The zine was full of sensitive and careful representation of the community both in art and literature. I would let you explore it for yourself from here and enjoy it. For we are only too aware, what a difference some representation in mainstream would have made growing up for most of us.

Congratulation to the Lotus Zine team for bringing out this much needed volume and very good luck for your future volumes. Also many thanks to all the artists who provided their consent for us to host their work.

All art work are copyright of the Zine and the individual artists. Orinam is hosting the content with appropriate permissions.

Not just a minuscule minority hankering for our “so-called” rights, India’s rainbow communities have an opportunity to step up in solidarity with another group in need of support – the survivors and displaced among Kerala’s citizens – who have been affected by the worst floods to hit the state since 1924.

There are many avenues to lend support to flood-affected Keralites through monetary and other means: see here and here.  The Orinam collective seeks to collect amounts of up to Rs. 100/- per person and send the collection to the Kerala Chief Minister’s Distress Relief fund. Every rupee matters. Please leave us a message here, email orinam_dot_net_at_gmail_dot_com, or WhatsApp +91 9884373433 for transfer details.

The Orinam collective seeks to collect amounts of up to Rs. 100/- per person and send the collection to the Kerala Chief Minister’s Distress Relief fund. Please leave us a message here or WhatsApp +91 98843 73433 for transfer details.

If you are able to contribute larger amounts, you may consider directly contributing to the Chief Minister’s fund. If you would like to get in touch with LGBT+ groups in Kerala involved in on-the-ground response mobilisation, please connect with  Queerythm in Thiruvananthapuram and Queerala in Kochi.

As we await our constitutional rights via the pending Supreme Court verdict on Section 377 and a NALSA-compliant Transgender Rights Bill, let us continue to discharge our constitutional duties by contributing to the ongoing crisis response in Kerala.

Figuring out answers to such questions, living and working in a world that is often unfriendly and sometimes outright discriminatory, can mean a life lived in the shadows. For the Indian LGBTQIA+) community (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersex, Asexual and other), in addition to the social and familial prejudices, the legal framework is oppressive, leaving little room to find safety and protection. Conflicts between one’s internal reality and the way the world is, can be a source of major distress [1]. We are aware of many instances of suicide and suicide attempts among community members that were prompted by such distress.

While support groups and queer-friendly counsellors do exist in India, particularly in the metros, there is a need for more support including channels of trained peer supporters in the community.

Peer Support may be defined as the help and support that people with lived experience of a minority group are able to give to one another [2]. It may be social, emotional or practical support but importantly this support is mutually offered and reciprocal, allowing peers to benefit from the support whether they are giving or receiving it. It is built on the premise of empathy and personal experience.

Peer support and professional mental health support can complement each other through two-way referrals [3]. Increasingly, LGBTIQA+ community groups are receiving referrals from psychiatrists and counseling psychologists who ask their clients to reach out to such groups to obtain peer support and reduce their sense of isolation.

With the goal of building a strong peer support system in mind, a group of organisations and collectives based in Bangalore and Chennai, including professional counsellors, peer supporters and diversity/inclusion professionals, have taken the following
steps:

1. Initiated 3-4 hour workshops  for LGBTIQA+ community members and allies to orient them on peer counselling principles: The workshops have been conducted in Bangalore (January 7, 2018) and Chennai (February 25, 2018) so far. Participation is capped at 20 per workshop, and is open to those with prior exposure to providing peer support, as well as those who would like to engage in the future. Workshops are multilingual and held in accessible venues. At present they are funded by community donations and a participant fee (sliding scale, including waiver, available).

2. Building a referral network of peer support individuals: A WhatsApp^TM group has been created with all the peer supporters who attend the workshop and agree to be part of the network, to ensure that there is an ongoing effort to reach out to people who could benefit from support. The group also intends to function as a safe space for people to exchange best practices around peer support and build their capability as peer supporters.

Organising entities include InnerSight, Diversity Dialogues, and Orinam. The Chennai workshop was co-organised with Nirangal and focused on the role of peer counselling within the larger crisis support framework. Reading materials created to help build understanding around peer support may be downloaded from https://test.orinam.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Feb25_2018_LGBTIQA- Peer-
CounsellingHandouts.pdf

Note: These community-initiated workshops are not the first of their kind. To our knowledge, previous workshops of this nature have been organised in Chennai (2008, 2009), Kochi (2016) and Imphal (2017). The present set of workshops has been motivated by an increase in individuals seeking support, mobility of individuals especially among southern states – that calls for a referral network of peer counsellors (in addition to those involved in crisis intervention), and several reported instances of suicide and suicide attempts in the past year.

References

[1] Natarajan, Mahesh. 2017. Coming out vs Fitting in: Mental health and the LGBT person in India. White Swan Foundation. Online at
http://www.whiteswanfoundation.org/article/coming-out- vs-fitting- in-mental- health-and-the-lgbt-person-in-india/

[2] Mental Health Foundation. year unknown. Peer Support. Online at https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/p/peer-support

[3] Pattojoshi, A., BB Pattanayak, and L. Ramakrishnan. 2017. LGBT Mental Health: The Way Forward.The Odisha Journal of Psychiatry 2017 issue: pp. 2-8. Online at http://odishajp.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/JOURNAL-BOOK-2ND-EDETION-NOVEMBER-2017-16-Version.pdf

The symposium aims to bring together organizations representing employers, employees and civil society to address the specific challenges of being lesbian, gay, bi, and transgender in the Indian workplace, and to share their experiences. The event is co-organized by two non-profits, Workplace Pride, Amsterdam, and Solidarity Foundation, Bengaluru.  Community partners include Community Business and Orinam. The  symposium is hosted by the RELX Group.

If you’re a community member, ally, and/or interested in knowing how workplaces can recruit and retain talent from LGBTIQA+ communities, this meeting and networking opportunity is for you. Participation is free, but registration is required. Register at http://india2017.archives-workplacepride.org/registration/

Date: Friday, May 19th 2017
Registration:  Free: click HERE
Time:10 am – 3 pm

Location: Leela Palace Chennai, Adyar Sea Face, M.R.C Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600028, India

The event will be preceded by a reception on Thursday 5 pm – 7  pm at the same venue.

For more information, email solidarityfoundation2013@gmail.com or orinam.net@gmail.com

The Anti-Discrimination and Equality Bill, 2016 (“ADE”) was introduced in the Lok Sabha on the 10^th of March, 2017, by Dr. Shashi Tharoor as a private member Bill. Dr. Tarunabh Khaitan, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oxford has advised with respect to the contents of the Bill. According to an interview by Dr. Tharoor, 4% of private member Bills move on to the discussion stage. As of now, we do not know whether the ADE will move to the discussion stage. The protections provided under this Bill will apply to many different kinds of social markers. However, in this short article, I will try to lay out broadly how the ADE would affect the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community and those perceived to belong to this community. For the remainder of the article, any mention of the LGBT community should be read as including both these categories, as is also the intention of the Bill.

1. Protection from Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination

The ADE is a comprehensive anti-discrimination Bill that seeks to provide all citizens of India protection from various forms of social discrimination (Preamble) from both the government and a set of private bodies (employers, landlords, shopkeepers, public contractors etc.). Therefore, several social markers such as caste, race, ethnicity, descent, pregnancy status, skin tone, food preference, HIV status, disability, marital status etc. which also form the bases of different kinds of discrimination in society are categorized as protected characteristics under this Bill. A protected characteristic is a characteristic on the basis of which one cannot be discriminated against. Sexual orientation and gender identity are also categorized as protected characteristics. Therefore, the most important feature of this Bill in the context of this article is that it provides protection from sexual orientation and gender identity related discrimination to citizens of India (S. 3(i) read with S. 14). Doubtless, it would include not only L, G, B and T persons but also persons who are gender fluid or gender queer, or do not identify with any particular identity category. However, by abundant caution, this Bill has stated that features which are, “either outside a person’s effective control, or constitute[s] a fundamental choice” are protected characteristics which cannot form the basis of discrimination.

2. Direct, Indirect and Aggravated Discrimination

A. Direct Discrimination

The Bill provides protection from direct, indirect and aggravated discrimination. Direct discrimination would arise when there is a rule or practice which is motivated by prejudice/stereotype or intends to harm people on the basis of their membership to a particular group (S. 6). For example, if a blood donation centre forbids gay men from donating blood because they assume that every gay man has AIDS, it would amount to direct discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This would be a case of direct discrimination even if the blood donation centre can produce statistical evidence to show that a large percentage of persons with HIV/AIDS are gay men, or that a large percentage of gay men have HIV/AIDS.

B. Indirect Discrimination

Indirect discrimination would arise when sexual orientation or gender identity do not form the direct basis of discrimination on the face of it (S.7). However, if one digs deeper, one will find that the LGBT community suffers a disproportionate disadvantage under the rule. S. 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) is the classic example. On the face of the law, it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. As per S. 377, “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” is criminalized. However, S. 377 is seldom used against the sexual acts of a man and a woman. It is used primarily to harass members of the LGBT community (Naz petition, paragraph 5). Therefore, such a law although equal in words, treats people unequally based on their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity and disproportionately affect members of the LGBT community (Naz Decision, Delhi High Court, paragraph 113). Therefore, such a law would qualify as indirectly discriminatory under the Bill.

Another example may be surrogacy laws which restrict surrogacy to married couples. Apart from being directly discriminatory on marital status, such a law could also be indirectly discriminatory against the LGBT community if it is shown that surrogacy is one of the chief ways by which members of the LGBT community (esp. gay men) become parents.

C. Harassment, Boycott and Segregation

This Bill also protects the LGBT community against harassment, boycott and segregation. Therefore, any communication which has the purpose of creating a bullying atmosphere for actual or perceived membership of the LGBT community would be unlawful under this section (S. 8). The example present in the Bill itself is that if a boy is called a “sissy” for refusing to play sports, such name calling would amount to harassment.

Any call to boycott or ostracize someone on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity would be forbidden under the boycott provision of the Bill. For example, if the school principal in the example above-mentioned directs all students to stop interacting with the boy, the principal would have committed the act of boycott under this provision (S. 9).

Segregation is said to occur under the Bill when, by use or threat of force or manipulation, a person is prevented from interacting, marrying, eating, living, socializing, visiting, being friends with, etc. with a LGBT person (S.10). For example, if a landlord informs a tenant that their gay friends cannot visit them and if they do, the tenant would be kicked out of the rented property, such threat would amount to segregation under the Bill.

Further false complaints of kidnapping under S. 366 of the IPC also amount to segregation under the Bill (S. 10(2)). Therefore, if the parents of one of the partners of a lesbian couple file a false case of kidnapping against the partner of their daughter, it would amount to segregation under the Bill (in addition to the offence of false information under section 182 of the IPC). Furthermore, this Bill provides that in such situations, if the partner, whose parents have filed the case, makes a reliable statement stating that the complaint is false, such statement would be sufficient to prove that the complaint is false even if she later retracts from that (S.10 (3)).

Whether such a reliable statement should be sufficient to prove a false complaint case, or whether it should just establish a prima facie false complaint case and shift the burden on the other party (the complaining parents in this case), is something that the Parliamentarians may take time to consider in the discussion phase, in keeping with the realities of how these complaints are made in the police station and principles related to the apportionment of burden of proof in similar cases.

Finally, any encouragement or facilitation of violence against members of the LGBT community would constitute discriminatory violence under the Bill and any public servant whose duty it was to protect from such violence and fails to do so would also be said to have committed discriminatory violence (S.11).

3. Diversification Allowed

This Bill allows the adoption of any rule or policy that will encourage the participation of the LGBT community in government, local authorities or activities of private persons performing public functions (for example, public contractors). Such diversification measures can include scholarships, special training programmes etc. Such diversification techniques would not be to the detriment of affirmative action measures that may already exist (S. 13 read with S. 14 (6)). Additionally, public authorities while making a rule will be required to give due regard to ending discrimination and the promotion of quality and diversity (S. 16).

4. On Whom Does the Duty of Non- Discrimination Lie?

The duty of non- discrimination flows from persons belonging, or representing persons in, category A to, persons in category B. Persons in category A are 1. Employers, 2. Landlords, 3. Traders, 4. Service providers, 5. Public authorities; 6. Private persons performing public functions. Persons in B are 1. Employees; 2. Purchasers or tenants, 3. Consumers; 4. Consumers; 5. Any affected persons; 6. Any affected person, respectively (S.14). A, or representatives of A cannot discriminate, directly or indirectly, or use discriminatory violence or boycott, harass or segregate, B.

Therefore, a landlord cannot refuse to rent property to transgender persons on grounds that they are transgender. Similarly, for other categories of A and B. Additionally, the landlord must also ensure that their employees like the house help etc. do not discriminate against the transgender tenant (S. 14(3)).

Inversely, the duty to not discriminate, harass, boycott etc. does not flow from B to A. Therefore, for example, an LGBT support group can put out a call on their Facebook page to boycott a particular food joint that has homophobic graffiti inscribed on its walls.

The duty of non- discrimination does not lie in personal relationships. For example, LGBT persons are not protected from discriminatory attitudes from their family members at home or discriminatory remarks from their friends or other personal relationships.

5. How Can these Protections Be Enforced?

A. Remedies Available

The protections provided under this Bill can be enforced by approaching the State Equality commission, a body proposed to be set up under this Bill (S. 31). The range of remedies available under the Bill are, apology, abandonment of discriminatory practice, diversity training, damages, normal and exemplary (this can go up to Rs. fifteen lakh), protection orders (which are like restraining orders) etc. (S. 33 and 34). Breach of a protection order can invite an imprisonment term of up to one year (S. 35(1)).

B. Who Can Bring the Claim?

As per S. 37, the claim can be brought by 1. the aggrieved person; 2. relative; 3. sexual or romantic partner; 4. organizations that represent the aggrieved person; or 5. with the permission of the central equality commission, any one aggrieved person acting on behalf of other aggrieved persons who have the same interest (for example, an LGBT activist challenging a particular law on behalf of all members of the LGBT community).

C. What Does the Aggrieved Person Have to Prove?

The aggrieved person (plaintiff) has to make out a prima facie case of discrimination. This means that the plaintiff will have to show that a particular rule or practice does in fact, mete out different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Once the plaintiff shows this, the burden shifts to the respondent (employer, trader, government etc.) to show that such a discriminatory measure was instituted in good faith and as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate end (S. 6(2) and 7(2)). However, there is no defence provided for segregation or boycott in the Bill.

D. Will S. 377 Pose some Practical Problems to this Bill?

The presence of S. 377 may pose some practical problems to the enforcement of the guarantees under the Bill. For example, a landlord may refuse to rent out property to a gay couple not because they are gay, but because their sexual act means that they would be engaging in criminal activity under the IPC. A landlord may refuse to rent out property to persons engaging in criminal activities. However, S. 36 of this Bill allows the High Court to strike down other laws incompatible with the provisions of the Bill. This could provide an opportunity for High Courts to consider whether S. 377 should remain on the books and provide another avenue for challenging this section.

6. Concerns

While there are several protections provided to the members of the LGBT community, there are some concerns that the Bill poses to the LGBT community. I will try to lay them out here.

A. Segregation, Boycott, Harassment Flows Both Ways

Recall that the duty to not discriminate, boycott, harass etc. flows from A to B (see part 4). As the Bill is written, A comprises people who provide services and B comprises people who receive services. Imagine a situation of a shop which is owned by a lesbian couple. While this couple may not discriminate against potential customers, customers may discriminate against this shop. They may not like to purchase goods from this shop. No one may enter this shop. The Bill does not provide a remedy in this situation.

A previous version of this Bill, The Equality Bill, 2016 accounted for such a situation. S. 14(2) of this version forbade segregation by anyone. The proposed Bill could be amended to this effect. However, the following question may still require discussion: how would such a provision be enforced? How could an order of a court get people to start going to this lesbian couples’ shop and who would be responsible for non- compliance with this order? Perhaps, such a situation cannot be remedied by a law. Equality and diversity education might be a more effective tool in such situation.

Imagine, inversely, that the shop of this lesbian couple is flooded by customers all of whom make extremely derogatory and discriminatory remarks about the sexuality of the women. The Bill does not make a provision for these shop owners to segregate these customers on the basis of this homophobic verbal harassment. In other words, the shopkeepers cannot prevent these homophobic customers from coming in especially because both, they bear the duty of non- segregation and non- harassment (and not the customers) and also because there is no valid justification provided in the Bill for segregation.

A previous version of this Bill, S. 14 of the The Equality Bill, 2016 perhaps accounted for such a situation when it forbade discriminatory violence by all people against members of a protected group (the lesbian couple, in this case). Perhaps this latest version could be amended accordingly.

B. Freedom of Speech and Expression May Come in Conflict with the Provisions of this Bill

Our constitution allows a vast and expansive freedom of speech and expression fundamental right. Accordingly, as per S. 14(5)(iv) of this Bill, any form of speech and expression (among other things) which is allowed under the constitution does not amount to discrimination. In our constitution, hate speech, with the exception of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is not forbidden. This means that one can say hurtful and hateful things about members of the LGBT community and this is not forbidden under the constitution unless some other conditions are met. These conditions can be, for example, that the public order is threatened (Art. 19(2) of the Constitution of India). In such a situation where the freedom of speech and expression allows a wide freedom on the one hand, and this Bill forbids the bullying, harassment and segregation of LGBT persons on the other hand, a conflict may arise over the constitutionality of the bullying, harassment and segregation provisions. If such a question comes before the courts, they may have to find a way to reconcile these provisions with the constitutional freedom.

C. Discrimination in Regard to Religion Allowed

Inversely, freedom of religion under the constitution is subject to the provisions of equality (and other fundamental rights: Article 25). In this regard by allowing discrimination when it comes to religion or religious places of worship (Schedule), this Bill may have provided a constitutional concession where one may not be required. Perhaps, this provision could be looked at once again in the discussion stage to determine its suitability in the Bill.

D. Doubtful Whether Protection Extends to Foreigners

The preamble of the Bill states that the Bill is designed to, “ensure equality to all citizens” whereas “nationality” is also a protected characteristic under S. 3 of the Bill. Therefore, one cannot be discriminated against on the basis of nationality under the Bill. However, S. 3 also mentions that protected characteristics apply only to “citizens.” This gives rise to an apparent contradiction and leaves doubtful whether LGBT foreigners in India will receive protections of the Bill. However, this is a minor ambiguity in the Bill and can be rectified by an appropriate amendment.

Asmita came out to herself at age 12, while a student in her hometown in Bardhaman. Growing up, she internalized prevailing notions that homosexuality was unnatural. “But later when I started gaining more and more knowledge, I started understanding and getting my identity clear”, she says.

A national-level badminton player and photography enthusiast, Asmita has been actively involved in campus activism around gender-based discrimination.

When asked about her decision to represent AISA, she said “AISA gave me a platform to uphold my identity in front of the students of JU”, noting that Left parties had, by and large, responded positively to LGBTIQ+ issues. Incidentally, the first reported out LGBTIQ+ candidate, JNU’s Gourab Ghosh, also contested as a Left party candidate in 2013.

As a key election issue, Asmita is championing the cause of LGBTIQ+ acceptance in society, both on- and off-campus. She wants to counter myths that same-sex desire and transgender identities are unnatural, and to mobilize public opinion against Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. She strongly feels that basic sex, gender and sexuality education, including LGBTIQ+ issues, should be given to school-going students. She asks that admission in educational institutions be accessible to all, based on their aptitude, with no discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Asmita said that JU is relatively LGBTIQ+ friendly as Indian university campuses go, and she has not personally faced any problem on campus due to her identity. She noted that transgender people face much more difficulty. She also questioned the prevailing practice of marking all transgender people as “third gender” on admission forms, a category that not all identify with.

Other issues in Asmita’s election manifesto include proper functioning of the Gender Sensitisation Committee against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH) on campus, and 24×7 availability of sanitary napkin vending machines in all women’s restrooms.

Her accomplishments notwithstanding, Asmita has a long way to go. She is not yet certain about the profession she would take up in the future. Her parents still do not accept her. “I still need to struggle with my family and in neighborhood to [get them to] cope with my identity”, she signs off.

* Readers: please let Orinam know if there have previously been any other out queer women students contesting campus elections in India.

A comprehensive list of Orinam blogposts on educational institutions and LGBTIQA+ issues is at https://new2.orinam.net/resources-for/educational-institutions/from-the-blog/.

According to Dr. Mathew Varghese, professor and head of psychiatry at NIMHANS, there are only about 4000 psychiatrists, 1000 psychologists and 3000 mental health social workers in India. This stark inadequacy, given the population of our country, is compounded by the widespread social stigma attached to mental health issues. Both act together to prevent individuals from accessing the care they need. As if these were not enough, we have to contend with yet another obstacle: negative attitudes of providers towards sexual and gender minorities, women and members of other marginalised groups.

It’s time we talk about this unnerving situation where a therapist denies treatment to a person or shames them for having contradictory views about society or politics, or for their departure from socially imposed gender roles, identities, or normative sexual orientations. Such prejudice targets many marginalised communities, and continues to take a big toll on LGBTQIA+ people, as well as on (cis, heterosexual) women.  Shockingly, very few of these occurences of blatant discrimination get reported in the media.

Pervasive prejudice among healthcare continues to target patients based on caste. For instance, a survey on untouchability in rural India found that Dalits in over 21% of villages were restricted from entering private medical care centers. Dalit women in parts of Uttar Pradesh were barred from receiving health care during pregnancy. A concern for mental health sounds too far-fetched when even basic medical services are denied to the community. Given this bleak scenario, it seems hardly surprising that sexual orientation and gender would be exempt from the prejudice.

Homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny are worldwide phenomena. However, they seem most vicious in societies and communities bound by religious beliefs and traditions that fiercely uphold the patriarchal norm, and dismiss any alternate way of life. This is by no means restricted to India. In August 2016, the Governor of the state of Tennessee (U.S) passed a bill allowing therapists to deny therapy to individuals from the LGBTQ communities. This bill is part of a wave of bigoted legislation across the US that seeks to institutionalise discrimination against LGBT people, such as North Carolina’s Bathroom Bill.

Guidelines such as those of the American Psychological Association (APA) for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients, adopted in 2011, lay down best practices based on clinical research and experience. They cover social attitudes towards homosexuality as bisexuality, relationships and families, issues of diversity, economic and workplace issues, education and training and research.

Despite the availability of such guidelines, and despite a growing body of evidence suggesting LGBT youth are at high risk for major depression, generalised anxiety disorder, substance abuse, suicidal behavior, sexual risk taking, and poor general health care than their heterosexual counterparts, mental healthcare providers in India and elsewhere treat homosexuality and bisexuality as aberrant conditions to be condemned, or pathologies to be “cured” [see work by Vinay Chandran and Arvind Narrain, and Ketki Ranade]

“I was talking about my nightmares to my therapist and while in the middle of that I accidentally told him that I am a bisexual and out of nowhere he just slapped me and asked me to go away. The incident did make me badly depressed, took a toll on my health and everything. I already have ADD and OCD and that’s what I was seeing the therapist for. So the depression just doubled from there and although now I have overcome it slightly, it still keeps on running in my head.” – Vinay (Name changed)

Such prejudice on the part of mental health professionals is not restricted to LGBT people. Heterosexual women are subjected to a barrage of suggestions and treatment methods that are polluted by the system of patriarchy. Those seeking professional help for issues such as depression get pathologized if they do not choose to live “by the rules”. They are slut-shamed, body-shamed, victim-blamed and coerced to conform to traditional “Indian values”. Such treatment, besides being grossly unethical, ends up vitiating the depression one has already been caged in.

Carelessness can also be observed. Being told to look at the less fortunate lives to overcome depression or adding spirituality to overcome stress, are some of such ill treatments that are thrown around like paracetamol. These heart-rending experiences by two women speak for themselves:

“I have borderline personality disorder. Got diagnosed at a very young age and was taken to several psychologists and psychiatrists. While some gave me heavy doses of medication without hearing me out properly, others gave me huge lectures on morality about how my lifestyle and opinions are very wrong for a ‘girl’ and how I am difficult and should be more passive. I had been in an abusive relationship for a long time and my previous psychologists slut-shamed me for having sex with that person out of marriage and kept calling me “psychotic” all the time” – Shruti (Name changed).

“My first psychiatrist told my parents that, being 24 years old, I should have been married by now and have started a family of my own, as my unmarried status was the root of my depression. He ignored when I said that I’ve very low emotional quotient and it’s very difficult for me to recognize feelings. The second one repeatedly kept asking if there was violence at home and how do I know that I get anxiety attacks. He mocked me in every session. When I informed him about the side effects I have been having from the prescribed drugs, he asked me not to blame the drugs. I then refused to respond to his queries. Finally, he rudely asked me and my parents to leave.” – Priyanka (Name changed)

While minorities in India are still fighting for basic human rights, access to unstigmatized mental health care has become a very significant part of the demand for social justice.  NGOs and community  collectives working on feminist and LGBTIQ* issues can advocate with mental health professionals to generate this much needed flexibility and open-mindedness .

More broadly, therapists have to learn to work non-judgmentally with clients whose social, cultural, political, sexual and religious views may diverge widely from their own. Having biased professionals in the field not only impacts provision of much-needed quality mental health care , but also impedes the ongoing battle for social justice.

Knowledge, sensitivity and a rational attitude towards the client’s personal issues are essential. There is a dire need to include minority, feminist and LGBTQ* issues within academic courses and training. These should include detailed and culturally relevant content on how minority stress and institutionalized prejudice impact women, those of marginalised castes, LGBTQ*,  and other excluded groups.

Such courses are few and far between: the MA program in Psychosocial Clinical Studies at Delhi’s Ambedkar University, and courses in gender and sexuality at Tata Institute of Social Sciences serve as examples. Their importance cannot be overstated, especially in a country where privilege ignorance is so widespread.

LGBT-affirmative psychotherapy has been a tremendous step in helping LGBT clients accept their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. What we need now is to have the regular psychologists comprehend this acceptance. Donald Clark, the first openly homosexual psychologist, says the following in one of his extended interviews:

“Gay people do not grow up in gay families. The vast majority of the time, they do not have any support around who they are. There is nothing comparable in the human experience. It is as if the gay child is the result of having an egg from outer space planted in the uterus of the mother.”

Feminist therapy has its roots in the interventions by women psychotherapists during the U.S. feminist movement of the 1960s. Such feminist therapeutic approaches need to be adapted for the Indian cultural context.

When bigotry of the kind described in this article impedes psychological therapy and other mental health care, it not only worsens the condition of the patient but holds back humanity as a whole. We need affordable and accessible mental health care for those in need, and we surely don’t want to bring social discrimination along with us on this one.

Credits: An earlier version of this article appeared on the Nirmukta blog.

From their interactions with these individuals, the Amour website administrators realized that many of the individuals seeking relationships are otherwise disconnected from their local communities, and have limited awareness of existing support or resources in their respective states/regions. Being isolated from queer/trans community spaces makes it difficult for community members to find support, whether they are single or in a relationship, especially if they lack accepting families and friends.

Writes Deepthi, a co-moderator of Amour and a long-time volunteer with Orinam, “My first break up was pretty devastating, and I didn’t have any friends from the community back then. I had straight friends to whom I was out, but it wasn’t the same. They were concerned, but couldn’t really help…as (I think) they didn’t know how to respond or what to do. They just saw it as “oh she is just going through a phase where she fell for a girl… isn’t that heartbreaking?” After that, I joined the community and made more friends than girlfriends and I love them more than anything (both friends and girlfriends).”

“I think it’s immensely important to have a support group/queer friends circle around you. I have seen people who just join the community groups, find a partner and leave, but fail (or don’t bother) to make friends. In their perspective, they don’t need friends, they just need a partner. It’s not wrong to have that perspective, but it’s not good. I can’t stress this enough: IMO it’s extremely important to have a queer support circle around you..not just a partner. ‘ learnt it the horrible way.”

To meet the existing need for contact information on queer support and social groups, mental health resources and other relevant information such as queer-friendly legal and medical providers across the country, Amour is partnering with Orinam to crowdsource a database of resources across the country. The database will consolidate  and supplement existing lists*: the latter will, in turn, be updated as new resources are added.

We invited readers to contribute to the Amour-Orinam Google Spreadsheet. Additions may be made state-wise, in the following categories:

• NGOs/CBOs supporting queer communities
• Queer support groups, collectives, initiatives, informal groups etc. (both online and offline)
• Queer campus and student collectives
• Queer-friendly lawyers and legal collectives
• Queer-friendly or community-run crisis helplines and mental health professionals.
• Queer-friendly HIV/STD/sexual health testing/treatment centres
• Queer-friendly medical professionals (other)
• Other queer-friendly institutions (including Pride organisers, if relevant)

To have editing access, readers need to be members of one of the Indian lgbt-related googlegroups. For more information, or to suggest additional categories, contact  amour.queer@gmail.com or Orinam.

*Current resource listings include Orinam’s collection of groups and lists, campus initiatives, crisis support, and healthcare providers

What do a Sangeet Natak Akademi award winning dancer, a renowned journalist with a career spanning three decades, a TV celebrity chef, a hotelier who has authored an architectural analysis of Rashtrapati Bhavan, and a consultant in the Food and Beverages industry have in common?

They all describe themselves as “upstanding, public-spirited citizens who live and work in India and have the greatest love for this country and faith in the rule of law”. They have received national and international recognition in their respective fields, including  from the Government of India.

They have also chosen to come out as members of the LGBT community in a new petition [full text] challenging Section 377, India’s sodomy law. Their petition to the Union of India through the Ministry of Law & Justice, was filed on April 27, 2016, and has been slated for hearing on June 29, 2016. Kapil Sibal and Arvind Datar will argue the case.

The petitioners draw attention to the pending Naz vs. Koushal curative petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sec 377. However, they submit, their issues “are varied and diverse” from those raised in the curative petition. Specifically, they have all been directly aggrieved because of Sec 377.

Petitioners 1 and 2, Navtej Singh Johar and Sunil Mehra, have been in a relationship for over 20 years. Sunil Mehra cleared the civil services preliminary exam but chose not to pursue the IAS option he was “apprehensive about his career prospects in State employment because of criminalization of his sexual orientation.” Petititioner 5 Ayesha Kapur experienced fears of being persecuted because of her sexual orientation, quit a lucrative corporate career rather than risk being outed, and could not bring herself to come out to her mother until the former was in her mid-30s and her mother had become terminally ill. Even today, she writes, she is “unable to accompany or be accompanied by her committed partner at social and family occasions.”

A report on Legally India states:

“After enumerating the well-known contentions against Section 377, which are already before the Supreme Court in the curative petition case, the petition does raise new issues which were not raised earlier. In particular, the petition seeks a writ of mandamus, declaring the right to sexuality, right to sexual autonomy, and right to choose a sexual partner to be part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. Besides, the petition alleges violation of the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14, 15, 16 and 19.”

They cite the Supreme Court NALSA (2014) judgement to emphasise that “Each person’s self- defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom ”

They further submit that the issue in the present case “does not concern only removing an injustice perpetuated by a colonial law, but also affirming the constitutional vision of a society based on tolerance and mutual respect”.

Read the full text of the petition here

References:

Mahapatra, Dhananjay, 2016. Gay celebs cite right to life, move SC against Section 377. Times of India June 28, 2016. URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Gay-celebs-cite-right-to-life-move-SC-against-Section-377/articleshow/52947920.cms?

DNA India. 2016. Celebrities, part of LGBT community, approach SC to decriminalise Section 377. URL: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-celebrities-part-of-lgbt-community-approach-sc-to-decriminalise-section-377-2229033 June 28, 2016

Huffington Post India. 2016. For The First Time, Gay Celebrities Move Supreme Court Against S.377. URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06/28/s-377-india_n_10710008.html

LegallyIndia. 2016. Read the wonderful new 377 challenge by 5 out-and-proud celebrities that’ll hit SC today. June 29, 2016 URL: http://www.legallyindia.com/scoi-reports/read-the-wonderful-new-377-challenge-by-5-out-and-proud-celebrities-that-ll-hit-sc-today

The Chennai Pride march will be held today (Sunday, June 26, 3 pm) and will commence from Rajarathnam stadium in Egmore. A Pride march FAQ is here and the event page is here.

A meet for transmen and their families, facilitated by Magdalene Jeyarathnam from the Center for Counselling will be held on June 29, as part of the annual series Muzhakkam.

On a sombre note, the mass shootings at a gay club in Orlando, Florida, USA, sparked protests world-wide, including nearly 15 in India.  Reflections on this tragedy and the pervasive homophobia and transphobia we see took shape in Chennai at a vigil held on June 14 at the Press Club, a queer poetry reading on June 24, the Vannangal cultural event on June 25 and this lovely pride promo video made by Malini Jeevarathnam and friends.