LGBTQIA activist and writer Maya Sharma tells Ayushi Sharma that decriminalising Section 377is just the beginning as the community now has an affirmation of entitlements and citizenship. Yet, social realities might take longer to transform
Have things gotten any better for the LGBTQIA community after the striking down of Section 377? Well, the day the Supreme Court announced the historic verdict of decriminalising homosexuality, it surely paved the way for same-sex partners to legally conduct their personal affairs without the fear of prosecution. The court has read down the provision and has declared all forms of consensual sex between competent adults to be legal. This consent, the court clarified, should be free without any coercion.
Maya Sharma is a writer by accident and a queer activist by choice. She has worked in Delhi resettlement colonies within the women’s movement on single women’s issues. It was then when she realised that the diversity among single women concealed those “women who loved women.” And her interest gradually rose. She began to notice these relationships. These observations and conversations paved the way for her to openly campaign against the ban on the film Fire of 1996. The author of Loving Women: Being Lesbian in Under-privileged India, who also started working for Vikalp in Vadodra in 2006, an organisation which works for people like her, tells us about how she completed the book and what challenges she faced while working on it.
Section 377 has been decriminalised but how long will it take before we see some actual change on the ground?
This has become everybody’s guessing point. When we look at other vulnerable communities’ entitlements like prevention of women’s sexual harassment or domestic violence or the female sex workers’ rights and measure the change, we know it is a long drawn process. Some changes happen piecemeal but real transformation is a long haul. Many more fundamentals need to be changed. The state of law courts and long-drawn trial periods do not mean instant change. We still have a long way to go. Post Section 377, we have concrete examples of how the institutional awareness is still low and how prejudices hamper the society’s growth— like the police officers in rural areas, the shelter homes which strictly follow the binary norm compelling dresscodes, forced marriages and so on... Social realities sometimes overpower the law and take long to change but having the law read down is just a beginning. Though it sure creates a sense of security that we at least have an affirmation of our entitlements and citizenship.
Do you think the verdict has opened the doors for several changes to be introduced like marriage, medical, adoption and inheritance laws for same-sex couples?
Yes. Bit-by-bit as the wind blows. Some might be quicker, others will take more time. For instance, property rights. I would say, a lot needs to be changed in laws — like child custody and adoption as joint parenthood for queer people, the notion of a family of choice, not based on blood and kinship. Within the community, all the queer people may not have a similar journey. Our realities differ (Dalit working class, rural, tribal) and even as queer people, our struggles are different. The scale of time, progress and getting justice are entirely variable.
Judicial reform is one thing, but social realities don’t shift in an instant. How do you think people are ready to take this change ahead?
True. Like I mentioned, people are as diverse as nature. For example, while there are some groups of parents engaged actively to work towards change and families accepting their children, there are also many more who resist. The important step would be to spread awareness and the National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) judgement clearly tasks the government to carry out this awareness. Institutions at different levels can bring change and be more inclusive. Fuller implementation of NALSA or following the Anti-Ragging UGC Guideline of 2016 would help in creating awareness and bring in changes. Multiple strands together take the change ahead. The laws and social structures have to work in tandem.
How would you describe your transition from the time you wrote the book Loving Women to now?
When we compare the silence that lasted decades, the last 15 years have seen a much faster pace of change, especially for women and lesbians. We have come a long way. The liberal economy, the HIV Aids Prevention programmes provided an opening and several other streams that raised issues of sexuality and gender converged, propelling the movement to take a turn.
It is heartening to see Pride marches across the streets fighting against the stereotypes and accepting change. I could not have imagined such a change. I see a path now where none existed. So many of our feet have made it possible as we march on. Silence has been broken but stigma still lingers.
You openly challenged convention through the book. What were the stereotypes that you had to challenge?
Well, not that these stereotypes do not exist now. For example people in rural areas will say that homosexuality is a result of the ‘decadent western culture,’ ‘livelihood issues are more important,’ this is only an ‘urban phenomenon’. While urban people will say ‘Oh! This is only in rural areas.’ The fear of the unknown or the different presses upon us to lay it on the door of ‘other,’ compelling a notion of normalcy which does not exist except in our heads. The challenge worked at different levels. I had to quit my job, when seen and heard raising the queer issues. It was seen as hurting the prestige of the organisation. The challenge was also of writing and putting out stories in the public domain in ways that did not hurt the individuals concerned or expose them to risks. That was the hardest part. To tell and still not tell.
How have you seen the evolution of the Indian society in terms of accepting homosexuality?
The question is difficult to answer in a short span due to its vast idea. Indian society or any other society is beset with cross currents that sometimes have to follow the dictates of the ruling class but beneath these laws and rules, human beings find their love and desire. While one cannot praise the past in accepting homosexuality, one cannot say it was criminalised in the pre-British era. Male-bodied people had choices which women lacked. The gharana of kinnars (transgenders) existed, tribal communities have practices, which are revolutionary. Today, we believe in equality, though the principle is always in the process of realisation of its presence in our Constitution. This gives us reason to struggle and get there.
Do you think a film like Fire (1996) would work for the Indian audience today?
As love between two women, it would still work. As part of queer history, it is important as a film and it is well-made. It touches on marital discord, a very relevant subject. It also touched upon issues that need to be talked about openly — male impotency. The film raises ‘prohibitive issues.’ Finally, it is about women taking a step of independence. It also touches upon various other aspects, not just two women falling for each other. People might take time to accept it, but today, it would be less difficult than the previous times.
