know about it and are protesting or questioning about it. It was an easy bill to pass for the government.
Esvi Anbu Kothazam, a Mumbai-based transgender spoke with The Print and stated, “What is being done is that the government is trying to legislate without taking into consideration the history of marginalisation and discrimination which the transgender community has faced.” Esvi also noted the absence of any provision for affirmative action. “The main point is that we need a comprehensive reservation policy — in education, employment and political representation, which addresses the needs of all sections of the transgender community,”
The ambiguity of this bill and its clauses makes one question the motive of the government and how it is going to work towards the protection of this community. Furthermore, it is clear that this Bill has many flaws which haven’t been addressed in the political or the public sphere as they should have been.
On 3rd August 2019, the University of Delhi (DU) witnessed one of its most vibrant pride marches ever in the North Campus, starting from the hostel of Hansraj College, till the office of the University’s Vice Chancellor.
On Saturday, Project CLAP organised the DU Pride March, as a celebration of fifty years of pride. The march was inaugurated with a performance by the Western music society of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Khalsa College.
Members and allies were seen with face paints, flags, and posters. The event began with an introduction by the members of CLAP, followed by a Bollywood mashup rendition. Rishi Raj Vyas, a famous queer activist, addressed the parade and spoke about the repeated suppression of the community’s gender identities and sexual orientations.
Chants of “prem che, prem che, tharo maro same che” (your love and my love are all the same), and those of “Aazadi!” (freedom) from homophobia.
When asked what Pride meant to them, a member of the community commented, “For me, pride is being proud of who I am and finally accepting myself, it feels like I have a place where I belong.” Another supporter who was attending their first-ever pride march felt relieved to be a part of the event.
Arshia (name changed), a student at Lady Shri Ram College and a part of the community, remarked about how homophobic the Indian society is, how members are constantly subjected to violence just for showing love, and how pride representation was important.
With the marchers getting down to the tunes of the dhol, each step drew more traction and support. The event drew to a conclusion with an open-mic where few enthusiastic members and supporters took to the mic and performed for spectators with a vow to promote awareness and break the shackles which restrict people to love freely. “Pride is a day to showcase yourself as freely as possible, and to ask more and more people to support you. So it’s more of a supportive act than being proud of yourself, because we’re proud of ourselves every day,” a member of the community remarked.
Feature Image Credits: Bhagyashree Chatterjee for DU Beat
The University of Delhi (DU) recently saw a row emerge over the proposed syllabus changes in some undergraduate courses. To understand this better, we spoke to some of the key players involved.
The story developed rapidly in the last couple of weeks in what has now become an ideological battle as various organisations clashed over proposed changes in a variety of the University’s undergraduate programmes – English, History, Political Science, Sociology. Both sides levied a number of accusations on the other – in essence, ranging from trying to manipulate academic spaces to spreading propaganda against certain ideologies. However, some claim that the issue is not a Left vs Right matter at all.
A few characters seem important to this story: Professor Rasal Singh, the Academic Council (AC) member who opposed these proposals; the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which protested against these changes; a host of Left organisations like the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Association (AISA), Collective, and others, who staged counter-protests against the ABVP’s demonstration; Professor Saikat Ghosh, another AC member who defended the recommendations of the departments. Our conversation with Professor Sanam Khanna, who was involved in the syllabus drafting exercise, is also of great interest.
But first, here’s the background. After objections from within the AC and the protests by the ABVP over the alleged negative portrayal of the RSS and its affiliates, and what was called “inclusion of false facts relating to Hinduism and nationalist organisations,” organisations like the SFI, AISA, Collective and others staged a ‘joint protest’ in return. As reported by The Indian Express, the University’s English department has decided to drop the “objectionable” portions as it did not want to “hurt anyone’s sentiments”. With “minor modifications,” changes in the Political Science and Sociology courses were reportedly passed, while the Head of Department of History said that the department may “consider changes”.
{One}
In a long text sent to us by Professor Rasal Singh, he detailed the reasons for his opposition to the proposed syllabus changes. Some of the more widely reported reasons were his objections over the alleged depiction of the RSS and its affiliates as “looters” and “murderers” in the story Maniben Alias Bibijaan – a background to the infamous 2002 Gujarat riots – and also the usage of Hindu deities, such as Vishnu, Shiv, Kartikeya and Ganesh, in readings about queerness, based on what he called secondary sources “written by Leftists on the basis of foundational texts of Indian culture like the Bhagavata Purana, Skanda Purana, and Shiva Purana.”
While his right-wing leanings might be apparent above, he also cited some concerns – which were not as widely reported – that perhaps blur the typical ‘rightist’ and ‘leftist’ lines, as we generally understand them. Among these were the alleged removal of the histories of Amir Khusrau, Sher Shah Suri and Dr B.R. Ambedkar, along with those of the Rajputs; the absence of social movements like Bacha Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgar movement; the removal of topics on environmental discussions and nature worship in Sociology courses. In addition, he also alleged that the English Department had made close to “100 per cent” changes in the syllabus, instead of 30 per cent, as supposedly mandated under the rules of the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) curriculum. Yet, he also stated that the syllabus showed “tremendous predominance of leftist ideology and a ceaseless opposition towards nationalist ideology, Indian culture and the RSS”.
For more details on why the revised syllabus faced objections, read this author’s previous piece here.
We asked Mr Singh what was a bigger reason for his objection – the content of the proposed chapters or the English department allegedly not following the ‘30 per cent’ CBCS rule. While he said that the latter was also an issue, the content of the chapters remained more problematic. Objecting to what he called the “monopoly” of one ideology (read leftism) in the syllabus revision exercise, he said that a more inclusive process, accounting for teachers with “diverse ideologies and specialisations,” would have been less controversial.
At this point, we wondered whether Mr Singh had some reservations about the ideology of the left itself. He denied. He said that he did not have any issues with the priorities and politics of the left, but with their “exclusive” presence in the process. “Inclusion of other ideologies in the process would have made for better discourse,” he said. Mr Singh’s reservations over the inclusivity of the process also extended to the sources of information supposedly used. Claiming that most news sources used for the Gujarat and Muzaffarnagar riots case studies – The Wire, Scroll, Al Jazeera, to name a few – were ideologically-driven and not mainstream either, he said that other sources, such as Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV and The Indian Express, should also have been used.
An SFI press release had mentioned other instances of what they called attempts by the RSS and its “frontal organisations” to “tamper with the education curriculums”. There had also been allegations – such as the one by Professor Nandita Narain, former President of Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) – that the ABVP protest turned hostile wherein the protesters allegedly demanded that the Heads of Department of English and History departments of the University and AC member Professor Saikat Ghosh be “handed over” to them. Mr Singh – an ABVP leader during his student days – denounced violence and misbehaviour against teachers perpetrated by any organisation. However, he claimed with “full responsibility” that these allegations were false. Christening the ABVP “the most culture-conscious party” out of all student organisations, he said that while the protesters did enter the Vice-Chancellor’s office, they did not enter the Council Hall. “I’m disappointed that some AC members called the students ‘goonda’; students are also important stakeholders [in determining the syllabus],” he said.
{Two}
“This is the most ridiculous allegation that can be heard,” says Siddharth Yadav, the Delhi State Secretary of ABVP, when we ask him about the veracity of the alleged hostile nature of his party’s protest. “We have fundamentally opposed the changes, both technically and ideologically. Why would we demand the teachers be handed over? I don’t even know who comes up with these things. Technically we oppose the process which was adopted for these changes. We have been demanding student representation in the academic council for a long time. A handful of teachers made the entire course without any discussion with the stakeholders. This was our second protest in a row to prevent the mishappening,” he adds.
In their press release, the ABVP had said that they don’t want the “anti-Hindu mindset of the left” to dominate the curricula. However, professor Rasal Singh of the AC had raised other objections also. Was the ABVP against those issues as well or only against RSS’ alleged negative portrayal? We posed this question to Mr Yadav, to which his response was: “Ideologically we are opposing a lot of changes. All Dalit writers have been removed from ‘Hindi Upanyas’ curriculum, Ambedkar’s name has been removed from Dalit thinkers, Godhra riots have been wrongfully presented, a lot of ancient history has been deleted and only the colonial period is focused upon, Maoism and Naxalism is shown as a social movement, Hindu gods and goddesses have been wrongfully commented upon by relying on secondary sources and the list goes on.”
Saying that “all we wanted” was a “review of the syllabus”, Mr Yadav said that there was “a lot more than what is being told. I hope it comes out soon.”
{Three}
The Vice-President of SFI Delhi State, Sumit Kataria, says, “Whenever the BJP has been in power, they’ve always attacked our education system”.
There is a general belief that the academia is largely populated by left-liberals. From some of the most prominent historians of our country, who tend to belong to Marxist schools of thought, to litterateurs critical of the right-wing, there probably is a presence of a more left-oriented academia. After all, the ABVP and Professor Rasal Singh expressed clear displeasure over the alleged leftist character of the revised syllabi. This situation is perhaps not even unique to India either; conservatives in the United States have been claiming for quite some time now that their voices in the university spaces are shrinking. We asked Mr Kataria if he felt that there was a general dominance of the left in academia and if that could make the right-wing voices feel that they are not heard properly. “To say that there is a general dominance of the left ideology is a very ahistorical statement. When has the left ever dominated the academia? It [academia] has always been dominated by the elite and the upper caste sections in India. The left is not in power, so how can we dominate?” he responds. “It is the right-wing organisations’ propaganda and nothing else.”
Now that the revised syllabus has been taken back, essentially ending things the way the ABVP wanted, do parties like the SFI consider it a loss? Mr Kataria says, “It doesn’t mean that ABVP has won. It is our education system that has been defeated and not SFI or any other organisation…These are just attempts at destroying our democratic education system.”
{Four}
Professor Saikat Ghosh. AC member. Professor of English. Allegedly wanted by the ABVP to be “handed over”. Speaking to Mr Ghosh brings a few twists, and confusions, in the story.
He tells us that the information about the alleged “handing over” demand of the ABVP was given to him by the security personnel at the Viceregal Lodge, where the office of the Vice-Chancellor is located. “We were told by the security guards to disperse from the University premises at the earliest as the threat of violence is real.” He further added, “We were escorted out of a back entrance of the Viceregal Lodge in a clandestine way. We were also told that the lights surrounding the Garden outside the Viceregal Lodge were switched off by the ABVP to ensure that CCTV becomes ineffective in the case of an actual physical attack.”
“Unfortunate and indicative of vindictive rejection of the English Dept’s academic autonomy,” was how Mr Ghosh described the resultant withdrawal of the proposed syllabus by the English department. Claiming that the department’s “academic arguments are not being heeded,” Mr Ghosh alleged that the University Undergraduate Curriculum Revision Committee – tasked with overseeing the revision process – had “taken the role of a bully on behalf of the ABVP and NDTF (National Democratic Teachers’ Front)” – both linked to the RSS.
While Mr Singh had called for consultations with more teachers to ensure inclusivity in the process – he said only around 15 teachers of the English department drafted most of the new syllabus – Mr Ghosh contradicted him. “Prof. Rasal Singh is conveniently hiding the fact that 120+ teachers from across 50 DU colleges participated in the English syllabus revision,” he claimed. He further said that an “open call” was given in the English teachers’ General Body Meeting (GBM) in 2017 for voluntary participation in the syllabus revision, of which the “right-wing” teachers chose not to be a part. “Students, alumni and peers in the international academia recorded overwhelming praise,” he said about the revised syllabus, which was supposedly open for “public review and feedback for a month”.
“The NDTF and ABVP seemed to be sleeping through the entire exercise. The RSS is politicising it and not engaging with the academic merits of the syllabus,” he alleged. When we asked Mr Singh whether this was true, he replied that he said “whatever is fact.”
Mr Ghosh profoundly disagrees about the whole issue being an ideological one. He has been associated with the SFI in the past, but strictly maintains that his support for the syllabus has been on academic grounds and that he has not “asserted any party agenda.” He also said that many of the teachers involved in the exercise did not belong to any political background.
“The issue is not a battle between the Right and the Left. It is being given an ideological colour by those who don’t want the English department to give its students a world-class syllabus that allows them to engage with contemporary social and aesthetic concerns. The people opposed to the English syllabus are being unfair to thousands of students who dream of pursuing an English Honours degree from DU colleges,” he said.
Was the process really ideological in nature? Were only members of a certain ideology considered for the syllabus revision exercised, as alleged by some? Or was there an attempt made by the departments to accommodate as many teachers in the drafting exercise as possible, as was claimed by some others?
Professor Sanam Khanna, a teacher of English at Kamala Nehru College, also participated in the syllabus revision exercise. She said that the whole syllabus drafting exercise, which began two years ago, went something like this: “The English department called a General Body Meeting of all teachers from across the University. From the GBM, subcommittees were formed to look after clusters of papers. The drafting process starts from there based on what the teachers feel the students need, the shortcomings of the current syllabi, and feedback from their departments.”
DU Beat got access to some of the emails, dated 2017, which were sent as intimation regarding the syllabus drafting exercise.
E-mail 1E-mail 2The emails accessed by DU Beat show that invitations to be a part of the syllabus revision process were sent to a large number of professors and colleges.
The first and second images of the email dating 30 August 2017 show that the revision exercise was already underway at least as early as September 2017. Here, a clear request has been made for publicising the email as widely as possible and suggestions and recommendations have been invited. The email was sent by Professor Christel R. Devadawson, the then English HoD. The second email – also by Professor Devadawson – dated 29 October 2017, was sent to 357 recipients. The email seems to be about the committee on revising the syllabi for the core courses – an indication that multiple people were involved in the drafting exercise. “Mails such as these were sent to all principals and colleges as well as English teachers’ groups and email lists, inviting suggestions and participation,” Ms Khanna said. “So how can anyone say the process was ‘limited’? Whoever was interested came, attended and worked for over two years,” she added.
Ms Khanna also denied any ideological motivation behind the syllabi. “This is a huge collective effort. It decolonised the study of literature. For the first time in DU, so many Indian authors have been introduced in the syllabus. More than 100 Indian authors across different time periods and genres [were included]. What is leftist here? It is deeply painful to hear such unacademic responses,” she said.
We tried contacting Professor Sunil Kumar, the HoD of the History Department, via email but he did not respond to our queries by the time of publishing this article.
{Five}
What may have started as a purely academic exercise has now taken the form of an ideological and political tussle. The organisations holding protest after protest all come from one or the other ideological leaning; and the demonstrations seem to have taken an ugly shape. While all the politics is fair and well, we do wonder if the agitating parties have gone through the newly proposed texts. For all their claims of holding dialectics and discussion in high regard, did the right engage enough with the left and vice-versa? We may never know.
However, as things stand, another protest was held on 23rd July. Two days earlier, the revised syllabus was put before the Executive Council of the University for final approval; it was sent back for revision. Mr Singh welcomed this decision of referring back what he called the “propagandist” and “non-inclusive” syllabus to the respective departments. He said that the syllabi of these departments should be “comprehensively reviewed by including more teachers and stakeholders in the exercise.” He however expressed disappointment as “the teachers are hardly given any reasonable time to comprehensively and critically analyse all contents of these departments. The cosmetic and superficial approach on such an important academic matter will not serve the purpose.”
An oversight committee is now tasked with finalising the syllabi by 31 July. The syllabi of these departments was supposed to take effect from the current session onwards. While the revised syllabi of many other courses has been approved, as available on the University website, that of these departments hangs in the balance. Ms Khanna hints at this when she says, “We are worried about our students who are without a syllabus when every day is precious in this short semester system.”
In the middle of the month of June, the Pride Month, Taylor Swift had dropped a new video for her single ‘You Need to Calm Down’. A song battling homophobia and her haters, the song has received moderately good reviews but it’s the video that has been making headlines.
The video starts with Taylor waking up in a trailer and then burning it down as she walks past anti-LGBTQ protestors. She keeps on walking in a world of flashy colours which features a huge ensemble of some of the greatest queer icons, from Ru Paul judging a beauty pageant to Ellen DeGeneres getting tattooed by Adam Lambert. In the end, even Katy Perry (a major foe of Taylor in the past as per gossip journalists) gets along with her.
But the reaction like most of Taylor’s content in the past has been polarising.
While her support for the LBGTQ community has been welcomed, some are critical of the vibe that the video gives off. Associating queer people with pink and all other flashy colours is a major stereotype and unconsciously the Drew Kirsch directed video seems to reinforce the very same stereotype.
As a queer school student (name withheld) said, ‘She went with the whole stereotype with how LGBT is all about rainbows, being excessively flamboyant, spilling tea and being dramatic and constantly being obsessed with drag culture.’ He added that it caters to an extremely exclusive set of people from the community and not every ‘non-straight guy’ would relate to it.
There have been artists in the past with songs that achieve the status of a ‘pride anthem’, like many tunes by George Michael, Lady Gaga and Madonna. But none of these artists ‘try’ to be queer icons. It’s the community of their listeners that ultimately give them this status.
In the case of Swift, before her ‘Swifties’ decide, she seems to have proclaimed herself as a queer icon. As a Vox report read, her song ‘wants to be a queer anthem’. It also feels that she like many other capitalist companies is trying to commodify Pride Month and make money out of it. But is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Even if shameless capitalism is involved, in some way or the other they are trying to celebrate pride and criticise the homophobes. That just makes them allies of the LBGTQ community and that’s a good thing…right?
But support and appropriation are two extreme sides of the rainbow. ‘She’s just queerbaiting. She can’t take up a space that’s not hers. We don’t need straight saviours’, Ambuj, a third-year student from Ambedkar University said.
Poet and blogger Arjun Randhawa had a similar narrative that Taylor ‘overdid’ herself as he called the video ‘a great way to get views during pride month and for calling a truce with another pop star (Katy)’.
So, appropriating, pretending, overdoing, stereotyping, capitalising, there are many allegations on the pop star but it’s no secret that she has been a genuine ally for the queer community for a long time. In fact, Taylor has released this song to raise funds for GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and her own petition urging the US Senate to pass the Equality Act.
She might be walking the straight path of being a ‘straight saviour’ for the community in the video too but maybe some queer people are ready to give her this status despite her heterosexual identity. But as the video many famous queer personalities, do we really need a straight white singer to be their voice, that’s the question.
A Hyderabad student who identifies as bisexual (name not disclosed) feels that the hate that Taylor is getting seems a bit unnecessary.
‘She has been a genuine ally, and the video isn’t the same as corporate gaining off the pride tide. This is a product that can be streamed and viewed with nothing to pay for but our time. Yes, she gets ad revenue but come on, the sets didn’t materialise out of thin air right!’
So, have you watched the video for You Need to Calm Down? Do you feel Taylor Swift overplayed her ‘queer avatar’? Or do you have a ‘calmed-down’ stance?
Dear Dad answers a weirdly unexpected question, “What if your Father was gay?” Read on to find out more.
The movie comes to its objective point very quickly. Its protagonist, a man in his mid-thirties with a teenage son, a little daughter and a facade of a happy family is gay. He has been living a lie for years, closeted and pretending to conform to societal expectations, and the truth fumbles out of him during a road trip with his son.
Debutant director Tanuj Bhramar goes with this unprecedented story where most film makers would dare not. It is a father-son-bonding-on-a-road-trip trope used in an unconventional way.
They meet new people, explore new ideas, travel to picturesque locations, and visit childhood homes. With an impending secret blossoming, that Shivam’s beloved father Nitin is gay, and has finally decided to come out of the closet after living half his life pretending to be someone else, the narrative rushes with emotions.
The story ventures into exploring the idea of shame; how the supposedly modern teenage son cannot digest that his father identifies with the LGBTQ+ community. It takes him the whole journey to realise that his father’s true sexuality does not make him (Nitin) a different person. He is still the same, just a lot happier and comfortable in revealing to the world an essential truth about himself.
The best part is that the film doesn’t focus on questions like ‘why now?’, rather it highlights the reactions and changes in the relationship dynamics this revelation brings about. The interaction between Nitin and his paralysed old father at his childhood home is equal parts emotional and rational.
Arvind Swamy’s performance gives a heart-soaring touch to make Nitin’s character more real and sincere. His trials, tribulations, apprehensions and eventual relief are portrayed in a soft manner by Swamy which brings about a sense of sincerity into the story.
The film is not perfect, it tests your patience at parts and seems too slow, but it is worth watching for what it is trying to say. Bollywood is home to a handful of films that get representation right, and Dear Dad certainly is one of the few. There is nothing stereotypical about this closeted gay and his coming out story. So this pride month, maybe watch it with your friends to get a deeper understanding of what sexuality really means to a person.
The draft of the New Education Policy (NEP), 2019 is a progressive step towards liberal education in India. The guidelines laid down by the policy for the education of the transgender community is momentous in view of the discrimination faced by them for eons now. However, a pragmatic view is critical for its actualisation in a complex society like ours.
The current draft NEP has been spearheaded by former Chairman of Indian Space and Research Organisation (ISRO), and noted scientist K. Kasturirangan. It has brought about some encouraging reforms like conferring of the Right to Education to children under six and above 14, doubling of the overall financial allocation to education and strengthening the teaching profession which was much acknowledged.
One of the transcending steps taken by the NEP is to provide equitable and inclusive education to transgender students. The plight of the transgender students to pursue an education in a society where they are perceived as taboo and face harsh criticism, this move to make educational spaces inclusive was a much-needed effort.
The draft NEP mentions,
“The Policy recognises the urgent need to address matters related to the education of transgender children and initiating appropriate measures to remove the stigma and discrimination they face in their life with respect to education. The creation of safe and supportive school environments which do not violate their constitutional rights will be accorded priority.”
It lays down guidelines for ensuring participation of transgender children in school education and thus exposing students about the issues faced by transgender children at an early stage for better social acceptance. The policy talks about developing a plan in consultation with transgender students and their parents regarding the use of their names and access to restrooms and other spaces, corresponding to their gender identity. Although this is a positive move to secure access based on their sexual identity, in a country like India with a high incidence of sexual crimes, it is unclear how the policy aims to safeguard their access to such places and deal with the stigma associated with it.
“The curriculum and textbooks will be reoriented to address issues related to transgender children, their concerns, and approaches that would help meet their learning needs,” the policy outlines. Our curriculum in primary, secondary or high schools has never talked about transgender and sexual identity. Including these topics in the syllabus and empathising with these issues will bring in a new wave for social acceptance.
Tanay Sinha, a 21-year-old from Rajdhani College welcomed the move and commented, “This will definitely help in making students aware and have empathy for the struggles transgenders have to go through on a day to day basis. Education and awareness about them and also how they’re just like any other human being, would make children respect and normalize the idea of being transgender. Most importantly, textbooks at school level are seen as The Truth so children would take no time in humanising the idea of transgenders.”
Transgender activist Laxmi Tripathi said in an interview, “I was bullied at school for being feminine, and my confidence was destroyed.” Introducing transgender rights and sensitisation on the topic would play the role of a catalyst in changing the stigmatized picture of the transgender community. However, the policy doesn’t touch upon sexual identities pertaining to the LGBTQ+ community, other than transgenders.
Exclusion and discrimination they face have severely restricted their social existence, rights to education and livelihood and has created gender identity crisis. The gender issues have always been decked in forcing people to opt for the category of either masculine or feminine; in our culture, the answer both or neither are generally not acceptable.
“I have noticed how they (people identifying with the LGBTQ+ community) are never accepted fully, and it’s not a welcoming and conducive environment for them to learn. You have to deal with confused people and then go on to take lessons explaining them. This is where the real hardship lies,” Tanay adds further on this discussion.
Although the NEP has attempted to create guidelines, the implementation and actualisation in our complex social scenario remains unclear. It is reiterated by the fact that even the higher educational institutes struggle to bring the transgender students into mainstream education which was seen in this year’s University of Delhi application process. According to the official data released by the varsity, there was only one transgender applicant among 3.67 lakh candidates.
Prejudice based on gender has always been prevalent. Sensitization and awareness do not necessarily mean social acceptance and their integration in mainstream education. Inclusivity, awareness, and respect is a step forward for correcting the social offences the society has committed against the transgender community. The draft NEP 2019 has provided a basis for a much required progressive change. However, its implementation in the current scenario and its standpoint on the other stripes of the rainbow remains unclear.
With only one transgender applicant this year and no enrollments for regular courses since 2015, the University has had enough reminders to realise the plight of transgender students. DU Beat explores this decline.
University of Delhi (DU) receives the highest number of applications for various courses in the country, and this year was no different. The University received more than three lakh applications, though there was a decline from last year. 3,67,895 number of applications is no less a number, even as only 2,58,388 proceeded ahead and made payments. In all these applications, women yet again seemed to have become a majority, 84,021 female candidates and 68,457 male candidates applied to the University. Shockingly, only one transgender person has submitted an application this year as compared to last year, or 2017 when the university had 36 applications.
According to the data, the scheduled tribe category saw 4,044 male applicants and 3,056 female applicants. Over 17,000 male candidates and 16,000 female candidates had applied in the SC quota and about 32,926 male candidates and approximately 22,531 female candidates applied for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) non-creamy layer quota.
The newly introduced EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) that has a ten percent quota in the university admissions also had 5,528 male candidates and 3,562 female candidates. This year the varsity has increased its capacity to 62,000 number of seats. It has been stated that there would be a separate cut-off for the EWS category.
The fact that only one transgender student has applied is a huge warning to the varsity. There seems to be very liitle that the university has been able to do to make the college spaces safe for the transgender community. It seems that the stigma attached to the community has not yet gone away and a singular application speaks volumes in this regard. There have been cases of harassments faced by transgenders from other students and staff and that may have been the reason for this decline in approaching the university for admissions.
With incidents of transgender persons being asked, “Since when have you been a transgender person?” by the admission staff. Being subjected to derogatory remarks during the admissions, they tend to take up vocational courses and steer away from the University space.
Even though the TRC (Transgender Resource Centre), established in 2018 had come up with various outreach programs to bring more students to the University fold, they seem to have not yielded substantial results. These outreach programs had begun during the month of April this year.
Equal rights activist Harish Iyer said that he would be writing to the Chief Minister of Delhi about this issue. “If that one candidate seeks admission to a college of DU, the whole college and especially the teaching and the non-teaching staff have to ensure that the student feels at ease and accepted. The civil society has to come together to address the issue.” he stated.
According to officials, last year there were applications from transgender aspirants but no one enrolled for regular courses. The varsity had introduced the Other category in 2015, but there have been no admissions to the regular course under this category so far.
Rajesh from the Department of Adult Continuing Education and Extension said, “Around 15 transgender students had come to us with queries but they all had queries about School Of Open Learning and Indira Gandhi National Open University. They usually prefer to enrol as male or female in regular courses or for distance learning education.”
The University needs to gear up to make sure that more and more transgender students feel welcome in the college space. This year needs single registration needs to be a stern reminder for the same. It is all of us together who decide for us and others around us. Let us all try to accept each other and build a better future. Marks build your CV, not your character.
With the tagline of ‘Dance, drama and desire’, Gulabi Aaina or ‘The Pink Mirror’ is India’s first film with focus on drag queens. The film was banned in India but went on to be a part of multiple film festivals abroad.
Gulabi Aaina or The Pink Mirror is a 35-minute short film directed by Sridhar Rangayan. The film is Rangayan’s first short film and explores the story of two drag queens (Shibbo and Bibbo), their ‘personal boy’ Mandy and a budding young actor called Samir. The film was set to release in India in 2003 but was banned by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on grounds of being ‘too vulgar for the mainstream audience’.
The film begins with a shot of Bibbo as a Mughal era courtesan. We see the playfulness in her eyes and the mischief in her smirk. We are soon introduced to Shabbo who is seen fretting after a face mask recipe goes wrong.
The first sign of the relationship between the two leads is shown in Bibbo’s entrance to the house where we’re also introduced to Mandy, Bibbo’s ‘personal boy’. Mandy is a shy gay teen who understands very little Hindi. After a few scenes, we are introduced to Samir, Shabbo’s ‘driver’. What progresses from that point is almost a playful fight between the two drag queens and Mandy over Samir’s attention.
The film cannot simply be out under the genre of comedy, in its 35-minute run time of over the top singing, colour and flamboyance, it subverts definitions of genre the same way the protagonists subvert the heteronormative definitions of gender and sexuality.
Shabbo and Bibbo share a mother-daughter relationship, their solidarity and love for each other remains omnipresent in the film. Solidarities would be the central theme of the film. In the queer household, solidarity goes beyond acceptance of identity but extends to comfort and sacrifices in the time of distress. The pink mirror on Shabbo’s boudoir is a witness to her and Bibbo’s relationship, it’s where they laugh, cry, dress up and perform.
The film also emphasises on queer desire with Samir’s character. He is young, attractive and seemingly unattainable. The second half of the film is filled with comical attempts to seduce him.
The drama and the cinematography of the film takes one back to the soap operas of the 90s and the early 2000s. The acting isn’t perfect, in some places it is obvious that the cast is new to being in front of the camera. In many parts, the sassiness of the characters comes off as virulentness. The HIV angle to Bibbo’s story seemed unnecessary. The singing sequences could be way shorter and simply see over dramatic but these flaws aside, one cannot deny that The Pink Mirror was a film way ahead of its time, labelled as ‘vulgar’ and ‘obscene’, the film transcends those definitions and becomes a testament and an urban Indian outlook to drag queens and gays.Image Credits: NetflixJaishree Kumar[email protected]]]>
