Who needs men

And also a look at alternatives in living.............

                                             WHO NEEDS MEN   ?

                                                 Leela Namdeo, 27, and Urmilla Srivastava, 19, are part of the women’s company, 23^rd Battalion, of the police (Special Armed Forces).   It is the first women’s company in the country (the only other is in Kerala).   Both were set up only in 1986.   “To deal with the law and order situation,” explains the IGP (SAF), Mr. Virmani, “more and more women are becoming active, and though in riot situations men can arrest women, there have been commissions which have recommended the need for women constables.”   He adds with pride, “They get exactly the same training as the men do, and are totally like men in dealing with law and order situations.”

                         The 23^rd Battalion headquarters lies almost 10 kilometers outside Bhopal city, and looks no different from other police training centers and barracks.   A big gate that marks the entrance, a multi-storeyed office building atop a hill, parade grounds in front.   On entering, you leave the civilian world outside: uniforms, salutes, and the peculiar style of saying ‘Sur!’ In a slightly high pitch instead of ‘yes’.   Sitting in the Commandant’s  office is slightly unnerving, amidst those uniforms and salutes, being served tea in delicate china cups and saucers, with telephones ringing and conversations which seem to be conducted entirely in different pitches of sur, sur, surrrrrr.   The atmosphere is one of discipline; and sitting in the chair makes one feel small.   Uniforms are strange things---they iron out all individual differences; except for the rankings on the sleeve, they make a person feel bigger, more powerful…quite different from what she is in civilian clothes.

                        Nowhere is this difference more apparent than when one watches the women constables on parade.  From a distance you cannot make out which are the men and which are the men and which the women, all are in khaki pants and shirts.   From a distance, as they march around the parade grounds, run, jump over one another, play tug of war, the bodies seem the same.  Strong.   Aggressive.  Trained to display force and authority.   To hit people on the head, to use tear gas, rifles…

                        Even the Company Commandant says, “These girls have as much stamina, they can shoot on target, they can parade as well, maybe with more endurance, than the men.”   The women here cannot be frail or submissive, at least not in uniform.

                        It is not surprising; therefore, that the first open reported case of a woman-to-woman marriage came from these barracks.   Reported I say, because after the news appeared in the papers, I’ve heard of several such marriages, in Ahmadabad, Jaipur.  It’s not surprising, because women here had broken away from stereotyped images.   It is also not surprising that the marriage was reported in the press, nor that they were discharged, because the women had taken

one step too many in leading a life independent of men…and the police and armed forces are, after all, the essence of the macho male world.

                        News of the marriage raised eyebrows all over.   The first reaction- “How could they?  What for? ” – came from all those who think marriage is for socially acceptable sex, meant for the production of children (preferably male).   Typical reactions include statements like: “But what do they dooooo?”

                        Another reaction is a little more informed.   Sex is not only for reproduction, it’s for pleasure too.   In this broader definition of sex, they know that many pleasurable sexual acts can be performed female to female, male to ale.   But to others it is a disgusting perversion, a social aberration.   Take the attitude of the Commandant, Mr. Amra Vanshi, “Meine yeg kachra ko nikal diya.”  Or the DIG, Sukhpal Singh’s verdict: “a perversion.”

                        For some, however, there is nothing to raise eyebrows about.   They tell you with considerable pride, “In our shastras, a marriage is made in heaven; it is the union of two souls, not two bodies.   And souls do not have a gender.   Atma-atma shaadi.   The soul, with no gender, gets reincarnated, taking on various bodies.   In a way, this is the highest form of union, the meeting of two souls, and sanctioned by the Hindu religion.”

                        The marriage of two women in Ahmadabad took place in a temple.   The priest who was asked to perform this rather unusual ceremony referred to his religious books and came back saying there was nothing which mentioned the sexes in a marriage between two souls, and yes, he could perform it.   Traditional Hindu scriptures give social sanction to eight types of marriages, one f which is the gandharva vivah, a private understanding between two people.   A simple ritual of exchanging garlands.   Sexuality may or may not enter the picture.  That is a private matter.

                         Those who were most excited about the news item were the many homosexuals-male and female-who have been living a hidden, persecuted life in Indian society.

                        To be fair, the persecution has been greatest for males.   Because, to the extent that sex was equated with penetration, most of the laws relate to them.  In India today we are governed by Section 377 of the IPC, Of Unnatural Offences, which was framed sometime between 1833-1838, and so far has never been amended or challenged.   This Section states:  “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine.”  The Section further defines: “Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary for the offence described in this section. “According to a lawyer, only one case in history has been brought under this Section, and that was when a minor boy was involved and the parents of the boy filed the case.   The older man was imprisoned.

                       “Against the order of nature.”  Everybody, hopefully, is aware that whatever can happen between men and men, and women and women, happens regularly between men and women also.  These are every day, every night occurrences.  One police officer said disgustedly,    “Whips and chains – we can’t have them in the barracks.”  But homosexuality has nothing to do with S and M (sadism and masochism) probably more prevalent in male-female sex, where violence rules the scene.   If anything, homosexuality seems to have more respect for the other, who after all is more like oneself.   As a woman tells me.   “I feel I know a woman’s body, what gives her pleasure, and sexuality with a woman is something unlike that with a man, who is ultimately only interested in his coming off, his orgasm.   I know my body, so I feel comfortable with another who responds like me.”

                      “Against the order of nature.”  No surveys have been done in India about the extent of homosexuality.  But given the strict separation of the sexes, with no chances of intermingling after puberty, and given the natural rhythm of sexual maturity in men and women (if these desires did not come up then, then why separate them?)  One would expect the incidences to be higher than in the so-called promiscuous West.   Strangely enough, we have to go back to the Kinsey Report, done way back in 1954, to get some ideas of extent.   And his report on Americans says that 37% of men and 13% of women have had or been involved in homosexual activity in their lifetimes.   Kinsey devised a complicated scale ranging from 1-6 which described the various degrees of male, female tendencies, existing in different proportions in each of us, and where integration and acceptance is the only way to, in a sense, know oneself.

                         But back to the case of Leela and Urmilla, because it was in the context of that marriage that all these attitudes became clear.   Or clearer.

                         Recreating what happened is actually an exercise in trying to understand.   There is, firstly, the reality of the relationships which exist between women in the barrack.   Then there is the act of ‘marriage’, which has had considerably press coverage (a Bhopal journalist Kamal Ayub, 20 years old, who ‘broke the story’ tells us that 18 journalists have come from out of town) and the resultant official action.

                       Here then is my understanding of the events. What really happened, I don’t know.

                       It is common in the women’s barracks to form close women-to-women relationships, and the four women we met I the presence of the Company Commandant were eloquent, “yeh hamesha hota hai, saheli-saheli rishta.” No they said, there was nothing extraordinary in the relationship between Leela and Urmailla, they were just like the rest of us---till they got ‘married’.  Apparently, in Mana where they all go for training, Leela and Urmilla had formed a close friendship, and one day they had gone to photographer and had pictures taken exchanging varmalas, garlands, and with Urmilla putting sindoor in Leela’s hair.

                        They came back and showed the pictures around saying they were married.   It is not unusual for the women to want to be photographed together, it’s one of the ‘time-passes’.

                         But Leela, a widow, continued to put sindoor in her hair, and wear bangles (which seemed to have drawn attention to her chanced status, and which seemed to have annoyed the women in the barracks).   Soon after returning from Mana the two women went on six days sanctioned leave, (this information was read out from the police files by IGP Virmani), from December 20-26.   They asked for an extension of leave: Urmilla for medical reasons supported by a medical certificate, Leela because of an uncle’s death.   In the meantime someone told the superiors about the ‘marriage’.  (How did you get to know? We asked the Commandant, Amra Vanshi smiles, “this is the police, we have our sources.”)   When they returned around the 9^th, they were called in to the Commandant’s office and questioned.   Imagine the scene, with the uniforms, the clicking heels, the salutes and surreys all lover.   There were rumors of a sex change, and the women were medically examined, (why, one can ask, was such a thing done?  Just suppose one had had a sex change operation, would it have made the marriage acceptable?   Or was this just another way of terrorizing the women, making them lie feet up, examining them?   The medical report says.   “Pooma roop se mahila hein.”

                       The same or next night at midnight, according to the press reports, the women were discharged from service, give one month’s pay, and taken to the railway station.   A press reporter met them that morning at station.

                        Question 1: who gave the news to the press?  It couldn’t have been the women in the barracks, because as we saw, access is totally controlled.   After 8 pm no one is allowed inside the barracks.  Only 10 per cent of the 96 women live outside, and in any case could not have known about the midnight action.   It could only have been the superiors, the officers themselves.   But what did they want the press to enter the picture?  I can think of only one reason.   The IGP said that the two had to be discharged ‘to act as a deterrent to others’.   Obviously it was not enough to just remove them from their jobs; public and social rebuke was necessary.

                        The authorities were smart enough to discharge them, not dismiss them.   A cop is on probation for five years, during which time she can be discharged with no reason given, except that her services are no longer required.   They can be called back to service at any time.  

A person so discharged can seek other government jobs.  She also has a right to one appeal, to the DIG who is the appellant authority and looks into the facts of the case.  (“Another question: since no grounds have to be given for discharge, what constitutes the facts of the case?)   If the appellant authority turns down their appeal, have a right to make a mercy petition to the IGP (SAF) who decides on their case on the basis of ‘mercy, compassion justice’.

                        A discharge means no reason needs to be given.   A dismissal requires a disciplinary inquiry and proceedings. And since there is no law against female-female relationships (“Section 377 cannot apply,” Amra Vanshi tells us, “there can be no penetration”), any disciplinary action could be challenged.   Theoretically there can be no discharge either.  Except, according to a lawyer, under Article 311 of the Constitution, which allows for legal action if removal from work is beneath a veneer of discharge as punishment’.  And there is no question in the minds f anyone, as to the real reason for the discharge.   Why was it that only these two girls’ services were not required?  And why only after news of the marriage reached the officers’ ears?  A case could certainly be made.

                         When the local cops leaked the story, they probably thought it would remain confined to the local papers.   They probably never envisaged the resultant nationwide outcry.   Several women’s groups in India have been sending telegrams to the DIG, CM, even to the PM, protesting this invasion of the privacy of women, and demanding that the women be reinstated.   Gay and lesbian groups abroad have expressed support-whereas they in their own countries cannot, or have to fight to, get married, it was a pleasant surprise to them that such marriages could occur in India.  The last press report (February 26) says that the women are going to be reinstated.   When we met the IGP, what he had said was that if a mercy petition came to him, he felt the women should be taken back.  If.  When.  As of that date, the DIG stated he had not received an appeal from the women.  The Commandant is sure he does not want this kachra back.   The press reports that they are going to be reinstated have effectively stopped further protests. Already, when women’s groups approach civil liberty and other activist groups to send letters, the groups respond, “But why?  They have been reinstated.” But they have not been ….and they probably won’t be, unless public pressure really mounts. Otherwise the cops will have achieved their purpose – of making people forget that this ever happened, whilst the women continue to live and suffer because of lack of work.

                        And what about the women?  At last reports they were staying at Urmilla’s parents’ place, but our four-hour drive over mud roads got us to the house only to find Urmilla’s mother and brother.   The women, they said, had gone to Bhopal that day.   The friendship and warmth of the simple mud home, where we sat on the floor talking for three hours to the relatives, seemed a breath of fresh air after the meetings with the police.   It seemed that they had accepted the deep friendship between the two women, and marriage as the expression of this relationship.   When Urmilla and Leela showed them the photos taken at Mana, the mother and brother brought our wedding chairs and a wedding sari (which the brother rents out as a business) and they played out the marriage scene again.   No fuss.  No nothing.   No imaginary meanings.   But in disgust the brother pulled out newspaper cuttings and said.   “These reporters talk one thing, write another.”  He reads out some headlines:  Lesbian Couple, Mr. and Mrs. Srivastava.  They live together.  “They took Urmilla’s photos with some of her batch mates and have printed it under the headline Marriage is her hobby.”  He added.

                       No wonder they don’t want to meet anybody connected with the press.   And whatever the relationship and marriage meant to them earlier, today they say it was a game, a natak, and are willing to stay separate.

                       A simple, genuine act of friendship, blown out of all proportion, to teach these women, and all women, a lesson.

                      The axe against female – female relationships (be they sexual or not) has come down fast and strong.   Everyone, including Commandants, DIGs and IGPs are aware that male homosexuality exists – in society and in the barracks.  But there has never been any action taken. “No one has ever reported it to us.”   Is the simple answerer we get when we try and find out whether the same act by men would receive a similar reaction?   The fact is that it would not.   Why?

                     Much of male hypocrisy lies in their erroneous belief in the power of their penis to penetrate and satisfy a woman.   It is seen as her final act of submission, the ultimate in the masculine conquest.   Women – to – women relationships attack this belief at the core, removing some women from the bazaar of sexual arability.  It shows that it is possible for two independent women to live a fully satisfying life without men.   And what can be more painful for the male psyche to bear?

                      There has been some attempt to draw sympathy for Leela and Urmilla, making them seem victims of society, poor things, one a widow with three children, another a deserted woman.   “Where else could they go but to each other?” others link their marriage to ‘oppressive social structures’ of dowry and wife beatings.   As if women turn to these alternatives because the male – female relationship does not work for them.   This tactic may have drawn sympathy, but totally denies the aspect of positive action and the right of people, all people, to their own choices. To see homosexuality as some sort of defence against a bad mother/father/lover/husband/wife is only to see homosexuals as victims, not as people exercising their choice.

                             Why is it that the papers continue to harp on what Leela and Urmilla were in relationship to the men in their pasts?   And not as what they are today?   Part of the special Armed Forces, women who can shoot rifles, targets, maintain ‘law and order’.

                      As of today (March 2) the women have not een reinstated.   They can either challenge the discharge by a militant lawsuit under the appropriate section of the Constitution, or if their appeal is turned down by the DIG, they will have to make a mercy petition to the IGP.   And this is probably what the police want.   What annoyed the Commandant (and interestingly he had taken over only on February 1, and had no experience of heading women’s companies) was that   “When I talked to the girls they showed no shame, no remorse.”   Now what could be more unpardonable behavior from women!   So now the girls must be made to ask for mercy, to beg the forgiveness of the IGP, to fall at his feet.   Women must be kept in their place.   Women must be shown that they cannot live without men, cannot, because we will not let them.   This idea is so ingrained that only last month three sisters from Kanpur – all educated girls – hanged themselves from the fan – and why?   To spare themselves the humiliation of being paraded before men, to be turned down because of insufficient dowry.   Their pleas that they prefer to live by themselves were lost.   And the only way out was death.

                       Against that act of desperation, here is an act of courage, of conviction.   Those of us who support a more equal, open and less sexist society have to fight to get Leela and Urmilla reinstated.   But can we stop at that?   Doesn’t it also mean a struggle to allow women and men their own choices regarding their lifestyles as long as that choice is made by two consenting adults?   Doesn’t it mean giving social sanction to the Gandharva vivah?   Doesn’t it mean supporting the right to relationships between women and women, and men and men?  (And before you say these are all decadent Western ideas, the original Kamasutra, thousands of years ago, had two chapters on homosexuality.)   Doesn’t it mean attacking Section 377 of the IPC?   (Even the British laws have been amended making any act between two consenting adults legal as long as it is done in private.)

                           Isn’t it time we looked at sex, sexuality, relationships and marriage straight in the face?   Will we fight for and celebrate positive actions and alternatives in life?

                                    

                                                                                                                        April ‘1988