During the scene when Sweety (Sonam Kapoor) narrates her idea of romance to Sahil (Rajkummar Rao), I found myself laughing. I felt all that oozing sentimentality to be utterly cheesy, a conveniently reductionist and flawed mapping of cliched Bollywood romance to same-gender desire.

But, later, at the point when the big reveal came for the straight audience, it struck me that this film is indeed a political one; that Shelly Chopra Dhar and Gazal Dhaliwal have taken a conscious stand to subvert the whole experience of watching an emotional and romantic Bollywood drama. I came to that realization precisely when Sahil laughs at Sweety’s disclosure. Echoing him, the straight men around me in the theatre also laughed uproariously. The laughter spelled  for Sweety what it has for people like her (and us) since time immemorial: humiliation and shame.  I realized then that the intention of Shelly and Gazal has been to reclaim the space that we queer people have always been told does not belong to us.  The right to love on our own terms.

By setting the story in a small town of Punjab, they have made this even more important and clear. Sweety in that scene, quite frustratedly, asks Sahil, “Why do you all think in just one direction?” Now, ask any queer person. You will know we are assumed straight by default. It doesn’t even occur to heterosexuals that we may not fit into the rigid boundaries of love and desire that they have constructed to uphold the patriarchy.

We spend most of our lives in exhaustion and frustration, many times unable to respond to that ridiculous assumption, regardless of whether we are ‘out’ or not. And that is what the first half of the film does. It questions that default understanding. It challenges the status quo. The initially-ambiguous sexuality of Sonam is not a tool to give some big surprise for the audience. It is, in fact, a tool to hold a mirror to the audience’s biases, to take a dig at them. And there can not be a better way than to cleverly wrap it in the same format of mushiness that they seem to be lapping up for centuries now!

Arguably, this is not the first mainstream Bollywood film to have shown love and romance between women. In 2014, we had Dedh Ishqiya. Madhuri Dixit and Huma Qureshi were brilliant in that. But, the language of that movie was different. It had an intelligent screenplay. But, there was no big reveal in there: the queer text blended in quite organically with the plot. And for me, that was quite disappointing. Not because it was a bad movie. Not because I want an out and loud message. I love movies that do not shout. But then, for me, who had been waiting to see romance between women on the big screen, the queer angle seemed to be just masked in there. In the last five years, I have asked several straight people if they had realised that the two characters were lovers. Most of them have said no. Especially, the straight men. I was disappointed for that. That they are lovers will just be a secret within the community and their allies. Like the men in the film, audience outside of the community will stay ignorant and be indifferent to the desire between the lead women. I thought this is how the mainstream queer drama, especially about women, will end up moving on. Either in subtleties or being the ones that showcase only the tragedies or violence.

Now keeping this in the context, Ek Ladki Ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga challenges this same notion. The heteronormative understanding is that everyone is straight by default. That is exactly why this is an important film, one that has taken so many years to arrive. The climax is the most intelligent one I have so far seen. For sure, it ends on a sentimental note of acceptance, love and inclusion. But, this does not make it any less important. Because, despite all these dramatic moments, the film asks some vital questions. The way the climax unfolds by itself is an intelligent format. It is a play in the film that Sahil directs to tell the world about Sweety and her love. Sweety plays herself. As this play reveals its secrets, you see the audience in the film storming out in anger. They call it a shame. I thought it was a clever way of holding a mirror to the mindsets of the audience watching the film in real life. It felt like the film was putting the its audience in a spot.

There was a palpable sense of nervousness in the auditorium during those sequences. While the parents watching the play in the film covered the eyes of their children, the boy next to me sat wide eyed watching it with full intensity. I don’t know what he made of it. May be was happy that he had found a Sweety. But, I definitely know this – even if he doesn’t stand up for the Sweety in his class, he would probably not be the one who makes her life miserable.

In 1996, Deepa Mehta’s Fire kicked off a huge controversy in the cities of India. I was in 8th class then and had witnessed the whole drama created by the Hindutva fringe elements across the country. I do not remember seeing such large scale protests in Chennai as it was quite detached from the reach of Hindutva fringe elements. But, I was definitely left confused. Even the Sun TV channel that strictly reviews only Tamil films had picked this up and gave its verdict. I don’t remember the reviewer taking any moralistic stand. But, she ended with a note that the heat of the film is so strong that it could erase the human life form altogether from Earth. What could be so wrong in a film that also voiced the rights of women to love each other? A few days later, during some conversations, my mother had explained to me what the film was all about. It was in a very non-judgmental tone. She had just stated the facts about the film. And also, in passing, told me that there are people like that. Now, that should be such a privilege. To have an education about sexual orientation from your mother. But, that afternoon, unable to make sense of all the unfairness around me, I locked myself in the bathroom and cried in fear and confusion. I had decided that this life was going to be one long struggle with loneliness. And that the film was A rated made it even more difficult for me, as it was beyond my reach at that point.

In Ek Ladki Ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga, we have come a long way from Fire. But what is also vitally different from the likes of Fire is what Sweety says in the film. She tells her Dad that she wants this play to go on for the sake of many lonely children unable to make sense of who they are in a world that treats them as abnormal. I immediately thought of that boy who cried in the bathroom, some 23 years ago. This film makes a conscious and political choice to tell those children that Sweetys exist and that they are not alone in this journey. And she even says that this play should be taken to all small villages and towns so that the Sweetys there could have a voice.

As the movie ended on a happy note and rolling credits went on, I sat unmoving in my seat next to my comforting queer friend, and wept covering my face. I cried for that 13 year old lonely boy and all those children like him. I cried in relief and happiness for that boy, who had by then decided that he is not wanted in this world. I cried because what Sweety said could finally begin to heal that boy’s broken spirit. And because, 23 years after that lonely afternoon inside a locked bathroom, he has finally found a Sweety. In a city that is roughly 350 kilometres away from where his heart, soul, and some of the bruises lie.

Thanks to Rajat S. for consent to use his art work in this article.

Who justify that this is only about someone who also prefers sambar without garlic, and is not deep-rooted bigotry.

Justify that your preference for caste has not resulted in the murder of so many men and women by their own families, just because they chose to marry out of their family caste.

Justify that the same preference for caste has never had any Dalit woman paraded naked, sexually assaulted and killed.

Justify that your preference for caste has not kept so many people for so many centuries without access to jobs, welfare, economic benefits, sanitation, and other basic needs.

Justify that this preference for caste is not the reason behind the death of a young man today just because he had a ringer tune that the upper caste were not able to digest.

Justify that your preference for caste has not made many children die of malnutrition.

Justify all these!

It is easy for someone from privileged communities to pass discriminatory comments in the name of preference and also place the complete burden on the oppressed community to prove and justify that this is not discrimination.

We have justified on many forums enough times.

We won’t anymore.

You justify all the questions we have for you and then ask us for justification.

Preference for a certain caste is definitely discriminatory and
unconstitutional.

We will continue to call out this discrimination!

And we don’t need any justification to call out this form of discrimination that has been oppressing people for so many centuries now.

This post first appeared on one of the Orinam online forums as part of a discussion on caste as preference.

February 9, 2013:

Finally, when Kamal’s magnum opus, Vishwaroopam, managed to see the light of day in Tamil Nadu, his fans thronged the theatres to watch this much-awaited and controversy-stricken film. While there will likely be a continuing debate on the movie’s representation of a particular religious community, it would not be surprising if those same critics ignore the movie’s problematic portrayal of another minority, i.e. of those of us who are marginalized because of our sexual orientations and gender identities. Vishwaroopam, apart from being totally one-sided in its pro-American troops story line, offers a misguided and damaging portrayal of queerness through its denigration of male effeminacy and putative homosexuality.

As has been the case with many movies in the past, Vettayadu Vilayadu, Dostana and Goa, to name a few, it is very likely that any critique of Vishwaroopam and its brand of homophobia or effeminophobia will only be summarily rubbished by mainstream audiences. On second thoughts, it may also be quite an injustice to group Goa and Dostana with the likes of Vishwaroopam, because the problem with these two movies has more to do with the heteronormative portrayal of real or faux same-sex relationships and less about how gender-normative the subjects are.

Vishwaroopam is much more dangerous just for the reason that it invokes the notion of deviation from “normal” to capture the wife’s discomfort with the effeminacy of Kamal Hassan’s character. A few scenes later, when the wife realizes that he is macho enough and not as unmanly as she suspected him to be, she falls desperately in love with him. And this falling in love just happens in a scene in which he walks down the stairs exhibiting his machismo. While, this scene alone is heterosexist enough and portrays a nauseatingly shallow understanding of falling in love, the problem with the movie is much deeper than this. It goes back to the introductory scene which  questions the normalcy and validity of any sexual identity other than heterosexuality or stereotypical masculine demeanor. This reflects the movie’s strong prejudice against queerness.

It may be easy to trivialize or dismiss the issue as too petty be taken seriously by mainstream audiences. We can be totally certain that such a trivialization is what we would be hearing in future, if at all this criticism gathers any momentum. But only queer people and our allies would be aware of the potential of such a portrayal to cause a deep psychological scar in the minds of sexual and gender minorities. For years now, the queer community has been bearing a heavy burden of  classifications such as “normal” and “abnormal”, which have  been used as instruments to foment hatred and prejudice against the community.

At this juncture, where we have only taken a few baby steps towards changing society’s larger mindset towards sexual and gender minorities, movies like Vishwaroopam are an unfortunate hindrance towards our fight for equality and social justice; and for re-examining normative constructs of gender that are at the heart of much violence towards queer communities and women in general. For the sake of a few laughs here and there, it has become a recent norm in Indian movies to take a dig at queer community. A movie like Vishwaroopam takes us even farther back in its retrogressive portrayal of  queer masculinity as deviance. Such portrayal by a mass hero will only reinforce the already prevalent hatred and prejudices against much maligned sexual and gender minorities.

It is very clear that Kamal Hassan, in his efforts to showcase his acting prowess, has gone ahead and essayed this role of an effeminate man, as has the case been in his earlier movies like Dasavatharam and Avvai Shanmugi. He has sketched this initial part of the story to set a platform for such a character. And so the queer community ends up being exploited for him to exhibit his skills as an actor and director. This alone contradicts Kamal’s claims of his intellectual capabilities in storytelling.

It’s time that we stopped expecting anything more than ordinary from his movies, as this is proof enough that his stories can sink well below the standards of the average masala movie in its attempt to woo crowds. Movies like Vishwaroopam are made often to teach us a lesson or two. A lesson that Tamil movies will continue to be hopeless as they are now!

Orinam’s note: An earlier version of this essay appeared on the author’s blog, and has been reproduced with consent.

Recommended Reading:

• Review of Kamal Hassan’s (homophobic) film Vettayadu Vilayadu by Aniruddhan Vasudevan:  Game’s Up
• An alternative take on Kamal’s movies and queer issues by Vishnu Ramakrishnan: Queering Kamal Hassan

Looking back, I am unable to trace my path. I did not realise the moment I became an ardent feminist, because it did not come rushing into me suddenly one fine day. When did I become one?

Was it at times when my mother used to make compromises on her career, ambitions and health to fit exactly into the role of a mother or wife?

Was it at times when my insensitive father remained free and did not have any such pressures to fit into his roles?

Or was it at those times when my neighbours around my place praised my father for our education, growth etc., while the truth was that my father had contributed nothing towards our  (my sister’s and my) growth?

Did I realise that my father was stealing all the credit that should have gone to my mother? Did my father consciously steal it or it was the privilege he was enjoying for being a man? Why wouldn’t even the society atleast try to think that my mother’s role also would have been an important factor for our growth? Why does it go unacknowledged, even when she was the only person to work hard for her children’s growth? Didn’t my mother earn equally as my father? Then why does the society praise my father alone? Isn’t that the height of injustice?

Why should I have my father’s initial before my name? Why can’t it be my mother’s? What right does the society or law have to force me? Why should I be identified as my father’s son always and why not my mother’s?

Why do the application forms, be it for any purpose – opening a bank account, election card, college application form or any such government procedures –  always ask for the the name of the applicant’s husband or father?What  injustice is this? Why can’t it ask for a wife’s name?

Is a woman merely a man’s possession through her lifetime? So do they mean to say that woman is property  transferred from father to husband once she is married?

Shouldn’t the government and society be ashamed of these rules and expectations?

All these questions got me thinking. I started thinking from the age of eight or nine. I observed gender discrimination in each and everything. Everywhere! As a child I was totally inspired and fascinated by Bharathiyar’s “Puthumai Penn” song while all the other children around me were familiar with “Odi vilayadu paapa”.  I still can’t remember where I picked up the song when we were not taught at the school! Did I, at that early stage, go in for a search to find something that defies general social norms?

As I stepped into adolescence I started to become more aggressive in speaking out. I was teased by my friends for arguing against the general set up of the society, because they found it odd for a man to speak on feminism. I remember once in my college, I delivered a speech on “Women as successful enterpreneurs” and I made a statement criticising the general stereotypes that are being forced on women. And just as I ended, the whole class broke into heavy laughter and applauded trying to ridicule me. “Oh God! what a pity!”, I thought. My thought process was never disturbed by these awful creatures called men.  I used to wonder what made them not realise or not to think! But now I know the truth.  It is because they do not want to think.

They do not want to let go of the privileges they have been enjoying in the society so far. They are threatened by women’s growth. And so to feel secure, these men oppress, harass, abuse and some pig-headed men go in for moral policing too. I have a classmate who goes around campaigning to all my class mates who are girls about the right womanly behaviour. He advises them not to sit crosslegged in front of men and lectures on how submissive they should be. He says only this kind of behaviour would bring them a good life! And do you know what a ‘good life’ means for him? Obviously, it is nothing other than marriage! And he was born and brought up in Chennai Metropolis, and has had enough exposure to the modern world. So, why does he refuse to accept? It is because this uncouth creature doesn’t want to think! Oh sick creatures!

Sexism, discrimination and chauvinism! These are the key personality traits for Indian men, no matter who they are or where they are! Oppression and oppression! Wherever you go! Everywhere around you! In colleges, in schools, in corporate world, in media, within the four walls of the so-called homes, on the streets, in the buses, in the law and justice system…

Shouldn’t women live as individuals? Is this too much to ask for?