Silences on Hindu lesbian subjectivity

Abstract

This paper attempts to identify the roots of the perception and status of female same-sex relationships in contemporary Hindu India. After analyzing the development of Vedic and yogic mythologies, I compare the contingent valuation of sexual identity that exists within the ancient Hindu framework with the imported political and moral normativity of imperial Britain. This paper analyses the contribution of British colonialism to shaping the understanding of ‘India’ as a meaningful entity, of the concept of the ‘Indian woman,’ and thereby of ‘Hindu lesbian.’ Section 377 of the Indian Penal code, which established the criminal nature of sodomy in 1861 and is still in effect today, illustrates the colonial framing of public language, law and politics in India. The brief revocation of this Section between July 2009 and December 2013 reveals some strategies of 20th century Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual (LGB) movements, but also the inadequacies of these LGB movements’ re-conceptualization of Hindu pre-colonial narratives. I contend that if heterosexuality dominates in Hindu Indian society today as the norm, there seems to be no such thing as ‘traditional Hindu heteronormativity.’ I apply the general argument of this paper through a critique of Deepa Mehta’s film Fire (1995). While the film attempts to tackle the issue of female same-sex love in Hindu India, it also reveals how diasporic discourses on homosexual subjectivity actually narrow the possibilities for investigation into the plurality of histories of Hindu Indian women who love women, and consistently restrict political and linguistic options for re-thinking homosexuality in India beyond neo-colonial or nationalist constraints.