Invisible people, hidden realities

One evening not very long ago, a 24-year-old effeminate man was ‘picked up’ by a cop in Gandhi Maidan, taken to a room in police lines and then raped by him and four other constables. After the deed, the victim was told to get lost. The terrified victim had absolutely no recourse to the law, because the cops had already threatened to lock him up under IPC 377 — the law that punishes ‘unnatural carnal intercourse’ if he dared to protest.‘The police in Bihar are reluctant to register cases even for simple crimes such as theft, how can a traumatized raped man even dare approach a police station to register a case against five cops?’ was the anguished question put to a panel of lawyers, academics, doctors and activists at a ‘public hearing’ against Section 377 that took place this week.
A year ago, in what most human rights activists maintain is a flawed judgment, the Supreme Court overturned a Delhi High Court verdict that had struck the statute for being unconstitutional, and said that Parliament should amend or rescind IPC 377, in effect restoring the centuries-old British law that criminalizes ‘unnatural intercourse’ which was interpreted at that time as intercourse that did not lead to procreation. Britain itself abolished this statute in the 1960s.
One of the demands put forward by a representative of the Hijra community was that jails should have separate cells for transgenders. “As it is, police pick up members of Hijra community on one pretext or another, then we are thrown into lock-ups or cells with hardened criminals. What happens to the Hijra in such a situation? She is sexually exploited, shamed and physically and mentally harassed. We appeal to the lawyers on the panel to take this up with the government.”
Transgender people, though now ‘recognized’ as the third sex and granted OBC status by the government of Bihar, continue to face prejudice and discrimination. HIV positive MSM and transgenders face greater prejudice and discrimination at government-run clinics and centres, the panel was informed.
Dimple, who identifies herself as a transgender (not Hijra), pointed out that the 377 discourse should not be narrowed down to the context of sexual intercourse. This law encourages and condones systemic violence towards gender minorities at large. “Government should punish those who exploit us and abuse us,” she said.
“I am a person. But it is society who has given me a name like ‘launda’ ‘moga’ and so on. Even if I am walking down the road in shirt and trousers, I am still verbally taunted and harassed by men, and there is nobody to stop that violence against me. This is what I face at home, in the college, and everywhere. Effeminate males and transgender females face mental and physical violence from childhood onwards, most often by members of their own family. Section 377 gives licence for such things to happen. So where is my right to protection as a citizen of India?”
Speaking at the consultation, Radhey Shyam, capacity building manager of the Bihar Women’s Development Corporation, said the Government of Bihar has announced OBC status for transgender people, and that the government cannot on the one hand recognize sexuality minorities while on the other deny them the fundamental right of physical intimacy with the person of one’s choice or the selection of a life partner.
Advocate Premchand Viyogi pointed out the inconsistencies in the law and pledged his support for the campaign, as did Prof Habibullah Ansari, psychologist and researcher.
The event was a series in the ‘207 against 377’ campaign initiated by HIV Aids Alliance partner ‘Pehchan’. The 207 community-based and technical organizations implementing the Pehchan programme together undertake advocacy at the national, state and district levels to protest against the December 11, 2013 Supreme Court judgment upholding constitutional validity of Section 377 of the IPC.
The way ahead, suggested Dr Setu Sinha, a member of the invited panel, would be to engage with youth leaders, political parties and the general public so that the issue could be raised and debated in Parliament. In the meanwhile, it is up to those invisible people to step forward and be counted, and to disprove the statement that they are a ‘minuscule minority’ with ‘so-called rights’.