September 28, 2006
A suitable boy or girlLiterature
Although Vikram Seth has been out of the closet as bisexual for some time now, I had not been aware of his sexual orientation until he gave a lengthy interview to Outlook India on the subject. His more visible profile on the topic of his sexuality is related to his public support for the anti-Section 377 movement, the movement for the decriminalization of homosexuality in India.
The interview is fascinating, both in terms of what it reveals about Vikram Seth and in terms of what it reveals about India. My favorite part involves the interviewer grappling with the very idea of bisexuality. 
I’m not sure I quite understand what bisexual means?
What do you mean you don’t understand? Supposing I have a physical attraction at some time or in a certain place to a particular woman, and another time to a particular man …I suppose if you don’t like the word, you could say I am gay and straight.
But if you can be straight, and life is so difficult as a gay, isn’t it simpler to just be straight?
Of course not. You have your feelings. You can’t just suppress or contort your feelings, either your emotional or sexual feelings. And why on earth should you, just to appease someone else’s unthought-through prejudices. [Link]
Ah yes, such a desi question. But beta, if you are attracted to vomen, then vhy do you need to be the gay? She follows that little gem up by asking “This is something that people often snigger about: has boarding school anything to do with you being gay?” which was the icing on the cliche cake.
While I cringed to read her asking these questions, I was still glad she did. Even if she knows better, I imagine these are questions that your average person on the street is thinking of, so it’s far better to give Seth a chance to respond than to leave them unsaid.
The interview also gives Seth a chance to make his argument directly against Section 377:
There have been about nine convictions in the 125 years since this section was included in the IPC. Why then is it so important to remove it?For several reasons. First, because it is used as a source of harassment of people… The other reason is that a law like this casts a shadow of illegality on the personal lives of a whole lot of people. They can’t live openly and with dignity. Because even their families and well-wishers tend to use the existence of the law to justify their prejudices…. That’s the crucial point.
… you ask me whether this directly affected me. Yes. When I realised that I had feelings for men as well as women, at first I was worried and frightened, and there was a certain amount of Who am I? Am I a criminal? and so on. It took me a long time to come to terms with myself. [Link]
It’s worth reading the whole thing, as it covers a fair amount of ground, including his relationship to his family, how they dealt with his coming out, and his romantic history. The one thing she didn’t ask, unfortunately, was how his perspective informs his writing.
Here’s an early poem, one of the few where his sexuality shows up directly. It’s called “Dubious”:
Some men like Jack and some like Jill
I’m glad I like them both but still
I wonder if this freewheeling
Really is an enlightened thing,
Or is its greater scope a sign
Of deviance from some party line?
In the strict ranks of Gay and Straight
What is my status: Stray? Or Great? [Link]
Related links: Queer India, Section 377 , and the Wikipedia discussion of Seth’s sexuality and his writing: “Gay Themes”
UPDATE:
Amitava Kumar’s take on the interview is less charitable [Thanks Manish]:
You called Sheela Reddy’s interview ‘smutty’ and ‘shallow’. What do mean when you refer to her penchant for such things?
Sheela Reddy is the editor who compiles the Bibliophile section of Outlook magazine. In my opinion, the tone in that column is semi-literate and cynical—very, very different from columns like “Short Cuts” in the London Review of Books and “NB” in the Times Literary Supplement. Given that history, “shallow” is a kind word. I used the word “smutty” for the Vikram Seth review because I caught a strong sense of prurience in her questions. [Link]
ennis on September 28, 2006 05:31 PM in Issues, Literature, Profiles · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
But if you can be straight, and life is so difficult as a gay, isnt it simpler to just be straight?
The "a" cracks me up every time. :)
At least she didn't say "and life is so difficult as the gay"
Glad to see people come out in the open in India. While I support the cause and understand the reactions of Ennis on the subject but I am annoyed to see sentences like
That kind of attitude towards the general population is what makes person with the attitude being labeled as an elitist progressive who doesn't in any way connect to the masses! That brings a distance due to which your words will have less of an affect. It's your choice of words and as long as you understand the relation between your intent and result of your words I don't think it's anybody else's business. If so my apologies.
The following paragraph does make it a little more realistic, but I still thought it was point worth noting.
You don't think it's a typically desi question to ask "Why would you want to stand out as different and face social disapproval when you can simply pass" ?
I know all societies have pressures to social conformity. Still, that question struck me as being typically desi.
I wonder how much his vocality on the legal issue has been influenced by the fact that his mother, Leila Seth, was a Supreme Court judge.
I wonder how many (otherwise non-homophobic) straights or gays would be comfortable in a realtionship with a bi.
I agree, I am not questioning that! My point is that the sentence shows attitude towards the people who might have that thinking, which in my opinion doesn't help in the unstated objective of social progress.
Sometimes the best way to move from conformity to change is not to earnestly discuss but to mercilessly mock. Many of those who conform do so because they want to feel the comfort of being within the establishment, sarcasm strips them of that comfort and forces them to address the issue directly.
that this person asked such a question is quite cute actually - suggestive of wide-eyed innocence - seth was probably tickled.
I only see Outlook India when I'm actually in India (every 3-4 years). It seems to me to be quite the left-leaning publication. I'm suprised that such a magazine would display what seems to be blatant ignorance on issues of sexuality.
I mean surprised. The lack of typing skills gets me every time.
Think about anti-smoking ads. It was less effective to preach at kids about smoking, and more effective to mock smokers for being uncool. Those ads were important for social change, not the earnest - you really shouldn't smoke ads.
When I was in India about ten days ago there were lots of debate about this on TV. NDTV featured some studio discussion where openly gay and lesbian Indians made lots of excellent points and the conservatives were just, well, flabbergasted that they were being so openly berated. Heh.
I half-expected the doors to burst open with Shiv-Sainiks running in and declaring the whole debate to be against the tenets of Hinduism, but I suspect they have bigger problems to worry about.
Wasn't it Woody Allen who quipped, being bi doubles the odds that you are not alone on Friday nights.
Kind of reminds me of that Margaret Cho stand up routine about her mother...
Seth was interviewed by a woman. And it probably played out the way did it precisely for the reason mentioned earlier. I don't think the interview necessarily represents the journalist's views (as Seth himself points out in certain professions, being gay is not so much of an issue and the English media in India, from experience, is hardly naive or homophobic). Its probably aimed at the average reader - bear in mind that the interview is also likely to be translated into other media/languages.
I am posting from Auckland, New Zealand. Whenever I go out on the gay scene here there is ALWAYS a desi presence. I don't know how 'out' most desis on the scene here are but there are always some present (I'm not desi myself). Ten years ago I ran into a sardar-wearing Sikh guy in a gay nightclub but I would guess most are Christian or Hindu. I did meet a middle-aged Indian Muslim guy once but he was definitely on the 'down-low'(and after only one thing!).
One of my friends had a female desi couple as neighbours but I'm not too sure how 'out' they were. We do have a prime-time desi newsreader who is an out lesbian called Rebecca Singh, she has been on TV here for a few years now, she is originally from Fiji as are many NZ desis.
Yes, I am. Ridicule is one of the most important weapons in battling mindless conformity.
btw, here's Amitava Kumar's take on the questions asked of Seth:
He doesn't interpret her actions nearly as kindly ...
I agree this is a cute comment. Shows genuine lack of comprehension and is infinitely better than the "gays are evil" approach of the western world. Also, I don't see much difference in mentality in hating gays or hating smokers. It's easier to demonize smokers in the 21st century than gays but the demonization is still a problem.
I don't think India is worse off than the U.S. as far as gayness is concerned. While it's true that there's San Francisco and the West Village, but at the same thime you also find people being hacked to death in various other parts of the country for being gay. In India sexuality of any kind is not flaunted or discussed and that is very fair all round. Neither does India have a history of persecution of gays. Sure, India has some catching up to do and this is a welcome move but I cannot concede that the U.S. is any more enlightened in this respect.
Really? The average person is "unsure" what the word bisexual means? The other questions seemed to stem from an old-fashioned attitude towards one's sexual orientation, but that one was plain silly. A Sixty Minutes, and therefor better, way of asking that question would be: "Define the word bisexual for our readers."
When someone says they are bisexual , you gotta follow up with. "Now honey, whom do you prefurr?"
I know a gay Spanish + American couple now living in Trivandrum who spent much of their flight to India concocting a story about being cousins as a way of explaining why they had had such a long history together, why they were living together in a one bedroom apartment, etc.
Pretty early on they realized that they had a certain kind of freedom to do things that would immediately peg them as gay in the U.S. or Spain, the most obvious being that they can hold hands in public.
At the same time, whenever a Trivandrumite asks them whether they are married (and if ever there was "a desi question", that has GOT to be it...) they've never felt that they could say the truth, which is "Yes, to each other."
Therein lies their conundrum - the Western manifestation of gayness is so far off the radar of most Indians, so they never have to discuss their relationship. And for that same reason, they cannot discuss it. What a tradoff, social freedom at the expense of legal sanction...
~
Nina P,
(1) You crack me up and (2) Thampanoor Station at sunset, madam. Prepare to face the wizardry of the crocodile / boar/ elephant! You're gonna have to fight me for him, kalaripayattu style...
Ennis,
Love the title and props for the reasoning. I admire your ability to demonstrate anger while keeping compassion extant.
When I was in school in India, we used to use 'bisexual' as a put-down. We thought it was English for hijra. I don't know if others used the word as such, but that would be a cause of confusion.
Been there, done that, no big deal...
Straights in relationships with bi - I've been there. Not a very comfortable position, even when you think you're OK with it - you're always wondering if the other person will eventually realize they're gay (OK, I've had too many gay friends who fed me the "bi now gay later" line) or if you'll never know whether to treat a same-sex friendship that they may have as a possible threat. I think someone who is truly bisexual (rather than someone who has had partners of mainly one sex) would be hard to be in a relationship with.
Ashok Row Kavi had an interesting article in Rediff this week about Section 377, and his reax to the recent hubub created by the Seth-signed letter.
I think poor Ms. Reddy was just a bit jealous....
maybe it's the whole desi-insecurity-at-others-having-their-cake-and-eating-it-too-syndrome...
it's just like when Aunties ask, 'Then why don't you just get married? Don't you want to, instead of having all this boyfriend-girlfriend nonsense?' which really means 'How come you get to spend your youth having sex and I had to marry some guy who now spends his time looking down your blouse at cultural functions?', thinly veiled by fake concern for those vedding and baby photos they're so anxious to see pop up in your wallet.
Underneath her painfully tacky-Indian questions about 'why he can't just stop being 'a' gay' and the influence of boarding school on his attraction to men I sense a very passive-aggressive strand of jealousy...see, Ms. Reddy, you could have spent your time crushing on Aish AND Hrithik but you're just too busy sticking to the straight and narrow ;)
Me too, Kermadecer :)
Really, Rebecca Singh's a lesbian? I had no idea and she's my newsreader GirlCrush.... Does this mean that I'm 'a' bi? ;) Paging Ms. Reddy, tell me this has something to do with my Catholic girls' school upbringing!
............"it's just like when Aunties ask, 'Then why don't you just get married? Don't you want to, instead of having all this boyfriend-girlfriend nonsense?' which really means 'How come you get to spend your youth having sex and I had to marry some guy who now spends his time looking down your blouse at cultural functions?', thinly veiled by fake concern for those vedding and baby photos they're so anxious to see pop up in your wallet."
.............
Word.
Yeah, I know. But I wish there was a better way to handle it than to just shove it in their faces and widen the culture/generation gap. Because I really do feel bad that this generation gets to spend its youth having sex and they had to marry some guy who now spends his time looking down the girls' blouses at cultural functions. It doesn't seem like a privilege to us (because choosing one's own sexuality shouldn't have to be considered a privilege) but if you were in their shoes you'd probably be jealous too. Count your blessings, my sexually liberated lovelies :)
...This, of course, is not to say that the I-had-to-do-it-so-you-do-too mentality many women have (whether or not they're desi) is not highly regressive. I'm just thinking out loud.
While I understand the irritation someone who chooses to lead the bi life may experience at this question, I also know several bi people who choose to lead straight lives for many, varied reasons. And usually they are castigated by the gay community, the very same people asking for acceptance of their own life choices.
I'm all for live and let live. What do you guys think?
My last comment considered, I think Ennis' comment,
is true if ridicule is carried out in the way he just did with his post, or the way Vikram Seth just did with his interview. I think it is positively affective because it is impersonal and broad based, and done out of a concern for the whole community. It's not like having to watch an aunty quietly (or no-so-quietly) internalize her own misfortunes while everyone around her has departed from her and what she represents without her understanding/appreciating the reason why.
I don't think the question about boarding schools is that ridiculous. My Dad went to a very good public school, where it was well known that the older boys sexually assauled their younger schoolmates. It was called "cabbage" for some reason. While my Dad wasn't personally attacked, according to him it wasn't even seen as a "gay" thing, more like a power/horniness thing, akin to the prison environment. For most upperclass Indians of my parents generation, the boarding school scene was the closest they every came to acknowledging homosexuality. Perhaps that's why it's such a pervasive theme in the discourse.
For the record, I don't understand why bisexuality is any harder to understand than homosexuality. If you believe that it's natural for humans to be attracted to people of their own gender, it's reasonable to assume that some people can be attracted to both, either equally or depending on circumstance.
Kenyadesi, many groups are marginalized within the queer community, even as the community itself fights for its rights. One's idea of queerness can be as varied as one's idea of feminism. I'm with you on the live and let live motto.
Damn, now I have to re-read The Suitably Boy with a whole new mindset, and understand it differently:)
# 38 - That is very true and has been my personal experience as well. So called Public Schools in India are really private schools which are based on British, boys only boarding schools like Eton. Ofcourse this means only a small percentage of Indians - usually privilidged kids have this experience. And since this discourse is primarily amongst the elite anyway, it makes sense to allude to boarding schools. Also, if the rules need to be changed it has to have broad based support among the 4th invisible to the public eye branch of Indian government: the oft unpublicised but powerful bureaucracy. The echleons of the civil services are filled with products of the elite public school followed by elite college education.
How do you know it's a primarily elite discourse?
This is not uncommon amongst many male youths in North India, due to their lack of access to male-female intimate relationships.
After marriage the behaviour usually changes.
They are not gay in the sense that they desire life-long intimate bonds with males, but they engage in homosexual activity simple because they cannot engage in heterosexual activities.
When a heterosexual relationship becomes availabe to them, their homosexual activities usually cease, unless they are truly gay.
My apologies, I grew up in India and it felt intuitive to me that such issues are not really a broad concern among the general populace and nor do they rank very highly among what is considered a priority. I am not trivializing the importance or necessity of gays rights, just pointing out where it is lies on the radar of the political spectrum.
But, I realised my perceptions might be out of touch since I dont live in India and not clued in as much as I used to be.And so I did a quick 1) google news search for news regarding this 2) Looked at some popular dailes and forums. And what I found was that 1) this seems to have been reported only in some english language newspapers and only peripherally 2) Analysed in only some weekly news magazines and only as a cause celebre' 3) Discussed only in online websites/forums popular among expatriates 4) Mostly ignored by vernaculars.
My strong hunch is that this is very much an urban, upper class, enlightened folks cause. Any reason you think I am wrong? I realise my research is not an accurate barometer.
Personally I think its archaic and needs to be repealed.
From the other side: as a bisexual, it is a hard to fit into the gay community, precisely because of "Now honey, whom do you prefurr?" sorta comments. Just like gay/straight is built-in, bi is built-in too. If it was as simple as preference, straight would be the easy choice because of the societal acceptance one has.
Another aspect you face is that straight folks (well, that I encountered anyway) just find it hard to go with the "gayness", no matter how accepting they are of the fact. I don't think this is because they think that their SO might go gay again, because a committed relationship means monogamy, so that question doesn't arise. I think it is just discomfort with the fact that the SO might have touched or bean touched by someone of the same sex in that way.
Add in polyamory, and you have a whole new ball-game (heh). Polyamorous relationships make it easier to deal with bisexual relationships but then you a have new factors (jealousy, having-your-cake-and-eating-it) thrown in. I have found that most bisexual folks just stay in the closet.
it may be my latent fakir but i feel i can detect the personality of the poster from the style of their posts. lest there should be any confusion, i feel the need to state that the person beige siege in #44 is far far removed from pardesi ghori who has also used the handle beige sage in the past. y'all should wear tin foil hats. i do.
Forreal.. I've been using this handle for a while and this Pardesi Gori character came in and Kaavyaized my handle. Now I hate Sages.
hairy_d - seriously though, what can you tell about my personality from my posts?
If you're talking about the discourse over the law against Homosexuality, I think it's fairly obvious it's an elite discourse; just look at the names on the list that signed the petition. It includes people like Vikram Seth and my Econ professor from college (Kaushik Basu) but features almost no one that possesses real political power. it's mostly writers, academics and people of that ilk. Most people in India are too worried about feeding and clothing themselves to worry about some archaic law that undermines the identity of upper middle class closeted homosexuals. I doubt the lower classes would have much sympathy for Vikram Seth and people like him; they still have it a lot better than those living in the streets.
If you're talking about the discourse on Sepia Mutiny, it's also pretty obviously elite. Only the very educated and their family even had the capacity to emigrate in most cases. I don't think it would be much of a leap for me to assume that everyone on this site is either a college grad or on the path, and I bet most have attended some form of grad school. It's hardly reflective of Indian people at large.
Preach brother, preach
Don't you mean, snark brother, snark?
no.
i definitely mean, preach brother, preach.
:)
One reason why the influence of extreme right is increasing here in the US is because of the ridicule they face in the hands of the progressive elites. Does anyone think there is lesson for us in that?
This is a lot more true than most of us liberal folk realize. People respond a lot better to rational arguments rather than someone telling them they're stupid for believing what they do.
Actually, I think the mockery of the daily show has been far more effective than any sort of earnest discussion. However, it doesn't always work. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly's mockers has consolidated the right, but it hasn't exactly made the left crumble. The difference is that Limbaugh isn't funny unless you agree with him already, where as Jon Stewart is hillarious even if you're on the right.
Re#45
Bisexual,
I did not mean to offend. My apologies.
A little tempting to add this hindi saying
"Jiski lathi, uski bhains"
In the current situation (here in the US) the "lathi" is in the control of O'Reilly and types (hopefully not for long).
Neale: Not offended...I recognize that you were just kidding. But that reaction is fairly common.
re: comment #48 (by bidismoker):
You say --
likewise, most people in america are too worried about feeding and clothing themselves (and buying consumer goods that are being sold to us) to worry about some archaic law about torture. doesn't mean there aren't people of all classes incensed by it and wanting to vote out every US congressperson who voted for it this past week. your reasoning doesn't hold.
in addition, it's rather narrow-minded to think that the archaic law on sexuality only affects upper middle class closeted homosexuals -- there are tons of queer people in india, in all classes (just like in america) and it's important for those who can give greater voice to the cause to do so. just because people are living in the streets doesn't mean that important laws that can affect everyone in society aren't passed. just my two cents.
I didn't know Woody Allen said it, but I've always said the same thing! It's naive to try to place sexuality into a couple of boxes - gay or straight - doesn't it lie on more of a spectrum? Yes, there are two ends, but there are so many points that lie in between. I once went on a date with a bi desi guy. We developed a comfort level fairly quickly, so I guess that's why he was open to sharing his sexual attraction to men with me. He liked getting *serviced*, and returning the favor, but he'd only had emotional connections with women. In any case I was cool with it, but then he swore up and down that he was straight.
..........
Eh?
..........
I was sitting there with a certain look on my face... It just struck me as odd because, well, if he was embarassed or shy or nervous about sharing his affinity for men, he wouldn't have mentioned it. But now that you've told me you like getting head from guys, you're going to wave the Straight Flag? Yeah.... no. You might not be gay, but you sure as hell aren't straight. Just embrace it.
I hope he finds peace in any case.
Sorry for the rambling.
ACTUALLY............. sex expert statistics still show that MARRIED WOMEN are having the best sex.
So could it be that these "frustrated aunties" are getting more satisfaction than any of us - both qualitatively and quantitatively???