An intriguing tale from the pages of Linga Purana, Mahabharata, Ramayana and other mythological texts talks of Ila, the offspring of Manu and Shraddha, progenitors of all mankind. One day Ila entered the sacred groves of goddess Parvati, where no man was allowed. As a result, he was cursed to change gender every month. Ila’s feminine beauty enticed Buddha (Mercury) who married her and from their union emerged the Chandravansha (Lunar Dynasty). This episode is narrated in above mentioned texts differently. What does not change in these narratives is the presence of gender beyond the binary and a negative connotation attached with it.
Why is someone’s identity (hijra), an abuse for others? Why is it that people who don’t conform to the accepted gender roles are seen as defiling “our culture”? Many “facts” which are flaunted around us are nothing but stereotypes and like any other aspect of culture, they too have a history, a history which we will look into here.
Beyond the mythological representation of the queer as yakshas, kinnaras and deities such as Agni, some texts from ancient India deal with queer behavior in the context of punishment for it. In the Manusmriti as well as the Arthashastra, there is no criminal category reserved for homosexual acts and a comparatively light punishment is prescribed. Manusmriti is more concerned with the pollution of a virgin woman and caste of a Brahmin or kshatriya in such acts- same sex act for men result in loss of caste whereas if a woman “defiles” a virgin girl it is fined and ten lashes from a rod are prescribed. Kamasutra, a 4th century CE work dedicated to desires talks about homosexual behavior too. Interestingly, it mentions same-sex unions based on deep attachment. However, in all these treatises, the general attitude is either neutral or derogatory.
Medical outlook on non-conforming sexual behavior is compiled in the works of Sushruta and Charak. Both of them provide several categories for these “sexual abnormalities” which according to them are caused by fault during conception, thus accepting these “deformities” as congenital. Lesbians are mentioned as a result of mother taking the role of man during coitus which apparently results in their masculine behavior. Charak has described Lesbians as man hating (nradveshini) and breast- less. It is worth mentioning that unlike male homosexual behavior, lesbianism is seen as a result of male-absence and seclusion of females.
The pre-Islamic Indian attitude towards LGBTQ can be described in the words of Devdutt Patanaik, “Though not part of the mainstream, its existence was acknowledged but not approved.” The advent of Islam is seen by many as the coming of Shariat, which made the “liberal” attitude of Hinduism stern by introducing harsh punishments prescribed in Islamic law for homosexuals however this wasn’t the case. Islamic traditions mingled with the existing social norms and there was no extreme dominance of one over the other. One development which became characteristic of this period was the employment of transgender in royal services. A well-known example is of Malik Kafur, who was appointed Deputy ruler by Allaudin Khalji, a step which was lamented by Ziauddin Barani. Under the Mughals, especially Akbar, there are mentions of khwaja sehras guarding the harem. They operated in the area between the outside world and the interiors which were restricted for any male. There are also cases of eunuch officers such as Itmad Khan, under Akbar, managing the finances of the state. Abul Fazl contrasts them with the officers who think about enriching their own household. Absence of any familial ties is seen as a promise of complete devotion to the emperor. Despite references to some eunuchs holding high positions, the general outlook towards them was filled with suspicion due to their sexuality (castration was optional, they were doubted for involvement with the ladies of Harem, and punished severely) and even after Akbar’s attempts to remove slavery, eunuchs were always prone to exploitation and contempt from others at the court due to their physical form and effeminate behavior. Much celebrated themes of homoerotic love in Urdu poetry and Sufi romanticism don’t represent the popular attitude towards homosexuality either.
With the coming of the British East India Company, European and Christian viewpoints on homosexuality also came to India. Christianity believed that a non-procreative sexual act is sin. Discrimination and negative attitude towards LGBTQ as we have observed, was present before the British, but two steps, a. Section 377 which made homosexual relations among other things, illegal and b. Inclusion of eunuchs in the list of Criminal Tribes making it necessary for them to be registered because they were suspected of kidnapping, sodomy and castration, institutionalized oppression and discrimination against the transgender population.
European perception of the Oriental male as either barbarous and hyper-sexual or weak and effeminate was a vital part of the colonial justification of governing the subcontinent. When Indian nationalist rhetoric was being created, great pains were taken to oppose this. Nationalism and masculinity became complimentary. From Dayananda Saraswati to Tilak, all spoke about India as strong and valorous, hand-picking examples (such as Shivaji) from history. The shame and anger towards the notion of “effeminate East” led to an over compensation, through aggressive nationalism and othering of the concept of all homosexual behavior. India was presented as a civilization to which queer inclinations were “foreign”. It is clear that notions of impurity, deviance, suspicion, impotency, inadequacy have been attached to the LGBTQ populace from the early times, and have been passed through generations to us. Reasons behind the continuation of these stereotypes can only be speculated. Cultural preference to heterosexual behaviors in societies world over is understood in several ways, ranging from acceptable sexual relations strictly for reproduction or the in-group favorability bias (need to feel superior about one’s group for self-esteem). Whatever the reason may be, LGBTQ stereotypes keep on living and are revisited in every other speech on “Bhartiya Sanskriti”, with no understanding that many of these “ancient ideals” are modern manipulations of history of LGBTQ identity and they survive not because they are a part of our culture but because we mask our social, political and religious agendas and the misrepresentation of facts behind the veil of “sanskriti”. So the next time we see such stereotypes being evoked, let us consider the question, – are our ideas a reflection of the truth, or just a reflection of it due to the distorted mirror of our prejudices.
