The dangerous logic of the Transgender Persons Amendment Bill 2026
Considering these multitudes of historical contexts, the current Amendment Bill, if incorporated into an Act, will prove detrimental and disastrous to the quality of life, housing, healthcare, and employment of thousands of transgender people. In 2014, the Supreme Court of India ruled in favour of the transgender community in NALSA vs. Union of India, the landmark judgment which granted official recognition to all the citizens of the country who identified out of their assigned sex at birth, to lead dignified lives under the gender marker of their choice: transgender, female, or male. In retrospect, this was the most and only dignified recognition the community ever received in this country, because what followed later was no less than a nightmare. Soon after, without consulting the transgender community, Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2016 was introduced, which was met with nationwide protests. Then an amended version of the same Bill was presented and later passed as an Act in 2019. This, after further community interference, was followed by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules in 2020. As the rules were drafted in consultation with the community, they preserved the SC granted right to self-identify, which, after a decade, has now come under attack by the so-called “protective” Amendment Bill of 2026. The current set of amendments, while appearing “ambitious” to eradicate “unauthentic” or “fake transgenders,” is attempting to formalise categories that didn’t come into existence as a result of a systemic nomenclature. Rather, all these communities in their regions came into being as a result of the rejection of transgender individuals by their natal families and subsequent ostracisation from the rest of society. On the surface, it may look like the transgender community, once segregated under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1817 under the British Raj, especially the Hijras, Kwajasiras, and Kinnars, is being promised a restoration of their “glorious past.” But in reality, this Amendment Bill betrays them in its criminalisation clauses. The Bill, in vague language, penalises “coercion into sex change”, which, if found guilty, is to be met with life imprisonment and Rs 1.2 lakh fine. This clause can be easily misinterpreted and even weaponised — by natal family members who reject their wards’ gender identity and decision to transition or join a Hijra Gharana — against the very same members whom the Bill claims to protect. So even the Hijras are not guaranteed absolute immunity; rather, what awaits them would be life imprisonment in a country where corrective facilities still lack transgender cells. This Bill limits access to the “Transgender” marker on official documents, and to associated policies and social benefits to members of North-Indian socio-ethnic transgender communities like the Hijras and Kinnars. Alongside the self-proclaimed protection of socio-ethnic trans groups, the Bill also forces intersex individuals into the “Transgender” category, even those who do not wish to be identified as transgender or prefer to be known as a male or female. The inclusion of just two other regional communities, Aravanis and Jogta, is, at best, a performative failure. There is no provision for an exhaustive schedule for all the regional communities, such as Thirunangai, Thirunambi, Thirunar, etc., from Tamil Nadu, or the Nupi Maanbis of Manipur. There is also consideration for southern states like Keralam, where transgender individuals are at risk of a lexically induced social erasure as a result of this Bill, because identitarian labels are absent in their native language, Malayalam, making them rely on English equivalent labels to be seen as members of the society. This Bill can lead to a translational and linguistic catastrophe, as it rests state validation on the backs of select community labels, largely founded in Hindi/Sanskrit-majoritarianism. Moreover, for the transgender community in the Southern States of India, this is concerning on an additional note of the 2026 Delimitation, as it puts their stakes in state-gender representation nexus in the Rajya Sabha at a double-fold risk. So the power we have now to oppose the Bill might not be there after it is incorporated into the Act. There is also a lesser-known community awareness that sometimes former members of the Gharana system, after experiencing power struggles and casteism, often escape the violent, unequal structure just as they escaped their natal family violence, and they all exist in our country as non-hijra transpeople, which this bill refuses to shelter. Then there are transmen and non-binary citizens who don’t have a historically recognised, socio-cultural representation, yet they survive the same natal violence, which is well documented in “Apnon ka Bohot Lagta Hai: Our Own Hurt Us the Most,” as testimonials from an open court hearing held in 2023. The “think tanks” (if any were involved) could have deduced the amendment’s dangerous impact from the first 20 pages of this report. Furthermore, neither the members of the National Transgender Welfare Board nor their state-level committees were consulted before drafting the Bill, which is evident in its regressive stance. This Bill clearly directs towards a monopoly of religious, regional, and gender biases in legislative, policy-making, and political decisions — all of which are unconstitutional. Considering these multitudes of historical contexts, the current Amendment Bill, if incorporated into an Act, will prove detrimental and disastrous to the quality of life, housing, healthcare, and employment of thousands of transgender people. Transgender is an umbrella term; let’s not break its spine, and let decades of hard work, care, and resilience wash down the drain. Finally, following lazy American and British anti-trans scripts should be recognised, shamed, and retaliated against with awareness, pride, and freedom. In a country whose freedom was fought for, let the transgender people be free of colonial aftertaste, live as they choose to live, love, and be. Written by:Anasuith P Pridhvish Anasuith is a Sahitya Akademi-published Scholar of Language and Gender, and works as an Associate Education Consultant in New Delhi. She graduated from Ashoka University with a PG Diploma in Liberal Studies and an MA in English, and writes on transgender experience, the partition, and translation. Views expressed are the
Hyderabad: Activists condemn Transgender Persons Amendment Bill 2026
They also pointed out the “alarming” criminal provision in the bill under Section 18 that allows imprisonment of up to five years for “alluring” or “forcing” someone to become transgender. Hyderabad: Transgender, intersex, gender nonconforming, queer individuals, collectives, and allies in Hyderabad formally opposed and condemned the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, that was introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 13 by Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Dr. Virendra Kumar. The Hyderabad community of activists called on lawmakers to withdraw the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026 immediately and “without condition”. “Any future amendment must retain the definition of “transgender person” as established in the 2019 Act, uphold the right to self-identification as affirmed by NALSA (2014) vs Union of India, and K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr. vs Union of India (2017) judgements, and be developed only through meaningful, democratic consultation with transgender communities across India,” they said. At a press confere in Hyderabad on Tuesday, MArch 17, the community said that the bill threatens to undo over a decade of hard-won legal protections. Stating that it is a step backwards for constitutional rights, transgender, intersex, gender nonconforming, and queer communities in Hyderabad unequivocally stated that it erases entire identities, mandates invasive medical procedures, criminalises community support networks, and creates a two-tier citizenship where legal existence depends on access to surgery. “It is not a reform. It is a reversal of the Supreme Court’s NALSA judgment, of the 2019 Act, and of decades of hard-won constitutional protections. The amendment proposes to replace self-identification with mandatory medical certification by a government-appointed District Medical Officer, with no defined criteria, no transparency, and no accountability. Medically, there is no biological marker that confirms or denies transgender identity,” said a statement from the activists. Community members and activists said that the current bill also introduces a provision under which a person undergoing gender-affirming surgery has to report it to the District Magistrate, which violates the constitutionally provided fundamental right of privacy. “Forcing individuals through physical examinations to “prove” their gender is not only scientifically baseless but also deeply traumatic and unconstitutional,” added the statement. They pointed out that the bill is “particularly” alarming because it erases entirely the identities of people, and restricts the definition of “transgender person” to a narrow set of socio-cultural identities and intersex variations. Activists added that the bill excludes trans men, trans women who are not part of socio-cultural communities, non-binary individuals, genderqueer people, and gender-diverse persons across India. At the press briefing, activists also said that trans men will be “rendered entirely invisible as they will have no socio-cultural framework recognised by the bill. “They face deep marginalisation already because they are assigned female at birth and carry the burden of presenting as a woman compulsorily and cannot safely come out in many contexts. This bill worsens each of those realities,” added their statement. The bill gives offers legal recognition only via medical intervention, which forces individuals toward surgeries they may not want, cannot access, or are medically unable to undergo, said the activists. ‘Criminalisation Is Not Protection’ The activists from Hyderabad also pointed out an alarming criminal provision in the Transgender Persons Amendment Bill 2026, under Section 18 that allows imprisonment of up to five years for “alluring” or “forcing” someone to become transgender. “There is no credible evidence that such conduct exists as a social pattern. What does exist and what this provision threatens is the vast community support network that transgender persons rely on: fundraisers, temporary housing, help escaping abusive households, access to therapy, and gender-affirming healthcare,” they stated. The statement said that providers of gender-affirming care, supportive parents, and community members who have historically protected and nurtured transgender individuals now face the risk of criminalisation. “This echoes the legacy of colonial-era laws such as the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 and the Telangana Eunuchs Act of 1919 which are laws that treated gender-diverse communities as inherently devious and criminal,” it added. Yunus Lasania Courtesy : TSD Note: This news is originally published on https:/thesiasatdaily.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
‘Rahul Gandhi must apologise to the nation’: 204 retired officers, Army veterans and advocates slam LOP in open letter on Parliament conduct
In an open letter addressed to citizens on Tuesday, 204 retired officers, including veterans of the Armed Forces, former bureaucrats, and senior advocates, expressed serious concerns over the conduct of Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition MPs during a protest on March 12 within Parliament premises. The signatories argued in the letter that the dignity of Parliament was “an essential element of the constitutional ethos” and that Members must uphold the highest standards of propriety and respect within all areas of the parliamentary precincts, including stairs, corridors, and lobbies. According to the letter, the events of March 12 were “deeply concerning.” The retired officers said that despite explicit instructions from the Speaker prohibiting demonstrations or protests within Parliament, Rahul Gandhi and several other MPs defied the directive. They described this as “a conscious disregard for parliamentary authority” and accused the Opposition of placing “personal political theatrics above the dignity of a constitutional institution.” They noted that Rahul Gandhi and other MPs were observed “sitting on the steps of Parliament having tea and biscuits in a manner that was wholly unbecoming of members of the nation’s highest legislative body.” The retired officers asserted that the steps of Parliament were “not a venue for spectacle or political theatre” and said such behaviour showed “arrogance and entitlement” as well as a lack of respect for Parliament. The signatories further contended that Rahul Gandhi had contributed to “lowering the level of public discourse and decorum” through repeated theatrics, suggesting a pattern of conduct motivated by “a sense of personal privilege” rather than respect for democratic institutions. They added that such actions disrupted parliamentary proceedings and wasted “valuable public time and resources,” further stating that “Shri Rahul Gandhi must apologise to the nation for this behaviour and introspect on the attitude that produced it.” The retired officers warned that the Leader of the Opposition’s conduct risked “damaging the reputation of our country and our democracy” and urged him to uphold the solemnity and authority of Parliament. Highlighting the symbolic importance of Members’ conduct, the letter warned that the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition risked “damaging the reputation of our country and our democracy.” The retired officers urged Rahul Gandhi to apologise to the nation and reflect on his actions to ensure that “the solemnity, authority and institutional sanctity of Parliament remain fully preserved.” The letter concluded with a call from the retired officers to preserve and strengthen India’s democratic institutions, emphasizing that the “temple of democracy” must n Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Retired officials demand Rahul Gandhi’s apology over Parliament protest
NEW DELHI: Over 200 retired armed forces officers, former civil servants, diplomats and lawyers Tuesday accused leader of opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi of violating parliamentary decorum during the opposition’s protest and demanded his apology. “Rahul Gandhi, along with several MPs, was seen sitting on the steps of Parliament having tea and biscuits in a manner that was wholly unbecoming of members of the nation’s highest legislative body. The steps of Parliament are not a venue for spectacle or political theatre,” they said in an open letter endorsed by 204 signatories. They alleged that Rahul’s action within the Parliament complex amounted to a deliberate defiance of the chair and showed disregard for parliamentary authority. “It shows an attitude of arrogance and entitlement,” they added. They said Speaker Om Birla had issued an explicit instruction against demonstrations or protests within Parliament premises but the opposition, led by Rahul, disregarded the directive. “Rahul must apologise to the nation for this behaviour and introspect the attitude that produced it, so that the solemnity, authority and institutional sanctity of the Parliament remain preserved,” they said. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Dalit woman demands action against Jangaon Collector, others under SC/ST Act
A Dalit woman in Jangaon has sought action under the SC/ST Act against the district Collector and officials, alleging harassment, casteist remarks and attempts to remove her tea stall, leading to financial loss and distress. Jangaon: A Dalit woman has lodged a complaint with the Jangaon police seeking registration of a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against district Collector Sandeep Kumar Jha. In the complaint submitted to Jangaon Inspector of Police Satyanarayana Reddy, she also sought registration of a case against DRDO N Vasantha, Municipal Commissioner Maheshwar Reddy, Jangaon town revenue inspector Venkateshwarlu and staff under the Act. The woman, Palamakula Chinna Manjula of Erragollapahad village of Jangaon mandal, in her complaint on March 16, stated that a Vanitha tea stall was sanctioned to her under the Indira Mahila Shakti Scheme by allotting a site at a corner outside the district collectorate. The previous district Collector, Rizwan Basha Shaik, had provided a kiosk, power and water connection and inaugurated the tea stall on March 6, 2025, along with DRDO and district officials. However, Municipal Commissioner Maheshwar Reddy, tahsildar Mosim, RI Venkateshwarlu and staff tried to remove the tea stall with an earthmover and crane on March 11, stating that it was on the orders of the Collector, Sandeep Kumar Jha. When she pleaded with them not to damage the tea stall, they went back. The next day, they returned to remove the stall while making casteist remarks, saying that she had no right to run the stall there and would face serious consequences if the place was not vacated. On the other hand, the electricity department disconnected the tea stall’s power connection. As a result, she incurred a loss of Rs 10,000 as milk and other items in the fridge were damaged, Manjula lamented. The woman said that she had taken private loans worth Rs 3 lakh to develop the tea stall while repaying instalments of a Rs 3 lakh loan provided to her under the scheme. She sought legal action against the above officials for causing her financial loss and mental trauma. The police were yet to act on her complaint. It may be recalled that Sandeep Kumar Jha, when he was Sircilla Collector in February this year, faced severe criticism as he reportedly ordered the closure of a tea stall in Sircilla town because its owner Bathula Srinivas displayed a photo of BRS working president KT Rama Rao. Courtesy : Telangana Today Note: This news is originally published on https:/telanganatoday.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
2016 Una flogging case: Five convicts sentenced to five years in prison
A special court on Tuesday (March 17, 2026) sentenced five convicts in the 2016 Una flogging case in which four Dalit men were thrashed when they were trying to skin the carcass of a cow to imprisonment of five years and imposed a fine of ₹ 5,000 on each of them. A day earlier, the special court in Veraval convicted five persons and acquitted 35 others in the flogging case, while the case against a policeman was abated due to his death. The trial against a juvenile is pending. Una Dalit victims to convert to Buddhism The incident, which occurred in Mota Samadhiyala village, had triggered massive protests across the country after videos of the attack went viral. On Tuesday, the court of special SC/ST atrocities cases judge JJ Pandya sentenced the five accused to a five-year jail term under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Gujarat has history of atrocities and discrimination against Dalits Apart from a maximum jail term of five years, the court also sentenced them to three-year imprisonment under sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, one-year imprisonment under section 342, and a jail term of two years under section 504. All the sentences will run concurrently. Defence lawyer Vijay Kumar said that four out of these five convicts have already served more than six years in jail, while another one has been in jail for the last four years and two months, and will be required to undergo the remaining jail term. The convicts are identified as Ramesh Jadhav, Rakesh Joshi, Nagji Vaniya, Pramodgiri Goswami, and Balwatgiri Goswami. while the trial against a juvenile is pending. The court had examined 260 witnesses during the course of the trial. The incident occurred at Mota Samadhiyala village near Una town of Gir-Somnath district on July 11, 2016, when four Dalit youths, as part of their traditional profession, were skinning the carcass of a cow that had died earlier in some other village. The accused, self-proclaimed cow vigilantes, flogged the youths, who were then illegally put in the lockup and thrashed by police personnel as well. It was alleged that the four Dalits were thrashed for almost 4-5 hours. Police allegedly connived with the perpetrators and forged some FIR-related documents to help them. Villagers from nearby areas had attempted to rescue the Dalit youths, but were threatened by the accused. The villagers then called the police control rooms in Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad. Courtesy : The Hindu Note: This news is originally published on https:/thehindu.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Free bus ride for transgender persons as Delhi govt extends ‘Pink Card’ for community
In a bid to enhance inclusiveness, the Delhi government on Monday announced that members of the transgender community living in the city will now be able to travel free of cost on all buses operated by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and the Transport Department’s cluster bus network. The decision was approved during a Cabinet meeting chaired by Chief Minister Rekha Gupta at the Delhi Secretariat on Monday. The Cabinet has cleared a proposal to include transgender passengers in the existing free bus travel scheme across all DTC and cluster bus routes. The facility will be implemented in the same manner as the free travel scheme currently available for women in Delhi’s buses, the CM says. Under the plan, eligible transgender residents of Delhi will be able to avail themselves of free travel in DTC and cluster buses. To qualify, beneficiaries must be residents of Delhi and possess a valid certificate of identity issued by the District Magistrate (DM) concerned. This certificate is issued under Sections 5 and 6 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Calling the decision an important step, the CM said the initiative aimed to make public transport more accessible, safe and respectful for the community. She notes that true inclusive governance is achieved when the government recognizes every community with dignity and ensures equal access to public services. “This initiative will help connect the transgender community more strongly with the mainstream and reduce the practical challenges they face in their daily lives,” she said. The Chief Minister expressed confidence that the initiative will make it easier for members of the transgender community to travel for employment, education, healthcare and other essential needs. At the same time, she added, the decision would also send a strong message of sensitivity and equality within society. The government will continue to promote policies and initiatives that strengthen social justice, equal opportunity and human dignity. BHow transgender persons will get the Pink CardB Under the scheme, members of the community will first need to obtain a transgender identity certificate from the District Magistrate. Once they receive this certificate, they can apply for the Pink Card at around 50 designated centres, including offices of District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates (SDMs), and selected DTC centres. The card will be issued based on minimal documentation and will be linked to the beneficiary’s mobile number and Aadhaar. Aadhaar verification will be used to confirm the applicant’s age (above five years) and Delhi residency, ensuring eligibility and preventing duplication. After receiving the Pink Card, transgender individuals will be able to travel free of cost in DTC buses, similar to the facility available to women. The same smart card can also be used to pay fares while travelling on the Delhi Metro, RRTS and other public transport services. Courtesy : The Tribune Note: This news is originally published on https:/thetribune.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Transgender communities across India demand withdrawal of Bill to redefine trans people
Add Your Heading Text HereThe Centre’s action led to protests and public meetings within the transgender community across cities such as New Delhi, Pune, Hyderabad and Kolkata, calling for protecting the right to self-perceived gender identity The Union government’s proposed legislation to withdraw transgender people’s right to “self-perceived gender identity” and redefine who a “transgender person” is, has led to student protests and public meetings within the transgender community across cities such as New Delhi, Pune, Hyderabad and Kolkata, calling for the government to withdraw the Bill and protect the right to self-perceived gender identity. This has come even as spontaneously formed coalitions of civil society groups, lawyers, doctors, activists, and other professionals in cities such as Guwahati, Chennai, Varanasi, Bengaluru, and several others are planning campaigns to write to MPs, organising awareness and support group meetings, and strategising over how to register their opposition to the proposed legislation. A public petition has also been initiated online, calling for the withdrawal of the Bill, gathering over 13,000 signatures as on Monday evening. Karnataka transgender coalition writes open letter to Prime Minister opposing Amendment Bill On Friday, Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, proposing widespread amendments to the law enacted in 2019. At the Indian Women’s Press Corps in New Delhi, a similar coalition of people from the transgender community, lawyers, activists, and rights-based organisations came together for a press conference, calling the amendments “discriminatory and unjust”, arguing that the government was “snatching back” a right recognised in 2014, and that this is not “how a democracy functions”. In the 2014 NALSA judgement, the Supreme Court had laid down the law that the right to self-identification of gender fell under the ambit of personal liberty, a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. ‘Trans rights being pushed back by a decade’: Community members oppose proposed transgender law changes Devansh, a transman who was on the panel for the coalition, said, “After a long fight, in 2014, the government gave us recognition. With that recognition, we moved ahead with our lives, took very important decisions, such as starting the process of gender-affirming surgery, and getting transgender cards made. We came out to the world that we are transgender. After 12 years and all these important decisions, you stop recognising us. Where are we supposed to go now?” Open letter to PM In Karnataka, people from the transgender community came together under the banner of the Karnataka State Gender and Sexuality Minorities Coalition for a press conference in Bengaluru. This coalition also issued an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday, saying, “Passing this amendment will put in jeopardy the rights of thousands and millions of persons who are currently recognised as transgender.” They added that instead of expanding the rights of trans people, the proposed legislation “contracts it”. Grace Banu, a community leader based in Chennai, said a press conference was being held at the Chennai Press Club on Tuesday to register the community’s opposition to the proposed amendments, while community leaders in cities like Varanasi said similar strategies were being planned in their cities. Transgender activists in Guwahati also said they were currently holding discussions within the community on how to organise against this proposed legislation. Akkai Padmashali of the Karnataka coalition said, “We are also organising protests and public meetings in Bengaluru against these proposed amendments.” On Saturday, the Mumbai Queer Pride issued a statement opposing the proposed amendments, calling the shift in the government’s approach a “regressive step that undermines established constitutional protections and reverses the progress made toward inclusive citizenship”. “Reject Trans Bill 2026”, another coalition of civil society, human rights activists, lawyers, and other professionals that came up during the weekend, put out a collective statement condemning the Bill as well. Meanwhile, a Students’ Federation of India-led protest against the amendment Bill in New Delhi also submitted a memorandum to Mr. Virendra Kumar, seeking the Bill’s withdrawal. At the Delhi presser, Krishanu, a transwoman and queer activist, spoke of the Section on offences against transgender people that criminalised “compelling” children to “outwardly present a transgender identity”. She explained that such words give the impression that a transgender adult or child is not exercising consent while expressing their gender. “This then criminalises anyone who is helping them transition, or with identification, or expression,” she said. She added that the amendment Bill “misconstrues the ideas of what transgender and intersex bodies look like, by conflating them into one.” The panelists also spoke about how the amendments suggest they had to be part of gharanas and communities to be considered transgender, referring to the recognition of “socio-cultural identities as hijra, kinner, aravani, jogta, and eunuch” in the proposed definition. Ritu, a transwoman, said, “I don’t have to be part of a gharana or community to be trans. These structures were built because society had no other place for us.” Elaborating on this, Raghavi, a transwoman and a lawyer, said, “Essentially, you are saying that trans persons stay within that fold, and do not go beyond.” The panelists argued that gharanas have their own challenges, and that these communities are usually associated with transwomen, further invisiblising transmen. Fiza Sultana, a Muslim transwoman, who was among the audience, shared that a few transgender persons have started an organisation to address issues this amendment poses for Muslim and Dalit trans people. “A lot of the identities mentioned here are from Savarna Hindu cultures. Other socio-linguistic categories exist, too.” Ashna Butani,Abhinay Lakshman Courtesy : The Hindu Note: This news is originally published on https:/thehindu.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
Barbers community launches campaign against untouchability
Caption: Akhila Karnataka Sri Shivasharana Hadapad Appanna Samaj Seva Sangha has launched ‘Kshourikara Nade Dalitara Keriya Kade’ (Barbers’ move towards Dalits’ colonies) campaign to sensitise barbers not to follow untouchability while offering hair cutting services Hubballi: Repeated instances of denying hair-cutting services for Dalits are often reported. Members of the barbers’ community are helplessly following untouchability, yielding to indirect pressure from upper castes. Now, community heads and seers are launching a state-wide awareness campaign against untouchability. They are holding meetings at taluk level and explaining the legal and social aspects of untouchability. They are also warning that if someone observes untouchability, the community will not come to their help, and it requests the authorities to initiate action against such salons. Annadana Bharati Appanna Mahaswamiji, Sukshetra Hadapad Appanna Peetha, Tangadagi, said that a campaign titled ‘Kshourikara Nade Dalitara Keriya Kade’ (barbers move towards Dalit colonies) was launched recently. “We started the campaign from our mutt in Tangadagi, and two programmes—one in Karjagi, Haveri district, and another in Chikkenakoppa in Koppal district—have been held already. We first hold a meeting of the barbers’ community and sensitise them about social equality propagated by Basavanna and other Sharanas of the 12th century. Later, we hold an open programme at a Dalit colony, where we invite barbers, Dalits, upper-caste people of the village, and elected representatives of the area. We also educate barbers about legal consequences if untouchability is observed. We are getting a good response from both communities. Many people of upper castes are also joining the campaign,” he explained. He further said, “We have a plan to take up this campaign across the state, and we do it whenever possible, since we have limited resources.” Devu Hadapad, state president, Akhila Karnataka Sri Shivasharana Hadapad Appanna Samaj Seva Sangha, Bengaluru, said that barbers are facing indirect pressure and blackmail techniques from upper-caste people in rural areas. “We observe that the Dalit population is 25% while the upper caste is 75% in villages. If we offer our services to Dalits, upper-caste people deny and boycott our services, citing untouchability. This trend is forcing barbers to follow untouchability painfully. A few Barbers were victims of untouchability cases. To put an end to this menace, we launched the campaign ‘Kshourikara nade Dalitara keriya kade’ to build confidence among barbers, Dalits, and all other communities,” he stated. Krishna Hadapad from Gadag District Savita Samaj said that offering services to everyone, without seeing their social or financial status, is the tradition of Savita Samaj. “If some salons observe untouchability, we will condemn their unconstitutional move. We will invite Savita Samaj’s state functionaries to Gadag and convene a meeting with Dalit and progressive activists to build confidence between barbers and Dalits soon,” he asserted. Courtesy : TOI Note: This news is originally published on https:/timesofindia.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights
‘Trans rights being pushed back by a decade’: Community members oppose proposed transgender law changes
Proposed amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 could push transgender rights in India back by nearly a decade by diluting the principle of gender self-identification as recognised by the Supreme Court in the landmark National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, activists have warned. The amendment, recently introduced in Parliament, proposes changes to how transgender identity is defined and recognised under the law. According to the proposal, recognition of transgender identity may require verification through official procedures, including possible medical scrutiny, before authorities issue a certificate of identity. Activists argue that this shift towards medical or administrative verification undermines the principle of self-determination laid down by the Supreme Court in the NALSA judgment. Jayanth, founder of Queer Nilayam, said several groups have begun coordinating responses to the proposed changes: “This feels like we are being pushed back by a decade. These people are already going through a lot of trauma while exploring their identity. When something like this comes up, the question many people are asking is: where will they go?” Students at the University of Hyderabad held a protest on March 14 condemning the proposed changes. They expressed concern that the creation of a government-appointed medical board to determine gender identity would amount to an invasion of privacy and could lead to increased policing of transgender bodies. Patruni Sastry, a Hyderabad-based activist who identifies as non-binary, said the proposal has created anxiety within the community. “We never ask a cisgender man or a cisgender woman to get a medical certification to prove who they are. Trans identity is not only physical. It is psychological and based on lived experiences and community acceptance. Sastry also raised concerns about the preparedness of the medical system to handle such verification processes. He asked, “How many trans-friendly clinics are there in India?” Activists have also raised concerns about the narrowing of the definition of transgender persons. Gayathri, a Hyderabad-based community member, said the proposed changes could make an already restrictive legal framework more exclusionary. Prachii Rathore, one of the first transgender doctors in the country, who served as the medical officer of Osmania General Hospital in Hyderabad, says such a process is neither scientifically sound nor ethically justified. “As a doctor, I can say that medically proving whether someone is transgender is not possible. Transgender persons are not patients and they are not suffering from a disease that can be diagnosed through tests,” she added. Siddharth Kumar Singh Courtesy : The Hindu Note: This news is originally published on https:/thehindu.com/bha and is used purely for non-profit/non-commercial purposes, especially human rights