While legal milestones like the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 2018 have marked progress for LGBTQIA+ rights India, true queer liberation remains to be achieved.
Often queer inclusion is permitted only in ways that uphold the patriarchal setup and traditional gender norms associated with it. Despite increased visibility, queer identities continue to be marginalised within societal frameworks that prioritise patriarchal family values.
Defining ‘Patriqueernormativity’
Patriqueernormativity is a term that encapsulates the integration of queer identities into societal structures without challenging the foundational norms of patriarchy and heteronormativity. It describes a system where queer inclusion is permitted solely in ways that maintain the existing power dynamics, ensuring that gendered hierarchies remain intact.
To break down the term:
– Patri refers to patriarchy, a system of power rooted in male dominance, in which societal structures are shaped by and for the interests of men. Patriarchy persists through cultural norms, legal systems and everyday practices, creating a hierarchy that privileges men over other genders .
– Queer represents LGBTQIA+ identities, including those who challenge traditional notions of gender and sexuality. Under patriqueernormativity, queerness is superficially accepted as long as it conforms to dominant heteronormative expectations.
Also read: The Legal Path to Being Arrested for Merely Loving
– Normativity points to the preservation of societal norms – in this case, heteronormative and patriarchal norms. Queer individuals can be included, but their inclusion is conditioned on their ability to fit into pre-existing frameworks, preventing any real disruption of traditional gender roles and relationships.
Thus, patriqueernormativity refers to the selective and controlled acceptance of queer identities within a societal structure that ultimately remains patriarchal and heteronormative. For example, queer individuals may be visible in popular media, or legal changes may occur, but core patriarchal and heteronormative values – such as the privileging of traditional family structures, male authority, and hetero-centric social organisation – are never fully challenged.
Theoretical framework
Patriqueernormativity is consistent with Foucault’s power relations where power operates not only as oppressive, but as productive to the extent that it determines the norms by conditioning certain actions and punishing others. Foucault opines that power does not work in negating or even in banning or ostracising persons, it is exercised by controlling what is permissible.
Within this frame, queerness is acceptable only within normative confines that reinforce male dominance. That is why queer visibility exists but is also limited in terms of what it is able to challenge and change in a queer way.
Similarly, Judith Butler’s concept of performativity provides insight into how identities, including gender and sexual identities, are shaped by dominant norms. Butler argues that identity is not fixed but is instead performed within the confines of societal expectations.
As it stands, patriqueernormativity shows how the inclusion of queer identities in India (and perhaps in other societies) suffers from a constricted and institutionalised understanding. Within the system queer people and their identities are accepted, provided that they do not in any way challenge or redistribute power away from the patriarchal heteronormative order of Indian society.
Victorian Morality and Section 377
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, enacted in 1861 under British colonial rule, was rooted in Victorian-era morality, which imposed rigid, heteronormative sexual and gender norms. The British forms of law, for instance, tried to control people’s sexual behaviours by proscribing anyone engaging in “unnatural” activities such as consensual homosexual relationships. Such an imposition marked a clear break from the more fluid and diverse notions regarding gender and sexuality that existed in India prior to colonial presence.
Also read: Why the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita Is a Missed Opportunity for Gender Justice
Before British colonisation, India was home to a range of gender nonconforming communities, such as the hijras—a recognised third gender in many parts of the subcontinent. Various religious and cultural traditions, including Hinduism and Sufism, embraced diverse expressions of gender and sexuality, offering space for gender fluidity and same-sex love. However, with colonial rule came the enforcement of Western norms, which systematically erased or suppressed these indigenous identities, framing them as deviant and immoral.
Although Section 377 was struck down in 2018, the underlying Victorian moral frameworks remain embedded in Indian society. These conservative attitudes persist in how many still view queerness as “unnatural” or incompatible with traditional family values. This particular tendency is what underpins patriqueernormativity – where legislation becomes more progressive but does not change the behaviours enforced by society.
The law may no longer criminalise queer existence, but the moral landscape, shaped by colonial ideals, continues to restrict true queer liberation in contemporary India.
Beyond decriminalisation of homosexuality
In September 2018, India witnessed a historic legal victory with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalised homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment marked a profound moment for queer rights, as it symbolised a long-overdue affirmation of queer identities and their place in Indian society. The celebrations that followed were jubilant – pride marches grew larger, queer individuals spoke openly and a sense of liberation echoed through urban spaces. The bench proactively articulated the dignity of queer citizens for the first time in an incremental step toward inclusion.
Although the ruling lifted the criminalisation of consensual same-sex relationships, it did not address aspects of its implementation. It only resulted in decriminalisation of private, consensual acts and did not give any other substantive rights. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is still rampant; same-sex marriage is still illegal, queer couples are still not allowed to adopt, and inheritance provisions do not provide for same sex spouses.
These rights, which are critical in ensuring that an individual lives with equitable dignity have been elusive, putting queer persons in a legal and social quagmire. In effect, the decision made it possible for the queer population to be out in the open but without availability of, or full involvement in, the apparatus of marriage and family which provides the cover of social acceptability
This is where patriqueernormativity is an important term. As a combination of patriarchy and heteronormativity, patriqueernormativity permits a visibility of queerness, but only within predefined limits. While this may have eliminated the legal day-to-day oppression, true equality and belonging are still withheld from them.
Queer people are now “accepted” in the boundaries of patriarchal society, but their unions are still seen as ‘less potent’ than heterosexual relationships.
The fight for marriage equality
The battle for same-sex marriage in India is one of the most significant legal and social struggles for the queer community since the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 2018. While this landmark judgment marked a major step toward equality, the ongoing fight for marriage rights highlights the limitations of that victory. At the heart of this battle are deeply ingrained societal beliefs about “family values” and the sanctity of marriage, which serve as major points of resistance to recognising same-sex unions. These objections are often rooted in a fear of disturbing heteronormative family structures.
Those opposed to same-sex marriage often mention the need to uphold the time-tested version of a ‘family’, proclaiming that marriage, only meant for a man and a woman, is centered on procreation. These views are not just about legal definitions; they are about protecting an idea of the family that upholds patriarchy by reinforcing gender roles. The Indian family structure, as envisioned by conservative voices, relies on the binary of male and female, where the man is traditionally the head of the household and the woman the caretaker. Any disruption to this model challenges the very foundation of this patriarchal order.
Patriqueernormativity helps explain this resistance to same-sex marriage.
Marriage, in Indian society, carries a great deal of symbolic and social significance. It is not merely a legal contract between two individuals; it is a social institution that confers legitimacy, status and belonging. For many, marriage is the gateway to full participation in societal life – it connects individuals to family networks, ensures property rights and allows for legal recognition in issues of inheritance and adoption. Without access to marriage, queer relationships remain outside the bounds of social legitimacy. The refusal to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is not just a denial of legal rights but a reinforcement of the idea that their relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones.
The denial of marriage rights keeps queer people on the margins of Indian society, regardless of their legal right to exist. While they are no longer criminalised for their sexual orientation, they are still denied the social and cultural recognition that marriage provides.
The ongoing fight for same-sex marriage is, therefore, not just about the legal right to marry but about the broader struggle for full recognition and equality. Patriqueernormativity explains how queer identities are controlled and constrained, even as they are made more visible. Legal victories like the decriminalisation of homosexuality are important, but until marriage and other rights are granted, queer people will remain second-class citizens, visible but unequal.
Commodification of queer identity
Since the 2018 ruling, pride marches in Indian cities have gained increased visibility and momentum. These events, held in major cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru, have become both platforms of celebration for the LGBTQIA+ community and public displays of queer identity. Pride, for many, represents a vibrant expression of individuality and defiance against years of marginalisation. But simultaneously, these festivities have also morphed into centres of intensifying commercialisation, where corporate advertising and other commercialised elements subvert their original, radical aims.
The increasing participation of corporations in pride events has led to a phenomenon known as rainbow capitalism. Businesses put on rainbow logos and sell pride products in the name of supporting the community. While this indicates a certain level of tolerance and normalisation of queer identities, it comes with the danger of commercialising the queer struggle by turning it into a brand that makes money instead of a movement that seeks to challenge the status quo. Pride becomes a simple product to be pushed out with little reference to the struggle it grew from.
This commercialisation intersects with the concept of Patriqueernormativity. Corporations and urban elites embrace pride marches, but in doing so, they often strip it of its political potential. Pride marches are tolerated and celebrated as colourful, controlled spectacles that showcase the “diversity” of society. However, this visibility is conditional: it exists within the boundaries of market-friendly, apolitical spaces. True activism, which would push for systemic change and the dismantling of heteronormativity and patriarchy, is sidelined.
Patriqueernormativity enables this dynamic by creating safe, controlled spaces for queer identities to be visible. As long as queer expression remains commercially viable and culturally palatable, it is accepted. But when it threatens the status quo by questioning family structures, marriage norms, or gender roles, it is either ignored or marginalised.
True liberation
Patriqueernormativity reveals the limitations of queer inclusion in India, where visibility does not equate to true equality. True queer liberation in India requires dismantling these underlying power dynamics to ensure genuine inclusion and equality.
To achieve this, a more transformative approach is needed – one that challenges the patriarchal structures underpinning societal norms. This includes legal recognition of same-sex marriage, adoption rights, and equal access to social and economic privileges. Additionally, efforts must be made to shift cultural perceptions by promoting education on gender diversity, fostering inclusive media representation and ensuring that queer activism remains radical. Queer communities should continue to push for systemic change that goes beyond visibility and directly confronts patriarchal norms.
Disha is a Ph.D. scholar and senior research fellow at Dr. K. R. Narayanan Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.
