There seems to be a
crisis about how to cope with ‘sex offenders’ generally. Are they ill, and if
so, what is the cure? Alternatively, are they ‘evil’? What or whom are they
offending? Nature, the Law, Society? And how, more generally, do we know what
makes one erotic activity good and another bad? Is it a matter of divine
ordinance, biological nature, or social convention? Can we really be sure that
our own desires and pleasures are normal, natural, nice – or that we are? Why
does sex matter so much? (Spargo, Tamsin. Postmodern Encounters: Foucault and
Queer Theory.1999.p.5).
Cinema is one
structure among others that constructs sexuality. It may construct or destruct
the structured ‘normative patterns’ of the socio-cultural understanding. The
structured ‘normative patterns’ of the social set up direct an individual
towards the designed norms of morality and vulgarity in order to cop him or her
with the usual flow of collective consciousness. The normative structural
pattern of the cultural understanding of sexuality is about “the masculinity
and femininity, in other words, ‘proper’ ways for men and women to behave”
(Mottier 2). One of the causes of this socio-cultural structured ‘normative
patterns’ of sexuality refers to the politics of the cinema that consciously
takes the position on the major voices of the social set up. Cinema constructs
a normative structural perspective, which involves the concretised versions of
sexual behaviour that are showcased and catered to the mass psyche of the
society. In films, this propagation of normative behavioural patterns of
gender, sex, and sexuality can overlap. They overlap in order to meet the ends
of the spec tectorial anticipations that are produced by the structured sexual
‘normative patterns.’
Earlier, cinema
required fixed iconography for audiences to follow the narrative, which cost
the stereotyping of the characters. Thus, within mainstream cinema especially,
but not exclusively, stereotyping is not questioned. Equally, sexuality is
normally taken to refer heterosexuality. Motion pictures contribute a crucial
set of signifiers that actively participate in the multifaceted processes that
codify sexuality and gender. The preconceived notions of the mainstream mass
projections deal with the conceptualized perceptions of gender and sexual
identity. Normalization of heterosexuality plays a hegemonic manipulation of
gender and sexual hierarchical order. This prior-given hierarchical order of
dominance to heterosexuality forbids the ‘subtexts’ in the categorical gender
identification. Nevertheless, postmodernism questions the self -assumed hierarchical
dominance of heterosexuality. The acceptance of difference along with the shift
in the paradigmatic gender and sexual identities address the postmodern
onscreen gendered projection, both explicitly and diplomatically. Postmodern
sexual identities define themselves on the self-definitions that it assumes to
be the chief traits of the postmodern structural patterns of normative
behavioural constructions. These postmodern identities are:
Gay, lesbian,
straight, bisexual, bi-curious, exhibitionists, submissives, dominatrixes,
swingers (people who engage in partner exchange), switchers (people who change
from being gay to being straight or vice versa), traders (gaymen who have sex
with straight men), born-again virgins (people who have, technically, lost
their virginity but pledge to renounce sex until marriage), acrotomophiliacs
(people who are sexually attracted to amputees), furverts (or furries – people
who dress up in animal suits and derive sexual excitement from doing so), or
feeders (people who overfeed their, generally obese, partners). The important
point here is that we draw on these categories in order to make sense of who we
are: we define ourselves in part through our sexuality (Mottier 1).
The unconscious
contentment of the cinematic reception consciously entertains the majority of
the visible identities. The constructive proposition of cinema constructs
within itself the centre-periphery dialogues around ‘identities’. So it creates
an audience consciously for the active participation of their collective
consciousness that sublimate their unconscious structural designs of cinematic
identities to onscreen personas, thus to pursue the spec tectorial fictional
heroism. This spec tectorial heroism is built upon the structured ‘normative
patterns’ of the socio-cultural norms around race, class and gender. It leads
the audience towards a large frame of structured patterns, which are
cinematically established for the mainstream discourses. Finally, Cinema
defines what is normal and natural from the mass cultural perspectives.
The pervasive
factors of cinema may include its easiness to define ‘things’ and to play with
the moralized vulgarities and vulgarized moralities, that accommodates the
unconscious contentment of erotica to a particular category which has been
normalized by the cinema itself. Thus, the term ‘erotica’ structures itself to
follow the normalized category of heterosexuals and cinema promotes it. The
promoted visual erotica accepts, conceptually censors the moral perception, and
satisfies the needs of preconceived normative structural design of identities.
The prior
acceptance of a constructive collection of a category of identity neglects the
other ‘categorized deviant’ identity and their erotica. These categorized
identities and censored erotica may obviously found in Malayalam cinema. The
basic construction of Malayalam cinema might be placed on a strict
centre-periphery binary structure of power discourse around race, class, and
gender. While the Indian cinema, especially the southern, accepts the diversity
of identity and erotica both in terms of audience and projection, Malayalam
cinema contradicts itself on the articulation of non-heterosexual subject
matters attempted with a structure conventionally motivated by heterosexuality.
Mainstream
Malayalam cinema has projected, and at times hastily displayed liaison,
homicide, dissension, viciousness. The notable fact is that the industry is
still reluctant to the discussion of the ‘queer’ on screen. Malayalam cinema
from 1930’s to the present has taken us to the possible levels of aesthetic and
intellectual reflection and entertainment, possibly adopted from every thought
of the cultural psyche of Kerala, social system and perceptions on gender and
sexuality.
Recent discourses
around gender and sexuality that has been undertaking by Malayalam cinema are
negotiations of superfluity in addressing the self-assumed sexual behavioural
patterns, the ‘identities.’ While the neighbour Tamil industry welcomes the
shift in the categorical identity, Malayalam cinema admits the fact of shift
and the categorized erotica, but plays a diplomatic game on the issue. The
sexual diplomacy around the deviant identity may codify the diplomatic address
of the queered identity on the screen that refers to the Malayalam cultural
psyche and its reluctance to admit ‘Otherness’ of the ‘normalized identities.’
The addressal of the queered identity might be new and queer for the Malayalee
audience theoretically because the mainstream cinema often overwrites the
middle-stream and the parallel cinema. Malayalam mainstream cinema plays a
pivotal stand in shaping of Malayalee cultural psyche on and around the
normative structural designs of patriarchy and matriarchy; feminism and
heroism; fashion and tradition; nature and culture; gender and sexuality;
family and modernity; love and sex. Middle-stream Malayalam cinema, on the
contrary, during the late 1960s and early 1970s witnessed changes in the
approach of film makers towards cinema and this was reciprocated in the quality
of film viewing too. Films like Kuttyedathy, Oolavum Theeravum and Mappusakshi
by P. N Menon during the late 60s band early 70s were signals of these films
brought the heroes of popular cinema down to earth, identifiable for ordinary
people as one of them. Even there the discourse of qureered identity hesitated
to show its face, but the early 1970s witnessed a radical change in the
perspective towards cinema by filmmakers as well as viewers of Kerala too. The
beginning of film societies resulting in the exposure to world classics helped
a group of young film makers realize the uniqueness of the language of this
medium, which until then was in the clutches of the forms used for stage
dramas. Influenced by the French and Italian New Wave, as elsewhere in India,
the Malayalam new wave was born, known as Malayalam parallel cinema.
A positive
development was witnessed in the field of commercial Malayalam Cinema too
during the 1980s. Directors Padmarajan and Bharathan, films that stood
equidistant from traditional ‘popular’ and ‘parallel’ cinema, introduced a new
path of filmmaking. These filmmakers successfully made films, which were
commercially viable, without using the usual formulas of commercial cinema. The
distance between 'popular' and 'parallel' cinema reduced so that these films
could not be distinguished.
1990s could be
considered the worst years for Malayalam parallel cinema. Only few good films
were produced during this decade. These include Adoor Gopalakrishnan’s
Vidheyan and Kathapurushan, Aravindan's last film
Vasthuhara and Shaji N Karun's Swaham. T
V Chandran with films like Susannah, Danny and Padam Onnu OruVilapam is a
strong presence in Malayalam cinema. R Sarath's
Sayahnam and Stithi, Murali Nair's
Maranasimhasanam, Pattiyude Divasam and
Arimpara, Satish Menon's Bhavam, Rajiv Vijayaraghavan's Margam and Ashok
R. Nath's Sabhalam are notable films
that came out during the recent years. After a long absence of eight years,
Adoor Gopalakrishnan is back with his Nizhalkkuthu in 2003.
Malayalam parallel
cinema deconstructed the structure of cultural institutions as well as the
linear flow of sexual discourses. The structured linearity of gender discourses
doubted the base of its own existence with the introduction of movies like
Randu Penkuttikal (1978), Deshadanakkili Karayarilla (1986), Sancharam (2004),
Chantupottu (2003), Rithu (2009), Sufi Paranja Katha (2010), Salt and Pepper
(2011). Though these movies bring forth the queer elements in the Malayalam
cinema, they diplomatically address the issue in order to place itself in a
comfort zone. The discourse of diplomatic queering becomes prominent in this
scenario of implicit expression of queerness on the heterosexual platform.
Queer cinema has
been in existence for decades although it lacked a label. During the late 1980s
and 1990s, queer cinema became more familiar for the common audience. “These
films proposed renegotiated subjectivities, men looking at men, gazes
exchanged, and so on” (Hayward 30). Earlier, queer cinema, though proposed
renegotiated subjectivities and same-sex affairs failed to deconstruct the
firmed structural patterns of gender designs and identities. Religion with its
divine text and the deterrent examples of Sodom and Gomorrah threatened the
cultural and moral psyche of the common:
And the men said
unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? Son in law, and thy sons, and thy
daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring [them] out of this
place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great
before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. And Lot
went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and
said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But
he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law (Genesis 19: 12-14).
Now, queer cinema
and the movement have nothing to do with the postmodern sexual ‘identities’ of
the west as Susan Hayward stated: “Indeed, the new queer cinema, as this cinema
is also labelled, has presently become a marketable commodity if not an
identifiable movement” (307-308) . The postmodern sexual ‘identities’ are
self-defined in terms of social existence. The existence of queer discourse is
relevant to the Malayalam cultural psyche since it is in favour of structured
normalities, identities, and erotica.
Queer cinema does
not address a unified aesthetics that may not perverse the conceptualized
perspectives of the audience on the constructive cultural gendered notions. It
is a constellation of varied aesthetics that may become an epitome of queer
aesthetics.
Queering becomes
neutral and diplomatic in the Malayalam movies. the potentiality of the queer
discourse may challenge all the established normative patterns of the
hetero-normative ideologies and the conceptualization of male-female love
affair as Strayer points out:
Women’s desire for
women deconstructs male-female sexual dichotomies, sex-gender conflation, and
the universality of the oedipal narrative. Acknowledgement of the
female-initiated active sexuality and sexualized activity of lesbians has the
potential to reopen a space in which heterosexual women as well as lesbians can
exercise self-determined pleasure (Straayer 331).
Malayalam movie
directors who are a direct extension and part of Kerala society, and in the
business of creating a product of art that sells, are hesitative of using the
theme of queerness to spin their onscreen narratives. For the same reason, the
society carefully avoids discussing or conversing about this amongst the
normative structural designs and patterns of projections and discourses. Deepa,
a Keralite lesbian activist, states that sexual minorities “are so harassed
that they are forced to leave Kerala for other states…. A conspiracy of silence
about sexual minorities in Kerala and people pretend that gays, lesbians, and
transsexuals did not exist in the state” (Refugee Review Tribunal). The
Malayalam cinema that have dealt with the topics of same-sex relationships and
bailed out of the narrative without a pause, have been Rnadu Penkuttikal and
Deshadanakkili Karayarilla and Sancharam . There was a ‘passing’
characterization in Rithu and a hasty portrayal in Sufi Paranja Katha . The
movie Chantupottu has also tried the transsexual identity crisis, but has taken
a very diplomatic arrangement of the socio-cultural events on the queering
process. Salt and Pepper makes the queering process more passive and ‘doubly
subtext’.
This section is
concerned mainly with films that do not depict queerness explicitly, but employ
or provide sites for queer intervention. The depiction of queerness by the
films is diplomatically presented, for the audience goes through both the
socio-cultural structured normalities of heterosexuality and homosexuality. The
presence of heterosexuality is dominant throughout the so-called Malayalam
queer cinema. The queerness of the film executed on the heterosexual platform
that it might overlap at any time for the conscious construction of queer
presence. The diplomacy of queer aesthetics in Malayalam cinema is that even
while it projects the queer, it also entertains the ‘normalities’ of gender and
sexual discourses. The absences of an entire homosexual or queer platform for
the films, which have been celebrated for their revolutionary approaches in the
Kerala society, drag them again towards the shadows of heterosexuality and
structured ‘normative’ behavioural patterns. This conscious or unconscious
application of queerness in heterosexual platform and vis-á-vis lead us to the
reading of a diplomatic queerness of heterosexuality. The queerness of the
films creates a comfort zone within the heterosexual platform itself that it
may defend itself under the ‘normative’ patterns.
In this sense, the
use of the term ‘queer’ to discuss reception takes up the standard binary
oppositions of ‘queer’ and ‘nonqueer’ (or straight) while questioning its
viability, at least in cultural studies, because, as noted earlier ,the queer
often operates within the nonqueer, as the nonqueer does within the queer (
whether in reception, texts, or producers) ( Dothy 338).
Sancharam directed
by Liggy J. Pullappally actively partakes the issue of lesbian relationship far
removed from the conventionality of same-sex relationships. Earlier, the movies
which initiated the discourse in the society were Randu Penkuttikal directed by
Mohan and Deshadanakkili Karayarilla directed by Padmarajan. Randu Penkuttikal
analysed the deep psychoanalysis of the female mind and the intricacies of
their mental and physical constructions. Director Mohan in a recent interview
confesses that he has never read the novel on which the film adaptation was
based on completely (Mohan). The novel talks about the lesbian theme, which
could be analysed under the light of the possessive relationship that Kokila,
the senior girl in school has for Girija. The infatuation between the two comes
to terms when Kokila showers Girija with gifts and also makes it clear in terms
as to what their nature of relationship is and will be, going forward. However,
the readers find that Girija falls in love with a handsome apprentice who takes
charge in the local photo studio and gets in to a physical relation with her
while his term lasts, but he then disappears. Finally, she gets married to her
young teacher who had, in the past, proposed to her, but was turned away in
part by the rumour mills put in motion by a deeply possessive Girija.
The movie ends with
the politically correct note of Girija at last seeing the light that “this was
all a phase in one’s teenage years and like any normal woman, she should be
married and lead a happy, productive life” by the dashing young physician who
is besotted by Girija and wants to marry her. Though the film portrays the
complexities of female bonding, it is still subjected to the structured
‘normative’ patterns of the heterosexual society. The complexities of the
female bonding by being on the hetero-normative platform ultimately lead to the
lesbian elements of the film. The end of the movie signifies the dependence of
the queer elements towards the non-queer elements. The characters of the movie
finally go back to the normative structures of the sexual identities and
duties. The diplomacy of Randu Penkuttikal is obviously the conceptualized
perception of love, marriage, and family setup. The notable fact is that the
hetero-normative structures/texts enjoy the freedom over the queer element,
prior given authority by the ‘normative patterns’ of the socio-cultural
constructions.
The movie
Deshadanakkili Karayarilla also moves through the same track of ‘event’ while
treating the intricacies of the female bonding. The audience can emphatically
point out that the characters are just two normal friends, obsessively
possessive about each other (Desatanakkili Karayarilla). While Randu
Penkuttiakal ends up with timid, politically correct, and tepid ending, Padmarajan
cranks up the ‘helplessness and bitterness quotient’ a few notches high in the
latter, hurtling the movie towards a tragic climax. The relationship does not
survive in the end.
The lesbian look of
exchange and female bonding are vulnerable to heterosexual structure. The
lesbian discourse places the heterosexual conceptualized notions of ‘romantic
love’ in contrast with homosexual love. ‘Love at first sight’ also gets a shake
with the introduction of queer aesthetics. Within the construction of narrative
film sexuality, the phrase ‘lesbian heroine’ is a contradiction in terms. The
female position in classical narrative is a stationary site to which the male
hero travels and on which he acts.
The romance formula
of love at first sight relies on a slippage between sexuality and love. The
movie Sancharam forwards the ‘event’ of female bonding and visibly riddles the
notions of love and sex that has been considered as the traditional property of
the heterosexual normality and structured normative patterns of socio-cultural
setup. Sexual desire pretends to be reason enough for love and love pretends to
be sexual pleasure. While sexual desire is visually available for viewer’s
vicarious experiences, sexual pleasure is blocked. By the time the plot reaches
a symbolic climax, love has been substituted for sex, restricting sex to the
realm of desire. So structured, love is unrequited sex. Since this love is
‘hetero- love’, homosexual views are doubly distanced from sexual pleasure.
Love and desire dealt with Sancharam explicitly treat the homosexual love and
the ‘desire’, but often intermitted by the unconscious constructed structures
of the hetero society and the platform they perform the ‘event’. Sncharam
foregrounds the question of male- female love and desire.
Within the
construction of narrative film sexuality, the phrase ‘lesbian heroine’ is a
contradiction in terms (…). The relationship between male and female is one of
conquest (…). There can be no lesbian heroine here, for the very definition of
lesbianism requires an act of defiance in relation to assumptions about sexual
desire and activity (Strayer 331-332).
The movie though
runs through the same track, it deals with a different ‘event’. The ‘event’ is
the exclusive celebration of the female bonding. The socio-cultural background
of the cinema is heterosexual. The elements of heterosexual social setup meet
the ends of diplomacy of the Malayalam queer visual culture.
The predominant
concept of male-female love and the structured ‘normative patterns’ of marriage
as a cultural institution places forth the contradictions between sexual
identities whereas the categorized sexual identities constitute ‘normalized
deviations’ apart from the heterosexual normalities. The movie Sancharam also
constitutes a normalized deviation through the ‘war of sexual identities’. The
story is about Delilah and Kiran and how their unbridled, deep, passionate love
for each other, as they come of age, both being childhood friends.
The
transdiscursivity of family glory and pride is supposed to flow through the
generations to come. Kiran being a descendant of a high race carries the burden
of family royalty. While Delilah carries the burden of Christian belief system,
the discussion of the ‘event’ surpasses the mythical and conventional patterns
of belief system and notions. The question of normality is also questioned in
the film. The judgements of normalities by the hetero-normative characters on
the homosexual characters conceptualize the preconceived treatment of sexual
identity politics. The take on the conversation between Kiran’s mother Priya,
father Naryanan and Kiran stretches out the hetero normative judgement on the
homosexuals:
Priya: You must be
treated somewhere.
Kiran: Why should
I?
Priya: Shut up.
(….)
Priya: You, you are
so unnatural!
Kiran: I am not
unnatural.
Narayanan: Is this
for what I have cared my daughter?
(The Journey
[Sancharam] ).
The diplomacy of
the cinema Sancharam demonstrates the elements of diplomatic lesbian heroine.
When Kiran and Delilah meet the palmist, Delilah asks about Kiran’s marriage.
The notable fact is that Delilah is a passive lesbian heroine while Kiran is
active. Delilah realizes her love for Kiran only when she writes love letter for
Delilah, insisted by Rajan who loves Delilah. The exchange of look and the
physical involvement that shakes the hetero normative concepts of male- female
love and desire takes place while the both heroines take bath in the pool.
Another instance that codifies the female bonding and trespasses the concept of
spiritual love is the take on lip-lock and the physical involvement of the body
in the jungle. The ‘event’ becomes more problematic when Delilah is forced to
marry a man. She claims, “Anyway we have to marry some man, but we can maintain
our relationship even after the marriage.”
Kiran: Can you
really do it?
Delilah: Yes, I
can.
Kiran; But, I
can’t.
(….)
Kiran: You said we
will be together forever.
Delilah: I was
wrong.
The audience might
suspect the authenticity of the lesbian discourse on screen especially when
Kiran urges Delilah to flee with her. However, the movie suggests a bit before
the climax that Delilah can lead a ‘straight’ life irrespective of her lesbian
narration.
Kiran: Come with
me.
Delilah: No, I go
nowhere. That is good for everyone.
Kiran: Is it good
for you?
Delilah: Yes.
Kiran: Delilah,
please.
Delilah: No, we
don’t have anything from now on.
Delilah’s wedding
is hurried. The earliest way to ‘revalidate’ her normalcy in the existing
social setup, reclaim the family’s position in the ‘normal’ scheme of things.
In addition, post, which, everyone can go back to his or her lives, as if
nothing, happened. Certainly, Sancharam could very well be the first middle
stream/parallel features film in Malayalam that makes homosexuality the crux,
the focal point of the narrative. The movie is an open ending. Delilah runs
from alter to the portico while Kiran stands on the edge of a waterfall
suggesting the audience about the suicide. Kiran cuts her hair and walks away.
The open ending of the movie adds more possibility of the diplomatic treatment
of the event.
The primary threat
of female bonding is the elimination of the male. This acknowledges the
defensive androcentric reactions. The underlying presence attempts to define
female bonding and lesbianism in relation to men. To be more effective, the
interference needs to be visual in order to physically separate women’s bodies
and interrupt their glances. Male intermediaries are common in films with
female bonding. In Sancharam, the presence of Rajan, who loves Delilah and
Sebastian who comes to marry Delilah connotes the heterosexual normative
structures of male-female bonding. The presence of the male characters reduces
the tension on which the ‘event’ goes on. Sancharam uses the heterosexual raw
materials effectively in order to project the conflict between sexual
identities. But, open ending of the movie validates the structure of diplomacy
that the heterosexual audience can derive the conclusion of a ‘straight’
marriage and the homosexual audience can reach at the conclusion of a female
bonding.
I define gay
sensibility as a creative energy reflecting a consciousness that is different
from the mainstream; a heightened awareness of certain human complications of
feeling that spring from the fact of social oppression; in short, a perception
of the world which is coloured, shaped, directed and defined by the fact of
one’s gayness ( Babuscio 40).
As a concept useful
in the study of film, gay sensibility can be defined as a developed awareness
of sexual variation. This does not automatically mean that a filmmaker or
viewer has to be gay or lesbian to be able to present or appreciate themes and
issues connected with gay people, but such awareness can open up rich creative
possibilities.
Malayalam gay films
are implicitly projected in terms of Buddy film categories. Nevertheless, those
films, which discussed gayness, are passive and their gayness has nothing to do
with the flow of the narrative. Rithu directed by Shyamaprasad discussed the
gay identity of Sunny that merely adds a ‘fleeting layer’ to the character and
disappears. The filmmaker would have this aspect to stay in the background and
not affect the central set of events that drive the movie forward. The film
portrays most of the postmodern acceptance of sexual ideologies. For instance,
through the characters of Sunny, Sharat and Varsha the movie shows a glimpse of
‘condom culture’. They present Sharat the ‘box’ Kamasutra also approach the
medical shop for condoms. They also question the moral policing of the Kerala
culture, but the movie fails to discuss the issues of homosexuality (Rithu).
The diplomacy of the film lies in the passiveness over the scheme of same-sex
‘event’ on the heterosexual ground.
Sufiparanja Katha
is more on the lines of sexual slavery that is depicted in the gay relationship
portrayed with so-hurried moments of screen time. Priyanandan’s wracking film
adaptation is based on K. P. Rmanunni’s novel by the same name. The main
protagonist of the movie, Prakash Bare as Mammootty, in his emotional
progression through the movie, seems to find solace in consensual same-sex
physical relationship with a young cousin of his Amir and in an ironic twist,
is caught by his wife. Through the incident proves to be the catalyst that
drives the narrative to its tragic climax. The gay text in the movie is a
hurried device to facilitate a morbid conclusion to the movie. The subtext of
Mammootti’s gayness causes the climax, but the movie or the narrator never says
whether Mammootti’s gayness caused the tragedy. Mammootti’s sexual identity is
both homosexual and heterosexual. By marrying the Hindu woman Karthy, he
maintains the heterosexual normative structures of social life.
These narrative
films exist by the right of a language informed by heterosexuality. They are
about queer relationships; they also challenge the conventions of this
language, but the ‘conspiracy of silence’ makes it diplomatic in treating the
‘event’. They remain subtext and appear in the flash of a light. Some of them
survives but ends in an open ending. Male sexuality is ‘transgressive’
primarily because it is non-procreative, and lesbian sexuality is ‘dangerous’
because it allows women to escape the social hierarchy. Therefore, the dominant
voice makes the ‘event’ a subtext that can be voiceless and overwritten by the
mainstream. Finally, it results the diplomacy that preaches the existence of
the queer, but passive, which would never harm the heterosexual structured
‘normative’ patterns of social setup. In Shalini’s poem “Woman Love,” included
in Facing The Mirror: Lesbian Writing From India edited by Ashwini Sukthankar,
world is not some imagery. It enforces it’s will through family and friends.
Apart from the diplomacy of the whole society it survives, it speaks for
itself:
We did not believe
that the world will love us for who we are.
But did we know it
would be so difficult?
That there is
nothing in the world
Which makes it easy
for two women
To love and live
together-we knew.
That our own will
battle us the most,
That friends will
claw at this love,
That the pain will
come from those
We are loathe to
fight
…what justice is
this, goddess? (Sukthankar 294).
Comments
Post a Comment