“As regards the impact of surveillance, one can agree with Foucault that sexuality, like most other aspects of personal life, has become thoroughly caught up in, and restructured by, the expansion of power systems. Modern organisations, including the state, penetrate local activities..” (Giddens, 1992:173)

Love and affection are universal emotions but their display varies based on society’s values. In India, traditional notions and religious beliefs advocate modesty and shame in norms and cultural values to dictate social-moral behaviour. Such societies not only discourage public displays of affection (PDA) but seek out means to prohibit and punish such acts. Ironically, the belief in viewing PDA as immoral is deeply inculcated in a society where privacy is a void concept.

Surveillance of such acts is not limited to morality but has legal predicaments too. State and law regulate social sanctions by defining the acts in terms of obscenity. The discourse of morality vs obscenity is used to shame and harass to discourage PDA. The subjective interpretations of obscenity come into play for moral surveillance, rendering love and affection as a questionable sentiment. Offenders engaging in ‘inappropriate behaviour’ are liable to face fines, and in some cases, imprisonment too.

The state acts as the absolute paternal figure viewing public expressions of love and camaraderie as a threat to its authority and resorts to violence and extortion to enforce patriarchal notions of social propriety. While there’s no specific law that dictates PDA, most cases are prosecuted under IPC Section 294 which states: “Whoever, to the annoyance of others, (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.” The ambiguous criteria for determining what constitutes an ‘obscene’ act allows it to be manipulated and selectively applied by law enforcement officials. 

There have been several instances where educational institutions became the centre of debates surrounding the appropriateness of PDA. For instance, in 2017, two school students in Thiruvananthapuram were expelled for ‘undermining decorum’ by hugging each other for “too long” while celebrating a win in a contest. Following a series of disciplinary actions by the school administration and legal intervention by the children’s commission, the high court upheld the school’s decision stating the principal’s authority to maintain institutional morality. Such cases that sexualize innocent affections portray how patriarchal institutions and systems tend to scrutinize and control behaviours that deviate from conventional rules of conduct. Such punitive actions, often a byproduct of puritanical patriarchy perpetuate a culture that views affectionate gestures with suspicion, typically resulting in emotional repression. Moreover, the legal legitimization of moral policing underscores how state mechanisms reflect the broader social norms that blame the individuals for the ‘misconduct’ instead of addressing underlying socio-cultural attitudes that stigmatize expressions of love and camaraderie.

One may think that marriage- a socially and legally sanctioned union, might protect couples from public scrutiny for expressing love. But that is not the reality as seen in the case of A and B versus State Thr. NCT of Delhi and Anr. High Court of Delhi (2009), the couple awaiting to get their marriage registered legally outside the Dwarka court were threatened and manhandled by the policemen for kissing publicly and “sitting in an objectionable position”. While the case was upon the truthfulness of FIR, the court held that even if the act happened, “hugging and kissing forms a part of freedom of speech and expression which is the legit source of showing love and compassion towards your partner and hence are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.”

The court protecting the right to expression in this case is based on the couple being ‘young’ and ‘married.’ Such action is reflective of seeing the performance of love as part of youth and that too only after marriage, an act granting social validation and ‘moral’ acceptance. It also actively excludes homosexual couples since marriage is not a legal possibility for queer couples in India. It is to be noted that protection by law is not granted equally to everyone; social acceptance plays an influential role in deciding how the law would act in cases of PDA.

Judith Butler emphasizes that protection by law is fundamental to the legitimacy of a relationship, and a major part of that legitimacy and protection belongs to the cultural context, “(state’s) power to confer or withdraw recognition for forms of sexual alliance. Indeed, the argument against gay marriage is always, implicitly or explicitly, an argument about what the state should do, what it should provide, but it is also an argument about what kinds of intimate relations ought to be eligible for state legitimation.” (Butler, 2002:22)

Sociological analysis of the above-mentioned cases shows how cultural and moral implications lead to the surveillance of bodies in public places. Such incidents are reflective of placing victims in the larger picture of culture or society, and how implications of certain acts are understood in terms of impact and image it portrays. Monitoring of individual behavior in public places is a socio-cultural tool of defining boundaries which then extends to the law.

Love, affection, and intimacy are seen as highly personal but are also influenced by societal norms, power dynamics, and institutions such as the state. The concept of love is often muted or manipulated by those in power to exert control and monitor society. States also use the socio-cultural context of love and affection to justify discriminatory actions and regulate the personal lives of citizens. Labelling certain groups or their actions as threats to traditional values perpetuates discrimination and violence, restricting individuals through surveillance (Mody, 2022).

“Love is a political event. It expands humanity by exfoliating its social skin, and this expansion is critical to the liberal enlightenment project” (Povinelli, 2006:175–76)

The consensual affectionate gestures are often punished by state officials or politico-religious groups under the guise of protecting ‘innocent’ youth and women. While the violence and ostracization committed by unauthorized groups go unpunished, sometimes even get appreciated for ‘moral policing.’ This results in an embedding of fear, marginalizing certain groups from public spaces. Here, the question arises, What is obscene- the consensual display of affection or the violence of punishment?

The state may have ignored such ‘lawless’ policing but it has certainly provoked acts of resistance. In 2014 ‘Kiss of Love’ protest took place in Kerala where hundreds came together, held hands, hugged, and kissed in public as a form of rebellion against societal norms. Standing up for the freedom of love and expression demonstrates how love functions as an act of resistance and activism. It challenges traditional notions of propriety and piety, calling for a more inclusive and tolerant society.

In Indian society, moral indignation often manifests as violence. The need is to challenge and transform dominant power structures and hierarchy. And the loving intimate connections formed by individuals possess the potential for change.

References:

Ahmed, S. (2014). The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh University Press.

Butler, J. (2002). Is kinship always already heterosexual? A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies. 13(1): pp. 14-44.

Csordas, T. J. (2013). Morality as a Cultural System? Current Anthropology. 5: 523–546.

Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy. Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Jindal, A., & Gupta, S. (2020). Obscenity or Absurdity: The Unclear Laws in India. The Haryana Police Journal. 3:4-12.

Mody, P. (2022). Intimacy and the Politics of Love. Annual Review of Anthropology. 51: 271–288.

Politics of Social Media: A Case Study of ‘Kiss of Love’ protest. (2018, February 3). Café Dissensus. https://cafedissensus.com/2018/02/01/politics-of-social-media-a-case-study-of-kiss-of-love-protest/

Povinelli, E. A. (2006). The Empire of Love. Duke University Press.

***

Merin Mani and Tamanna Nandal recently graduated from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Delhi with Masters in Sociology.