Identity Crisis, Psychological Trauma and Isolation of Sexually Marginalized Group in Mahesh Dattani’s On a Muggy Night in Mumbai
Abstract:
Mahesh Dattani, the versatile Sahitya Akademi honoured playwright, has revolutionized both Indian English plays and theatre. He proved successful in his multiple roles as an actor, director, screenwriter, film maker and teacher. Dattani’s plays work with themes that best represent the contemporary scenario in urban India. In many of his plays he explores various issues like homosexuality, gender discrimination, communalism and child sexual abuse. The significance of Dattani’s plays lies in the fact that many playwrights explored the issues of sexuality and various forms of man women relationship, but none of them have sought to portray the lives of sexual minorities on the stage except Dattani. The scarred psyche of the homosexuals of India is given a voice for the very first time in the Indian English drama and theatre by Dattani through his plays like On a Muggy Night in Mumbai, Do the Needful and Bravely Fought the Queen. The present research paper aims to analyse the identity crisis, psychological trauma and isolation faced by sexually marginalized groups of the society with reference to Mahesh Dattani’s play On a Muggy Night in Mumbai.
Key Words: Discrimination, Homosexuality, Isolation, Marginalization, Psychoanalysis, Queer.
Introduction:
Dattani’s plays are closely in touch with the changing socio-economic and cultural conditions of our society. He openly expresses his protest against the injustice meted out to the downtrodden and discriminated section of the society. Thus he manages to delve deep into the hearts of his audience to recreate characters with authenticity and liveliness. Through his plays, Dattani’s aim is not to change the society but to bring out the fact that such realities do exist among us. On a Muggy Night in Mumbai was first performed at the Tara Theatre, Mumbai, on 23rd November 1998. Its film version titled Mango Souffle was released in India in February 2002. On a Muggy Night in Mumbai unveils the presence of homosexuality in India and the pressure and constraints under which the homosexuals have to live in India. The play seriously expresses the concern of a society where homosexuality has no authenticity. It is still a huge taboo in India. So Indian literature has ignored the theme or made indirect references only. But Mahesh Dattani through his iconic play On a Muggy Night in Mumbai gives homosexual community in India a voice to articulate their hidden fears and desires. John Mac Rao, in the introduction to the play On a Muggy Night in Mumbai writes:
And the themes of On a Muggy Night in Mumbai deserve to touch the whole society and to be touched by it. It is not simply the first play in Indian Theatre to handle openly gay themes of love, partnership, trust and betrayal. It is a play about how society creates patterns of behavior and how easy it is for individuals to fall victim to the expectations society creates. (45)
In On a Muggy Night in Mumbai, Dattani presents a whole range of homosexual characters and their experiences, throw light on various aspects of the struggles faced by homosexuals in the traditional Indian society. The play consists of three acts, each building to a climax of self-discoveries and revelations. The play opens with an informal gathering of a group of homosexuals in a posh Mumbai flat of Kamlesh. Kamlesh, the protagonist is a rich fashion designer and a well-adjusted homosexual. Kamlesh is lovelorn and traumatized because he cannot forget his past relationship with his male friend Prakash (sometimes presented as Ed). Their relationship came to an end due to the traditional social beliefs on heterosexuality which forced Prakash/Ed to become straight and marry another woman. Kamlesh was deeply inflicted with the pangs of separation. So with a broken heart he starts another relationship with Sharad, a very lively and confident person. But Kamlesh is not able to erase the memories of Prakash from his mind. So he has recently broken with Sharad after living with him for a year and he is so desperate to pick on even the guard in his attempt to alleviate his sense of loneliness. Incidentally Prakash once again comes in the life of Kamlesh, as the lover of his divorced sister, Kiran. Finding himself at the critical juncture Kamlesh invites his friends in order to find a solution for his problem. It is from the discussion of these gay people that take place in Kamlesh's flat that Dattani helps us to probe the mental conflicts of the homosexuals.
In the play, we get an insight into this world of the homosexuals represented by the characters such as, Prakash/Ed, Kamlesh, Sharad, Ranjit, Bunny and Deepali. Except Sharad and Deepali, others are not comfortable with their sexuality. Queer friends of Kamlesh force him to reveal truth to Kiran. Their arguments and counter arguments are interrupted by the entry of Kiran. Kiran is shocked to learn that Ed has been deceiving her. This Ed and Kiran’s engagement breaks off. The play ends with Kamlesh rediscovering love with Sharad. Humiliated Ed/Prakash attempts to commit suicide but is rescued by Kamlesh.
The Predicament of Homosexuals in India
Sexual topics of any kind are avoided in polite conversation in India, and any talk concerning is altogether taboo. Homosexuality is basically as old as humanity and despite such studies as the Kinsey Report which reveals that one in every six person has homosexual tendencies, the revulsion and prejudice against it still persist. Prejudice is such a dangerous concept. As Earnest Hemingway said:
Prejudice is a despotic, ignorant, mental slaveholder. It prejudges and pronounces sentences without evidence, judge or jury. We ought to run away from it, for it is a false witness, stupid, dishonest and short-sighted. It separates friends, impedes human progress, befriends bad institutions, obstructs good causes, perpetuates the enslavement of body and mind, and wars against the best interests of mankind. (10)
Mahesh Dattani, through the play On a Muggy Night in Mumbai, explores the problems faced by the Indian homosexual community. He deals with a variety of homosexual sensibilities, including men and women, showing how they react to societal pressures. Social discrimination is a worldwide phenomenon, especially in a multilingual and multicultural country like India. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are more likely to experience intolerance, discrimination, harassment, and the threat of violence due to their sexual orientation, than those that identify themselves as heterosexual. This is due to homophobia (the fear or hatred of homosexuality). Some of the factors that may reinforce homophobia on a larger scale are moral, religious and political beliefs of a dominant group. Homosexuality not only hinders a specific set of people within the typos of otherness and marginalization, but also restricts their potentiality and self-esteem to some extent. Earlier in India, the trend was to treat the homosexuals with tolerance, but not with disapproval. This trend continued till the end of the eighteenth century. In 1861, Section 377 of Indian Penal Code made sexual activities which are against the order of nature as punishable by law. Thus homosexuality was criminalized and the trend to treat homosexuals with tolerance took a counter turn. They have to remain a silent and suppressed community. They desire visibility, voice and social space but same sex love is unproductive and therefore it is unnatural. They are stigmatized in the society by diverse means and this stigmatization further leads to their ostracization in the society. The hitches they have to face are copious and incessant, so is the tumult they experience both in the outside world as well as in their inside too. On a Muggy Night in Mumbai projects a vivid picture of the lives of the homosexuals. Thus Mahesh Dattani towered high in the present scenario of Indian English Drama with his unconventional theme and the sympathetic handling of the issue of queer sexualities.
On a Muggy Night in Mumbai places homosexuality at its central attraction. We see a host of gays at the party in the flat and they represent varied faces of the homosexual community. In three acts, Dattani describes a set of characters like, Kamlesh, Prakash/Ed, Sharad, Kiran, Deepali, Ranjit and Bunny. They epitomize different economic and cultural chores, sharing the same doom of the homosexuals. They all are complex characters who cannot be understood by their outward gender preferences only. They have their own fears and fantasies, conscience and consciousness, cares and concerns, emotions and passions as part of their personality traits like anybody else. In this play, Mahesh Dattani focuses upon a whole spectrum of gay behavior like, Sharad’s flamboyance, Ranjit’s cleverness, Bunny’s hypocrisy and double dealing.
All the characters, though they are homosexuals, differ from each other by nature. The socio-psychological identity crisis of the gays, who are torn between the social taboos and their personal desires, their conscience and social sciences are explored through these characters in detail. The play samples a wide canvas of male homosexual presence in Indian society. In this play, five are gay men and one is a lesbian. The heterosexual womanhood is depicted by Kiran, who is the only straight character in the play. The characters in this play represent the varied faces of the homosexual community. The conduct of each gay is distinctly different. They enjoy the same sex pleasure and do not want to be prevented from that and continue to cover up their status being gay persons. There are those gay persons who are sexually both heterosexual and homosexual. Kamlesh is undoubtedly the central protagonist of the play. The opening scene of the play where Kamlesh pays the middle-aged security guard for having sex may create shocking effect in the mind of traditional people but Dattani believes that in the modern context the situation of Kamlesh needs to be examined and explored more liberally and sympathetically. The plot hinges on Kamlesh trying to conceal from his sister Kiran the fact that he was in a relationship with the man she is about to marry. Kamlesh is a compromising and straight acting gay man. He is being torn into pieces. He had shared an unsuccessful relationship with his male friend Prakash. The relationship flounders due to the societal pressures of heterosexuality which make Prakash believe that he is somehow wrong and should switch to normal, heterosexual mode. Prakash or Ed feels himself as a sinner, according to his religious values. He alleges the devil to be responsible for his perversion of being a homosexual. But in reality homosexuality is rooted in biological and psychological factors. If homosexuals want to become heterosexuals, they have two ways, whether to choose the religion or to consult a psychiatrist. In our country, religion does not approve and sanctify such relations, because relations between same sex cannot be procreative and so are seen as unnatural and carnal.
Kamlesh is quite different from Prakash. He is not ashamed of being a homosexual, and is very honest about it. But Ed/Prakash is ashamed to own the relationship publically. Because the society approves only heterosexual relationship and the homosexual relations are looked down upon by majority. Ed even sees a psychiatrist who encourages him to adopt heterosexuality. Dattani uses this opportunity to criticize mainstream psychoanalysis for being status-quoist. Psychologists in the 19th and 20th centuries, most of them classified homosexuality as a form of mental illness, developed a variety of theories on its origin. The 19th century psychologist Richard von Kraft-Ebing, whose Psychopathia Sexualis (1886) included masturbation, sado-masochism and lust-murder in its list of sexual perversions, saw it as originating in heredity. His contemporary Sigmund Frued characterized homosexuality as a result of conflicts of psychosexual development, including identification with the parent of the opposite sex. Others have looked at social influence and psychological events in fetal development as possible origins. It is likely that many instances of homosexuality result from a combination of inborn or constitutional factors and environmental or social influences.
It is a failure from the part of Kamlesh to reorient, but success or at least a pretension of success from the part of Ed when he pretends to be straight because the church and the psychiatrist have helped him believe that his love for Kamlesh was the work of the devil. He sees no future in open gay relationship. He does not want himself to be branded publically as a gay. He defends himself of his intentions of pretending straight in the arguments in the party. He says, “Look around you. Look outside. . . . There are real men and women out there! You have to see them to know what I mean. But you don't want to. You don't want to look at the world outside this . . . this den of yours. All of you want to live in your own little bubble” (99).
Sharad is there who has substituted Prakash. He is an enthusiastic type of fellow who does not care about how world reacts to him being gay. Sharad is the antithesis of Ed, who is vocal of his gay identity. He himself admits that, “I am not bisexual, I am as gay as a goose” (100). Kamlesh, though rich and established, cannot remain happy with Sharad. Memories of Prakash do not leave him alone and he has become restless and hopelessly desperate. Kamlesh felt guilty of his relationship with Sharad, to which he had never been honest. He has just used Sharad to forget Prakash. But he suffers the pangs of separation from Prakash and realizes that he cannot choose any other person because he continues to love Prakash. He tried to love Sharad but in vain. It pains Sharad that he, as Kamlesh's housewife, has wasted one year of his life. Sharad on the other hand loves Kamlesh deeply, only gets desperation in return as he never reciprocated his adoration. Sharad characteristically behaves like a jealous wife. He even whimsically acts like rubbing off sindoor as the widows do after the deaths of their husbands. These jealous contours of Sharad increases the dramatic effect further. He expresses vehement rage for pretending to be a faithful partner of a person who is at least concerned about his feelings. Thus possessiveness, resentment, suspicion, distrust, which we find place in heterosexual relationships breath heavily here too. The intensity of love and affection between the homosexuals is highlighted by Dattani through the characters of Kamlesh and Prakash. They share a strong bond like that of the heterosexuals. It is not always that their relationship is limited to satisfying carnal pleasures only. The society does not allow the queer people to live as what they are and forces them to live like what they are not. It creates self-alienation in their life. They vary in character, like heterosexual groups, according to the locality of their upbringing, and depending on the social class and educational backgrounds, but all the same each one of the group feels a part of the minority, feared, disliked and persecuted by the majority, and this gives each one of them an extra dimension unknown to heterosexuality.
Homosexuals has been oppressed in all societies. They have been considered the negation of heterosexuality and of the nuclear family structure, and as such they have been driven from their jobs, families, education, and sometimes from life itself. The worst thing about being a homosexual is experiencing the anti-homosexualism of society. And to survive in this hostile environment, most homosexuals hide their sexuality. The result is the fear associated with the possible discovery, and shame and guilt. The life of Bunny and Ed are best examples for this. To prove themselves normal people in front of society Bunny Singh and Ed hide their real self. It put them down in their own eyes by undermining their self-worth. Bunny is a clandestine homosexual who plays the role of an ideal husband and father in Hindi serial and also in real life. He secretly enjoys gay relationship while being happily married and presents a macho, heterosexual exterior. He can be considered as a traditional Indian gay man, a closet homosexual who is married and ostensibly looks and behaves to be happy. He admits his homosexuality to his friends, but denies his sexual preference publically. Bunny thus continues to perform the role of a straight male to gain acceptance from the society. He gloats about his success in leading the double life of a homosexual and a heterosexual. He maintains the facade of a happily married family man as expected by heterosexual norms from the fear of social ostracism. He pathetically admits:
Just as the man whom my wife loves does not exist. I have denied a lot of things. The only people who know me-the real me-are present here in this room. And you all hate me for being such a hypocrite. The people who know me are the people who hate me. That is not such a nice feeling. I have tried to survive. In both worlds. And it seems that I do not exist in either. . . . I am a gay man. Everyone believes me to be the model-middle class Indian man. . . . I lied to-myself first. And I continue to lie to millions of people every week on Thursday nights. (103)
It is not just the denial of the true identify by Bunny Singh but the speech encompasses the entire gay community that is under tremendous pressure about how to hide their true identity, so that the people of the acceptable world should not hate them.
Like Bunny Singh, Ed is also leading a hypocritical existence. Ed has left Kamlesh because he wants to hide his gay identity. Therefore, he loves Kiran, Kamlesh’s sister. It is soon discovered that Ed hatches this devious plan to marry Kiran so that he can conveniently, under the cover of respectability which marriage will confer, continue his love relationship with Kamlesh. Ed says, “Nobody would know. Nobody would care. . . . I’ll take care of Kiran. And you take care of me” (105). But for Kamlesh, familial obligations take precedence over his self-interests. He loves Ed/Prakash, but he doesn’t want it at the cost of his sister’s happiness. He is caught in this double bind. When Kamlesh's friends come to know of this situation, they ask Kamlesh to reveal Ed’s secret to Kiran. They decide that she should learn the secret herself through a photograph of Prakash and Kamlesh in a deep embrace. Kiran is shocked to learn that Ed has been deceiving her, and Ed and Prakash being one and the same person. Ed is totally broken down when his gay relationship with Kamlesh is disclosed before his fiancee. He even tries to commit suicide. This shows that he is the weakest of all the homosexuals in the play because he is suffering the most from this identity crisis. The other characters in the play also have this crisis, but they have some faith and belief in their identity and they reveal it at least in their circle. Ed does not want his true identity to be revealed even to his close friends. He is in a dilemma, he says, "Where do I begin? How do I begin to live?" (111).
Homosexuals reach to hide their identity from the society. On the other level they do this kind of thing in the society because they are devastated and society would not allow them to live a life of their own, so that they became marginalized. They can do things beyond our thinking to maintain their relationship, as we see in the cases of Bunny Singh and Kamlesh. They see no future in open gay relationship. Marriage is a religious ceremony in our society. Marriage tradition has been followed in the society for the noble purpose of reproduction. But homosexuals are excluded from this pious tradition of marriage. So homosexual relationships are often kept hidden as our society never accepts it whereas, marriage is an institution which sanctifies a heterosexual relationship with social blessings. When Ed tries to commit suicide, in the outside world there is an atmosphere of celebration with the sound of bursting fire crackers as a wedding was going on. The sounds of fire crackers drown the painful cries of the homosexual souls. The playwright juxtaposes two worlds to show the dichotomy. The noisy outside world is a metaphor of a domineering atmosphere in which a queer person has to live. By suppressing and restricting, it shapes the subjectivity of queer people. Throughout the play the heterosexual world peeps in time and makes its presence felt. Camouflaging identity thus becomes very important for the queers in order to maintain the reputation and to save themselves from being thrown out of the society to a distant corner of alienation. As Bunny says, “Camouflage! Even animals do it. Blend with the surroundings. They can’t find you. You politically correct gays deny yourself the basic animal instinct of camouflage” (70).
Another crucial observation in the play is the victimization of the women by the gay men. When the homosexual wants to be powerful and commended like the real man of society, they behave like heterosexuals, and this may spoil women’s life too. Bunny and Ed translate the oppression they receive at the hands of the society into victimization of their wives. They don’t bother to think about the emotional harm they do to women. Thus deception and betrayal peeps in the world of gays when they try to conceal their true identity. Both Ed and Bunny are branded as hypocrites for cheating another woman’s feelings.
Another character in the play is Deepali. She like Sharad is comfortable with her deviant sexualism and homosexuality. Deepali, the sensible lesbian, whose portrayal subtly implies that it is the woman who is sensible, even in homosexual culture. She feels sympathetic and concerned for Kamlesh and has an affinity towards him which is reflected in her conversation with him, “If you were a woman, we would be in love” (65). She is sensitive enough to sustain her female identity. Deepali is the vocal of her sexual inclinations in her arguments at the party. She says, “I am all for the gay men’s cause. Men deserve only men!” (60). She is able to live boldly and happily with her significant other, Tina who is a lesbian.
India’s rigid social setup is explored through the character Ranjit. He is settled in England in order to guide a life of his choice. He thinks that India is not a good place for queer people. So he has taken an easy way out by moving to Europe where he can enjoy his homosexual nature more openly. He has been living happily and openly as a gay with his English lover for the last twelve years. But in India such same-sex relationship is looked down upon as unnatural. Whereas in Europe homosexuality is accepted. In India it is a taboo. So, gay people and lesbians have to suppress their true selves in order to survive in the society. Ranjit can prove how more oppressive the situation can be, for the gays in India compared to the gays in England. His words are the reflection of his aversion towards the social set up of India. It is a tactical verbal rebellion against the wretched setup of the country. Ranjit regrets being an Indian, he says, “Yes, I am sometimes regretful being an Indian, because I can’t seem to be both Indian and gay” (88). In his country, he cannot be himself, he cannot come out in the open so he moved to Europe. There he is at peace with himself with his sexual identity. Throughout the play Dattani tries to find out the reason behind hypocrisy, escapism and introvert nature of the queer people. Society does not allow them to remain as they are. It creates self-alienation in their life. All the characters are designed skillfully representing every type and category of Indian gay and lesbian people in an attempt to produce a gay ambiance within an hour or two to show what India is passing through presently.
Kamlesh’s sister Kiran is the only heterosexual character in the play. She is an attractive and beautiful woman in her thirties. She is that subaltern woman, conditioned to tolerate torture and untold sufferings. She was married before and the arranged marriage fixed by her parents proved to be a failure. Her husband used to beat her brutally, treated her harshly and behaved inhumanly. This physical and mental harassment was too much and quite unbearable to Kiran. So she decided to obtain her divorce from her husband. Not her parents, but her brother Kamlesh supported her demand and she obtained the divorce duly. Kiran feels as an outcast and marked and watched by society. Her parents and relatives never approved her demand of getting a divorce from her beastly husband. This is how the marriage system in India works. It demands nothing but the sacrifice and tolerance of a suppressed wife. Now she intends to marry Prakash Edward Mathew whom she knows by the name of Ed. Ed and Kiran have decided to get married. In Ed, she finds a loving and caring man; a total contrast to her first husband. Kiran is unaware of the fact that her brother’s former lover Prakash chose a new name Ed to suit his new identity as a forced heterosexual. She is shocked to find that Prakash and Ed are not different persons but one and the same individual. The deception faced by Kiran seems to be very pathetic. Ed’s intention of marrying her was to continue his relationship with Kamlesh secretly.
On knowing the truth, Kiran completely loses her mind, runs to jump out of the window but she is saved by Kamlesh, Bunny, Ranjit and Sharad. Kiran initially presented as a naive, victimized weak character turns out to be one of the strongest, basing all her ideas of the self on openness and truth. She seems to be a real sympathizer of these queer individuals. At one stage, Kiran innocently remarks, “I really wish they would allow gay people to marry” (98). She advocates that they should be allowed to marry the partner of their own choice or else they would never be happy. Character of Kiran acts as the mouthpiece of the playwright to comment on the society. Her reactions are conventional and it further suggests the social stigma. It represents not just her reactions but of the society as a whole.
The ending of the play is not on the expected lines. It ends with Kamlesh rediscovering love with Sharad and humiliated Ed trying to commit suicide. Conventionally, it could have ended in Ed’s suicide, but he is saved and is shown to get up, although with some help. So finally, we see Ed attaining his tragic grandeur in introspecting his life and in expressing his desire to live. And this is proved by his last words to Kiran in this play, “I am . . . sorry. I didn’t mean to harm you. I only wanted to live” (110). He starts walking towards the people he earlier dreaded facing. The play ends with Sharad singing the gay anthem, “I ask myself what have I got / And what I am and what I’m not . . .” (111).
Mahesh Dattani takes a plunge into the inner recesses of the characters who desire to be gay. With a fine delineation of characters like Ed, Bunny, Sharad and Kamlesh in a lively and witty manner, Dattani brings out the psychological pressures and fears of social ostracization that gays have to live with. Torn between longing and identity, their sexuality is endangered and engulfed by the rules and regulations of the society. On a Muggy Night in Mumbai is a vindication of the rights of gays who need at least some social space to overcome their identity crisis. The only people with whom queers can associate are other queers who can understand their plights as they themselves are the victims of hostility meted out by the society. So, even being aware of unhappiness they experience, they still have to follow the constricting social decorum and rules. This social stigma is further elevated when the queers have to maintain their relationship in secrecy or they are at the risk of being outcast from the society. Kamlesh’s world is confined to his friends who, like him, are homosexuals. The strong bonding between them is seen in the spontaneity with which all of them respond to Kamlesh’s request for help. People with similar sexual identities have managed to create a safe cocooned world of their own, the world of the homosexuals. Dattani lays open the hypocrisies of social life which impose stereotypical roles to men and women, and which acknowledges and legitimizes only these roles. Male and female are the only sexual categories which have secured society’s approbation. People who do not fit in these two classes keep trying to fit into the rut and suffer throughout their lives. They end up camouflaging through different modes like physical appearance, getting married or leaving the country for acceptance. This not only isolates an individual from the society but also from himself. Dattani’s contribution lies in bringing everyday problems in contemporary society and taboo subjects into the realm of drama. He is just unveiling the truth suppressed under the established tradition of compulsory heterosexuality. He questions the marginalization of people in the name of sexuality. This is an opaque and unusual theme in the Indian context. But in real life such characters do exist. Hence, Dattani has recreated and given life to such characters in their own situation. His play thus raises a host of rarely addressed issues and by placing them into the forefront he challenges the traditional heterosexual codes of the society. He employs a language that is often pungent, clear and sharp, pushing the spoken words to its limits and interfering them with pregnant silence. This can be made possible only by someone with an intimate inwardness with theatre can. He delves deep into the minds of the characters and unveils the layers of complexities in human relationships and their social positioning thereby deconstructing the taboo subject of homosexuality.
Social morality does not approve or accept the alternate sexuality of gays, homosexuals and lesbians. Sharad and Deepali are bold enough to accept their sexuality. Prakash and Kamlesh do it privately, secretly but are ashamed of such departure from the standard norms of social morality. Prakash, the pretender, intends to marry Kiran. Whereas Bunny pretends to be what he is not. Most of these characters suffer for something which is inherent in their nature and therefore it is not easy to change their natural instinct.
Conclusion
It is being recognized that gender choice is an individual’s own private decision and no external body, group, society, institution or organization should interfere on such private decisions. It is clear that individuals who basically have different sexual orientation, face discrimination, exclusion from the society, thus quite often, meet with obstacles to satisfy their needs. This exclusion and ostracism could vary from the simplest personal relations to the most general social ignorance, exclusion, ostracism, working simultaneously together, and even violating the basic rights of life. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have long been involved in efforts for racial and economic justice. There is no short cut solution that can address the problems faced by many homosexuals across the country. However in the 21st century, society gradually has started accepting the fact of their existence. Their silenced voices are now being heard by their own strenuous efforts. On 6th September 2018, a five-judge constitutional bench of Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, hence making homosexuality legal in India. Thus acceptance of gays and lesbians on the social level and in the legal parlance has changed their status. Complete acceptance and recognition of alternate sexualities by the entire society is the need of the hour. Dattani feels the need to establish a firm connection between the possibilities of greater space for the homosexuals from the affluent society. On a Muggy Night in Mumbai states the necessity of trying to understand the predicament of these people. The urgent and primary task of society would be to raise the morale of so many homosexual people and help them build a more wholesomely integrated view of their homosexuality, in relation to all the rest of their life. On this level nothing less than full and complete acceptance will serve-not tolerance and not sympathy. The aim must be to make everyone aware that the problem of homosexuality and the popular stereotypes of homosexuals are only the product of ignorant assumptions. Assumptions fostered by a culture which has unhealthy, exaggerated feelings of shame and guilt at all forms of social expression. As Shakuntala Devi said:
When we have arrived at a concept of morality and ethics in interpersonal relationships according to which the dignity of the human condition is respected we would have ascended to a higher plane of morality in which only hatred is condemned, never love. Then we will have a saner and more healthy society and also a more enlightened sexual morality. (155)
Thus by our attitudes and actions we must make it possible for homosexuals to come out of hiding, to live their lives secure in their right to be themselves.
Works Cited