An Excerpt From “Treatment of Queer Sexuality in pre-partition South Asia”
By Ayman Fuad
The reaction to queer sexuality has changed in South Asia over time, ranging from acceptance in pre-colonial times to criminalizing it under the British Raj, to decriminalizing it (in India). Several factors have contributed to these changes. The current public stance has people viewing homosexuality as a “western import” that never existed in the South Asian subcontinent before. While western powers have supposedly ‘modernized’ by legalizing homosexuality in their nation-states, they have left the colonized Global South to reckon with a post-colonial hangover and problematic laws. Meanwhile, sexual fluidity has existed all over the world since the beginning of time, and the subcontinent is not excluded from this. This article will discuss the treatment of homosexuality before colonialism of the subcontinent and the factors that led to the criminalization of homosexuality.
Pre-Partition India was a place where sexuality was fluid and not packed into boxes to be criminalized or legalized. All this changed when the British arrived with their Enlightenment values in the subcontinent in 1858. In 1860, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was imposed, which criminalized homosexual acts. Under this rule, sexual activities which went “against the order of nature” were made illegal, with a punishment of up to 10 years in jail and a fine. This law introduced the idea of the Other, and a binary was created which divided people between Us and Them, wherein the natural order was man with woman, i.e. a heterosexual relationship, and anything that deviated from this was unnatural.
The colonial British were interested in controlling the sexuality of the colonized because, as Grossman (3) claims, it “fulfilled the two crucial arms of colonial rule: outlining the identity of the metropole and why it was superior to all others (identity), and solidifying control over its colonial subjects through redefining their supposed sexuality as wrong (control).” This definition of what was sexually wrong and what was sexually right helped the Europeans gain a supposed higher moral ground. By defining the heterosexual family/marital unit as the norm in their homelands, the sexual fluidity in the subcontinent was seen in stark contrast to this identified norm of heterosexuality and thus considered ‘wrong’ and ‘deviant’.
The sociologist Michel Foucault has claimed that “sexuality-based identity categories were invented in nineteenth-century Europe and that prior to this invention, these did not exist” (Dasgupta 651). The binary of the heterosexual versus homosexual identity was constructed by the Europeans, who then brought their divisible notions to the subcontinent, a place where there had formerly been no concept of an opposition between sexualities. Chatterjee (952) states: “Neither homo- nor hetero- “sexuality” simply existed in historical time and space: certain practices had to be defined as “sexual” before they could become “homo,” “hetero,” or “any-other-kind of sex.” By this, Chatterjee is expanding on the proposition about the constructed-ness of the binary of sexuality; Chatterjee’s claim is that sexuality in itself did not exist before as a separate concept, so people did not identify with one or more sexual identities but remained fluid in their identities.
There is some dispute over what the public treatment of homosexuality was before the arrival of the British. In support of the legalization of homosexuality, some cite the famous ancient Indian text Kamasutra, supposedly written in the third century (A.D.), which dedicates an entire chapter on homosexual behaviour. There is also the Khajuraho temple of Madhya Pradesh from the 12th century, where sculptures depicting sexual fluidity are present (Ray). Other Vedic texts and mythological tales (Krittivasi Ramayan, Rig Veda, Ramayana) frequently mention queer relationships, often allowing gays and lesbians powerful roles in these tales (Ray), thus dismantling the absurd notions of men and women belonging together, and going against nature by not being heterosexual. These ancient texts and sculptures make it impossible for us to deny the existence of homosexuality in ancient, Pre-Partition India, and to cite it as a “modern” concept, or to claim that these texts viewed homosexuality as “unnatural”. To dismiss such queer relationships as simply frivolous would also be incorrect, since the persons in these relationships would often get married to show their commitment to one another and make long-lasting bonds, often raising children together too.
In more Muslim contexts, the Mughals were known to have same-sex relationships too, even though some claim that this is against Islam. Chatterjee asserts that O’Hanlon claimed that the “Akbari regime upheld the ideal of heterosexual marriages in order to regulate the conduct of male courtiers and their women while simultaneously discouraging overt “homosexual” attachments of males” (954). Nevertheless, the queer relationships cannot be denied and Chatterjee reproves of reductive readings of Mughal-era texts and quotes Schofield, who “insists that erotic encounters with both women and men of lower status were commonplace for noblemen in Mughal society” (955).
Where there is a lack of primary sources detailing these queer relationships, Chatterjee (957) contends that “absences from the record were not signs of lack… Many were deliberate evasions.” This is because the natives refused to share their secrets with the invaders (Chatterjee, 956). Regardless of the absence of such archives that would help us trace queer sexuality in those times, the subcontinental locals cannot be blamed for trying to protect their beliefs and culture.
The divide created by the colonial power was instrumental in transforming long-standing public perceptions of what was normal and what wasn’t. The prevailing mindsets of people include being extremely intolerant and homophobic in both Pakistan and India, but especially in Pakistan. Justifying these sentiments through religion or an ahistorical view of the past is not serving anyone.
