Archive for December 28, 2014

Activists protest as Rajasthan fixes minimum education qualifications for Panchayat polls


By Team FI

Activists, in a statement issued to condemn the new ordinance, argue that fixing a minimum educational qualification for contesting Panchayat elections is discriminatory to a large section of the rural population, especially women among whom the literacy rate is the lowest

Here is the full text of the statement;
This is with regards to the recent move made by the Rajasthan Government to introduce a minimum educational qualification for candidates contesting the forthcoming Panchayat elections in 2015. An ordinance to this effect has been issued by the Governor of the state- Kalyan Singh (Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, Second Amendment, Ordinance 2014) on 20th December, 2014.

As per the provision, for contesting the Zila Parishad or Panchayat Samiti polls, a contestant should have the minimum qualification of secondary education (Class 10) from the state board or any approved institution or board. In the Panchayat elections to contest for the post of Sarpanch, a candidate should be 8th Class pass (general category) while in the scheduled area of panchayat, the contestant should have passed 5th Class to become a Sarpanch.

We, the undersigned strongly oppose this drastic measure that has come in effect three days prior to the announcement of the Panchayat election code of conduct. Introducing a disqualification measure of this nature goes against the basic principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. It violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of this country that acts as a check from any arbitrary action of the state that attempts to place anyone in a disadvantaged position. Most importantly it violates the principle of affirmative action that is guaranteed under the 73rd and 74th Amendment to the Indian Constitution as well as the CEDAW Convention – Article 7 (States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country) of which India is a signatory Country.

In the state of Rajasthan the literacy rate of women in rural areas is only 45.8%, which is lower than the national literacy rate of 57.93% (Census 2011). In tribal areas, the situation is even worse with literacy rate of women 25.22%( ST, Census 2001)

By introducing such a discriminatory disqualification criteria, it excludes the rest of the non-literate women from the possibility of exercising their political right to contest elections for the post of sarpanchs- at Panchayat level thereby defeating the very purpose of the 50% reservation of seats for women in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act

By taking out such an Ordinance the state government is absolving itself of its primary responsibility of realizing the Right to Education Act (which only came into effect in 2009). Many of the current potential candidates have voiced their discontent and anger at being excluded from accessing their fundamental rights. Moreover, potential and current candidates re-contesting elections have expressed their ire against the government by citing that literacy should not be equated with their capacity to be effective elected representatives of people.

If such a disqualification measure is not applicable for the MLAs, MPs or even the President of our country, then why Sarpanchs?

In a democratic country, introducing selective disqualification measures such as the two child norm and now the minimum education requirement is hindering inclusive participation of all in the grassroots development and governance of the country. One is witnessing a paradoxical trend wherein on the one hand there are promises being made by the government to empower women while on the other the spaces for women to participate in decision making roles is shrinking.

We urge the government to take immediate action and retract this Ordinance at the earliest.

In Solidarity: Advasi Vikas Manch Kotra, Udaipur, Rajasthan; Aruna Burte, Solapur; Astha Sansthan Rajasthan; Adivasi Mahila Jagrati Samiti Jhadol, Rajasthan; Ekal Nari Shakti Sangathan Rajasthan; Gorwar Advasi Sangathan Bali District Pali, Rajasthan; GRAVIS Jodhpur Rajasthan; Jarjum Ete, Arunachal Pradesh; Jhuma Sen, Delhi;Juhi Jain, Delhi; Jatan Sansthan Rajasthan; Kalyani Menon Sen Delhi; Kamla Bhasin, SANGAT; Mahila Manch, Rajsamand, Rajasthan; MMBS Barmer Rajasthan; Mahila Panch Sarpanch Sangathan, Rajasthan; Nandini Rao, Delhi; Rakhi Sehgal, NTUI; Radhika Desai, Hyderabad; Rohini Hensman, Mumbai; Rohini Ghadiok Foundation, Delhi; Runu Chakraborty, Delhi; Saheli Women’s Resource Centre Delhi; Sheetal Sharma- North East Network; Shilpa Vasavada, Gujarat ; Soma K P, Delhi Former advisor UNDP gender and livelihoods; SPECTRA Alwar Rajasthan; Shradha Chickerur, Sudha Arora, Delhi; Vagad Majdu Kisan Sangathan, Dungarpur, Rajasthan; The Hunger Project, Poornima Chikarmane

Kerala transport bus becomes menSRTC


Kerala State Transport bus employees fight with women and two infants to stop them from boarding a bus so that the Ayyappan pilgrims on the bus will not be polluted

By Team FI
A Kerala State transport bus driver in a bid to maintain the ‘purity’ levels on a state bus allegedly reserved for pilgrims bound for Sabarimala, denied entry to two women and children last Wednesday night.

The incident occurred when Naseera, a media person, her two children and her mother in law tried to board a bus that runs on a particular route that would go by their house. They were told by KSRTC employees that the bus was reserved for Ayyappans (as Sabarimala pilgrims are popularly called). Sabarimala is a popular South Indian Hindu shrine where women between the age-group of 10-50 are considered impure since they menstruated and therefore not allowed entry.

The KSRTC employees were at first concerned that the Ayyappans would react unfavourably and may even the leave the bus if they saw the women. While the said Ayyappans neither objected to the presence of the family nor staged a walkout, the bus driver and conductor decided to take up their cause and reacted aggressively towards the family. The bus driver stated that, “the Ayyappans have to maintain ‘purity’ and as they cannot be certain of how ‘pure’ we are, he insisted we leave the bus. Other KSRTC employees who were in the bus also spoke to us rudely,” writes Naseera.

Naseera has lodged a complaint against KSRTC at the local police station and intends to approach the National Commission for Women. So far the response from local authorities has been to the effect that the matter is a ‘petty’ case and therefore will not be taken seriously. Naseera however states that, “In my understanding, vehicles have been allotted for those traveling to Pamba, not specially for Ayyappa devotees. If there is no rule that mentions such a clause, then the act of denying us seats to travel in the bus, is illegal and violation of human rights granted by the constitution.”

Even as the petition is being circulated, a few women who planned to travel by the Pamba bus yesterday – Divya Blakkpepper, Hasna, Jenny, Adv Nandini – have been taken into custody at Ernakulam Women’s Police Station. The police have not given any reasons so far for the detainment.

Presenting the English translation of the petition written by Naseera. Translation by Aswathy Senan.

I am Naseera.
I was returning from Thiruvananthapuram on 17-12-14 in Vanchinaad Express after some work with my family. I work in the media. We reached Ernakulam South railway station past 10.45 pm. As my house is near Vyttilla,I have to board a bus that goes to Pamba and get down at Hub. I asked a KSRTC employee about the bus to Pamba that was stationed at the bus stop (KL 15, A88, RSC 517 Pamba-Erumeli). I inquired when it would leave the bus stop and whether it will halt at Hub. But my questions were not answered properly.

They told me that the bus is reserved for Ayyappans (Ayyappa devotees going to Sabarimala) and outsiders shall not be allowed into this bus. Opposing this, Subin’s mother (Shobha, 52) and me along with my two kids–two and half years and seven months old–entered the bus. But the bus driver questioned our action stating that women cannot enter the bus and that the Ayyappans in the bus will leave seeing us. However, the Ayyappans did not seem to be bothered by our presence, nor did they ask us to leave the bus. The driver added that the Ayyappans have to maintain ‘purity’ and as they cannot be certain of how ‘pure’ we are, he insisted we leave the bus. Other KSRTC employees who were in the bus also spoke to us rudely.

The driver along with the other KSRTC employees shouted at us in front of the other travellers: “Are you from America?”, “Can’t you understand what we are saying?”, “ You need to leave the bus”,“The bus won’t start with you, Leave without making any fuss”. They continued verbally harassing us. Scared that the aggressive men might attack us, we left the bus and headed to the Railway Protection Force Station to lodge a complaint. But they denied to register a case saying that the incident happened outside their premises and that we need to contact Police Aid post instead.

When a policeman from the Police Aid Post interrogated the employees at the bus stop, the conductor said that the bus has been allotted for the Ayyapans and even if we are allowed entry into the bus, we will have to travel standing the whole distance. When I inquired about the seats reserved for women, women with kids and the elderly, the conductor retorted that the Ayyapans have reserved all the seats and that their comfort cannot be compromised. The policeman from the Police Aid Post seemed satisfied with that reply. The conductor repeated that we can travel in the bus, if we are willing to stand and travel all the way through. All this while, the Ayyappa devotees in the bus neither said anything nor behaved badly towards us. They silently sat there without intervening. The conductor even said that he is not against my mother-in-law boarding the bus; the issue is with me. Unlike my mother-in-law I am still in the menstruating age. But I argued that the devotees would have travelled with other women during their journey till that point and if they didn’t have an issue until now, how can my presence defile them? But he was not willing to listen to all this and insisted that I leave without making a ruckus.

When I pointed out that it is illegal to let men occupy the seats reserved for women when women are present, the conductor said that what he said is the present rule and that he won’t let me sit in the bus. The policeman also said that there could be a rule like that and what the conductor said might be true. He did not pay any heed to my argument that there is no such rule and did not help us board the bus. We got down the bus since we were not ready to stand and travel,when legally we are eligible for reserved seats.

The Policeman at the Aid Post’s act supported the act of the KSRTC employee who denied our constitutional rights of travel and free movement. Since the police system is responsible for my safety, I demanded that they take me home. When I called the Women’s Station, they replied that the SI is out of station and that they shall call back with more information. I called after waiting for 45 minutes, but they replied that the vehicle is occupied and shall take time to get free. By then, the time was 1 am. But, until now, no one has called me back or inquired about my state from the Women’s Station. The Women’s Station that should work especially for the security of women acted in a totally irresponsible manner. When I reached home in the jeep provided by the Central Police Station, time was almost 2 am.

When schemes such as Nirbhaya and Bhoomika exist, the Women’s station that should work for the safety of women, aimed at reducing the atrocities bestowed upon them. On the contrary, the treatment we got was as described above which raises questions about the requirements of such schemes. In my understanding, vehicles have been allotted for those travelling to Pamba, not specially for Ayyappa devotees. if there is no rule that mentions such a clause, then the act of denying us seats to travel in the bus, is illegal and violation of human rights granted by the constitution.

I have submitted my petition to CI Francis Selvi of Ernakulam Central Station (Petition No: 173573/2014) on 18/12/2014 in person. But he replied that this was a petty case which will not be taken seriously. He could identify only such minor issues like denying seats in the bus and improper behaviour. But this instance is an example of the failure of those administrative systems which has to ensure that women are granted the security that constitution grants. It was only because of our gender that we were denied seats in the bus and compelled to leave the bus. Such misogynistic attitude taken by public transport system is highly deplorable and unconstitutional and a gross violation of fundamental rights.

It’s risky simply to be a woman at all!


Kavita Krishnan argues that in the wake of the recent Uber taxi rape in the capital, blaming the survivor of an act of violence has become another brick in the wall of ‘protective’ boundaries that imprison women rather than open up safe spaces

As it usually happens after a much-publicized rape case, there is a flood of attempts to rationalize ‘victim blaming’ i.e. suggesting that the victim also bears some responsibility for the assault since she took unnecessary risks. I am seeing a lot of this commonsensical rationalization of victim blaming as ‘precautions’ on my twitter timeline.

A Congress leader on TV the other day baldly said that the woman herself should not have been drunk and sleepy in the cab. And this self same logic – garden-variety victim blaming – has been repeated in more sophisticated ways by many, including by some who call themselves feminists.

The list of precautions that can, supposedly, keep us safe from rape, are pretty long, endlessly long, in fact.

We should not be drunk in cabs, or fall asleep in cabs. (This implies, of course, that we women should not party at all, or should not drink at parties – since driving while drunk is a risk we all know can kill us and others).

Feminists are being accused of preaching recklessness to women, thereby rendering them vulnerable in a world which is deeply violent and unsafe. The NCW Chairperson, in a similar vein, said recently, that autonomy or ‘aggression’ on part of women in India could render them unsafe and at risk. Sheila Dixit had called the journalist Soumya Vishwanathan (who was murdered) ‘adventurous’ for being out late at night.

Well, what else? It’s risky to go to school, of course, since teachers might molest you there. It’s risky to enter a lift with your boss, since he might molest you. It’s risky to meet an ex-Supreme Court judge in his hotel room for work, since he might molest you. It’s risky to be drunk at a party at a friend’s or colleague’s place and spend the night there instead of taking a cab home, since one might get raped by the friend or colleague.

It’s risky to be a bar dancer or a sex worker – since your work is inherently ‘risky’ and so you can’t expect or demand safety.

It’s risky simply to be a woman at all, anywhere at all, be it at home or at work or on the streets….

The tragic thing is, ALL women, barring none, take precautions, weigh risks, are ‘careful’. Most rape survivors agonise over what they could have done differently to avoid that horror. What is disturbing, though, is the smug way in which rape victims are being lectured about ‘precautions’. Precautions, no matter how many we take, can never keep us entirely safe. And no matter how many precautions you took, if you’re raped, there will always be people to tell you a long list of things YOU could have done differently so as NOT to have been raped.

Remember, this common-sensical concern for safety is what is voiced when women are told by their parents not to choose who they befriend, sleep with, love and marry. “We’ll make the decision for you since you might make a mistake” is what is said. If one’s ‘love’ marriage breaks down, parents sometimes say, “This would not have happened if you had listened to us and not married this guy in the first place.”

What I say is, you can either live your parents’ mistakes, or your own. And surely, one’s own mistakes are infinitely more productive, teaching us, if nothing else, to take responsibility.

Many of the rationalisers of good old-fashioned victim blaming are saying ‘men take precautions too, we teach our boys safety norms too’ and so on.

However, ‘adventurous’ when used for men, is a positive word, has always been. A man I know is very protective of his wife and won’t let her travel anywhere, even in their own city, without a rigorous set of precautions and limits set by him. The same man takes a yearly holiday, all alone, wandering in wild mountainous terrain. Lone travel is a badge of honour for a man.

Drunken men are objects of affectionate celebration in movies. People I love very much have always been concerned about my safety when I travel, which is a lot. Loved ones often tell me, with fear in their heart, not to take an auto from a railway station at 4 am, not to take a walk up a mountainside in Dharmashala, not to travel in an unreserved compartment, not to react or argue if ogled at or molested, not to rush to the rescue if I see someone being beaten up by a mob on the street. I understand, even sympathise with their fears. I feel such fears myself for those I love. But I cannot – cannot – afford to be ruled by those fears. If I did, mine would be a life devoid of the experiences that make me, me.

A life stripped of risk, rigorously regimented by fear, is hardly a ‘life’ in any sense of the term… Not to mention that much of that fear is not just a fear of physical violence, but a fear of loss of respectability, a loss of ‘character’. The latter is a fear men seldom have to feel – it is women’s preserve, and lurks unsaid behind the ‘safety’ regimentation imposed on us by parents, spouses, boyfriends, aunts…

Think about it. Had my parents done what ‘sensible people’ advised them to, I would not have been sent far from home to college. While at college in Mumbai, I would never have taken the risk of walking on curfew restricted, deserted streets with a woman friend, watching the effects of communal violence first hand. I would never have traveled in unreserved compartments – where I have, on occasion, been pawed by army men and felt great fear, but on countless other occasions, experienced the generosity and humanity of random strangers. I would never have attended political meetings during Lok Sabha elections in the city of Banaras, where ‘sensible’ friends had advised me not to go for fear of violence breaking out. I would never have participated in political protests which resulted in me being arrested and jailed.

So, now, when loved ones advise precautions, I listen, lovingly. But I refuse to be ruled by THEIR perception of risk and their fears and curfews set by them. I gauge risk myself, weigh them, and take calculated risks while taking responsibility for MY OWN actions.

Taking responsibility for the risks we take, does not mean that then the State, the police and so on are let off the hook. It does NOT mean accepting responsibility for being raped. (I say this because there are many who will say that though they’re not justifying the rapist’s actions, the woman, rather than the State, bears a share of responsibility.)

The State has a responsibility to imagining and putting in place infrastructure and systems that minimize risks and expand women’s freedoms. Safe, accountable public transport systems are crucial among these. And in case an assault does happen, prompt and accountable police response is as crucial. The State cannot hold women – or in fact any citizens – responsible for ‘their own safety’. It’s simple – it’s the Government’s job to ensure that women should have access to roads, metros, buses, taxis, rickshaws, and toilets – all services that should be safe and accountable.

Of course women could be raped at home too. But that does not mean that we fail to hold a taxi company or a school responsible for ignoring prior complaints against someone and failing to vet their drivers or teachers! And above all, we cannot fail to hold the Govt responsible for failing to regulate taxi services and schools to ensure basic safety norms!

The question we have to be asking Governments is: “What are your plans to ensure that every woman has access to safe, affordable transport with last mile connectivity, 24/7?” Asking women ‘Why were you drunk/asleep/out late at night/dressed skimpily etc etc” is simply a very effective way to avoid making the State accountable.

I am uneasy with women-driven taxis or karate classes and so on being propagated as a solution. Sure, we need women, lots of women, to invade every masculine fortress, and this includes transport of all kinds. I rejoice in women driving cabs’ and buses and tractors. But I do not want the State and various smug busybodies telling women who are raped in a cab, “Why didn’t you take a woman-driven cab? You were careless and so you got raped.”

I know from personal experience that learning martial arts well enough to use it the way you see in films, is not possible for most people! I don’t want women who get molested being told, ‘”It’s your fault, why were you so wimpy that you didn’t learn martial arts?”

I’ll end with a long quote from Why Loiter that puts it all better than I ever could:
“We would like the right to choose to be able to go out at anytime of the day or night or to choose to stay in. In some ways benevolent paternal protection is simple—it lays down the boundaries and all one has to do is skilfully negotiate them. Losing this protection, however conditional, will mean that one is compelled to take decisions and make choices whose outcomes we might have little control over. However, freedom from protection will also mean freedom, not from the male gaze or the threat of physical assault, but from having to consistently manufacture respectability in order to be worthy of protection. The right to risk is unconditional. The right to risk knows no temporality, no codes of conduct and needs no symbolic markers to define ones worthiness. The right to risk chooses freedom over restrictions and seeks freedom from restrictions.

We acknowledge explicitly that with freedom comes responsibility. The demand for the unconditional right to take risks in lieu of protection places the responsibility squarely on women. Our desire then is to replace the un-chosen risk to reputation and the unwanted risk of loss of respectability with a chosen risk of engaging city spaces on our own terms. Yes, there is street harassment, and yes, there is violence against both women and men. The fear of violence in public space is legitimate and cannot be merely wished away. At no point are we ignoring or even minimizing the violence, both sexual and non-sexual, that might potentially take place in the public and lead to physical as well as psychological trauma. Even as we ask for women’s right to engage risk in public space, we do not disregard the responsibility of the state and its mechanisms of law and order in dealing with public violence. Instead, we suggest that they deal very firmly with the aggressors of that violence and not tie up the victims of violence in endless blame games, inane dress codes, and relentless moral policing. The woman who seeks the simple pleasure of a walk by the seaside at night is in no way responsible for an attack against her.

In another world, this would not be a risk, but given that it is a risk in Mumbai, and in several other Indian cities, the least one can expect is unequivocal justice if one is assaulted. The least one can expect is that the assailant be punished without collateral emotional damage to the victim. The least one can expect is to not be held responsible for that violence. The least one can expect is an acknowledgement of one’s right to walk on the beach, stroll on the waterfront, laze in the park without question.

At the same time, however, we also need to recognize another kind of risk: that of loss of opportunity to engage city spaces and the loss of the experience of public spaces should women choose not to access public space more than minimally. By choosing not to access public space without purpose, women not only accept the gendered boundaries of public space, but actually reinforce them. This renders women forever outsiders to public space; always commuters, never possessors of public space.

The right to risk is not merely abstract. From the perspective of the city, it must be mirrored in the provision of infrastructure. While the decision to take certain risks must be chosen, risks must not be thrust upon women by inadequate or miserly planning.

Infrastructure is central to access. The state and the city’s role in the provision of infrastructure like public transport, public toilets and good lighting are integral to the success of the larger claim to public space. Public space, then, does not mean empty space devoid of infrastructure and facilities, but a space that is thoughtfully designed with the intention of maximizing access. Not just functional spaces like train compartments, bus stops and toilets, but also spaces of pleasure like parks and seaside promenades are significant to creating accessible cities. For it is in these spaces that the joy of being in and belonging to the city is shared and communicated.

While we must lobby for an infrastructure that will make it possible for us take risks as citizens, at the same time, the demand for infrastructure that reduces risks should not provide the grounds to indict those who choose to take other kinds of risks not dependent on infrastructure. The presence of well-lit streets in the city should not mean that women found in dark corners should be deemed unrespectable or blamed if they are attacked.

Choosing to take risks in public space undermines a sexist structure where women’s virtue is prized over their desires or agency. Choosing risks foregrounds pleasure, making what is clearly a feminist claim to the city.”

Extract from Why Loiter? Women and Risk on Mumbai Streets by Shilpa Phadke, Sameera Khan and Shilpa Ranade, New Delhi: Penguin, 2011

Kavita Krishnan is the secretary of the All India Progressive Women’s Association (AIPWA)

Gay rights activists launch No Going Back campaign


On the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to recriminalize homosexuality, Voices against Section 377 launches campaign ‘No Going Back’ committing to continuing the fight to reclaim their human and civil rights

By Team FI
A year to the day Supreme Court of India overturned the historic repeal of Section 377, by the Delhi High Court; the ‘Voices Against Sec 377’ launched a No Going Back campaign marking the anniversary as a day of injustice.

A statement released by the campaign stated, “We mark this day to remind ourselves, the queer community, the public and the courts that we have not and will not forget. We mark this day to acknowledge that we are still here, standing strong to ensure that – no matter the law – discrimination and violence do not shape queer lives. We mark this day to refuse both that we are “miniscule” and that rights should ever be counted. We mark this day to promise to ourselves and to remind others: there is No Going Back.”

An online campaign was also launched on Facebook. Those who wished to participate where asked to change their profile or cover picture to the No Going Back image. The image can be found on the No Going Back facebook page ( The participants could also update their facebook status with the slogans furnished below and mark every hour from 11 am to midnight with a post on the issue.

Ab ki baar, no going back yaar
Leke rahenge hamare adhikaar
Ek saal baad, hum aur abaad

अबकी बार no going back यार
लेके रहेंगे हमारे अधिकार
एक साल बाद हम और आबाद

Full text of the statement
Voices against Sec 377 marks one year since 11.12.13 when a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned a historic, globally celebrated decision of the Delhi High court in Naz Foundation.

The Naz judgment had argued that, “if there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of ‘inclusiveness’.” It was a judgment that not only acknowledged the dignity, equality and rights of the queer community but restored to all Indians a measure of our constitution’s promise to us. It reminded us that discrimination, prejudice and violence are the same whether they take the form of homophobia, transphobia, casteism, communalism, ableism, sexism or classism.

Over the past year, incidents of violence, blackmail and the threat of various laws including Sec 377 being used against the queer community have been documented across the country. We mark this day to remind ourselves, the queer community, the public and the courts that we have not and will not forget. We mark this day to acknowledge that we are still here, standing strong to ensure that – no matter the law – discrimination and violence do not shape queer lives. We mark this day to refuse both that we are “miniscule” and that rights should ever be counted. We mark this day to promise to ourselves and to remind others: there is No Going Back.

Voices remains part of the curative petition pending in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of 11.12.13. We remain committed to seeing the legal fight against Sec 377 through to the end until our laws are once again unmarked by prejudice.

Events across Indian cities are marking the day in protest and some online.

Public Protests
• Bengaluru : Town Hall, 5-7 pm, 11 Dec 2014
• Chennai : Gandhi statue, Marina, 5 pm, 11 Dec 2014 [FB event page]
• Hyderabad : Public Gardens, Nampally, 5-7 pm, 11 Dec 2014 [FB event page]
• New Delhi : Rajghat, 4-6 pm, 11 Dec 2014 [FB event page]
• Mumbai : Juhu beach, Shivaji Maharaj Statue, 7-9.30 am, 11 Dec 2014 [FB event page]
• Kolkata : College Street, 3 pm, 11 Dec 2014 [FB event page]
• Chandigarh : Plaza Fountain, Sector 17, 5 pm, 11 Dec 2014 [FB event page]
• Kolkata : Ranu Chhaya Manch, 4 pm, 12 Dec 2014 [FB event page]
• Guwahati : opp Dighalipukhuri Park, 4 pm, 14 Dec 2014 [FB event page]
• Hassan : Govt High School grounds to Dist playground, 12 noon, 14 Dec 2014 [FB event page]

Other events
• New Delhi : A public hearing about s 377 and its effects, organised by Alliance India, 11 am – 5.30 pm, 11 Dec 2014 [FB event page]
• Online : an online protest campaign [FB event page]
• Online : ‘Doodle your protest’ campaign, by Varta [Website]

Dignity First – a booklet
A booklet titled ‘Dignity First’, to mark one year of resistance to re-criminalisation of LGBT lives, published by CSMR, Bengaluru, analyses the failures of the judgment, tracks the legal struggle, maps the continuing and brave resistance by the LGBT community to re-criminalisation, catalogues cases filed under Section 377 and concludes with a strong demand that the Government must repeal Section 377 as it is the bounden responsibility of the Government, sworn to uphold the Constitution to recognized LGBT persons as full moral citizens.

The book can be viewed and downloaded from here.

Dignity First – a film

A short film, titled ‘Dignity First’ has been created, which seeks to capture the anger of the community and its allies at the judgement.