Periyar’s self-respect movement and LGBTQ Pride
During this LGBTQ pride month, I came across an article (link here) explaining why participants of the Chennai Pride Parade carried the portraits of Periyar and Ambedkar. Moulee, the author and founder of Queer Chennai Chronicles, argues that the aims of both social justice and queer pride movements are to fight for the self-respect of communities marginalised by society. He also mentions the similarity of names of the Periyar’s movement and the ‘pride parade’ when it is translated in Tamil (pride in Tamil is translated as ‘suyamariyathai’ which is the name of Periyar’s social movement). Queer Chennai Chronicles moved a step further and has created an inclusive flag for social justice and queer pride movements. This blog aims to analyse the intersections of Periyar’s thought in the queer rights movement.
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy has been the beacon-light of the Dravidian movement that envisioned caste annihilation, upliftment of oppressed castes and empowerment of women. The movement is referred to in Tamil as சுயமரியாதை இயக்கம் (Suyamariyaathai iyakkam) which is often translated ‘self-respect movement’. It aims to reverse the hierarchical discrimination based on one’s birth that guided the Hindu political life for about 2000 years in India. It works to reaffirm the self-respect, dignity and equality to the oppressed castes and women. Similarly, the word ‘pride’ in gay pride parades is used in the context of affirming self-respect, dignity and equality. It becomes important that both these movements work together because social injustices overlap with each other in India. For example, a queer person who identifies as women and born in an oppressed caste faces three-way discrimination in the conservative Indian society compared to a queer cis-man from an oppressor caste.
Barack Obama in his response to a question posed by transgender writer Akkai Padmashali’s question about how to work against social equities in terms of religion, caste, gender and sexual minorities, explained that we must start articulating and find intersections among social issues and applying pressure together to bring about a change. I realised from Periyar’s book “Penn yen adimaiyanal” (why did women become slaves) and from his work on social justice, that he set a stage before almost a century for such a united fight against social evils such as caste discrimination, atrocities on Dalits and patriarchy. The queer community is not insulated from other social injustices. So, the movement must be an intersectional one.
Periyar on love
Though Periyar did not explicitly write about queer love, I found his views about love and marriage liberal and queer-friendly. In chapter 3 of “Penn yen adimaiyanal”, Periyar questions the sanctity of love and criticizes people who sanctify love. In one of such criticisms, he questions the validity of the traditional notion: “a man can love only a woman or a woman can love only a man”. Here, did Periyar suggest that love among the same sex may also be possible? The sentence is ambiguous because, in Tamil, it can also mean that Periyar asked why a man shouldn’t love many women, and a woman - many men. That is, one could infer that he was open to polyamorous relationships and/or same-sex relationships. Both are the essences of sexual freedom.
There is one more sentence towards the end of the chapter that hits the nail when it comes to sexual freedom. He asks conservative people not to interfere in the happiness and contentment of others by constantly annoying them by saying “this is not love”, “this is against love”, “this is lust” and “this is prostitution”. Does it ring a bell? Most India homophobes use the same language in social media (especially in Tamil) when there is a content supporting queer rights. If our society had agreed with Periyar on love and sexual freedom, it would have become queer-friendly even before independence.
Periyar on Marriage
One of the reasons that pushed me into writing this blog is that I came to know recently that my best buddy’s best friend had suffered a broken marriage because her ex-husband was gay and his parents forced (through blackmail) him into an arranged marriage with her. This made me furious at society because this is the second time, I hear such a story. The other person is my close friend who got divorced a few years back for a similar reason. The trauma caused by the relationship and divorce lasted for years in her life. My circle of friends is small, and I knew two persons affected by homophobic parents. I know another acquaintance who is gay and leads an unhappy married life. Also, I have come across an ‘Open Page’ article in ‘The Hindu’ newspaper wherein a mother, whose daughter got divorced in a similar circumstance, requested parents to respect the sexual orientation of their children. This means that there are thousands out there who suffer because of such marriages. Periyar blasts the bondage called marriage in his fourth chapter of the book which is aptly titled “freedom from marriages”.
Periyar points out that marriage all over the world is an institution that enslaves women but the arranged marriages of India are the worst among world nations. In his arguments supporting divorce laws in our country (divorce was a big ‘no’ those days and it continues to be a taboo even today), Periyar specifically questions what would happen if a person dislikes their spouse or if the couple is incompatible or if the spouse is disinterested in sex; why are couples forced to live together? He proclaimed that if divorce laws were not enacted, there would be anti-marriage campaigns and for people already married, they would demand polygamy rights (for both men and women). Though we have suitable divorce laws now, a woman divorce seeker still has to face a long legal process as well as a strong stigma from society. I have personally heard from my friend how her relatives assumed that the divorce was somehow her fault.
Periyar also wanted to break the tradition where, in the name god, a man or a woman is forced to marry a person who is incompatible and never had met each other before the wedding. It is unfortunate that the failure of the society to heed Periyar’s words and forcing two people to get married despite their differences and incompatibility. I personally believe in the liberal society envisioned by Periyar, my friends would not have faced such a situation in their lives and the sexual orientation and gender equality would have been respected better.
To sum up, ensuring the dignity for queer people is intrinsically related to the struggle against caste oppression and the struggle for women empowerment. Working within Periyar’s framework of the struggle for equality opens more possibility to ensure self-respect for queer people in a holistic manner.
Happy Pride!