Colonial Patriarchy: The Prudish Fetish and Its Legacy in Legislation
As part of my larger piece on navigating life as a queer Muslim, I felt it was crucial to share this excerpt, especially amidst the ongoing discussions surrounding legislative amendments in India.
My essay focuses on my personal experiences with historical references to non patriarchal societies like Indian Courtesans. This is just 1 section.
Nurtured Misogyny.
Kothas, unfortunately, reflected societal norms by perpetuating the ownership of slaves and dehumanising effeminate "eunuchs," - male slaves with no desire for women tasked with protecting them from sexual advances. I acknowledge the real struggles faced by these women, often scorned by those embedded in pre-colonial patriarchy. However, the harm inflicted upon them was significantly amplified by the British, specifically through their fetishist imposition of prudish bureaucracy upon their colonies, what we know as legislation.
The late 19th century marked the emergence of an anti-nautch (dancing) girls campaign, led by elitist social and religious groups, including nationalist Brahmin’s and Christian missionaries. In 1860, the British colonial penal code's Section 377 criminalised acts deemed against "human nature." This oppressive trend continued with the Contagious Diseases Act of 1864, directly targeting courtesans, subjecting them to forced examinations and removal.
Additionally inherited from the British, Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code outlines the legality of forced sex in marriage, stipulating that rape within marriage is illegal only if the woman child is under 18. These policies perpetuated patriarchy, femicide, and sexual violence by design. Reflecting on the impact of these laws in British India over two centuries highlights a stark contrast between consensual and moral acts versus non-consensual and immoral ones. However, these distinctions often get blurred, equating violence against children and women with consensual queer relationships. It's curious how those who commit such violent crimes are not stripped of their religious affiliations. There seems to be a disconnection where the severity of these actions isn't properly acknowledged or addressed within religious communities.
This reflection begs the question: which demographic has historically assumed authority over the autonomy of women and non-men bodies? And how has this affected the socialisation of men from birth? Sexual violence, inherent in oppressive systems, is a product of gendered socialisation. For instance, children possess similar vocal anatomy and physiology until the age of 12, yet gendered vocal nuances surface as early as 4 years old due to environmental influences.
Considering misogyny and patriarchal violence, how has the entitlement to women's bodies woven itself into the treatment of women by men and boys? Law, often wielded to oppress marginalised communities, served the interests of white supremacy. These historical events reflect the systematic subjugation perpetuated through the lens of law, aiming to maintain supremacy over marginalised populations.