The other evening, I attended a discussion at café bol, titled ‘LGBT rights discourse in the Pakistani context.’ The café is tucked in a corridor leading off from a back street, behind a bustling market place. It could be easier to find, but perhaps the secrecy has its advantages. The café has hosted discussions around religion, social practices, laws, marriage and sexuality. ‘Bol’ comes from the Faiz poem ‘Bol ke lab azaad hain’/speak for your lips are free.
this was the information on the fbk event page about the discussion:
“The topic of LGBT rights has begun to raise itself in Pakistan over the past few years. Some suggest LGBT rights discourse itself originates within a context dominated by middle class bourgeoisie morality. If so, does it compromise the attempt to secure greater acceptance for fluider manifestations of sexualitiy? Is there space for alternate sexualities within Muslim cultures? What was the impact of the colonial period on subcontinental understandings of sexuality? Was the LGBT Pride Parade held at the US Consulate Islamabad a moment in cultural imperialism? Did it do more harm or good to the LGBT cause in Pakistan? How does media report on matters to do with LGBT communities? What are the limits to Western engagement on matters of sexuality in Pakistan? What are the lessons for LGBT activism, or, discourse production in Pakistan?”
The discussion was poorly facilitated and haphazard. It is clearly bad moderation for a facilitator to begin framing a discussion by saying I am probably not qualified to address this issue, as I don’t have a lot of personal experience with this issue. It casts aspersions on the entire nature of the event. I remember thinking, wow if you really feel so unprepared, maybe you should’ve taken a week to read up on lgbtqgnc issues and looked at the struggles of the trans community/khawajahsiras in pakistan and/or looked at article 377 that criminalizes homosexuality or even looked up a homophobia 101 workshop or a trans 101 workshop. I mean there’s google right there. clearly, this was far removed from imagining everyone going in a circle to introduce themselves and share their preferred gender pronoun, and sharing why they were in that space. (maybe i’ve been away too long)
There seemed to be two specific directions that the discussion was being pulled into. People wanted to talk about the pride party held within the US consulate and about cultural imperialism, whether that visible support was needed or was it just counterproductive, or they wanted to address coming out, same-sex marriage, fear, the lack of awareness and rights for queer communities in Pakistan. Various themes were bounced around the room, to the particular advantage of no one. At this point I suggested having two separate discussions and capping them with a time limit and then having a wider discussion. It also struck me that people kept taking recourse to a “but there’s no one from the community here, how can we speak for them? what would they want? are we doing the right thing?” I raised my hand again to speak about the importance of allies and the very crucial legwork that is done by allies. Self-education, and then awareness building and educating others around basic definitions of identity, the gender binary, sexuality, etc. just so that queers don’t always have to be the only ones having to respond to (often ridiculous) queries about their lifestyle choices, their sexual preferences, why they exist the way they do, how immoral they are etc.
At this point more folks showed up, one of whom took it upon themself to start preaching about “pyaar aur mohabbat” (love) and how loving oneself is really the answer to everything. This person quoted stories of queer partnerships and acts of resistance, all of which was heartening to hear, but maybe 20 such stories need not have been quoted. one or two would have done the job just as well. Not only was this rather unreal, but valuable time was being diverted away from the discussion. Love stories and acts of resistance are the stuff of inspiration but sometimes to counter the hatred thrown at us in this world, we need more than just reassurance that somewhere, somehow people who love themselves are able to live happily ever after.
despite the chaotic unwieldy nature of this discussion, in which a lot of people were silenced, while some insisted on talking, and cutting other people off, there were some interesting points to focus on.
i) the practices of gay male culture around bacha baazi, which refers to pederasty, often lead to a misconception that homosexuality is paedophillia.
ii) there is so much nostalgia around our subcontinental history of sexual fluidity and openness towards polyamorous love that transcended heteronormativity. public figures such as saints and princes and kings all had lovers of the same sex and openly declared their affections and passion. the problem facing us in contemporary times is how to reconcile that glorious liberating past with the stricture placed upon us today by colonial legislature, religious zealots, conservative social norms?
why is this so terribly steeped in patriarchy? when it comes to bacha baazi, it’s always gay male culture. when it comes to saints and princes, it’s always madholaal that’s talked about. why are queers invisible? why are lesbians always undercut from the narrative? even in alternative historiography, patriarchy seems to dominate. where are the cismen loving transmen loving dykes loving queer bois loving transwomyn?
the movement that talks about US, not us vs. them, not straight vs. gay, not male vs. female, not pashtun vs. punjabi, but the movement that belongs to all of us, which challenges patriarchy that challenges heterosexism is what we need to be looking towards and building towards.
