Challenging Normalisation of the ‘Structured & Accepted’ Sexuality in Indian Society

Divyanshu Chaudhary
May 12
5 min read

[This Blog is part of A Conversation on Inclusivity Series]

Before this essay begins, I invite you to read the following poem by one of my favourite contemporary poets, Akhil Katyal, who beautifully captures the [invisible and normalised] struggle of the countless people around us:

चलते चलते

कभी किसी दुकान के शीशे में

दिख जाता है वो आदमी

जो मेरी जिंदगी जीना नहीं चाहता।

मैं उसे पीछे छोड़ बढ़ता हूं

-किसी मनमानी में

पूरा दिन बिताता हूं

शाम को घर जाता हूं। -

वो पीछे नहीं छूटता।

देर सवेर दिखता रहता है

कभी चम्मच की गुलाई में

कभी दवाई की शीशी में

कभी ग्लास के पानी में।

With these powerful lines, this essay attempts to capture some common instances and practices we have at some point been part of, but they generally remain invisible and undiscussed. Discussions around sex, sexuality, and sexual orientation are uncustomary within Indian societies. However, the sexuality is explained by the World Health Organisation in terms of gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, that is experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviours, practices, roles and relationships and is influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, legal, historical, religious and spiritual factors.

The definitional understanding identifies sexuality as an intrinsic part of an individual, which encompasses non-binary experiences which are ever evolving. It is in this sense that the people of different identities, sexual orientation and behaviours are part of the same spectrum of sexuality, and equally so are the members of the LGBTQIA++ community. So, if sexuality is so fundamental in humans, the relevant question remains about the genesis and persistence of the classified discussion of sexuality.

And if a discussion is initiated, the silence fills the space out of the insecurity of losing virtues of what is considered right, natural, and acceptable within the parameters of the majoritarian societal norms leading to the heteronormative understanding of sexuality. But what and why are we, as members of society, afraid of? Does this silence not disassociate us with the fundamental nature of our bodies, which is inextricably inherent? Can we then not ask if we are only afraid of the established norms, or is there much more at stake, for instance, the change that such discussions may bring to these societal norms of engaging with sexuality, which are largely heteronormative? Or, is it that we do not find anything oppressive in such patterns and therefore do not question these norms? Or, do they all exist together? Let us see one anecdotal incident —

Whenever he passes through different spots in his college, ‘A’, a college student due to his inherent behavioural patterns, overhears other students saying “Ye dekho, kaise baat karta hai….ladkiyo jaise, chalta bhi ladkiyo ki tarah hai…iski saari harkate ladkiyo wali hai…..ye pakka gay hai….chalo, iske maze lete hai…..” (Look, the way he talks, walks, and conducts himself, everything like girls do…..he is surely gay…. let us make fun of him). At his home, ‘A’ sometimes dresses and applies makeup like his sister does. Scolding him, his mother often tells him “ladke ye sab nahi karte….ye sab ladkiyo ke kaam hai…” (Boys do not do all this, this only suits the girls). ‘A’ is also advised (mostly directed) to walk, talk, behave in a certain (acceptable) way, and to remaster bodily expressions. ‘A’, believing them to be the only legitimate and acceptable societal norms, tries to accept them without inquiry. Even if ‘A’ continues to conduct himself in his own ways and wishes to question, he keeps believing something is wrong with him, as this is not how other boys conduct themselves.

Therefore, ‘A’ now questions himself and does not find anything oppressive in those homogeneous patterns of behaviours among other students of his age, who, in a deterministically aggressive manner, also profess the same as the only acceptable behaviours among boys in our society. Or, can it also be possible that ‘A’ understands this biased approach as a violation of his basic rights, but fears the resistance and invalidation of being understood as a fellow member of the civil society? Considering all this, a larger question arises in the sense that—what if all these upholders of the homogeneous patterns are themselves not aware of anything wrong in what they have been practising and professing in the name of ‘normal’, ‘abnormal’, ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’.

Then, who is responsible for the continuing struggle of ‘A’ that he undertakes to fit into these narrowly structured societal norms, which challenge the very intrinsic values of his sexuality, which may not conform to binary dimensions? Is it those students, the mother at home, or the society at large? Or is it ‘A’ himself to be blamed for what he has invited towards him? Can any of them be blamed? In my submission, the way forward towards inclusivity has nothing to do with identifying who is responsible, but rather identifying the genesis of the same. Nonetheless, victimisation is there, but the perpetrators are ex facie unidentifiable.

To me, it is the ‘normalisation’ of these norms, which are culturally based on the majoritarian understanding of fixed gender roles such as men (to be characteristically reductive) are unemotional, socially dominant, breadwinners that are attracted to women and women are emotional, socially submissive, caretakers that are attracted to men; anything which goes beyond the fixed behavioural construct results in abnormality or ‘unnatural/against the order of nature’. The normalised approach, neglecting sexual diversity, also renders non-binary people exceptional and even deviant. Further, ‘normal’ or ‘normalcy’ has been a loaded word, and it was only through questioning the foundations of the consensus view that “normal” phenomena were dethroned from their privileged positions. Therefore, there is no reason to support that the uncommon behaviours are abnormal or deviant and so must not be legally, ethically, or morally rejected.

So, to answer the larger question, it is the lack of basic human inquiry, sensitisation and awareness that has led to the normalcy of the questionable stereotypical morality of the social norms founded on the bedrock of what, according to the majority, is morally right, wrong, natural, and unnatural and has dismissed the sexual diversity as a whole. Even to make law schools an inclusive place would require the same efforts, as the students are part of the same civil society, they too have been a party to the same cultural environment.

Therefore, the change should also begin from the smallest unit of society—i.e. a family. That said, and considering many celebrated judgments on gender equality in India and also knowing and agreeing that the Constitutional morality outweighs public morality, I personally think that Indian society, strongly based on its unquestioned and inflexible moral values, may not be ready to accept sexual diversity any time soon.

But until then, why should people of diverse sexualities live with guilt and without dignity? Amidst everything, before, during, and after the struggles, we must continue to live as our true selves. As Akhil Katyal beautifully says, let us ‘live in our own couplet’:

Where do you live?

In a Mir couplet.

No, where do you really live?

In a bad translation of a Mir couplet.

Where is it that you wish to live?

Mir kya saade hain bimar hue jis ke sabab

usi attaar ke ladke se dawa lete hain

And where do you end up?

Mir, such a fool, taking his pill

from the chemist’s boy who’s made him ill.

Why do you have to live inside a rhyme?

Is your emphasis on ‘have to’ or on ‘live’?