Na tha kuch to Khuda tha, kuch na hota to Khuda hota
Duboya mujh ko hone ne, na hota main to kya hota - Mirza Ghalib
Baba Ramdev once emphatically put down his ideas against homosexuality in words, ‘had God been in favour of homosexuality, he would not have created two sexes’. He also equates homosexuality as mental illness, which he proposes to cure through yoga. However, Ramdev is just one among many faces in our society who argue vehemently against homosexuality. These speakers use God, culture, tradition, myths, etcetera, as tools against ‘queer’ practices. Now, the question comes, who can be categorized as ‘queer’? The answer that comes in my mind is that queers are those who dare think against the performative roles of the society. Thus, the term encompasses a broader aspect than we understand it to acquire. The term is generally attached with lesbians, gays, bisexuals, eunuchs, kothis, and so on. But “how do we speak of the women couples who committed suicide rather than be parted from each other, but who never used the word ‘lesbian’” (Queer Politics 6)? How do we categorise Narayan Biswas of Panchpara of West Bengal, who married to his own grandmother and thus, committed the act of incest? Thus, the term is much more complex and intriguing than it seems …show more content…
In the film, the character Saifi is reviled because of being a eunuch, not allowed to participate in the family gatherings or at dinner when Hakim Sahib is there, nor allowed to leave home because of being a shame to the family. Just because he has a phallus, he is asked to behave like “a man." Even Zainab, his sister, who fights with Hakim for everyone’s right in the house, fails to understand his feelings and asks him to act like a man so that he won’t be othered/objected from the society. However, Saifi evinces that he is not a male but a female because he feels
Duboya mujh ko hone ne, na hota main to kya hota - Mirza Ghalib
Baba Ramdev once emphatically put down his ideas against homosexuality in words, ‘had God been in favour of homosexuality, he would not have created two sexes’. He also equates homosexuality as mental illness, which he proposes to cure through yoga. However, Ramdev is just one among many faces in our society who argue vehemently against homosexuality. These speakers use God, culture, tradition, myths, etcetera, as tools against ‘queer’ practices. Now, the question comes, who can be categorized as ‘queer’? The answer that comes in my mind is that queers are those who dare think against the performative roles of the society. Thus, the term encompasses a broader aspect than we understand it to acquire. The term is generally attached with lesbians, gays, bisexuals, eunuchs, kothis, and so on. But “how do we speak of the women couples who committed suicide rather than be parted from each other, but who never used the word ‘lesbian’” (Queer Politics 6)? How do we categorise Narayan Biswas of Panchpara of West Bengal, who married to his own grandmother and thus, committed the act of incest? Thus, the term is much more complex and intriguing than it seems …show more content…
In the film, the character Saifi is reviled because of being a eunuch, not allowed to participate in the family gatherings or at dinner when Hakim Sahib is there, nor allowed to leave home because of being a shame to the family. Just because he has a phallus, he is asked to behave like “a man." Even Zainab, his sister, who fights with Hakim for everyone’s right in the house, fails to understand his feelings and asks him to act like a man so that he won’t be othered/objected from the society. However, Saifi evinces that he is not a male but a female because he feels