The report states that the two young men consumed poison on March 2, unable to bear the taunts and harassment of peers who ridiculed their close friendship and ragged them based on this.  They were rushed to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where one passed away four days ago, and one this morning.

While they are not alive to comment on the nature of their relationship, it seems clear that the ragging they faced was motivated by homophobia.

Three years ago, in 2016, the University Grants Commission published its 3rd Amendment of the Anti-Ragging Regulations. This amendment expressly prohibits ragging based on sexual orientation and gender identity (including transgender), among other factors. While most colleges and universities around the country display their anti-ragging regulations and even organise sessions on ragging during orientation for incoming batches, ignorance of this amendment –  and the vulnerability of gender-nonconforming, queer and trans students to ragging –  is pervasive (see Queerala’s study of colleges in Kerala).

Six months after the Navtej Singh Johar verdict, homophobia, lesbophobia and transphobia are alive and flourishing. They are reflected in statements by the police that same-gender relationships, though decriminalised, are against ‘our’ culture; in attempts by parents to separate their adult progeny who are in queer/trans relationships with their lovers and place them under house arrest (individuals in six such cases reached Orinam for support from Dec 2018 to February 2019); and in continuing violence faced by students in educational institutions, leading to hate crimes such as the Madurai suicides.

When will the prejudice and hate stop?

Notes:

• For crisis support and suicide hotline information, visit https://new2.orinam.net/resources-for/lgbt/crisis-support/
• For information on how educational institutions can be LGBTIQA+ inclusive, see https://new2.orinam.net/resources-for/educational-institutions/
• Thanks to Gokul for translation support.

We oppose “The Trafficking of Persons Bill 2018” because it replicates the existing discriminatory laws, brings into the ambit populations/sections that have different problems, gives immense powers to the police, creates additional unaccountable bureaucracy, criminalizes whole swathes of population, and lacks any credible model of rehabilitation as it does not allocate any resources. The Bill lacks key definitions (e.g. forced labour, exploitation). The Bill reflects illogical gradation of offences, New offences unrelated to trafficking (Section 41(2)); Vaguely worded offences with disproportionate sentencing; Anti-slavery provision re-incorporated though irrelevant; reversal of burden of proof and introduction of absolute liability offences; Introduction of strict liability offences; high levels of punishment and lack of clear sentencing policy; weak punishment for employers; violation of right to property; provisions relating to bail presume guilt rather than innocence). The Bill uses failed approach of institutionalized rehabilitation with inadequate commitment of resources rather than community-based rehabilitation. The United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Contemporary Forms of Slavery and on Trafficking have also expressed their displeasure with the bill.

We condemn “The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018” as it violates more rights than it claims to protect. It is contrary to the Supreme Court NALSA verdict and violates the right to self-identity and constitutional rights, encodes discrimination, offers no reservations while criminalizing transgender community traditional livelihood of begging. It stands in stark violation of the fundamental rights of transgender persons enshrined in the Constitution as equal citizens, judgement of the Apex Court in NALSA vs. Union of India in 2014. For example, the Bill has created a two-tier system within the transgender community, wherein persons who have not had sex reassignment surgery (SRS) can only identify as transgender and not as male or female, and the identification as transgender depends on scrutiny and certification by a District Screening Committee; those seeking to identify as male or female need to have had SRS. This is completely contrary to the NALSA verdict. We note here that the concept of a District Screening Committee that seeks to validate the ‘authenticity’ of a transgender person’s identity is not only completely against the letter and spirit of NALSA, but also provides immense scope for abuse. The Bill is a retrograde step from previous iterations of transgender persons’ rights such as reservation, employment and education opportunities as iterated in the NALSA judgment, MSJE report, the Tiruchi Siva Bill, and the Parliamentary Standing Committee recommendations. The GOI Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) 2018 Bill also seeks to destroy non-normative family structures and support systems that transgender persons in India have been seeking support from all these years. It also encodes discrimination with lower penalties for sexual and physical violence against transgender people.    

Furthermore, we call out the enormously bigoted, homophobic & trans-phobic The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2018, as passed by the Lok Sabha is another institutional mechanism to control our bodies. It makes surrogacy available to exclusively heteronormative couples, impairing non-heteronormative couples from availing these methods to have babies.

We urge the Members of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) to conscientiously consider our appeal and send these Bills for a review by a Select Committee of the Indian Parliament. We extend our solidarity to the Jantar Mantar Protest, happening on 28th December, 2018 at New Delhi and to all the protest demonstrations that are happening across the country in opposition to these Bills.  We urge every citizen to join the protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi in our struggle for equal fundamental rights for all.

We plan to hold public discussions, rallies and talks simultaneously across campuses and cities on the day of the protest.  We call Individuals, student groups, queer collectives to join in demonstrations across campuses/cities against the Bills and other legislations against the marginalised groups such as transgender and queer persons, sex workers, migrant workers, domestic workers, etc,by creating literature regarding the political and legal issues faced by the queer community in India.

*Statement open for endorsement till the 27th December, 2359 hours*

Endorsements can be sent to

• Vaivab Das – dasvaivab1@gmail.com
• Ankush Gupta – ankush.gupta6414@gmail.com
• Aroh Akunth – akunth.15@aud.ac.in

List of Signatories:

1.TISS Queer Collective, Mumbai
2.Spectra, Pondicherry University
3.Jamia Queer Collective
4 Ambedkar University Delhi Queer Collective
5.Women and Gender Development Cell, TISS Guwahati
6. Uttarang, TISS Guwahati
7. The Gender Studies Cell, St. Stephen’s College, Delhi
8. Miranda House Queer Collective, Miranda House, Delhi
9. Queer Collective, Dehradun
10.Resistive Alliance for Queer Solidarity, Allahabad
11.Gender Issues Cell, K.C. College, Mumbai University
12.Abhimaan, Kolhapur
13.Hasratein, JNU
14. Orenda, IIT-Gandhinagar
15.TISS Queer Collective, Hyderabad
16.NLSQA : National Law School Queer Alliance, Bangalore
17. SavitriBai Intersectional Study Circle, NALSAR
18. Xomonnoy (Intersectional Queer Feminist Group, Guwahati, Assam
19.Lambda, IIT Guwahati
20.The Queer and Ally Network, Manipal
21. Queerythm, Kerala
22. Jadavpur University Queer Collective
23. NLU Delhi Queer Collective
24. NLU Delhi Gender Circle
25. Students coordinating from St. Edmunds, Shillong
26. Students coordinating from NIFT, Shillong
27. Students coordinating from IHM, Pusa
28. Students coordinating from Pune University
29. Students coordinating from NLUJAA, Assam
30. Students coordinating from Guwahati University
31. Students coordinating from University of Science and Technology, Meghalaya
32. Queer and Straight allies at IISC (QUASI)
33. Queerabad, Ahmedabad
34. LGBTQIA+ Students, Jindal Global University
35. Dr. Kimberly Walters, California State University, Long Beach
37. Awadh Queer Committee
38. LGBTQ Resource group at IIM Ahmedabad
39. Umeed – an LGBTQIA+ Collective, IIM Kozhikode
40. Ya_All: Queer and Allies Youth Network, Manipur
41. Pinjra Tod, New Delhi
42. Akshaya, the Queer Collective of Netaji Subhas University of Technology (NSUT)
43. Orinam Collective, Chennai
44. Feminist Collective, Ashoka University
45. Women’s Development  Cell, LSR

Besides lectures, the course also has a two-hour lab exercise on Fridays, that includes group work, skits and other interactive sessions to bring the lecture material to life.

Last Friday, I assigned the students group work to depict, through mime, a prevailing social issue from the syllabus, in about two minutes per group. Each group comprised of five students. One group asked, “Sir, can we present a mime on homosexuality?”

I replied with utmost joy, “Yes. of course! It is part of our syllabus”.

After practising for ten minutes, the group presented the theme as follows:

First, a man proposes to another by kneeling down and offering his hand. The other man accepts his proposal and lifts him up with both his hands, structurally forming a plus sign.

At this juncture a woman appears in the scene and asks the second man to drop the one he was carrying, and hits them both. The second scene depicts ostracism of queer people in a workplace-like set up. In the third scene, a cop comes and handcuffs both individuals, and takes them away, depicting criminalisation of same-gender relationships.

While miming his feelings of love and yearning for his lover, the student playing the role of the man proposing, suddenly blushed and froze, unable to proceed. He stood up and sat again for a re-do. I could understand his difficulty and let him repeat the action. After all, this was his first attempt to put himself in a gay man’s shoes.

While this was happening on stage, I was watching the audience keenly. To my relief, they were attentive. The class applauded spontaneously when one man lifted up the other in the proposal scene. During the other two scenes, the class was silent, indicating they were aware of the grim realities. Once the performance concluded, there was thunderous and long applause.

Other groups presented themes such as callousness of the public in the wake of a road accident, college bullying, dowry, etc.

I shared what happened in my class with my senior academic colleagues. They received the information in a matter-of-fact manner, neither cheering or frowning. But for me, it was not a routine event. My students have made me feel good about them – once again!

I have a long way to go in my efforts to sensitise the academic system. Filters imposed by campus servers prevent me from downloading and showing my own write-ups on queer themes to my students. I continue to wonder how and when I would be able to help establishing a fair and just atmosphere for people who are different from the mainstream.

In the meanwhile, rewards such as my students’ performance in the group exercise are what keep me going.