Saleem Kidwai Uncovers the Many Faces of Gay India

By Raj Ayyar
When I surfaced in India recently, I e-mailed
Saleem Kidwai, hoping for a timeless cosmic
duet, sipping a latte at a South Delhi cafe, or
enjoying a communion of souls at a Sufi tavern
in Nowhere, reclining on couches, waited on by
exquisite round-faced, dewy-eyed youths. Alas,
we had to settle for the unfleshy prosaic
medium of e-print for this interview.
Saleem is a former Associate Professor of
History at Delhi University. He is an Islamic
Studies scholar who undermines any straight
monolithic view of Islam as homophobic and
sex-phobic.

Saleem Kidwai is the co-editor of

Same-Sex Love in India
On the contrary, he shows that there is a tension, sometimes creative and sometimes
unbearable, between the censorious Islamic texts and institutions and the open same-sex
celebrations of many Islamic poets and others.
Saleem Kidwai and Ruth Vanita created gay history when they co-edited and published Same-
Sex Love in India (NY: St. Martin's Press, 2000). It is a ground-breaking work that challenges the
cheap stereotype that Indian tradition has always been too conservative-Puritan to allow any
homoerotic exploration, forcing the odd exception into gay refugee status in the ghettoes of
London, Amsterdam, NYC or San Francisco.
Raj Ayyar: Tell us a little about Saleem---the weave of your life, 'the wonder, the wonder' of it as
well as 'the horror, the horror.'
Saleem Kidwai: I do not want to untangle the weave, so can only offer bio-strands. I was born in
Lucknow where I went to school. I came to Delhi to study History in 1968 when I was 17. I started
teaching at Delhi University in 1973 and took leave to study at McGill from 1976-80. I chose to
retire from Delhi University in 1993. Since then I have been researching and writing for myself.
I would not want to rate the wonders. Each is precious and there are many. A supportive family
and friends, moments of discovery, time with lovers, the well sung ghazal or thumri, and on and
on.
The horrors: I'll make it brief. The loss of loved ones, AIDS, the killing of innocents developing into
a spectator sport. And yes, a minor one was being in the Truxx in Montreal when it was busted ,
twenty-five years ago this fall.
Raj Ayyar: You know, there are many in the West as well as in
India and elsewhere who see homoeroticism as a 'Western
import.' This false cliche held by colonialists and post-colonial
ultra-nationalists, by right-wingers and leftists of whatever
stripe, is powerfully challenged in Same-Sex Love in India.
You and Ruth Vanita have done a great job of uncovering gay
texts throughout Indian history, from the ancient Hindu
Shastras to the present. Do you think this has created any
change in the view that gayness is a Western monopoly?
Saleem Kidwai: Yes, the deliberate ignoring of
homoeroticism, even by academia, was something that
angered both Ruth and myself. Has the book changed
anything? It's too early to tell since the it's been out for less
than a year. I think it has made some change. I have had men
who I did not know come up to thank me for doing the book.
 The most compelling was the young man who tried to touch my feet and with folded hands
thanked me for helping him understand his religion. (I conveyed the compliment to where it
should have been directed, namely to Ruth) I hope it will make a change. As for gayness being a
western monopoly, I have never seen the argument framed in this way. I hope the change will be
towards making gayness as an option in the choice of lifestyle.
The over-all change in any case, is going to be slow. Rural and small town India will stay
unchanged for longer. Even among the educated urbanites, the discourse is going to reach a very
small section.
I also must stress that our work is not an isolated achievement. There is exciting activity
elsewhere too. Our book is a part of this development. I see the change in the brief history of our
book. In 1998 we were peddling our 'work in progress' in India and most publishers liked the work
but found an excuse not to publish the book. Today the book is in the bookshops and is being
sold without any problems. Publishers now approach me to do a 'popular' book on the subject.
Yes, there have been changes.
Raj Ayyar: Do you feel that the greater openness of alternative sexualities in India over the past
20 years or so, could lead to a dramatic change in societal acceptance of LGBT people in India?
Or, are we stuck in the parks-and-latrines syndrome of furtively pleasurable sex acts that may not
and cannot be named?
Saleem Kidwai: No. I don't see dramatic changes unless there is state-backed persecution like
we are seeing in Egypt which I remember as surprisingly swingy in the late 80's. Over the twenty
years I have seen major changes and anticipate more, but hopefully no dramatic ones. 20 years
ago I would not have believed that I would be around to go out for a drink to a gay bar in Delhi,
even if it was one night a week.
When the first few 'gay-nights' were held, people would not be allowed in for lack of space .Yes,
the changes have led to greater acceptance, greater awareness and no surprising increase in
reported homophobic incidents.
However, I am apprehensive of a backlash. The timing will be decided by the Right which has
increasingly begun to set the political agenda in India. Here again, the example of Egypt comes to
mind.
It is a mistake to link social acceptance of alternative sexualities to the parks-and-latrines
syndrome. They coexist every where. What was George Michael doing in that latrine? People
might prefer different things and the choice should be theirs. The wonderful change that I have
seen has seen is the creation of alternatives to latrines and parks.
Now there are barely-underground bars and pay-parties for people to cruise in. That some still
prefer the L&Ps is their choice. Some people get their rocks off talking to unknown people on the
telephone! Why grudge people their pleasures?
Raj Ayyar: Do you agree with psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar and
others that India is a culture of 'shame' rather than 'guilt?' In
other words, sexual acts of whatever kind are okay, provided
you're not caught or humiliated socially?
Saleem Kidwai: To a point, because Indian culture did not stop
200 years ago. Guilt has become very much a part of the
Indian psyche and it would be foolish to dismiss it. For
Heaven's sake, Gandhi felt guilty for having sex with his wife.
I worked on a gay helpline for a year in 2000 and answered
more calls from males who felt guilt for masturbating than from
those who find who felt guilty of finding men sexually attractive.
I can bet there are many millions of Indians, homo and Raj Ayyar
heterosexual who associate guilt with sex. Make what you want
out of this.
Raj Ayyar: Don't you think it's ironic that post-colonial India should cling to outworn colonial laws
set in place by old ideologues of Empire like Macaulay? I'm thinking of the infamous Section 377
of the Indian Penal Code--our anti-sodomy law...do you see any changes happening as a result of
Naz Foundation and other groups challenging this dinosaur law in high court?
Saleem Kidwai: Ironic yes, but surprising, no. There are many antiquated laws that would make
a great spoof.
My informed-gut feeling tells me that changes are around the corner. They will come through
judicial action rather that legislative action which is for the best for the moment. There is no place
for public debate in the current din and any legislative change would bring out the fundamentalists
and give them a platform. And sex as a soap box has been proved very effective. Can you
imagine all the guilty, sexually repressed crowds that would collect around them?
Groups have been lobbying for change in rape, prostituion and child abuse laws. I think sec 377
will be replaced by a larger law dealing with sexual crimes. I don't believe there will be a change
that will satisfy all. Sec 377 will be go along with a lot of other junk
Your reference to 'Naz Foundation and 'other groups' is a good example of the point I made
earlier. The challenge to sec 144 of the Indian Penal Code is now associated with the Naz
Foundation of India (NFI). ABVA (Coalition to End Discrimination against AIDS), a non-
government organization had asked the Delhi Hight Court to declare the sec unconstitutional as
far back as 1994.
The case has been followed up by volunteer activists. This case had been wait-listed for so long
and the court clubbed the NFI petition along with it. Hence the early hearing of the NFI plea. NFI,
a funded organization, was also better equipped to generate publicity around the case. It would
be unfair to sideline ABVA, a non-gay/lesbian group, from this history.
Raj Ayyar: Do you think that greater awareness of gay discourses via MTV, different soaps etc.,
has created more self-consciousness and bashfulness in young middle-class Indians? I don't see
the same degree of publicly affectionate same-sex bonding on the streets today as there was a
few decades ago. In an almost Foucauldian sense, once the same sex relationship becomes the
site of forbidden sex discourse, there are new taboos.
What do you think?
Saleem Kidwai: Awareness has naturally led to a self
consciousness. Talking of cable tv, I wonder if the
change has only been in this change in public body
language. Who knows what is what is changing in
private? If the sitcoms with their constant homesexual
innuendoes, if Joey and Ross admit that they like to
sleep together on a couch, and if gay men can have
sexy women friends, it must be considered hip to be
gay.
When the only public gay role models in India are
associated with the glamour industry, that too, is bound
to change perceptions. I believe that more and more
homosexual men are out to more and more
heterosexual friends who consider it 'cool' and many
are discovering that they want to 'try it out'.
Yes, new taboos are bound to appear. And they will have to be dealt with the way earlier taboos
were. It will also be a chance to test theories.
Raj Ayyar: Don't you think that an Indian/South Asian gay awareness needs to draw upon the
richness of its own homoerotic texts and practices rather than simply borrowing the gay bar, the
inevitable coming-out group, the trappings of Western gay 'McWorld?' And if so, isn't the clinging,
tender, physically expressive same-sex yaari/sakhyani bonding critical to more authentic S. Asian
LGBT lifestyles? Don't we need to recover and embellish it, rather than hide it like a bad smell?
Of course, we can always incorporate the positives of Western gay traditions….bits of Sappho,
Plato, Walt Whitman's love of the 'camerado' in his many forms etc.
Saleem Kidwai: Being familiar with our book, you should not be asking me whether I think that
our history should be hidden like a bad smell. For me it as intoxicating as the scent of jasmine in
summer. As a historian who is gay, recovery of our homo-erotic texts is very important to me. It
was also one of the purposes of our book.
As for embellishing it, I think creative gay people have already begun doing that.
I do not think that finding a nourishing history is in any way contradictory to gay bars. Cultural
borrowings have happened across history are far more complex and are not isolated decisions.
Bars and 'coming-out groups' are not an alternative to the yaar/sakhi tradition which is too deeply
entrenched to need intellectual protection. Both can co-exist. In a McWorld, where else would gay
men meet? Isnt it important that they are meeting? The gay liberation movement in the West gave
many homosexual Indians hope. The trappings had to come with it. But then, trappings are only
trappings.
Personally, I identify myself as a gay man and yet celebrate and derive sustenance from our
history. I don't see why the gay lifestyle in a Western sense cannot be accepted along with the
yaar/sakhi concept. I do not like wasting time on discussing what term we use to refer to our
selves. I will go with the most widely recognized and accepted one. I would just as happy to be
called a homosexual man, or rangeen mizaaj. Or a husn parast.
Raj Ayyar: As an Indian, a gay intellectual and a Muslim, any comments about the demonization
of Islam by the West, especially by the US, since 9/11? Also, about the shameful attempt of right-
wing politicians world-wide from Sharon's Israel to the hawks in the BJP leadership in India to
jump on the Islam-bashing bandwagon?
Saleem Kidwai: I don't think I could say anything about what is happening in the West that hasn't
already been said. And are you surprised that Sharon and the BJP are on the same bandwagon?
Raj Ayyar: Given the negative stereotypes of Islam, your selection of gay and sex-positive Indian
Islamic texts in Same Sex is a refreshing counterpoise. You mention Sufism as a powerful
influence on gay Islam. Is the Sufi discourse of Lover/Beloved with its delicious trembling
romantic ambivalence between the mystical and the fleshly largely responsible for the vast array
of same-sex practices and texts in Islam?
There are so many boundary-crossings in these texts, even between the Hinduism of the
conquered and the Islam of the conquerors in the medieval period of Indian history. Consider the
passion of Hussayn and his Hindu beloved Madho, celebrated in Lahore, Pakistan to this day.
Saleem Kidwai: Sufism was the pre-dominant influence on Islam in India and a major reason for
the fairly general acceptance of Islam in India. It influenced almost every aspect of life including,
obviously, same-sex 'practices'. Boundaries were crossed all the time and therefore the
presumption of a conquering religion and a conquered religion needs to be re-examined.
Yes, the passion of Husayn lives. Last year I was at his urs and I have never been in the vicinity
of such male energy - both devotional and erotic.
Raj Ayyar: Could one argue that the great mystical traditions (not the ones that are wholly
Puritan-celibate) are expansive and inclusive and therefore less judgmental of sex and sexuality
than the 'lower aspects' of religion--the dogma, the fundamentalism and so on?
Salem Kidwai: I think one could easily argue that.
Raj Ayyar: Is it fair to say that there is a tug-of-war between orthodox Islamic homophobia, going
back to the Koran and the hadith, and a spirit of same-sex celebration or at least tolerance?
Saleem Kidwai: Yes. The Sufis were attacked by the orthodoxy and not just for their attitude
towards same sex love but for most of their beliefs. The orthodox, despite the backing of the
state, could not win that battle. Sufism has left its impact which cannot be completely erased in
spite of the discomfort of many Muslims today. Those attitudes might be on the retreat for nearly
two centuries, but there is no reason why they should be drawn upon to imagine a future.
Raj Ayyar: One of your many research passions is Begum Akhtar. Can you tell us a little about
her? And about that wonderful Lucknow tawaif (courtesan) tradition?
Saleem Kidwai: She was a legend not just for her singing but also as a heart breaker. I was
lucky to see why.
I was privileged to spend a lot of time with her in the five years before she died in 1974, aged 61.
She was intelligent, charming, dignified, gracious, funny, generous and yes, extremely seductive.
She wanted to live in a world of romance, fun, liquor and cigarettes of which she smoked over fifty
a day. She sang those love lyrics spontaneously and so movingly. She had did not have much
patience for rehearsing or regular practice.
If I were a poet, she would have been the only woman I would have written love poetry for.
The courtesan tradition was not entirely a wonderful tradition. Yes, it provided the opportunities for
some exceptionally talented women to become legends in their own life times.
Raj Ayyar: How does the tawaif tradition in places like Lucknow tie in with the genre of writing
known as 'Rekhti?' What do you make of the criticism leveled against Rekhti by some feminists
that it was written by males, however feminized these males were and that as such, its depictions
of feminine culture (including lesbianism) are male-biased or, worse yet, written as a form of male
pornographic titillation?
Saleem Kidwai: The simple reason is that Rekhti appeared formally in Lucknow in the heyday of
the tawaifs. It also conveniently fitted in with the critics dismissal of rekhti (and critics do not
include only feminists) as a language of women of 'ill-repute'. Yes, the courtesans must have
contributed to this new genre.
We also must keep in mind that these women of 'ill-repute' were also reputed to be masters of
language and conversation. As for the interpretations of Rekhti, we have questioned each of
those assumptions in our book. Ruth has insightfully elaborated on this in a soon to be published
paper. Her response to these criticisms will, I think, raise the level of the discourse from the
simplistic level it is stuck in at the moment.
Raj Ayyar: In my various e-exchanges with Ruth Vanita, trying to make sense of Sept. 11 and its
horrific aftermath of civil rights suppression, racial profiling and war against a nebulous enemy
called 'terror', I have been grappling with the issue: is Islam, even at its androgynous, mystical,
inclusive Sufi best, much more androcentric and male-privileging than the mystical traditions of
e.g. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism? Fewer women mystics and writers? What do you think?
Saleem Kidwai: Can I skip this one please. My responses are already too long.
Raj Ayyar: Is there anything else you would like to share with readers of GayToday, with the
South Asian readers and the others?
Saleem Kidwai: Well, I have shared so much already. Why not let the readers share something
with me. J Reactions to our book would be particularly welcome. They can write to me at
saleemk@vsnl.com
Raj Ayyar: Thank you, Saleem. I have enjoyed this duet....
Saleem Kidwai: Its been my pleasure. Thank you, Raj.
Reclaiming Gay India with Ruth Vanita
Interview by Raj Ayyar
I called Ruth Vanita on a lazy
winter afternoon about a month
ago. I had just finished reading
Same-Sex Love in India, a book
that she co-authored with Saleem
Kidwai. Our conversation was
less of an interview and more of a
cozy, timeless cosmic chat of the
kind that's called 'adda' in Ruth
Bengali, which covers everything Vanita
from cabbages to kings and
spans centuries.
Since she used to teach at an elite women's college attached to
Delhi University, a college that was a sister college to my own
alma mater St. Stephen's, we discovered many common
acquaintances and friends. I felt transported back in time to the
courtyard of the Delhi University coffeehouse where, in
the comforting shade of an ancient banyan tree, I would engage
in passionate political, literary, and philosophical discussions
with teachers and fellow students.
For me, as for many other South Asians, the book is a real eye-
opener. Same-Sex Love in India cracks open the clichéd
stereotype, held in both India and the West that sees
homoeroticism as a foreign import and that India has always
gone back and forth between arranged heterosexual marriages
and ascetic celibacy.
This stereotype has fueled the pseudo-postcolonial argument
that homosexuality is a decadent Western colonial imposition
that is alien to Indian ways. On the other hand, it has also
encouraged a patronizing 'let's teach you about Stonewall'
attitude on the part of those Western gay activists who see
Indian gayness as a fragile, recent shoot that needs to be
watered by the springs of post-Stonewall gay lib.
On the contrary, Vanita and Kidwai show that same-sex
relationships have been affirmed and celebrated in poetry and
prose, in mythology, literature and medical treatises throughout
the lengthy span of Indian history.
For instance, the book explores the concept of 'swayamvara
sakhi', a word found in the 11th century story cycle the
Kathasaritsagara that refers to deep love between women and
also refers to a self-chosen relationship. This concept forms part
of the basis of Ruth's own marriage to her partner Mona
Bachman.

Her gay marriage comes,

not out of recent
developments in Vermont
law, let's say, but from
venerable roots that go
deep in Hindu traditions
not often publicized, that
endorse and even
sanctify same-sex
relationships and unions
between men and
between women. The
book delves into stories
of sages 'born of two
wombs', and of
goddesses and gods that
give birth without a cross-
sex partner. The book
enabled me to discover
and re-discover ancient,
medieval, modern, and
post-modern homoerotic
Indian texts, Hindu,
Buddhist, Jain, Islamic,
and Indian Christian texts that have been suppressed, sanitized
or minimized in mainstream Indian history.

How many Hindus, for example, acknowledge that the god

Harihara/Ayyappa was the son of two of the major deities of the
Hindu pantheon, Vishnu and Shiva, the former in drag, the latter
pursuing 'her', "as a lordly elephant would a she-elephant"?
(p.71), or that one of Shiva's sons (Skandha: literally 'jet of
sperm') was born after a convoluted process that involved the
fire god Agni swallowing the mighty Shiva's semen, which was
literally too hot for him?! (p.79).
Many Indians and Westerners, accustomed to a very straight
interpretation of the Krishna-Arjuna relationship in the
Bhagavad-Gita (that influenced Max Muller and Thoreau so
profoundly), would be shocked to discover Arjuna aroused by
Krishna's beautiful waist, his penis visible through his yellow
garments, "lips red like the bimba fruit" and his "knees like a
good tree, rounded, and not too far apart" and who as 'Arjuni'
has wild sex with Krishna (pp. 92-93).
Saleem Kidwai, who has done a masterly job of reclaiming
homoerotic themes and texts in Indian Islam, edits the medieval
Islamic part of the work. Despite the repressive homophobic
provisions of sharia law with its heavy-duty anti-sodomy
penalties, there has been a long-standing tradition of homoerotic
celebration in Islam, particularly in the Sufi tradition.
Also, as Kidwai stresses, even orthodox Islam is not without its
quota of same-sex love references. For instance, the Koran
promises beautiful boys and houris to the faithful in Heaven
(p.111). The ultra-conservative hadith (sayings attributed to the
prophet Mohammed) claims that Mohammed saw God as a
beautiful youth with "long hair and cap awry." Same-Sex Love
in India is a slap in the face of 'compulsory heterosexuality',
whether it comes from the Left or the Right. It is a powerful
challenge to the fundamentalist re-writing of history, whether
Hindu, Muslim or Christian.
Saleem Kidwai is a medieval historian
who taught at Ramjas College, Delhi
University for 20 years. He is working
on multiple projects now: homoerotic
subtexts in Hindi cinema, a biography
of singer Begum Akhtar and many
others. Ruth Vanita, formerly an
Associate professor at Delhi
University is now Associate Professor
at the University of Montana.

Interviewer Raj Ayyar I

remembered the varied intensities of conversation and relating
that I shared with men and women in the shade of that banyan
tree. The tenderness, the respect and the long hours of just
being-with . . . Back to the banyan tree and the courtyard with
Ruth Vanita.
Raj Ayyar: Ruth, it's wonderful connecting with someone who
shares memories of Delhi University in the 70s with me. What
brought you to the University of Montana?
Ruth Vanita: Well, I applied to a whole bunch of places and
landed this job. Technically, I'm with the Liberal Studies program,
which is a broad-based multi-disciplinary program. I teach a lot
of Literature courses and bring in Women's Studies and Gender
Theory perspectives. I taught a course on Oscar Wilde, and am
planning to teach a comparative course on 'same-sex love in
Indian and British Literature.'
Raj Ayyar: You were an Associate Professor in the British
Literature Department at Delhi University, were you not?
Ruth Vanita: That's right. I do want to say that my courses here
have been very well received. Missoula is a liberal pocket of
Montana. Many of the students are from rural and working class
backgrounds. I think it makes many of them humble and willing
to learn.
Raj Ayyar: As opposed to, let's say, someone from an Ivy
League college here, or from St. Stephen's, Miranda House, or
some other elitist institution in India?
Ruth Vanita: Yes. My students at UM don't have that know-it-all
attitude.
Raj Ayyar: It's refreshing to find my negative Related Articles from
the GayToday
stereotypes about places like Montana Archive:
challenged! (laughs). The University of Review: Same-Sex
Montana did give you a grant for 'same-sex Love in Inida
love'? India's Pioneer: Ashok
Ruth Vanita: Yes, I did get a grant from UM Row Kavi
to work on the book. We also got donations
India's Lesbians
from friends in India, both money and space Organize
to write the book. We ended up hiring and
paying for research assistants out of our Related Sites:
Namaste-Bazaar
own pockets. GayToday does not
endorse related sites.
Raj Ayyar: When you were working on the book at the Delhi
University, was there any homophobic resistance to the project
from the administration? What about colleagues and students? I
seem to remember that there was a good deal of homophobia at
DU in the 70s. It wasn't a 'bashing' homophobia, but a 'tolerant'
one that winked at same-sex relationships, provided one was
discreet and 'grew out' of them into a heterosexual marriage.
Ruth Vanita: I wouldn't say that there was an active
homophobic resistance, as much as a taken-for-granted
heterosexism, where alternatives to hetero married normswere
not even perceived or given any reality status. But the
administration did not object to the publication of the book.
Permission was granted smilingly.
In fact, I presented papers on same-sex love in Shakespeare's
As You Like It at seminars held at Delhi University, papers that
were very well-received by my straight colleagues. I don't know
quite how to explain this, other than to say that the liberalism of
a certain kind of academic Indian intellectual is truly remarkable.
Of course, both at DU and here in Montana, I refrain from any
personal disclosures in class. I don't see personal disclosure as
appropriate in the classroom. But, that does not keep me from a
full and free discussion of gay themes, when a specific text or
author demands it, e.g.
Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde or
E.M. Forster.

Raj Ayyar: Same-Sex Love

opened my eyes to so much
that's been repressed or
sanitized in mainstream India.

Ruth Vanita: The repression

and sanitization are not just
problems with the Indian
political and religious Right.
For example, Leftists, liberals,
and right-wingers joined
hands in publicly attacking the
 controversial lesbian art film Fire when it was released in India.

Raj Ayyar: So, there's a paradoxical homophobic meeting

ground between some elements of the Left and some elements
of the Right?

Ruth Vanita: Yes. And there is a common bias against any

kind of sex discourse in India, not just same-sex discourse. The
language of condemnation might vary, depending on who's
making a statement. Thus, a Hindu Rightist might use the
language of 'homosexuality was never a part of our glorious
tradition' while someone from the Left might say 'it's a decadent
capitalist/colonial phenomenon' but both are homophobic and
sex-phobic. Puritanism and homophobia were certainly a part of
the Victorian British colonial tradition in India and elsewhere.
But, you can't lay all the blame at colonialism's door.
Raj Ayyar: It's strange that in countries like India or Robert
Mugabe's Zimbabwe, many so-called 'post-colonialists' invoke
sodomy laws that were put in place by British colonialism! It's
also strange that these laws have been largely repealed in many
Western colonial nations including the U.K., but still flourish in
their ex-colonies to the drumbeat of 'post-colonial' identity.
Ruth Vanita: Absolutely. It's self-contradictory.
Raj Ayyar: You know, one thing that struck me about Same-Sex
Love is that although you and Saleem are sympathetic to
'constructivism', in that you quote Foucault and Halperin, you
seem to resist at least one interpretation of Foucault: that the
word 'homosexual' was a construct that did not emerge till the
medical discourses of the 19th century, and that 'homosexuality'
became a medicalized identity in the 19th century and thereafter.
Ruth Vanita: Of course, the word 'homosexual' was not used
before the 19th century. I agree with Foucault there. However,
other words for same-sex love have been around since the
beginning of documented written history. Another interesting
point: there are Hindu medical texts that date back to the
medieval period, e.g. the Charaka Samhita and the Sushruta
Samhita that do categorize and medicalize same-sex desire.
Raj Ayyar: That means the medicalization goes back centuries
before the 19th century texts
that caught Foucault's eye?
Ruth Vanita: Yes. And,
even in the West, medical
and other categorizations
were known since at least the
10th century. Words like
'tribade', 'sapphist' etc. were
in use long before 'lesbian' or
'homosexual'.
Raj Ayyar: Tell us a little
about your involvement with
the pioneering Indian feminist
journal Manushi. Were you
the co-founder?
Ruth Vanita: Yes. Madhu Kishwar and I co-founded Manushi
way back in 1978. It came out of a women's group that used to
meet in my dorm room at Miranda House, DU, during my
student years. The group developed the concept of the
magazine.
Raj Ayyar: I notice that many straight Indian women who
identify with feminist causes have a great respect for Manushi.
Ruth Vanita: Yes, well, the journal was never explicit about
lesbian issues. It addressed gender oppression without getting
too explicit about sexual orientation. This was typical of the
Indian women's movement in the 70s, which carefully refrained
from any discussion of sexuality and sexual issues and focused
almost exclusively on violence against women------spousal
abuse, dowry deaths etc. I think that tendency is changing now.
A lot of younger Indian feminists are starting to explore other
issues, including lesbian issues. There were many lesbians
within the Indian women's movement even in the 70s, but we
never discussed our sexuality openly.
Raj Ayyar: I remember that there were many young gay Indian
males in the 70s who, likewise, never addressed or discussed
their sexuality openly. So, there was no support system, no
forum for airing gay-political ideas and certainly no political base.
Ruth Vanita: You know, this is part of that phobia of sex-
discourse that we discussed earlier. But it's not even-handed.
After all, there is a lot of talk about heterosexual marriage in
India and this IS a way of talking about sex, at least about
heterosexuality.
Raj Ayyar: But, isn't this another sanitized way of talking about
heterosexuality.... minus the sex? And, when we consider those
passionate Indian same-sex relationships, be it 'sakhyani', 'dosti'
or 'yaari', once again these relationships are socially approved
because they are considered non-sexual. Yet, in your book you
point out that many such 'friendships' are strongly charged with
the erotic and the romantic, even if there's no sexual 'acting out'.
Ruth Vanita: I think it's important to remember that Indian
cultures place a tremendous value on friendship, in a way that
has been largely forgotten in the West and certainly in America.
In India, because everyone (till recently) was so oblivious of
homosexuality, it was considered perfectly normal for a same-
sex friend to come over to your house, hold hands, hug, and
even sleep in your bed. That would be unthinkable in
contemporary America!
Raj Ayyar: Some of that is due to the very deep-seated
homophobia in the U.S. It was not that uncommon in 19th
century America, Whitman's America. But there is such self-
consciousness about sexual identity in the U.S. today that all
same-sex closeness is seen as suspect. Deep emotional
bonding has all but disappeared even in heterosexual
discourses and practices.
Ruth Vanita: Some of it is due to the rushed quality of life here.
Most Americans meet to 'do' something together, seldom to just
be together. And these deep bonds need patience, a lot of time,
and a lot of just 'hanging out' together for no particular reason.
On the other hand, some American women both gay and straight
seem to find it easier to develop emotional closeness, than
many American men do.
Raj Ayyar: Could you tell us a little your book Sappho and the
Virgin Mary?
Ruth Vanita: Well, I argue that even in the straight white male
patriarchal tradition, the Creatrix has always influenced the
literary imagination. The Romantics, Meredith, Forster etc. were
deeply influenced by her.

Raj Ayyar: Is this Virgin Mary cult a backdoor resurgence of the

Goddess archetype in the patriarchal West?

Ruth Vanita: Absolutely. There's been a lot of research on this

theme. Not only the Virgin but Catholic female saints in the
Middle Ages can be seen as the re-writing of goddesses such as
Demeter, Persephone, Isis and so on. However, my book
focuses not on the medieval period but on the modern period
from the Renaissance onwards.

Raj Ayyar: Don't you think that Protestantism can be seen as a

desperate attempt to stamp out the feminine in Christianity?

Ruth Vanita: In a sense, yes. You can see this trend as early as
Martin Luther's attempt to purge the church of Mary and all
female icons. I don't think that the female presence has
disappeared from Protestantism, however.
Raj Ayyar: What about the connection between Sappho and
the Virgin?
Ruth Vanita: Sappho has been regarded as the ultimate
female lyric writer, whose style was a model for many writers,
including the Romantic Movement. Her lesbianism was a
hovering presence surrounding this influence. I've reproduced
paintings in the book that show the Virgin surrounded by female
saints and feminized males, be they angels or saints. She is a
mentor, guardian and teacher to them. Sappho too was
surrounded by young female protégées; she played teacher and
mentor to them...two different ways of approaching the same
thing. Of course, Sappho represents the more sexualized form,
while the Virgin clearly does not. And yet, convents and
nunneries were refuges for same-sex communities. Hostile
Victorian puritans, wherein the connection between the two was
stated in a negative manner, saw them as “hotbeds of
Sapphism”.
Raj Ayyar: In Same-Sex Love, you argue against the view that
gender-segregated monastic communities were always
oppressive to women. You point out wryly that the privileging of
procreative sex is not necessarily of advantage to women.
Ruth Vanita: Uh-huh. I think it's healthy to have alternatives to
procreative sex and heterosexual marriage. I'm not denying that
some women were oppressed in these monastic communities,
but in many cases it was based on a free choice. You see that
clearly in the writings of some Buddhist nuns as also in the
writings of some women in the West like Hildegard of Bingen.
For these women, it is obvious that the monastic lifestyle was an
active, autonomous choice.
Raj Ayyar: Do you think that the Western 'coming out' model
applies to all cultures? Ever since Stonewall in the late 60s,
many Western gay activists have a fixed model of the coming-
out process in their heads, and speak and act as if it's the sole
paradigm for lesbians and gay men everywhere.
Ruth Vanita: Well, I don't think you can make a blanket
recommendation for India, given the great diversity of cultures
there. However, I do think that the gay person has to make some
kind of statement in saying 'no' to the standard arranged
heterosexual marriage, whether you frame that as 'coming out'
or not.
Raj Ayyar: What do you
think of Ashok Kavi? As
you know, there are
many gay movements
popping up all over the
Indian urban scene,
thanks to the pioneering
efforts of Ashok and a
few others.
Ruth Vanita: I respect
Ashok greatly. In fact,
when he came out in a
popular Indian magazine
many years ago, I
thought 'great!' I grew up
with many of the classic
gay feelings of
loneliness, feeling
different from others, cut-
offness and so on.
Ashok's openness has
encouraged many gay
Indians to come to terms
Ashok Kavi with their sexuality.
Raj Ayyar: Ruth, it's been a joy talking with you.
Ruth Vanita: Likewise, Raj. I've enjoyed our conversation.