Download Press Release of Lesbian Groups We from Sakhi (Delhi), Sangini

Press Release of Lesbian Groups
We from Sakhi (Delhi), Sangini (Delhi) and Stree Sangam (Mumbai), lesbian groups in India, strongly
oppose the actions and statements of Shiv Sena goondas as regards the screening of the film Fire. We
need to break the silence around the fact that the violent enforced closure of the film constitutes yet
another violence against lesbians in particular and women in general.
Fire is the first film in India to explicitly acknowledge the existence of lesbianism. Furthermore, it also
brings into focus the critical issue of forced marriages and forced heterosexuality—practices that deny
women choice in our lives. The Shiv Sena has argued that this film is “a threat to marriage”. .We would
argue that an institution which conceals so much brutal exploitation of women through domestic
violence—an issue the Shiv Sena has never touched—could benefit from self-questioning.
We congratulate Deepa Mehta for her film. On the other hand, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra has
lauded the actions of the Shiv Sena, saying that Fire is “alien to our culture”. We would like to take this
opportunity to inform the press and the public that lesbians exist in India. We are here today, and we have
always been a part of Indian society—witness the extensive yogini temple sites and lesboerotic sculpture
all over India—and women will continue to love women for centuries to come. Lesbianism is not specific
to any one culture, religion, society, class, language group, or geography. Lesbianism exists everywhere
that women exist—all over the world.
If we claim that we live in a free and democratic country that upholds the rights of all its citizens then
clearly Fire must be put back on the screens of India. What the withdrawal of the film illustrates is that a
few thugs are dictating what we can see and do, in clear defiance of the Censor Board and the voice of
the public which has seen, enjoyed and peacefully discussed the film over the past three weeks. Perhaps
if the Shiv Sena had raised a protest against the current culture of Indian cinema, which alienates all
women with its crudity, vulgarity and celebration of physical and sexual violence, there might have been
room for dialogue.
As it stands, this completely irrational and inexcusable act underlines the fact that no one can take the
safety of life and voice for granted. The Shiv Sena has targeted every conceivable minority—Dalits,
Muslims, gays and lesbians—this is an important moment for all of us to affirm our right to live as free
citizens with all the democratic rights of other Indians. As lesbians, we deserve the right to live free from
fear and violence, the right to a job, the right to affordable housing and government services, the right to
free speech and association, and the right to cultural expression.
We demand that: * All cinemas should resume screenings of Fire with the necessary protection from the
police and the Ministry for Information and Broadcasting. * Fire should not be sent back to the Censor
Board as they have already approved Fire for public screenings. Furthermore, the public has clearly
demonstrated (witness the sold out shows) that they support the film. * Shiv Sena thugs and leadership
should be tried for breaking the law—for inciting and condoning violence, for damage to property, for loss
of revenue, and for spreading hatred against a minority group—lesbians.
AFTER THE PROTEST, SEVERAL OF THE KEY ORGANISERS ANNOUNCED THAT A MEETING
WOULD TAKE PLACE THREE DAYS LATER, TO
DISCUSS WAYS IN WHICH THE ENERGY OF THE PROTEST COULD BE CARRIED FORWARD IN
CONSTRUCTIVE WAYS. ABOUT 35 PEOPLE
WERE PRESENT, REPRESENTATIVES OF GROUPS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS. BELOW, WE
REPRODUCE SOME OF THE COMMENTS,
REACTIONS AND IDEAS WHICH EMERGED AT THIS MEETING.
December 10, 1998
• Reactions to the protest: Everyone agreed that the December 8 demonstration was a timely and
powerful experience. People shared individual experiences which varied from confrontation with some
bystanders or with the dozens of police present, to feelings of being overwhelmed by the heavy media
presence. Where the press release was concerned, some pointed out that they were uncomfortable about
having signed a statement endorsing “the autonomy and judgement of the Censor Board”, when in fact
they were opposed to censorship. There was also some criticism of the lesbian press release, which
defended Fire on the grounds that it had been “seen, enjoyed and peacefully discussed” by the
public—thus suggesting that if the public had disliked it, the Shiv Sena would have been justified in
attacking it. The logic seemed unfortunately similar to Deepa Mehta’s argument that since Fire was not a
lesbian film ,it should not have been attacked.
• Most of us agreed that there seems to be no point in trying to organise along with the filmmakers since
they have a one-point agenda: to see Fire back on the screens. They have no interest in the larger issues
of sexuality and the rights of the sexually marginalised—this was made abundantly clear by the director
and the producers, during our interactions with them in the lead-up to the protest, as well as in their
quotes reported in the media.
• A women’s group had brought along a signature campaign letter (largely the main press release from
the protest, but without the entire paragraph on sexuality); after some difficult attempts to arrive at an
agreement, finally the majority of people present at the meeting decided that a signature campaign
focusing on getting the film back into Indian theatres was less of a priority for us than actions with a
specific focus on “the lesbian issue''.
• Some people expressed puzzlement over why the word “lesbian” had been seen as unacceptable by
many progressive organisations in the context of the protest and its press release; in response, a member
of a women’s group suggested that the word (by virtue of its Western connotations, political baggage)
could marginalise many would-be supporters, including rural women and women from the urban poor who
don’t speak English but lead woman-loving lives.
• Nevertheless, it was agreed that our focus should be on lesbian rights.
1) Such a specific agenda will help us build bridges with the women’s movement, and enable us to
encourage women’s groups to take a stand on lesbian rights
2) We considered the viability of concentrating on gay-and-lesbian rights, but ultimately felt that there are
already many groups working with gay men, and their current concerns (especially around sexual health
and HIV/AIDS) do not necessarily overlap with issues that are a priority for lesbians. We felt ultimately
that it would be easier to build coalitions with other progressive and marginalised groups from a clearly
defined and specific space.
• It was finally decided that the campaign should be a loosely-knit coalition of groups and individuals, all
with a basic minimum stand on the link between lesbianism and democratic rights, but pushing the issue
forward in individual ways. (Our constituent organisations include women’s groups, groups working on
literacy, sexual violence, sexual and reproductive health, human rights etc., each of which could
contextuatize lesbian rights and lesbian visibility in different and crucial ways). From the group, five
people volunteered to form a core working committee, which would meet every week.
IN A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, THE GROUP NAMED ITSELF THE CAMPAIGN FOR LESBIAN
RIGHTS—A COALITION OF ORGANISATIONS
AND INDIVIDUAL ACTIVISTS WITH A COLLECTIVE GOAL: TO FOSTER PUBLIC DEBATE AND
CREATE AWARENESS AROUND LESBIANISM.
IT SEEMED IMPORTANT TO FOREGROUND THE PRIORITIES AND THE COMMON AGENDA OF
THE GROUP WITHIN THE NAME, RATHER
THAN USE EUPHEMISMS FOR THE WORD LESBIAN , SINCE OUR STATED GOAL IS ONE OF
GAINING AND PROMOTING VISIBILITY AND
INTERACTING OPENLY WITH THE PUBLIC. WE DID CONSIDER ARGUMENTS THAT THE WORD
“LESBIAN” IS WESTERN AND ELITIST, BUT
WE ALSO FELT THAT, IN A CAMPAIGN WHICH IS TO TAKE INFORMATION TO THE PEOPLE, WE
NEED TO ORGANISE AROUND A WORD
WHOSE MEANING IS UNMISTAKEABLE AND DIRECT.
SINCE WE HAVE DESIGNATED OURSELVES A PUBLIC CAMPAIGN, WE RESOLVED TO HOLD OUR
MEETINGS IN A PUBLIC SPACE: THE INDIAN COFFEE HOUSE AT CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW
DELHI. (THE COFFEE HOUSE IS, HISTORICALLY, THE PLACE WHERE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
ACTIVISTS GATHER FOR THEIR CAMPAIGNS, BIG OR SMALL. AT ONE POINT IN HISTORY
(1975-77) IT SERVED AS THE ''ADDA'' FOR ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT POLITICS AND WAS, IN FACT,
DEMOLISHED BY THE THEN-PRIME MINISTER’S SON, SANJAY GANDHI, AS HE WAS SURE THAT
ACTIVISTS WERE CONSPIRING TO DESTABILISE THE REGIME (WHICH WAS QUITE PROBABLY
THE CASE).
WHAT FOLLOWS ARE SOME OF THE SALIENT POINTS FROM THE MINUTES OF OUR MEETINGS,
INTERSPERSED WITH THE ACTIONS (PUBLIC MEETINGS, LEAFLETING, WRITING PLAYS ETC.)
THAT ENSUED FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS. IT
COVERS A PERIOD OF FIVE MONTHS OF WEEKLY MEETINGS. THROUGH OUR EXPERIENCES,
WHETHER AROUND CAMPAIGNING OR DEBATES WITHIN THE GROUP, WE HAVE GROWN AND
DEVELOPED OUR WAYS OF FUNCTIONING—A KIND OF PRACTICAL CONSTITUTION WHICH WE
SHARE HERE.
December 17, 1998
In the hopes of garnering support from progressive organisations beyond the sphere of gay and lesbian
groups—human rights/ democratic rights organisations, grassroots activists, women’s groups, etc—a
mandate was developed. Ten groups have already come forward to support us, and we will disseminate
the mandate through personal contact, mail and email, in search of more signatures.