It was a landmark judgement by the apex court in April 2014 granting transgenders recognition and identity in Indian society. They became the third sex and came under other backward castes as an economically backward class of society. A significant step no doubt, but is it sufficient?Inder Salim//Before going into the political repercussions of the Supreme Court recognising the ‘third gender’ and the biological differences in rest of us, we might need to know one or two things about mutation. Briefly, a mutated entity is the result of the sum of ‘errors in the process of replication, or caused by the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA’. Although it is rare, but in nature, this is part and parcel of almost every life form on earth. Good or bad, we have no choice but to accept nature’s this moody randomness.
So, we know its scientific reasoning, but we are clueless about how a papaya suddenly looks like Ganesha, a form which is entirely of our mind’s generation; or, how two carrots give us the illusion of a naked woman’s torso. I believe that most constructs which inhibit our mind are artificial in nature and, therefore, deserve instant ‘deconstruction’. Wait, if we are too obsessed with the form of Ganesha or a woman, we are likely to find a resemblance of it in tree trunks, river stones, in gushing water or even in slow-moving clouds. Our ideas can infect not only the mutated products in nature but also others. Nothing wrong in it if one marks the difference and moves on; but, if our ways of looking at things around us begin to segregate and then discriminate, a political will is likely to germinate.
Before knowing how the subject around sexuality is deeply political, I must quote from a favourite modern text: ‘Sexuality is not innate. It is a product.’ Those who know how not to let their sexual drives be highjacked by the so-called natural drives will quickly connect with the purpose of this quote here. Our sexual drives are stimulated by our own ways of living, rather than what is gifted to us naturally. We are mostly attracted by something which is knowable and identifiable, which is normal, as long as this behaviour discourages any practice that ends in violence. In the name of ‘naturalness’, we cannot impose our sexual preferences on the other. That may be normal in animals, but certainly not among human beings. My intent here is to argue that we must, at least, know how to contest those notions in our social structures which routinely recycle particular identity formations in the garb of tradition or available mindset. We are never surprised that most of the differences that differentiate gender happen on the site called the woman’s body. She is always something or the other: a vidwha (widow), a lugai (wife), a kuwanri (virgin), a randi (proustite), a garabhwati (pregnant), etc. Is it surprising that most members of the third sex attempt to resemble the same onion called woman?
The third sex is, perhaps, like a no-man’s land between the territories of two countries. It is often perforated by wind, birds, trees, rain and by creative minds all over the world. Simultaneously, the third sex is neither a woman nor a man, and this is how we manage their presence in our society. But, we, both men and women, need to know how they present themselves to us while they remain what they remain: they either resemble a man or a woman on the street, not a dog, not a monkey, not a cow. They swim in the same river of garments in which we do; they devour the same processed food which satiates our hunger; and, they use similar toilets which we do. Where on earth they look less than any other human being?
Perhaps, we have not sufficiently fallen in love with our own beloved that we begin to talk too much about this third sex. Had the political atmosphere in our country attained some degree of maturity, which is now sadly in the hands of right wingers, we would have been talking about other progressives notions of leisure ideas of happiness and peace. But, all we think is how to isolate the third sex from the galaxy of the rest of population. Unfortunately, for few of us, who happen to be at the helm, all the stars looks similar: either they are planets or stars. So, what is the fuss about knowing something beyond our composition on earth inhibited by either Men or Women and now few Hijras too? But, this excessive simplification leads to shape a ‘law’ which automatically discriminates millions among us. That is certainly not because of any biological differences in us, but because we choose to mark people Man, Woman and, now, Hijra. Are there just three forms of us? The fact is that each individual human being is a different species in itself. Don’t we have names, account numbers, identity cards and different tastes and preferences for our appearances? Don’t we have preferences for which gifts we give to our beloved and what scent we spray on the wrist while heading for an embrace with our beloved? Don’t we have our preferences to make love in our funny ways? Who will legislate all that is happening between two lovers in the bed? Who will verify the amount of sex which two or more than two experience in their spaces? Who will sit on judgment on the nature of transactions between two lovers? Who has the time to enter the ass of others and smell it and apply some law on the nature of smell extracted from that smell? Funny for me, but there is a full-fledged law which was unfortunately inserted by the colonial rulers to protect their own folks from us during their rule. But how strange is it that they left behind scores of other laws which are not only obsolete but recycle a mindset which is not ours!
Christina daniel//On April 15, 2014, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India recognised transgenders as the third gender. While the verdict has been welcomed across the country and is expected to help millions who face daily prejudices, the classification of transgenders as part of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) under this ruling is problematic.
The judgment, which ensures transgenders will now have access to government welfare programmes and even have quotas in jobs and education, remains at best an economic response to the problems of the community. It ignores the gender dimensions that would need to be part of any longterm solution for transgenders.
In addition, the verdict follows the Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, making a same-sex relationship an ‘unnatural offence’, punishable with a 10-year jail term. In effect, the ruling offers trangenders legal recognition and protection, but they would still be committing a criminal offence if they were to indulge in consensual gay sex. In this sense, the judgment is hardly a holistic response to the needs of the trangender community. So while being a transgender person is not an offence, indulging in natural acts as part of that identity remains a criminal act under law. It is indeed a curious, contradictory and confusing situation.
But even while the ruling has its shortcomings, transgender activists have welcomed the verdict as a step in the right direction. It is expected that the verdict will end the discrimination that transgenders currently face in pursuing educational and employment opportunities. In fact, they even report frequently facing prejudice at modern hospitals, where they are denied medical treatment.
Yet, the impact of the new legislation, like so many other things in India, will depend on its execution. In 2009, Parliament had in fact already created a third gender category on government documents for transgenders. Later, the Delhi government had even announced that they would pay adult hijras `1,000 rupees per month in acknowledgement of the hardships that they suffer. But, the poor implementation of these laws have made it difficult for transgenders to even get a driving license or claim welfare benefits. It is yet to be seen whether the new legislation is left languishing in a similar fashion.
In fact, if one looks at the previous experience of Nepal, which guaranteed the rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as far back as 2007, documentation still needs to be processed to include the implications of this law in the actual functioning of the government. By December 2013, only three out of 2,00,000 Nepalese transgenders had actually changed their citizenship from male/female to the third gender, and most of them still could vote. It is important that the developments in India do not progress in a similar direction.
Of course, while the third gender have always played a prominent and even respected part in traditional Indian culture, the current prejudice against them dates back to the period of the British rule. In fact, some may argue that this is no different from the current discrimination against homosexuality, which is based on colonial instructs.
Clearly, what is essential for trangenders’ integration with mainstream society will then be social recognition. Most activists admit that education and awareness programmes will play a crucial role here. In this light, it remains to be seen whether categorisation among the backward castes or isolated monetary benefits will truly enable the mainstreaming of transgenders or even eliminate some of the derision that has come to be associated with the community in modern India.
Recognising this, the court has also directed the government to initiate awareness programmes to alleviate the stigma associated with the transgender community. While these have to still be implemented, they may have an even more significant role in changing public perception and ending the discrimination against transgenders.
Future battles will even need to be fought against the stereotyping of transgenders and the notion that they are best suited to certain employment opportunities within a society— comic roles in films, ‘tolly’ collection rounds or the paramilitary. The last two were actually serious proposed policies from different government representatives.
As the euphoria over the ruling wears out, it may also become increasingly evident that while the judgment has done much to move transgenders into a legal category, it has done little to reduce the social discrimination around the community. Changing mindsets in a conservative society is a longer journey, and that may prove to be a tougher battle.